return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
By delkins mail.nysed.gov
Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Scaligero and spiritual racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: quantity, quality and morality
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: quantity, quality and morality
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: drawing - was: RE: a contrary experience
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Genocide as necessity
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: The Mission
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: The Mission
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:53:53 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:54:38 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:54:38 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:54:53 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer your e-mail
until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:39 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:55:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:56:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:57:10 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:57:25 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:57:55 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re: drawing-was:RE:Acontraryexperience[W
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:58:11 -0500
From: "Doug Elkins" (DELKINS MAIL.NYSED.GOV)
Subject: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:
I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail until I return.
Doug Elkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:02:55 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
CC: (delkins mail.nysed.gov)
Subject: Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
on 2/28/02 1:58 PM, delkins mail.nysed.gov at delkins mail.nysed.gov wrote:
) I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to answer
your e-mail
) until I return.
)
) Doug Elkins
Mr. Elkins' Critics subscription has been turned off until he can promise
that he will not turn his "out of office" message on.
This caused a "looping" where someone's post was sent to him, his emailer
automatically replied, which was accepted by Topica as a new post, which was
sent out to everyone including him, which was then automatically replied to
by his emailer again, etc. etc. etc.
Folks, PLEASE do not turn this "out of office" feature on in your email
program. If you need to be away for a couple days, ask us to temporarily
turn off your subscription.
...Gary Bonhiver
www.waldorfcritics.org Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:49:35 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: Mr. Elkins' Auto Replies...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F553257BC3EF868AF5BA3759
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thank you so much Gary!
I had about 50 or 60 of those emails after all, and was afraid that
my messenger
will get problems handling it.
Sandra
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
) on 2/28/02 1:58 PM, delkins mail.nysed.gov at delkins mail.nysed.gov wrote:
)
) ) I am out of the office until March 11 and will be unable to
answer your e-mail
) ) until I return.
) )
) ) Doug Elkins
)
) Mr. Elkins' Critics subscription has been turned off until he can promise
) that he will not turn his "out of office" message on.
)
) This caused a "looping" where someone's post was sent to him, his emailer
) automatically replied, which was accepted by Topica as a new post, which was
) sent out to everyone including him, which was then automatically replied to
) by his emailer again, etc. etc. etc.
)
) Folks, PLEASE do not turn this "out of office" feature on in your email
) program. If you need to be away for a couple days, ask us to temporarily
) turn off your subscription.
)
) ...Gary Bonhiver
)
) www.waldorfcritics.org Webmaster
)
--------------F553257BC3EF868AF5BA3759
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="sandra.schlick.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Sandra Schlick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="sandra.schlick.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Schlick;Sandra
tel;home:061 692 20 07
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.balcab.ch/sandra.schlick/
adr:;;Sch–naustrasse 52;4058 Basel;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sandra.schlick balcab.ch
title:MAES, Dipl. Masch. Ing. HTL
x-mozilla-cpt:;3
fn:Sandra Schlick
end:vcard
--------------F553257BC3EF868AF5BA3759--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:23:28 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Dear David,
You wrote "In philosophy, you start by not confusing words and ideas
with things."
This is, of course, precisely where Steiner's epistomology (as
experience) leads in an entirely different direction. Not only are
"ideas" (but not words, which are just symbol system pointed towarfd a
possible inward experience) things, that is aspects of something that
has objective existence, but that for all seemingly material things,
social processes and states of mind there exists the respective "Idea"
to which it belongs. Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
concept, and the two taken together are a unity. It is only human
consciousness, in its current stage of evolution, that divides this
unity into an apparent duality.
yours in monism
joel
"David E. Gower" wrote:
)
) ) -----Original Message-----
) ) From: Joel Wendt [mailto:hermit tiac.net]
) ) Sent: Wednesday, 27 February, 2002 19:32
) ) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) ) Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
) )
) )
) ) Dear David,
) )
) ) This reasoning is a joke.
)
) I declare fervently to you that I am not making a joke, being facetious or
) offering glib commentary.
)
) ) Obviously it was individuals, but how else
) ) do you describe the behavior of individuals acting in groups?
)
) In philosophy, you start by not confusing words and ideas with things.
)
) Let's begin with a quote from John Locke, one of the individual
contributors to
) the idea of "modern materialism."
)
) "We should have a great many fewer disputes in the world if words were taken
) for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things
themselves."
) JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690.
)
) Your statement:
)
) ") ) ) The genocide was committed by the Europeans (in the
) ) ) ) main)and they did this according to the psychological drivers living
) ) ) ) in their own ambitions, greed, and immorality."
)
) confuses a word and an idea with a thing.
)
) "European" is a word and an idea but it is not a "thing". A word or an idea
) cannot have
) "psychological drivers living in their own ambitions, greed, and immorality."
) Only an actual thing, an individual can.
)
) ) You make a generalization, and in this case, of the kind that can
be found in
) any
) ) text book on America History.
) )
) ) This is from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States":
) )
) ) "Even allowing for the imperfection of myths, it is enough to make us
) ) question, for that time and ours, the excuse of progress in the
) ) annihilation of races and the telling history from the standpoint of the
) ) conquerors and leaders of Western civilization."
) )
) ) This, from a leading modern historian, has any number of
) ) generalizations. How you can expect people to write anything with any
) ) economy of words, without generalizations, is a quibble of amazing
) ) proportions.
)
) Locke is not quibbling. He is quite sincere in his contention that many
) disputes are caused by the confusion he points out. It is said (glibly) that
) "all generalisations are false". The actual problem with generalisations is
) that they usually treat an idea (the generalised label) as if it
were an actual
) thing.
)
) )
) ) Unless, of course, one is looking to form an argument to arrive at a
) ) given result and reason and common sense are of no moment.
)
) I'm not actually forming an argument. I'm stating the fact that when I read
) Steiner, Barfield, and Joel Wendt I see constant confusion of
words, ideas, and
) things. Each confusion is an error and it is these cumulative
errors that make
) these readings very difficult to treat as serious philosophy.
After the errors
) are removed there is often very little left of substance.
)
) There is a caveat I try constantly to keep in mind. Perhaps someone should
) have whispered it to Steiner while he was still alive. It is:
"Don't believe
) everything you think."
)
) David E. Gower
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:21:15 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
Percedol writes:
)Have you understood what is written above?
Some of it. Have you? Could you explain what it has to do with Massimo
Scaligero? Could you explain why you think it is a response to my question
about the racial laws? Why exactly did you post this irrelevant quote?
)Now, the question is, are you able to read those articles written by
)Scaligero,
No, my Italian isn't good enough to plow through a full article. Why would
this make a difference? When Peter Zegers and I tried to track down
Scaligero's Fascist-era articles last year, we found that the original
sources are difficult to locate. I did manage to get hold of some bound
issues of La Vita Italiana, but not from the corresponding years. The real
question, Percedol, is whether you have read these articles. Could you post
them? Or just provide a summary? It would be most interesting indeed to see
how you explain that Scaligero was neither a fascist nor a racist in the
1930's and 1940's. Just so all the work isn't on your shoulders, and in
order to make this a little more relevant for the rest of the list, I will
post another message explaining the significance of "spiritual racism"
within Italian Fascism.
)Of course, my guess is that nobody read it, just as it always happens.
Just as what always happens? If your hero Scaligero has nothing to hide, why
don't you post his Fascist-era views for all to read? I recommend you begin
with his article on "spiritual racism and biological racism", since that
would be most germane to this list. I also think it would be of interest to
list members if you would tell us what your relationship to Scaligero
is/was. I'd also be interested to learn what you think of his comrade Julius
Evola's work. By the way, we have answered every question you have posed to
us, but you have ignored every question we have posed to you. Why is that?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:29:40 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Hello critics,
Massimo Scaligero was a prominent Italian anthroposophist and race theorist
who wrote for a number of fascist periodicals during Mussolini's
dictatorship. He began writing for the fascist press in the early 1930's, at
the latest, when Scaligero was in his mid-20's. His work appeared in the
prominent fascist journal Critica Fascista as early as 1931, and he
continued to publish in similar organs into the 1940's. His articles
typically carried titles like this one from 1938: "The race problem and the
Roman tradition".
As Peter Zegers has explained, in 1938 Scaligero signed the infamous
petition of racist intellectuals urging the Fascist regime to adopt racial
laws similar to those of its ally Nazi Germany. Until that time, racism and
antisemitism had not played a particularly prominent role within Italian
Fascism (although anti-African racism was an important element surrounding
the Italian invasion of Ethiopia). Promoters of the new racial laws, like
the anthroposophist Scaligero, were initially a distinct minority within
Italian society; even figures like the King of Italy, the Pope, and many
leaders of the Fascist party opposed them. These laws were adopted at the
end of 1938, and they laid the basis for the increasing persecution of
Italian Jews in the following years.
Historians of Italian Fascism generally agree that after the success of
Scaligero and others in introducing a variant of Aryan ideology into
Mussolini's regime, racism came to play a crucial role in what was already a
brutal dictatorship. One standard work on the topic notes that "ethnic
racism became the main ideological component of Fascism from 1938 until the
end of the Second World War." (Edward Tannenbaum, The Fascist Experience:
Italian Society and Culture 1922-1945, p. 78) Tannenbaum goes on to observe
that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to this
ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the 'spiritual'
rather than the biological idea of race." (ibid.) The distinction between
the two variants of racism began to blur almost immediately, as proponents
of "spiritual" racism called for "denying Jews influence in government or
education because they had a different spirit." (ibid.) By the end of the
1930's, "spiritual" racism was practically indistinguishable from its
biological cousin.
It is unclear what role Steiner's ideas, in particular, may have played in
this process. But Scaligero's own contribution is not in doubt, despite the
absurd denials of his fellow anthroposophists. Peter Zegers has already
given full citations for several standard historical works that clearly
identify Scaligero as a racist propagandist; another such work is Ruth
Ben-Ghiat's book La Cultura Fascista (Italian edition Bologna 2000; see
especially pp. 185, 202, and 272). In case anyone is inclined to believe
that such scholarship is the product of left-wing bias, I hasten to add that
notably conservative historians like Renzo De Felice share this assessment
of Scaligero's racism. In fact I am unaware of a single historian of Italian
Fascism who has questioned this clear consensus regarding Scaligero.
For anyone who would like a brief and accessible overview of the pernicious
results of Scaligero's efforts, I recommend the chapter on "The Racial Laws"
in Jasper Ridley's 1997 biography, Mussolini (pp. 283-292).
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:15:44 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! I think it's amusing that when an
Italian Anthroposophist comes charging out of the lists with his
lance leveled to attack the detractors of Anthroposophy, the
skeletons in Italian Anthroposophy's closet come rattling out to trip
him up. Thanks, Peter Z. and Peter S.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:48:59 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Peter S. (snip)
Tannenbaum goes on to observe
) that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to this
) ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the 'spiritual'
) rather than the biological idea of race." (ibid.) The distinction between
) the two variants of racism began to blur almost immediately, as proponents
) of "spiritual" racism called for "denying Jews influence in government or
) education because they had a different spirit." (ibid.) By the end of the
) 1930's, "spiritual" racism was practically indistinguishable from its
) biological cousin. (snip)
Walden: Thank-you Peters both for this clarification. How easy it is to
conveniently ignore *uncomfortable* things people say or write. How
important it is, however, to speak our minds when injustice is blatantly
obvious. Racism is racism and it must be challanged.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:30:04 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
G'day all,
I am going to slightly disagree with Steve and agree with Diana.
While I don't have any written evidence, my experience is that at least some
proponents of Waldorf education claim that late reading leads to better
reading in the sense that Diana has described. I am going to further
disagree with Steve that "hardening" or whatever else might be discussed is
probably detectable by the means I'm suggesting provided the samples are
sufficiently large, and there is clarity about what is being measured. Of
course this clarity must be arrived at before the measurement. There is some
tradeoff between the size of the samples and the clarity. I think it is
quite common for the clarity to be more difficult than the statistical
design.
On the other hand I am happy for Steve to be correct. If it is so that the
lack of clarity about the definitions of outcomes from Steinerism, objective
introspection, clairvoyance, whatever, is is such that it is impossible to
pin it down, then it is even more clear in my mind that we are not
discussing a method or philosophy which is objective or scientific.
See you, Peter
)From: Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
)Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:52:39 +0000
)
)
)Steve:
))I have not heard Waldorf supporters claim that kids will read better if
))taught at an older age.
)
)They do claim late readers will enjoy it more, or stay enthusiastic about
)reading, whereas those taught earlier sometimes "burn out." This might be a
)testable measure, with questionnaires asking a person to rank how much
)enjoyment they get out of reading, how many books or magazines they read
)every year, and see how Waldorf grads compare with others. Diana
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:38:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
) Joel writes:
)) Now, it could be asked in this light, what did I mean "by destined to die
)) out". Again, if one presupposes a racist point of view then it is
possible
)) to put some weird interpretation on this. But, if we are not too
paranoid,
)) the word also has a meaning which recognizes that a past event has
)) happened, it has "become" the "destiny".
Walden: I know I should probably leave this one alone. It is, however,
incredible and this nonsense must be challenged. First, stating that a
particular race of people is "destined to die out" says it all. Nobody
needs to take a "weird interpretation" or a "racist point of view." The
words are purely racist. Secondly, the feeble excuse/explanation of a past
event having happened and has therefore become "destiny" is perverse. In
case our resident spiritual historian has not noticed... Native Americans
have not died out. This disrespect and patronizing spiritual arrogance is
simply shocking. I have many First Nations friends who would definitely be
deeply offended at this callous disregard for their culture. Shame.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:33:14 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
That letter was about a today prominent Italian journalist who is in the
same list with Scaligero
(http://www.romacivica.net/novitch/LeggiRaz/promulgatori.htm). It is
clear from that letter that the list is a hybrid. It contains the names
of the 180 people who signed the racial laws and mixed with them
"l'elenco di personalitý italiane che pubblicamente si schierarono a
favore dei provvedimenti razzisti del regime" (The list of Italian
personalities who openly sided the racial measures of the regime).
Scaligero never signed the document for the racial laws. Why was he
included in that list? Scaligero writes in his book "Dallo Yoga alla
Rosacroce", p.95-96:
"Quando scoppio' il razzismo, non nego che fui preoccupato, perche'
intravvidi subito gli sviluppi assurdi di simile presa di posizione:
data una certa apertura della stampa alla mia collaborazione, sentii il
dovere di intervenire, perche' quel grosso errore fosse il meno nocivo
possibile. In tal senso feci uno sforzo invero immediato ed energico,
tentando di dare a quella iniziativa un contenuto che la dominasse, un
contenuto etico e simbolico, capace di far sfociare il tutto in una
serie di provvedimenti educativi e formativi della gioventu'. Ma il mio
tentativo venne sopraffatto dal solito politicismo fanatico: lo stesso
che sotto altro segno e altre forme oggi impedisce le iniziative libere
in ogni zona della Terra. Tuttavia, chi possa leggere i miei scritti
pubblicati sull'argomento a quel tempo, non puo' non avvertire il
contenuto che io intendevo sostanzialmente far valere. Avvenne persino
che un osseratore assai fine, sulla rivista Augustea, analizzasse le mie
tesi e mi accusasse di (antirazzismo mascherato).
Quello che pensavo allora del razzismo, lo penso tuttora: lo ritengo un
errore mentale dovuto alla incapacita' di distinguere nella coscienza
l'elemento interiore indipendente dalla razza."
("When racism broke out I do not deny I felt worried because I foresaw
the absurd developments of such a position: given a certain opening of
the press to my collaboration, I felt as a duty to intervene, to make
that great mistake the least harmful possible. In this direction I did a
truly immediate and strong effort, trying to give to that initiative a
content that would dominate it, an ethical and symbolic content, able to
drive the all thing in a series of educational and formative measures
for the young. But my attempt was overwhelmed by the usual political
fanaticism: the same that under a different sign and other forms is
preventing today the free initiatives in every area of the Earth.
However, who reads my writings published upon that topic at that time,
cannot but realize the content that essentially I meant to assert. It
even happened that a very bright observer analyzed my thesis and
eventually accused me of "masked anti-racism" on the periodical
'Augustea'. My thought about racism is the same of what I thought at
that time: I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
from the race.")
"Non sono un politico, non sono mai stato un politico: per temperamento,
per costituzione interiore, per vocazione, non potrei esserlo. Se
dovessi definire me stesso mediante un opposto, potrei dire che sono il
contrario di quel che e' un uomo politico. Percio' ho sempre ammirato
coloro che sono capaci di donarsi alla politica, di esaurire se stessi
come politici: sono persuaso che essi assumono su se' la parte piu'
grave del peso umano, compiendo un sacrificio che divora la loro
esistenza, insieme con la loro stessa vanita' e la relativa sete di
vita. Strada facendo, salvo rare eccezioni, per essi l'apparire finisce
sempre con l'identificarsi con l'essere. Peraltro, sono convinto con lo
Steiner, eppero' con Mario Viezzoli, autore di un saggio inedito
sull'argomento, che l'epoca della politica e' finita e che ha inizio,
facendosi faticosamente strada attraverso la scorza degli impulsi
politici esauriti, l'era sociale, o l'era dell'impulso morale. Sono
convinto che la politica e' la sopravvivenza di un autentico
(oscurantismo) mentale, che impedisce di prendere contatto con il
contenuto obiettivo dei problemi umani: impedisce per via di
precostituita assunzione ideologica, di ravvisare nei problemi
situazioni che non esigono interpretazione secondo colore politico o
teorie di partito, ma soluzioni logiche, tecniche, essenzialemente
morali. Non politico, anzi apolitico per temperamento, tuttavia,
giovanissimo, nel periodo fascista credetti poter immettere nella forma
politica la mia visione del mondo: questo spiega la categoria in cui
qualcuno ancora oggi tanta recludermi: categoria che io non rinnego per
debito di lealta' e di verita', ma che non mi ha mai contenuto, ne' mi
ha mai impedito di essere quello che realmente volevo. Tanto e' vero che
sono sempre stato un isolato, ospitato dalla stampa del tempo solo
grazie a quella validita' etica degli argomenti che proponevo. Quello
che ho scritto in quel periodo lo potrei ripubblicare oggi su qualsiasi
giornale, di sinistra, di destra, o di centro, solo sostituendo alla
parola (Fascismo), per esempio, l'espressione (visone sociale), o
(istanza morale). Se invece che in un regime fascista mi fossi trovato
in regime sovietico, il contenuto delle mie idee sarebbe stato identico:
avrei soltanto dovuto trovargli un'altra forma. I miei scritti del tempo
stanno li' a testimoniare che io volevo allora quello che voglio
tuttora: sottolineare come senso ultimo dei problemi, l'esigenza della
reintegrazione dell'uomo. Solatnto una via morale puo' garantire una via
sociale: solo l'individuo libero che rechi in se' la moralita' come
forza, o come seconda natura, e' garanzia della giusta gestione di un
organismo sociale e del suo stato di diritto: questo e' sempre stato il
senso dell'aspetto (politico) dei miei scritti: un pensiero d'una
semplicita' da parere ingenuo e tuttavia concreta chiave del problema."
(ibid. p.92-93)
(Do you need a translation?)
His editor writes that during those years Scaligero wrote the book
"L'India contro l'Inghilterra" (Soc. An. Poligrafici Il Resto del
Carlino, Bologna 1941), and in the same climate also a life of Dante for
kids (collana "Le Vite" directed by Aristide Campanile, Domenico Conte
Editore, Napoli), and "La razza di Roma" (Mantero, Tivoli 1939), assay
about the common origins of Roma and of Italy, and the novel "Niccoloso
da Recco navigatore Atlantico (Oberdan Zucchi, Milano 1942), an Italian
epic of the discovery of the Canary Islands, last remnant of the lost
Atlantis.
If you are interested in these and other works, why don't you contact
the editor? I am sure he will solve all your doubts.
As you can see, Scaligero condamned racism completely and without
doubts. And he never had any different positions about it.
Those historians, De Felice, Germinario, etc., must have assumed that
Scaligero was a racist since he wrote on those journals. Maybe, one day
someone will say that he was a communist instigating people to public
revolt because he wrote "il marxismo accusa il mondo" and
"Rivoluzione". I have read some articles written in 1942-43 and he was
writing on the same tone he wrote later. His editor wrote recently that
Scaligero never, and he underlines NEVER made any distinction of sex,
wealth, culture, political side, race or religion. He always treated
everybody with the same, even embarassing, deference. And this is
referred to the period under question.
You ask me if I have read 'Mein Kampf'. No, but I have watched the movie
by Leni Riefenstahl, "Triumph of the Will". I think it's enough! And I
visited the 'risiera di San Sabba'. Hitler stated he was a racist and he
prosecuted jewish people. I don't need to read books. I have first hand
reports about jewish people being arrested and disappearing during the
war.
To Peter S. I would like to say that by explaining spiritual racism as
it was meant by Evola, you will just give a different view that that of
Scaligero. The two (they were not comrades) had quite opposite views,
and Evola despite some good works ( for instance the Hermetic Tradition
and some articles appeared as the group of UR and KRUR) made several
mistakes. Also, Evola supported spiritual racism, but this is not a
surprise considering that he had a very aristocratic view about esoteric
knowledge.
On the pages of the "Diorama" edited by Evola Scaligero wrote: "La
Fides, Perdita della direzione olimpica" (1941), "Sulla conoscenza di
se'" (1942), "Una esigenza dell'anima moderna" (1942), "La virtu' e la
coscienza del sangue" (1943), "Necessita' di essere onesti" (1943).
What I think of Evola? I do not share his view about the race. ( As well
as I reject the racial laws introduced in Italy in 1938. If you read it,
those principles are just so absurd and against individuality!)
Different peoples had different task, but they were all important.
Today, as Scaligero puts it "le razze hanno esaurito la loro funzione:
formandosi i popoli e le Nazioni e tendendosi a confederare le Nazioni"
("Lotta di classe e Karma" Perseo, Roma, 1970, p182) (races have
exhausted their function: Peoples and Nations are forming and they tend
to unite in confederations).
But Evola beyond his limits had an incredible knowledge and some of his
books are interesting, for example his plane explanation of Alchemy (it
is almost contrasting with his aristocratic vision that he made alchemy
it so clear to the reader). He was totally wrong about the sense of the
Grail legend and about Steiner and about a lot of other things.
Read the article "Dioniso" written by Scaligero on Evola in the book
"Testimonianze su Evola" Ed. Mediterranee.
Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
Guenon. In common they had that they both strongly opposed the Spiritual
Science.
Percedol
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:40:17 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
G'day again.
I read Diana's comments again, and I don't think the questionairres are
necessary. I still think that comprehension tests will probably suffice.
Let me put this question another way, bearing in mind that I don't know the
answer. How would prospective Waldorf parents react if they KNEW in advance
there was a statistical likleihood that their children would read less well
than their peers from other schools? My own view is that this could only be
balanced by some other positive outcome, eg lower divorce rate, lower arrest
rate for crimes involving victims, longer life span, healthier children,
better support for aged parents :) than appropriately selected samples.
It would be good if some of the other critics or perhaps a DOF or two would
suggest measures that are better. How about density of Waldorf graduates in
high quality orchestras?
)From: Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
)Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:52:39 +0000
)
)
)Steve:
))I have not heard Waldorf supporters claim that kids will read better if
))taught at an older age.
)
)They do claim late readers will enjoy it more, or stay enthusiastic about
)reading, whereas those taught earlier sometimes "burn out." This might be a
)testable measure, with questionnaires asking a person to rank how much
)enjoyment they get out of reading, how many books or magazines they read
)every year, and see how Waldorf grads compare with others. Diana
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:44:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
G'day Joel and Walden.
I have to disagree with Joel again. We have another word which describes
events like taht being discussed and that is "contingent".
Peter F.
)From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Destiny of anthroposophy
)Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:38:30 -0800
)
) ) Joel writes:
) )) Now, it could be asked in this light, what did I mean "by destined to
)die
) )) out". Again, if one presupposes a racist point of view then it is
)possible
) )) to put some weird interpretation on this. But, if we are not too
)paranoid,
) )) the word also has a meaning which recognizes that a past event has
) )) happened, it has "become" the "destiny".
)
)Walden: I know I should probably leave this one alone. It is, however,
)incredible and this nonsense must be challenged. First, stating that a
)particular race of people is "destined to die out" says it all. Nobody
)needs to take a "weird interpretation" or a "racist point of view." The
)words are purely racist. Secondly, the feeble excuse/explanation of a past
)event having happened and has therefore become "destiny" is perverse. In
)case our resident spiritual historian has not noticed... Native Americans
)have not died out. This disrespect and patronizing spiritual arrogance is
)simply shocking. I have many First Nations friends who would definitely be
)deeply offended at this callous disregard for their culture. Shame.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:56:53 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: drawing - was: RE: a contrary experience
Sarah-Jo Robinson wrote:
)A final point - although I expect this won't go down well - I have
)nearly completed my seventh year of educational training with a Waldorf
)emphasis - first in curative ("special") education and now for Classes I -
)VIII. I also teach part-time in a Waldorf school. and my IQ last time it
)was assessed fell at 176, which is over average.
G'day Sarah-Jo. It goes down fine with me, but it leads me to ask a
question. Please explain to me in terms that you think I will understand the
practice of curative education in Waldorf schools. Please don't be of the
opinion that I will be easy to get on with in discussion of this. You will
have to go easy with me cause I come out with lesser weight than 176. Of
course that 176 gives you an added responsibility.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:08:45 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Joel Wendt wrote:
Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
concept, and the two taken together are a unity.
Peter Farrell asks in response:
Do these have a one to one correspondence or are there multiple possible
concepts associated with each percept and vice versa?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:25:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Denial of Steiner's Racism
Percedol writes:
)Of course, Scaligero never changed his mind after the war
I guess that makes him open minded.
See you, Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:56:28 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The Mission
walden quotes the Anthroposophical Society in Florida:
The campaign for a new social order had been especially well received in the
big Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
Peter asks:
Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart interested in
Steiner?
Anyone know?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:29:10 +0000
From: mypostbox (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: The Mission
)
) Peter asks:
) Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart interested in
) Steiner?
)
) Anyone know?
we were told that he was good buddies with the owner
bea
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 649
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The Mission
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By mysplum earthlink.net
Scaligero and spiritual racism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
Re: quantity, quality and morality
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Walt to Peter S. on critical thinking
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Genocide as necessity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: The Mission
By dan dandugan.com
Re: content versus method
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
Re: content versus method
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Genocide as necessity
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Genocide as necessity
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By snell gv.net
Re: the two steiners
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: the two steiners
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: content versus method
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Genocide as necessity
By hermit tiac.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:26:58 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The Mission
on 3/1/02 1:29 AM, bea at mypostbox.formail virgin.net wrote:
)
)
))
)) Peter asks:
)) Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart interested in
)) Steiner?
))
)) Anyone know?
)
) we were told that he was good buddies with the owner
) bea
Sharon: I bet ol' Emile Molt frequented Steiner's underground Rosicrucian
Temple in Stuttgart.
"The managing director of the Waldorf Astoria Tobacco Company, Emil Molt, an
enthusiastic supporter of Rudolf Steiner's concepts of re-forming social
life, had asked him to provide the children of his factory workers with a
more human-orientated education." (p6 Waldorf Education World-Wide , Editor
Hans Joachim Mattke, Translator Carl Hoffman 1994).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:35:33 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual racism
on 2/28/02 9:48 PM, walden at awaldenpond shaw.ca wrote:
) Peter S. (snip)
) Tannenbaum goes on to observe
)) that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to this
)) ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the 'spiritual'
)) rather than the biological idea of race." (ibid.) The distinction between
)) the two variants of racism began to blur almost immediately, as proponents
)) of "spiritual" racism called for "denying Jews influence in government or
)) education because they had a different spirit." (ibid.) By the end of the
)) 1930's, "spiritual" racism was practically indistinguishable from its
)) biological cousin. (snip)
Sharon: A similar idea was used in South Africa to justify Apartheid.
Africans were said to be people without souls.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:53:55 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
on 2/28/02 4:23 PM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear David,
)
) You wrote "In philosophy, you start by not confusing words and ideas
) with things."
)
)
) This is, of course, precisely where Steiner's epistomology (as
) experience) leads in an entirely different direction. Not only are
) "ideas" (but not words, which are just symbol system pointed towarfd a
) possible inward experience) things, that is aspects of something that
) has objective existence, but that for all seemingly material things,
) social processes and states of mind there exists the respective "Idea"
) to which it belongs. Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
) concept, and the two taken together are a unity. It is only human
) consciousness, in its current stage of evolution, that divides this
) unity into an apparent duality.
Sharon: Sounds like Cabala meets Alchemy. BTW Steiner's views are quite
ancient.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:28:15 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Scaligero and spiritual racism
Percedol wrote: "Scaligero never signed the document for the racial
laws."
We never said so, Peter Staudenmaier and I only stated that he signed
the infamous petition of racist intellectuals urging the Fascist regime
to adopt racial laws. Percedol, are you denying that Scaligero signed
this petition? The actual law was signed by Mussolini, Ciano and king
Emmanuel III. Percedol, please don't try to confuse matters too much.
Scaligero admits more or less that he signed the petition in the passage
Percedol translated: "Given a certain opening of the press to my
collaboration, I felt as a duty to intervene, to make that great mistake
the least harmful possible." This is a very poor excuse. Accusations of
'masked anti-racism' made by rivals in racism are not very convincing
(Percedol, could you tell me who made this accusation and whether
Scaligero responded to this criticism?). As for Scaligero's opinion on
racism: "I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
from the race." Note that he is not denying the existence of races as
such. It is completely in line with what Peter Staudenmaier wrote about
the Italian version of 'spiritual' racism ("Tannenbaum goes on to
observe that a decidedly "spiritual" version of racism was central to
this ideological transition, as fascist intellectuals "stressed the
'spiritual' rather than the biological idea of race"). So I fail to see
the condemnation of racism Percedol seems to find in these words.
Percedol wrote "His [unnanmed] editor wrote recently that Scaligero
never, and he underlines NEVER made any distinction of sex, wealth,
culture, political side, race or religion. He always treated everybody
with the same, even embarassing, deference. And this is referred to the
period under question." This makes it very puzzling why he would have
signed the petition of racist scientists and why he wrote many articles
for the fascist press. Scaligero wrote: "Quello che ho scritto in quel
periodo lo potrei ripubblicare oggi su qualsiasi giornale, di sinistra,
di destra, o di centro, solo sostituendo alla parola (Fascismo), per
esempio, l'espressione (visone sociale), o (istanza morale)." (My rough
translation: What I wrote in that period I could republish today in any
paper, right-wing, left-wing, or center, only substituting the word
'Fascism', for example, for the expression 'social vision' or 'moral
request'). This makes him look like an opportunist, hardly a 'masked
anti-racist'. He also wrote: "Non politico, anzi apolitico per
temperamento, tuttavia, giovanissimo, nel periodo fascista credetti
poter immettere nella forma politica la mia visione del mondo: questo
spiega la categoria in cui qualcuno ancora oggi tanta [tenta?]
recludermi: categoria che io non rinnego per debito di lealta' e di
verita', ma che non mi ha mai contenuto, ne' mi ha mai impedito di
essere quello che realmente volevo." (My rough translation: Non
political, in fact a-political by temperament, and very young, I
nevertheless believed during the fascist era that I could put my
worldview into political shape: this explains the category in which some
even today try to confine me: a category that I don't deny out of
loyalty and truth, but that has never restrained nor impeded me to be
what I really wanted to be). So basically - albeit in a rather
convoluted way - Scaligero admits he was a fascist and has always
remained loyal to his 'a-political fascism'.
Percedol wrote: "Different peoples had different task, but they were all
important." Interesting, could you elaborate this a bit? In order to
discuss this subject more fully, it would be of great help if Percedol
could make the articles from Scaligero available to us, especially
"Razzismo spirituale e razzismo biologico" (Spiritual racism and
biological racism; "La Vita Italiana", July 1941) and "Per un razzismo
integrale" (For an integral racism; "La Vita Italiana", May 1942).
Percedol, please send me the texts in Italian if you are interested in a
real debate about this issue.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:46:03 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Joel Wendt wrote:
)
) Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
) concept, and the two taken together are a unity.
)
) Peter Farrell asks in response:
) Do these have a one to one correspondence or are there multiple possible
) concepts associated with each percept and vice versa?
Dear Peter,
Not a bad question given the statement from which you derived it, but
like the sense world, the inner world is very complicated.
Since I have to use words to point to concepts there is an inherent
difficulty. You will think about this according to your own experience
of the mind, which will be different from mine. So the words I use will
not have the same reference points. This is not a fixed situation, but
until one explores the mind in a most intimate manner it is not easy to
get a real appreciation.
Let us start with the word "in". It consists of two letters "i" and
"n" and in another language would take a different form. For each word
there is a related "concept", but in the case of "in" it is what some
call a paired concept, because you can't really "think" "in" without
"out" also being present, almost the otherside of the coin so to speak.
So the word "in" has a concept "in-out" (as does the word "out").
Please, at this point, understand that I am using the "word" concept in
a very specific way, and not trying to use it according to the
dictionary - I could use a made up word as well.
Concepts can get complicated - take the phrase "the diamond was in the
box at the end of the bed". If we read this in a fiction novel we might
form a kind of picture inwardly according to the concept the writer
meant to give us. At the same time we could call this phrase a related
set-of-concepts, or an idea. All I am trying to point to is that, at
least with material we write (such as this whole e-mail) there is a
hierarchy of concepts, ideas and idea complexes that the mind becomes
involved with through the finger pointing done by the writer in
composing the message.
Now at a naive level the percept (the experience) in this case is
primarily the words on this page, but at the same time each individual
reader has a history of relating to the words, conceps, ideas and
idea-complexes certain past percepts (experiences). Inwardly in the
mind, these past and present experiences and word usages mix in quite
unconscious ways, out of which we begin to assemble the "meaning".
In the case of sense percepts, such as nature objects (a plant, a tree,
a flower) the Idea is no so immediately available. This is due in part
to the fact that we are not raised to pay proper attention to our inner
experiences. For example, we might be having a conversation and someone
will interrupt and say: "I have an idea". Now if we are self honest in
the sense Peter S. wants us to be, we have to admit that this statement
arises from a very definite inward experience whose details and exact
nature we sleep through (in most cases). We mostly notice it in
passing, because our "I" consciousness (the self awareness within the
inwardness) is focused on the conversation and not inwardly on the
unconscious willing that produced the experience of the idea.
This is why various kinds of concentration exercises and meditation
practices are necessary in order to begin to distinguish the various
aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified and understood.
The inwardness is to the self awareness also an experience, that is a
"percept". In Theory of Knowledge both the percepts of the sense world
and the percepts of the inwardness are called "the necessary given",
since they arise without our inner activity.
What does require our inner activity (the will of the self awareness)
is the production of "thought content", or words (spoken in the inner
voice), concepts, ideas and idea complexes. But this willing can be
both (or either) conscious or unconscious. What makes the whole thing
all the more difficult is that once we begin to explore the inwardness
(as a percept/experience) we find that even our "intention" is a complex
of motives, urges, desires and wants. So when we "think", when we draw
forth thoughts, this "intention" effects the nature of the produced
"thought-content".
This is not so clear when we "think" about a material object, such as a
pencil, or a nature object such as a plant. Yet, when we think about a
person with whom we have a relationship, the whole moral tone that is
living in us infects the "thought-content".
Not only that, but what we "feel" becomes involved. In thinking about
a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
intentional feeling of reverence, but when we think about other people
then our antipathies and sympathies (likes and dislikes) influence the
intention living in the thought calling forth process. So it becomes
necessary to struggle to have some mastery of this feeling activity.
Now the feelings appear before the self awareness also as a necessary
given (in the beginning, this is complicated once we start to bring the
will more and more into play). So we really don't get rid of the
disliking of the person we are thinking about. Rather it becomes
possible to notice that we are producing a thought content filled with
antipathy, which once noticed can be dealt with and replaced with a more
intentional and careful (heart-felt) way of thinking.
Peter, your question above may have seemed simple, but to experience,
the matching of percepts and concepts is quite difficult and it makes no
real sense to think of things in a one to one relationship. The inner
world is as easily as complicated as the sense world.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:50:34 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: Sounds like Cabala meets Alchemy. BTW Steiner's views are quite
) ancient.
Dear Sharon,
The truth that the world is a monism hasn't changed, and was well known
in ancient times. Meanwhile, however, humanity has itself changed, so
that in our time - to our conditions of mind - it was necessary to
present this material in a certain way so as to place it before the
human "I am" in freedom.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:54:21 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: quantity, quality and morality
Peter F.:
)I read Diana's comments again, and I don't think the questionairres are
)necessary. I still think that comprehension tests will probably suffice.
I'm not real enthusiastic about questionnaires or anything - I
usually hang up on people taking surveys - politely of course :). Waldorf
defenders would scoff, since what they are actually claiming about reading
would be something "subtle," "rich," "deep," and conveniently intangible. A
questionnaire that asked you to check a category - How many books do you
read a year? 0; 1-5; 5-20; over 20 - would be considered materialistic.
I just thought of it as a way of pinning them down on the claim that late
readers enjoy it more or are less likely to burn out. I don't buy that claim
for a minute.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:58:06 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
Percedol writes:
)That letter was about a today prominent Italian journalist who is in the
)same list with Scaligero
)(http://www.romacivica.net/novitch/LeggiRaz/promulgatori.htm). It is
)clear from that letter that the list is a hybrid.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you mean that the list of
signatories of the petition demanding race laws is erroneous, that it
contains names of people who did not, in fact, sign the petition? If that is
what you mean, could you explain your basis for this claim?
)It contains the names
)of the 180 people who signed the racial laws and mixed with them
)"l'elenco di personalitý italiane che pubblicamente si schierarono a
)favore dei provvedimenti razzisti del regime" (The list of Italian
)personalities who openly sided the racial measures of the regime).
"Signed the racial laws" doesn't make sense to me. We're talking about
people who called for the introduction of the racial laws before they were
actually promulgated. Scaligero was one of those people. Are you disputing
this? Are you saying that he was not one of the "Italian personalities who
openly sided the racial measures of the regime"? Again, please explain what
you base this claim on.
)Scaligero never signed the document for the racial laws.
Which document? The authorship of the laws themselves remains in dispute, as
far as I know. Some historians attribute them to Mussolini himself, others
say Ciano was the main author, while still others argue that a young scholar
wrote up the first draft after a thorough interview with Mussolini. In any
case, nobody has claimed that Scaligero participated in writing the race
laws, but that he publically called for their adoption. Are you denying
this?
)("When racism broke out I do not deny I felt worried because I foresaw
)the absurd developments of such a position: given a certain opening of
)the press to my collaboration, I felt as a duty to intervene, to make
)that great mistake the least harmful possible.
This is standard ex post facto apolegetics. Scaligero is trying to explain
away his own collaboration. This is hardly evidence that he did not
collaborate; it's exactly the opposite.
)In this direction I did a
)truly immediate and strong effort, trying to give to that initiative a
)content that would dominate it, an ethical and symbolic content, able to
)drive the all thing in a series of educational and formative measures
)for the young.
Heidegger said the same idiotic things about trying to give philosophical
direction to the Nazi movement for the sake of German youth etc etc. This is
Scaligero convicting himself, not acquitting himself. Percedol, what on
earth made you quote this as if it reflected favorably on Scaligero?
)But my attempt was overwhelmed by the usual political
)fanaticism: the same that under a different sign and other forms is
)preventing today the free initiatives in every area of the Earth.
)However, who reads my writings published upon that topic at that time,
)cannot but realize the content that essentially I meant to assert.
Namely, that spiritual (or "integral") racism was the proper way forward for
the fascist movement. This is a line of reasoning with very lengthy
historical roots within the voelkisch tradition, and is one of the chief
areas of overlap between anthroposophy and fascist thought.
)It
)even happened that a very bright observer analyzed my thesis and
)eventually accused me of "masked anti-racism" on the periodical
)'Augustea'.
That happened all the time within classical fascist movements. Some early
Nazis routinely accused Hitler of working for the Jews or of being Jewish
himself. When different varieties of racism are competing for ideological
hegemony, it is quite natural for racists of one persuasion to call racists
of another persuasion covert anti-racists.
)My thought about racism is the same of what I thought at
)that time: I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
)distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
)from the race.")
Scaligero is clearly prevaricating here. He openly and forcefully advocated
his own preferred version of racism at the time.
)If you are interested in these and other works, why don't you contact
)the editor? I am sure he will solve all your doubts.
What doubts? And who would depend on Scaligero's editor for accurate and
objective information about his Fascist-era activities? If I wanted to find
out about the political history of, say, Bossi or Fini or Berlusconi, would
you recommend that I contact their editors?
)As you can see, Scaligero condamned racism completely and without
)doubts.
Huh? Nothing that you quoted supports this claim, and much of what you
quoted directly contradicts it. In any case, quoting Scaligero's post-war
attempts at self-justification is hardly a reliable way to establish what he
believed and wrote during the 1930's and 1940's. Why don't you quote his
published work from that period?
)Those historians, De Felice, Germinario, etc., must have assumed that
)Scaligero was a racist since he wrote on those journals.
Don't be ridiculous. They quote Scaligero's articles verbatim and give full
citations. If you'd like to convince us that such passages are
unrepresentative of his views at the time, you only need to provide us with
full articles that he published in the fascist press. You could start by
posting the two articles we've asked you about that he wrote for La Vita
Italiana in the early 1940's.
)Maybe, one day
)someone will say that he was a communist instigating people to public
)revolt because he wrote "il marxismo accusa il mondo" and
)"Rivoluzione".
You seem to think that this would be contradictory. You're mistaken.
Scaligero's fellow anthroposophist-fascist Werner Haverbeck made the same
sort of opening to the Communist left. In fact it's a common feature of
far-right intellectuals to make such ideological zig-zags.
)I have read some articles written in 1942-43 and he was
)writing on the same tone he wrote later.
Which articles are those?
)His editor wrote recently that
)Scaligero never, and he underlines NEVER made any distinction of sex,
)wealth, culture, political side, race or religion.
He couldn't have been a very talented writer if he truly abjured all such
distinctions.
)He always treated
)everybody with the same, even embarassing, deference. And this is
)referred to the period under question.
So what? I couldn't care less how he treated people personally. The only
issue under discussion is his public role.
)You ask me if I have read 'Mein Kampf'. No, but I have watched the movie
)by Leni Riefenstahl, "Triumph of the Will". I think it's enough!
Enough for what?
)I don't need to read books. I have first hand
)reports about jewish people being arrested and disappearing during the
)war.
Then surely you are aware that some of these arrests and disappearances took
place in Italy, a fact which was made possible by the prior creation of a
racist climate. Don't you believe that the people who contributed to the
creation of this climate should be held responsible for their actions?
)To Peter S. I would like to say that by explaining spiritual racism as
)it was meant by Evola, you will just give a different view that that of
)Scaligero.
Yes, I got that impression from what I've seen by Scaligero; they seem to
have held divergent versions of the Aryan myth. Could you tell us more about
Scaligero's version?
)The two (they were not comrades)
What makes you say that?
)Also, Evola supported spiritual racism
So did Scaligero.
)On the pages of the "Diorama" edited by Evola Scaligero wrote: "La
)Fides, Perdita della direzione olimpica" (1941), "Sulla conoscenza di
)se'" (1942), "Una esigenza dell'anima moderna" (1942), "La virtu' e la
)coscienza del sangue" (1943), "Necessita' di essere onesti" (1943).
Do you consider these to be examples of "spiritual anti-racism"? Could you
explain why?
)Different peoples had different task, but they were all important.
Just one sentence ago you were extolling "individuality", and now you're
telling us that whole peoples have determinate tasks (which is the standard
anthroposophist view, of course). Could you explain how you manage to
reconcile those two contrary viewpoints?
)Today, as Scaligero puts it "le razze hanno esaurito la loro funzione:
)formandosi i popoli e le Nazioni e tendendosi a confederare le Nazioni"
)("Lotta di classe e Karma" Perseo, Roma, 1970, p182) (races have
)exhausted their function: Peoples and Nations are forming and they tend
)to unite in confederations).
Similar to Steiner's view of the future. What functions do you believe races
used to have? What functions do you believe peoples and nations have today?
And why do you believe that your views are anti-racist?
)Read the article "Dioniso" written by Scaligero on Evola in the book
)"Testimonianze su Evola" Ed. Mediterranee.
Does Scaligero challenge Evola's racism in that article?
)Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
)is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
)Guenon. In common they had that they both strongly opposed the Spiritual
)Science.
Guenon is a perennial favorite among a wide variety of far-right
esotericists. Obviously there are differences among occultists on any number
of issues, including the validity of Steiner's version of "spiritual
science". But what Steiner shared with Evola and other esoteric fascists is
an obsession with the Aryan myth and the supposed cycles of racial decline
and advance. Fascist anthroposophists like Scaligero form the bridge between
these two figures.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:09:28 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walt to Peter S. on critical thinking
Walt wrote:
)When are Waldorf students prepared for critical thinking, and how (Debra's
)question) is this preparation accomplished? Potentially and hopefully from
)the first grade, by the very nature of the main lesson structure, where
)lessons are presented in a living way,
Right, like non-Waldorf teachers aim to present lessons in a dead
way. Come on, it's jargon, Walt.
In Waldorf the "living way" means precisely *not* to encourage
critical or analytical thinking. Steiner said this was deadening for
children. It's almost Orwellian, this redefining of words to mean
their opposites, depending on whom one is speaking to.
)and the lessons are recapitulated by the students in the following days.
I assume you are using "recapitulated" as a big fancy word for reviewing,
which all children do in school as a *beginning* to thinking on their own
about what they are learning. Nobody else would claim that reviewing and
repeating are the same thing as critical thinking. But you have certainly
learned how to talk the talk. "Recapitulating" sounds a lot more
sophisticated than reviewing.
)"Marked by careful attention and judgment" is also practiced from the first
)grade through the activity of students creating a permanent record of what
)they have learned in class. Students spend a fair amount of time each day
)devoting careful attention to these records.
They copy very carefully into their main lesson books what the teacher
dictates or writes on the board. They copy specified decorative squiggles in
the margin. Definitely they spend a "fair amount of time" doing this. This
is done to *avoid* any thinking about the material, to pass time that might
otherwise be available for discussion or response to the material that came
from the student's own initiative.
Developing "judgment" would involve asking the children not just to copy
carefully, but to explain concepts in their own words, answer (and pose to
one another) questions to show their comprehension of the material, write
their own compositions on subjects they've learned about, or in the case of
a story talk about things like characters' motivations or plot structure.
Even offer opinions on what they liked or didn't like about it! All standard
in "progresive" classrooms, and frankly, even in many of the (supposedly
dreadful) inner city classrooms that I've observed. All that even in first
grade - not after puberty.
Obviously in the early grades the children's "analyses" are very simple and
fairly concrete (criticism often consists of "I liked it"). That is fine.
It's a question of accustoming them gradually to using their brains. Their
brains *want* to develop the same as their knitting and crocheting abilities
Walt.
)At any time they or their parents can judge the accuracy of these records
)against reality.
So checking whether they've copied correctly is an aid to critical
thinking? I suppose it's better than nothing.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:20:05 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Hi Joel, I followed you right up to here:
)This is why various kinds of concentration exercises and meditation
)practices are necessary in order to begin to distinguish the various
)aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified and understood.
Why do you believe this? Do you think that you failed to understand your own
experiences before you began undertaking concentration exercises and
meditation practices?
)In thinking about
)a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
)intentional feeling of reverence
What does this help you to do?
)Rather it becomes
)possible to notice that we are producing a thought content filled with
)antipathy, which once noticed can be dealt with and replaced with a )more
)intentional and careful (heart-felt) way of thinking.
Do you think that antipathy cannot be intentional and careful?
)Peter, your question above may have seemed simple, but to experience,
)the matching of percepts and concepts is quite difficult and it makes )no
)real sense to think of things in a one to one relationship.
