Rudolf Steiner on Race and Gender
Sune Nordwall and myself
debating Dr. Fine and Daniel Sabsay about the PoF, racism, anthroposophy,
bigotry, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:40:26 +0100
There are many of Rudolf Steiner's works that
certain critics don't seem to want people to read. One of these
is the fourteenth chapter in "Philosophy of Freedom,"
entitled "Individuality and Genus":
"The view that man
is destined to become a complete, self-contained, free individuality
seems to be contested by the fact that he makes his appearance
as a member of a naturally given totality (race, people, nation,
family, male or female sex) and also works within a totality
(state, church, and so on). He bears the general characteristics
of the group to which he belongs, and he gives to his actions
a content that is determined by the position he occupies among
many others.
"This being so, is
individuality possible at all? Can we regard man as a totality
in himself, seeing that he grows out of one totality and integrates
himself into another?
"Each member of a
totality is determined, as regards its characteristics and functions,
by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and all the
people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that
are inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member
is constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by the
character of the racial group. Therefore the physiognomy and
conduct of the individual have something generic about them.
If we ask why some particular thing about a man is like this
or like that, we are referred back from the individual to the
genus. The genus explains why something in the individual appears
in the form we observe.
"Man, however, makes
himself free from what is generic. For the generic features of
the human race, when rightly understood, do not restrict man's
freedom, and should not artificially be made to do so. A man
develops qualities and activities of his own, and the basis for
these we can seek only in the man himself. What is generic in
him serves only as a medium in which to express his own individual
being. He uses as a foundation the characteristics that nature
has given him, and to these he gives a form appropriate to his
own being. If we seek in the generic laws the reasons for an
expression of this being, we seek in vain. We are concerned with
something purely individual which can be explained only in terms
of itself. If a man has achieved this emancipation from all that
is generic, and we are nevertheless determined to explain everything
about him in generic terms, then we have no sense for what is
individual.
"It is impossible
to understand a human being completely if one takes the concept
of genus as the basis of one's judgment. The tendency to judge
according to the genus is at its most stubborn where we are concerned
with differences of sex. Almost invariably man sees in woman,
and woman in man, too much of the general character of the other
sex and too little of what is individual. In practical life this
does less harm to men than to women. The social position of women
is for the most part such an unworthy one because in so many
respects it is determined not as it should be by the particular
characteristics of the individual woman, but by the general picture
one has of woman's natural tasks and needs. A man's activity
in life is governed by his individual capacities and inclinations,
whereas a woman's is supposed to be determined solely by the
mere fact that she is a woman. She is supposed to be a slave
to what is generic, to womanhood in general. As long as men continue
to debate whether a woman is suited to this or that profession
"according to her natural disposition", the so-called
woman's question cannot advance beyond its most elementary stage.
What a woman, within her natural limitations, wants to become
had better be left to the woman herself to decide. If it is true
that women are suited only to that profession which is theirs
at present, then they will hardly have it in them to attain any
other. But they must be allowed to decide for themselves what
is in accordance with their nature. To all who fear an upheaval
of our social structure through accepting women as individuals
and not as females, we must reply that a social structure in
which the status of one half of humanity is unworthy of a human
being is itself in great need of improvement.
"Anyone who judges
people according to generic characters gets only as far as the
frontier where people begin to be beings whose activity is based
on free self-determination. Whatever lies short of this frontier
may naturally become matter for academic study. The characteristics
of race, people, nation and sex are the subject matter of special
branches of study. Only men who wish to live as nothing more
than examples of the genus could possibly conform to a general
picture such as arises from academic study of this kind. But
none of these branches of study are able to advance as far as
the unique content of the single individual. Determining the
individual according to the laws of his genus ceases where the
sphere of freedom (in thinking and acting) begins. The conceptual
content which man has to connect with the percept by an act of
thinking in order to have the full reality (see Chapter 5 ff.)
cannot be fixed once and for all and bequeathed ready-made to
mankind. The individual must get his concepts through his own
intuition. How the individual has to think cannot possibly be
deduced from any kind of generic concept. It depends simply and
solely on the individual. Just as little is it possible to determine
from the general characteristics of man what concrete aims the
individual may choose to set himself. If we would understand
the single individual we must find our way into his own particular
being and not stop short at those characteristics that are typical.
