Tarjei - part 2
- Part 2
"Cosmic Memory" is the record of human pre-history, read
clairvoyantly through seership, initiation science. If that is
racism, then God is a redneck bigot."
LOL. Lots of people believe in a different god than yours, a god who
would *not* have done the redneck bigot stuff some of Steiner's
spirits get up to.
Yeah, I liked that, though I didn't get all of it, if I recall.
"But I have never, never read anything that indicates that so-called
"Waldorf critics" are capable of laughing at their own cause, their
own anti-anthro beliefs and so on. Never."
My guess is neither side laughs at themselves in public . . . It
does seem a little hard to laugh at oneself for *not* holding
certain beliefs. Heh heh, how silly of me not to get in line to
venerate Michael? Hm.
"In case you didn't believe in the latter, you might accept the
They're more physical :)"
"The problem is that if you demand that the anthroposophical theory
of evolution must be dismissed by the anthroposophist as racist,
you're demanding that the anthroposophist abandons - or "refutes" if
you like - anthroposophy."
Ah. I kind of suspected that. How is it, then, that the racial
material is so often dismissed as not very important, only a tiny
piece of Steiner anyway that the critics are making too much of? Are
you really saying that with the racial material removed,
anthroposophy isn't anthroposophy? May I quote you? (Just a joke.
Being as it's a public list, I will quote you anyway.)
Yes, Tarjei, I do know that. I argued this on the critics list just
last week. If the racial material is removed, Steiner might not even
be a seer, or else he was a seer who made some pretty big mistakes.
So everything else is cast into doubt as well. I agree it's a big
problem. Furthermore the premise of "As above, so below" (I think
I'm quoting Percedol) is undermined if physical characteristics, to
the extent they are determined by race (which is, actually, not a
very great extent anyway), no longer have spiritual derivation.
"Because to you, Christ-Michael is just a great illusion like the
Easter Bunny, right?"
Actually, no, but let's not waste a lot of bandwidth on this. I
personally think far more highly of Christ than of the Easter Bunny
(Christ-Michael I don't really get; everyone on this list seems to
conflate all these characters in increasingly confusing ways.
Lazarus is John, Steiner is Christian Rosenkreutz, males turn out to
be females, I don't pretend to understand this stuff.)
"As far as you're concerned, the Easter Bunny might be responsible
for the New Bunny Age (Playboy?) and anthroposophy, so it ain't
worth shit, right? Just trash it all away for the benefit of PR so
you don't offend anyone?"
No, no, not at all. Those concerned with Waldorf PR should explain
it all, honestly, the way you do here, so that those in sympathy
with your beliefs know where to find the like-minded, and know where
to send their children to the kind of setting they wish for them.
This is a very basic confusion. No one is asking you to "trash" your
beliefs, Tarjei. Actually just the opposite. The movement as a whole
should publicize them more freely and explicitly than ever before.
The era is over when veiled hints were appropriate, layers of
meaning to decode and waiting till people are "ready" - draw the
connection to the Waldorf movement very explicitly. I honestly feel
certain Steiner would agree.
"Insisting over and over that anthroposophy is racist to the core,
makes all anthroposophists, ipso facto, racists to the core."
You state exactly the opposite above regarding Rudolf Steiner as an
individual, so apparently you are capable of making this distinction.
"So if you're unfamiliar with Steiner's writings, you're off the
hook what the accusation of racism is concerned. And if you're
familiar with them, you're a suspect?"
If you're familiar with them, you owe it to yourself and your
family, if you're in the Waldorf school, to at least make a study of
the matter, I'd say.
"He told me I smoked too much weed,"
Oh did he? Come on now, you brag all over the web about how much
weed you've smoked.
I was just enjoying the loving photograph gallery depicting the
beauty of marijuana at your site :)
"I don't believe I'm reading this hypocritical piece of apology for
the Cult of Peter."
This Cult of Peter stuff irks me almost as much as the cult of Dan
Dugan stuff. I guess it offends my own ego that people like myself
who have also had a great deal to say, and sometimes disagreeing
with Peter or Dan, are seen as followers. It's really stupid, and
it's sexist (how come there's no Cult of Debra Snell or Cult of Lisa
Ercolano for instance? How come I'm not accused of "memorizing" Lisa
I admire what Peter has done and I think he's a very nice guy, but I
assure you there is no cult of Peter.
"The funny part, Diana, is that being likened to a gremlin is not an
>Why is it really so difficult to talk about *Rudolf Steiner's*"With this question, you're taking for granted that Rudolf Steiner
>racism without recourse to silly insults?
was a racist."
"In spite of his racist remarks, he wasn't."
Okay, Tarjei, think hard now. In spite of his racist remarks, he
wasn't a racist. But when critics say anthroposphy is racist, we are
ipso facto, calling "you all" racists. Just work on this one for
End part 2