I understood Peter F's question differently. I didn't think he was asking
about the difficulty involved, but about whether a given precept can be
meaningfully associated with several distinct concepts. Unless you deny this
(which would call the rest of your system into doubt), I don't understand
why it is difficult for you to recognize that your writings on race can be
accurately interpreted as racist, regardless of your intentions. Do you
believe that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
deliberate malice?
)The inner
)world is as easily as complicated as the sense world.
You say these things as if they were not embarrassingly obvious truisms,
Joel. Why is that?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:25:38 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Mission
)walden quotes the Anthroposophical Society in Florida:
)
)The campaign for a new social order had been especially well
)received in the big Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
)
)Peter asks:
)Why was the Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at Stuttgart
)interested in Steiner?
Emil Molt, the director of the factory, was a follower of Steiner and
suggested that Steiner might create a school for the children of the
workers.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:35:44 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Dear Alice,
You said a lot in response to my stuff and I want to reply in general
to at least some of what you took the time to write. Sorry it has taken
so long to get around to it. I copied your comments at the end in case
you have forgotten after all this time.
It isn't really a tenent of Steiner "that we define for ourselves such
basic concepts as good and evil." Rather it is that our spiritual
freedom is found in coming to "knowledge" of these things out of our own
forces and experiences, without just believing something someone else
has told us.
The truth is independent of me, Steiner, Peter S., Dan Dugan or Peter
F. No one owns it, while in a very real sense the "truth" owns itself.
The problem is how to come to real knowledge of the truth.
I can understand how you would react to "pontification", but, as I have
tried to show on this list over and over again, those who treat Steiner
as a kind of infalible Pope and thus create a kind of religion I have
called Steinerism, do not represent either what Steiner really taught or
how actual anthroposophists approach such questions. If you personally
knew more anthroposophists you would meet many who don't take Steiner's
word on everything, and who really proceed the way you are proceeding -
which is, I (you) want to decide for myself what is true.
I didn't really understand what you were writing about how I see or not
see people of color. I guess having the racist name thrown at me, by
people who really don't want to deal with the actual issues, has left me
a bit perplexed.
For example, in my Waking the Sleeping Giant essay (which is about
stuff that no one yet on this list has talked about), I pointed out a
distinction between one's physical heritage and one's soul spiritual
identity. Of course people can disagree with this idea, but it is held
by large portions of the world (mostly by tradition), and is growing in
numbers of believers (namely the idea of reincarnation and karma). This
is one of those things that is true, or not true, whatever we think we
believe.
When I met a human being (and this has been part of my work life
for decades), I always see past the color, or other so-called racial
characteristics, trying to meet the human being (the spiritual being)
who is wearing the body like a garment. Having had out of body
experiences (something many people besides anthroposophists speak
about), it is pretty clear that we are not the physical form, which is
rather a gift given to us.
In my writings about the American Indian, I made a clear distinction
between the physical heritage, which in terms of simple numbers
decreased enormously during the genocide, and the spirits that
reincarnate over time in this stream. Yet, since I am an
"anthroposophist" and among the "hated", I have to be wrong, so the
macarthites on the list spin and spin and spin since it is crucial to
their views that anthroposophy not be about anything true (i.e. we never
really discuss whether reincarnation is true or not, and how one might
know or not, nor deal with the fact that what we believe is irrelevant
to the truth).
You should (and others) try to pay attention to the fact that in the
main I have very carefully not been defending anything Steiner ever said
in the huge number of lectures he gave. Yet, again and again I am
approached as if I was, and Steiner's thinking is thrown at me as if I
held those ideas as beliefs. I write from my own experiences almost
exclusively, with reference to others not as authorities, but as a means
of relating to the audience to whom I am writing.
Yet, if I say something that agrees with Steiner, something I have
thought out for myself, the next thing I hear is that I am parroting
something Steiner said. Then you wonder why I don't think communication
is happening on this list.
Another thing that bothers me is when I write something, it is treated
as if somehow I am offering the whole of it, so if you (or someone else)
has an additional thought (such as your remarks below about
"relationship"), then that must mean I have left something out.
We aren't writing books in these e-mail messages, so it is really
impossible to make definitive statements about anything (although some
people like to try). Every subject matter is quite complicated and each
of us is also worthy of a great deal of respect for the total experience
of their life that lives behind what they bring to the discussion.
Short snippy judgmental comments aren't communication - they are like
nasty comments made by ten year olds walking past each other in the
school yard.
We all can do better, including myself, and I want to thank you for
being one of the people on the list who treats me as another human
being.
warm regards,
joel
Alice K wrote:
) Alice here: nervously, I will take a few deep breaths and attempt to respond
) ever so gently to the persistent Joel.
) Alice here: I thought it was part of the tenents of Steiner study that we
) define for ourselves such basic concepts as "good and evil"..Who owns the
) truth?
) Alice here: I think the complexity and multi-layering of these matters is
) true - I admire Steiner's attempt to make sense of the ecology of it all and
) attempt to find patterns and purpose. But I believe the truth is owned by
) the consciousness of all by it's very definition, not on the pontification
) by one man. It is the dialogue that counts.
) Alice again: Well, Joel, as I read your dialogue with others on this list
) and some of what you have written on your web site, I have to say that it
) does seem that communication has been very difficult. But I would wonder if
) you haven't yet seen patterns that have something to do with the nature of
) this material. It seems to me that if the presentation and advocacy of
) Steiner as TRUTH produces this kind of reaction, I would wonder of what use
) it is. It seems that if it actually inhibits relationship, it is of
) questionable value.
)
) Alice here: If we are reading your words, interpreting them through our own
) mental/spiritual filters as separate beings, and feeding you back thoughts
) through words, how can this NOT be communication?
) If you don't think that you look at a human being of color differently than
) anyone else than I would like to know that. I personally believe that
) cultural/sub-cultural differences should be recognized but with an open mind
) of course to the value of every human.
) Alice here: I agree with you that there are indeed forces in biology that
) are other forms of energy. I think that - dare I say it - Steiner was wrong
) and perhaps backward about believing,for instance that the soul pushed the
) blood through the heart, which is not a pump. I think that he skipped of the
) neuro-chemistry and cellular consciousness of the being, wrongly
) interpreting these responses as "soul".. I personally believe that we all
) "carry the light" - or forms of energy if you will. I had a powerful
) experience when I was twenty years old and doing my college fieldwork as a
) PT aid in a large hospital in California. I watched a man die. And I can
) tell you as he left his body, I was profoundly aware of the thing that was
) not his biology - but what I would call his "soul"..I am grateful for this
) experience.
) but I believe it is a much more complex and chemical interaction than
) Steiner outlined.
) Alice here: what about holographic analysis that in each cell is the image
) of the whole?
) Alice here: Somehow this model seems to completely ignore the most important
) aspect of all - relationship.
) Alice here: Biological imperative? found in the animal kingdom?
) Alice here: I still believe it has more to do with the value of relationship
) and clarity and comfort within dialogue.
) Alice here: Yet living in our bodies, which I presume we all do, restricts
) us to sensation with our perceptions - both inner and outer. Have you ever
) been in great pain? Two years ago, soon after our own W.E. trauma, I had a
) six week bout with an 8mm kidney stone. (shedding old ideas?) It was such
) intense pain - despite the meditation techniques I could employ, in the end
) I was curled semi-fetal in an ambulance. I don't think there was anyway to
) circumvent the biological perception of this event - my systems/ tissue
) would not let me.
) Alice here: This is my point too - don't we all own truth? I appreciate that
) you are encouraging us to think, but when we do and let you know, it seems
) that we are punished by you...are you sharing the path?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:11:49 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Dear Peter S,
I have written some comments below in [brackets].
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi Joel, I followed you right up to here:
)
) )This is why various kinds of concentration exercises and meditation
) )practices are necessary in order to begin to distinguish the various
) )aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified and understood.
)
) Why do you believe this? Do you think that you failed to understand your own
) experiences before you began undertaking concentration exercises and
) meditation practices?
[I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness and
allow us to ask you questions?]
)
) )In thinking about
) )a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
) )intentional feeling of reverence
)
) What does this help you to do?
[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal aspects
of inwardness is revealed. The better question is what could you do if
you understood it in practice.]
)
) )Rather it becomes
) )possible to notice that we are producing a thought content filled with
) )antipathy, which once noticed can be dealt with and replaced with a )more
) )intentional and careful (heart-felt) way of thinking.
)
) Do you think that antipathy cannot be intentional and careful?
[Yes, and no. People can become obsessed with their hate object and
justify this to themselves in all manner of ways. So in a sense the
hate is intention and careful. The point is do they notice that the
thought-content changes according to this emotional background. We can
find justifications for any hateful feeling, but a thought content
created out this emotional texture is usually not the truth.]
)
) )Peter, your question above may have seemed simple, but to experience,
) )the matching of percepts and concepts is quite difficult and it makes )no
) )real sense to think of things in a one to one relationship.
)
) I understood Peter F's question differently. I didn't think he was asking
) about the difficulty involved, but about whether a given precept can be
) meaningfully associated with several distinct concepts. Unless you deny this
) (which would call the rest of your system into doubt), I don't understand
) why it is difficult for you to recognize that your writings on race can be
) accurately interpreted as racist, regardless of your intentions. Do you
) believe that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
) deliberate malice?
[Do you believe that all your utterances are true? Don't you realize
how easy it is to create a big lie and justify it, especially given your
apparent awareness of all manner of aspects of recent history? What
about your intentions in reading my material? Do you deny reading my
writing looking to find things to criticise? Do you deny that others
have refuted the essence of all your claims of racism against Steiner?
Why is your point of view right? What is your method of thinking that
leads you to the truth, rather than to preconcived prejudices? What do
you know about your own inwardness that justifies your conclusions above
that of others, especially since it is their own words being
interpreted? In reading my material did you ever find anything that was
said that was right? What was that? Tell us about your own inner
search and what teachers if any do you follow? Do you have a religion,
or religious beliefs? When did you stop beating your wife? Since you
admit not knowing Italian, how can you really justify using secondary
sources for your criticism of MS? What do his views on race have to do
with whether he replicated Steiner's achievement in the realm of living
thought? Have you forgotten that this was the point I was making? How,
even if he was a devoted racist (MS), does this effect whether his later
writings are the truth? When are you going to answer my questions? Do
you believe my questions are less important than yours because I appear
to you to be an anthroposophist? Are you bigoted (a kind of racism)
against anthroposophists? What anthroposophists do you admire? Have
you read any books by Owen Barfield? How about George Kaufmann Adams'
book: "Space in the Light of Creation"? Do you believe in God? Why
not? If you are an atheist, how can you claim to know there is no God?
Have I asked enough questions yet? Isn't this a marvelous technique for
misdirecting the thread of the conversation, by asking endless
questions, many of which are spun with assumptions that aren't true?
Where did you learn to practice this way of dialogue? Did you study to
become such a good macarthyist?
) )The inner
) )world is as easily as complicated as the sense world.
)
) You say these things as if they were not embarrassingly obvious truisms,
) Joel. Why is that?
[More comments from the school yard. When are you going to reveal
something of yourself here? Are you afraid of exposing what you really
feel, or who you are? What is your worst fear? Come on now, lets not
hide behind clever word games.]
)
) Peter S.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
) http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:58:44 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Joel wrote to Alice: "We all can do better, including myself, and I want
to thank you for being one of the people on the list who treats me as
another human being."
This is funny coming from a person who treats most members of this list
as non-persons by putting them on his black list. And who doesn't
respond in a mature way to criticism of his ideas, but starts calling
critics "macarthyists" instead.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:17:32 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
on 3/1/02 9:50 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear Sharon,
)
) The truth that the world is a monism hasn't changed, and was well known
) in ancient times. Meanwhile, however, humanity has itself changed, so
) that in our time - to our conditions of mind - it was necessary to
) present this material in a certain way so as to place it before the
) human "I am" in freedom.
Sharon: I can't figure out how anyone could think of Steiner's doctrine as
monistic, it just seems so dualistic to me (matter versus spirit).
I'm certain that there have always been thinkers like me, as well as
thinkers like you Joel, and never the twain shall meet. It's the human
condition. I wonder how much we've really changed...the more I learn, the
more I don't think we've changed much.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:00:16 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Joel writes:
)[I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
)went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
)write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
)allow us to ask you questions?]
Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
) ) )In thinking about
) ) )a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
) ) )intentional feeling of reverence
) )
) ) What does this help you to do?
)
)[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
)have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal )aspects
)of inwardness is revealed. The better question is what could )you do if
)you understood it in practice.]
You're having trouble reading today, Joel. The question I asked was: "What
does this help you to do?" I didn't ask about universal aspects of
inwardness. Why do you continue to avoid very simple questions? If you
actually practiced the "feeling of reverence" you mentioned above, it would
make you look even more foolish than you already do (because, among many
other things, it would require you to revere smallpox, HIV, malaria, and all
sorts of other "nature objects"). Thus I asked you to explain what it is
that you think this attitude helps you to do. Was that too complicated for
you? Should I re-phrase the question?
)People can become obsessed with their hate object and
)justify this to themselves in all manner of ways. So in a sense the
)hate is intention and careful. The point is do they notice that the
)thought-content changes according to this emotional background.
It would be exceedingly odd if anyone failed to notice this.
)We can
)find justifications for any hateful feeling, but a thought content
)created out this emotional texture is usually not the truth.]
Why not?
)[Do you believe that all your utterances are true?
No, of course not. Nobody believes that, Joel.
)Don't you realize
)how easy it is to create a big lie and justify it, especially given )your
)apparent awareness of all manner of aspects of recent history?
Yes. What does this have to do with the question I asked you?
)What about your intentions in reading my material?
What would you like to know about them? And why would they be relevant to my
question?
)Do you deny reading my
)writing looking to find things to criticise?
Yes, of course. What would be the point of that?
)Do you deny that others
)have refuted the essence of all your claims of racism against Steiner?
Yes, Joel, everybody who has paid attention to these debates denies that.
You don't have to agree with my specific analysis of Steiner's racism, but
if you deny that the statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe" is
racist, then you plainly don't understand what racism is.
)Why is your point of view right?
It isn't. What on earth are you talking about? I asked you whether you
believed that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
deliberate malice. What would that have to do with my point of view?
)What is your method of thinking that
)leads you to the truth, rather than to preconcived prejudices?
Unlike you, I don't use any special "method". I just use regular old
thinking. You should try it sometime.
)What do
)you know about your own inwardness that justifies your conclusions )above
)that of others, especially since it is their own words being
)interpreted?
That question doesn't make sense. Nothing about my inwardness, or your
inwardness, or anybody's inwardness has the slightest thing to do with which
conclusions are correct.
)In reading my material did you ever find anything that was
)said that was right?
Yes, of course.
)What was that?
I think much of your explication of Steiner's early epistemology is pretty
accurate, for example.
)Tell us about your own inner
)search and what teachers if any do you follow?
Why? What would this have to do with whether the arguments I present are
reasonable or persuasive?
)Do you have a religion,
)or religious beliefs?
I'm an atheist, and I don't have any consistent spiritual practice at this
point in my life. Why do you think this is relevant to our discussion?
)When did you stop beating your wife?
I'm not married.
)Since you
)admit not knowing Italian
That isn't something to "admit", Joel.
)how can you really justify using secondary
)sources for your criticism of MS?
Are you kidding? That is an extraordinarily naive question, even for you.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know Afrikaans,
and that you've never read a single article or even a lengthy quote by
Verwoerd, Malan, Vorster, or any of the other architects of Apartheid. Are
you therefore in any way uncertain whether Apartheid was racist? If so,
could you explain why?
)What do his views on race have to do
)with whether he replicated Steiner's achievement in the realm of living
)thought?
Beats me. What does that mean?
)Have you forgotten that this was the point I was making?
Yes, I have. Have you forgotten what I asked you about Scaligero? It was
this: Why were you completely oblivious of his politcal past until Peter
Zegers and I pointed it out to you? I don't mean that you should personally
research all the people you quote or recommend (after all, that would
require you to read secondary sources!). I mean that it is remarkable that
anthroposophists who promote Scaligero's work manage to avoid mentioning
this aspect -- and all the while deny that anthroposophist race theory has
anything in common with classical fascism. You have been hoodwinked by your
fellow anthros, Joel. They ought to have told you about Scaligero's past,
but they didn't. Why do you think that happened? Wouldn't you like to avoid
it in the future?
)How,
)even if he was a devoted racist (MS), does this effect whether his )later
)writings are the truth?
"Are the truth"? I don't understand that phrase. Writings usually contain
some truth and some untruth, no matter who wrote them. It is entirely
possible that everything you've read by Scaligero is unimpeachable and of
surpassing value. So what? I asked how come you think it's okay to ignore
the fact that he was an active racist and fascist for decades. Why don't you
answer that question?
)When are you going to answer my questions?
Which ones haven't I answered? And when do you think you might get around to
answering mine, by the way?
)Do
)you believe my questions are less important than yours because I appear
)to you to be an anthroposophist?
No. I have no idea what you mean by that. What anthroposophists say is
obviously more important to me, not less so; otherwise my research would be
impossible.
)Are you bigoted (a kind of racism)
)against anthroposophists?
No, of course not. Bigotry against anthroposophists isn't racism, by the
way, since nobody considers anthroposophists to be a race.
)What anthroposophists do you admire?
Several friends in Michigan and Frankfurt, plus some folks I know in
Vermont. I also think Arfst Wagner does very important work, although I
disagree entirely with his basic assumtions. Some of Jens Heisterkamp's work
is also important, to those of us concerned with the far-right tendency
within anthroposophy. Somehow I have given you the impression that I am
uniformly hostile to all anthroposophists; you're very much mistaken.
)Have
)you read any books by Owen Barfield?
Yes, Romanticism Comes of Age. Plus lots of shorter pieces.
)How about George Kaufmann Adams'
)book: "Space in the Light of Creation"?
No, never heard of it.
)Do you believe in God?
No.
)Why not?
Beats me.
)If you are an atheist, how can you claim to know there is no God?
For the same reasons that I claim to know there is no sunken continent of
Atlantis and no Easter Bunny, I guess.
)Have I asked enough questions yet?
By all means, continue. You might answer a few of mine, while you're at it.
)Isn't this a marvelous technique for
)misdirecting the thread of the conversation, by asking endless
)questions, many of which are spun with assumptions that aren't true?
Conversations don't have predetermined directions, Joel. They go wherever we
take them.
)Where did you learn to practice this way of dialogue?
I grew up in a big family. Do you have some sort of grudge against dialogue?
)Did you study to become such a good macarthyist?
You really do need to learn at least a little tiny bit about McCarthyism,
Joel. Maybe you could overcome your apprehensions about secondary sources
and crack open a history book for a couple minutes. Try Zinn's book, since
you appear to have it handy; you'll find his examination of the McCarthy era
in chapter 16, especially pp. 427-436.
)When are you going to reveal
)something of yourself here?
I don't see why it would be relevant in this forum, but tell me what you'd
like me to reveal and I'll be happy to oblige.
)Are you afraid of exposing what you really
)feel, or who you are?
I don't think so. I rarely refrain from saying what I really feel.
)What is your worst fear?
I have no idea. Spiders maybe?
)Come on now, lets not
)hide behind clever word games.]
I'm right out here in the open, Joel. Not hidden in any way. How about if
you engage with the arguments I've put forward, instead of pretending it's
all just a game? Wouldn't that be a better way to get both of us closer to
the truth?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:51:31 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
on 3/1/02 5:00 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
) Joel writes:
)
)) [I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
)) went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
)) write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
)) allow us to ask you questions?]
)
) Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
Sharon: This is so much like Waldorf school. What a relief to be the heck
away from it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:08:15 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
)on 3/1/02 5:00 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
)
)) Joel writes:
))
))) [I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
))) went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
))) write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
))) allow us to ask you questions?]
))
)) Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
)
)Sharon: This is so much like Waldorf school. What a relief to be the heck
)away from it.
)
Debra:
Insidious, punishing, degrading. Positively dismissive. Public rape.
They get away with it all the time. Certain people will draw the
line. We await enough of us. They are coming.
--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 07:57:05 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi Peter,
due to lack of time and my aversion to long posts, I've decided to split my
reply into manageable chunks.
In my previous post, I wrote:
) )Well, what would your opinion be about the following quote?
) )"Surely the mere inspection of a subject can profit us but little. Every
act of seeing leads to consideration, consideration to reflection,
reflection to combination..."
Peter S replied:
) Any contemporary scientist would agree with this quote. This position
suggests no new epistemology, and certainly not the kind of epistemology
that Steiner promoted before his theosophical turn.
Charlie M replies to the reply:
I think this quote by Goethe accords quite well with Steiner's writings on
percepts and thinking. But I don't share your faith that any scientists
would, in practice, agree with it. Not in the recent past anyway. A year or
two ago I read an article about pioneering surgery carried out on adults who
had been blind from birth. The experts were surprised to witness the chaotic
and disjointed nature of these peoples new found visual perception. At first
they could not even recognise basic geometric shapes without handling them.
This would have come as no surprise to the experts if their understanding of
perception and thinking was the same as Goethe's and Steiner's.
Peter S:
)Goethe described himself as "an empiricist and realist" and he was
extremely skeptical toward subjectivist approaches to knowledge. He
ridiculed the notion of "thinking about thinking", in his own words, as a
waste of time. I don't endorse that dismissal, but it is plainly at odds
with Steiner's early epistemology.
Charlie M replies:
Critics of both Goethe and Steiner have called their approach to knowledge
subjective. They would both have disagreed with this view.
Goethe wished to stay within the experience as much as he could. In his
opinion abstract speculation would only lead him away from the reality that
thorough observation brings. That is why he was so opposed to the colour
theory based on Newton's experiments. Once you start adding entities like
corpuscles or waveforms you have left the realm of colour. Whatever these
things may be they are definitely not colour as such.
I would say that Steiner considered his own world conception to be in
agreement with Goethe's in this respect. He claimed that his teachings were
taken from personal experience. He did not speak of a theoretical spiritual
world out there somewhere, but of a world he experienced.
Now you may say Steiner's spiritual experiences are all subjective nonsense.
But this is also what has been said about Goethe's Urpflanze. Are you now
beginning to see any similarities between their outlooks? Both men treated
as objective fact what others claimed to be just something in their
respective minds.
I'll continue my reply as time permits.
Warm regards,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 08:36:40 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi again Peter,
to continue the discussion:
Peter S wrote:
The early Steiner developed an approach to knowledge grounded in people's
everyday experience of the world around them and of their own internal
perception of that world. The point of his approach was to help us better
understand how our thinking processes relate to the external world. He never
mentions, alludes to, assumes the existence of, or otherwise entertains the
notion of any "higher worlds", much less higher worlds that determine what
goes on in the world available to our five senses.
Charlie M replies:
He doesn't have to mention "higher worlds" directly in "The Theory of
Knowledge". If you begin to understand what he is saying, it leads you to
the higher worlds. This is not a separate place, it is all a unity. The so
called sense world is just that part of the higher worlds that we have split
off due to our organisation. We make it what it is. And our process of
development is slowly drawing it back together for us, back to the unity
that it always was.
Peter S:
For the early Steiner, nothing lies "beyond the world of experience" in the
sense that I think you mean here. This has nothing to do with whether the
metaphysical aspects of the world are unattainable or not (a question on
which I remain agnostic and one which the early Steiner doesn't address).
Charlie M replies:
Have you read "The Philosophy of Freedom"? Half a dozen pages at the end of
chapter 7 is taken up expounding on metaphysical realism.
Peter S:
The later Steiner does say that "higher worlds" direct the goings-on in this
world. Sometimes he says that what we experience in this world "reflects"
the hidden processes in the higher worlds. Are you disputing this?
Charlie M replies:
Certainly not, but for him the higher worlds were part of his experience.
And as time went by he gained more experience and knowledge about this
world. As the early Steiner said in "Theory of Knowledge" "..our mind is not
to be conceived as a receptacle for the ideal world, containing the thoughts
within itself, but as an organ which perceives the thoughts." thoughts that
have a real existence in the higher worlds.
I'll try to explain my thoughts on the 'higher worlds'. Earthworms know
nothing of oceans and clouds and the rain that falls on them. The're
oblivious to the mind of a mole or the process in making a garden spade. Yet
they are a necessary part of our world, we interact with them and they with
us. We are like the worms in relation to the higher reality. It is not
separate from us, nor us from it. The difference is, we have it in our own
power to experience these worlds.
Peter S:
) His early attacks on theosophy make fun of the idea of clairvoyance, for
example. But within a few years he claimed to be clairvoyant himself.
Charlie replies:
He always opposed mediumistic spiritualism. And I'm sure there were a lot of
theosophists involved in this. He maintained that it was imperative that any
clairvoyance be in full self conscious awareness. He never had any time for
mediums.
More to follow (run out of time),
Warm regards,
Charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 06:50:29 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Dear Peter Z.,
Actually you've got it wrong (again!), but I am not surprised. You are
one of the ones who likes to play 10 year old school yard name calling
games, so what I do is treat folks the way they treat me (its called
mirroring). You get on my delete list when reading your writing becomes
a complete waste of time because it: a) never really says anything; and,
b) raises its level of name calling to extremes (child abuser,
megalomaniac).
As far as calling people "macarthyists", well it seems to be a shoe
that fits, so why don't you wear it.
j.
Peter Zegers wrote:
)
) Joel wrote to Alice: "We all can do better, including myself, and I want
) to thank you for being one of the people on the list who treats me as
) another human being."
)
) This is funny coming from a person who treats most members of this list
) as non-persons by putting them on his black list. And who doesn't
) respond in a mature way to criticism of his ideas, but starts calling
) critics "macarthyists" instead.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 07:03:00 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Dear Sharon,
If you were to study the philosophical problems a little more
carefully, you would discover the apparent dualism you mention (matter
vs. spirit) is spoken of and resolved in Steiner's writings. Secondly,
the monism I mention is not of the same character as the dualism to
which you refer.
There are two kinds of monism/dualism dichotomies, the one which you
mention (matter vs. spirit), and the one to which I was refering, which
is different. There are chapters in The Philosophy of Freedom that
discuss this.
As to us being on different sides, I actually don't think so. When I
read your stuff, although I disagree with many of your conclusions, I
see someone putting a lot of will into trying to understand what the
truth is - reading a lot of books and doing a lot of thinking.
I sense you are much younger than me, so your journey has qualities
that will be quite different from mine. As to the evolution of
consciousness, it is really quite obvious once one actually begins to
look at the facts in places outside the dynamics of this list. Since
you like to read, read some Owen Barfield. Unless of course, his being
an anthroposophist means he couldn't possible actually know anything
worth learning.
warm regards,
joel
mysplum wrote:
)
) on 3/1/02 9:50 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
)
) ) Dear Sharon,
) )
) ) The truth that the world is a monism hasn't changed, and was well known
) ) in ancient times. Meanwhile, however, humanity has itself changed, so
) ) that in our time - to our conditions of mind - it was necessary to
) ) present this material in a certain way so as to place it before the
) ) human "I am" in freedom.
)
) Sharon: I can't figure out how anyone could think of Steiner's doctrine as
) monistic, it just seems so dualistic to me (matter versus spirit).
)
) I'm certain that there have always been thinkers like me, as well as
) thinkers like you Joel, and never the twain shall meet. It's the human
) condition. I wonder how much we've really changed...the more I learn, the
) more I don't think we've changed much.
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 650
-- Topica Digest --
context
By hermit tiac.net
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By hermit tiac.net
Re: the two steiners
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: context
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: the two steiners
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: content versus method
By pstaud hotmail.com
No black list, Joel?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: context
By hermit tiac.net
Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: context
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero vs. racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted: was: Genocide as
necess
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: No black list, Joel?
By hermit tiac.net
Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: No black list, Joel?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: context
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: No black list, Joel?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: No black list, Joel?
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:31:47 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: context
Dear Sharon and Debra,
You would be justified in being upset if my remarks to Peter had taken
place in another context. But as usual with the critics-list, people
forget the context and the course of development, and take remarks
outside of their natural environment, forgetting that the whole meaning
of these remarks is imbedded in that context.
It would be one thing, if I were a Waldorf teacher, and having a
causual conversation with a parent, who in asking me some question about
Steiner got some kind of dismissive response, suggesting I know
something the parent did not, and that they should accept my "superior"
point of view.
But that is not the context in which the remarks I made to Peter S.
were made.
For the lurkers, let us recall the context.
This all begins with the critics-list itself, which routinely contains
inaccurate statements about Steiner, Waldorf and anthroposophy (among
other kinds of errors). I make a choice (I could choose otherwise) to
participate in the list and speak to the errors (at least for the
benefit of the lurkers).
But errors are not the only thing on this list. There is a great deal
of truth as well. Something is rotten in Waldorf and the
anthroposophical movement, and readers of my website will find these
problems discussed there in great detail and with only that kind of
accuracy an "insider" can have.
The critics-list comes into existence because of events that happened
in the lives of people, events they often did not understand, and that
often first confused them and then lead them to have deep questions
about Waldorf and anthroposophy. Harm has been done to parents and to
children, and this (something I was unaware of when I first joined this
list, but no longer doubt at all) has no excuse.
At the same time, if the critics are going to assert wrongness in
Waldorf and anthroposophy they need to get their facts right, and in
many cases they do not. So when I come here it is not to dispute the
wrongs done, but to assert that the understanding of the source of those
wrongs be correct, for it is possible (and does happen here) that
additional wrongs are done in the name of the pain and the passion
arising from the original wrongs.
Thus, discussion occurs over what really is anthroposophy, with the
critics (whose very attitude and agenda makes it unlikely they will
understand) frequently confusing normal human errors for systemic errors
in anthroposophy. The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in
Waldorf (and in the anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of
Steiner, not those who choose to set aside the own common sense (which
he asked them not to do).
As the discussion proceeds over time, questions from the critics more
and more insist that every statement I make be explained. The train of
thought (over many weeks) begins with the distinction that anthroposophy
is not a set of beliefs, but a kind of inner act, to demands that that
inner act be explained in detail. Then when I do give details
questions are asked about those processes being described at the request
of critics.
In the end then we get to a situation where it is clear that the person
asking the questions has reached a limit of their own knowledge of inner
life. This could be fine, if people would not insist they already know
everything. Peter S. could say, okay, I don't understand this. But
that is not really what is said. In fact, both Sharon's and Debra's
comments leave out what Peter S. wrote, as did Peter S. when he went to
this issue.
Here is what he said: "Why do you believe this? Do you think that you
failed to understand your own experiences before you began undertaking
concentration exercises and meditation practices?" In addition, he
preceeded this with the comment: "I followed you right up to here"
So when I reply: "I would guess that you failed to follow me at this
point because we went past your own understanding of your own
inwardness. Why don't you write out for us your own objective
understanding of your inwardness and allow us to ask you questions?",
everyone forgets the deep context and trys to interpret my approach as
some kind of put down of Peter S.
What I wrote simply acknowledges the impasse, and suggest a way out.
Peter's approach (which begins with "Why do you believe this...") is to
ask questions that a) ignore the course of the dialogue (why I know what
I know - no "belief" is involved - is clearly stated always to be based
upon personal experience; and b) which introduces facts not in evidence
("do you think you failed...") - facts which slide the dialogue off its
point and onto an entirely different subject matter.
This is of course no communication at all. The natural logic of
question and answer is destroyed by a kind of verbal trickery, which
steps outside the point under discussion to add extraneous matters
pretending as questions.
It is also very wearing to reply to this kind of questioning, which is
why (in its extreme forms) I have likened it to macarthyism. It is
possible to deflect matters away from the issues by introducing constant
irrelevant side issues, and Peter S. is a master (unconscious or
otherwise) of this form of discourse, which isn't dialogue at all.
The racism issue is one form of this extremist macarthyite type of
misdirection. For those lurkers interested in real answers to the
racist assertions, here are some urls:
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/two-mythologies.htm
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:02:08 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Joel wrote:
)Something is rotten in Waldorf and the anthroposophical movement, and
) )readers of my website will find these problems discussed there in )great
)detail and with only that kind of accuracy an "insider" can have.
Joel, here's one more question I've posed to you and never seen answered
(maybe I'm on your black list). How often and how recently have you had any
experience with Waldorf schools, and what does that experience consist of?
How long ago did you have a child in one (I know you had at least one)? Have
you ever worked in one? When your child was there, how much time did you
spend in the classrooms? In what other capacities, if any, were you involved
with any Waldorf school (volunteering, serving on the board, etc.)?
I'm trying to establish your credentials as an "insider." Are you calling
yourself an insider by virtue of being an anthroposophist? You've made an
analysis of the Waldorf movement from your anthroposophical understanding,
and have acknowledged that there are problems.
However, I'm not sure how we can call you an "insider" compared with parents
who have recently had children in these schools, or in my case, worked
there. Many of the parents here had children in Waldorf for years and were
deeply involved in the life of the schools.
But maybe I don't know what your involvement with Waldorf consists of. Would
you mind clarifying?
)confusing normal human errors for systemic errors in anthroposophy.
Of course normal human errors occur in Waldorf, as anywhere. Not every
mistake is "systemic." But even when they start as "normal human errors,"
such errors morph into systemic errors when they are excused, rationalized,
ignored, denied, or worsened (even institutionalized) by the system which
backs up the teachers, which is anthroposophy.
)The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in Waldorf (and in the
) )anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of Steiner
Beating a very dead horse with you, Joel, but most of the parents here truly
don't care if it's Steiner's fault or Jack in the Beanstalk's fault. They
care what happened to their children, and defense of Steiner in response to
this rings hollow. (Only a few of us have made any kind of attempt to
correlate the problems with the underlying philosophy, or figure out what
the heck the teacher was thinking; and even then, we don't much care whether
"anthroposophy" or "Steinerism" is to blame.)
Of course it's not Steiner's fault. Steiner's dead, rest in peace. It's the
fault of the people who continue to follow and defend Steiner on the many
points on which he was wrong.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:16:18 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: context
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2E286E373DED84958B03F82E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Diana
I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an insider. I
spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
Schule Basel). My sisters spent some more years there and my mother worked for
some years in another one. We are all not antorposopes and therefore, we were
in plenty of problems like not being fully integrated and being the target for
the antroposophes, who attacked us all sooner or later. Concerning Steiner, I
must disapoint you, because I never reat his books. I felt so bad in this
school that I never felt motivated to investigate in the thoughts of the person
who is considered as spiritual father of it or however you want to call it.
If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family was
treated, feel free to pose them.
Sandra
Diana Winters wrote:
) Joel wrote:
)
) )Something is rotten in Waldorf and the anthroposophical movement, and
) ) )readers of my website will find these problems discussed there in )great
) )detail and with only that kind of accuracy an "insider" can have.
)
) Joel, here's one more question I've posed to you and never seen answered
) (maybe I'm on your black list). How often and how recently have you had any
) experience with Waldorf schools, and what does that experience consist of?
) How long ago did you have a child in one (I know you had at least one)? Have
) you ever worked in one? When your child was there, how much time did you
) spend in the classrooms? In what other capacities, if any, were you involved
) with any Waldorf school (volunteering, serving on the board, etc.)?
)
) I'm trying to establish your credentials as an "insider." Are you calling
) yourself an insider by virtue of being an anthroposophist? You've made an
) analysis of the Waldorf movement from your anthroposophical understanding,
) and have acknowledged that there are problems.
)
) However, I'm not sure how we can call you an "insider" compared with parents
) who have recently had children in these schools, or in my case, worked
) there. Many of the parents here had children in Waldorf for years and were
) deeply involved in the life of the schools.
)
) But maybe I don't know what your involvement with Waldorf consists of. Would
) you mind clarifying?
)
) )confusing normal human errors for systemic errors in anthroposophy.
)
) Of course normal human errors occur in Waldorf, as anywhere. Not every
) mistake is "systemic." But even when they start as "normal human errors,"
) such errors morph into systemic errors when they are excused, rationalized,
) ignored, denied, or worsened (even institutionalized) by the system which
) backs up the teachers, which is anthroposophy.
)
) )The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in Waldorf (and in the
) ) )anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of Steiner
)
) Beating a very dead horse with you, Joel, but most of the parents here truly
) don't care if it's Steiner's fault or Jack in the Beanstalk's fault. They
) care what happened to their children, and defense of Steiner in response to
) this rings hollow. (Only a few of us have made any kind of attempt to
) correlate the problems with the underlying philosophy, or figure out what
) the heck the teacher was thinking; and even then, we don't much care whether
) "anthroposophy" or "Steinerism" is to blame.)
)
) Of course it's not Steiner's fault. Steiner's dead, rest in peace. It's the
) fault of the people who continue to follow and defend Steiner on the many
) points on which he was wrong.
) Diana
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
--------------2E286E373DED84958B03F82E
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="sandra.schlick.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Sandra Schlick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="sandra.schlick.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Schlick;Sandra
tel;home:061 692 20 07
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.balcab.ch/sandra.schlick/
adr:;;Sch–naustrasse 52;4058 Basel;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sandra.schlick balcab.ch
title:MAES, Dipl. Masch. Ing. HTL
x-mozilla-cpt:;3
fn:Sandra Schlick
end:vcard
--------------2E286E373DED84958B03F82E--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:03:22 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Heisenberg on Goethe (from his Wandlungen in den Grunlagen der
Naturwissenschaft - Changes in the foundations of Natural Science):
"The renouncing of life and immediacy, which was the premise for the
progress of natural science since Newton, form the real basis for the
bitter struggle which Goethe waged against the physical optics of
Newton. It would be superficial to dismiss this struggle as
unimportant: there is such significance in one of the most outstanding
men directing all of his efforts to fighting against the development of
Newtonian optics."
A. N. Whitehead (Science and the Modern World) "if science is not to
degenerate into a medly of ad hoc hypothesese, it must become
philosophical and enter upon a thorough crticism of its own foundations"
Goethe [refering to Kant in Goethe's Anschauende Urteilscraft (Intuitive
Judgement)] "It is true, the author [Kant] here seems to be pointing to
an intellect not human but divine. And yet, if in the moral sphere we
are supposed to lift ourselves up to a higher region through faith in
God, Virtue and Immortality, so drawing nearer the Primal Being, why
should it not be likewise in the intellectual? By contemplation of an
ever-creative nature, may we not make ourselves worthy to be spiritual
sharers in her productions? I at first, led by an inner urge that would
not rest, had quite unconsciously been seeking for the realm of Type and
Archetype, and my attempt has been rewarded: I have been able to build
up a description, in conformity with Nature herself."
Goethe (Nachschaffen einer immer schaffenden Natur) "every process in
nature, rightly observed, wakens in us a new organ of cognition"
Goethe (Metamorphosis of Plants) "experiences of this kind of
metamorphosis will enable us to disclose what is hidden from us in the
regular way of development, and to see clearly and visible what we
should otherwise only be able to infer."
Goethe (letter to poet Herder) "Further, I must confide to you that I am
quite close to the secret of plant creation, and that it is the simplest
thing imaginable. The ur-plant will be the strangest creature in the
world, for which nature herself should envy me. With this model and the
key to it one will be able to invent plants ad infinitum; they would be
consistent; that is to be say, though non-existing, they would be
capable of existing, being no shades or semblances of the painter or
poet, but possessing truth and necessity. The same law will be capable
of extension to all lving things."
Goethe on the method for the new organ of cognition: "exact sensorial
fantasy (Exakte sinnliche Phantasie)"
Goethe in letter to Schiller "I am glad to have ideas without knowing
it, and to see them with my very eyes."
Goethe "Microscopes and telescopes, in actual fact, confuse man's innate
clarity of mind."
Goethe "every fact is itself already theory"
Goethe "The greatest achievement would be to understand that everything
factual is already its own theory. Do no look beyond the phenomena;
they are themselves the teaching."
Goethe to his secretary Eckermann: "As for what I have done as a poet, I
take no pride in it whatever. Excellant poets have lived before me, and
others will come after me. But that in my century century I am the only
person who knows the truth in the difficult sicience of colours - of
that, I say, I am not a little proud,..."
Ernst Lehr's (Man or Matter) "While the theory of Newton and his
successors was based on excluding the colour-seeing faculty of the eye,
Goethe founded his theory on the eye's experience of colour." ... "It
was characteristic of Goethe's whole mode of procedure that he at once
changed the quesiton, 'What is colour?' into the question, 'How does
colour arise?' It was equally characteristic that he did not, as Newton
did, shut himself into a darkend room, so as to get hold of the
colour-phenomenon by means of an artificially set-up apparatus.
Instead, he turned first of all to nature, to let her give him the
answer to the questions she had raised."
Steiner, in Theory of Knowledge, on Goethe: "In his essay Nature he
[Goethe] says we are incapable of getting outside Nature. If then, we
desire to interpret Nature to ourselves in this sense, which was his, we
must find the means with Nature herself." from the the chapter
"thought".
Emerson, from his essay Nature: "Nature is the incarnation of a thought,
and turns to a thought again, as ice becomes water and gas. The world is
mind precipitated, and the volatile essence is forever escaping again
into the state of free thought."
Steiner, from Theory again: "It is really the genuine, and indeed the
truest, form of Nature, which comes to manifestation in the human mind,
whereas for a mere sense-being only Nature's external aspect would
exist. Knowledge plays here a role of world significance. It is the
conclusion of a work of creation. What takes place in human
consciousness is the interpretation of Nature to itself. Thought is the
last member in a series of processes whereby Nature is formed."
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:14:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi Charlie,
)Hi Peter,
)due to lack of time and my aversion to long posts, I've decided to split my
)reply into manageable chunks.
No problem. Sorry that my posts get long sometimes.
)I think this quote by Goethe accords quite well with Steiner's writings on
)percepts and thinking.
Yes, I think so too; the problem is that the quote accords well with any
number of different epistemological approaches. I don't see anything about
this aspect of Goethe's thinking that supports or endorses Steiner's
approach in particular.
)But I don't share your faith that any scientists
)would, in practice, agree with it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "in practice", but it's hard for me to imagine
a working scientist disagreeing with this statement: "Surely the mere
inspection of a subject can profit us but little. Every act of seeing leads
to consideration, consideration to reflection, reflection to combination..."
What is it about this passage that you think scientists would reject?
)Not in the recent past anyway. A year or
)two ago I read an article about pioneering surgery carried out on adults
)who
)had been blind from birth. The experts were surprised to witness the
)chaotic
)and disjointed nature of these peoples new found visual perception. At
)first
)they could not even recognise basic geometric shapes without handling them.
)This would have come as no surprise to the experts if their understanding
)of
)perception and thinking was the same as Goethe's and Steiner's.
I don't see how anybody's understanding of perception and thinking could
have foretold the results of a new procedure such as this. Do you think that
the "experts" mentioned above were beholden to a method of "mere
inspection"?
)Critics of both Goethe and Steiner have called their approach to knowledge
)subjective. They would both have disagreed with this view.
Yes, but that is beside the point. Steiner's approach was, in fact,
subjective (or do you disagree with that?), while Goethe's wasn't.
)Goethe wished to stay within the experience as much as he could. In his
)opinion abstract speculation would only lead him away from the reality that
)thorough observation brings. That is why he was so opposed to the colour
)theory based on Newton's experiments.
I agree with your first two sentences, but I don't agree that this explains
Goethe's hostility to Newton.
)I would say that Steiner considered his own world conception to be in
)agreement with Goethe's in this respect. He claimed that his teachings were
)taken from personal experience.
Sure, but that's a pretty superficial form of agreement.
)He did not speak of a theoretical spiritual
)world out there somewhere, but of a world he experienced.
The early Steiner didn't speak of a spiritual world at all.
)Now you may say Steiner's spiritual experiences are all subjective
)nonsense.
)But this is also what has been said about Goethe's Urpflanze. Are you now
)beginning to see any similarities between their outlooks?
No, beyond the insignificant fact that both attracted their share of
critics. The problem with Goethe's proto-plant concept isn't that it is
subjectivist (it isn't), but that it offers an account of botanical and
evolutionary phenomena that has since been convincingly falsified.
)Both men treated
)as objective fact what others claimed to be just something in their
)respective minds.
I suppose so, but I don't see what this has to do with their respective
epistemologies. You might as well say that Steiner and Plato held the same
position. If you don't agree that Steiner's approach to knowledge strongly
emphasizes the subjective factor, and that it can accurately be described as
subjectivist, could you explain why?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:27:41 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Sandra wrote:
)I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an )insider.
)I spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
)Schule Basel).
Yup, you are certainly an insider! We have parents posting here more often
than students, but it is great to hear from Waldorf students and former
students too. The ultimate insiders, way more so than parents, who even if
working or volunteering at the school extensively, don't usually spend *all
day* there, five days a week for years (I did so for a couple of years).
So please, do tell us more!
)If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family )was
)treated, feel free to pose them.
I am sure everyone here would be interested in whatever experiences or
details you are most interested in relating, good or bad. Personally, I'm
always most curious about the academics - how or when you learned to read
and write, what you remember about class work and homework. Did you ever
write book reports? Do a science project? Were you encouraged to read and
write? To pursue subjects you were interested in? What were class
discussions like? That sort of thing. I'm making a bit of a study of these
problems in Waldorf, but that's just my thing. Talk about whatever you are
most interested in talking about! Glad you are here.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:28:55 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Sandra wrote:
)I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an )insider.
)I spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
)Schule Basel).
Yup, you are certainly an insider! We have parents posting here more often
than students, but it is great to hear from Waldorf students and former
students too. The ultimate insiders, way more so than parents, who even if
working or volunteering at the school extensively, don't usually spend *all
day* there, five days a week for years (I did so for a couple of years).
So please, do tell us more!
)If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family )was
)treated, feel free to pose them.
I am sure everyone here would be interested in whatever experiences or
details you are most interested in relating, good or bad. Personally, I'm
always most curious about the academics - how or when you learned to read
and write, what you remember about class work and homework. Did you ever
write book reports? Do a science project? Were you encouraged to read and
write? To pursue subjects you were interested in? What were class
discussions like? That sort of thing. I'm making a bit of a study of these
problems in Waldorf, but that's just my thing. Talk about whatever you are
most interested in talking about! Glad you are here.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:30:00 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Sandra wrote:
)I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an )insider.
)I spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
)Schule Basel).
Yup, you are certainly an insider! We have parents posting here more often
than students, but it is great to hear from Waldorf students and former
students too. The ultimate insiders, way more so than parents, who even if
working or volunteering at the school extensively, don't usually spend *all
day* there, five days a week for years (I did so for a couple of years).
So please, do tell us more!
)If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family )was
)treated, feel free to pose them.
I am sure everyone here would be interested in whatever experiences or
details you are most interested in relating, good or bad. Personally, I'm
always most curious about the academics - how or when you learned to read
and write, what you remember about class work and homework. Did you ever
write book reports? Do a science project? Were you encouraged to read and
write? To pursue subjects you were interested in? What were class
discussions like? That sort of thing. I'm making a bit of a study of these
problems in Waldorf, but that's just my thing. Talk about whatever you are
most interested in talking about! Glad you are here.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:32:40 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Sandra wrote:
)I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an )insider.
)I spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
)Schule Basel).
Yup, you are certainly an insider! We have parents posting here more often
than students, but it is great to hear from Waldorf students and former
students too. The ultimate insiders, way more so than parents, who even if
working or volunteering at the school extensively, don't usually spend *all
day* there, five days a week for years (I did so for a couple of years).
So please, do tell us more!
)If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family )was
)treated, feel free to pose them.
I am sure everyone here would be interested in whatever experiences or
details you are most interested in relating, good or bad. Personally, I'm
always most curious about the academics - how or when you learned to read
and write, what you remember about class work and homework. Did you ever
write book reports? Do a science project? Were you encouraged to read and
write? To pursue subjects you were interested in? What were class
discussions like? That sort of thing. I'm making a bit of a study of these
problems in Waldorf, but that's just my thing. Talk about whatever you are
most interested in talking about! Glad you are here.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:41:26 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi again Charlie,
)He doesn't have to mention "higher worlds" directly in "The Theory of
)Knowledge". If you begin to understand what he is saying, it leads you )to
)the higher worlds.