In this sense every single human being is a separate problem.
And every kind of study that deals with abstract thoughts and
generic concepts is but a preparation for the knowledge we get
when a human individuality tells us his way of viewing the world,
and on the other hand for the knowledge we get from the content
of his acts of will Whenever we feel that we are dealing with
that element in a man which is free from stereotyped thinking
and instinctive willing, then, if we would understand him in
his essence, we must cease to call to our aid any concepts at
all of our own making, The act of knowing consists in combining
the concept with the percept by means of thinking. With all other
objects the observer must get his concepts through his intuition;
but if we are to understand a free individuality we must take
over into our own spirit those concepts by which he determines
himself, in their pure form (without mixing our own conceptual
content with them). Those who immediately mix their own concepts
into every judgment about another person, can never arrive at
the understanding of an individuality. Just as the free individuality
emancipates himself from the characteristics of the genus, so
must the act of knowing emancipate itself from the way in which
we understand what is generic.
"Only to the extent
that a man has emancipated himself in this way from all that
is generic, does he count as a free spirit within a human community.
No man is all genus, none is all individuality. But every man
gradually emancipates a greater or lesser sphere of his being,
both from the generic characteristics of animal life and from
domination by the decrees of human authorities.
"As regards that part
of his nature where a man is not able to achieve this freedom
for himself, he constitutes a part of the whole organism of nature
and spirit. In this respect he lives by copying others or by
obeying their commands. But only that part of his conduct that
springs from his intuitions can have ethical value in the true
sense. And those moral instincts that he possesses through the
inheritance of social instincts acquire ethical value through
being taken up into his intuitions. It is from individual ethical
intuitions and their acceptance by human communities that all
moral activity of mankind originates. In other words, the moral
life of mankind is the sum total of the products of the moral
imagination of free human individuals. This is the conclusion
reached by monism."
This is the distasteful racist philosophy
of Rudolf Steiner, and the very core of his "Nazi connection."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:29:38 -0700
In other words, despite the fact that good
German science demonstrates that conduct is molded by our racial
genetic makeup, we can still appreciate the many fine individual
traits in each of these racial groups. This is a minor variant
of the perennially offensive "Im not racist, some of my
best friends are blacks" Why would a critic of Anthroposophy
want to hide this?
There are many of Rudolf Steiner's works
that certain critics don't seem to want people to read. One of
these is the fourteenth chapter in "Philosophy of Freedom,"
entitled "Individuality and Genus":
[Editorial snip - Dr. Fine's
always quotes _everything_.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 02:11:00 +0100
Alan S. Fine wrote:
In other words, despite the fact that good
German science demonstrates that conduct is molded by our racial
genetic makeup, we can still appreciate the many fine individual
traits in each of these racial groups. This is a minor variant
of the perennially offensive "Im not racist, some of my
best friends are blacks" Why would a critic of Anthroposophy
want to hide this?
First of all, the superstition still persists
among many people that the human being is simply a product of
heredity (DNA), plus environmental-cultural influences. Some
philosophers have found it difficult to allow for thee freedom
of the spirit and the freedom of the will in the human being
because they see him or her as a slave to the forces of heredity,
environment, and destiny.
Rudolf Steiner's point is that the animals
may be subjected to a servitude to nature of this kind, but that
the human being rises above it through the divine spark, the
spirit, the Word made flesh. I recall a lecture where Steiner
says that the animals have group-souls belonging to their respective
species, but that the human race is not a species - each human
individuality is a separate species by him- or herself.
Secondly, a critic of anthroposophy who makes
a point of labelling Rudolf Steiner a Nazi and a white supremacist,
would, for obvious reasons, prefer that his audience read only
the Steiner-quotes that he carefully selects out of context.
The "perennially offensive" statements
you keep throwing in here out of nowhere are nothing but irrelevant
hot air.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:13:05 -0800
Tarjei Straume wrote with characteristic humility
First of all, the superstition still persists
among many people that the human being is simply a product of
heredity (DNA), plus environmental-cultural influences.