I can see that you, Joel, and others think that this book (among other
things) has lead you to the higher worlds, but I don't see anything at all
in the book itself that suggests this outcome. Why didn't it lead the young
Steiner himself to higher worlds? Can you point to some passages in
particular that helped you reach the higher worlds?
)Have you read "The Philosophy of Freedom"? Half a dozen pages at the )end
)of chapter 7 is taken up expounding on metaphysical realism.
Yes, in order to reject it as a form of dualism. Steiner says there that
metaphysical realism mistakes cognitive processes for metaphysical ones. In
contrast to this view, he posits his own version of monism, and explains:
"Monism never finds it necessary to ask for any principles of explanation
for reality other than percepts and concepts. It knows that in the whole
field of reality there is no occasion for this question. In the perceptual
world, as it presents itself directly to perception, it sees one half of the
reality; in the union of this world with the world of concepts it finds the
full reality." Do you read this chapter differently?
)Peter S:
)The later Steiner does say that "higher worlds" direct the goings-on in
)this
)world. Sometimes he says that what we experience in this world "reflects"
)the hidden processes in the higher worlds. Are you disputing this?
)
)Charlie M replies:
)Certainly not, but for him the higher worlds were part of his )experience.
Not in 1886 they weren't.
)And as time went by he gained more experience and knowledge about this
)world. As the early Steiner said in "Theory of Knowledge" "..our mind is
)not
)to be conceived as a receptacle for the ideal world, containing the
)thoughts
)within itself, but as an organ which perceives the thoughts." thoughts
) )that have a real existence in the higher worlds.
That isn't what he says in the sentence you just quoted. He is talking about
thoughts that have a real existence in this world, in the here and now, in
human interactions with the world of sensory perception. He says absolutely
nothing at all about any higher worlds.
)I'll try to explain my thoughts on the 'higher worlds'. Earthworms know
)nothing of oceans and clouds and the rain that falls on them. The're
)oblivious to the mind of a mole or the process in making a garden spade.
)Yet
)they are a necessary part of our world, we interact with them and they with
)us. We are like the worms in relation to the higher reality.
I don't think you mean that. Earthworms are constitutionally incapable of
knowing about oceans, clouds and so forth. But you think that people are
constitutionally capable of knowing about the higher reality. Thus the gulf
between "lower" and "higher" worlds is, in your conception, simultaneously
too broad and too narrow for the rest of us to take seriously.
)He always opposed mediumistic spiritualism. And I'm sure there were a lot
)of
)theosophists involved in this.
No, no, quite the contrary. While there was some early personal overlap
(long before Steiner began writing about theosophy), the theosophists
defined themselves precisely in opposition to mediumistic spiritualism.
)He maintained that it was imperative that any
)clairvoyance be in full self conscious awareness.
That's what the later Steiner maintained, post-1900. In 1897 he maintained
that clairvoyance as such was impossible. The article I'm referring to is
entitled "Theosophen" and was published in Steiner's own journal Magazin
fuer Literatur; it can be found in GA 32, pp. 194-6. I don't know of any
translation into English.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:44:09 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: content versus method
Joel writes:
)what I do is treat folks the way they treat me (its called )mirroring).
It's called juvenile, Joel. Get over it.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 20:47:42 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: No black list, Joel?
Joel,
You wrote: "You get on my delete list when reading your writing becomes
a complete waste of time because it: a) never really says anything; and,
b) raises its level of name calling to extremes (child abuser,
megalomaniac)."
Ad a) I am glad some people on this list don't agree with you.
Ad b) When exactly did I call you a "child abuser" and a "megalomaniac"?
I can imagine having used the second word, but I don't recall having
used the word "child abuser". Can you help me out?
You wrote: "Actually you've got it wrong (again!), but I am not
surprised."
Where exactly was I wrong? You don't have a black list (but a delete
list)? You are not calling critics "macarthyists"?
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 15:44:50 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: context
Diana Winters wrote: asking to know in more detail about my actual
"waldorf" experience, which is a question that should be answered.
1977-82: Berkeley California: participated in several discussion groups
of possible parents and supporters concerning the founding of a WS in
Berkeley.
During this period I was heavily reading Steiner lectures: on education
these are the ones:
Discussions with Teachers; The Kingdom of Childhood; The Education of
the Child; The Study of Man; Practical Advice to Teachers; The
Essentials of Education; The Roots of Education; Soul Economy and
Waldorf Education; also read M. Spock's Teaching as a Lively Art, and
something by M.C. Richards (can't remember name) Also a lot of other
books which contained Steiner material filling out the whole
conceptions. Read a lot of Goethean Science and everything Steiner
wrote on the social that I could get my hands on.
1982-1985 Fair Oaks CA: When my eldest daughter Doren found out about
Waldorf (she was 15), we moved to Sacramento where she went to the High
School (last two years, graduated National Honor Society). At the same
time I was not only involved as a school parent but my second wife (not
Doren's mom) was taking the foundation year at Rudolf Steiner College,
where I was also deeply involved. I knew personally Betty Staley, David
Alsop, Rene Querido et all.
In High School, as you know, there is not just one class room teacher,
but many. I knew all Doren's teachers, but was not in class even once,
unless we were invited. At the same time I observed my daughter, and
was involved in all her school work (I've been trying to get her to drag
her main lesson books out of storage so I could use them in home
schooling Gabriella (age 13). My questions, to the extent I had them,
were all satisfied since my daughter clearly found this experience far
superior to her public school experiences in Berkeley, and blossomed
intellectually. By the way, her whole graduating class went to college
(13 in number, 8 of whom had been together since kindergarden).
1988-1994 (and beyond, because I still live here, but those were the
years my son was at) Pine Hill Waldorf School (K-8), in Wilton NH, which
is a mile away from High Mowing, the 60 year old Waldorf High School
specializing in boarding students from all over the world. I was very
active in the School, and the related AS activities locally (including
the bio-dynamic farm, the medical practice etc).
We were quite fortunate to have a very experienced male teacher for
Adam, a man who was on his third class, and was considered a master
teacher (he had been teaching in Hawaii, and was heavly recruited by
several Waldorf Schools. He and his wife were having children of their
own, and had decided on New Hampshire and the Pine Hill/High Mowing
nexus as the place to raise theirs. I won't go into how this crashed,
since the last time I shared this I was abused on this list for what I
said. At the time, I did not consider Pine Hill to have problems of the
kind that appeared on this list. Once a year the teacher did have the
parents in for a day, and I frequently was at the school for other
reasons.
I have never been on a board, and at Pine Hill actually fought with the
Board and the College of Teachers over tuition and related issues,
particularly the social problems involved (which was my avocation) In
this I was not any kind of leader, but more of a thinker, offering
material in essays in the parent newsletter called The Forum. I was
acquainted with Neil F. who sometimes posts here (hi Neil).
Since spiritual experience was an aspect of my life from even before
discovering Steiner and Waldorf, there was no reason for me to be
suspicious of Waldorf on that basis. However, as I met different
teachers and members of the anthrosophical society that were living
Steiner's teachings in a very dogmatic and thoughtless way, many
questions began to arise in me. So before I ever came to the critics
list, I knew the root systems of Waldorf had problems (I was aware of
problems at Steiner College when I was there). But up until the critics
list I had never encountered parents whose experiences were as intense
as those I have met here. I did know unhappy parents at Pine Hill, but
the main disagreements were over power in the social realm (not the
pedegogy), and those experiences led to my essay (written by the way at
the behest of a Waldorf parent) about the Social Spiritual Organism of a
Waldorf School Community.
I suspect, but have no basis in fact for knowing this, that had I been a
woman, my experiences might have been different. In my life I have
found that women in groups say things to each other they do not say to
their husbands or in mixed groups. Also women tend to being more
sensitive to nuances of a certain kind with their children, especially
the younger ones - almost as if the mother and child remain united for a
long period of time. In the raising of my children, it has been clear
that true fathering had more to do with older stages of development.
Before these the father shared the work, but his soul forces were not so
necessary as they become later. Now before someone gets all bent out of
shape, yes I do think fathers nuture, and hold, and do a lot in how they
play with the children, and set limits and teach etc etc etc, but at the
same time male and female are not the same, and the mother is the mother
for good reason, while the father is the father for other good reasons.
I think I've told this story before, but it bears occasional repeating.
When my then wife was at RSC, all the women there were having problems
with the monthly cycles, some quite severe. I had some conversations
with others about this, and I concluded that they were being pushed too
much into an intellectual approach (too much head), so that the lower
pole became disturbed (for example, in the Foundation Year, they read
the Philosophy of Freedom in four weeks, giving (in my view) serious
indigestion to the soul). My concern was that if RSC was attempting to
train teachers in a process of education that was to by hygenic (the
claim), then how come the training itself was clearly not hygenic.
I also have a certain kind of approach to life, that not everyone has,
but which certainly affects how I related to all my children's school
experiences. I really wasn't into judging teachers, knowing from
experience that this is one of most difficult and thankless jobs on the
planet. Parents who stuck their nose in teachers business turned me
off. I was more interested in my children, toward whom I directed a lot
of attention. If there was a school problem, I didn't harass the
teacher to try to solve it, but sought other methods. Sometimes this
just meant peacemaking between my child and the teacher, or with other
students.
As the children got into their last years (15-18) I more and more
approached them as adults in becoming and that where they were making
decisions they needed to be responsible for them. I experienced this
just being born taking responsibility/making decisions faculty as very
important and in need of a great deal of nurturing and care. My effort
was to see that it developed in a way that it could stand on its own,
and experience itself as independent of me as a parent. It wasn't what
I wanted them to be that was central, but who they wanted to be.
I had seen previously (in a spiritual way) that the moral center of a
human being thrived in freedom, and was killed by outside enforced
rules, so as my children developed their own moral natures in the
thinking emerging in adolescence, my approach was to give this
development room to emerge and discover itself and acquire confidence in
itself through the experience of having to deal with the consequences of
choices. So in those years, I less and less made them do what I thought
was right, but more and more stood by (holding their hands, and keeping
them company) while they tried out doing what they thought was right.
Doren once remarked that it was really weird because it was so different
from her peers, while at the same time, she wouldn't have had it any
other way. I knew, of course, that once they left home I could no
longer nuture their developing individual moral center (learning to
trust their heart knowledge), so I endeavored to work with it
intensively during the time they were still under my care.
I considered the intellectual learning in school to be secondary to
this, so I didn't really fight to have school be other than what it was,
in all its various kinds of light and darkness. So I did my fathering,
and the teachers did their schooling.
It was also my understanding (again based upon spiritual experience)
that the main way I, as a individual, could awaken the moral center was
not with words, but with deeds. So a lot depended upon how I conducted
myself in front of my children, and most especially, how I treated them.
My actions, toward them and others, would teach much more than anything
I said.
I now wait for the first critic to find this whole thing to be some kind
of horrible abuse.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 20:21:26 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: Scaligero vs. racism
Scaligero never signed the petition!
And "that great mistake" (sentii il dovere do intervenire, perche' quel
grosso errore fosse il meno nocivo possibile) refers to the outbrake of
racism.
BTW, the word 'race' is still in use in our world. Maybe in near future
the only race word to remain in use will be RACE (rapid amplification of
cDNA end), but for now....
Would you like to update the word 'race' witha term as 'ethnic group'
in all texts?
As for Scaligero's opinion on
) racism: "I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
) distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
) from the race." Note that he is not denying the existence of races as
) such.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Am J Epidemiol 2001 Aug 15;154(4):291-8
Commentary: considerations for use of racial/ethnic classification in
etiologic research.
Kaufman JS, Cooper RS.
Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of
Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Numerous authors have critiqued the use of race as an etiologic quantity
in medical research. Despite this criticism,the use of variables
encoding racial/ethnic categorization has increased in epidemiology, and
most researchers agree that important variation in disease risk is
captured by this classification system. Previous discussions have
generally neglected to articulate guidelines for appropriate use of
racial/ethnic information in etiologic research.
The authors summarize the logical, conceptual, and practical problems
associated with the "ethnic paradigm" as currently applied in biomedical
sciences and offer a set of methodological recommendations toward more
valid use
of racial/ethnic classification in etiologic studies. These suggested
guidelines address issues of variable definition, study design, and
covariate control, providing a consistent foundation for etiologic
research programs that neitherignore racial/ethnic disease disparities
nor obfuscate the nature of these disparities through inappropriate
analytical approaches. This methodological analysis of racial/ethnic
classification as an epidemiologic quantity provides a
formal basis for a focus on racism (i.e., social relations) rather than
race (i.e., innate biologic predisposition) in the interpretation of
racial/ethnic "effects."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BMC Public Health 2002;2(1):1
Reliability of race assessment based on the race of the ascendants: a
cross-sectional study.
Fuchs SC, Guimaraes SM, Sortica C, Wainberg F, Dias KO, Ughini M, Castro
JA, Fuchs FD.
Department of Social Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. scfuchs zaz.com.br
BACKGROUND: Race is commonly described in epidemiological surveys based
on phenotypic characteristics. Training of interviewers to identify race
is time-consuming and self identification of race might be difficult to
interpret. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement between
race definition based on the number of ascendants with black skin
colour, with the self-assessment and observer's assessment of the skin
colour.
METHODS.: In a cross-sectional study of 50 women aged 14 years or older,
from an outpatient clinic of an University affiliated hospital, race was
assessed through observation and the self-assignment of the colour of
skin and by the number of black ascendants including parents and
grandparents. Reliability was measured through Kappa coefficient.
RESULTS.: Agreement beyond chance between self-assigned and observed
skin colour was excellent for white (0.75 95% CI 0.72--0.78) and black
women (0.89 95% CI 0.71--0.79), but only good for participants with
mixed colour (0.61 95% CI 0.58--0.64), resulting in a global kappa of
0.75 (95% CI0.71--0.79). However, only a good agreement for mixed women
was obtained. The presence of 3 or more black ascendants was highly
associated with observed and self-assessed black skin colour. Most women
self-assigned or observed as white had no black ascendants.
CONCLUSIONS.: The assessment of race based on the race of ascendants
showed reasonable agreement with the ascertainment done by trained
interviewers and with the self-report of race. This method may be
considered for evaluation of race in epidemiological surveys, since it
is less time-consuming than the evaluation by interviewers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nutrition 2002 Feb;18(2):153-167
Impedance vector distribution by sex, race, body mass index, and age in
the United States: standard reference intervals as bivariate Z scores.
Piccoli A, Pillon L, Dumler F.
a Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Padova,
Padova, Italy
b Division of Nephrology, University of California, San Francisco,
California, USA
c Division of Nephrology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak,
Michigan, USA
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Padova,
Padova, Italy Bioelectrical impedance measurements were collected in the
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), but
their results have not been published. In the NHANES III population,
resistance (R) and reactance (Xc) values at 50-kHz frequency were
obtained with a Valhalla Scientific meter (model 1990B; San Diego, CA,
USA). The RXc graph method was used to identify bivariate pattern
distributions of mean vectors (95% confidence ellipses by sex, race,
age, and body mass index [BMI]), and individual impedance vectors (50%,
75%, and 95% tolerance ellipses). Data from 10 222 adults (5261 men and
4961 women) formed 90four-way classification groups, with two sexes,
three races or ethnicities (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black,
Mexican American), five age classes (20--29, 30--39, 40--49, 50--59, and
60--69 y), and three BMI classes (19--24.9, 25--29.9, and 30--34.9
kg/m(2)). Sex, race or ethnicity, BMI and age, in decreasing order,
influenced the vector distribution pattern. Mean vectors in women were
significantly longer than those in men.
Within each sex, the mean vector of non-Hispanic white subjects was
shorter and with a smaller phase angle than that of corresponding BMIs
from the two other race/ethnic populations. Tolerance ellipses were
calculated from sex- and race-specific reference populations 20 to 69 y
old and 19 [less-than-or-equal] BMI ( 30 kg/m(2) (8022 subjects, 4226
men and 3796 women). After transformation of impedance vector components
into bivariate Z scores (standardized deviates, as differences from the
mean divided by the standard deviation of the reference population), we
constructed one standard, reference, RXc-score graph (50%, 75%, and 95%
tolerance ellipses) that can be used with any analyzer in any
population. The pattern of impedance vector distribution and reference
bivariate intervals for the individual impedance vector are presented
for comparative studies (free software at
PMID: 11844647 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oncology (Huntingt) 2002 Jan;16(1):108-12; discussion 113, 118-9
Race and cancer genetics: lessons from BRCA1.
Hoffman LK.
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
lcklein jhmi.edu
The effect of a patient's race or ethnicity on cancer incidence and
mortality rates remains a neglected area of cancer research. However,
with cancer statistics differing among various populations, research on
racial and ethnic groups could provide clues to cancer trends.
Definitions of ethnicity and/or race need to be established and
standardizedfor use in study protocols. Accordingly, all research on
ethnic groups must address two questions: (1)
When is genetic research on a population appropriate? (2) How should
researchers define a given population being studied?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Violence Vict 2001 Dec;16(6):591-606
Exploring racial variations in the spousal sex ratio of killing.
Regoeczi W C.
Cleveland State University, Department of Sociology, OH 44114-4435, USA.
The following article examines differences in the social situation of
intimate partners as an explanation of racial differences in the female
to male ratio of spousal homicides in Canada. An analysis of homicide
data from 1961 to 1983 generated by the Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics reveals that the ratio of women killing their husbands to men
killing their wives is highest for Aboriginals and lowest for Blacks,
with the ratio for Whites falling in between. The possible sources of
racial differences in this ratio include the proportion of couples (a)
in common-law relationships, (b) who are co-residing as opposed to being
separated, and (c) for whom there is a substantial age disparity between
the partners. These factors are related to the spousal sex ratio of
killing more generally. An exploration of interracial homicide patterns
and racial variation in jealousy-motivated homicides was also
undertaken. The findings reveal that controlling for the above factors
substantially reduces the importance of race in predicting the gender of
the homicide victim.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:47:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Hi Joel, you wrote:
)But as usual with the critics-list, people
)forget the context and the course of development, and take remarks
)outside of their natural environment, forgetting that the whole meaning
)of these remarks is imbedded in that context.
Surely not the whole meaning. Otherwise fragments would be completely
indecipherable. But I agree that it's best to consider arguments within
their context when possible.
)It would be one thing, if I were a Waldorf teacher, and having a
)causual conversation with a parent, who in asking me some question about
)Steiner got some kind of dismissive response, suggesting I know
)something the parent did not, and that they should accept my "superior"
)point of view.
Your faux superiority isn't the problem, Joel. You are welcome to feel
superior to me in any way that is important to you. The problem is your
aversion to conversation as such and your unwillingness to state and explain
your point of view.
)This all begins with the critics-list itself, which routinely contains
)inaccurate statements about Steiner, Waldorf and anthroposophy (among
)other kinds of errors).
Could you give an example or two so the rest of us will know what you have
in mind?
)I make a choice (I could choose otherwise) to
)participate in the list and speak to the errors (at least for the
)benefit of the lurkers).
You haven't spoken to any errors lately. When Peter F or Sharon, for
example, offer interpretations of anthroposophist precepts that differ from
your own interpretations, their interpretations do not thereby count as
"errors". In order for you to show them to be erroneous, you need to offer
arguments and evidence in favor of your own interpretations, not merely
repeat your own interpretations. Why are you reluctant to do this?
)At the same time, if the critics are going to assert wrongness in
)Waldorf and anthroposophy they need to get their facts right, and in
)many cases they do not.
Which cases are those?
)Thus, discussion occurs over what really is anthroposophy
Yes, but you haven't engaged in this discussion. Your position that
"anthroposophy" is a pure method devoid of content is intellectually facile.
When the rest of us point that out to you, you have nothing else to say. Why
not? How do you expect a discussion to include your point of view if you
offer no arguments in favor of it?
)the
)critics (whose very attitude and agenda makes it unlikely they will
)understand)
Because critical thinking is a hindrance to finding spiritual truth?
)The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in
)Waldorf (and in the anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of
)Steiner
Can you point to a single critic who holds this view?
)As the discussion proceeds over time, questions from the critics more
)and more insist that every statement I make be explained.
Gosh, that must be rough, having to explain what you mean to people who
can't read your mind. When will those silly critics finally learn some
clairvoyance?
)The train of
)thought (over many weeks) begins with the distinction that anthroposophy
)is not a set of beliefs, but a kind of inner act, to demands that that
)inner act be explained in detail.
You only need to explain this is you want other people to understand your
position and assess it. If you don't want that, what are you doing here?
)In the end then we get to a situation where it is clear that the person
)asking the questions has reached a limit of their own knowledge of )inner
)life.
Nobody else here is interested in your inner life, and there is no reason
for you to be interested in ours. We're here to discuss Waldorf and
anthroposophy.
)This could be fine, if people would not insist they already know
)everything.
Nobody insists this.
)Peter S. could say, okay, I don't understand this.
I say that all the time, particularly in response to you.
)But that is not really what is said.
Yes, it is. Here is an example: Joel, when you talk about "the invisible
world", I don't understand what you mean. Could you give me a reason not to
conclude that you are deluded in thinking you have unique access to this
world?
)In fact, both Sharon's and Debra's
)comments leave out what Peter S. wrote, as did Peter S. when he went to
)this issue.
That's because you had just quoted it one post previously in this thread.
You remember threads, Joel? That's how they work. Anybody reading this has
already read what I wrote, and read your quoting what I wrote.
)Here is what he said: "Why do you believe this? Do you think that you
)failed to understand your own experiences before you began undertaking
)concentration exercises and meditation practices?"
Yep, that's what I asked you. Care to answer?
)So when I reply: "I would guess that you failed to follow me at this
)point because we went past your own understanding of your own
)inwardness. Why don't you write out for us your own objective
)understanding of your inwardness and allow us to ask you questions?",
)everyone forgets the deep context and trys to interpret my approach as
)some kind of put down of Peter S.
I didn't interpret it as a put down. You are more than welcome to use put
downs with me. What you did above wasn't a put down, it was avoiding the
question. You're still avoiding the question. How come?
)What I wrote simply acknowledges the impasse, and suggest a way out.
What impasse?
)Peter's approach (which begins with "Why do you believe this...") is to
)ask questions that a) ignore the course of the dialogue (why I know )what I
)know - no "belief" is involved
I'm not ignoring that, I am denying it. Much of what you claim to know is
simply unfounded belief.
)- is clearly stated always to be based
)upon personal experience;
Why would that make the slightest difference?
)and b) which introduces facts not in evidence
)("do you think you failed...")
That's a question, Joel. I asked "do you think you failed...", I didn't
state it as a fact.
)- facts which slide the dialogue off its
)point and onto an entirely different subject matter.
The subject matter you posted originally was all about how certain exercises
are necessary in order to understand one's own experiences. My question to
you was addressed squarely to that very subject, and did not introduce any
new subject matter.
)This is of course no communication at all.
True, because you refuse to communicate your ideas to the rest of us. Are
you scared of something or other?
)The natural logic of
)question and answer is destroyed by a kind of verbal trickery, which
)steps outside the point under discussion to add extraneous matters
)pretending as questions.
What you describe is a perfectly reasonable appraoch to question and answer
dialogue -- there is nothing at all wrong with introducing extraneous
matters. But this is all quite beside the point, since everyone can see that
I haven't done what you just said I did. My question, the one you yourself
have quoted twice now, is a simple and direct question that is very specific
to your own previous statement; it does not introduce any extraneous
matters. Could you maybe try reading over our exchange again?
)It is also very wearing to reply to this kind of questioning
How would you know? You haven't even tried yet.
)which is
)why (in its extreme forms) I have likened it to macarthyism.
That's because you don't have the faintest idea what McCarthyism was. You
seem to think that Joe McCarthy was just some annoyingly persistent guy who
made a nuisance of himself by asking too many questions.
)The racism issue is one form of this extremist macarthyite type of
)misdirection.
"The racism issue"? You think anyone who uses the term "racism" is a
McCarthyite? Or anyone who inquires about whether talk of "Aryans" and
"lower racial forms" etc might be racist? Or anyone who wonders why you
think that Native Americans are incapable of meeting "the further demands of
evolution"? Is there any sort of discussion of racism that you *do* consider
appropriate?
)For those lurkers interested in real answers to the
)racist assertions, here are some urls:
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/two-mythologies.htm
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
Once again, I heartily second this recommendation. If you visit Sune's site,
you will learn, among many other very interesting things, that Sune believes
I forged a Steiner text that Sune himself has posted to his site (thus
evidently making himself complicit in the forgery). More interesting still,
you will learn that Sune believes that "Anthroposophy does not use the term
and concept 'Aryan root race' to describe and refer to human evolution since
the last ice ages", thereby showing that Sune hasn't read the Steiner texts
he has posted at his website. This, dear lurkers, is the sort of thing Joel
considers "real answers". I do hope you will check out the sites above.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:59:31 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Thanks for the quotes, Joel. I don't see what they have to do with the
question of whether Steiner's early epistemology is "implicit" in Goethe's
approach to scientific research. Your two quotes from Steiner's book on that
topic read:
)Steiner, in Theory of Knowledge, on Goethe: "In his essay Nature he
)[Goethe] says we are incapable of getting outside Nature. If then, we
)desire to interpret Nature to ourselves in this sense, which was his, )we
)must find the means with Nature herself." from the the chapter
)"thought".
)Steiner, from Theory again: "It is really the genuine, and indeed the
)truest, form of Nature, which comes to manifestation in the human mind,
)whereas for a mere sense-being only Nature's external aspect would
)exist. Knowledge plays here a role of world significance. It is the
)conclusion of a work of creation. What takes place in human
)consciousness is the interpretation of Nature to itself. Thought is the
)last member in a series of processes whereby Nature is formed."
The first quote is so general that nobody could disagree with it. The second
quote has nothing to do with Goethe. We all agree that Steiner really liked
Goethe; the question is, were there important similarities between their two
approaches to knowledge?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 15:33:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Scaligero vs. racism
Percedol writes:
)Scaligero never signed the petition!
Thanks for clarifying. Can you give us a source for this claim? And can you
tell us if, in your opinion, Scaligero was not among the "Italian
personalities who openly sided the racial measures of the regime"?
)And "that great mistake" (sentii il dovere do intervenire, perche' quel
)grosso errore fosse il meno nocivo possibile) refers to the outbrake of
)racism.
Yes, I understood that. Calling this a "great mistake" decades later is not
at all the same thing as having recognized it as such at the time.
)BTW, the word 'race' is still in use in our world.
Indeed it is. I use it quite frequently myself.
)Maybe in near future
)the only race word to remain in use will be RACE (rapid amplification )of
)cDNA end), but for now....
For now it is clear that all races are purely social constructs. There is no
such thing as a white race or a black race, much less an Aryan race or a
Lemurian race, either biologically or spiritually. They exist as invented
categories which have been invested with social meanings.
)Would you like to update the word 'race' witha term as 'ethnic group'
)in all texts?
No. Why do you ask? The problem with people like Scaligero and Steiner
wasn't that they used the term "race", but that they gave it a racist
meaning and made their racism central to their belief system.
) As for Scaligero's opinion on
) ) racism: "I consider it a mental error due to the incapability to
) ) distinguish, within consciousness, the inner element that is independent
) ) from the race." Note that he is not denying the existence of races as
) ) such.
I don't deny their existence either, I deny the specific kinds of existence
that Steiner and Scaligero imputed to them. I deny that what we call races
have any meaningful characteristics in either a biological or spiritual
sense. But racial terms and categories will remain necessary as long as we
live in a racist society.
)Numerous authors have critiqued the use of race as an etiologic quantity
)in medical research. Despite this criticism,the use of variables
)encoding racial/ethnic categorization has increased in epidemiology, and
)most researchers agree that important variation in disease risk is
)captured by this classification system.
That's because this system usefully correlates heritable factors in disease.
Since race has no genetic basis, this system is not based on racial
classification in the sense you and I have been using. If that claim
surprises you, I recommend you consult a current textbook in genetics. Also,
perhaps you should re-read the final sentence of your own quoted summary:
)This methodological analysis of racial/ethnic
)classification as an epidemiologic quantity provides a
)formal basis for a focus on racism (i.e., social relations) rather than
)race (i.e., innate biologic predisposition) in the interpretation of
)racial/ethnic "effects."
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:46:13 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: context
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------C63CA8B001F636C6209910D5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
OK, but you won't like what I have to say. See my comments interlaced below.
Diana Winters wrote:
) Sandra wrote:
) )I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an )insider.
) )I spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
) )Schule Basel).
)
) Yup, you are certainly an insider! We have parents posting here more often
) than students, but it is great to hear from Waldorf students and former
) students too. The ultimate insiders, way more so than parents, who even if
) working or volunteering at the school extensively, don't usually spend *all
) day* there, five days a week for years (I did so for a couple of years).
)
) So please, do tell us more!
)
) )If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family )was
) )treated, feel free to pose them.
)
) I am sure everyone here would be interested in whatever experiences or
) details you are most interested in relating, good or bad. Personally, I'm
) always most curious about the academics - how or when you learned to read
) and write,
I started to discover reading when I was 4, but my school teachers didn't like
that. I was lefthanded and forced to write with my right hand. Thats why I
started to write letters vice versa. So, I think, I got problems with writing
because of the teaching... We were tought the big letters in the first class (7
years) and the small ones in the second (8 years).
) what you remember about class work and homework.
We mostly recitited poems. Homework was to draw or to learn poems by heart. In
religion, we were indoctrinated by the antroposophic believe.
) Did you ever write book reports?
We had to draw and learn by hear. When we were tought special topics like how
to do farm work we did some reports. Often, we did things with the hand, like
the farm work. We were also tought language starting with the 1st year of
school, but mostly to do poems, not real language teaching.
) Do a science project?
We had later physics, but you must imagine, that we had in 12 topics the same
teacher, so, our understanding of natural sciences was very bad. What was very
bad from my point of view was math. I started with math also at 4 because of my
older systers. When I changed school to a statal school with 14 I was only
tought how to calculate broken numbers bat I had not the slightest idea of
algebra or of vector geometry neither of geometry.
) Were you encouraged to read and
) write?
As said, I was not at all encouraged. Another story, which I already posted
here was, that I reat Hermann Hesse at 12 and my teacher (always the same as we
had him in 12 topics) found me while a camp with this book. He forbid me to
read further and as a punishment for reading, I had to clean his room. One of
my systers was also found with a book while class and punished.
) To pursue subjects you were interested in?
Thats something, which hurts me even now, which is more than 20 years later: I
prepared a speach about China, as we had to do our own investigations. I
researched several month about it and was really fond of doing my speach. As I
had notices with me for not to forget anything what I wanted to say, the
teacher stopped me after 2 or 3 sentences and told me, that he wouldn't want to
hear that (in front of the whole class). In stead of that, I would have to
prepare another speach about Hans Holbein the younger and speak freely. I was
given 2 weeks for that. Needless to say how much I was motivated then and
needless to say that I learned again something by heart which is not at all
necessary.
) What were class discussions like?
Thats contradictory. The teacher spoke about his opinion and nobody was allowed
to say anything. About 1 year after I had changed school, I visited my old
class. There was now a new teacher. He told us, that drugs are bad and that
most people who try marihouana will end up with hard drugs. I contradicted (the
only one who did that). He interrupted me, didn't let me speak out, and later
it was said, that I went to visit school to just talk stupid things. We had
lots of discussions in this fashion. The teacher told something and we listened
and had to adapt it. It was strictly forbidden to contradict and while I was in
that School, I wouldn't have risked to do that, but after my change and my
positive experience in "normal" School, I thought, to tell the own opinion is
normal and did it. I hadn't learned that in Waldorf School.
Further: We had 1 test in math in 8 years. The teacher walked around and gave
the right answers to the ones who were not able to solve the test.
We had also to stand in the corner when we disobeyed. Physical punishment was
also "normal" in Waldorf School, my syster received one and she told it to us
at home. My mother called her teacher and he admitted it and explained, that my
syster had diserved it, because she had looked so sad!!!!!
What was also very bad was, that from time to time, the teacher picked out one
of us and embarrased him publicly. I was one of his victims. He told me, that I
wouldn't have any courage, no backbone and things like that, that I was a
coward. I was then around 11 or 12 years old, how could he know so much about
my character? I only know, that this had given my a lot of pain, because, I
would have liked to receive warm feelings and not things like that in school. I
would have liked to familiarise and not to feel like somebody who had no
backbone. I meand, I think now, that I have one, but at that age, I wouldn't
have known that so exactly.
For the moment, I think, I wrote enough, but you can pose me more questions if
you want to.
) That sort of thing. I'm making a bit of a study of these
) problems in Waldorf, but that's just my thing. Talk about whatever you are
) most interested in talking about! Glad you are here.
) Diana
I'm glad to talk about those things, even if they are a long time ago, but as
far as I can see, there are no big changes ever since. My teacher teached in
Waldorf School for many more years and only a few years ago he retired because
of his age.
I'm glad you are here!!
Sandra
)
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
) http://www.hotmail.com
)
--------------C63CA8B001F636C6209910D5
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="sandra.schlick.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Sandra Schlick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="sandra.schlick.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Schlick;Sandra
tel;home:061 692 20 07
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.balcab.ch/sandra.schlick/
adr:;;Sch–naustrasse 52;4058 Basel;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sandra.schlick balcab.ch
title:MAES, Dipl. Masch. Ing. HTL
x-mozilla-cpt:;3
fn:Sandra Schlick
end:vcard
--------------C63CA8B001F636C6209910D5--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 23:01:22 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
Dear critics,
The "Manifesto degli scienziati razzisti" was published anonymously in
"Il Giornale d'Italia" on July 14, 1938 under the title: "Il Fascismo e
i problemi della razza" (Fascism and the Questions of Race). Only on
July 25, 1938 the list of the 180 Italian scientists who supported this
manifesto was made public. Percedol now claims that Massimo Scaligero
was not on this list (without giving any evidence). The list as
presented at http://www.romacivica.net/novitch/LeggiRaz/promulgatori.htm
therefore has to be false in his view. There is an easy way to find out
if Scaligero was present on this list: find the July 25, 1938 issue of
"Il Giornale d'Italia" and check it. Maybe one of you can find the issue
in an archive? I will try to contact some Italian librarians to help me
with this.
Still curious about those articles from Scaligero I asked for,
Peter Zegers
Here is a translation:
MANIFESTO OF THE RACIST SCIENTISTS
1.Human races exist. The existence of the human races is no longer an
abstraction of our spirit, but corresponds to a reality that is material
and perceptible with our senses. This reality is represented by masses,
almost always imposing, of millions of men similar in physical and
psychological characteristics which were inherited and which continue
to be inherited. To say that human races exist does not mean a priori
that superior or inferior races exist, but only that different human
races exist.
2. There exist large races and small races. It is necessary not only to
admit that the large classifications which are commonly called races and
which are identified only by a few characteristics exist, but it is also
necessary to admit that smaller classifications exist (as for example
the Nordics, the Mediterraneans, the Dinarics [Serbs, Croats,
Montenegrins] ) identified by a larger number of common characteristics.
From a biological point of view, these groups constitute the true races,
the existence of which is an evident truth.
3. The concept of race is a purely biological concept. It is therefore
based on other considerations than the concepts of a people and of a
nation, founded essentially on historic, linguistic, and religious
considerations. However the differences of peoples and of nations are
based on differences of race. If the Italians are different from the
French, the Germans, the Turks, the Greeks, etc., it is not only because
they have a different language and a different history, but because the
racial constitution of these peoples are different. There have been
different relationships of different races, which from very ancient
times have constituted the diverse peoples. Either one race might have
absolute dominance over the others, or all became harmoniously blended,
or, finally, one might have persisted unassimilated into the other
diverse races.
4. The majority of the population of contemporary Italy is Aryan in
origin and its civilization is Aryan. This population with its Aryan
civilization has lived for several millennia in our peninsula; very
little remains of the civilization of the pre-Aryan civilization. The
origin of the present day Italians stems essentially from elements of
these same races which constitute and will constitute the perennially
lively fabric of Europe.
5. The influx of huge masses of men in historical times is a legend.
After the invasion of the Lombards, there were not in Italy any other
notable movements of people capable of influencing the racial
physiognomy of the nation. From that derives the fact that, while for
other European nations the racial composition has varied notably even in
modern times, for Italy, for the most part, the racial composition of
today is the same as that of thousands of years ago; the forty-four
million Italians of today have arisen, therefore, in the absolute
majority from families which have inhabited Italy for almost a
millenium.
6. There exists by now a pure "Italian race". This premise is not based
on the confusion of the biological concept of race as the
historical-linguistic concept of a people and of a nation, but on the
purist kinship of blood which unites the Italians of today to the
generations which have populated Italy for millennia. This ancient
purity of blood is the greatest title of nobility of the Italian Nation.
7. It is time that the Italians proclaim themselves frankly racist. All
the work that the regime in Italy has done until now is founded in
racism. Reference to racial concepts has always been very frequent in
the speeches of the Leader. The question of racism in Italy ought to be
treated from a purely biological point of view, without philosophic or
religious intentions. The conception of racism in Italy ought to be
essentially Italian and its direction Aryan-Nordic. This does not mean,
however, to introduce into Italy the theories of German racism as they
are or to claim that the Italians and the Scandinavians are the same.
But it intends only to point out to the Italians a physical and
especially psychological model of the human race which in its purely
European characteristics is completely separated from all of the
non-European races, this means to elevate the Italian to an ideal of
superior self-consciousness and of greater responsibility.
8. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the European
(Western) Mediterraneans on one side and the Eastern [Mediterraneans]
and the Africans on the other. For this reason, those theories are to be
considered dangerous that support the African origin of some European
peoples and that include even the Semitic and Camitic [North African]
populations in a common Mediterranean race, establishing absolutely
inadmissible relations and ideological sympathies.
9. Jews do not belong to the Italian race. Of the Semites who in the
course of centuries have landed on the sacred soil of our country
nothing in general has remained. Even the Arab occupation of Sicily has
left nothing outside the memory of some names; and for the rest the
process of assimilation was always very rapid in Italy. The Jews
represent the only population which has never assimilated in Italy
because it is composed of non-European racial elements, absolutely
different from the elements from which the Italians have originated.
10. The purely European physical and psychological characteristics ought
not to be altered in any way. Union is admissible only with European
races, in which case one should not talk of a true and proper hybridism,
given that these races belong to a common stock and differ only in some
characteristics, while they are the same in very many others. The
purely European character of the Italians would be altered by breeding
with any other non-European race bearing a civilization different from
the millennial civilization of the Aryans.
Downloaded 3/2/2002 from:
http://www.dickinson.edu/~rhyne/232/Nine/RacistScientists.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:04:52 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted: was:
Genocide as
necessity
Dear Peter,
I have written some comments below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Joel writes:
)
) )[I would guess that you failed to follow me at this point because we
) )went past your own understanding of your own inwardness. Why don't you
) )write out for us your own objective understanding of your inwardness )and
) )allow us to ask you questions?]
)
) Why? Wouldn't it be easier if you just answered my question?
[That would assume your question had genuine meaning and significance as
a aspect of the course of the conversation. You actually asked two
questions. The first one: "Why do you believe this?" suggests you
aren't paying attention. In the context of the dialogue it is clear
that I am speaking from experience (which you can disbelieve) but in
asking why I believe this, you are placing the situation in a falsified
context. It is a poor question, and a misleading question, and frankly
it wears me out to play this game. The second one begins: Do you think
you failed..., which again is fanciful and inventive, but how can it be
an actual question to which attention needs to be paid. It is very much
like alice through the looking glass. So it wouldn't be easier to
answer your questions, since they while they might represent authentic
questions, they don't seem very well thought out. In addition, since
you conceeded you had reach an end to your understanding, why don't you
answer my questions and speak for yourself what you think (actually you
do below to a certain extent, so this is all moot now]
)
) ) ) )In thinking about
) ) ) )a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
) ) ) )intentional feeling of reverence
) ) )
) ) ) What does this help you to do?
) )
) )[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
) )have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal )aspects
) )of inwardness is revealed. The better question is what could )you do if
) )you understood it in practice.]
)
) You're having trouble reading today, Joel. The question I asked was: "What
) does this help you to do?" I didn't ask about universal aspects of
) inwardness. Why do you continue to avoid very simple questions? If you
) actually practiced the "feeling of reverence" you mentioned above, it would
) make you look even more foolish than you already do (because, among many
) other things, it would require you to revere smallpox, HIV, malaria, and all
) sorts of other "nature objects"). Thus I asked you to explain what it is
) that you think this attitude helps you to do. Was that too complicated for
) you? Should I re-phrase the question?
[Now we go to attack mode. Your questions aren't simple, in fact the
whole point of our recent dialogue has been to establish this
complexity. You had previously described the complexity of the inner
world as obvious: I wrote: "The inner world is as easily as complicated
as the sense world." and you said: "You say these things as if they were
not embarrassingly obvious truisms..." Next you say I am foolish, on
the way to looking more foolish (which is an ad hominem, but DD doesn't
get you for them, does he). As to cultivating reverence for the created
world, if you don't believe in God then this is a problem for you, but
since I have certain practical experences where the cultivation of
reverence is crucial, I don't have a problem. Yet you want to call me a
fool (which in my paradigm can be a word of honor. Who do you suppose
is really the fool, in the sense you use the term?]
)
) )People can become obsessed with their hate object and
) )justify this to themselves in all manner of ways. So in a sense the
) )hate is intention and careful. The point is do they notice that the
) )thought-content changes according to this emotional background.
)
) It would be exceedingly odd if anyone failed to notice this.
[Well, you must know a very small circle of human beings. All manner of
people don't notice this - they don't pay attention at all to such
things, living only in the sensation of the moment.]
)
) )We can
) )find justifications for any hateful feeling, but a thought content
) )created out this emotional texture is usually not the truth.]
)
) Why not?
[Because if you pay attention to the relationship between mood and
thought content you will know that hate distorts our connection to
reality and to the truth of other people. It is really only a question
of experience. Its obvious if you bother to look at it. Of course,
some people don't want to believe it, because they really want to
believe they know the truth about that which they hate, when the truth
is that their hate only shows them what they want to believe.]
)
) )[Do you believe that all your utterances are true?
)
) No, of course not. Nobody believes that, Joel.
[So it is entirely possible you are completely incorrect in your
assesment of my racism, as well as all kinds of other matters, isn't
it?]
)
) )Don't you realize
) )how easy it is to create a big lie and justify it, especially given )your
) )apparent awareness of all manner of aspects of recent history?
)
) Yes. What does this have to do with the question I asked you
[About as much as most of the questions you ask me have to do with what
I write about on this list.]
)
) )What about your intentions in reading my material?
)
) What would you like to know about them? And why would they be relevant to my
) question?
[Because if you are going to examine me, I am going to return the
favor.]
)
) )Do you deny reading my
) )writing looking to find things to criticise?
)
) Yes, of course. What would be the point of that?
[Yet you haven't said anything but criticism (as in my stuff being
racist, and racism being central to my version of anthroposophy). Why
are you skirting the question. A ten year old would know where this was
going.]
)
) )Do you deny that others
) )have refuted the essence of all your claims of racism against Steiner?
)
) Yes, Joel, everybody who has paid attention to these debates denies that.
) You don't have to agree with my specific analysis of Steiner's racism, but
) if you deny that the statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe" is
) racist, then you plainly don't understand what racism is.
[Perhaps that statement doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
You have admitted not always being right, isn't it possible that you are
completely wrong in this?]
)
) )Why is your point of view right?
)
) It isn't. What on earth are you talking about? I asked you whether you
) believed that the only racist utterances are ones that are made with
) deliberate malice. What would that have to do with my point of view?
[Because if you want to test others views, then you have to allow for
your own to be tested. Its a matter of fairness, or don't you believe
in fair play?]
)
) )What is your method of thinking that
) )leads you to the truth, rather than to preconcived prejudices?
)
) Unlike you, I don't use any special "method". I just use regular old
) thinking. You should try it sometime.
[Oh, I have. But people using any method don't always agree, do they?
So one can disagree with your suppositions of racism and be correct,
since there is nothing about your "ordinary" method that guarantees the
truth. Everything is just opinion and in dispute, one persons view as
good as any others. Such a conclusion as racism in Steiner's work is
quite subjective, just like all thinking is subjective according to your
approach to things. Why does your subjective assessment of Steiner's
teachings have to be superior to a view which finds the opposite?]
)
) )What do
) )you know about your own inwardness that justifies your conclusions )above
) )that of others, especially since it is their own words being
) )interpreted?
)
) That question doesn't make sense. Nothing about my inwardness, or your
) inwardness, or anybody's inwardness has the slightest thing to do with which
) conclusions are correct.
[Oh, since our inwardness, our thinking, has no relationship to which
conclusions are correct, how do we know what is true? Are you paying
attention to your own words here? Perhaps you made a slip. Why did you
make this slip? Which is it? Does ordinary subjective thinking give us
truth, or not? If so, how?]
)
) )In reading my material did you ever find anything that was
) )said that was right?
)
) Yes, of course.
)
) )What was that?
)
) I think much of your explication of Steiner's early epistemology is pretty
) accurate, for example.
[Hmmm, I certainly haven't got that impression before. I have felt you
thought what I thought about it was junk. But then I still don't really
know what you think about it.]
)
) )Tell us about your own inner
) )search and what teachers if any do you follow?
)
) Why? What would this have to do with whether the arguments I present are
) reasonable or persuasive?
[Again, its a question of fairness. You really shouldn't get to know
about me more than I get to know about you, without a kind of imbalance
in the social situation of the list arising. Obviously a lot of my
intimate spiritual stuff is on this list, since in order to talk about
this aspect of things, it becomes necessary to reveal stuff. Alice K.
has shared some of her life. How about you? Unless you think I will
come at you like the attack dogs here go after me? Are you worried I
will call you a child abuser, or a megalomanic or insane? Does it make
you feel vulnerable to open up this way - open your soul to disection on
the scale practiced here? If so, welcome to the club.]
)
) )Do you have a religion,
) )or religious beliefs?
)
) I'm an atheist, and I don't have any consistent spiritual practice at this
) point in my life. Why do you think this is relevant to our discussion?
)
[I think this knowledge helps me understand you, and that understanding,
if I let it touch me and honor it, then it will change how I treat you.
I don't want to judge you for it (the way I get judged for being an
"anthroposophist", but it does fill out the picture of the "who" that
writes these messages to the "me" that is writing them to you.]
) )When did you stop beating your wife?
)
) I'm not married.
[This is a famous american legal joke. Do you know it? Have you ever
been married, or had children? How does their schooling go, if they go
to school? etc.]
)
) )Since you
) )admit not knowing Italian
)
) That isn't something to "admit", Joel.
[Not quite sure what this means, unless "admit" means more on the order
of "confession of some flaw" to you. Not a crucial point so lets skip
it.]
)
) )how can you really justify using secondary
) )sources for your criticism of MS?
)
) Are you kidding? That is an extraordinarily naive question, even for you.
) I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know Afrikaans,
) and that you've never read a single article or even a lengthy quote by
) Verwoerd, Malan, Vorster, or any of the other architects of Apartheid. Are
) you therefore in any way uncertain whether Apartheid was racist? If so,
) could you explain why?
[Okay, you got me really stumped. What I know about MS is that some of
his students have achieved the living thinking that is the goal of the
Philosophy of Freedom and that they think highly of him. I cited him as
someone who had replicated Steiner's achievement in this regard, and the
response was for all this racist stuff to come out. As a matter of
logic, MS's politics don't seem related to me, although were I to be
able to verify some of these things I might wonder what he had in fact
achieved. But I can't verify them and the person(s) reporting this to
this list are not people whose judgment about such matters I trust,
given how they treat Steiner and anthroposopy. Now you are talking
about Apartheid. I guess your logic is that MS was an architect of
Italian facism and racist theory, and that this is somehow related to
other facist and dictatorial politics, and that someone who believed and
fostered such things couldn't be a very spiritual person. That's
reasonable logic, but the real question is the evidence and how it is
interpreted. P is posting to the list his disagreement with your and
Peter Z's views in this regard, and I am not in a position to make a
independent verification. However, since I find your judgment of
Steiner's works very weak and unsatisfactory (and please lets not go
over this old territory again), I am naturally suspicious of your
application of the same logic to MS. In addition, I have the personal
experience of having my own work mal-interpreted, so perhaps you can see
that, while you disagree with me, maybe I am justified in disagreeing
with you, given my experience. Or, maybe not.]
)
) )What do his views on race have to do
) )with whether he replicated Steiner's achievement in the realm of living
) )thought?
)
) Beats me. What does that mean?
[see above rant]
)
) )Have you forgotten that this was the point I was making?
)
) Yes, I have. Have you forgotten what I asked you about Scaligero? It was
) this: Why were you completely oblivious of his politcal past until Peter
) Zegers and I pointed it out to you? I don't mean that you should personally
) research all the people you quote or recommend (after all, that would
) require you to read secondary sources!). I mean that it is remarkable that
) anthroposophists who promote Scaligero's work manage to avoid mentioning
) this aspect -- and all the while deny that anthroposophist race theory has
) anything in common with classical fascism. You have been hoodwinked by your
) fellow anthros, Joel. They ought to have told you about Scaligero's past,
) but they didn't. Why do you think that happened? Wouldn't you like to avoid
) it in the future?
[see above rant]
)
) )How,
) )even if he was a devoted racist (MS), does this effect whether his )later
) )writings are the truth?
)
) "Are the truth"? I don't understand that phrase. Writings usually contain
) some truth and some untruth, no matter who wrote them. It is entirely
) possible that everything you've read by Scaligero is unimpeachable and of
) surpassing value. So what? I asked how come you think it's okay to ignore
) the fact that he was an active racist and fascist for decades. Why don't you
) answer that question?
[I can ignore what I want, so there! Don't you ignore Sune's and others
refutations of your and Z's racism theorys about Steiner? Why should I
have the same passions you have? Or think the same way? If it isn't a
fact to me that "he was an active racist...etc", then what's the point.
Just because you assert it doesn't make it true, in point of fact,
because you assert it makes it questionable.]
)
) )When are you going to answer my questions?
)
) Which ones haven't I answered? And when do you think you might get around to
) answering mine, by the way?
[During the Vulcan period when I am God and you peon's have to worship
me. Tired sarcasm aside, I have answered all kinds of questions for
you. I am wearing out this keyboard - can't read the letters on the
keys anymore.]
)
) )Do
) )you believe my questions are less important than yours because I appear
) )to you to be an anthroposophist?
)
) No. I have no idea what you mean by that. What anthroposophists say is
) obviously more important to me, not less so; otherwise my research would be
) impossible.
[Nobody to accuse of racist evolutionary theories. What a drag. I can
understand better now the questions you asked of me in the very
beginnings, which weren't about me at all, by the way. Nice to know I
can be another resource in support of your theories.]
)
) )Are you bigoted (a kind of racism)
) )against anthroposophists?
)
) No, of course not. Bigotry against anthroposophists isn't racism, by the
) way, since nobody considers anthroposophists to be a race.
) )What anthroposophists do you admire?
)
) Several friends in Michigan and Frankfurt, plus some folks I know in
) Vermont. I also think Arfst Wagner does very important work, although I
) disagree entirely with his basic assumtions. Some of Jens Heisterkamp's work
) is also important, to those of us concerned with the far-right tendency
) within anthroposophy. Somehow I have given you the impression that I am
) uniformly hostile to all anthroposophists; you're very much mistaken.
[Well, this is nice to know. Since one of my main interests is
politics, how about we have a conversation about that, off line if DD
thinks it ought to be. Curious to know what you think the Bush
adminstration is up to in the middle East.]
)
) )Have
) )you read any books by Owen Barfield?
)
) Yes, Romanticism Comes of Age. Plus lots of shorter pieces.
)
) )How about George Kaufmann Adams'
) )book: "Space in the Light of Creation"?
)
) No, never heard of it.
)
) )Do you believe in God?
)
) No.
)
) )Why not?
)
) Beats me.
)
) )If you are an atheist, how can you claim to know there is no God?
)
) For the same reasons that I claim to know there is no sunken continent of
) Atlantis and no Easter Bunny, I guess.
[That made me laugh. Genuine thanks! I sometimes think it would be a
lot easier not to have spiritual experiences. Sometimes its kind of
like having your nose ground into something a lot of other folks don't
have to face. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe"
comes to mind sometimes. And then I realize what a gift it is, and what
a debt comes with the gift, after which I go back to work.]
)
) )Have I asked enough questions yet?
)
) By all means, continue. You might answer a few of mine, while you're at it.
)
) )Isn't this a marvelous technique for
) )misdirecting the thread of the conversation, by asking endless
) )questions, many of which are spun with assumptions that aren't true?
)
) Conversations don't have predetermined directions, Joel. They go wherever we
) take them.
[touche]
)
) )Where did you learn to practice this way of dialogue?
)
) I grew up in a big family. Do you have some sort of grudge against dialogue?
[Must confess your views have in the past made me very suspicious.]
)
) )Did you study to become such a good macarthyist?
)
) You really do need to learn at least a little tiny bit about McCarthyism,
) Joel. Maybe you could overcome your apprehensions about secondary sources
) and crack open a history book for a couple minutes. Try Zinn's book, since
) you appear to have it handy; you'll find his examination of the McCarthy era
) in chapter 16, especially pp. 427-436.
)
) )When are you going to reveal
) )something of yourself here?
)
) I don't see why it would be relevant in this forum, but tell me what you'd
) like me to reveal and I'll be happy to oblige.
)
) )Are you afraid of exposing what you really
) )feel, or who you are?
)
) I don't think so. I rarely refrain from saying what I really feel.
)
) )What is your worst fear?
)
) I have no idea. Spiders maybe?
)
) )Come on now, lets not
) )hide behind clever word games.]
)
) I'm right out here in the open, Joel. Not hidden in any way. How about if
) you engage with the arguments I've put forward, instead of pretending it's
) all just a game? Wouldn't that be a better way to get both of us closer to
) the truth?
[It would help to once in a while get the impression that I didn't have
to justify every thought and view, and could just be accepted for being
different. When DD says people who have spiritual experiences are
insane it scares me, because I've worked a lot in the places where
people who are thought insane get sent.]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 23:15:11 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
)le 1/03/02 18:58, Peter Staudenmaier ý pstaud hotmail.com a ÈcritÝ:
)) Percedol writes:
) (snip)
)) Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
)) is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
)) Guenon.
Is it published? In french or in english?
)) In common they had that they both strongly opposed the Spiritual
)) Science.
)
) Guenon is a perennial favorite among a wide variety of far-right
) esotericists.
Well, I heard of this fact as well.
Though, having in my possession all the books by GuÈnon (I don't think
there is any translation of his books in english), I don't see anything or
any far-right ideas in his books, and I could cite a large number of
esotericists who are not far-right and for whom he is also a perennial
favorite.
He apparently didn't believe in democracy (I think it was said in his book
"la crise du monde moderne"- crisis of the modern world), a stance which I
don't share at all.
Yes, that is true that he believed in an elite, and often claims that
nothing can come from below but from above.
The issue I see here, is that, when the supposed elite (who ought to have
more wisdom, I think that is what GuÈnon meant by the word "elite") has
become totalitarian, well, without democracy, what can we do to topple it? A
"coup d'etat"?
As you have a greater knowledge about all these matters than me, I'd like to
share with you the documents you have as to this matter.
koala.
)Obviously there are differences among occultists on any number
) of issues, including the validity of Steiner's version of "spiritual
) science". But what Steiner shared with Evola and other esoteric fascists is
) an obsession with the Aryan myth and the supposed cycles of racial decline
) and advance. Fascist anthroposophists like Scaligero form the bridge between
) these two figures.
)
) Peter S.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:16:37 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: No black list, Joel?
Dear Peter Z.,
You aren't on my delete list. Sorry if my obviously increasingly poor
communication skills impled that you were. Su, Koala, and Walden are on
that list.
j.
Peter Zegers wrote:
)
) Joel,
)
) You wrote: "You get on my delete list when reading your writing becomes
) a complete waste of time because it: a) never really says anything; and,
) b) raises its level of name calling to extremes (child abuser,
) megalomaniac)."
)
) Ad a) I am glad some people on this list don't agree with you.
)
) Ad b) When exactly did I call you a "child abuser" and a "megalomaniac"?
) I can imagine having used the second word, but I don't recall having
) used the word "child abuser". Can you help me out?
)
) You wrote: "Actually you've got it wrong (again!), but I am not
) surprised."
)
) Where exactly was I wrong? You don't have a black list (but a delete
) list)? You are not calling critics "macarthyists"?
)
) Peter Zegers
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:06:25 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
Dear Koala,
Maybe this is of some interest to you:
"There seems no doubt that some degree of sympathy existed at the time
between GuÈnon and certain leaders of Action FranÁaise. We say ësome
degreeí because it is clear that Daudet, of all the leaders of Action
FranÁaise, was the most capable of understanding GuÈnon, and of
accepting, at least partially, his point of view. It is no less evident
that there must have been far less sympathy between GuÈnon and Charles
Maurras, for certain circumstances, upon which we cannot enlarge here,
were soon to reveal just how far apart Maurrasí and GuÈnonís ideas were
on traditional society."
From Chacornacís Simple Life of RenÈ GuÈnon
Downloaded from:
http://www.seriousseekers.com/Books/Books_trad_friends_1_5_7/books_guenon_r_spiritualauthority.htm
You can find a list of all books by RenÈGuÈnon in English at:
http://www.seriousseekers.com/Books/books_categories/books_author_guenon.htm
Best,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:09:24 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re: No black list, Joel?
Joel,
You didn't answer some of my my questions. Does this mean that you take
back your statement that I called you a "child abuser" and a
"megalomaniac"?
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:27:08 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: context
on 3/2/02 7:31 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear Sharon and Debra,
)
) You would be justified in being upset if my remarks to Peter had taken
) place in another context. But as usual with the critics-list, people
) forget the context and the course of development, and take remarks
) outside of their natural environment, forgetting that the whole meaning
) of these remarks is imbedded in that context.
Sharon: I'm not upset Joel. I was merely having a flashback. I think of you
as allied with PLANS simply because you have said that Waldorf should not be
in the public system. You also express your religious beliefs here on this
list and make no bones about being an occultist. (Both points are PLANS'
issues with Waldorf). I was merely having a flashback when I read your post
because it reminded me of the way Anthroposophists at our ex-school would
speak to me.
) This all begins with the critics-list itself, which routinely contains
) inaccurate statements about Steiner, Waldorf and anthroposophy (among
) other kinds of errors).
Sharon: What are the errors? When I am wrong about doctrine I stand
corrected. When I call Steiner a religious leader, a guru, a white magician,
an occultist, a mystagogue instead of a scientist, educator or philosopher I
am correct. (Would you call Jerry Falwell a scientist, philosopher or an
educator? Or would you call Einstein a religious leader?.) When I call
Waldorf a mystery school or a parochial school for Anthroposophy I am
correct...and basically those are the points I make on this list (as well as
complain about Steiner's racism).
) But errors are not the only thing on this list. There is a great deal
) of truth as well. Something is rotten in Waldorf and the
) anthroposophical movement, and readers of my website will find these
) problems discussed there in great detail and with only that kind of
) accuracy an "insider" can have.
Sharon: What is rotten about Waldorf is the fact that the schools are not
telling parents in a forthright way that they are parochial schools for
Anthroposophy. They are not telling parents that the schools are based on
Steiner the white magician's religious views. They are not telling parents
that Waldorf is an Anthroposophic initiation. These details are important
because some of us who are looking for art based, progressive, nonsectarian
schools are finding ourselves in a situation in which we cannot function. We
do not speak the language of esotericism, we do not know the subtext, in my
case I'd never read such nonsense until after I left Waldorf and had a
desperate need to figure out what the heck was going on at the school.
Imagine Joel, that you were suddenly transplanted to a completely foreign
country with a language you didn't speak or understand....but you thought
you did because it sounded like the same language and the country seemed
like your country. This was a horrible experience! I personally don't think
Waldorf would be a bad place for people on Steiner's spiritual path, but
don't let people like me tread his spiritual path without our sanction or
understanding.
)
) The critics-list comes into existence because of events that happened
) in the lives of people, events they often did not understand, and that
) often first confused them and then lead them to have deep questions
) about Waldorf and anthroposophy. Harm has been done to parents and to
) children, and this (something I was unaware of when I first joined this
) list, but no longer doubt at all) has no excuse.
Sharon: I appreciate your understanding. The Waldorf deception affects
people's lives in profound ways.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 16:35:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: No black list, Joel?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: No black list, Joel?
) Dear Peter Z.,
)
) You aren't on my delete list. Sorry if my obviously increasingly poor
) communication skills impled that you were. Su, Koala, and Walden are on
) that list.
Walden: Seems you must ask the same question at least 3 times to qualify
for the Joel delete list. Racism is a painful word to the ears of those who
carry it's *impulse.* I guess I never learned to live into the concept of
root races and spiritual superiority. I cannot spend time reading most of
Joel's long winded nonsense any more but I do enjoy informative threads
which his words seem to provoke.
Always willing to learn.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 02:42:47 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re: No black list, Joel?
Joel,
Rereading the exchange we had about your black list, I realize you meant
to say that I was not on this list but could get on it any time if I
would fullfil the criteria you mentioned in your message. I was under
the impression that I was on your list for quite some time already. Now
we know you only excommunicated three people so far. Maybe this also
means that you will start to answer my questions in the near future? Or
am I too optimistic now? Do you want me to sent my questions again?
Maybe I am asking already too many questions in one message now, so I'll
stop at this point for the time being.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:16:41 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
Hi koala, you wrote:
)Though, having in my possession all the books by GuÈnon (I don't think
)there is any translation of his books in english),
Several have been translated, including Man and His Becoming and
Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines.
)I don't see anything or
)any far-right ideas in his books,
I agree, what I've read of his work strikes me as fairly solid scholarship,
and apart from the generally elitist and anti-modernist strands you mention
I haven't come across any obviously far-right content. I don't know much
about his personal politics, though.
)and I could cite a large number of
)esotericists who are not far-right and for whom he is also a perennial
)favorite.
That is certainly true. I don't really know why his work, in particular,
seems to be so consistently attractive to far-right esotericists. One of the
interesting things about the esoteric scene in general is how eclectic the
sources are, and the right wing of the scene is no different in that regard.
)As you have a greater knowledge about all these matters than me, I'd )like
)to
)share with you the documents you have as to this matter.
I doubt that I know more about Guenon than you do; I haven't read that much
of his material. Aside from Evola, other far-right esotericists who promote
Guenon's work include the Italian publisher Claudio Mutti and some of the
contemporary German enthusiasts of the Thule tradition. Pauwels and Bergier
accord a primary role to Guenon in influencing the occultist tendencies
within the Nazis, but I have very little use for Pauwels and Bergier's work.
I'll try to look around for some more reliable literaure on the right's
appropriation of Guenon.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:47:22 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
Hi Joel, thanks for trying again. You wrote:
)[That would assume your question had genuine meaning and significance as
)a aspect of the course of the conversation. You actually asked two
)questions. The first one: "Why do you believe this?" suggests you
)aren't paying attention. In the context of the dialogue it is clear
)that I am speaking from experience (which you can disbelieve)
I don't disbelieve that. As I understood you, you said that certain
techniques are necessary in order to understand one's own "inwardness". I
asked why you believe that, since it would mean that nobody can or does
understand their own inwardness until they have practiced these techniques,
which to my ears is an implausible claim.
)but in
)asking why I believe this, you are placing the situation in a falsified
)context. It is a poor question, and a misleading question, and frankly
)it wears me out to play this game.
I'm not trying to wear you out, and I don't think of this as a game.
)The second one begins: Do you think
)you failed..., which again is fanciful and inventive, but how can it be
)an actual question to which attention needs to be paid.
You don't have to pay attention to it, but it is an actual question. I don't
know what you mean by "fanciful and inventive", as my question was not a
statement. If you hold the theory that I thought you just espoused, then it
seems to me that a necessary corollary would be that you did not understand
your own inner experiences until you had learned the techniques you
mentioned. I therefore asked you if this was indeed the case or not.
)So it wouldn't be easier to
)answer your questions, since they while they might represent authentic
)questions, they don't seem very well thought out.
They're not. I formulate and pose them as I read through each post. They are
spontaneous questions.
)[Joel:] In thinking about
)a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
)intentional feeling of reverence
)
)[Peter:] What does this help you to do?
)
)[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
)have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal )aspects
)of inwardness is revealed.
How does my question suggest this? I happily plead ignorance of the
universal aspects of inwardness. I don't see what this has to do with the
very specific aspects of your own approach to nature objects.
)[Now we go to attack mode.
Yes, that's one of my favorite modes. I think it's important to attack ideas
that seem ill-considered in order to find out whether they can withstand
scrutiny.
)Your questions aren't simple, in fact the
)whole point of our recent dialogue has been to establish this
)complexity. You had previously described the complexity of the inner
)world as obvious:
Yes, it is obvious. You say things like this with some regularity, as if
they represented some great discovery about human nature, when quite a few
of us simply take them for granted.
)Next you say I am foolish, on
)the way to looking more foolish (which is an ad hominem, but DD doesn't
)get you for them, does he).
Yes, he does. Dan has admonished me for ad hominems before. I don't know why
you think this remark was ad hominem, though.
)As to cultivating reverence for the created
)world, if you don't believe in God then this is a problem for you
This would be a problem for me even if I did believe in god. It ought to be
a problem for you, too. Undifferentiated reverence for each and every
component of the natural world is both impossible and a really bad idea. HIV
shouldn't be revered, it should be eradicated if possible.
)All manner of
)people don't notice this - they don't pay attention at all to such
)things, living only in the sensation of the moment.]
Can you give us one example of a person, preferably an adult, who fits this
description?
)[Because if you pay attention to the relationship between mood and
)thought content you will know that hate distorts our connection to
)reality and to the truth of other people.
What does "the truth of other people" mean?
)It is really only a question
)of experience. Its obvious if you bother to look at it. Of course,
)some people don't want to believe it, because they really want to
)believe they know the truth about that which they hate, when the truth
)is that their hate only shows them what they want to believe.]
I fail to see any connection whatsoever among the three phenomena you just
named: 1) the desire to hold a specific belief; 2) whether this belief is
justified; and 3) the role of the emotion of hate in shaping perception. You
don't have to answer this one 'cause it's not too germane to our topic, but
I would be interested to know what connections you discern among these
disparate things.
) ) [Do you believe that all your utterances are true?
)
)No, of course not. Nobody believes that, Joel.
)
)[So it is entirely possible you are completely incorrect in your
)assesment of my racism, as well as all kinds of other matters, isn't
)it?]
Yes, obviously. I'm a historian. Most of my assessments will, in all
likelihood, one day turn out to be incorrect. That's how we gain knowledge,
by revising our assessments.
)[About as much as most of the questions you ask me have to do with what
)I write about on this list.]
All of my questions to you so far have been direct responses to what you
have written here.
) )) What about your intentions in reading my material?
)
))What would you like to know about them? And why would they be relevant to
))my
))question?
)
)[Because if you are going to examine me, I am going to return the
)favor.]
I'm not examining you. I'm examining what you write to this list. Don't take
this the wrong way, but I am genuinely uninterested in you or your
intentions. What I am interested in are your arguments. Your intentions are
entirely irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.
) )) Do you deny reading my
)))writing looking to find things to criticise?
)
))Yes, of course. What would be the point of that?
)
)[Yet you haven't said anything but criticism (as in my stuff being
)racist, and racism being central to my version of anthroposophy). Why
)are you skirting the question. A ten year old would know where this was
)going.]
Since I'm not a ten year old, you'll have to explain to me where you think
this is going. I read through your posts like I read through all other
posts, and I make critical comments where something strikes my interest. The
fact that I haven't said anything but criticism has to do with how I
perceive my role on this list. Lots of people here say all sorts of things
that I agree with, but I usually don't see the point in expressing such
agreement. In fact I don't have a whole lot to say about the main topic of
the list, Waldorf education. You began a dialogue with me, and I have tried
to follow it through using the tools I'm familiar with, which are the tools
of critique.
))You don't have to agree with my specific analysis of Steiner's racism, but
))if you deny that the statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe"
))is
))racist, then you plainly don't understand what racism is.
)
)[Perhaps that statement doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
)You have admitted not always being right, isn't it possible that you are
)completely wrong in this?]
Of course that's possible. If you would like to present an alternative
interpretation of Steiner's statement that would explain why it is not
racist, please do so.
)[Because if you want to test others views, then you have to allow for
)your own to be tested.
I not only allow this, I encourage it. Joel, please test my view that
Steiner's statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe" is racist,
and report the results of your test to the list.
)So one can disagree with your suppositions of racism and be correct,
)since there is nothing about your "ordinary" method that guarantees the
)truth.
Indeed. But those aren't suppositions you mentioned, they are conclusions.
If you want to show that they are incorrect, you need to explain what was
faulty about the reasoning or the evidence that lead to them.
)Everything is just opinion and in dispute,
Yes.
)one persons view as
)good as any others.
No. Some views are justified, others are not.
)Such a conclusion as racism in Steiner's work is
)quite subjective
No, it isn't. It is based on a thorough examination of his writings on the
topic of race.
)just like all thinking is subjective according to your approach to things.
I don't know how I managed to give you that impression. I definitely do not
believe that all thinking is subjective.
)Why does your subjective assessment of Steiner's
)teachings have to be superior to a view which finds the opposite?]
It doesn't have to be. No assessment of anything "has to be" superior to any
other. You find out which assessments are superior by testing them against
the available evidence and by examining the reasoning that lead to them. If
you would like to offer an alternative assessment of Steiner's writings on
race, please do so.
)[Oh, since our inwardness, our thinking, has no relationship to which
)conclusions are correct, how do we know what is true?
I don't understand this question. A conclusion can still be true even if it
was reached through faulty thinking. Also, "inwardness" isn't the same thing
as thinking.
)Which is it? Does ordinary subjective thinking give us truth, or not? If
)so, how?]
I don't know what "ordinary subjective thinking" means. In my view, regular
old thinking, which need not be "subjective" in the sense I thought you
meant above, can indeed yield truths. I don't see what this has to do with
"inwardness"; things are not true because they accord with some inward state
of a person's mind, but because they accord with reality, which is external
to that mind.
))I think much of your explication of Steiner's early epistemology is pretty
))accurate, for example.
)
)[Hmmm, I certainly haven't got that impression before. I have felt you
)thought what I thought about it was junk. But then I still don't really
)know what you think about it.]
I can't recall challenging your account of Steiner's early epistemology.
What I challenge is your evaluation of it, as well as two related claims
that you have made on its behalf: that is relevantly similar to Goethe's
epistemology, and that it represents the philosophical basis of
anthroposophy.
)You really shouldn't get to know
)about me more than I get to know about you
I'm really, truly not interested in getting to know much about you. I am
interested in getting to know your arguments regarding Steiner and
anthroposophy. Who you are shouldn't have much to do with the validity of
your arguments.
)Obviously a lot of my
)intimate spiritual stuff is on this list, since in order to talk about
)this aspect of things, it becomes necessary to reveal stuff.
I don't know what you mean by "reveal" here. If you don't want to talk about
your personal spiritual views, then don't make them public. You certainly
don't need to reveal anything about your personal spiritual views to me; I'm
only interested in your public stances regarding Steiner and anthroposophy.
)How about you? Unless you think I will
)come at you like the attack dogs here go after me? Are you worried I
)will call you a child abuser, or a megalomanic or insane? Does it make
)you feel vulnerable to open up this way - open your soul to disection on
)the scale practiced here? If so, welcome to the club.]
I don't think this makes me feel especially vulnerable, I just think it's
irrelevant. I'm happy to tell you nearly anything you'd like to know about
my personal beliefs. Many of the other list members already know about them,
as I've discussed them before when asked. But I still don't see what they
have to do with the topics you and I have been discussing.
))I'm an atheist, and I don't have any consistent spiritual practice at this
))point in my life. Why do you think this is relevant to our discussion?
)
)[I think this knowledge helps me understand you, and that understanding,
)if I let it touch me and honor it, then it will change how I treat you.
)I don't want to judge you for it (the way I get judged for being an
)"anthroposophist", but it does fill out the picture of the "who" that
)writes these messages to the "me" that is writing them to you.]
I guess I can see what you're getting at, but I nevertheless think it's
generally a bad idea to judge any argument based on the person who happens
to put that argument forward. We ought to focus on the substantive questions
at stake, not on each other's personalities.
)))When did you stop beating your wife?
)
))I'm not married.
)
)[This is a famous american legal joke. Do you know it?
Yes. That big family of mine is mostly made up of lawyers. I thought
everybody grew up with this joke.
)Have you ever
)been married, or had children?
No and no. I don't believe in marriage, and I don't plan to have children of
my own.
)[Okay, you got me really stumped. What I know about MS is that some of
)his students have achieved the living thinking that is the goal of the
)Philosophy of Freedom and that they think highly of him.
They're the ones you ought to hold responsible for failing to inform you
about his fascist past. It isn't a secret.
)I cited him as
)someone who had replicated Steiner's achievement in this regard, and the
)response was for all this racist stuff to come out.
You cited Scaligero in the midst of an ongoing controversy over racism
within anthroposophy, in which your own position, near as I can make out,
has been that anthroposophy cannot possibly be racist. Since Scaligero's
work, which combines anthroposophy with explicit and vicious racism, is an
obvious counterexample to your claim, Peter Zegers and I pointed out his
actual record on race issues.
)As a matter of
)logic, MS's politics don't seem related to me
Related to what? To the issue of anthroposophy's attitude toward racial
politics? That relationship seems very clear to me.
)But I can't verify them
Why not? You don't know anybody who has access to the books we've cited, or
who can interpret their contents for you? Have you lost the ability to email
Percedol and ask him to send you a quick summary in English of Scaligero's
articles on "spiritual racism" and "integral racism"? What exactly is
keeping you from verifying this?
)and the person(s) reporting this to
)this list are not people whose judgment about such matters I trust
You don't need to trust our judgement. We have given you full citations for
standard historical works that have absolutely no axe to grind with
anthroposophy. Why not put a little effort into tracking them down?
)Now you are talking
)about Apartheid. I guess your logic is that MS was an architect of
)Italian facism and racist theory, and that this is somehow related to
)other facist and dictatorial politics, and that someone who believed and
)fostered such things couldn't be a very spiritual person.
No, no, no, I believe the exact opposite. Lots of very spiritual people were
architects of classical fascism. My logic was simply about how we know
things about Italy without knowing Italian. You don't know Afrikaans, and
you've never read anything by the architects of Apartheid that I named, but
that doesn't make it difficult for you to decide whether Apartheid and its
architects were racist, does it?
)P is posting to the list his disagreement with your and
)Peter Z's views in this regard
So far the only substantive claim Percedol has made is that Scaligero did
not sign the manifesto. As Peter Z pointed out, this is a simple claim to
test. Maybe you could encourage Percedol to send you a copy of the journal
in question, and then you can tell the rest of us whether Scaligero's name
appears on the list of signatories.
)and I am not in a position to make a
)independent verification.
On the contrary, you are uniquely well positioned to make such a
verification. Percedol doesn't seem inclined to share documentation with us,
but he might well do so with you. What do you say, Joel? Want to help get to
the bottom of this?
)However, since I find your judgment of
)Steiner's works very weak and unsatisfactory (and please lets not go
)over this old territory again)
You and I haven't been over that territory yet. Why don't you want to go
there?
)I am naturally suspicious of your
)application of the same logic to MS.
I haven't applied the same logic. In the case of Steiner, my assessment is
based on studying his own published works. In the case of Scaligero, my
assessment is based on well-established scholarship conducted by other
historians. And the two aren't comparable in any case; as pernicious as
Steiner's racial doctrines were, he never actively collaborated with a
Fascist regime, as Scaligero did.
)In addition, I have the personal
)experience of having my own work mal-interpreted, so perhaps you can see
)that, while you disagree with me, maybe I am justified in disagreeing
)with you, given my experience. Or, maybe not.]
I don't see what your experience would have to do with it. One is justified
in disagreeing based on reason, evidence, and the persuasiveness of the
contending arguments. If you disgree that a person who publishes in fascist
periodicals for over a decade, and has been clearly identified as a fascist
by independent historians, can be accurately called a fascist, I would very
much like to hear how you reached that conclusion.
)Don't you ignore Sune's and others
)refutations of your and Z's racism theorys about Steiner?
No, of course I don't. Boy, you really haven't seen much of what I've posted
on this list over the past year, have you! I have replied to every one of
Sune's allegations at great length, showing in detail why he is mistaken
about my work, about Steiner's work, and about the intellectual origins of
Nazism. I have asked Sune to either post my replies at his site, or provide
links to them there, but he has refused to do so. I have also replied to
every other response to my work that has been brought to my attention. None
of those responses has engaged the arguments I put forward about Steiner's
race theories, much less refuted them. If there is something in particular
that you think I have ignored, please let me know what it is.
)Why should I
)have the same passions you have? Or think the same way?
You shouldn't. You should think for yourself. You don't seem to be doing
that in this case.
)If it isn't a fact to me that "he was an active racist...etc", then what's
)the point.
Why isn't that a fact to you?
)Just because you assert it doesn't make it true
No kidding.
)in point of fact,
)because you assert it makes it questionable.]
That's illogical, Joel. Nothing about the person who asserts a given
argument can have any effect on that argument's validity. Try a little
harder to separate the ideas from the people who happen to express them.
)Tired sarcasm aside, I have answered all kinds of questions for
)you. I am wearing out this keyboard - can't read the letters on the
)keys anymore.]
Sorry about that. I've been at this keyboard much too long myself. I am
indeed a long-winded writer, and I appreciate the time you have taken to
respond to some of my questions.
))What anthroposophists say is
))obviously more important to me, not less so; otherwise my research would
))be impossible.
)
)[Nobody to accuse of racist evolutionary theories. What a drag.
There are very many other ideological tendencies besides anthroposophy that
have promoted racist evolutionary theories. I just happen to be studying
this one.
)I can
)understand better now the questions you asked of me in the very
)beginnings, which weren't about me at all, by the way.
No, of course they weren't. I asked about what you had written, not about
you.
)Nice to know I
)can be another resource in support of your theories.]
I don't quite understand how you can say things like that and then get upset
when others wonder aloud if you agree with the racist strand within
anthroposophy. If you really don't want to be another resource for my
theories, why not just say flat out what you think of Steiner's racial
doctrines?
)Since one of my main interests is
)politics, how about we have a conversation about that, off line if DD
)thinks it ought to be.
I'm always interested in that. Anthroposophy's early politics are exactly
what got me into all of this.
)Curious to know what you think the Bush
)adminstration is up to in the middle East.]
Another frequent topic for me. But probably not well suited to the list.
)[That made me laugh. Genuine thanks! I sometimes think it would be a
)lot easier not to have spiritual experiences.
I do have spiritual experiences; I just don't believe in god.
)[Must confess your views have in the past made me very suspicious.]
I like suspicion. I think it's often a good attitude to adopt toward ideas
and views.
)[It would help to once in a while get the impression that I didn't have
)to justify every thought and view, and could just be accepted for being
)different.
Okay, I can see that. I'll try not to demand that you justify every single
claim. It would help, though, if you could try to recognize that a number of
other people on this list are willing to engage in a genuine dialogue with
you, and sometimes they deserve to get genuine replies, like the ones you've
just given me.
)When DD says people who have spiritual experiences are
)insane it scares me, because I've worked a lot in the places where
)people who are thought insane get sent.]
I can see how that remark would have a different resonance, then. But I
don't think Dan was saying that people who have spiritual experiences, as
such, are insane. I thought he was saying that people who take their own
spiritual experiences (which, if I understand what you've got in mind here,
are of a personal nature) for reality itself, without going through the
usual process of checking these experiences against the intersubjective
reality that we all share, have a tenuous grip on mental health. In other
words, it's unreasonable to expect that the rest of us will simply accept
your account of your own spiritual experiences, and then make this account
an integral part of your public arguments and writings, without you giving
us reasons that we can examine for ourselves. Just referring us to your
preferred methods won't do the trick. Sometimes we need to see why and how
you reached the conclusions that you did so that we can consider those
conclusions. But now I'm starting to state the obvious myself. Thanks for
reading this far,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:39:43 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
You think people cannot do the mathematics?
In that list there are about 329 names.
But only 180 signed the petition.
Scaligero didn't sign the petition.
He has been put in that list because to some historians the fact he
wrote on fascist and racist journals made them think he supported
fascism racism.
Scaligero wrote in his book that he wrote to do his best to diminish the
consequences of racism.
You are accusing him to be a liar. But he always coherent with the ideas
he wrote about.
Follows part of an article from: "Roma Fascista. Settimanale del G.U.F.
dell'Urbe, 8 aprile, 1943, pag. 1.
"Dove manca l'ispirazione solare, manca la stabilita', l'equilibrio: la
deviazione per eccesso o per difetto e' continuamente il posto da
attendersi, l'ambiguita', l'equivoco prendono continuamente il posto
della essenza reale. Cosi' la lealta', la chiarezza, l'obiettivita' non
sono piu' qualcosa di certo e di duraturo; tutto e' travisato, confuso
da questa assenza di direzione unitaria e cosciente - che solo puo'
essere data dalla conoscanza tradizionale - per cui l'uomo, nonostante
un apparente ordine, nonostante il suo sistematismo letterario o
filosofico, nonostante i conati di un razionalismo recato su ogni piano
della vita e la meccanizzazione della sua civilta', vive un oscuro
disordine di tutti i suoi impulsi, nella tragica ignoranza dell'origine,
dello scopo e della funzione del suo esistere. Si puo' dire (spirituale)
un simile uomo, si puo' in lui riconoscere l'azione della forza-Cristo?
Si dice spirituale, si dice cristiano, ma in realta' non e' tale. Se
egli si conformasse ai veri principi dello Spirito - il che e' dire: se
egli sentisse quel che il Cristo gli puo' offrire meglio che mai, oggi
nell'epoca moderna - veramente potrebbe compiere la rivoluzione
restauratrice di tutti i valori qualificativi. E non v'e' da equivocare:
le forme tragiche e grottesche della decadenza moderna presentano solo
un significato, hanno un solo fine: portare l'uomo a riconoscere quale
direzione il Logos puo' donargli perche' egli possa con mezzi nuovi
recare l'ordine, l'equilibrio, l'amore, la verita', la giustizia,
nell'intimo della tumultuosa e maccanizzata vita moderna. Non si tratta
di abolire, ma di compiere, non di distruggere, ma di integrare, non di
reprimere, ma di riordinare: occorre capire e sentire ancora una volta
il Logos, ma al tempo stesso realizzarlo nelle forme inusitate che esso
esige per i nuovi tempi, per compenetrare della Sua verita' i nuovi
tempi: solo per tale via puo' aver inizio la restaurazione. Ora, questo
compito di restaurazione che, sia nell'individuo come nella
collettivita', possa compiersi la' ove il male ha orogone e non alla
periferia, non dove il male e' gia' fenomeno, ma nel piano delle cause -
tale compito e' difficilmente individuabile: anche in buona fede molti
equivoci si generano attorno ad esso. Ma esiste una Scienza dello
Spirito, eterna e percio' perennemente attuale, la quale puo' insegnare
in ogni tempo all'uomo la (via) verso la perfezione, la possibilita' di
ricondurre, grazie ad un'assoluta certezza, il finito verso l'Infinito,
il mortale versol'Immortale, l'umano al Divino. Le nostre non sono
parole: ci riferiamo non ad un vago sapere, non ad una vaga tradizione,
non ad una cultura da eruditi, ma a quella Scienza dello Spirito la cui
peculiarita' consiste, sin dalle piu' remote civilta', nell'offrire
all'uomo l'autentica visione universale del mondo e la possibilita' di
riferire ad essa ogni creazione, onde non esista aspetto della vita che
non sia ispirato e percio' conforme a questa certezza intima. La quale
e' forza ordinatrice che, pertendo dal mondo interiore, si riflette
nell'esteriore. Si badi che non intendiamo alludere a (visione
universale) nel senso puro del termine: l'uomo puo' presumere in ogni
tempo - come si e' accennato - di fare professione filosofica
eletteraria di universalita', pur avendo perduto il contatto con
l'autantico Universale. Parlarne e' facile, conoscerlo e' raro" chi lo
conosce non ne parla, ma agisce e lascia parlare il suo syile di vita.
Ora, la Scienza dello Spirito e' la mediatrice tra la conoscenza
dell'Universale e la vita: essa sola e' la Scienza in cui ancora oggi si
esprime quel Logos che dalle tradizioni precristiane fu conosciuto sotto
nomi diversi e Giovanni con autorita' iniziatica disse incarnato nel
Cristo: il compito e' dunque riconoscere ancora oggi questa Scienza
dello Spirito, in quale cultura si esprime e sotto quali forme si
presenta. Essa e': sta agli uomini riconoscerla, di la' da ogni
confusione di linguaggio, di la' da ogni pregiudizio dialettico, di la'
dai limiti di una cultura acquisita, cristallizzata e ritenuta vera una
volta per tutte. Ciascuno esamina il mondo attraverso un vetro colorato:
cosi' l'occhio non puo' percepire la luce reale: occorre liberarsi dai
vetri colorati, occorre osare spingere lo sguardo oltre ogni sapere e
ogni costume interiore acquisito. Coloro che oggi ritengono avere
possibilita' intellettuali eintendano collaborare con queste alla
instaurazione di un ordine nuovo, debbono cessare di dire mere parole,
cessare di arzigogolare su questioni che si riconnettono semplicemente a
un pensare astratto, a un pensare infecondo, a un pensare che non
riflette nessun aspetto del Vero, a un pensare che, nonostante le sue
forme di logica e di saggezza, e' sostanzialmente in contrasto comn la
(logica) e la saggezza dell'Universale. Occorre che il loro pensiero
torni ad essere uno strumento del Vero, il che e' dire strumento di
forze divino-spirituali: solo a questa condizione, sia pure assunta come
atteggiamento iniziale, si puo' capire che cosa sia la Scienza
Spirituale e quale la sua missione nel mondo oderno. Possiamo avere le
migliori intenzioni di servire la Verita' con il nostro pensiero, con la
nostar cultura, e con tutto cio' servire inconsapevolmente un errore che
siamo incapaci di riconoscere, per ignoranza dei principi elementari
della Scienza Spirituale. Non basta la Verita', la Giustizia, l'Amore,
non basta aspirare ad un'armonia sociale: occorre possedere la (tecnica)
per saper riconoscere la vera Verita', la vera Giustizia, il vero Amore,
e per poterli tradurre dal piano metafisico in forze operanti sul piano
umano. Ora tale (tecnica) non e' contenuta in una qualsiasi mistica, o
in una filosofia, ma soltanto nella Scienza Spirituale cui si e'
accennato. Per tutti gli autentici riceratori dello spirituale, per
tutti coloro che nella indagine dei fatti sovrasensibili dell'uomo
intendono recare la limpida precisione di un pensiero esatto, e' ora di
riconoscere in quali forme oggi si esprime l'autentica Scienza dello
Spirito, indi pensare, agire e lavorare per l'umanita', secondo i
principi di questa Scienza in cui inestinguibilmente si esprime la forza
del Logos.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(I don't have the two or three articles you required, but again why
don't you ask the editor?)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 651
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: the two steiners
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:38:11 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
Harold Freeman, director of the National Cancer Health Institute's
Center to reduce Health Disparities, said at a recent meeting, 'Race
disappears when you look at the human genome' But scientists know that
they cannot ignore the clinical data that show, for example, that
African Americans die at a higher rate from coronary heart diseases than
do whites, Moreover, population genetics has long shown that certain
single-gene disorders are more prevalent in some population, such as
Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazu Jews. Poolygenic disorders also tend
to be more common in some population groups. So, it isn't surprising
that epidemiological studies show that certain drugs have a better
efficacy rate in some groups than others. The controversy arises over
what to do with this type of information. For some scientists, the
question now is, 'Do different ways exist to organize people?' So far,
researcehrs are exploring a few ideas, including studying the human
brain and identifying gene combinations that control drug responses.
Says Freeman, 'Race doesn't exist, but yet it does.'
Geneticists have long considered racial designations to be more
sociological than biological. In 1999, the American Anthropological
Association concurred with the statement that 'Öhuman populations are
not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct
groupsÖThroughout history, whenever different groups have into contact,
they have interbred. Any attempt to establish lines of divisions among
biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective.'
Human patterns of migartion and mating have unevenly distributed what
little genetic variation the global human population has, and people
have classified each other based on the most visible of those variable
traits.
Robin Andreasen, assistant professor of philosophy, University of
Delaware, Newark, "The condition required to maintain racial
distinctness - reasonable reproductive isolation - may no longer exist.
Hence, races may be on their way out.' She defines races by kinship,
rather than by physical similarities.
The Human Genome Project has so far revealed that what people consider
racial differences comprise only 0.01% of the body's estimated 35,000
genes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is true but it does not take a lot of genetic variation to give
different results. It depends on where the 0.01% is located. This
argument is a double-edged sword. In a recent article appeared in
Nature:
Nature 415, 914 - 917 (2002) - 21 February 2002
Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan
MATTHEW RONSHAUGEN, NADINE MCGINNIS & WILLIAM MCGINNIS
Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of CaliforniaóSan
Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
A fascinating question in biology is how molecular changes in
developmental pathways lead to macroevolutionary changes in morphology.
Mutations in homeotic (Hox) genes have long been suggested as potential
causes of morphological evolution1, 2, and there is abundant evidence
that some changes in Hox expression patterns correlate with transitions
in animal axial pattern3. A major morphological transition in metazoans
occurred about 400 million years ago, when six-legged insects diverged
from crustacean-like arthropod ancestors with multiple limbs4-7. In
Drosophila melanogaster and other insects, the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and
abdominal A (AbdA, also abd-A) Hox proteins are expressed largely in the
abdominal segments, where they can suppress thoracic leg development
during
embryogenesis3. In a branchiopod crustacean, Ubx/AbdA proteins are
expressed in both thorax and abdomen, including the limb primordia, but
do not repress limbs8-11. Previous studies led us to propose that gain
and loss of transcriptional activation and repression functions in Hox
proteins was a plausible mechanism to diversify
morphology during animal evolution12. Here we show that naturally
selected alteration of the Ubx protein is linked to the evolutionary
transition to hexapod limb pattern.
Averof and Akam8 proposed that the hexapod body plan evolved from
crustacean-like ancestors in two phases. First, mutations restricted
Ubx/AbdA expression to the proto-abdominal region (Fig. 1a); second,
mutations in Ubx/AbdA pathways resulted in suppression of thoracic-type
limbs in the proto-abdomen. The mutations in this second 'limb
suppression' phase could have occurred in Ubx/AbdA coding sequences, in
regulatory or coding sequences for genes downstream of Ubx/AbdA, in
regulatory or coding sequences for Hox cofactors, or in a combination of
these.
(Ö)
On the basis of these results, we propose that Ubx proteins in some
crustacean/insect ancestors uncovered a
limb-repression function by the mutation of C-terminal Ser/Thr
phosphorylation sites. Together with the restriction
of Ubx expression to the posterior trunk and expansion of a QA-rich
domain, the loss of these sites would have
contributed to the evolution of the hexapod body plan. The putative
phosphorylation-mediated regulation of
transcriptional repression function in arthropod Ubx proteins may occur
by a similar mechanism to that recently
described for the Drosophila Even-skipped protein22. In both cases, such
a mechanism would provide for the
mediation by signal transduction of the control of transcriptional
activation and repression functions of homeobox
genes.
To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence that links
naturally selected alterations of a specific protein
sequence to a major morphological transition in evolution. There are at
least two major reasons why the mutation of
mutiple Ser/Thr residues that inhibit a repression function might be
advantageous from an evolutionary aspect. First,
mutating the residues would give dominant phenotypes, eliminating the
need to fix two recessive mutations in a
morphologically evolving lineage. Second, the successive removal of
Ser/Thr residues might quantitatively influence
repression function and morphology, allowing viable microevolutionary
steps toward "hopeful monsters"1 with
macroevolutionary alterations in body shape.
___________________________________________________
The authors suggest that just a small number of mutations can cause
great changes.
We should consider not only how much different is the genome, but also
how potential differences in gene expression, caused for instance by
certain nutrients, may affect the phenotype of a certain group.
FascinatingÖ
P: Where does Scaligero give a racist meaning to the term 'race'?
Peter S.:
The problem with people like Scaligero and Steiner
wasn't that they used the term "race", but that they gave it a racist
meaning and made their racism central to their belief system.
P: Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to consult a current
textbook in genetics.
Peter S.:
I recommend you consult a current textbook in genetics
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:38:14 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi again Peter:
Here's my third and final instalment of this current exchange.
Peter S replied:
) I think I do understand them (his Anthroposophical teachings about the
ideal human). They are forthrightly anti-individualist and structured around
a theory of racial evolution. Egos evolve through a series of "higher racial
forms" toward the Universal Human. What do you think I have misunderstood
about these teachings?
Charlie M replies:
When he talks about races he is talking about the past and the immediate
future. How more clearly can state how individualist he is :-
"We are now living in a period of transition. All group-soulness must
gradually be stripped off. Just as the differences between nations are
gradually disappearing, and the factions within them come to understand each
other better, so also will other group-soul qualities have to be shed.
Instead, the individual nature of each person will be pushed to the fore. We
have here characterized something essential in evolution. From another point
of view, we can also say that in the course of evolution the concept of
race, by which group-soulness is chiefly expressed, gradually loses its
significance...the anthroposophical movement...must seek to unite people of
all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between
various groups of people."
From the lecture "Individuality and the Group Soul" in the book "The
Universal Human"
He considered Europeans to be just as one-sided as any other group of
people.
"However, what can be said about this principle in the Christ impulse,
namely, the salvation of humanity out of bodily fragmentation into spiritual
unity, must be told, for it must become more and more effective in human
evolution".
From the lecture "The Unification of Humanity Through the Christ Impulse" in
the book "The Universal Human"
Charlie M (from previous post):
)Does he or does he not teach that Christ is the supreme Ego, something we
are evolving towards?
Peter S replies:
) Only if by "we" you mean white people. The left-over Lemurians are
definitely not evolving toward the Universal Human, according to Steiner;
they are devolving toward animals. Same for all the other "lower racial
forms" left behind in the forward march of spiritual evolution.
Charlie M replies to the reply:
How can Steiner say that the concept of race must be overcome but only for a
particular race. Either the concept is overcome or it isn't. I'll throw in
another quote:
"When we keep in mind that the sixth period is that of the first complete
overcoming of the concept of race, we have to realize that it would be sheer
fantasy to think that a sixth 'race' will also start in a particular place
on earth and develop like the earlier races."
From the lecture "Individuality and the Group Soul" in the book "The
Universal Human"
Charlie M (from previous post):
)Does he attribute Christ's character to the fact that, when on earth, he
was a member of the Jewish people
Peter S replies:
) No, of course he doesn't. Where did you get that idea from?
Charlie M replies:
Just trying to get a clear picture of your views.
Peter S continues:
Christ and Jesus are two different beings, according to Steiner. In fact
Christ represented to him the overcoming of everything Jewish. I think you
are more familiar with Steiner's christological writings than I am, so if
there is some passage where he states what you describe above, I'd be
grateful if you
could share it with us.