Why do you consider this a superstition?
Some philosophers have found it difficult
to allow for the freedom of the spirit, and the freedom of the
will in the human being because they see him or her as a slave
to the forces of heredity, environment, and destiny.
Really, destiny? This paragraph is nothing
but hot air.
Rudolf Steiner's point is that the animals
may be subjected to a servitude to nature of this kind, but that
the human being rises above it through the divine spark, the
spirit, the Word made flesh.
The devine spark, isn't that sweet. I'm so
impressed that Steiner actually said this.
I recall a lecture where Steiner says that
the animals have group-souls belonging to their respective species,
but that the human race is not a species - each human individuality
is a separate species by him- or herself.
Isn't this clever.
Dogs don't act like cats, and each breed of
dog has distinct, consistent personality traits. It is less well
understood that humans as a "breed" also share a common
set of psychological traits. In particular, there is a built-in
tendency to believe in psychic phenomena and religion.
[...]
The "perennially offensive" statements you keep
throwing in here out of nowhere are nothing but irrelevant hot
air.
Ditto.
Daniel Sabsay Macintosh Consultant
http://www.eb-skeptics.org
Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:19:15 +0100
Commenting on a chapter in RS´ "Philosophy
of Spiritual activity", quoted by Tarjei, Alan wrote:
In other words, despite the fact that good German science
demonstrates that
What type of superfluous furtive nationalistic
anti-German comment is that? _Nothing_ in the text refers to
_any_ specific research of _any_ "nationality" as a
basis for the argumentation.
conduct is molded by our racial genetic
makeup, we can still appreciate the many fine individual traits
in each of these racial groups. This is a minor variant of the
perennially offensive "Im not racist, some of my best friends
are blacks" Why would a critic of Anthroposophy want to
hide this?
I think your short comment seems to miss the
point of the reasoning put forth by Steiner in the chapter rather
completely.
FIRST:
Steiner does not in any way argue _for_ the weight that "race",
genus, gender or any other group belonging should be given in
trying to understand or judge single individuals.
What the chapter _primarily_ is, as shown
by the beginning of the chapter that you snipped, is a _defense
against_ an (only) _apparent_ objection to the view put forth
and argued by Steiner earlier in the book, that man (_every_
human being) has the disposition to become a _complete, self-contained,
free individuality_.
The only _apparent_ objection against this
view of man is that every human _also_ is part of different groups
(race, tribe, nation, family, gender), the most widespread picture
also today of us humans as _primarily_ group beings of a number
of sorts, today maybe profession or nonprofessional social type
of groupbelonging being the most commonly used typological characterisation
in the West.
SECONDLY:
Your writing as if the text should be about the "many fine
individual traits in each of these racial groups" shows,
I think, that you also on this point completely miss the point.
The point is not about the "individual
traits" in "racial groups". The point is also
not "single individuals". The point is the human _individuals_;
Man, the human being _as such_, having the more or less temporary
traits of belonging to different groups of which "race"
is but _one_ of the many groups we most often "belong"
to.
These two "things" being the case,
I think your very superficial summary of the text as a "minor
variant of the perennially offensive "Im not racist, some
of my best friends are blacks" misses the point in the text.
ALSO:
Having only earlier read the Swedish translation of the text,
I was somewhat surprised to se "race" in the part the
chapter you start quoting of Tarjei´s posting.
The English translation of the book in full
can be found at http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/.
Looking at the German original, also found
there, you see that the the text bloc you leave quoted:
[Editor's note: Dr. Fine's
quotes from previous posts are usually snipped, because they
are too long.]
A racial group is a
totality and all the people belonging to it bear the characteristic
features that are inherent in the nature of the group. How the
single member is constituted, and how he will behave, are determined
by the character of the racial group. Therefore the physiognomy
and conduct of the individual have something generic about them.
does not say "race" so in the original,
but uses the smaller, yet maybe more general and loose concept
of "Volkstamm" What it says is:
"A tribal group (Volksstamm) is a totality
and all the humans belonging to it bear the characteristic features
that are inherent in the nature of the group (Stamm). How the
single member is constituted and how he will behave is dependant
upon the character character of the group (Stamm)."