Charlie M replies:
Christ did not represent to him the overcoming of everything Jewish. Christ
was and is above everything connected to all racial and national
distinctions (and even religious distinctions). Jesus was the most perfect
human who could develop within no other people but the Jewish people.
Charlie M (from previous post):
) )It's not a question of Steiner's views that our capacities as somewhat
determined by nation or race, but of his thinking that this something we
should try to, and indeed must, overcome.
Peter S replies:
) But only some of us are even potentially able to "overcome" this, in
Steiner's view. He held that purportedly "racial" differences are a blemish
that needs to be overcome in order to achieve spiritual perfection (an
odious claim in itself), and he argues that only specific racial and ethnic
groups are capable of achieving this state.
Charlie M:
There are no individuals who are not capable of progressing according to
Steiner. He said that racial differences are an external feature that tend
to separate us, we must "exert all the more force from within to attain
unity" because of this.
Charlie M (from previous post):
) )But in his anthroposophical phase he views Christ as being totally
individual, no
) )generic characteristics.
Peter S replies:
) No. The later Steiner conflated individual and generic characteristics.
Charlie M:
Are you trying to say that he viewed Christ as having generic
characteristics?
Charlie M (from previous post):
) )So both the pre-1900 and post-1900 Steiner regards people as evolving
from a
) )generic nature to an individual nature.
Peter S replies:
) No. Those are two utterly different conceptions of "evolution". The
pre-1900
) version is an account of individual, personal development away from
inherited generic characteristics and toward self-chosen individual
characteristics. This process of development is a matter of choice, will,
individual determination, and it plays itself out within one person during
one lifetime. The post-1900 version is an account of cosmic progress toward
a future species of higher humanity, one that will lack distinctions that
Steiner took to be "racial" in nature. This process is a matter of
impersonal evolution in the Darwinian sense; it plays itself out above the
heads of individual persons and takes thousands of years to complete.
Charlie M:
When you say that the individual evolution is played out during one life
time have you any Steiner quotes to back this up, or is it something you've
assumed from the writings in general?
When Steiner (the anthroposophist) says that man has now reached a stage
where he, himself is responsible for his own evolution, how can this be
impersonal? And to say that he groups future humanity into a species is to
completely misrepresent him.
He gave an answer to those who saw contradictions as you do, part of which I
've written below. From the preface to the 1914 edition of "The Riddles of
Philosophy" (which is available in English by the way), he comments:-
"There will, however, always be people who like to construe contradictions
among the successive writings of a person, because they either cannot or
else do not wish to consider the certainly admissible extension of such a
persons thought development."
PS:
) I'd say you just need to be a bit more attentive in your reading.
Charlie M replies:
And you.
PS:
)No selectivity required. Steiner isn't ambivalent about these questions. Is
) there anything that I said above that you think is inaccurate?
Charlie M replies:
Yes: the following words you wrote for a start (see my reply above).
"The post-1900 version is an account of cosmic progress toward a future
species of higher humanity, one that will lack distinctions that Steiner
took to be "racial" in nature. This process is a matter of impersonal
evolution in the Darwinian sense; it plays itself out above the heads of
individual persons and takes thousands of years to complete."
warm regards,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:02:33 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
I refer to the corespondence of Evola with Guenon. Unfortunately the
replies from Guenon went lost. It is published in Italian, and I think I
can find by whom. Eventually if there is no other way, I may find a way
to let you have a copy. BTW, soon it's going to be published the
correspondence between Evola and Scaligero (I think of both). That may
help to elucidate their differences.
Guenon wrote: 'J'ai ete' stupefait d'y voir [in Imperium] un article de
Scaligero qui temoigne, a' l'egard de mon ouvre, d'une incomprehension
complete a' laquelle je ne me serais pas attendu de su part: ce n'est
vraiment pas tres encouageant..."
Basically Scaligero was opposed by all the ortodoxies, by the
traditionalists, by anthroposophists, hegelian and gentilian idealists.
Guenon did not believe in democracy as he explained in "The crises of
the modern world". But actually he was right to say that things come
from above. According to the doctrine of the four ages, krita, treta,
dvapara and kali yuga, humankind went down from being governed by
priests, then by warriors (Kshatriya), then by the third state and the
fourth state today. Nothing can be done that does not come from above.
But I would not worry about the need for a coup. Not by Guenon's elite.
And the threefold social vision of Steiner is democratic.
)
)
) )) Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
) )) is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
) )) Guenon.
)
) Is it published? In french or in english?
) Though, having in my possession all the books by GuÈnon (I don't think
) there is any translation of his books in english), I don't see anything
) or
) any far-right ideas in his books, and I could cite a large number of
) esotericists who are not far-right and for whom he is also a perennial
) favorite.
)
) He apparently didn't believe in democracy (I think it was said in his
) book
) "la crise du monde moderne"- crisis of the modern world), a stance which
) I
) don't share at all.
)
) Yes, that is true that he believed in an elite, and often claims that
) nothing can come from below but from above.
)
) The issue I see here, is that, when the supposed elite (who ought to
) have
) more wisdom, I think that is what GuÈnon meant by the word "elite") has
) become totalitarian, well, without democracy, what can we do to topple
) it? A
) "coup d'etat"?
)
) As you have a greater knowledge about all these matters than me, I'd
) like to
) share with you the documents you have as to this matter.
)
)
) koala.
P: There is no bridge between Evola and Steiner.
Fascist anthroposophists like Scaligero form the bridge between
) ) these two figures.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 652
-- Topica Digest --
English, please!
By peter_zegers runbox.no
RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: the two steiners
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Scaligero vs. racism
By koala noos.fr
RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: No black list, Joel?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: context
By hermit tiac.net
Re: the two steiners
By hermit tiac.net
Re: the two steiners
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: context
By snell gv.net
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: context
By koala noos.fr
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted: was:
Genocide as ne
By koala noos.fr
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: 2 /Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted:
was: Genocide as
By koala noos.fr
Re: context
By mysplum earthlink.net
3/ Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted:
was: Genocide as
By koala noos.fr
joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this list
By hermit tiac.net
4/ Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted:
was: Genocide as
By koala noos.fr
Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By koala noos.fr
Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By koala noos.fr
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
By hermit tiac.net
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this list
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 14:10:25 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: English, please!
Dear critics,
Percedol sent us this: GuÈnon wrote: "J'ai ÈtÈ stupÈfait d'y voir [in
Imperium] un article de Scaligero qui tÈmoigne, ý l'Ègard de mon oeuvre,
d'une incomprÈhension complËte ý laquelle je ne me serais pas attendu de
sa part: ce n'est vraiment pas trËs encourageant..." (I tried to correct
the orthographical mistakes, maybe Koala can check this?).
Rough translation: "I was amazed to see there [in "Imperium"] an article
by Scaligero that showed a complete misunderstanding of my work, which I
hadn't expected from him: this is really not encouraging." (Koala,
please let us know if I made any big mistakes in the translation).
Percedol, please don't send large texts in languages other than English
to this list, especially when without a (rough) translation. You surely
know that Italian, French and other languages are not known to everybody
on this list. You don't want to exclude these people from the
discussion, do you? I am interested in the Italian and French texts, but
you can always send them to me off-list.
Best,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 14:37:44 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
Percedol wrote:
"You think people cannot do the mathematics?
In that list there are about 329 names.
But only 180 signed the petition.
Scaligero didn't sign the petition."
I can see the mathematics involved, but I don't see the logic in this
syllogism. Which list are you referring to? The one that was published
in "Il Giornale d'Italia" on July 25, 1938? Was Scaligero on that list?
Percedol wrote: "He has been put in that list because to some historians
the fact he wrote on fascist and racist journals made them think he
supported fascism racism."
Really, do you have any supporting evidence for this remark? I don't
quite get why some historians would have included Scaligero's name in
the list that was published in "Il Giornale d'Italia" on July 25, 1938.
Which historians by the way?
This for now,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:34:59 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
)le 3/03/02 5:16, Peter Staudenmaier ý pstaud hotmail.com a ÈcritÝ:
)) Hi koala, you wrote:
)
) (snip)
)) As you have a greater knowledge about all these matters than me, I'd )like
)) to
)) share with you the documents you have as to this matter.
)
) I doubt that I know more about Guenon than you do; I haven't read that much
) of his material. Aside from Evola, other far-right esotericists who promote
) Guenon's work include the Italian publisher Claudio Mutti and some of the
) contemporary German enthusiasts of the Thule tradition.
I guess it is how you fabricate traditions out of exoteric writings when you
are not connected to any real source, you lift pieces of information that
are scattered in various books wherever you can find them, and you paste the
bits and pieces you got hold of, here and there, to make a new stew or
hotchpotch with no taste at all.Then you say you are an established
esotericist, whereas you are just a thoroughgoing liar. As it is
fragmentary, it can even become a classic: in the case of the book
"fragments of an unknown teaching", it is clearly stated that the teaching
is in fact unknown, because the guru or the writer could never have access
to it!!
If somebody is more informed than you, as to spiritual traditions, he
becomes even more popular, because you can steal more from the same person.
I guess that is why some are very enthousiastic about him, because there are
a lot of things they can steal from him. Even if I don't agree with
everything GuÈnon wrote (particularly his opinion about reincarnation), his
corpus is impressive for somebody who wants to sincerely engage in a quest
for, or a seeking for, truth and traditions. Unfortunately, it is also
impressive for somebody who seeks to use it in a distorted way, alter it in
his own way to carry out his greed for power.
I think GuÈnon tried to sort out all the mess that was already occurring or
being said about traditions and initiations in his lifetime (it is even
worse nowadays with the New Age "tinkering about", that eventually winds up
with a constant "tinkering with") and he managed in my sense to right all
the wrongs that had been written by lunatic people. The task is enormous, as
you can see with this very list.
His influence upon the "contemporary german enthusiasts of the ThulÈ
"tradition"" you mention, is rather strange because GuÈnon always denounced
the so-called ThulÈ tradition and its originating in or from, or its
connections with, the Golden Dawn, as having no tradition at all! He showed
very clearly the dangers of such a counter-initiation. We can all testify to
the disasters that later ensued, before and during WWII, and I am fairly
convinced that the theosophist and anthoposophist movements contributed
extensively to the prevailing mood and social environment of that time.
His book "Le theosophisme" ("the theosophism") is a very harsh (and
justified) critic of the theosophic movement as initiated by Blavastky (that
is GuÈnon who speaks of the fake scientific experiments led by them,
including the faking of photographs, or the pedophilia of Leadbeater and so
on - by the way, there is even a movie by Charles Sturridge, I think the
title is "the mystery of fairies" with Peter o toole as H.G. Wells, which
shows the falsification of photographs showing fairies). He makes an
important distinction between the word "theosophy" according to its real
tradition and true meaning (divine wisdom) and the appropriation of it by
Blavastky (hence the neologism: the theosophism (false theosophy of
Blavatsky as opposed to the tradition of theosophy as a true ancient
knowledge).
He also said about Gurdjieff: "to flee like the plague!"
Nowadays, I really think it has become a plague.
) Pauwels and Bergier
) accord a primary role to Guenon in influencing the occultist tendencies
) within the Nazis, but I have very little use for Pauwels and Bergier's work.
) I'll try to look around for some more reliable literaure on the right's
) appropriation of Guenon.
I don't know of any Bergier's work. I'll use the search engine. What was his
first name?
As to Pauwell, I suppose that you refer to the "matin des magiciens" which I
haven't read (I think it is deleted, but I'll try to get hold of one copy).
I mainly know of his book "Monsieur Gurdjieff". As you may know, Pauwell
wound up in (at?) an hospital because of the physical exercices (as well as
other exercises) that were imposed on him by Gurdjieff! That is how he
stopped the so-called Gurdjieff "work"... At that time it was already hard
labour (this way Gurdjieff didn't have to pay for any renovation works that
were undertaken in his mansion). Today, they tend to change according to the
money and the age you have...
I even read that Gurdjieff (whose life is very unknown, or magnified, in my
sense on purpose) would have suggested to the nazis, the orientation of the
swastika (going to the left). The author asserts that if the orientation of
this symbol had gone to the right, the nazis would have won???!!!!!!
koala.
)
) Peter S.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:23:27 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
on 3/3/02 12:38 AM, charlie morrison at charliemorrison btinternet.com
wrote:
)
) Charlie M replies:
) When he talks about races he is talking about the past and the immediate
) future. How more clearly can state how individualist he is :-
) "We are now living in a period of transition. All group-soulness must
) gradually be stripped off. Just as the differences between nations are
) gradually disappearing, and the factions within them come to understand each
) other better, so also will other group-soul qualities have to be shed.
) Instead, the individual nature of each person will be pushed to the fore. We
) have here characterized something essential in evolution. From another point
) of view, we can also say that in the course of evolution the concept of
) race, by which group-soulness is chiefly expressed, gradually loses its
) significance...the anthroposophical movement...must seek to unite people of
) all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between
) various groups of people."
) From the lecture "Individuality and the Group Soul" in the book "The
) Universal Human"
Sharon: I don't trust that translation for a second, it is new and revised,
I have the same book...but just for a minute let's say it is
accurate....here are the problems I see (let's ignore all other Steiner
books and stick only with the Universal Human):
Firstly, what's wrong with people being one now? Why do we have to
*gradually* strip off and shed racism? I want to do it now. And why do we
have to be unified through the Christ impulse? What if we don't believe in
Steiner's Christ impulse?
In the same book, Steiner props up old racist stereotyping such as the
concept of wandering Jew. And guiding hereditary so that certain bodies
could be prepared to accept the incarnation of the Christ spirit. Abraham's
mission consisted of perfecting the brain. Eventually Judaism must die out
and be replaced by Steiner's rot.
Secondly, his "universal human" will consist of Anthrosopsophists, a pure
sixth race which will "approach more and more this beautiful Grecian type,
which would reach its perfection when the earth arrives at its goal in the
seventh post-Atlantean epoch". I for example will not belong to his pure
race because I won't accept his dogma, I won't develop my "I". Consequently
I will be forced to join an Anthroposophical group and be instructed in what
I may "think, feel, will and do". Steiner's idea of a universal human sucks.
When I think of people as one, I'm hoping for diversity of thought,
feelings, desires and action. Steiner is a fascist, he wants to make a race
that is homogenous, his goal is a universal, Anthro. spirit, heck, we can't
even have bodies. Universal Human is the biggest lot of nonsense I've ever
read.
Steiner in Universal Human p 76: "But if we have a sense for Greek
sculpture, we can feel how the ancient Greeks dreamed of a uniform, perfect,
beautiful type of human being that should have developed. This development
did not occur because Lucifer and Ahriman preserved older racial forms that
had developed, so that there was a coexistence of races rather than a
succession."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:26:57 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero vs. racism
)le 2/03/02 21:21, Percedol netscape.net ý Percedol netscape.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Scaligero never signed the petition!
)
) And "that great mistake" (sentii il dovere do intervenire, perche' quel
) grosso errore fosse il meno nocivo possibile) refers to the outbrake of
) racism.
This not the issue Percedol.
The issue is that all the people you refer to are, either closely, or from a
distance, connected to fascism. You'll never come up with a reference or an
author who is undoubtedly not connected to it.
That is the point.
Your reference books are constantly soiled by the history of mankind or its
most despicable ambiguity.
You can discuss endlessly about whether he didn't sign this or that, but
the facts are that they can never be exonerated from having connections with
those people or having been actively engaged sooner or later to a fascist
party or attitude.
Never the anthros (if you are one), nor the supposed anthro-historians come
up with an unarguable quote or author. They always have to base their
belief, their opinion or their reasoning on brittle foundations that were
relegated to a position of secondary importance by prominent scientists and
historians. From time to time, a new one arises (rather a new fabricated
historian) that merely or hardly outshines the outermost bounds of your
inner question-fenced territory.
You have always to define yourself in relation to it, not outside of it. It
always bear a relation to it.
You could have come up, in order to endorse Joel's stance, with somebody's
quote or text that is definitly unrelated to the period of history we are
talking about. You didn't. And the reasons why you didn't is because you
can't, or because this period of history is more important to you than to
us. You have to reinterpret the stains that have remained and that will
always be remaining related to the anthros or to their history with new
theories, new documents or new evidence that would or could invalidate
previous arguments about former well-grounded accusations against them.
The fact is that you have no other possibility than to try to wipe out
indelible stains.
koala.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:01:06 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
Hello Percedol, you wrote:
)Scaligero didn't sign the petition.
We still have no idea why you think that. Could you simply tell us why you
are certain of this? Did Scaligero tell you that he never signed the
manifesto? Or have you seen what you consider to be an accurate and
comprehensive list of signatories which does not contain his name? I am
entirely willing to believe that his name did not, in fact, appear on the
manifesto, and that the historians who reported the contrary were mistaken.
But you need to provide some evidence of this, not merely repeat it as if it
were self-evident.
)He has been put in that list because to some historians the fact he
)wrote on fascist and racist journals made them think he supported
)fascism racism.
It would be surprising indeed if the historians in question had gone to the
trouble of tracking down his articles in periodicals that are no longer easy
to come by, and quoted from those articles as well, without having actually
read them. And even if you did believe this to be the case, it does make me
wonder why you don't consider extensive publishing in openly fascist and
racist journals to constitute prima facie evidence of tacit support for
racism and fascism. Could you perhaps explain your logic here? Are you
trying to tell us that you have also read these articles, and you do not
consider their content to be racist?
)Scaligero wrote in his book that he wrote to do his best to diminish )the
)consequences of racism.
That's the usual procedure in such situations: try to give your former
activities the best spin possible. I refer you, once again, to the parallel
case of Heidegger in Germany. Or perhaps you think he wasn't really a Nazi
either, just like Scaligero wasn't really a fascist? Post-war justifications
are not reliable evidence of pre-war behavior, plain and simple.
)You are accusing him to be a liar. But he always coherent with the )ideas
)he wrote about.
What's with anthroposophists and "coherence", anyway? It's like you guys
think it's insulting to suggest that somebody you admire might have changed
his or her mind at some point in their life. I hope nobody ever accuses me
of maintaining "coherence" over a lifetime of work.
)(I don't have the two or three articles you required, but again why
)don't you ask the editor?)
Would you care to put is in touch with this person? Thanks,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:06:36 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
Hi again Percedol,
Unless I have quite misunderstood this last post, you seem remarkably
interested in retaining some biological meaning to racial categories. But
the material you posted does not support that position, it undermines it,
leaving me confused about just what it is you are trying to say. Do you
think that races exist in a physical, biological, or genetic sense? And do
you think this is important to understanding racism? Thanks,
Peter S.
)Harold Freeman, director of the National Cancer Health Institute's
)Center to reduce Health Disparities, said at a recent meeting, 'Race
)disappears when you look at the human genome'
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:18:30 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
Percedol writes:
)And the threefold social vision of Steiner is democratic.
No, it isn't. Only one of the three spheres (the political, a rather
restricted category in Steiner's view) is supposed to run along democratic
lines. The other two (the economic and the cultural spheres) are explicitly
anti-democratic in Steiner's conception of threefolding.
)P: There is no bridge between Evola and Steiner.
You are denying that Evola taught a version of the Aryan myth as part of a
wider adaptation of the cyclical theory of yugas? Or that he made Atlantis a
centerpiece of his version of race history? Or that he held that the Aryans
and Atlanteans were preceded by the Lemurians, Hyperboreans, and so forth?
Or are you perhaps denying that Steiner taught all of these things? Please
explain what you mean here. Thanks,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:39:33 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: No black list, Joel?
Dear Peter Z,
I must be the worst writer ever. The sentence read "you get on my
..... when" which I thought refered to a possible future event, for
which I gave examples. If I had meant to say that you personally said
those things (the word you was a general pronoun in that usage not one
specific to you), I would have written "You got on my..." I suppose
there are some weird rules about future tenses and past tenses and stuff
like that I have never gotten straight, so again I appologise for being
a bad writer.
j.
Peter Zegers wrote:
)
) Joel,
)
) You didn't answer some of my my questions. Does this mean that you take
) back your statement that I called you a "child abuser" and a
) "megalomaniac"?
)
) Peter Zegers
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:57:44 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: context
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: What are the errors? When I am wrong about doctrine I stand
) corrected. When I call Steiner a religious leader, a guru, a white magician,
) an occultist, a mystagogue instead of a scientist, educator or philosopher I
) am correct.
No Sharon, you are not. But you and I know that there is probably not a
thing I can say (or should say) to convince you otherwise. I just hope
you never give up searching for the truth, and learn as soon as possible
that one of the biggest obstacles to meeting the truth is our
convinction that we already know it.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 16:34:00 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
mysplum wrote:
)
) Firstly, what's wrong with people being one now? Why do we have to
) *gradually* strip off and shed racism? I want to do it now. And why do we
) have to be unified through the Christ impulse? What if we don't believe in
) Steiner's Christ impulse?
Dear Sharon,
Stop and think a minute, okay. Don't just fight the situation because
it involves Steiner. Look at what you wrote - you want to shed racism
now. Good for you. But Steiner is talking about long term processes in
history and social existence that involve lots of people shedding
"racism". Some people won't seek it as an ideal, in the way you
personally want to do, but they can have a life experience that leads
them forward.
In America, we have been trying to have a less racist society, but the
truth is that even laws don't solve the problem of what lives in human
hearts, while life experiences can reach in and touch that very thing.
Don't you know racist people, I mean seriously racist people. And don'
you know people struggling to step past that, to find a better way.
Life is filled with such struggles. We swim in them.
As to the Christ Impulse...
First those are just words, like toe or foot. But toe and foot refer
to something that human beings have and are, as does Christ Impulse or
Buddha Nature. The Christ Impulse is a characteristic of human nature,
one that is especially emergent in the present. You see it all the
time, and live it yourself. It's just a name for something in the "I
am", something that grows from the choices we make and the deeds we do,
and the quality of heart that lives in theses choices and deeds.
It's not some magically mystical thing out there in some imagined
religious ur-space. On the contrary, it is right there in front of us
all the time.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 14:57:39 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi Charlie,
)When he talks about races he is talking about the past and the )immediate
)future.
"Immediate" is hardly the appropriate adjective here. Steiner gave two
conflicting accounts of when race would become obsolete. In one account,
this will happen roughly 1500 years from now; in the other account, it will
happen 6000 years from now. That's an awful long time to wait for the anthro
version of race to run its course.
)How more clearly can state how individualist he is :-
)"We are now living in a period of transition. All group-soulness must
)gradually be stripped off. Just as the differences between nations are
)gradually disappearing, and the factions within them come to understand
)each
)other better, so also will other group-soul qualities have to be shed.
)Instead, the individual nature of each person will be pushed to the fore.
)We
)have here characterized something essential in evolution.
Right there, Charlie. This is the point where Steiner gives away his hand.
What he describes is a process of racial evolution toward a higher form of
humanity, one in which "group-soul qualities" will have no role. What pushes
the individual nature of each person to the fore is precisely this
evolutinary process, according to Steiner. Read on:
)From another point
)of view, we can also say that in the course of evolution the concept of
)race, by which group-soulness is chiefly expressed, gradually loses its
)significance...the anthroposophical movement...must seek to unite people of
)all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between
)various groups of people."
)From the lecture "Individuality and the Group Soul" in the book "The
)Universal Human"
The chapter you've quoted is, of course, about "the development of the I",
which Steiner sees as an evolutionary process. The final chapter of the book
lays this out in detail and explains why, in Steiner's view, it was
unfortunate that Lucifer and Ahriman forced humanity to develop racial
diversity; the proper course of cosmic evolution was supposed to produce one
race at a time, in sequence, rather than having several races coexist
simultaneously.
Even in the chapter you've quoted, Steiner gives deeply conflicted
indications about how this unfortunate "racial" diversity is to be overcome;
at one point (p. 26) he offers a supremely ambivalent portrait of individual
"I-hood" marked by external appearance and of the coming separation of
humankind into two new physically demarcated groups. Allow me to quote the
passage and its context:
"In future, what speaks to the depths of the human soul will be expressed
increasingly in people's outer appearance. What people have acquired as
individuals and yet experienced non-individually will be expressed in their
countenance. Thus, the individuality of a person -- not the group-soulness
-- will be inscribed on his or her countenance, and that is what will
account for human diversity. Everything will be acquired individually,
although it will only be gained through overcoming the individuality. Those
who are in the process of developing the I will not form groups, but their
individuality will be expressed in their external appearance. That is what
will create differences between human beings. There will be people who have
acquired I-hood; they will be scattered over the earth, and their
countenances will be very diverse. Yet, in this diversity the individual I
is expressing itself even in the person's gestures. However, those who have
not developed their individuality will bear the imprint of group-soulness in
their countenances; that is, they can be grouped in categories that will
resemble each other. That will be the outer physiognomy of our earth: the
possibility will be prepared to bear one's individuality as an outer sign or
to bear the outer sign of group-soulness. It is the meanung of earthly
evolution for human beings to develop more and more the ability to express
their inner being in their outer appearance."
Even the most agreeable portions of this ambiguous narrative (that those who
have developed the "I" will be "scattered over the earth") are either
contradicted or undermined by Steiner's other writings on the same question,
which explicitly assign the task of developing the "I" to "Central
Europeans".
In any case, I fail to see what is meaningfully individualist about a theory
that regrets the very existence of racial diversity and proposes that it be
overcome in the course of thousands of years by the evolution of two
physically distict groups and the eventual disappearance of one of those
groups.
)He considered Europeans to be just as one-sided as any other group of
)people.
Why would that make a difference?
)"However, what can be said about this principle in the Christ impulse,
)namely, the salvation of humanity out of bodily fragmentation into
)spiritual
)unity, must be told, for it must become more and more effective in human
)evolution".
I don't see how this quote supports your position. Human evolution is hardly
an individualist phenomenon.
)How can Steiner say that the concept of race must be overcome but only )for
)a particular race.
An excellent question! One answer would be simply to note that he often
contradicted hinmself and leave it at that. I think that would be a mistake.
I think it makes more sense to try to come up with a reading of his various
pronouncements on the subject that can draw out their common assumptions and
implications.
)Either the concept is overcome or it isn't.
Or it is "overcome" in a way that covertly rehabilitates the concept itself.
)I'll throw in
)another quote:
)"When we keep in mind that the sixth period is that of the first complete
)overcoming of the concept of race,
Remember when the sixth period starts, Charlie. That's not "immediate" by
any stretch of the imagination.
)we have to realize that it would be sheer
)fantasy to think that a sixth 'race' will also start in a particular place
)on earth and develop like the earlier races."
Yes, because the remaining humans will have "overcome race" by eliminating
racial diversity, or better, the sorts of diversity that Steiner took to be
"racial".
)Christ did not represent to him the overcoming of everything Jewish.
Sure he did. Jews were Steiner's favorite example of "group-soulness",
portrayed as such again and again in the lectures. In fact this is one of
the several elements in Steiner's worldview that can, in my view, be traced
all the way back to the earliest phases of his career, long before his
theosophical turn.
)Christ
)was and is above everything connected to all racial and national
)distinctions (and even religious distinctions).
Yes, of course, and Jews were, for Steiner, the very embodiment of such
distinctions.
)Jesus was the most perfect
)human who could develop within no other people but the Jewish people.
That's an interesting notion, I suppose, but can you tell me why you think
Steiner held it? I really don't know his christological works very well, and
aside from the theory of the two Jesuses I haven't read much that he wrote
about Jesus. Is there a passage where Steiner says what you just said?
)There are no individuals who are not capable of progressing according )to
)Steiner.
Of course there are. Look at any of his comments on the leftovers of
previous root races. Try this one from Cosmic Memory: "the last Lemurians
and Atlanteans who today exhibit forms as fixed as the human races which
were formed later. These remnants had to adapt themselves to the changed
environmental conditions of earth and thus became more rigid. Just this is
the reason for their decline. They did not transform themselves from within;
instead, their less developed interior was forced into rigidity from the
outside and thus compelled to stagnation. This stagnation is really a
regression, for the inner life, too, has degenerated because it could not
fulfill itself within the rigid external bodily structure."
In case that isn't clear enough, elsewhere in the same book he writes: "The
ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has disappeared, the
main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia. In theosophical writings
they are called the Lemurians. After they had passed through various stages
of development the greatest part of them declined. These became stunted men,
whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as
so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable
of further development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed."
The whole point of Steiner's schema of racial decline and advance is that a
few select members of a given racial group evolve onward toward the next
ordained stage, while the majority declines toward savagery and animality.
)He said that racial differences are an external feature that tend
)to separate us, we must "exert all the more force from within to attain
)unity" because of this.
Yes, but he was speaking to white people, and only white people, when he
said that.
)Are you trying to say that he viewed Christ as having generic
)characteristics?
Yes. His account of what is essential and universal in the Christ impulse is
patterned directly on the model of Europeans who fit his conception of
spiritual attainment. That was one of the reasons he eventually broke with
mainstream theosophy, because Besant et al emphasized elements that were too
"Eastern" for Steiner's tastes.
)When you say that the individual evolution is played out during one life
)time have you any Steiner quotes to back this up, or is it something you've
)assumed from the writings in general?
You mean from his early writings? I think this is obvious from The
Philosophy of Freedom, Truth and Knowledge, and his other early
philosophical works. He addresses readers as individuals, often using the
first person, and recommends particular habits of thought that can only be
practiced by individuals during a single lifetime; his recommendations would
be simply meaningless if applied to evolutionary processes spanning many
generations. These early writngs are nothing like the quotes that both you
and I have provided above from his later writings.
)When Steiner (the anthroposophist) says that man has now reached a stage
)where he, himself is responsible for his own evolution, how can this be
)impersonal?
Because the goal of this "own evolution" is the eventual creation of a new
species, a new kind of human being.
)And to say that he groups future humanity into a species is to
)completely misrepresent him.
What would you prefer that I call it? A genus?
)He gave an answer to those who saw contradictions as you do, part of which
)I
)'ve written below. From the preface to the 1914 edition of "The Riddles of
)Philosophy" (which is available in English by the way), he comments:-
)"There will, however, always be people who like to construe contradictions
)among the successive writings of a person, because they either cannot or
)else do not wish to consider the certainly admissible extension of such a
)persons thought development."
That isn't an answer, Charlie, it's a deflection. I don't deny that Steiner
underwent a considerable process of "thought development", and I certainly
consider this process entirely "admissible". But it's foolish to pretend
that this process did not involve reversals, contradictions, and
re-assesments and alterations of previously held positions.
)Yes: the following words you wrote for a start (see my reply above).
)"The post-1900 version is an account of cosmic progress toward a future
)species of higher humanity, one that will lack distinctions that Steiner
)took to be "racial" in nature. This process is a matter of impersonal
)evolution in the Darwinian sense; it plays itself out above the heads of
)individual persons and takes thousands of years to complete."
Aside from the fact that you apparently don't like my use of the term
"species", what do you find inaccurate in that description? The book you've
just quoted several times, The Universal Human, describes exactly what I
describe above, quite explicitly. Could you explain what you mean here?
Thanks,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:24:50 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: context
)Dear Diana
)I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an insider. I
)spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
)Schule Basel). My sisters spent some more years there and my mother worked for
)some years in another one. We are all not antorposopes and therefore, we were
)in plenty of problems like not being fully integrated and being the target for
)the antroposophes, who attacked us all sooner or later. Concerning Steiner, I
)must disapoint you, because I never reat his books. I felt so bad in this
)school that I never felt motivated to investigate in the thoughts of
)the person
)who is considered as spiritual father of it or however you want to call it.
)If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family was
)treated, feel free to pose them.
)Sandra
Hi Sandra, and welcome!
How do you feel now about your Steiner education? What kind of
problems did you and your other family members experience ? What are
you doing now and how did your Steiner education help or hinder you
for getting out in the real world? Did you attend college? Why or why
not? If you attended college, did you complete your studies? What
about the rest of your class mates?
I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I am interested in these
kind of statistics and nothing is available.
Debra
--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:50:11 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
We all agree that Steiner really liked
) Goethe; the question is, were there important similarities between their two
) approaches to knowledge?
Dear Peter,
I have been standing on the sidelines on this, so I only offered the
quotes as a way of supporting the dialogue between you and Charlie.
However, perhaps I should share my approach to this.
Like your way of knowing God doesn't exist, nor Atlantis ever was, or
the Easter Bunny, I too have views that seem in the totality of things
so "right" that I don't bother to examine them.
I don't doubt for a moment that Steiner "saw" clearly what lived in
Goethe as a Way of knowledge. Nor do I doubt that Steiner did a most
excellant job of drawing into epistemological form this Way. Of all of
what Steiner gave to the world, I was most attracted to goetheanism
right from the very beginning. I have made it a deep study.
This study, however, is not in any intellectual way at all. In my own
biography the problems of human political and social existence drew my
heartfelt concern to them right from the very beginning of my
incarnation. It has been as if my "I am" came just to encounter this
riddle and penetrate its depths. Thus, when I met anthroposophy and
goetheanism, it was already clearly before me that human beings were
creatures of soul and spirit, and that whatever understanding one was to
have of our common social and political life, such understanding needed
to include this reality.
At the boundary layer, where goetheanism (in its phenomenological form)
and spiritual science (as a method of thinking) grew together, there I
found the means to penetrate with my understanding the mysteries of
social and political existence. I have now spent almost twenty-five
years working in this Way.
Now before you unload your process of asking all manner of questions on
what has been written above, please be advised that you would first have
to demonstrate an authentic interest, something quite beyond the
critical and doubting approach you mostly frequently unfold. I feel no
need at all to justify or explain to you any of what I have just said.
I only offered it for the purposes of making you aware in the most
general way that I am, personally, quite satisfied with Steiner's
approach to Goethe.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:29:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
Peter Staudenmaier, you wrote,
)I don't think Dan was saying that people who have spiritual
)experiences, as such, are insane. I thought he was saying that
)people who take their own spiritual experiences (which, if I
)understand what you've got in mind here, are of a personal nature)
)for reality itself, without going through the usual process of
)checking these experiences against the intersubjective reality that
)we all share, have a tenuous grip on mental health. In other words,
)it's unreasonable to expect that the rest of us will simply accept
)your account of your own spiritual experiences, and then make this
)account an integral part of your public arguments and writings,
)without you giving us reasons that we can examine for ourselves.
)Just referring us to your preferred methods won't do the trick.
)Sometimes we need to see why and how you reached the conclusions
)that you did so that we can consider those conclusions.
Peter, I am in awe of your patient reasoning with Joel; I am tempted
to just scream "bullshit"!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:48:49 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
Koala, you wrote (I'm not clear to whom):
)I guess it is how you fabricate traditions out of exoteric writings when you
)are not connected to any real source, you lift pieces of information that
)are scattered in various books wherever you can find them, and you paste the
)bits and pieces you got hold of, here and there, to make a new stew or
)hotchpotch with no taste at all.Then you say you are an established
)esotericist, whereas you are just a thoroughgoing liar. As it is
)fragmentary, it can even become a classic: in the case of the book
)"fragments of an unknown teaching", it is clearly stated that the teaching
)is in fact unknown, because the guru or the writer could never have access
)to it!!
Calling a correspondent a liar is an ad hominem argument and not
allowed on this list. You may be as savage as you want regarding
people's arguments, but you must respect their persons.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:28:21 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
CORRECTION:
)le 3/03/02 15:34, koala noos.fr ý koala noos.fr a ÈcritÝ:
)) le 3/03/02 5:16, Peter Staudenmaier ý pstaud hotmail.com a ÈcritÝ:
)
))) Hi koala, you wrote:
)
)
)
))
)) (snip)
)
)
)
))) As you have a greater knowledge about all these matters than me, I'd )like
))) to
))) share with you the documents you have as to this matter.
))
)) I doubt that I know more about Guenon than you do; I haven't read that much
)) of his material. Aside from Evola, other far-right esotericists who promote
)) Guenon's work include the Italian publisher Claudio Mutti and some of the
)) contemporary German enthusiasts of the Thule tradition.
By "you" in the following paragraphs of the same post, I was not meaning or
refering to: "you, peter S.", but "one" ("on" in french).
I hope the meaning was clear...
)
previous post:
I guess it is how you/(one) fabricate(s) traditions out of exoteric
writings when you/(one)
are (is) not connected to any real source, you/(one) lift(s) pieces of
information that
are scattered in various books wherever you/(one) can find them,
etc...
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:45:42 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: context
)le 2/03/02 21:47, Peter Staudenmaier ý pstaud hotmail.com a ÈcritÝ:
)) Hi Joel, you wrote:
)) In the end then we get to a situation where it is clear that the person
)) asking the questions has reached a limit of their own knowledge of )inner
)) life.
If it is clear, show it to us!
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:12:26 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted: was:
Genocide as necess
)le 3/03/02 0:04, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Peter,
)
) I have written some comments below in [brackets].
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
))) Joel writes:
))
) In the context of the dialogue it is clear
) that I am speaking from experience
) (snip)
I think it is the case of every man on this earth.
koala.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:16:47 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Hi Joel, you wrote:
)Like your way of knowing God doesn't exist, nor Atlantis ever was, or
)the Easter Bunny, I too have views that seem in the totality of things
)so "right" that I don't bother to examine them.
I do hold some views that fit this description, but the three you mention
aren't among them. I reached my conclusions regarding the Easter Bunny etc
after a process of examination, and occasionally I re-examine my conclusions
about god and Atlantis (I confess that I have not re-examined my disbelief
in the Easter Bunny in many many years).
)I don't doubt for a moment that Steiner "saw" clearly what lived in
)Goethe as a Way of knowledge. Nor do I doubt that Steiner did a most
)excellant job of drawing into epistemological form this Way. Of all of
)what Steiner gave to the world, I was most attracted to goetheanism
)right from the very beginning. I have made it a deep study.
How do you conduct a deep study without using doubt?
)This study, however, is not in any intellectual way at all. In my own
)biography the problems of human political and social existence drew my
)heartfelt concern to them right from the very beginning of my
)incarnation. It has been as if my "I am" came just to encounter this
)riddle and penetrate its depths. Thus, when I met anthroposophy and
)goetheanism, it was already clearly before me that human beings were
)creatures of soul and spirit, and that whatever understanding one was to
)have of our common social and political life, such understanding needed
)to include this reality.
I can see the connection to anthroposophy, but not to "goetheanism", unless
that is simply an arbitrary word unrelated to Goethe.
)Now before you unload your process of asking all manner of questions on
)what has been written above, please be advised that you would first have
)to demonstrate an authentic interest, something quite beyond the
)critical and doubting approach you mostly frequently unfold.
How should I demonstrate this? And what do you have against critique and
doubt, by the way? Oops, that was a question.
)I feel no
)need at all to justify or explain to you any of what I have just said.
)I only offered it for the purposes of making you aware in the most
)general way that I am, personally, quite satisfied with Steiner's
)approach to Goethe.
I think I was already aware of that. I just don't know why you are satisfied
in this way. You seem to know Goethe's work, quite possibly better than I
do, and there must be something in it that you find significantly
corresponds to Steiner's epistemology. I'd be interested to learn what that
is.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:18:24 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: 2 /Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted:
was: Genocide as necess
)le 3/03/02 0:04, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Peter,
)
) I have written some comments below in [brackets].
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
))) Joel writes:
))
) As to cultivating reverence for the created
) world, if you don't believe in God then this is a problem for you, but
) since I have certain practical experences where the cultivation of
) reverence is crucial, I don't have a problem.
Why should it be a problem not to believe in God?
The practical experiences you have ( or the out-of-body experiences you had)
made you meet God, or let God speak in you?
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 20:29:53 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: context
on 3/3/02 12:57 PM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) mysplum wrote:
When I call Steiner a religious leader, a guru, a white magician,
)) an occultist, a mystagogue instead of a scientist, educator or philosopher I
)) am correct.
)
) No Sharon, you are not. But you and I know that there is probably not a
) thing I can say (or should say) to convince you otherwise. I just hope
) you never give up searching for the truth, and learn as soon as possible
) that one of the biggest obstacles to meeting the truth is our
) convinction that we already know it.
Sharon: Of course he was a white magician, occultist, Rosicrucian,
mystagogue, guru, religious leader - you shall never convince me otherwise -
I've found the truth in that regard. You are a believer, so I'm only wrong
because you think Steiner was the Christ incarnate, not a mere religious
leader.
I'm not searching for the truth about Steiner, I already figured that out.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:22:30 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: 3/ Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted:
was: Genocide as necess
)le 3/03/02 0:04, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Peter,
)
) I have written some comments below in [brackets].
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
))) Joel writes:
))
))) (snip)
))) We can
))) find justifications for any hateful feeling, but a thought content
))) created out this emotional texture is usually not the truth.]
))
)) Why not?
)
) [Because if you pay attention to the relationship between mood and
) thought content you will know that hate distorts our connection to
) reality and to the truth of other people. It is really only a question
) of experience.
Quite true. But it doesn't mean they are not wrong!
We all know those things Joel! You always think we are learning something
from this statement of yours, any human being on earth knows that.
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:22:32 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this list
Dear Peter S.,
I have endeavored to offer my versions of answers to your questions,
below in [brackets]. I am well aware now that I will undoubtedly not
understand most of what you ask, and fail to properly feed your desires,
but, hey, what can I say, I am what I am.
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi Joel, you wrote:
)
) )But as usual with the critics-list, people
) )forget the context and the course of development, and take remarks
) )outside of their natural environment, forgetting that the whole meaning
) )of these remarks is imbedded in that context.
)
) Surely not the whole meaning. Otherwise fragments would be completely
) indecipherable. But I agree that it's best to consider arguments within
) their context when possible.
)
) )It would be one thing, if I were a Waldorf teacher, and having a
) )causual conversation with a parent, who in asking me some question about
) )Steiner got some kind of dismissive response, suggesting I know
) )something the parent did not, and that they should accept my "superior"
) )point of view.
)
) Your faux superiority isn't the problem, Joel. You are welcome to feel
) superior to me in any way that is important to you.
[Not what was said. Again the context has been forgotten, but what can
be done. Nothing that I can see.]
The problem is your
) aversion to conversation as such and your unwillingness to state and explain
) your point of view.
[First of all I don't have to. I get to make a choice. What you call
aversion to conversation is hardly that. As I stated in another
context, in a real conversation both must offer that which can be
examined. If you had been paying attention my views are always there.
It is really only your assumptions and make darkness instead of light.]
)
) )This all begins with the critics-list itself, which routinely contains
) )inaccurate statements about Steiner, Waldorf and anthroposophy (among
) )other kinds of errors).
)
) Could you give an example or two so the rest of us will know what you have
) in mind?
[No, read the archives. If you don't know its not my fault, it only
means you haven't been paying attention. I don't see the point of
covering old ground again, when you aren't really interested in the
first place.]
)
) )I make a choice (I could choose otherwise) to
) )participate in the list and speak to the errors (at least for the
) )benefit of the lurkers).
)
) You haven't spoken to any errors lately. When Peter F or Sharon, for
) example, offer interpretations of anthroposophist precepts that differ from
) your own interpretations, their interpretations do not thereby count as
) "errors". In order for you to show them to be erroneous, you need to offer
) arguments and evidence in favor of your own interpretations, not merely
) repeat your own interpretations.
[No I don't. Who made you God of how I or anyone else participates on
this list? I speak when I wish. I say what I want, how I want to say
it. The same way someone who is a real expert at something knows when a
novice is full of it, I know the errors expressed here. Why do you
think conversation between people who disagree has to be about proving
who is right? Is that really possible? No one convinces me of
anything. I decide myself what is true. That being the case, I wish
for others the same possibilities. You can think what you want, and so
can the rest of the list. Again, for the millionth time, I write mostly
to the lurkers so that they will see there is more to things than the
anti-steinerism and macarthy-like guilt by association tactics
frequently practiced on this list.]
Why are you reluctant to do this?
)
) )At the same time, if the critics are going to assert wrongness in
) )Waldorf and anthroposophy they need to get their facts right, and in
) )many cases they do not.
)
) Which cases are those?
[Read the archives.]
)
) )Thus, discussion occurs over what really is anthroposophy
)
) Yes, but you haven't engaged in this discussion. Your position that
) "anthroposophy" is a pure method devoid of content is intellectually facile.
[No it is not, you just don't want to understand it. If you had a
genuine desire to appreciate what I think, it would be easy to
understand. But it is inconvenient to your rigid and fixed views.]
) When the rest of us point that out to you, you have nothing else to say. Why
) not? How do you expect a discussion to include your point of view if you
) offer no arguments in favor of it?
[Knowledge does not arrive to someone as a result of "argument". For
example, here is Roger Penrose (serious mathematician) in his book, The
Emperor's New Mind: "It seems clear to me that the importance of
aesthetic criteria applies not only to the instantaneous judgments of
inspiration, but also to the much more frequent judgments we make all
the time in mathematical (or scientific work) Rigorous argument is
usually the last step! Before that, one has to make many guesses, and
for these, aesthetic convictions are enormously important..." Or, Dan's
favorite, Karl Popper: "...I think that there is only one way to science
- or to philosophy, for that matter: to meet a problem, to see its
beauty and to fall in love with it;...".]
)
) )the
) )critics (whose very attitude and agenda makes it unlikely they will
) )understand)
)
) Because critical thinking is a hindrance to finding spiritual truth?
[What is critical thinking? Can you describe it as a process in detail?
I see no way to answer this question with out a careful exposition of
what this terminology means.]
)
) )The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in
) )Waldorf (and in the anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of
) )Steiner
)
) Can you point to a single critic who holds this view?
[Can't have a cult without a guru. How can you ask such a question,
don't you ever read what is written here? Look in the archives.]
)
) )As the discussion proceeds over time, questions from the critics more
) )and more insist that every statement I make be explained.
)
) Gosh, that must be rough, having to explain what you mean to people who
) can't read your mind. When will those silly critics finally learn some
) clairvoyance?
[pointless sarcasm. Getting a bit testy are we?]
)
) )The train of
) )thought (over many weeks) begins with the distinction that anthroposophy
) )is not a set of beliefs, but a kind of inner act, to demands that that
) )inner act be explained in detail.
)
) You only need to explain this is you want other people to understand your
) position and assess it. If you don't want that, what are you doing here?
[See above about the lurkers, for the billionth time. One day you will
start to pay attention, I hope. Then maybe you will not need to repeat
your questions over and over again on matters alrealy discussed.]
)
) )In the end then we get to a situation where it is clear that the person
) )asking the questions has reached a limit of their own knowledge of )inner
) )life.
)
) Nobody else here is interested in your inner life, and there is no reason
) for you to be interested in ours. We're here to discuss Waldorf and
) anthroposophy.
[Of course, but you can't do that without discussion the universal
principles existing in human inwardness, since in order to teach you
have to be teaching something, and in order to understand the
relationship of anthroposophy to all this you have to understand the new
method of thinking - for the trillionth time.]
)
) )This could be fine, if people would not insist they already know
) )everything.
)
) Nobody insists this.
[Sharon does, and so does Dan. You do as far as racism goes and as to
the so-called two Steiners. Don't you read your own writing?]
)
) )Peter S. could say, okay, I don't understand this.
)
) I say that all the time, particularly in response to you.
[No you don't, not in the sense I used those words. What you say,
mostly through the deeds of your words when assessed collectively, is
that you aren't interested in learning anything that disagrees with what
you already think you know. You don't understand because you don't want
to understand. If you actually wanted to understand you would be asking
very different questions. Plus, you don't have to want to understand,
but your constant questioning is really directed at trying to ignore the
implications of what is said and to maintain you world view. A person
willing to learn something (which is how you go about understanding what
lives in another person), has a more plastic and malleable view, one
capable of expansion and change. You already know everything about
spirit, and Steiner and what I think that you want to know.]
)
) )But that is not really what is said.
)
) Yes, it is. Here is an example: Joel, when you talk about "the invisible
) world", I don't understand what you mean. Could you give me a reason not to
) conclude that you are deluded in thinking you have unique access to this
) world?
[No, why should I? Just read your question. First of all the word
"unique". Have I said that? Who said that? The invisible world is
something being explored by huge portions of the human beings on this
planet, most through older traditions. Are you really that asleep to
what is going on around you in terms of modern humanities explorations
of the inner components of their being? It would appear so.]
)
) )In fact, both Sharon's and Debra's
) )comments leave out what Peter S. wrote, as did Peter S. when he went to
) )this issue.
)
) That's because you had just quoted it one post previously in this thread.
) You remember threads, Joel? That's how they work. Anybody reading this has
) already read what I wrote, and read your quoting what I wrote.
[Huh?]
)
) )Here is what he said: "Why do you believe this? Do you think that you
) )failed to understand your own experiences before you began undertaking
) )concentration exercises and meditation practices?"
)
) Yep, that's what I asked you. Care to answer?
)
) )So when I reply: "I would guess that you failed to follow me at this
) )point because we went past your own understanding of your own
) )inwardness. Why don't you write out for us your own objective
) )understanding of your inwardness and allow us to ask you questions?",
) )everyone forgets the deep context and trys to interpret my approach as
) )some kind of put down of Peter S.
)
) I didn't interpret it as a put down. You are more than welcome to use put
) downs with me. What you did above wasn't a put down, it was avoiding the
) question. You're still avoiding the question. How come?
[No I didn't. I did exactly what I described I do in real conversations
that reach an impasse. I asked you questions so I could find out
something about how you think, so that I could learn from you where best
to address you questions. I wrote about this within the last week, I
believe. Why don't you understand that?]
)
) )What I wrote simply acknowledges the impasse, and suggest a way out.
)
) What impasse?
[You didn't understand something. Duh!]
)
) )Peter's approach (which begins with "Why do you believe this...") is to
) )ask questions that a) ignore the course of the dialogue (why I know )what I
) )know - no "belief" is involved
)
) I'm not ignoring that, I am denying it. Much of what you claim to know is
) simply unfounded belief.
[First of all it is factually impossible for you to know whether what I
know is from experience or is from belief. If you don't understand
that, then boy are you in trouble. It is often said by the wise, that
the first step to learning is humility and ignorance. But you, who ask
endless questions of me, already convinced you know the possible
responses, don't seem to appreciate any of the real nuances of knowing
anything.]
)
) )- is clearly stated always to be based
) )upon personal experience;
)
) Why would that make the slightest difference?
[Well, it could save a lot of time with you asking questions like why do
I believe something, which isn't, from my point of view a belief. Since
it isn't a belief, you assume something that is not true for me, and
make up a completely meaningless question, and then go on and on because
I don't answer your misdirected question. That's the difference it
would make - it would save you and me time being wasted on questions
that for me have no meaning, and which you ought by this time to know
they have no meaning.]
)
) )and b) which introduces facts not in evidence
) )("do you think you failed...")
)
) That's a question, Joel. I asked "do you think you failed...", I didn't
) state it as a fact.
[You introduced an extraneous concept, one that had no meaning. Why
would I think I failed, pray tell? Oh, I forgot, you don't accept
anything I say as being true for me, since it can't be true in your view
of things. Oh well.]
)
) )- facts which slide the dialogue off its
) )point and onto an entirely different subject matter.
)
) The subject matter you posted originally was all about how certain exercises
) are necessary in order to understand one's own experiences. My question to
) you was addressed squarely to that very subject, and did not introduce any
) new subject matter.
[Yes it did. It introduced the idea of belief and of failure, and
neither question had anything to do with what I wrote. At best your
questions reflected your assumptions, but they remain without any
meaning for me, and perhaps some day you will recognize that.]
)
) )This is of course no communication at all.
)
) True, because you refuse to communicate your ideas to the rest of us. Are
) you scared of something or other?
[You can insist on your falsified reality, but the only reason there is
no communication is because the listener (you) isn't actually
listening.]
)
) )The natural logic of
) )question and answer is destroyed by a kind of verbal trickery, which
) )steps outside the point under discussion to add extraneous matters
) )pretending as questions.
)
) What you describe is a perfectly reasonable appraoch to question and answer
) dialogue -- there is nothing at all wrong with introducing extraneous
) matters. But this is all quite beside the point, since everyone can see that
) I haven't done what you just said I did. My question, the one you yourself
) have quoted twice now, is a simple and direct question that is very specific
) to your own previous statement; it does not introduce any extraneous
) matters. Could you maybe try reading over our exchange again?
[asked and answered]
)
) )It is also very wearing to reply to this kind of questioning
)
) How would you know? You haven't even tried yet.
[How would you know my state of being dealing with endless questions
coming from someone who isn't listening?]
)
) )which is
) )why (in its extreme forms) I have likened it to macarthyism.
)
) That's because you don't have the faintest idea what McCarthyism was. You
) seem to think that Joe McCarthy was just some annoyingly persistent guy who
) made a nuisance of himself by asking too many questions.
[I was born in 1940, and JM and his ilk was a very personal experience
for me. I lived in Berkeley California from 1969 to 1982, and was part
of all that political activity there. HUAC and "Point of Order" were
well understood and frequently spoken of, as the techniques continued to
be used, and are used today by politicians and others with agendas they
push forward with no respect for the effect of the terrorism of the big
lie. The racist assertions of yourself and Peter Z. are just another
variant of the same form of what is basically a morally bankrupt kind of
personal attack. You throw it at me, at Steiner, at MS, or anyone whose
work you want to draw into question. In the '50's one did this by
calling (in the US) people communists. You do it by calling people
racists, and by so distoring a rational dialogue on that kind of issue,
that people (such as those on this list, or the lurkers and parents who
come by not realizing what a real viper pit this place is) think there
must be some truth to it. But there isn't, and you do a terrible
injustice to many people. This whole situation could be done in a much
more socially healthy way, but that would require a will that I do not
sense as existing. This would be a real will to know the truth.]
)
) )The racism issue is one form of this extremist macarthyite type of
) )misdirection.
)
) "The racism issue"? You think anyone who uses the term "racism" is a
) McCarthyite? Or anyone who inquires about whether talk of "Aryans" and
) "lower racial forms" etc might be racist? Or anyone who wonders why you
) think that Native Americans are incapable of meeting "the further demands of
) evolution"? Is there any sort of discussion of racism that you *do* consider
) appropriate?
[Not with you. You are a true-believer, and with such a discussion is
impossible. You have mal-interpreted what Steiner wrote, and what I
write and are working on the same thing with MS. There is no discussing
it, because you rewrite the meaning of the words to support your
conclusions, instead of actually seeking to penetrate to the true
meaning intended by the author. You actively seek only support for your
position, and the truth is the first casualty of the war on meaning that
you make.]
)
) )For those lurkers interested in real answers to the
) )racist assertions, here are some urls:
) )http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/
) )http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html
) )http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/two-mythologies.htm
) )http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
)
) Once again, I heartily second this recommendation. If you visit Sune's site,
) you will learn, among many other very interesting things, that Sune believes
) I forged a Steiner text that Sune himself has posted to his site (thus
) evidently making himself complicit in the forgery). More interesting still,
) you will learn that Sune believes that "Anthroposophy does not use the term
) and concept 'Aryan root race' to describe and refer to human evolution since
) the last ice ages", thereby showing that Sune hasn't read the Steiner texts
) he has posted at his website. This, dear lurkers, is the sort of thing Joel
) considers "real answers". I do hope you will check out the sites above.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:40:46 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: 4/ Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted:
was: Genocide as necess
)le 3/03/02 0:04, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Peter,
)
) I have written some comments below in [brackets].
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
))) Joel writes:
))
) (snip)
))) If you are an atheist, how can you claim to know there is no God?
))
)) For the same reasons that I claim to know there is no sunken continent of
)) Atlantis and no Easter Bunny, I guess.
)
) [That made me laugh. Genuine thanks! I sometimes think it would be a
) lot easier not to have spiritual experiences. Sometimes its kind of
) like having your nose ground into something a lot of other folks don't
) have to face. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe"
) comes to mind sometimes. And then I realize what a gift it is, and what
) a debt comes with the gift, after which I go back to work.]
No, genuine thanks to you!
When I was enquiring about a past-life regression training period about
Atlantis, led by somebody quite famous in his own "spiritual" field, I asked
this very simple question:
So if I participate to the training period, it means necessarily that I have
a past atlantean life?
What if I believe in reincarnation and I don't have a past life on Atlantis?
Of course I didn't get any answer, simply because there is no logical
answer. If 1 million people pay the fee for the training period about their
supposed atlantis past life, they have one!
Joel, you don't know all the experiences I had! That is why I laugh where I
read all your spiritual scientific experiential garbage!
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:00:21 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
)le 3/03/02 0:06, Peter Zegers ý peter_zegers runbox.no a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Koala,
)
) Maybe this is of some interest to you:
)
) "There seems no doubt that some degree of sympathy existed at the time
) between GuÈnon and certain leaders of Action FranÁaise. We say ësome
) degreeí because it is clear that Daudet, of all the leaders of Action
) FranÁaise, was the most capable of understanding GuÈnon, and of
) accepting, at least partially, his point of view. It is no less evident
) that there must have been far less sympathy between GuÈnon and Charles
) Maurras, for certain circumstances, upon which we cannot enlarge here,
) were soon to reveal just how far apart Maurrasí and GuÈnonís ideas were
) on traditional society."
)
) From Chacornacís Simple Life of RenÈ GuÈnon
) Downloaded from:
)
http://www.seriousseekers.com/Books/Books_trad_friends_1_5_7/books_guenon_r_sp
) iritualauthority.htm
)
) You can find a list of all books by RenÈGuÈnon in English at:
) http://www.seriousseekers.com/Books/books_categories/books_author_guenon.htm
)
) Best,
)
) Peter Zegers
)
Thank you very much. Although I have that book (lent by a friend who is a
fan of GuÈnon; as a matter of fact, he never got it back!), I don't think I
got through finishing the book.
Your account seems quite accurate.
Nonetheless, I must admit that if I was to learn that GuÈnon had some
sympathy for the far right parties, contrary to Joel and his favourite
authors, I wouldn't hesitate to mention it as an important criticism!
I have to acknowledge that after the book by Victor Farrias about Heidegger
was published ("Heidegger and the nazism"), I was very disappointed (not by
the history truth) but by Heidegger's stance as a philosopher (because many
of Heidegger's books are important for me, though in the books that are
important for me, there is no trace of racism). Although Heidegger's
collected works are not entirely translated in french (I think there are 50
volumes in german), the facts stated by Victor Farias are undeniable.
The primary meaning of philosophy is "love of wisdom", nobody ought to
forget that.
So you speak french as well. Where do you live? in Germany?
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:13:45 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
)le 3/03/02 0:06, Peter Zegers ý peter_zegers runbox.no a ÈcritÝ:
) You can find a list of all books by RenÈGuÈnon in English at:
) http://www.seriousseekers.com/Books/books_categories/books_author_guenon.htm
)
) Best,
)
) Peter Zegers
Dear Peter
)
Waouh! Almost all of them are translated.
The one I was mentionning about the lie that is the theosophy of Blavastky
is scheduled for september 2002 apparently.
The translation of the french title "le thÈosophisme" in "theosophy" puzzles
me.
The meaning is not right. It ought to be definitly " the theosophism".
Does it work in english like in french?
About that movie released a few years ago, "the mystery of fairies", wasn't
it Peter O' Toole in the role of Conan Doyle instead? Sorry, it is late over
here! I may have been confusing him with H.G.Wells.
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:42:53 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi Joel, thanks for trying again. You wrote:
)
) )[That would assume your question had genuine meaning and significance as
) )a aspect of the course of the conversation. You actually asked two
) )questions. The first one: "Why do you believe this?" suggests you
) )aren't paying attention. In the context of the dialogue it is clear
) )that I am speaking from experience (which you can disbelieve)
)
) I don't disbelieve that. As I understood you, you said that certain
) techniques are necessary in order to understand one's own "inwardness". I
) asked why you believe that, since it would mean that nobody can or does
) understand their own inwardness until they have practiced these techniques,
) which to my ears is an implausible claim.
)
[Alert alert, context error context error - here is what I actually
wrote: "This is why..." which is clearly saying that the explanation is
in the previous paragraph, which reads: "In the case of sense percepts,
such as nature objects (a plant, a tree, a flower) the Idea is not so
immediately available. This is due in part to the fact that we are not
raised to pay proper attention to our inner experiences. For example,
we might be having a conversation and someone will interrupt and say: "I
have an idea". Now if we are self honest in the sense Peter S. wants us
to be, we have to admit that this statement arises from a very definite
inward experience whose details and exact nature we sleep through (in
most cases). We mostly notice it in passing, because our "I"
consciousness (the self awareness within the inwardness) is focused on
the conversation and not inwardly on the unconscious willing that
produced the experience of the idea."
after which comes the disputed paragraph that you are not really
interested in reading: "This is why various kinds of concentration
exercises and meditation practices are necessary in order to begin to
distinguish the various aspects of the inwardness that need to be
identified and understood. The inwardness is to the self awareness also
an experience, that is a "percept". In Theory of Knowledge both the
percepts of the sense world and the percepts of the inwardness are
called "the necessary given", since they arise without our inner
activity."
) )but in
) )asking why I believe this, you are placing the situation in a falsified
) )context. It is a poor question, and a misleading question, and frankly
) )it wears me out to play this game.
)
) I'm not trying to wear you out, and I don't think of this as a game.
[Nor are you really trying to learn or to understand, so asking
questions only with the intention to seek to falsify what you have been
reading is in fact "playing a game" whether you have the will toward
self honesty required to acknowledge it.]
)
) )The second one begins: Do you think
) )you failed..., which again is fanciful and inventive, but how can it be
) )an actual question to which attention needs to be paid.
)
) You don't have to pay attention to it, but it is an actual question. I don't
) know what you mean by "fanciful and inventive", as my question was not a
) statement. If you hold the theory that I thought you just espoused, then it
) seems to me that a necessary corollary would be that you did not understand
) your own inner experiences until you had learned the techniques you
) mentioned. I therefore asked you if this was indeed the case or not.
[If you treat as theory what to me is experience, don't you think you
falsify the dialogue? It isn't theory to me. When will you get that?
When I write about this I am picturing with considerable exactness the
universal aspects of the inwardness, in the moment. It would be the
same as you looking at some items on a table and giving a list of them.
I am describing something quite real, just as it appears to my
attention.]
)
) )So it wouldn't be easier to
) )answer your questions, since they while they might represent authentic
) )questions, they don't seem very well thought out.
)
) They're not. I formulate and pose them as I read through each post. They are
) spontaneous questions.
[Oh! Well, maybe you should read things a couple of times, and try to
imagine the possiblity that I might just know what I am talking about,
and then formulate your questions.]
)
) )[Joel:] In thinking about
) )a nature object it helps to cultivate a "mood of soul", a kind of
) )intentional feeling of reverence
) )
) )[Peter:] What does this help you to do?
) )
) )[Since you don't know the answer to this question, it suggest again we
) )have come upon a place where your own ignorance of the universal )aspects
) )of inwardness is revealed.
)
) How does my question suggest this? I happily plead ignorance of the
) universal aspects of inwardness. I don't see what this has to do with the
) very specific aspects of your own approach to nature objects.
)
) )[Now we go to attack mode.
)
) Yes, that's one of my favorite modes. I think it's important to attack ideas
) that seem ill-considered in order to find out whether they can withstand
) scrutiny.
[They are only seem ill-considered because you bring that attitude ready
made to the dialogue. If you treated them according to what they really
were, descriptions of actual experiences being reported by one who knows
what they are talking about, you would have quite a different experience
and ask much better questions.]
)
) )Your questions aren't simple, in fact the
) )whole point of our recent dialogue has been to establish this
) )complexity. You had previously described the complexity of the inner
) )world as obvious:
)
) Yes, it is obvious. You say things like this with some regularity, as if
) they represented some great discovery about human nature, when quite a few
) of us simply take them for granted.
[Yes, so for granted that you don't seem to think someone can know
anything about this complexity, especially more than you do. But, my
wandering and ofter errant friend, the inwardness can become an object
of study, just like anyother field of knowledge.]
)
) )Next you say I am foolish, on
) )the way to looking more foolish (which is an ad hominem, but DD doesn't
) )get you for them, does he).
)
) Yes, he does. Dan has admonished me for ad hominems before. I don't know why
) you think this remark was ad hominem, though.
)
) )As to cultivating reverence for the created
) )world, if you don't believe in God then this is a problem for you
)
) This would be a problem for me even if I did believe in god. It ought to be
) a problem for you, too. Undifferentiated reverence for each and every
) component of the natural world is both impossible and a really bad idea. HIV
) shouldn't be revered, it should be eradicated if possible.
[Only what is loved can be truly understood. See my previous quote from
Karl Popper on another post.]
)
) )All manner of
) )people don't notice this - they don't pay attention at all to such
) )things, living only in the sensation of the moment.]
)
) Can you give us one example of a person, preferably an adult, who fits this
) description?
[only one, sure, a pedophile, or a schizophrenic, or some who is bipolar
and in a manic phase, or school teacher putting down a student in order
to hold power over them, or a husband beating his wife, or an historian
who thinks that only critical questions lead to knowledge]
)
) )[Because if you pay attention to the relationship between mood and
) )thought content you will know that hate distorts our connection to
) )reality and to the truth of other people.
)
) What does "the truth of other people" mean?
[Often the meaning of their words or actions, things very simple. In
the Gospels the whole thing is explained in probably the best way
possible, but as an atheist, I would guess you don't look to them as a
source of truth about human nature. A pity that.]
)
) )It is really only a question
) )of experience. Its obvious if you bother to look at it. Of course,
) )some people don't want to believe it, because they really want to
) )believe they know the truth about that which they hate, when the truth
) )is that their hate only shows them what they want to believe.]
)
) I fail to see any connection whatsoever among the three phenomena you just
) named: 1) the desire to hold a specific belief; 2) whether this belief is
) justified; and 3) the role of the emotion of hate in shaping perception. You
) don't have to answer this one 'cause it's not too germane to our topic, but
) I would be interested to know what connections you discern among these
) disparate things.
[Objective introspection shows the connection as one existing in fact in
the nature and structure of the inwardness. There isn't any way to
argue it, you just have to look. Sort of like deciding to take a walk
into unknown territory. But because it is so personal, we sometimes
aren't ready to know ourselves that well. Lot of stuff there to get
uncomfortable about. As anyone can guess, the universal elements appear
mixed in with all that intimate personal stuff.]
)
) ) ) [Do you believe that all your utterances are true?
) )
) )No, of course not. Nobody believes that, Joel.
) )
) )[So it is entirely possible you are completely incorrect in your
) )assesment of my racism, as well as all kinds of other matters, isn't
) )it?]
)
) Yes, obviously. I'm a historian. Most of my assessments will, in all
) likelihood, one day turn out to be incorrect. That's how we gain knowledge,
) by revising our assessments.
)
) )[About as much as most of the questions you ask me have to do with what
) )I write about on this list.]
)
) All of my questions to you so far have been direct responses to what you
) have written here.
[Colored by a bit of persona bias, or don't you have any?]
)
) ) )) What about your intentions in reading my material?
) )
) ))What would you like to know about them? And why would they be relevant to
) ))my
) ))question?
) )
) )[Because if you are going to examine me, I am going to return the
) )favor.]
)
) I'm not examining you. I'm examining what you write to this list. Don't take
) this the wrong way, but I am genuinely uninterested in you or your
) intentions. What I am interested in are your arguments. Your intentions are
) entirely irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.
[One can't be separated from the other, unless you like to live in
illusions. In fact, in another context you said in answer to a question
of mine that you were right there in what you wrote. Seems like you
like to argue the side of things that is convenient for you in the
moment.]
)
) ) )) Do you deny reading my
) )))writing looking to find things to criticise?
) )
) ))Yes, of course. What would be the point of that?
) )
) )[Yet you haven't said anything but criticism (as in my stuff being
) )racist, and racism being central to my version of anthroposophy). Why
) )are you skirting the question. A ten year old would know where this was
) )going.]
)
) Since I'm not a ten year old, you'll have to explain to me where you think
) this is going. I read through your posts like I read through all other
) posts, and I make critical comments where something strikes my interest. The
) fact that I haven't said anything but criticism has to do with how I
) perceive my role on this list. Lots of people here say all sorts of things
) that I agree with, but I usually don't see the point in expressing such
) agreement. In fact I don't have a whole lot to say about the main topic of
) the list, Waldorf education. You began a dialogue with me, and I have tried
) to follow it through using the tools I'm familiar with, which are the tools
) of critique.
[You need better tools, they aren't working very well are they.]
)
) ))You don't have to agree with my specific analysis of Steiner's racism, but
) ))if you deny that the statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe"
) ))is
) ))racist, then you plainly don't understand what racism is.
) )
) )[Perhaps that statement doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
) )You have admitted not always being right, isn't it possible that you are
) )completely wrong in this?]
)
) Of course that's possible. If you would like to present an alternative
) interpretation of Steiner's statement that would explain why it is not
) racist, please do so.
[To do that I'd need to read the whole set of lectures in which this is
embeded. I don't really have the time or the interest, but given what
you say about aryans etc from Steiner, where I already know what he
meant is quite different from how you express it, I basically anticipate
the same thing here.]
)
) )[Because if you want to test others views, then you have to allow for
) )your own to be tested.
)
) I not only allow this, I encourage it. Joel, please test my view that
) Steiner's statement "The negro race does not belong in Europe" is racist,
) and report the results of your test to the list.
[See above.]
)
) )So one can disagree with your suppositions of racism and be correct,
) )since there is nothing about your "ordinary" method that guarantees the
) )truth.
)
) Indeed. But those aren't suppositions you mentioned, they are conclusions.
) If you want to show that they are incorrect, you need to explain what was
) faulty about the reasoning or the evidence that lead to them.
[Not to myself I don't. I don't see the point of "arguing" with you,
given what I've seen of your mal-interpretations in other circumstances.
I see a lot of stuff very clearly from how people "behave" in their use
of words, which is a whole other level from the apparent surface
argument.]
)
) )Everything is just opinion and in dispute,
)
) Yes.
)
) )one persons view as
) )good as any others.
)
) No. Some views are justified, others are not.
)
) )Such a conclusion as racism in Steiner's work is
) )quite subjective
)
) No, it isn't. It is based on a thorough examination of his writings on the
) topic of race.
[Not everyone agrees with you. Probably because your views are the ones
that aren't justified.]
)
) )just like all thinking is subjective according to your approach to things.
)
) I don't know how I managed to give you that impression. I definitely do not
) believe that all thinking is subjective.
[Oh. Then objective introspection could be real, right?]
)
) )Why does your subjective assessment of Steiner's
) )teachings have to be superior to a view which finds the opposite?]
)
) It doesn't have to be. No assessment of anything "has to be" superior to any
) other. You find out which assessments are superior by testing them against
) the available evidence and by examining the reasoning that lead to them. If
) you would like to offer an alternative assessment of Steiner's writings on
) race, please do so.
[Its been done, why are asking me to repeat work you already know
about?]
)
) )[Oh, since our inwardness, our thinking, has no relationship to which
) )conclusions are correct, how do we know what is true?
)
) I don't understand this question. A conclusion can still be true even if it
) was reached through faulty thinking. Also, "inwardness" isn't the same thing
) as thinking.
[Okay, what is thinking?]
)
) )Which is it? Does ordinary subjective thinking give us truth, or not? If
) )so, how?]
)
) I don't know what "ordinary subjective thinking" means. In my view, regular
) old thinking, which need not be "subjective" in the sense I thought you
) meant above, can indeed yield truths. I don't see what this has to do with
) "inwardness"; things are not true because they accord with some inward state
) of a person's mind, but because they accord with reality, which is external
) to that mind.
[Not if you have actually followed anything I have been writing about
for a couple weeks. Reality is the mind. That's the whole point.]
)
) ))I think much of your explication of Steiner's early epistemology is pretty
) ))accurate, for example.
) )
) )[Hmmm, I certainly haven't got that impression before. I have felt you
) )thought what I thought about it was junk. But then I still don't really
) )know what you think about it.]
)
) I can't recall challenging your account of Steiner's early epistemology.
) What I challenge is your evaluation of it, as well as two related claims
) that you have made on its behalf: that is relevantly similar to Goethe's
) epistemology, and that it represents the philosophical basis of
) anthroposophy.
[Challenge away. Since I haven't arrived at these views through
argument, but rather through practice and experience, there really isn't
much to challenge. It really is apples and oranges. Your playing with
maps and I am walking around in the territory.]
)
) )You really shouldn't get to know
) )about me more than I get to know about you
)
) I'm really, truly not interested in getting to know much about you. I am
) interested in getting to know your arguments regarding Steiner and
) anthroposophy. Who you are shouldn't have much to do with the validity of
) your arguments.
[Not making arguments, describing observations. Very different process,
no wonder you never make sense in your questions.]
)
) )Obviously a lot of my
) )intimate spiritual stuff is on this list, since in order to talk about
) )this aspect of things, it becomes necessary to reveal stuff.
)
) I don't know what you mean by "reveal" here. If you don't want to talk about
) your personal spiritual views, then don't make them public. You certainly
) don't need to reveal anything about your personal spiritual views to me; I'm
) only interested in your public stances regarding Steiner and anthroposophy.
[Well, in that case, I suspect we shouldn't talk to each other any more,
since we are at such cross purposes. Have a nice life.]
)
) )How about you? Unless you think I will
) )come at you like the attack dogs here go after me? Are you worried I
) )will call you a child abuser, or a megalomanic or insane? Does it make
) )you feel vulnerable to open up this way - open your soul to disection on
) )the scale practiced here? If so, welcome to the club.]
)
) I don't think this makes me feel especially vulnerable, I just think it's
) irrelevant. I'm happy to tell you nearly anything you'd like to know about
) my personal beliefs. Many of the other list members already know about them,
) as I've discussed them before when asked. But I still don't see what they
) have to do with the topics you and I have been discussing.
)
) ))I'm an atheist, and I don't have any consistent spiritual practice at this
) ))point in my life. Why do you think this is relevant to our discussion?
) )
) )[I think this knowledge helps me understand you, and that understanding,
) )if I let it touch me and honor it, then it will change how I treat you.
) )I don't want to judge you for it (the way I get judged for being an
) )"anthroposophist", but it does fill out the picture of the "who" that
) )writes these messages to the "me" that is writing them to you.]
)
) I guess I can see what you're getting at, but I nevertheless think it's
) generally a bad idea to judge any argument based on the person who happens
) to put that argument forward. We ought to focus on the substantive questions
) at stake, not on each other's personalities.
[Then why is alleged racism relevant to things? Why do you bring it up
immediatly when MS is mention in an entirely different context. What is
the import or relevance of my alleged racism? Or Steiner's with
reference to the rest of his work. When you harp on these things to the
extent that you do, you exhibit that to you they are much more central,
their your remarks above would suggest. You really do make a
distinction without a difference when you suggest that the person and
the person's views are separable.]
)
) )))When did you stop beating your wife?
) )
) ))I'm not married.
) )
) )[This is a famous american legal joke. Do you know it?
)
) Yes. That big family of mine is mostly made up of lawyers. I thought
) everybody grew up with this joke.
)
) )Have you ever
) )been married, or had children?
)
) No and no. I don't believe in marriage, and I don't plan to have children of
) my own.
)
) )[Okay, you got me really stumped. What I know about MS is that some of
) )his students have achieved the living thinking that is the goal of the
) )Philosophy of Freedom and that they think highly of him.
)
) They're the ones you ought to hold responsible for failing to inform you
) about his fascist past. It isn't a secret.
[Well so far P's remarks are more convincing than yours. And you still
haven't show what the point is given the context in which I referenced
him. When the response immediatly is to play the "he's a racist" card,
you justify with that behavior my conclusions that your whole purpose is
guilt by association.]
)
) )I cited him as
) )someone who had replicated Steiner's achievement in this regard, and the
) )response was for all this racist stuff to come out.
)
) You cited Scaligero in the midst of an ongoing controversy over racism
) within anthroposophy, in which your own position, near as I can make out,
) has been that anthroposophy cannot possibly be racist. Since Scaligero's
) work, which combines anthroposophy with explicit and vicious racism, is an
) obvious counterexample to your claim, Peter Zegers and I pointed out his
) actual record on race issues.
[Not true. I cited him for a reason, and you didn't speak to that
reason but played your guilt by association game. You don't listen to
what is said, but redefine things according to how you want it to be,
and in this you are consistent. You have a clear agenda, and really
don't pay attention to anything that might suggest you have been
mistaken. You say it is about argument, but fail complete to show the
relevance of the racism smoke and mirrors to the other issues.]
)
) )As a matter of
) )logic, MS's politics don't seem related to me
)
) Related to what? To the issue of anthroposophy's attitude toward racial
) politics? That relationship seems very clear to me.
)
[Pay attention. Listen to someone else's thinking besides your own.]
) )But I can't verify them
)
) Why not? You don't know anybody who has access to the books we've cited, or
) who can interpret their contents for you? Have you lost the ability to email
) Percedol and ask him to send you a quick summary in English of Scaligero's
) articles on "spiritual racism" and "integral racism"? What exactly is
) keeping you from verifying this?
[Time and lack of interest. P is making quite satisfactory answers, why
should I take the time to make what would really be a very weak bit of
research. Again, I don't have to do what you want, think what you
think, believe what you believe or agree with what you write. I don't
have to following your approach to things, and I can still be know what
is true.]
) )and the person(s) reporting this to
) )this list are not people whose judgment about such matters I trust
)
) You don't need to trust our judgement. We have given you full citations for
) standard historical works that have absolutely no axe to grind with
) anthroposophy. Why not put a little effort into tracking them down?
[There is no reason to do so. I am satisfied with what I know and
think. Just like you don't see any need to learn objective
introspection or agree with my thinking about things, I have no
obligation to follow your lead. I don't think you know what you are
talking about, and you think I don't know what I am talking about.
Looks like the end of the road to me.]
) )Now you are talking
) )about Apartheid. I guess your logic is that MS was an architect of
) )Italian facism and racist theory, and that this is somehow related to
) )other facist and dictatorial politics, and that someone who believed and
) )fostered such things couldn't be a very spiritual person.
)
) No, no, no, I believe the exact opposite. Lots of very spiritual people were
) architects of classical fascism. My logic was simply about how we know
) things about Italy without knowing Italian. You don't know Afrikaans, and
) you've never read anything by the architects of Apartheid that I named, but
) that doesn't make it difficult for you to decide whether Apartheid and its
) architects were racist, does it?
[Okay, I get this. But I am still missing how racism is relevant to
other aspects of these peoples lives, or my own. Try to look at this
from my point of view. I mention MS about his contributions to Living
Thinking as a way of devolopment, and your response is that he was a
racist. Where's the connection to me? I can see the connection to your
agenda, but it certainly isn't relevant to why I brought his name
forward.]
) )P is posting to the list his disagreement with your and
) )Peter Z's views in this regard
)
) So far the only substantive claim Percedol has made is that Scaligero did
) not sign the manifesto. As Peter Z pointed out, this is a simple claim to
) test. Maybe you could encourage Percedol to send you a copy of the journal
) in question, and then you can tell the rest of us whether Scaligero's name
) appears on the list of signatories.
) )and I am not in a position to make a
) )independent verification.
)
) On the contrary, you are uniquely well positioned to make such a
) verification. Percedol doesn't seem inclined to share documentation with us,
) but he might well do so with you. What do you say, Joel? Want to help get to
) the bottom of this?
[The bottom of what? Your agenda, or mine?]
) )However, since I find your judgment of
) )Steiner's works very weak and unsatisfactory (and please lets not go
) )over this old territory again)
)
) You and I haven't been over that territory yet. Why don't you want to go
) there?
[answered above]
) )I am naturally suspicious of your
) )application of the same logic to MS.
)
) I haven't applied the same logic. In the case of Steiner, my assessment is
) based on studying his own published works. In the case of Scaligero, my
) assessment is based on well-established scholarship conducted by other
) historians. And the two aren't comparable in any case; as pernicious as
) Steiner's racial doctrines were, he never actively collaborated with a
) Fascist regime, as Scaligero did.
)
) )In addition, I have the personal
) )experience of having my own work mal-interpreted, so perhaps you can see
) )that, while you disagree with me, maybe I am justified in disagreeing
) )with you, given my experience. Or, maybe not.]
)
) I don't see what your experience would have to do with it. One is justified
) in disagreeing based on reason, evidence, and the persuasiveness of the
) contending arguments. If you disgree that a person who publishes in fascist
) periodicals for over a decade, and has been clearly identified as a fascist
) by independent historians, can be accurately called a fascist, I would very
) much like to hear how you reached that conclusion.
)
) )Don't you ignore Sune's and others
) )refutations of your and Z's racism theorys about Steiner?
)
) No, of course I don't. Boy, you really haven't seen much of what I've posted
) on this list over the past year, have you! I have replied to every one of
) Sune's allegations at great length, showing in detail why he is mistaken
) about my work, about Steiner's work, and about the intellectual origins of
) Nazism. I have asked Sune to either post my replies at his site, or provide
) links to them there, but he has refused to do so. I have also replied to
) every other response to my work that has been brought to my attention. None
) of those responses has engaged the arguments I put forward about Steiner's
) race theories, much less refuted them. If there is something in particular
) that you think I have ignored, please let me know what it is.
)
) )Why should I
) )have the same passions you have? Or think the same way?
)
) You shouldn't. You should think for yourself. You don't seem to be doing
) that in this case.
[If you say so, it must be true.]
) )If it isn't a fact to me that "he was an active racist...etc", then what's
) )the point.
)
) Why isn't that a fact to you?
)
) )Just because you assert it doesn't make it true
)
) No kidding.
)
) )in point of fact,
) )because you assert it makes it questionable.]
)
) That's illogical, Joel. Nothing about the person who asserts a given
) argument can have any effect on that argument's validity. Try a little
) harder to separate the ideas from the people who happen to express them.
)
[Why?]
) )Tired sarcasm aside, I have answered all kinds of questions for
) )you. I am wearing out this keyboard - can't read the letters on the
) )keys anymore.]
)
) Sorry about that. I've been at this keyboard much too long myself. I am
) indeed a long-winded writer, and I appreciate the time you have taken to
) respond to some of my questions.
)
) ))What anthroposophists say is
) ))obviously more important to me, not less so; otherwise my research would
) ))be impossible.
) )
) )[Nobody to accuse of racist evolutionary theories. What a drag.
)
) There are very many other ideological tendencies besides anthroposophy that
) have promoted racist evolutionary theories. I just happen to be studying
) this one.
)
) )I can
) )understand better now the questions you asked of me in the very
) )beginnings, which weren't about me at all, by the way.
)
) No, of course they weren't. I asked about what you had written, not about
) you.
)
) )Nice to know I
) )can be another resource in support of your theories.]
)
) I don't quite understand how you can say things like that and then get upset
) when others wonder aloud if you agree with the racist strand within
) anthroposophy. If you really don't want to be another resource for my
) theories, why not just say flat out what you think of Steiner's racial
) doctrines?
)
[They aren't racist. You've misunderstood them]
) )Since one of my main interests is
) )politics, how about we have a conversation about that, off line if DD
) )thinks it ought to be.
)
) I'm always interested in that. Anthroposophy's early politics are exactly
) what got me into all of this.
)
) )Curious to know what you think the Bush
) )adminstration is up to in the middle East.]
)
) Another frequent topic for me. But probably not well suited to the list.
)
) )[That made me laugh. Genuine thanks! I sometimes think it would be a
) )lot easier not to have spiritual experiences.
)
) I do have spiritual experiences; I just don't believe in god.
)
) )[Must confess your views have in the past made me very suspicious.]
)
) I like suspicion. I think it's often a good attitude to adopt toward ideas
) and views.
)
) )[It would help to once in a while get the impression that I didn't have
) )to justify every thought and view, and could just be accepted for being
) )different.
)
) Okay, I can see that. I'll try not to demand that you justify every single
) claim. It would help, though, if you could try to recognize that a number of
) other people on this list are willing to engage in a genuine dialogue with
) you, and sometimes they deserve to get genuine replies, like the ones you've
) just given me.
[try to remember that this takes a lot of time. I have spent two whole
days this weekend, only possible because I am sick and can't work. I
can't continue to do this, nor does the existence of a question mean it
is worthy of an answer. If you will recall at one point I counted them
and when they got over a hundred I just threw up my hands and went and
watched some tv. Asking questions is easy, especially when people don't
bother to read what is written or read what is cited, but just
"spontaneously" shoot from the lip. People who do research also shoot
from the lip and have agendas. Much of history has been falsified over
the years at the hands of so-called "historians". Moreover, governments
routinely hide stuff that is never found and make up stuff that is never
discovered to be disinformation. Now here you are urging me to get
involved in serious discussions about things that if I were to do it
justice following your methods would involve me in reading way more
Steiner lectures than I care to read at this point in my life, just to
argue with you. Sorry, not interested, and don't feel any need to.
Steiner's research on human evolution didn't appear racist to me when I
read it, and doesn't appear to be so now. At the same time, I don't
believe or not believe it, although what I've read of you stuff pretty
much convinces me you didn't get it. But that's no big deal, just think
of me as someone really opposed to what you do in spreading these false
ideas as to what Steiner was writing about.]
)
) )When DD says people who have spiritual experiences are
) )insane it scares me, because I've worked a lot in the places where
) )people who are thought insane get sent.]
)
) I can see how that remark would have a different resonance, then. But I
) don't think Dan was saying that people who have spiritual experiences, as
) such, are insane. I thought he was saying that people who take their own
) spiritual experiences (which, if I understand what you've got in mind here,
) are of a personal nature) for reality itself, without going through the
) usual process of checking these experiences against the intersubjective
) reality that we all share, have a tenuous grip on mental health. In other
) words, it's unreasonable to expect that the rest of us will simply accept
) your account of your own spiritual experiences, and then make this account
) an integral part of your public arguments and writings, without you giving
) us reasons that we can examine for ourselves. Just referring us to your
) preferred methods won't do the trick. Sometimes we need to see why and how
) you reached the conclusions that you did so that we can consider those
) conclusions. But now I'm starting to state the obvious myself. Thanks for
) reading this far,
[I hate this I really hate this. You sound so nice and are so far from
having a clue. I don't expect you to accept my account of anything. I
can't make an argument of what is really just a description of
something. There is no reasoning involved. We all share this doorway
into the invisible and anyone can find the same things (many many do).
It has nothing to do with mental health, unless you are not paying
attention and can't get past you own limited experience and think since
you don't know something, someone else can't know it.]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 04:37:37 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
If being Scaligero related to the time of Fascism is an obstacle for
you, or for others it's not my problem. It's another element of
prejudice that one has to overcome to find the truth. 'If you don't
expect the unexpected you will not find the truth.' Truth presents
itself under unexpected semblance. The Christ, who was bringing
something new, was a scandal for the Sanhedrin, they had the Truth in
front of them. It does not matter what argument one brings, there will
always be people ready to reject it just because it's not conforming to
their expectations. But, you can wait forever if you hope the truth will
conform to you.
I only wanted to say that Scaligero did not support racism. Someone
questioned the content of some articles. Those articles eventually may
be found. It would take time. But those, whose agenda is to attack
Steiner and Scaligero do not care. They try to accuse these teachers
that they were racist. And when they convince people with their
allegations, what will happen? It will not change anything for those who
seek seriously.
I have not seen any well-grounded accusations on Steiner. You have no
idea of how much I laughed (literally!) when I read the articles written
by Peter Staudenmeier posted on the web trying to make an impossible
and ridiculous relationship between Steiner and racism. Dialectics is
truly the enemy of the Spiritual.
What stains do you refer to exactly?
Now, my question to Peter S. and Peter Z. Where do you come from? Are
you part of some group?
Percedol
Koala:
people or having been actively engaged sooner or later to a fascist
party .....
.... well-grounded accusations against them.
) The fact is that you have no other possibility than to try to wipe out
) indelible stains.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:05:43 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this list
Hi Joel,
)I have endeavored to offer my versions of answers to your questions,
)below in [brackets]. I am well aware now that I will undoubtedly not
)understand most of what you ask, and fail to properly feed your )desires,
)but, hey, what can I say, I am what I am.
I think I have very modest desires in this regard.
)As I stated in another
)context, in a real conversation both must offer that which can be
)examined. If you had been paying attention my views are always there.
I have noted your views on several occasions, only to be told that I have
"mal-interpreted" them. If that is indeed the case, then you obviously need
to do more than simply state your views; you need to explain them.
) ) Could you give an example or two so the rest of us will know what ) )
) )you have in mind?
)
)[No, read the archives. If you don't know its not my fault
Yes, of course it is. Any time that I don't know what you have in mind, you
are the only person who can enlighten me. If you want others to know the
contents of your mind, you need to express those contents.
)I don't see the point of
)covering old ground again, when you aren't really interested in the
)first place.]
That would indeed be pointless, but I obviously am interested, otherwise I
wouldn't waste my time asking you repeatedly to tell us what you mean.
)[No I don't. Who made you God of how I or anyone else participates on
)this list? I speak when I wish. I say what I want, how I want to say
)it.
That's unfortunate. The rest of us try to speak in ways that others might
understand.
)The same way someone who is a real expert at something knows when a
)novice is full of it, I know the errors expressed here.
But your expertise is not superior to that of Sharon or Peter F on a number
of the topics you've addressed.
)Why do you
)think conversation between people who disagree has to be about proving
)who is right?
It doesn't, unless what is right (not "who", by the way) is in dispute, and
one or more of the discussants is interested in getting at the truth of the
matter.
)Is that really possible?
Yes.
)No one convinces me of anything.
I'm beginning to suspect that, slowly. If this is true, it makes you unfit
for public discussion, Joel.
)I decide myself what is true.
That's called solipsism.
)Again, for the millionth time, I write mostly
)to the lurkers so that they will see there is more to things than the
)anti-steinerism and macarthy-like guilt by association tactics
)frequently practiced on this list.]
I don't think you understand what the term "guilt by association" means.
)[No it is not, you just don't want to understand it.
Now that's an intriguing conclusion. If I have not been expressing a desire
to understand your position by asking you a number of detailed questions
about it, then what does my behavior express, in your view?
)If you had a
)genuine desire to appreciate what I think, it would be easy to
)understand.
I don't see how the notion of a method devoid of content could possibly be
"easy to understand", since that very notion is illogical.
)But it is inconvenient to your rigid and fixed views.]
Which of my views do you consider fixed and rigid? For that matter, what
views do you think I have in the first place? And anyway, how would my
understanding your position in any way be inconvenient to my views?
)[Knowledge does not arrive to someone as a result of "argument".
Yes it does, for those of us who take ideas seriously.
)For
)example, here is Roger Penrose (serious mathematician) in his book, The
)Emperor's New Mind: "It seems clear to me that the importance of
)aesthetic criteria applies not only to the instantaneous judgments of
)inspiration, but also to the much more frequent judgments we make all
)the time in mathematical (or scientific work) Rigorous argument is
)usually the last step! Before that, one has to make many guesses, and
)for these, aesthetic convictions are enormously important..."
Looks to me like you're still having trouble reading. The quote you just
provided clearly states that argument is (usually) the last step in
knowledge formation. Yet you just said a moment earlier that knowledge does
not arrive as the result of argument. Are you having difficulty making up
your mind on this question?
)Or, Dan's
)favorite, Karl Popper: "...I think that there is only one way to science
)- or to philosophy, for that matter: to meet a problem, to see its
)beauty and to fall in love with it;...".]
Yes, that's what argument is.
)[What is critical thinking? Can you describe it as a process in )detail?
Sure, but it centers on doubt and argument and convincing and all those
things you don't seem to like very much. Critical thinking means approaching
a given assertion or complex of assertions skeptically, with an eye toward
possible inconsistencies and weaknesses, in order to assess the validity of
the assertion or complex of assertions. A critical thinker will be convinced
by an assertion that turns out to be valid. One very effective way to
implement this approach is to set up two or more contrary sets of assertions
and test them against one another. In order to make the process worthwhile,
it is important to try to distinguish at first between the assertion itself
and its assumptions, on the one hand, and its implications, on the other,
before bringing all of them together for a full evaluation. There is a very
extensive literature on critique and its counterfeits; I am partial to the
dialectical tradition of critique, and I particularly recommend Max
Horkheimer's 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory" as a good starting
point.
) ) )The steinerism (dogmatic anthroposophy) of many in
) ) )Waldorf (and in the anthroposophical movement) is made the fault of
) ) )Steiner
) )
) ) Can you point to a single critic who holds this view?
)
)[Can't have a cult without a guru. How can you ask such a question,
)don't you ever read what is written here? Look in the archives.]
Your reply doesn't make sense, Joel. Diana already pointed this out to you.
If I say "Can't have a cult without a guru", in what way am I holding the
guru responsible for the cult-like behavior of the cult members? Do you
think Mohammed is at fault because some homicidal fanatics claim to act in
his name? Steiner is dead. What anthroposophists today do is their fault,
not Steiner's. The important question is, at least for those of who take an
interest in the history of ideas, to what extent can contemporary
anthroposophists' beliefs and actions be traced back to Steiner's teachings?
That question isn't about fault, it's about ideological influence.
)[pointless sarcasm. Getting a bit testy are we?]
No, I was making fun of your whining.
)[See above about the lurkers, for the billionth time.
Yes, I understand that you consider the lurkers your primary audience. But
you must have an extraordinarily dim view of the lurkers' intelligence if
you expect them to be persuaded by your point of view when you refuse to
substantiate it.
)One day you will start to pay attention, I hope.
I'm paying attention now.
)Then maybe you will not need to repeat
)your questions over and over again on matters alrealy discussed.]
You still haven't discussed these matters, you've only avoided them.
)[Of course, but you can't do that without discussion the universal
)principles existing in human inwardness, since in order to teach you
)have to be teaching something, and in order to understand the
)relationship of anthroposophy to all this you have to understand the )new
)method of thinking - for the trillionth time.]
You don't practice a new method of thinking. This is a delusion on your
part.
) ) )This could be fine, if people would not insist they already know
) ) )everything.
) )
) ) Nobody insists this.
)
)[Sharon does, and so does Dan.
No, they don't. Sharon and Dan both speak confidently on subjects about
which they know quite a bit.
)You do as far as racism goes and as to
)the so-called two Steiners.
You're mixing up confidence with omniscience. Since this has confused you,
allow me to clarify: I do not think I already know everything about
Steiner's racism or about the relationship between the early Steiner and the
late Steiner. I do think that I know enough about both subjects, and several
others as well, to recognize that some of your arguments on these subjects
are flawed. The way to find out which arguments are flawed is to argue about
them. Wanna give it a try?
)Don't you read your own writing?]
Not that often.
)[No you don't, not in the sense I used those words. What you say,
)mostly through the deeds of your words when assessed collectively, is
)that you aren't interested in learning anything that disagrees with )what
)you already think you know.
That's the only thing I'm interested in learning, obviously. By the way, I
don't understand (in the sense I use those words) what the phrase "the deeds
of your words when assessed collectively" means.
)You don't understand because you don't want
)to understand.
Maybe not in the sense you use those words, but in the sense everybody else
uses them, I do in fact want to understand your views.
)If you actually wanted to understand you would be asking very different
)questions.
What questions would I be asking?
)Plus, you don't have to want to understand,
)but your constant questioning is really directed at trying to ignore the
)implications of what is said and to maintain you world view.
What do you think my world view is?
)A person
)willing to learn something (which is how you go about understanding what
)lives in another person)
I'm not interested in understanding what lives in you. I'm interested in
understanding what you write. The ideas you put forth are distinct from the
person you are, and I'm only interested in the ideas, not the person.
)has a more plastic and malleable view, one
)capable of expansion and change.
My views change and expand with great frequency. But they only do so in
response to argument and critique.
)You already know everything about
)spirit,
I know very little about spirit.
)and Steiner
I know quite a bit about Steiner.
)and what I think that you want to know.]
I know nothing about this.
)[No, why should I? Just read your question. First of all the word
)"unique". Have I said that? Who said that?
Sorry, I meant unique to anthroposophy, not unique to you personally.
)The invisible world is
)something being explored by huge portions of the human beings on this
)planet, most through older traditions.
But they're not pontificating about it on this list. You are.
)Are you really that asleep to
)what is going on around you in terms of modern humanities explorations
)of the inner components of their being?
I'm not sure what you mean by "asleep" in this context. More important,
since the inner components of my being are not part of any invisible world,
I don't understand what you're asking. If you think that humanity can only
explore the inner components of our being via an invisible world, please
explain why.
)[No I didn't. I did exactly what I described I do in real )conversations
)that reach an impasse. I asked you questions so I could )find out
)something about how you think, so that I could learn from you )where best
)to address you questions. I wrote about this within the )last week, I
)believe. Why don't you understand that?]
I do understand it. I reject it. It's a childish approach to public
discussion, and I hope you'll get over it soon.
) ) What impasse?
)
)[You didn't understand something. Duh!]
An impasse is something you can't get out of. Lack of understanding is
something you can get out of.
)[First of all it is factually impossible for you to know whether what I
)know is from experience or is from belief.
Why would this matter? Experiences can be mistaken, just as beliefs can.
)But you, who ask
)endless questions of me, already convinced you know the possible
)responses
If I already knew the response, why would I ask?
)[Well, it could save a lot of time with you asking questions like why )do I
)believe something, which isn't, from my point of view a belief.
I don't follow you. Which of your beliefs is not a belief, from your point
of view?
)Since
)it isn't a belief, you assume something that is not true for me,
I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "true for me".
)That's the difference it
)would make - it would save you and me time being wasted on questions
)that for me have no meaning, and which you ought by this time to know
)they have no meaning.]
Do you mean that they in fact have no meaning, or do you simply mean that
they have no meaning for you? Or do you deny that there is a difference
between the two?
)[You introduced an extraneous concept, one that had no meaning. Why
)would I think I failed, pray tell?
You misunderstood my question. What I asked you was whether you first began
to understand your own experiences only after you began using the techniques
you've touted to the rest of us.
)Oh, I forgot, you don't accept
)anything I say as being true for me, since it can't be true in your )view
)of things. Oh well.]
Things are true or untrue independently of your view or my view. The phrase
"true for me" suggests that you don't realize this.
)[Yes it did. It introduced the idea of belief and of failure
No, not failure in that sense. What I meant was, didn't you understand your
own experiences before you started using your preferred techniques?
)and
)neither question had anything to do with what I wrote.
Of course they did. You said these techniques were necessary in order to
understand one's own experiences. That would mean that you yourself did not
understand your own experiences before you started using these techniques.
)At best your
)questions reflected your assumptions
Yes, that's how all questions work.
)but they remain without any
)meaning for me
Because you think communication is a bad thing?
)[You can insist on your falsified reality, but the only reason there is
)no communication is because the listener (you) isn't actually
)listening.]
Yes, I am. I've read everything you've written to me and tried to make sense
of it.
)[How would you know my state of being dealing with endless questions
)coming from someone who isn't listening?]
Because your behavior in this exchange is solid evidence. Everybody reading
this can see that I am trying hard to understand what you mean, and that you
aren't trying hard to explain what you mean.
)[I was born in 1940, and JM and his ilk was a very personal experience
)for me.
I didn't ask about your experience, I asked why you don't understand what
McCarthyism was.
)I lived in Berkeley California from 1969 to 1982, and was part
)of all that political activity there.
I don't see the connection.
)HUAC and "Point of Order" were
)well understood
I don't think you've understood them.
)The racist assertions of yourself and Peter Z. are just another
)variant of the same form of what is basically a morally bankrupt kind )of
)personal attack.
You see this as a personal attack because you have difficulty separating
your person from the ideas you espouse.
)You throw it at me, at Steiner, at MS, or anyone whose
)work you want to draw into question.
There are very many people whose work I want to draw into question, but few
of them espouse racist ideas.
)In the '50's one did this by
)calling (in the US) people communists.
Yes, and some still do so today. Do you think it is important to know
whether such charges are accurate or not?
)You do it by calling people racists
Is there another term you would prefer that we use for people who espouse
racist ideas?
)and by so distoring a rational dialogue on that kind of issue
You have yet to engage in a rational dialogue on this issue.
)that people (such as those on this list, or the lurkers and parents who
)come by not realizing what a real viper pit this place is) think there
)must be some truth to it.
They would be awfully naive if they did so. Anybody reading this list can
check for themsleves to see if they consider Steiner's writings on race, or
your writings on race, to be racist.
)But there isn't
Please offer evidence for that assertion in Steiner's case.
)and you do a terrible
)injustice to many people.
Which people?
)This whole situation could be done in a much
)more socially healthy way
Yes, anthroposophists could deal honestly with it themselves.
)but that would require a will that I do not
)sense as existing. This would be a real will to know the truth.]
Are you trying to say that the claim "some of Rudolf Steiner's writings are
racist" is not "true for you"?
) ) Is there any sort of discussion of racism that you *do* consider
) ) appropriate?
)
)[Not with you. You are a true-believer
What do you think I believe in?
)You have mal-interpreted what Steiner wrote
That's entirely possible. Give us an example and let's see.
)There is no discussing
)it, because you rewrite the meaning of the words to support your
)conclusions, instead of actually seeking to penetrate to the true
)meaning intended by the author.
There is no such thing as a "true meaning intended by the author". You don't
have the faintest idea what Steiner's "intended" meaning was, and neither do
I. All we have are his writings themselves. My conclusions are based on
those writings. What are yours based on?
)You actively seek only support for your position
No, I do the opposite. I try to figure out where my position is unsupported.
That's how historians work.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 653
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
By snell gv.net
RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By peter_zegers runbox.no
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:37:15 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Manifesto of the Racist Scientists
It is independent from admiration. It's no problem if I or you are not
coherent over our lifetime. But, I would be surprised if, for example,
Suddhodana had been incoherent in his teachings. But Milarepa, instead,
when he was young, was incoherent, then he changed. But he was Milarepa,
not Suddhodana.
Percedol
Peter S.:
) What's with anthroposophists and "coherence", anyway? It's like you guys
)
) think it's insulting to suggest that somebody you admire might have
) changed
) his or her mind at some point in their life. I hope nobody ever accuses
) me
) of maintaining "coherence" over a lifetime of work.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:59:30 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
)Peter Staudenmaier, you wrote,
)
))I don't think Dan was saying that people who have spiritual
))experiences, as such, are insane. I thought he was saying that
))people who take their own spiritual experiences (which, if I
))understand what you've got in mind here, are of a personal nature)
))for reality itself, without going through the usual process of
))checking these experiences against the intersubjective reality that
))we all share, have a tenuous grip on mental health. In other words,
))it's unreasonable to expect that the rest of us will simply accept
))your account of your own spiritual experiences, and then make this
))account an integral part of your public arguments and writings,
))without you giving us reasons that we can examine for ourselves.
))Just referring us to your preferred methods won't do the trick.
))Sometimes we need to see why and how you reached the conclusions
))that you did so that we can consider those conclusions.
Dan:
)Peter, I am in awe of your patient reasoning with Joel; I am tempted
)to just scream "bullshit"!
)
)
)
Debra:
I know, huh. Wasn't Peter originally a Saint? Clearly Debra wasn't.
I'd love to have Peter as a neighbor. I'll bet he is a good one.
--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:12:20 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
*Why the economic and the cultural spheres are not democratic?
*I may check into "Revolt against the modern world", but it will take
some time. Evola was writing out of the Tradition, giving his view
(Guenon is totally inside the Tradition), Steiner was expressing his
experiences, not a former Tradition. Evola didn't experience what he was
talking about. As for me, I take the images given by Steiner as
meditations, not as something to be believed. I don't know if they are
true. Scaligero said they were true, but again, I don't know. Therefore,
I cannot defend those statements. They may be true or not. Only through
experience one can tell. But until one cannot experience it, should not
use it in life as statements. One can talk about what he/she
experiences, otherwise is better to stay silent. You may reply that
Anthroposophists do try to defend this and that, and support this or
that. In my opinion they might, if they could experience it, or not say
anything. Would you want me to say that Steiner's cosmic evolution is
true? I cannot. I would not go around the world saying that. I might
discuss it with friends as a subject of study, as a form of meditation,
or at best talk about it as a theory, an hypothesis. That's it.
Probably, too many people did not understand this. Hence the
distortions.
Percedol
Peter S.:
The other two (the economic and the cultural spheres) are explicitly
) anti-democratic in Steiner's conception of threefolding.
)
) )P: There is no bridge between Evola and Steiner.
)
) You are denying that Evola taught a version of the Aryan myth as part of
) a
) wider adaptation of the cyclical theory of yugas? Or that he made
) Atlantis a
) centerpiece of his version of race history? Or that he held that the
) Aryans
) and Atlanteans were preceded by the Lemurians, Hyperboreans, and so
) forth?
) Or are you perhaps denying that Steiner taught all of these things?
) Please
) explain what you mean here. Thanks,
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:14:07 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter S. and Joel slowly and painfully get acquainted
Hi again Joel,
)[Alert alert, context error context error - here is what I actually
)wrote:
I read your paragraphs again. You still say: "various kinds of concentration
exercises and meditation practices are necessary in order to begin to
distinguish the various aspects of the inwardness that need to be identified
and understood."
I think this means that you were unable to identify and understand your own
"inwardness" until you learned these exercises and practices. I would still
like to know whether that was indeed the case.
)[Nor are you really trying to learn or to understand
Yes, I am.
)so asking
)questions only with the intention to seek to falsify what you have been
)reading
That is obviously not my intention. I would like to comprehend what I have
been reading, but you are making that exceptionally difficult.
)is in fact "playing a game" whether you have the will toward
)self honesty required to acknowledge it.]
I think your will toward self-honesty is on the blink at the moment. If you
did not mean to say what I think you said, quit beating around the bush and
say so.
)[If you treat as theory what to me is experience, don't you think you
)falsify the dialogue?
No, of course not. You are the only person who is privy to your experiences.
I can't know your experiences until you tell me about them. That isn't
falsifying dialogue, it is dialogue.
)It isn't theory to me. When will you get that?
I got that. Since I am not you, I don't see why this is relevant. It is
"theory", as you call it, to absoutely everybody other than you until you
give us some reason to believe it.
)When I write about this I am picturing with considerable exactness the
)universal aspects of the inwardness, in the moment.
That's very nice for you, but when I read this I am not picturing anything
at all.
)It would be the
)same as you looking at some items on a table and giving a list of them.
You mean an "inner" table? Or perhaps an "invisible" one?
)I am describing something quite real, just as it appears to my
)attention.]
That's great, Joel, you just need to describe it a little bit better so the
rest of us can assess your description and see if it corresponds to reality.
)[Oh! Well, maybe you should read things a couple of times, and try to
)imagine the possiblity that I might just know what I am talking about,
)and then formulate your questions.]
I firmly believe that you know what you are talking about on this topic. The
problem is that I don't know what you are talking about, and I won't ever
know unless you tell me.
)[They are only seem ill-considered because you bring that attitude )ready
)made to the dialogue.
Yes, of course. Why don't you bring a similar attitude?
)If you treated them according to what they really
)were, descriptions of actual experiences being reported by one who )knows
)what they are talking about
That is how I treat them. Since experiences are frequently deceiving, it is
important to treat them with an appropriate measure of skepticism.
)[Yes, so for granted that you don't seem to think someone can know
)anything about this complexity, especially more than you do.
I don't know much about the complexity of "inwardness". Where did you get
the idea that I think I know a lot about this?
)But, my
)wandering and ofter errant friend, the inwardness can become an object
)of study, just like anyother field of knowledge.]
No shit, Sherlock. Has anyone ever disputed this?
)[Only what is loved can be truly understood.
That is completely preposterous, but it does help explain why you don't
understand phenomena like racism and fascism.
)[only one, sure, a pedophile, or a schizophrenic, or some who is bipolar
)and in a manic phase, or school teacher putting down a student in order
)to hold power over them, or a husband beating his wife, or an historian
)who thinks that only critical questions lead to knowledge]
You think all of these people live only in the moment? Pedophiles and
historians don't remember the past or think about the future? They make no
plans and have no worries or hopes? They never relish or regret past
experiences?
) ) What does "the truth of other people" mean?
)
)[Often the meaning of their words or actions, things very simple.
People are not the same thing as their words.
)In
)the Gospels the whole thing is explained in probably the best way
)possible, but as an atheist, I would guess you don't look to them as a
)source of truth about human nature.
Why on earth would you think that?
)[Objective introspection shows the connection as one existing in fact in
)the nature and structure of the inwardness. There isn't any way to
)argue it, you just have to look.
I just looked. Didn't see anything. Maybe you can try offering an argument
instead, seeing as this is "objective".
)Lot of stuff there to get
)uncomfortable about.
This seems to be a recurring theme for you. How come?
)[Colored by a bit of persona bias, or don't you have any?]
That's a silly question. Everybody has personal biases.
) ) What I am interested in are your arguments. Your intentions are
) ) entirely irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.
)
)[One can't be separated from the other
This explains why you have a hard time participating in debate.
)[You need better tools, they aren't working very well are they.]
I'm not sure what you mean. The standard tools of critique have so far shown
much of what you've written on this list to be false.
)[To do that I'd need to read the whole set of lectures in which this is
)embeded.
No, you wouldn't. Do you believe that Hitler was a racist? Why do you
believe that? Because you've read his collected works?
)I don't really have the time or the interest, but given what
)you say about aryans etc from Steiner, where I already know what he
)meant is quite different from how you express it
Have you read anything that Steiner wrote about the Aryans?
) ) Indeed. But those aren't suppositions you mentioned, they are
)conclusions.
) ) If you want to show that they are incorrect, you need to explain what
)was
) ) faulty about the reasoning or the evidence that lead to them.
)
)[Not to myself I don't.
You're not talking to yourself, Joel.
)I don't see the point of "arguing" with you
Because you don't see the point in argument as such.
)I see a lot of stuff very clearly from how people "behave" in their use
)of words, which is a whole other level from the apparent surface
)argument.]
Yes, an irrelevant level.
)[Not everyone agrees with you. Probably because your views are the )ones
)that aren't justified.]
That is a non-sequitur. You can't know whether the arguments I have put
forward are justified until you examine those arguments.
)[Oh. Then objective introspection could be real, right?]
I don't know. What do you think objective introspection is?
)[Its been done, why are asking me to repeat work you already know
)about?]
That is an odd remark coming from someone who considers himself incapable of
verifying simple historical claims.
)[Okay, what is thinking?]
Among other things, it is an intersubjective practice, thus "inwardness" is
obviously a poor synonym.
) ) things are not true because they accord with some inward state
) ) of a person's mind, but because they accord with reality, which is
)external
) ) to that mind.
)
)[Not if you have actually followed anything I have been writing about
)for a couple weeks.
I followed it, and it is clearly unsatisfactory.
)Reality is the mind.
That is ridiculous.
)[Challenge away. Since I haven't arrived at these views through
)argument, but rather through practice and experience, there really )isn't
)much to challenge.
Quite so. That is why it is difficult for anyone else to take your claims
seriously.
)[Not making arguments, describing observations.
The second is a variety of the first. Your descriptions are arguments.
) ) You certainly
) ) don't need to reveal anything about your personal spiritual views to me;
)I'm
) ) only interested in your public stances regarding Steiner and
)anthroposophy.
)
)[Well, in that case, I suspect we shouldn't talk to each other any more,
)since we are at such cross purposes. Have a nice life.]
You cannot mean what you just said, since your saying it flatly contradicts
the content. As you are in a public forum, everything you say here is
public.
)[Then why is alleged racism relevant to things?
Because the alleged racism occurs in published writings.
)Why do you bring it up
)immediatly when MS is mention in an entirely different context.
What entirely different context? The context is anthroposophy.
)What is
)the import or relevance of my alleged racism?
I haven't alleged that you are a racist. I've asked you to clarify several
things that you have published that appear to be racist. So far you haven't
done so.
)Or Steiner's with
)reference to the rest of his work.
If you're asking whether there is a necessary connection between Steiner's
racist writings and the rest of his work, my answer is I don't know. The
racist writings are central to anthroposophist doctrine as it exists today,
but it seems to me that it could be possible for anthroposophists to change
that, though I'm not certain.
)When you harp on these things to the
)extent that you do, you exhibit that to you they are much more central,
)their your remarks above would suggest.
That's silly. They are what I study, that's all.
)You really do make a
)distinction without a difference when you suggest that the person and
)the person's views are separable.]
This distinction is a prerequisite of scholarship.
)[Well so far P's remarks are more convincing than yours.
That's because you don't understand what it means for a claim to be
convincing. Percedol has yet to provide a single piece of evidence for his
claims. You therefore cannot know yet whether they are convincing.
)And you still
)haven't show what the point is given the context in which I referenced
)him.
My initial point was simply that you are naive about anthroposophy's history
of racial politics. If you want to argue that Steiner's writings contain no
racist passages, you'll need to familiarize yourself with that history and
explain why anthroposophists like Scaligero disagree with you.
)When the response immediatly is to play the "he's a racist" card,
)you justify with that behavior my conclusions that your whole purpose )is
)guilt by association.]
That's because you don't understand what a guilt-by-association argument is.
When you associate yourself with racists without being aware that they are
racists, and I point this fact out to you, I am not engaging in guilt by
association.
)[Not true. I cited him for a reason, and you didn't speak to that
)reason
I didn't speak to it because I have nothing interesting to say about it. You
can admire Scaligero for any reason you want, but don't be surprised when
the rest of us start to wonder about your ability to discern racism when it
stares you in the face.
)You don't listen to
)what is said, but redefine things according to how you want it to be
I could hardly do the latter without first doing the former.
)You have a clear agenda
Yes indeed. Why don't you?
)and really
)don't pay attention to anything that might suggest you have been
)mistaken.
I pay closer attention to such things than I do to any others.
)You say it is about argument, but fail complete to show the
)relevance of the racism smoke and mirrors to the other issues.]
I haven't bothered to show this because it seemed obvious to me. Why isn't
it obvious to you? Do you think that Scaligero's racism and his adherence to
anthroposophy had nothing to do with one another?
)[Pay attention. Listen to someone else's thinking besides your own.]
I've been listening to yours for some time now, but I'm afraid it isn't
getting any clearer.
)[Time and lack of interest. P is making quite satisfactory answers, why
)should I take the time to make what would really be a very weak bit of
)research.
Because you want to know "the truth" of another person, silly.
)Again, I don't have to do what you want, think what you
)think, believe what you believe or agree with what you write. I don't
)have to following your approach to things, and I can still be know what
)is true.]
I'm not sure what you mean by "my" approach; the approach I use is the one
all scholars use. Certainly you don't have to use it yourself, unless you
want to evaluate the arguments I have put forward.
)I am satisfied with what I know and think.
Yes, that's the problem.
)Just like you don't see any need to learn objective
)introspection or agree with my thinking about things
I don't know whether I agree with it or not, since I don't understand it
yet.
)I don't think you know what you are
)talking about
On what subject? Joel's personal view of the universe? You could take care
of that one.
)and you think I don't know what I am talking about.
It's true that I don't think you know much about epistemology, racism, or
several of the other topics we've broached, but I do think you know what
you're talking about when it comes to your own interpretation of Steiner's
early work, and I am quite certain that you know what you're talking about
when it comes to your own writings. If you'd like, we could confine our
exchanges to those fields.
)[Okay, I get this. But I am still missing how racism is relevant to
)other aspects of these peoples lives, or my own. Try to look at this
)from my point of view. I mention MS about his contributions to Living
)Thinking as a way of devolopment, and your response is that he was a
)racist. Where's the connection to me?
Several members of this list have read what strike them as racist passages
in an article of yours explicating anthroposophy. Your replies suggest that
you consider it beneath your dignity to entertain such notions, because
anthroposophy cannot possibly be compatible with racism. Scaligero is one of
many anthroposophists whose work shows that latter claim to be incorrect. I
could have mentioned him in any number of posts in the recent thread about
anthroposophist race theories. But you're the one who mentioned him, not me.
That seems to me very telling. You can't make sense of the way others read
your own writings on race because you don't understand the historical role
that previous anthroposophist writings on race have played.
)I can see the connection to your
)agenda, but it certainly isn't relevant to why I brought his name
)forward.]
Obviously. Nobody suspects you of having recommended his work because you
knew some of it was racist; you recommended it because you didn't know that.
)[The bottom of what? Your agenda, or mine?]
If your agenda is figuring out whether Scaligero signed that petition, for
example, then this would be a good way to further that agenda. If you aren't
interested in gaining accurate knowledge about this, you should quit
pretending otherwise.
)[If you say so, it must be true.]
No. Things are true or untrue regardless of who says them.
) ) Try a little
) ) harder to separate the ideas from the people who happen to express them.
) )
)
)[Why?]
Because you won't be able to assess ideas properly if you don't.
) ) why not just say flat out what you think of Steiner's racial
) ) doctrines?
) )
)
)[They aren't racist. You've misunderstood them]
You just contradicted yourself. Not too long ago, in this same post, you
said that you couldn't reach a judgement on this matter unless you read "the
whole set of lectures", something you claimed to be unwilling to do. Now you
say that you already know what is in those lectures. Personally I think both
positions are insincere and irrational, but you really ought to choose one
or the other of them, at the very least.
)Now here you are urging me to get
)involved in serious discussions about things that if I were to do it
)justice following your methods would involve me in reading way more
)Steiner lectures than I care to read at this point in my life
I'm only urging you to do this if you want anybody else to take your claims
seriously. If you're unwilling to do even a little of this, then it doesn't
make the slightest bit of sense for you to pretend that Steiner's racial
doctrines aren't racist and that I have misunderstood them.
)just think
)of me as someone really opposed to what you do in spreading these false
)ideas as to what Steiner was writing about.]
I can't think of you that way because I don't think you understand my "false
ideas".
)[I hate this I really hate this. You sound so nice and are so far from
)having a clue.
I'm not really all that nice, though I don't mean to make this miserable for
you or for anyone else who might actually read all this. And I'm definitely
far from having a clue about what you're trying to say much of the time.
)I
)can't make an argument of what is really just a description of
)something. There is no reasoning involved.
Then it is unreasonable for you to expect anyone else to accept it.
)It has nothing to do with mental health, unless you are not paying
)attention and can't get past you own limited experience and think since
)you don't know something, someone else can't know it.]
I'm not worried about your mental health. I think you and I just have
radically different approaches to public discourse. I think I make you feel
like I'm trying to force you into my own peculiar way of conducting
discussions on contentious issues. But I don't think it is my peculiar way,
I think it's the way that makes sense in any public forum. I didn't invent
it, I learned it like everybody learns it, and I don't see a good reason to
abandon it. But I do apologize for the toll it has taken on both of us. And
I'll try not to be so long-winded from now on.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:35:11 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: context
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------8FCABF0EA03AC66E2B2A46CE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Debra
I'll give you interlaced below the informations which I have. It sounds rather
than a bad film than truth, but I'm not the kind of a person
inventing things and
accusing others. I stick with the things I remember and those things
I'm told from
my mother and systers (my mother teached in a Wldorf school my systers attended
the same as I) only those things I remember properly as its already
about 20 years
ago.
Debra Snell wrote:
) )Dear Diana
) )I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an insider. I
) )spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
) )Schule Basel). My sisters spent some more years there and my
mother worked for
) )some years in another one. We are all not antorposopes and
therefore, we were
) )in plenty of problems like not being fully integrated and being
the target for
) )the antroposophes, who attacked us all sooner or later. Concerning
Steiner, I
) )must disapoint you, because I never reat his books. I felt so bad in this
) )school that I never felt motivated to investigate in the thoughts of
) )the person
) )who is considered as spiritual father of it or however you want to call it.
) )If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family was
) )treated, feel free to pose them.
) )Sandra
)
) Hi Sandra, and welcome!
)
) How do you feel now about your Steiner education?
I feel thats its indoctrinated with the Steiner ideology. There is a list of
authors - artists - firms, which are allowed, others which are forbidden.
Goethe and Weleda products are allowed. Mickey Mouse is forbidden. I feel
traumatised, I wished, I would have not made that experience.
) What kind of problems did you and your other family members experience ?
We experienced lots of problems. One for me was, that what was teached was not
enough to grow as a person the way I would have liked. To grow means to be
supported in its own talents and not to be forced to do things which are not of
interest. To be forced was probably one of the main things I didn't like in
Waldorf School. Even forced to eat their awful cookings when we were
out in camps.
) What are you doing now and how did your Steiner education help or hinder you
) for getting out in the real world?
Fortunately I changed school after 8 years. I graduated in high
school, in college
and finally received a masters. I am now a teacher for adults in
maths, statistics
and business management. I had problems going into the "real" world
because of my
waldorf background. I interrupted some studies which I started and had problems
doing my works. I have often bad times, feeling depressed or just not
comfortable.
I have still problems with relationships but as I was working on my problems, I
feel that I'm improving.
) Did you attend college? Why or why not?
Yes I did, because I had the will to attend something in live. As I had big
problems with how to learn, I needed support in high school after I changed
school. But I had understanding and nice teachers then (not in Waldorf school).
They helped me getting over my problems with learning.
) If you attended college, did you complete your studies?
Yes. I needed some attempts to succeed but finally I did.
) What about the rest of your class mates?
Its split. We were about 40 pupils in our class in Waldorf school. About 10
graduated like me. 2 or 3 went to professional music, some did social sciences,
some natural sciences. From the other 40 pupils 10 were found to take marihuana
after I changed school. They were kicked out. The result was, that
some were even
more falling into a drug scene. Lots of my former class mates
married. Some others
learned professions where you work with your hands. Some staied with
antroposoph
believe. Others not. I don't know how many. Lots had problems getting into real
live. Whats really bad is that they kick out pupils when they start to take
marihuana because, this even more labilises them. In statal school
this does not
happen because they know, that marihuana can be a temporary problem
and can vanish
from itself. And they talk to the parents. In waldorf school, no
teacher talks to
the parents in such a situation.
) I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I am interested in these kind of
) statistics and nothing is available.
If you have further questions, feel free to pose them.
)
) Debra
) --
)
--------------8FCABF0EA03AC66E2B2A46CE
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="sandra.schlick.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Sandra Schlick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="sandra.schlick.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Schlick;Sandra
tel;home:061 692 20 07
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.balcab.ch/sandra.schlick/
adr:;;Sch–naustrasse 52;4058 Basel;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sandra.schlick balcab.ch
title:MAES, Dipl. Masch. Ing. HTL
x-mozilla-cpt:;3
fn:Sandra Schlick
end:vcard
--------------8FCABF0EA03AC66E2B2A46CE--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:31:39 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: context
Again me
Debra I give you also a copy of what I wrote to Diana, because she is
curious as
well and asked me questions.
Diana Winters wrote:
) Sandra wrote:
) )I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an )insider.
) )I spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
) )Schule Basel).
)
) Yup, you are certainly an insider! We have parents posting here more often
) than students, but it is great to hear from Waldorf students and former
) students too. The ultimate insiders, way more so than parents, who even if
) working or volunteering at the school extensively, don't usually spend *all
) day* there, five days a week for years (I did so for a couple of years).
)
) So please, do tell us more!
)
) )If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family )was
) )treated, feel free to pose them.
)
) I am sure everyone here would be interested in whatever experiences or
) details you are most interested in relating, good or bad. Personally, I'm
) always most curious about the academics - how or when you learned to read
) and write,
I started to discover reading when I was 4, but my school teachers
didn't like
that. I was lefthanded and forced to write with my right hand. Thats why I
started to write letters vice versa. So, I think, I got problems with writing
because of the teaching... We were tought the big letters in the first
class (7
years) and the small ones in the second (8 years).
) what you remember about class work and homework.
We mostly recitited poems. Homework was to draw or to learn poems by
heart. In
religion, we were indoctrinated by the antroposophic believe.
) Did you ever write book reports?
We had to draw and learn by hear. When we were tought special topics
like how
to do farm work we did some reports. Often, we did things with the hand, like
the farm work. We were also tought language starting with the 1st year of
school, but mostly to do poems, not real language teaching.
) Do a science project?
We had later physics, but you must imagine, that we had in 12 topics the same
teacher, so, our understanding of natural sciences was very bad. What
was very
bad from my point of view was math. I started with math also at 4
because of my
older systers. When I changed school to a statal school with 14 I was only
tought how to calculate broken numbers bat I had not the slightest idea of
algebra or of vector geometry neither of geometry.
) Were you encouraged to read and
) write?
As said, I was not at all encouraged. Another story, which I already posted
here was, that I reat Hermann Hesse at 12 and my teacher (always the
same as we
had him in 12 topics) found me while a camp with this book. He forbid me to
read further and as a punishment for reading, I had to clean his room.
One of
my systers was also found with a book while class and punished.
) To pursue subjects you were interested in?
Thats something, which hurts me even now, which is more than 20 years
later: I
prepared a speach about China, as we had to do our own investigations. I
researched several month about it and was really fond of doing my
speach. As I
had notices with me for not to forget anything what I wanted to say, the
teacher stopped me after 2 or 3 sentences and told me, that he wouldn't
want to
hear that (in front of the whole class). In stead of that, I would have to
prepare another speach about Hans Holbein the younger and speak freely.
I was
given 2 weeks for that. Needless to say how much I was motivated then and
needless to say that I learned again something by heart which is not at all
necessary.
) What were class discussions like?
Thats contradictory. The teacher spoke about his opinion and nobody was allowed
to say anything. About 1 year after I had changed school, I visited my old
class. There was now a new teacher. He told us, that drugs are bad and that
most people who try marihouana will end up with hard drugs. I
contradicted (the
only one who did that). He interrupted me, didn't let me speak out, and later
it was said, that I went to visit school to just talk stupid things. We had
lots of discussions in this fashion. The teacher told something and we listened
and had to adapt it. It was strictly forbidden to contradict and while I
was in
that School, I wouldn't have risked to do that, but after my change and my
positive experience in "normal" School, I thought, to tell the own
opinion is
normal and did it. I hadn't learned that in Waldorf School.
Further: We had 1 test in math in 8 years. The teacher walked around and gave
the right answers to the ones who were not able to solve the test.
We had also to stand in the corner when we disobeyed. Physical
punishment was
also "normal" in Waldorf School, my syster received one and she told it
to us
at home. My mother called her teacher and he admitted it and explained,
that my
syster had diserved it, because she had looked so sad!!!!!
What was also very bad was, that from time to time, the teacher picked
out one
of us and embarrased him publicly. I was one of his victims. He told me,
that I
wouldn't have any courage, no backbone and things like that, that I was a
coward. I was then around 11 or 12 years old, how could he know so much about
my character? I only know, that this had given my a lot of pain,
because, I
would have liked to receive warm feelings and not things like that in
school. I
would have liked to familiarise and not to feel like somebody who had no
backbone. I meand, I think now, that I have one, but at that age, I wouldn't
have known that so exactly.
For the moment, I think, I wrote enough, but you can pose me more
questions if
you want to.
) That sort of thing. I'm making a bit of a study of these
) problems in Waldorf, but that's just my thing. Talk about whatever you are
) most interested in talking about! Glad you are here.
) Diana
I'm glad to talk about those things, even if they are a long time ago,
but as
far as I can see, there are no big changes ever since. My teacher
teached in
Waldorf School for many more years and only a few years ago he retired because
of his age.
I'm glad you are here!!
Sandra
Debra Snell wrote:
) )Dear Diana
) )I'm not adressed but nevertheless reat your questions and I am an insider. I
) )spent my first 8 years in a Waldorf School in Switzerland (Rudolf Steiner
) )Schule Basel). My sisters spent some more years there and my
mother worked for
) )some years in another one. We are all not antorposopes and
therefore, we were
) )in plenty of problems like not being fully integrated and being
the target for
) )the antroposophes, who attacked us all sooner or later. Concerning
Steiner, I
) )must disapoint you, because I never reat his books. I felt so bad in this
) )school that I never felt motivated to investigate in the thoughts of
) )the person
) )who is considered as spiritual father of it or however you want to call it.
) )If you have questions to me eg about school live or how I or my family was
) )treated, feel free to pose them.
) )Sandra
)
) Hi Sandra, and welcome!
)
) How do you feel now about your Steiner education? What kind of
) problems did you and your other family members experience ? What are
) you doing now and how did your Steiner education help or hinder you
) for getting out in the real world? Did you attend college? Why or why
) not? If you attended college, did you complete your studies? What
) about the rest of your class mates?
)
) I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I am interested in these
) kind of statistics and nothing is available.
)
) Debra
) --
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:57:01 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
Dear Koala,
I also read Victor FarÌas' book about Heidegger (transl. "Heidegger and
Nazism", Philadelphia: Temple University press, 1989). If you are
interested in this topic I think you will appreciate the studies made by
Richard Wolin of Heidegger's politics: "The Politics of Being: The
Political Thought of Martin Heidegger" (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1990). Wolin also published two articles in French journals that
might interest you: "Heidegger et le nazisme" in: L'homme et la sociÈtÈ
97: 119-131 (1990) and "Recherches rÈcentes sur la relation de Martin
Heidegger au national socialisme" in: Les temps modernes 495: 56-85
(1987). I live in the Netherlands by the way.
Best,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 654
-- Topica Digest --
Re: the two steiners
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
By koala noos.fr
Re: the two steiners
By koala noos.fr
Re: context
By koala noos.fr
Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By dan dandugan.com
Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this
list
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
By koala noos.fr
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Scaligero vs. racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism]
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this list
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: English, please!
By koala noos.fr
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By koala noos.fr
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Dutch school and languages
By peter_zegers runbox.no
Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this
list
By koala noos.fr
Re: Scaligero vs. racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By koala noos.fr
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By hermit tiac.net
Re: the two steiners
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
the art of conversation
By hermit tiac.net
back to waldorf...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: the art of conversation
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By dan dandugan.com
Re: the two steiners
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: the art of conversation
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: back to waldorf...
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:50:24 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
on 3/3/02 1:34 PM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
)
) Stop and think a minute, okay. Don't just fight the situation because
) it involves Steiner. Look at what you wrote - you want to shed racism
) now. Good for you. But Steiner is talking about long term processes in
) history and social existence that involve lots of people shedding
) "racism". Some people won't seek it as an ideal, in the way you
) personally want to do, but they can have a life experience that leads
) them forward.
Sharon: I'm not just fighting the situation because it involves Steiner. I'm
fighting Steiner's ideas because they are on par with racist ideas that
deeply affected me. When I was 16 my family made a decision to leave South
Africa because of Apartheid, (I won't go into the ins and outs, but it was a
really difficult time of our lives). Since those days, I've witnessed a
country shed its laws, and many people have changed their ideas relatively
quickly, I really don't see Steiner's point of a slow change. Plus I can't
help hear his racist words and theories that I've read ring in my ears, it's
impossible for me to accept Steiner as non-racist. I also don't rely on
Anthroposophical doctrine claiming reincarnation as fact to lead people
forward. I'm more concerned about this life because I don't have certainty
of another.
)
) In America, we have been trying to have a less racist society, but the
) truth is that even laws don't solve the problem of what lives in human
) hearts, while life experiences can reach in and touch that very thing.
Sharon: Laws are a major factor in bringing about change, after all it was
law that institutionalized racism in South Africa as well as here in the
USA. Reversing laws works, I've seen the results. (It may take a while to
impact society, but heck, it's much faster than waiting thousands of years
to evolve into the perfect Grecian type, the sixth race, then into a plant,
animal and finally a homogeneous spirit on Vulcan.) See Joel, my family is a
rainbow family, I wouldn't want the people closest to me to have to change
their skin colors. I like them just as they are, they are already beautiful,
I see no need for them to evolve into anyone else, let alone the "perfect
Grecian type".
)
) Don't you know racist people, I mean seriously racist people. And don'
) you know people struggling to step past that, to find a better way.
) Life is filled with such struggles. We swim in them.
Sharon: I don't keep racist friends, but I've known seriously racist people
who have changed their tunes dramatically in this life. Think of De Klerk
who recently gave a talk at The U of Iowa - much to the embarrassment of
those who know him- he was taking credit for dismantling Apartheid. (Luckily
my sister was in the audience and she asked him simple questions such as
"What took you so long Mr. De Klerk?") After her series of questions causing
him to blush and be rendered speechless, others in the audience were able to
dispel the myth that he was South Africa's hero. But perhaps you could argue
that he was trying to find a better way.
) As to the Christ Impulse...
)
) First those are just words, like toe or foot. But toe and foot refer
) to something that human beings have and are, as does Christ Impulse or
) Buddha Nature. The Christ Impulse is a characteristic of human nature,
) one that is especially emergent in the present. You see it all the
) time, and live it yourself. It's just a name for something in the "I
) am", something that grows from the choices we make and the deeds we do,
) and the quality of heart that lives in theses choices and deeds.
Sharon: I was referring to Steiner's chapter in the Universal Human called
"The Universal Human: The Unification of Humanity through the Christ
Impulse". I've read enough Steiner to know he was big on the Christ Impulse.
I know that this is a major point of Steiner's doctrine. They are not just
words like toe and foot, they are the heart and soul of Anthroposophy, and
the point of it. Man is to evolve to become one with the Christ. (Steiner
was not big on Buddha, "the Christ" was central in Steiner's theosophy). It
is in this very chapter that Steiner waxes on about evolving into the
perfect Grecian type, and how Ahriman and Lucifer preserved older racial
forms that should have died out. I find Steiners racism repugnant.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:58:24 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
)le 3/03/02 21:48, Dan Dugan ý dan dandugan.com a ÈcritÝ:
) Koala, you wrote (I'm not clear to whom):
)
)) I guess it is how you fabricate traditions out of exoteric writings when you
)) are not connected to any real source, you lift pieces of information that
)) are scattered in various books wherever you can find them, and you paste the
)) bits and pieces you got hold of, here and there, to make a new stew or
)) hotchpotch with no taste at all.Then you say you are an established
)) esotericist, whereas you are just a thoroughgoing liar. As it is
)) fragmentary, it can even become a classic: in the case of the book
)) "fragments of an unknown teaching", it is clearly stated that the teaching
)) is in fact unknown, because the guru or the writer could never have access
)) to it!!
)
) Calling a correspondent a liar is an ad hominem argument and not
) allowed on this list. You may be as savage as you want regarding
) people's arguments, but you must respect their persons.
)
) -Dan Dugan
) Moderator
Dear Mr Dugan,
I read your post this morning. I didn't load the new posts of the list
yesterday late at night, when I was trying to answer to some posts I had to
catch up with.
)
Come on, you know very well that I agree with everything I read so far from
Peter Staudenmaier.
You know very well this is a problem of translation since I am french.
I was trying to translate "on" from french into english, the overall meaning
of it being plural.
This fact already happened more than one year ago with the confusion between
"we" and "I".
What I meant was:
"I guess it is how some people fabricate traditions out of exoteric writings
when they are not connected to any real source, they lift pieces of
information that are scattered in various books wherever they can find them,
and they paste the bits and pieces they got hold of, here and there, to make
a new stew or hotchpotch with no taste at all.Then they say they are
established esotericists, whereas they are just thoroughgoing liars.
As it is fragmentary, it can even become a classic: in the case of the book
"fragments of an unknown teaching", it is clearly stated that the teaching
is in fact unknown, because the guru or the writer could never have access
to it!!"
Or better with the word "one" meaning "they":
"I guess it is how one fabricates traditions out of exoteric writings when
one is not connected to any real source, one lift pieces of information that
are scattered in various books wherever one can find them, and one pastes
the bits and pieces one got hold of, here and there, to make a new stew or
hotchpotch with no taste at all.Then one says one is an established
esotericist, whereas one is just a thoroughgoing liar.
As it is fragmentary, it can even become a classic: in the case of the book
"fragments of an unknown teaching", it is clearly stated that the teaching
is in fact unknown, because the guru or the writer could never have access
to it!!"
I spend already a lot of time trying to verify all the meanings of the words
I use, sometimes several times, try to reread my posts several times as
well.
How can you think that I would say such a thing on a personal level or as an
"ad hominem" attack?
My apology to Mr Staudenmaier if he felt attacked by the confusion of the
translation of the ideas I had in mind that I tried to express.
You have to understand that participating to a list written up in a foreign
langage for a french like me can be hard to deal with, although I think that
compared to the french people average level of command of english, I am a
little bit better.
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:57:31 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
)le 3/03/02 22:34, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) mysplum wrote:
))
)) Firstly, what's wrong with people being one now? Why do we have to
)) *gradually* strip off and shed racism? I want to do it now. And why do we
)) have to be unified through the Christ impulse? What if we don't believe in
)) Steiner's Christ impulse?
)
)
) Dear Sharon,
)
) Stop and think a minute, okay. Don't just fight the situation because
) it involves Steiner. Look at what you wrote - you want to shed racism
) now. Good for you. But Steiner is talking about long term processes in
) history and social existence
Is a genocide a long term process?
) that involve lots of people shedding
) "racism". Some people won't seek it as an ideal, in the way you
) personally want to do, but they can have a life experience that leads
) them forward.
)
) (snip)
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:07:58 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: context
)le 3/03/02 21:57, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) mysplum wrote:
)
)) Sharon: What are the errors? When I am wrong about doctrine I stand
)) corrected. When I call Steiner a religious leader, a guru, a white magician,
)) an occultist, a mystagogue instead of a scientist, educator or philosopher I
)) am correct.
)
) No Sharon, you are not. But you and I know that there is probably not a
) thing I can say (or should say) to convince you otherwise. I just hope
) you never give up searching for the truth,
Searching for the truth is siding with you?
) and learn as soon as possible
) that one of the biggest obstacles to meeting the truth is our
) convinction that we already know it.
I suppose one of the biggest obstacles for you to meeting the truth is that
you are persuaded there is no conviction on your side that you already know
it, whereas there is...
As long as you carry on deleting the posts of the people opposed to your
convictions, I am sure you think you already know it.
koala.
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:45:53 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
Koala, you wrote,
)About that movie released a few years ago, "the mystery of fairies", wasn't
)it Peter O' Toole in the role of Conan Doyle instead? Sorry, it is late over
)here! I may have been confusing him with H.G.Wells.
In the U.S. it was released as *Fairy Tale: A True Story*. More info at:
http://www.fairytalemovie.com
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:37:51 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this
list
Joel and Peter, please edit your dialogue down to the really
important questions. Please remember that we are profoundly
disinterested in people's opinions of their opponent's character.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:18:32 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Rene Guenon and Action Francaise
)le 4/03/02 12:57, Peter Zegers ý peter_zegers runbox.no a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Koala,
)
) I also read Victor FarÌas' book about Heidegger (transl. "Heidegger and
) Nazism", Philadelphia: Temple University press, 1989). If you are
) interested in this topic I think you will appreciate the studies made by
) Richard Wolin of Heidegger's politics: "The Politics of Being: The
) Political Thought of Martin Heidegger" (New York: Columbia University
) Press, 1990). Wolin also published two articles in French journals that
) might interest you: "Heidegger et le nazisme" in: L'homme et la sociÈtÈ
) 97: 119-131 (1990) and "Recherches rÈcentes sur la relation de Martin
) Heidegger au national socialisme" in: Les temps modernes 495: 56-85
) (1987). I live in the Netherlands by the way.
)
) Best,
)
) Peter Zegers
Dear Mr Zegers,
Thank you very much for your enriching reference books and articles.
I didn't know the book and articles by Richard Wolin.
All the best.
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:37:04 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
Percedol writes:
)If being Scaligero related to the time of Fascism is an obstacle for
)you, or for others it's not my problem.
It should be a problem for you. The fact that it evidently isn't tells us an
awful lot about you.
)It's another element of
)prejudice that one has to overcome to find the truth.
You think it's a bad thing to be "prejudiced" against fascism?
)It does not matter what argument one brings, there will
)always be people ready to reject it just because it's not conforming to
)their expectations.
You haven't brought any arguments yet. All you've done is make various
statements about Scaligero and refused to substantiate them.
)I only wanted to say that Scaligero did not support racism.
What makes you believe that? What evidence and reasoning lead you to that
conclusion?
)Those articles eventually may
)be found. It would take time. But those, whose agenda is to attack
)Steiner and Scaligero do not care.
We care quite a bit about these articles. You could show our position on
Scaligero to be wrong by tracking down those articles and posting them; if
they really say what you think they say, you'll be vindicated. Why not try
that?
)Dialectics is
)truly the enemy of the Spiritual.
No, only of fake spirituality.
)Now, my question to Peter S. and Peter Z. Where do you come from? Are
)you part of some group?
Yes, we are agents of a vast conspiracy.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:49:51 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero vs. racism
)le 3/03/02 9:38, Percedol netscape.net ý Percedol netscape.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Harold Freeman, director of the National Cancer Health Institute's
) Center to reduce Health Disparities, said at a recent meeting, 'Race
) disappears when you look at the human genome' But scientists know that
) they cannot ignore the clinical data that show, for example, that
) African Americans die at a higher rate from coronary heart diseases than
) do whites,
So what? Does it say what they eat and if their diet is different from the
non African Americans? Ridiculous and absolutly non objective.
) Moreover, population genetics has long shown that certain
) single-gene disorders are more prevalent in some population,
) (snip)
Have you ever heard that genetically you could be prone to have certain
illnesses and not other illnesses (like cancer, schizophrenia and so on...).
If you marry people belonging to the same population, instead of marrying
people of other populations, certainly that will affect the way certain
illnesses are transmitted genetically.
I don't see how it would define categorically the races you speak of.
That look of scientificity seeking to perpetuate old fashionned and backward
ideas!
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:51:38 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
Hi koala,
)My apology to Mr Staudenmaier if he felt attacked by the confusion of )the
)translation of the ideas I had in mind that I tried to express.
No apology necessary. I remember our very first encounter on the list a year
ago, and I think everybody figured out pretty fast that you and I were
saying the same thing. Thanks for going to the effort to share your thoughts
in English.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:53:52 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this list
Sorry about that.
Peter S.
)Joel and Peter, please edit your dialogue down to the really
)important questions. Please remember that we are profoundly
)disinterested in people's opinions of their opponent's character.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:08:54 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: English, please!
)le 3/03/02 14:10, Peter Zegers ý peter_zegers runbox.no a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear critics,
)
) Percedol sent us this: GuÈnon wrote: "J'ai ÈtÈ stupÈfait d'y voir [in
) Imperium] un article de Scaligero qui tÈmoigne, ý l'Ègard de mon oeuvre,
) d'une incomprÈhension complËte ý laquelle je ne me serais pas attendu de
) sa part: ce n'est vraiment pas trËs encourageant..." (I tried to correct
) the orthographical mistakes, maybe Koala can check this?).
)
) Rough translation: "I was amazed to see there [in "Imperium"] an article
) by Scaligero that showed a complete misunderstanding of my work, which I
) hadn't expected from him: this is really not encouraging." (Koala,
) please let us know if I made any big mistakes in the translation).
Great! Dutch people can speak four langages right? Dutch, german, english
and french? I wish I was born there!
Bravo!
koala.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:06:23 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
)le 3/03/02 10:02, Percedol netscape.net ý Percedol netscape.net a ÈcritÝ:
) I refer to the corespondence of Evola with Guenon. Unfortunately the
) replies from Guenon went lost. It is published in Italian, and I think I
) can find by whom. Eventually if there is no other way, I may find a way
) to let you have a copy. BTW, soon it's going to be published the
) correspondence between Evola and Scaligero (I think of both). That may
) help to elucidate their differences.
) Guenon wrote: 'J'ai ete' stupefait d'y voir [in Imperium] un article de
) Scaligero qui temoigne, a' l'egard de mon ouvre, d'une incomprehension
) complete a' laquelle je ne me serais pas attendu de su part: ce n'est
) vraiment pas tres encouageant..."
Very good for anybody trying to defend GuÈnon's stance!
It means:
"I was stunned to see an article by Scaligero (in Imperium), which shows
(displays), with regards to my work, a total misunderstanding I wouldn't
have expected on his behalf: it is not very encouraging..."
koala.
) Basically Scaligero was opposed by all the ortodoxies, by the
) traditionalists, by anthroposophists, hegelian and gentilian idealists.
)
)
) Guenon did not believe in democracy as he explained in "The crises of
) the modern world". But actually he was right to say that things come
) from above. According to the doctrine of the four ages, krita, treta,
) dvapara and kali yuga, humankind went down from being governed by
) priests, then by warriors (Kshatriya), then by the third state and the
) fourth state today. Nothing can be done that does not come from above.
) But I would not worry about the need for a coup. Not by Guenon's elite.
) And the threefold social vision of Steiner is democratic.
))
))
))))percedol wrote:
)))) Evola remains with Guenon one the most important traditionalists and it
)))) is actually interesting to read the corrispondence that Evola had with
)))) Guenon.
))koala wrote:
))
)) Is it published? In french or in english?
)
)) Though, having in my possession all the books by GuÈnon (I don't think
)) there is any translation of his books in english), I don't see anything
)) or
)) any far-right ideas in his books, and I could cite a large number of
)) esotericists who are not far-right and for whom he is also a perennial
)) favorite.
))
)) He apparently didn't believe in democracy (I think it was said in his
)) book
)) "la crise du monde moderne"- crisis of the modern world), a stance which
)) I
)) don't share at all.
))
)) Yes, that is true that he believed in an elite, and often claims that
)) nothing can come from below but from above.
))
)) The issue I see here, is that, when the supposed elite (who ought to
)) have
)) more wisdom, I think that is what GuÈnon meant by the word "elite") has
)) become totalitarian, well, without democracy, what can we do to topple
)) it? A
)) "coup d'etat"?
))
)) As you have a greater knowledge about all these matters than me, I'd
)) like to
)) share with you the documents you have as to this matter.
))
))
)) koala.
)
) P: There is no bridge between Evola and Steiner.
)
) Fascist anthroposophists like Scaligero form the bridge between
) these two figures.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:21:34 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
Dear Percedol,
Since Peter Staudenmaier already blew our cover, I might as well admit
that we are part of the conspiracy of historians on Fascism and National
Socialism. Don't worry, I will find the articles by Scaligero without
your help. Same goes for the list that was published in "Il Giornale
d'Italia". I don't think anything we find will effect your point of view
on Scaligero. Without reading those articles you are absolutely sure
that he was no racist.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:21:53 +0100
From: Peter Zegers (peter_zegers runbox.no)
Subject: Dutch school and languages
Dear Koala,
There is really no need to call me mr. Zegers. Call me Peter Z. (in
order to avoid confusion with the other Peters on this list). You are
right, Dutch pupils get four modern languages in school. Dutch and
English are mandatory, German and French are free choice. I took all
four modern languages. I also had Latin and classical Greek for a few
years. I studied French at the university, where I also took a class in
Italian.
Best,
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:34:51 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: joel and peter s. explore the rules of conversation on this
list
)le 4/03/02 3:22, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) Dear Peter S.,
)
) I have endeavored to offer my versions of answers to your questions,
) below in [brackets]. I am well aware now that I will undoubtedly not
) understand most of what you ask, and fail to properly feed your desires,
) but, hey, what can I say, I am what I am.
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
))) Hi Joel, you wrote:
))
) ( snip)
), I know the errors expressed here.
) (snip)
) No one convinces me of
) anything. I decide myself what is true. That being the case, I wish
) for others the same possibilities.
Not really...
) You can think what you want, and so
) can the rest of the list. Again, for the millionth time, I write mostly
) to the lurkers
An interesting freudian interpretation of this attitude:
If you delete all the posts written to you, we'll all become lurkers to whom
you write or speak without allowing us to respond in writing to you, just
allowing us to listen.
Unconsciously, having a list only composed of lurkers, and just one person
writing to the list is what your attitude is all about.
The very desire of an unconscious lecture given in front of only listeners.
Maybe you own the tables of the Law.
) (snip)
)
) [Knowledge does not arrive to someone as a result of "argument".
) (snip)
))
)) Because critical thinking is a hindrance to finding spiritual truth?
)
) [What is critical thinking? Can you describe it as a process in detail?
) I see no way to answer this question with out a careful exposition of
) what this terminology means.]
) (snip)
)
) (...) and in order to understand the
) relationship of anthroposophy to all this you have to understand the new
) method of thinking - for the trillionth time.]
Applying the same reasonning:
"in order to understand the relationship of scientology to all this you have
to understand the new method of thinking"
But understanding it Joel - for the trillionth time - would not be
criticizing it, it would just be accepting it!
It would be the same with scientology or any other devised cult "new method
of thinking", that the very point I want to get at, and I think some others
on this list want to get at as well. No opposition at all, that is the key
to understanding.
"Understanding is approving"
The minor proposition is false, the relationship between the minor
proposition and the major proposition is causal and logical, the result is a
conclusive proposition that is a sophism because of the false assertion of
the minor proposition!
It mainly depends on what we have to understand, that is to say the very
"content" that is to understand", and God knows how many times you kept on
being confusing about that "content" that was disappearing every time you
felt hindered by it in your absence of explanations.
I could give you some quotes in books about cults where it is said the
same:
"understanding is approving" and "what the heck with the content"!
That is always what they say, and that seems very logical, except it can be
applied to anything, and not just to the strategy of anthros.
Since I say there is no new "method of thinking" outside the usual concept
of cult "thought reform", I'd like you to explain to us with a plain mundane
"method of thinking", what anthroposophy is about?
)
) (snip)
) You don't understand because you don't want
) to understand.
The WILL to understand no matter which sacrifices one is asking for (even
the sacrifice of your intellectual abilities) as opposed to the
unwillingness to change the laws of understanding by a "new method of
thinking".
) If you actually wanted to understand you would be asking
) very different questions.
Answers are only allowed for a set of predetermined questions.
Cults supply the answers as well as the questions, you don't have to supply
the questions!
Other questions, personal questions are strictly forbidden.
) Plus, you don't have to want to understand,
) but your constant questioning is really directed at trying to ignore the
) implications of what is said and to maintain you world view. A person
) willing to learn something (which is how you go about understanding what
) lives in another person), has a more plastic and malleable view, one
) capable of expansion and change.
You just said it, in order to accept the logic of cults, you have to be more
plastic and malleable, being intelligent and steadfast is harmful to
cults...
) (snip)
) It is often said by the wise, that
) the first step to learning is humility and ignorance.
Have I read well? So this is what you are currently doing?
koala.
) (snip)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:05:32 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero vs. racism
)le 4/03/02 5:37, Percedol netscape.net ý Percedol netscape.net a ÈcritÝ:
) If being Scaligero related to the time of Fascism is an obstacle for
) you, or for others it's not my problem.
This, I had already figured it out.
) It's another element of
) prejudice that one has to overcome to find the truth.
If fascism is not a prejudice, then what is it?
) 'If you don't
) expect the unexpected you will not find the truth.' Truth presents
) itself under unexpected semblance.
Fascist times are more favorable for your idea of Christ to appear?
) The Christ, who was bringing
) something new, was a scandal for the Sanhedrin, they had the Truth in
) front of them.
In your case, it is rather, the fascism in front of you, which is confused
with the arrival of Christ, or which is interpretated as a truth value...
) It does not matter what argument one brings, there will
) always be people ready to reject it just because it's not conforming to
) their expectations.
Fascism is not conforming my expectations, be sure of that...
) But, you can wait forever if you hope the truth will
) conform to you.
) I only wanted to say that Scaligero did not support racism.
According to the beginning of your post, I didn't understand that at all.
) Someone
) questioned the content of some articles. Those articles eventually may
) be found. It would take time. But those, whose agenda is to attack
) Steiner and Scaligero do not care.
My agenda is rather to attack what is attackable. Nobody's perfect, but
impunity doesn't exist in front of historians
) They try to accuse these teachers
) that they were racist. And when they convince people with their
) allegations, what will happen? It will not change anything for those who
) seek seriously.
What you say basically is: it doesn't matter what pieces of evidence or new
documents one produces, you will always be convinced.
)
) I have not seen any well-grounded accusations on Steiner. You have no
) idea of how much I laughed (literally!) when I read the articles written
) by Peter Staudenmeier posted on the web trying to make an impossible
) and ridiculous relationship between Steiner and racism.
So why don't you try to invalidate what he says instead of laughing. Can you
prove he is wrong?
) Dialectics is
) truly the enemy of the Spiritual.
So it would mean, you can ramble on and on, as long as you want, and say
anything you want, including things that are harmful to people to such an
extent that it can kill them, and it wouldnt matter as long as dialectics is
the ennemy of the Spiritual.
Great knowledge. Everything is permitted, even the worse...
Fascism is no dialectics, this we know, so it would be Spiritual?
Not killing my fellow man is logical according to dialectics, so it is the
ennemy of the Spiritual?
Ludicrous and insane!
) What stains do you refer to exactly?
The building of spiritual and racial theories, which apparent innocuousness
lead, in their application, to genocides (the biggest stain to my view)
)
) Now, my question to Peter S. and Peter Z. Where do you come from? Are
) you part of some group?
You mean, am I a threat?
koala.
)
) Percedol
)
)
)) Koala:
)
)) people or having been actively engaged sooner or later to a fascist
)) party .....
)) .... well-grounded accusations against them.
)
)) The fact is that you have no other possibility than to try to wipe out
)) indelible stains.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:25:58 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: Scaligero and spiritual
anti-racism]
Koala, you wrote,
)How can you think that I would say such a thing on a personal level or as an
)"ad hominem" attack?
We all do it now and then. I couldn't figure out who you were talking
about, though.
)My apology to Mr Staudenmaier if he felt attacked by the confusion of the
)translation of the ideas I had in mind that I tried to express.
)
)You have to understand that participating to a list written up in a foreign
)langage for a french like me can be hard to deal with, although I think that
)compared to the french people average level of command of english, I am a
)little bit better.
I appreciate your efforts to communicate in English, and your
contributions are always welcome.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:25:59 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
)le 4/03/02 8:12, Percedol netscape.net ý Percedol netscape.net a ÈcritÝ:
I added the numbering in Percedol's sentences
) (snip)
) 1) Steiner was expressing his
) experiences, not a former Tradition.
) 2) Evola didn't experience what he was
) talking about.
) 3) As for me, I take the images given by Steiner as
) meditations, not as something to be believed.
) 4) I don't know if they are
) true.
) 5) Scaligero said they were true, but again, I don't know.
) 6) Therefore,
) I cannot defend those statements. They may be true or not.
) 7) Only through
) experience one can tell.
) 8) But until one cannot experience it, should not
) use it in life as statements.
) 9) One can talk about what he/she
) experiences, otherwise is better to stay silent.
) 10) You may reply that
) Anthroposophists do try to defend this and that, and support this or
) that. In my opinion they might, if they could experience it, or not say
) anything.
) 11) Would you want me to say that Steiner's cosmic evolution is
) true? I cannot.
In the 11 previous sentences, you just said either, that you don't know, or
that you don't know if it is true or not, or that it is better to stay
silent in certain cases, or that you cannot prove anything, or that it
shouldn't be used as statements,or that some people who devised it or spoke
of it didn't experience it, etc...
How come do you want us to defend your posts in general since you admit
yourself that you don't know anything about whether it is true or not?
And that anyway, even if you admit that one has to experience it, you
haven't experienced it?!!!!!!
) I would not go around the world saying that. I might
) discuss it with friends as a subject of study, as a form of meditation,
) or at best talk about it as a theory, an hypothesis. That's it.
You said what it is: a fellowship of anthro-friends, a fan club with
schools.
koala.
) Probably, too many people did not understand this. Hence the
) distortions.
)
)
) Percedol
)
)
)) Peter S.:
)) The other two (the economic and the cultural spheres) are explicitly
)) anti-democratic in Steiner's conception of threefolding.
))
))) P: There is no bridge between Evola and Steiner.
))
)) You are denying that Evola taught a version of the Aryan myth as part of
)) a
)) wider adaptation of the cyclical theory of yugas? Or that he made
)) Atlantis a
)) centerpiece of his version of race history? Or that he held that the
)) Aryans
)) and Atlanteans were preceded by the Lemurians, Hyperboreans, and so
)) forth?
)) Or are you perhaps denying that Steiner taught all of these things?
)) Please
)) explain what you mean here. Thanks,
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:21:35 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
I just don't know why you are satisfied
) in this way. You seem to know Goethe's work, quite possibly better than I
) do, and there must be something in it that you find significantly
) corresponds to Steiner's epistemology. I'd be interested to learn what that
) is.
Dear Peter,
You might actually want to learn something, but I see no way to teach
you something this obvious. Of course, I can understand that it isn't
obvious if one doesn't take up objective introspection. Nothing I can
write, or Steiner or Goethe has written, can substitute for this inner
activity. Nothing, except Grace, but that's not up to me.
j.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:12:51 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Peter S wrote:
) I can see that you, Joel, and others think that this book (among other
) things) has lead you to the higher worlds, but I don't see anything at all
) in the book itself that suggests this outcome. Why didn't it lead the
young
) Steiner himself to higher worlds? Can you point to some passages in
) particular that helped you reach the higher worlds?
Charlie M:
I think Steiner was already on his way when he wrote the book. I wouldn't
use the term "reach the higher worlds" as it implies arriving at a
destination. I consider myself to be at the beginning of the journey. I
wouldn't want to single out any particular passages in the book. I would say
it is the way he deals with thought and thinking. Joel has spoken of this
previously, although I don't know if you would have been 'listening' or if
you really understood what he said.
Charlie wrote:
) )Have you read "The Philosophy of Freedom"? Half a dozen pages at the )end
) )of chapter 7 is taken up expounding on metaphysical realism.
Peter replied:
) Yes, in order to reject it as a form of dualism. Steiner says there that
) metaphysical realism mistakes cognitive processes for metaphysical ones.
Charlie M:
The reason I mentioned it was because you had said previously :-
"This has nothing to do with whether the metaphysical aspects of the world
are unattainable or not (a question on which I remain agnostic and one which
the early Steiner doesn't address)."
I was just pointing out that he had addressed the issue.
Peter continues:
)In contrast to this view, he posits his own version of monism, and
explains:
) "Monism never finds it necessary to ask for any principles of explanation
) for reality other than percepts and concepts. It knows that in the whole
) field of reality there is no occasion for this question. In the perceptual
) world, as it presents itself directly to perception, it sees one half of
the reality; in the union of this world with the world of concepts it finds
the full reality." Do you read this chapter differently?
Charlie replies:
I get the feeling that you think I meant that Steiner advocated a
metaphysical reality. I didn't.
) )Peter S:
) )The later Steiner does say that "higher worlds" direct the goings-on in
) )this world. Sometimes he says that what we experience in this world
"reflects"
) )the hidden processes in the higher worlds. Are you disputing this?
) )
) )Charlie M replies:
) )Certainly not, but for him the higher worlds were part of his
)experience.
Peter again:
) Not in 1886 they weren't.
Charlie:
And how can you be so sure of this? I assume that when he talks of spiritual
matters in the early books you would say he is referring to the mind and the
inner life and not to an separate reality as such. To give an example, there
is a small passage from "The Philosophy of Freedom" where he talks about
thinking in its purity,
"Whoever cannot transcend materialism lacks the ability to bring about the
exceptional condition I have described, in which he becomes conscious of
what in all other spiritual activity remains unconscious."
If my above assumption is correct, I'd say you would be right not to infer a
spiritual world behind the natural world from what he says. And I believe
Steiner would have said the same no matter what time of life. Because anyone
who imagines such a world is getting into the realms of metaphysical
realism.
Charlie wrote:
) )And as time went by he gained more experience and knowledge about this
) )world. As the early Steiner said in "Theory of Knowledge" "..our mind is
) )not to be conceived as a receptacle for the ideal world, containing the
) )thoughts within itself, but as an organ which perceives the thoughts."
thoughts
) ) )that have a real existence in the higher worlds.
Peter replied:
) That isn't what he says in the sentence you just quoted. He is talking
about
) thoughts that have a real existence in this world, in the here and now, in
) human interactions with the world of sensory perception. He says
absolutely nothing at all about any higher worlds.
Charlie:
When you say "He is talking about thoughts that have a real existence in
this World in the here and now,.. " you are jumping to the assumption that
the world of your experience is the same as Steiner's. He doesn't restrict
the world of perception to the world of sensory perception.
Charlie wrote:
) )I'll try to explain my thoughts on the 'higher worlds'. Earthworms know
) )nothing of oceans and clouds and the rain that falls on them. The're
) )oblivious to the mind of a mole or the process in making a garden spade.
) )Yet they are a necessary part of our world, we interact with them and
they
with us. We are like the worms in relation to the higher reality.
Peter replied:
) I don't think you mean that. Earthworms are constitutionally incapable of
) knowing about oceans, clouds and so forth. But you think that people are
) constitutionally capable of knowing about the higher reality. Thus the
gulf between "lower" and "higher" worlds is, in your conception,
simultaneously
) too broad and too narrow for the rest of us to take seriously.
Charlie:
I believe in evolution. I think we get closer to reality if we think of all
life as evolving towards higher awareness rather than thinking of them as
static forms. Do you believe that organisms were, or are, capable of
evolving new organs of perception? Too broad, too narrow, it's all relative.
It all depends on what you mean by higher reality.
Charlie wrote:
) )He always opposed mediumistic spiritualism. And I'm sure there were a lot
) )of theosophists involved in this.
Peter replied:
) No, no, quite the contrary. While there was some early personal overlap
) (long before Steiner began writing about theosophy), the theosophists
) defined themselves precisely in opposition to mediumistic spiritualism.
Charlie:
I'm not talking of the leaders, but I still think there were a lot of these
sort of people (into mediumistic spiritualism) who were drawn to theosophy.
Charlie wrote:
) )He maintained that it was imperative that any
) )clairvoyance be in full self conscious awareness.
Peter replied:
) That's what the later Steiner maintained, post-1900. In 1897 he maintained
) that clairvoyance as such was impossible. The article I'm referring to is
) entitled "Theosophen" and was published in Steiner's own journal Magazin
) fuer Literatur; it can be found in GA 32, pp. 194-6. I don't know of any
) translation into English.
Charlie:
I'd be interested in seeing an extract from the relevant article, in German
if need be.
warm regards,
Charlie M.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:42:11 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
koala to Percedol:
(snip)
You said what it is: a fellowship of anthro-friends, a fan club with
schools.
Walden: I think this description is good. If only the people signing their
children into the *schools* knew about the fellowship of anthro friends and
the Steiner fan club. Maybe one day. I have a dream....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:51:33 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: the art of conversation
Dear Lurkers,
Peter S. thinks I don't know much about dialogue and conversation and
DD wants to scream "bs". Oh, well.
Conversation and communication are specialties of mine, from quite
early in my incarnation. For example, I have over twenty years
experience in the mental health field, as a worker in the trenches,
where the art of conversation is essential to the management and helping
of people in crisis. I have made a special study of the nature of
conversation, co-creating in 1991 a conference on the subject,
Conversation in America.
I consider the gift of the word, of the possibility of communication,
one of the basic miracles of existence. In this mood, I wrote the
verses called Speech a few years ago. It can be found on my website at:
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr2.html
Peter wants to treat writing to this list as something that somehow can
be disconnected from the person of the writer. He seems to focus on the
words on the page, as if these could be nailed down and dissected. But
the words on a page are just a trail in symbols left by the divine
spirit of the individual writer, even Peter's words.
Taken in totality something can be learned about this person, in large
part because the words don't just appear disconnected from anything
else, but are clearly part of a context, made in response and filled
with intention.
The real problem is that in order for the words to have meaning, our
own "I am" has to act, to lift the symbols into ideas through what is
usually a quite unconscious inner effort. Unfortunately, we frequently
don't really notice the amount of interpretation in which we engage.
There is nothing new about this. It is a well understood problem (c.f.
You Just Don't Understand, Deborah Tannen PhD), which manifests on
multiple levels of human interaction. My experience is that e-mail
lists make this worse. We discussed this once before, with a few of the
critics list regulars finally seeing what my point was.
Misinterpretation is common. Mal-intrepretation less so, but that is
something of another order than the usual interpersonal confusion humans
find among their relationships.
Mal-interpretation arises when the speaker/writer knows that they are
misinterpreting the other person, and continues to do so because of some
agenda that is satisfied by the intentional falsification of another's
words. A kind of mal-interpretation can arise when someone intends not
to understand. Psycho-bable calls this behavior passive-agressive, but
I think it is just a kind of petty tyranny. It is a kind of bitchy
power play. We get to feel dominate in a conversation by refusing to
understand what is said to us, even though we do understand. We refuse
to understand in order to defend - there is something being said we
really don't want to hear.
That might well be a good thing. People shouldn't hear stuff before
they are ready, before they actually need and want to hear.
On this list views quite contrary to each other confront each other.
Sometimes I get very tired, not just physically, but psychologically, so
I get excessive in some way or another. I am not the only one that does
this here. While I understand how this comes about, I don't like giving
it out, or receiving it.
But that's the nature of life. Conflict is ever present, in fact, it
seems from a certain point of view to be there for a purpose. Certainly
Peter S's taste in critical dialogue has value to him, and he appears
not to understand that there can be other kinds dialogue of equal value.
In effect, the two of us do not speak the same language in a very real
way. This difference is so profound that although we are using English
words, we are not members of the same community of meaning, precisely
because we are not members of the same community of experience.
My life experience is so foreign to him, and to many others here, that
it seems quite fantastical - so fantastical that they cannot conceive it
to be real. That I might be a member of other communities that share
these kinds of experiences - this also is too fantastical.
For example, my views, on the meaning of the Hopi Prophecy, on the
history of aboriginal peoples in the Americas, and the relationship of
anthroposophy to these two, are seen here in a certain light. But this
is not the only list I belong to, nor are the people here the only
people with which I interact. In other places, my views are not only
well understood (by Native and non-native), but there is no problem. On
the contrary, the work of integration of spiritual Ways goes slowly
forward. I sit is circles (both on the internet and in the physical)
where I am just one among others struggling to walk forward into that
very difficult and strange future, which faces us all.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:46:34 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: back to waldorf...
A child was having difficulty drawing a star. The teacher in the Waldorf
class told the child to stand up, spread his little legs and arms and
"remember when you were a star in heaven...."
Can anyone elaborate on this?
Thanks.
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:23:03 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: the art of conversation
on 3/4/02 7:51 PM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear Lurkers,
)
) Peter S. thinks I don't know much about dialogue and conversation and
) DD wants to scream "bs". Oh, well.
)
) Conversation and communication are specialties of mine, from quite
) early in my incarnation. For example, I have over twenty years
) experience in the mental health field, as a worker in the trenches,
) where the art of conversation is essential to the management and helping
) of people in crisis. I have made a special study of the nature of
) conversation, co-creating in 1991 a conference on the subject,
) Conversation in America.
)
) I consider the gift of the word, of the possibility of communication,
) one of the basic miracles of existence. In this mood, I wrote the
) verses called Speech a few years ago. It can be found on my website at:
) http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr2.html
== snip ==
It appears that you know nothing about the gift of modesty. Too bad.
Thanks for lecture #5,291!
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:59:36 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)I just don't know why you are satisfied
)) in this way. You seem to know Goethe's work, quite possibly better than I
)) do, and there must be something in it that you find significantly
)) corresponds to Steiner's epistemology. I'd be interested to learn what that
) ) is.
JOEL WENDT
)Dear Peter,
)
) You might actually want to learn something, but I see no way to teach
)you something this obvious. Of course, I can understand that it isn't
)obvious if one doesn't take up objective introspection. Nothing I can
)write, or Steiner or Goethe has written, can substitute for this inner
)activity. Nothing, except Grace, but that's not up to me.
It appears that Peter S. has won the debate with Joel; Joel has been
reduced to hissy fits and ad hominems.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:12:10 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the two steiners
Hi Charlie,
)I think Steiner was already on his way when he wrote the book. I wouldn't
)use the term "reach the higher worlds" as it implies arriving at a
)destination. I consider myself to be at the beginning of the journey. I
)wouldn't want to single out any particular passages in the book. I would
)say
)it is the way he deals with thought and thinking. Joel has spoken of this
)previously, although I don't know if you would have been 'listening' or if
)you really understood what he said.
I suppose I probably haven't understood Joel's logic regarding the
relationship between Steiner's early and late work. To reduce this
ostensible relationship to "the way he deals with thought and thinking" is
much too vague for my tastes; that way of thinking can and did yield a very
wide variety of doctrines, only one of which is anthroposophy. The doctrines
that Steiner espoused prior to 1901 were directly contrary to anthroposophy.
Thus I fail to see any meaningful sense in which the early Steiner leads
logically, much less inexorably, to the late Steiner. I think you have
mistaken biographical accident for philosophical compatibility.
)The reason I mentioned it was because you had said previously :-
)"This has nothing to do with whether the metaphysical aspects of the world
)are unattainable or not (a question on which I remain agnostic and one
)which
)the early Steiner doesn't address)."
)I was just pointing out that he had addressed the issue.
Not by my reading. I think he skirts the issue, and says so forthrightly:
"in the whole field of reality there is no occasion for this question"; in
the book the phrase "no occasion" is in italics. What he addresses is the
epistemology of metaphysical realism, not its metaphysics.
)I get the feeling that you think I meant that Steiner advocated a
)metaphysical reality. I didn't.
No, sorry about that. I should have made clearer why I thought that passage
was relevant.
) ) )for him the higher worlds were part of his experience.
)
)Peter again:
) ) Not in 1886 they weren't.
)
)Charlie:
)And how can you be so sure of this?
I guess I can't be sure of it in a strict sense, but there is no evidence
for it in his earlier writings, and considerable evidence against it. Also
anthroposophist biographers like Gerhard Wehr have examined the question and
come to a similar conclusion. The only primary source that unambiguously
claims this sort of continuity is Steiner's autobiography.
)I assume that when he talks of spiritual
)matters in the early books you would say he is referring to the mind and
)the
)inner life and not to an separate reality as such.
Yes. That's one of the tricky things about the German word "Geist"; it can
mean spirit, mind, intellect, or other things depending on the context.
)When you say "He is talking about thoughts that have a real existence in
)this World in the here and now,.. " you are jumping to the assumption that
)the world of your experience is the same as Steiner's.
Yes, that is a necessary assumption in this case. Steiner's argument appeals
to the intersubjective aspects of reality in order to get his readers to
investigate how these aspects are constructed and processed by our cognitive
apparatus. If he didn't appeal to "the same" sorts of experience that all
readers share, his argument would have very little purchase on anyone else.
)He doesn't restrict
)the world of perception to the world of sensory perception.
Quite true. It is simply a necessary component of his theory of cognition.
)I believe in evolution. I think we get closer to reality if we think of all
)life as evolving towards higher awareness rather than thinking of them as
)static forms. Do you believe that organisms were, or are, capable of
)evolving new organs of perception? Too broad, too narrow, it's all
)relative.
)It all depends on what you mean by higher reality.
Maybe this is why you and I seemed to be talking past each other regarding
"evolution". To my mind what you just described -- the emergence of new
organs and so forth -- is a process that takes many generations to complete.
It cannot occur in a single organism within a single lifespan. In any case,
I do not think of all life as evolving toward higher awareness; I have a
non-teleological conception of natural evolution.
)I'm not talking of the leaders, but I still think there were a lot of these
)sort of people (into mediumistic spiritualism) who were drawn to theosophy.
Agreed.
)Charlie:
)I'd be interested in seeing an extract from the relevant article, in German
)if need be.
Sure, I'll get to the library this week and post a couple passages.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:17:41 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
Joel writes:
)You might actually want to learn something, but I see no way to teach
)you something this obvious. Of course, I can understand that it isn't
)obvious if one doesn't take up objective introspection. Nothing I can
)write, or Steiner or Goethe has written, can substitute for this inner
)activity. Nothing, except Grace, but that's not up to me.
You are avoiding the question. This isn't a matter of salvation or revealed
truth, it's a straightforward issue of textual interpretation. No inner
activity can substitute for this. If there is in fact something in Goethe's
writings that supports your position, it shouldn't be that difficult to
point to it.
Gracefully,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:23:18 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the art of conversation
Hi Joel,
)But
)the words on a page are just a trail in symbols left by the divine
)spirit of the individual writer, even Peter's words.
I'm sorry to say that you have mal-interpreted my divine spirit.
Yours for understanding,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 22:23:50 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: back to waldorf...
) A child was having difficulty drawing a star. The teacher in the Waldorf
) class told the child to stand up, spread his little legs and arms and
) "remember when you were a star in heaven...."
)
) Can anyone elaborate on this?
)
) Thanks.
)
) - Walden
)
Lisa here: This would seem to be a reference to the Anthroposophical belief
(also shared by other people of other religions) that children come to Earth
from heaven, or somewhere beyond the Earth.
This belief also is played out in Waldorf during children's birthday
rituals. I was present for perhaps a dozen birthday celebrations in the
Children's Garden (nursery and kindy) at our former school, and mention of
pre-Earthly existence was *always* part of the elaborate birthday ritual.
The teacher would tell a story about when the birthday child was "among the
stars" and would appoint another child, a classmate, to be the "star child."
The "star child" had the job of holding the hand of the birthday child and
leading the birthday child across the "rainbow bridge" to his or her Earthly
parents.
Stars also are drawn and referenced repeatedly in Waldorf classrooms. My
older daughter (who attended a Waldorf school for six years, from nursery
school through half of grade four) was studying the Salem Witch Trials in
her public school fifth grade, and was startled to learn that the pentagram
(a star) was considered an occult symbol.
"We made that kind of star on paper and with our bodies over and over at
the Waldorf school," she told me.
This concerned her. She could not understand why a school would ask
children to make a symbol that was recognized as being associated with
witchcraft, the occult, etc.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 655
-- Topica Digest --
Re: English, please!
By kateabooth yahoo.com.au
Re: context
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: context
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: context
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Scaligero vs. racism
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: back to waldorf...
By sandra.schlick balcab.ch
Re: Genocide as necessity
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Peter F buts into Joel's and Peter S's conversation
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Goethe and related quotes for Charlie and Peter S's dialogue
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:27:39 +1100 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kate=20Booth?= (kateabooth yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: English, please!
Dag Peter this is totally of topic but I just had to
say hello to a Dutchman as my mother is from Friesland
and my Father from Amsterdam...All my extended family
are in Holland but my parents and two brothers plus
myself are in Australia.
Warmly Kate Booth formerly van den Brink.
--- koala noos.fr wrote: ) )le 3/03/02 14:10, Peter
Zegers ý
) peter_zegers runbox.no a ÈcritÝ:
)
) ) Dear critics,
) )
) ) Percedol sent us this: GuÈnon wrote: "J'ai ÈtÈ
) stupÈfait d'y voir [in
) ) Imperium] un article de Scaligero qui tÈmoigne, ý
) l'Ègard de mon oeuvre,
) ) d'une incomprÈhension complËte ý laquelle je ne me
) serais pas attendu de
) ) sa part: ce n'est vraiment pas trËs
) encourageant..." (I tried to correct
) ) the orthographical mistakes, maybe Koala can check
) this?).
) )
) ) Rough translation: "I was amazed to see there [in
) "Imperium"] an article
) ) by Scaligero that showed a complete
) misunderstanding of my work, which I
) ) hadn't expected from him: this is really not
) encouraging." (Koala,
) ) please let us know if I made any big mistakes in
) the translation).
)
) Great! Dutch people can speak four langages right?
) Dutch, german, english
) and french? I wish I was born there!
)
) Bravo!
)
) koala.
) )
)
)
)
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- Vote for your nominees in our online Oscars pool.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:32:57 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: context
Joel writes:
)
) What I wrote simply acknowledges the impasse, and suggest a way out.
)Peter's approach (which begins with "Why do you believe this...") is to
)ask questions that a) ignore the course of the dialogue (why I know what
)I know - no "belief" is involved - is clearly stated always to be based
)upon personal experience; and b) which introduces facts not in evidence
)("do you think you failed...") - facts which slide the dialogue off its
)point and onto an entirely different subject matter.
Peter F responds. I have a serious problem with "why I know what
I know - no "belief" is involved - is clearly stated always to be based
upon personal experience." I am not doubting your personal experience, I am
doubting what you claim to know, not believe, as a result of it. I think
much of the impasse arises through your claim of absolute knowledge, which,
of course, is based on facts not in evidence.
Peter Farrell
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 23:11:00 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: context
Diana wrote:
) ) How do you feel now about your Steiner education?
Sandra repied: I feel thats its indoctrinated with the Steiner ideology.
There is a list of
) authors - artists - firms, which are allowed, others which are forbidden.
) Goethe and Weleda products are allowed. Mickey Mouse is forbidden. I feel
) traumatised, I wished, I would have not made that experience.
Walden: Sandra - thank-you for sharing your thoughts with us. I am left
wondering if this is therapeutic for you or is your Waldorf experience long
gone like a weird dream?
We had our kids in a W school for many years. Every year we would attend
the high school final projects and, like all the other parents, we would
feel obliged to marvel at the "beautiful presentations." In those days I
really thought they were something special. I looked forward to the day our
children displayed such knowledge and skills. It was not until our last
year in the school that I began to look at these teenagers differently.
Even though I was still very much involved in the school and one of Deb's
*dupes* (g) I started to see how "indoctrinated with the Steiner ideology"
some of these kids seemed to be. A few of the presentations disturbed me.
To be honest - some were quite clever but there was something missing from
the majority of these projects - I think that *something* had to do with the
individual thoughts of the teens. It was as if the research had been spoon
fed to some of them - I remember one on biodynamic farming which clearly
missed all of the obvious questions and read like a PR piece for bio. We
ate biodynamic in those days and this presentation *still* gave me the
creeps.
Ya - Mickey Mouse is almost forbidden in North America too. Everything a la
Steiner and oh - so serious. At a Big Community meeting one Sunday we were
all asked to write our thoughts on "what this school needs." As all the
notes were read we heard everything from more Anthroposophy study groups,
less tuition assistance, more anthro medicine workshops, better all round
communication (!) etc etc... and when my note was read you could almost hear
a pin drop. I was surprised the guy even read it to the community. He
almost smiled as he read: "We need to lighten up and start community movie
nights and let's start with the one by the classic ... Three Stooges. I'll
supply the popcorn."
I am happy things are going well for your now, Sandra. Oh... movie nights
never happened. I heard a few folks whisper, "the three who...?"
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:19:43 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: context
Dear Walden
Good to hear, you did some experiences in the same field. Now imagine, that the
Rudolf Steiner Schule Basel is the one, who is closest to ideology, because,
its close to Goetheanum (Dornach near Basel) and the center lies there. We were
completely forbidden TV. Sometimes a teacher went home to us and checked, if we
had a TV. My parents were smart enough to have one, which could be hidden. Also
comics had to be hidden, but our parents allowed us to have them.
Well, its long ago, but when I remember and talk about it, I do a good
experience, because I wanted to share those things since a long time with
people who did similar experiences or even to warn them. Its in a way
something, which will always acompany me, because, there has happend much
injustice and I am a person who has a strong feeling for justice.
Sandra
walden wrote:
) Diana wrote:
) ) ) How do you feel now about your Steiner education?
)
) Sandra repied: I feel thats its indoctrinated with the Steiner ideology.
) There is a list of
) ) authors - artists - firms, which are allowed, others which are forbidden.
) ) Goethe and Weleda products are allowed. Mickey Mouse is forbidden. I feel
) ) traumatised, I wished, I would have not made that experience.
)
) Walden: Sandra - thank-you for sharing your thoughts with us. I am left
) wondering if this is therapeutic for you or is your Waldorf experience long
) gone like a weird dream?
)
) We had our kids in a W school for many years. Every year we would attend
) the high school final projects and, like all the other parents, we would
) feel obliged to marvel at the "beautiful presentations." In those days I
) really thought they were something special. I looked forward to the day our
) children displayed such knowledge and skills. It was not until our last
) year in the school that I began to look at these teenagers differently.
) Even though I was still very much involved in the school and one of Deb's
) *dupes* (g) I started to see how "indoctrinated with the Steiner ideology"
) some of these kids seemed to be. A few of the presentations disturbed me.
) To be honest - some were quite clever but there was something missing from
) the majority of these projects - I think that *something* had to do with the
) individual thoughts of the teens. It was as if the research had been spoon
) fed to some of them - I remember one on biodynamic farming which clearly
) missed all of the obvious questions and read like a PR piece for bio. We
) ate biodynamic in those days and this presentation *still* gave me the
) creeps.
)
) Ya - Mickey Mouse is almost forbidden in North America too. Everything a la
) Steiner and oh - so serious. At a Big Community meeting one Sunday we were
) all asked to write our thoughts on "what this school needs." As all the
) notes were read we heard everything from more Anthroposophy study groups,
) less tuition assistance, more anthro medicine workshops, better all round
) communication (!) etc etc... and when my note was read you could almost hear
) a pin drop. I was surprised the guy even read it to the community. He
) almost smiled as he read: "We need to lighten up and start community movie
) nights and let's start with the one by the classic ... Three Stooges. I'll
) supply the popcorn."
)
) I am happy things are going well for your now, Sandra. Oh... movie nights
) never happened. I heard a few folks whisper, "the three who...?"
)
) - Walden
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:45:50 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
Your points are just provocations.
To find those articles may take quite some time.
But in the meantime I only wanted to say that Scaligero did not sign the
petition and I did say that.
Could you expand about this conspiracy?
Percedol
Peter S.:
It should be a problem for you. The fact that it evidently isn't tells
us an
awful lot about you.
You think it's a bad thing to be "prejudiced" against fascism?
You haven't brought any arguments yet. All you've done is make various
statements about Scaligero and refused to substantiate them.
What makes you believe that? What evidence and reasoning lead you to
that
conclusion?
We care quite a bit about these articles. You could show our position on
Scaligero to be wrong by tracking down those articles and posting
them; if
they really say what you think they say, you'll be vindicated. Why not
try
that?
Yes, we are agents of a vast conspiracy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:46:57 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
There is more than that:
'Ösegregation into races may have also grouped drug metabolism gene
variants.'
Clyde Yancy, the Dallas Heart Ball Chair in Cardiac Research, University
of Texas: 'The descriptor of African American allows for the clustering
of a given phenotype of illness that may define a genotype.' And 'With
further studies, that clustering ca be used to probe the general
population.'
Although the authors concluded that race is a surrogate marker for
biological differences in drug response, they also suggest further
research into which drugs to use specifically for black patients.'
Yancy: 'It would be a clinical disservice to limit consideration to
race. We need to use clustering of phenotypes to identify that part of
the genome that explains individual differences.'
*****But the thing that surprises me more is that you think that I am
using these data to prove the existence of races, while I was just
reporting what is being discussed in the scientific community about the
existence of an entity that use(d) to be called race and its
relationship with drug response. This is what I mean by prejudice. If I
show some data that suggest that from the biological point, we should
not speak of races, but that still there are differences that need to be
characterized, for instance, at the level of gene variants caused by
segregation, someone is ready to attack these view.
Scaligero wrote during fascism using a certain terminology in his title,
actually trying to revert racism into its opposite, but a-priori he is
considered a racist. I am sure that if I post the whole article about
race and drugs, you will not have anything to contest.
This is prejudice. Thank you!
Percedol
So what? Does it say what they eat and if their diet is different from
the
non African Americans? Ridiculous and absolutly non objective.
Moreover, population genetics has long shown that certain
single-gene disorders are more prevalent in some population,
(snip)
Have you ever heard that genetically you could be prone to have
certain
illnesses and not other illnesses (like cancer, schizophrenia and so
on...).
If you marry people belonging to the same population, instead of
marrying
people of other populations, certainly that will affect the way
certain
illnesses are transmitted genetically.
I don't see how it would define categorically the races you speak of.
That look of scientificity seeking to perpetuate old fashionned and
backward
ideas!
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:48:07 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
Are you seriously historians studying Fascism and National Socialism
(and maybe their connection with the occult?)? From which country? This
is an interesting topic. Why cannot I help to find the articles? If I
read what he wrote than I would know from the source, not from what may
be filtered by you and your view.
Why do say you are part of a conspiracy? I thought historians may study
conspiracies, they don't do conspiracies. Missing anything?
Percedol
Since Peter Staudenmaier already blew our cover, I might as well admit
that we are part of the conspiracy of historians on Fascism and
National
Socialism. Don't worry, I will find the articles by Scaligero without
your help. Same goes for the list that was published in "Il Giornale
d'Italia". I don't think anything we find will effect your point of
view
on Scaligero. Without reading those articles you are absolutely sure
that he was no racist.
Peter Zegers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:49:05 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero vs. racism
You mean the thirties?
Fascist times are more favorable for your idea of Christ to appear?
+++
You must be thinking that I am a Fascist. I was born much later and I
never got into parties. You suggest I should be nostalgic of times I
didn't live? I have always been interested in the after life, but not in
politics. But in Italy there is nothing on both sides, left or right.
Please, consider what you say.
+++
Have you ever read Guenon? You do not recognize a sort of Zen example
about how to recognize the Teacher despite the semblance adapted to
fascist times?
+++
Personally, I would not want to live in a fascist regime. Democracy may
be imperfect or even absurd, if we follow Guenon, but it's better than
dictatorship.
+++
No, I mean that one could find 'one right person' even and despite the
facts he lived in fascist times.
+++
I don't have enough time. To me this allegations are such a long shot.
Do you know why you ended up with Steiner?
+++
So you are an historian, too?
+++
Do you mean that in your opinion Steiner had good intentions but gave
rise to bad fruits?
+++
You are not a threat. You cannot attack what has no connection with the
society, with the schools, or any external activities. There is nothing
you can do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In your case, it is rather, the fascism in front of you, which is
confused
with the arrival of Christ, or which is interpretated as a truth
value...
Fascism is not conforming my expectations, be sure of that...
My agenda is rather to attack what is attackable. Nobody's perfect,
but
impunity doesn't exist in front of historians
They try to accuse these teachers
that they were racist. And when they convince people with their
allegations, what will happen? It will not change anything for those
who
seek seriously.
What you say basically is: it doesn't matter what pieces of evidence
or new
documents one produces, you will always be convinced.
I have not seen any well-grounded accusations on Steiner. You have
no
idea of how much I laughed (literally!) when I read the articles
written
by Peter Staudenmeier posted on the web trying to make an impossible
and ridiculous relationship between Steiner and racism.
So why don't you try to invalidate what he says instead of laughing.
Can you
prove he is wrong?
What stains do you refer to exactly?
The building of spiritual and racial theories, which apparent
innocuousness
lead, in their application, to genocides (the biggest stain to my
view)
Now, my question to Peter S. and Peter Z. Where do you come from?
Are
you part of some group?
You mean, am I a threat?
koala.
Percedol
Koala:
people or having been actively engaged sooner or later to a
fascist
party .....
.... well-grounded accusations against them.
The fact is that you have no other possibility than to try to wipe
out
indelible stains.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:50:24 +0000
From: (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Scaligero and spiritual anti-racism
I came here about Scaligero, not about the occult history. Now, it will
take some time to gather that material, if possible. I learned from you
that there is something more to look into.
I am not interested in the schools. I don't know much about it. But from
what you say, and there must be some honest report, some people there is
not doing things correctly. Having children I would put them in other
schools. Most people I know did. I am not here for that topic. An I am
not a fan of anything, maybe of the music of Lisa Gerrard ('The
insider', 'Gladiator'), but not of her.
To Walden:
No, I am not especially interested in those schools. Nor in the Society.
Percedol
How come do you want us to defend your posts in general since you
admit
yourself that you don't know anything about whether it is true or not?
And that anyway, even if you admit that one has to experience it, you
haven't experienced it?!!!!!!
I would not go around the world saying that. I might
discuss it with friends as a subject of study, as a form of
meditation,
or at best talk about it as a theory, an hypothesis. That's it.
You said what it is: a fellowship of anthro-friends, a fan club with
schools.
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:22:35 +0100
From: Sandra Schlick (sandra.schlick balcab.ch)
Subject: Re: back to waldorf...
From my point of view, this is one of the things making live more difficult as
it is. The teacher does not just show the child how to do it correctly
(beneath, there are stars to draw with 5, 6, 7, 8 etc edges), they have just to
do something to involve the person. So, the teaching lacks from objectivity.
But, to give objective points of view is exactly whats required to build up a
person, who develops later his or her own opinions. When you always add your
own opinion, the person doesn't learn to develop her his own.
Sandra
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) ) A child was having difficulty drawing a star. The teacher in the Waldorf
) ) class told the child to stand up, spread his little legs and arms and
) ) "remember when you were a star in heaven...."
) )
) ) Can anyone elaborate on this?
) )
) ) Thanks.
) )
) ) - Walden
) )
) Lisa here: This would seem to be a reference to the Anthroposophical belief
) (also shared by other people of other religions) that children come to Earth
) from heaven, or somewhere beyond the Earth.
) This belief also is played out in Waldorf during children's birthday
) rituals. I was present for perhaps a dozen birthday celebrations in the
) Children's Garden (nursery and kindy) at our former school, and mention of
) pre-Earthly existence was *always* part of the elaborate birthday ritual.
) The teacher would tell a story about when the birthday child was "among the
) stars" and would appoint another child, a classmate, to be the "star child."
) The "star child" had the job of holding the hand of the birthday child and
) leading the birthday child across the "rainbow bridge" to his or her Earthly
) parents.
) Stars also are drawn and referenced repeatedly in Waldorf classrooms. My
) older daughter (who attended a Waldorf school for six years, from nursery
) school through half of grade four) was studying the Salem Witch Trials in
) her public school fifth grade, and was startled to learn that the pentagram
) (a star) was considered an occult symbol.
) "We made that kind of star on paper and with our bodies over and over at
) the Waldorf school," she told me.
) This concerned her. She could not understand why a school would ask
) children to make a symbol that was recognized as being associated with
) witchcraft, the occult, etc.
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:36:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Genocide as necessity
Joel wrote in response to the following interchange.
) ) Joel Wendt wrote:
) )
) ) Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
) ) concept, and the two taken together are a unity.
) )
) ) Peter Farrell asks in response:
) ) Do these have a one to one correspondence or are there multiple possible
) ) concepts associated with each percept and vice versa?
)
)Dear Peter,
)
) Not a bad question given the statement from which you derived it, but
)like the sense world, the inner world is very complicated.
)
) Since I have to use words to point to concepts there is an inherent
)difficulty. You will think about this according to your own experience
)of the mind, which will be different from mine. So the words I use will
)not have the same reference points. This is not a fixed situation, but
)until one explores the mind in a most intimate manner it is not easy to
)get a real appreciation.
Dear Joel,
I do not believe that you have any basis on which you can infer that you
have explored the mind more deeply or intimately than I have, or for that
matter, any number of othe other contributors to this list. You have brought
forward no evidence to support this assertion. It is difficult to find a
single idea or notion that you have proposed on this list that has been
considered even remotely as evidence.
Had you bought forward such evidence I might not find statements of yours
such as the one above so insulting.
My question was simple. In the context of the post from which I extracted
your statement "Each percept (experience) has a corresponding
concept, and the two taken together are a unity", it seemed absolutely clear
you were claiming a one to one correspondence. Evidently the answer is that
you are not, and so the meaning of the rest of the post necessarily changes.
Peter F
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:53:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Peter F buts into Joel's and Peter S's conversation
Joel writes:
[Knowledge does not arrive to someone as a result of "argument". For
example,