Then examplifying with _parts_ of the physiognomy
and the conducts of individuals.
"Man, however,
makes himself free from what is generic. For the generic features
of the human race, when rightly understood, do not restrict man's
freedom, and should not artificially be made to do so. A man
develops qualities and activities of his own, and the basis for
these we can seek only in the man himself.
...
If we seek in the generic
laws the reasons for an expression of this being, we seek in
vain. We are concerned with something purely individual which
can be explained only in terms of itself. If a man has achieved
this emancipation from all that is generic, and we are nevertheless
determined to explain everything about him in generic terms,
then we have no sense for what is individual.
...
"Anyone who judges
people according to generic characters gets only as far as the
frontier where people begin to be beings whose activity is based
on free self-determination. Whatever lies short of this frontier
may naturally become matter for academic study. The characteristics
of race, people, nation and sex are the subject matter of special
branches of study. Only men who wish to live as nothing more
than examples of the genus could possibly conform to a general
picture such as arises from academic study of this kind. But
none of these branches of study are able to advance as far as
the unique content of the single individual. Determining the
individual according to the laws of his genus ceases where the
sphere of freedom (in thinking and acting) begins.
This sphere of freedom in the individual,
and humanity as the basic group to which we all belong as humans,
are the core and basis upon which anthroposophy, as I understand
it, is founded.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:32:44 +0100
Tarjei Straume wrote with characteristic
humility
First of all, the superstition still persists
among many people that the human being is simply a product of
heredity (DNA), plus environmental-cultural influences.
Why do you consider this a superstition?
Because there is one more factor: The spiritual-individuial,
which is denied by materialism.
Some philosophers have found it difficult
to allow for the freedom of the spirit, and the freedom of the
will in the human being because they see him or her as a slave
to the forces of heredity, environment, and destiny.
Really, destiny? This paragraph is nothing
but hot air.
Several philosophers have concluded that man
is a slave to his destiny. But then, philosophy and religion
alike is only hot air to you.
Rudolf Steiner's point is that the animals
may be subjected to a servitude to nature of this kind, but that
the human being rises above it through the divine spark, the
spirit, the Word made flesh.
The devine spark, isn't that sweet. I'm
so impressed that Steiner actually said this.
I thought you would be - that is why I added
it.
<snip>
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:12:02 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Sune Nordwall
Looking at the German original, also found
there, you see that the the text bloc you leave quoted:
..snip..
does not say "race" so in the
original, but uses the smaller, yet maybe more general and loose
concept of "Volkstamm" What it says is:
"A tribal group (Volksstamm) is a totality and all the humans
belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are inherent
in the nature of the group (Stamm). How the single member is
constituted and how he will behave is dependant upon the character
character of the group (Stamm)."
That's an interesting translation problem.
What is the German word for "race?" Which of the words
does Steiner use most often in his writings?
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 02:47:57 +0100
Robert, you write:
That's an interesting translation problem.
What is the German word for "race?" Which of the words
does Steiner use most often in his writings?
I must say that it feels very sad that Dan
succeeds so well in his campaign to repeatedly associate the
word anthroposophy with the concept of "race", which,
I feel is _completely_ misleading in relation to anthroposophy
and only possible because there is almost _nothing_ that Steiner
did not try to understand, sort out the concepts about and describe
his perspective on. Almost _NOTHING_.
That´s the ONLY reason there is something
about "race" in the foundation of anthroposophy, not
because it is in ANY way _important_ in the understanding of
the essence of us as the humans as which we meet in life.
He talked very much and held at least 5 000
lectures during the last 25 years of his life. _Very_ many of
them were documented by listeners taking shorthand notes or stenographers.
In total there now seems to published 89 000 pages in the form
of books, articles, papers, lectures and notes.
On these 89 000 pages about 12 statements
can be found that document how Steiner did not succeed avoiding
dropping not so thoughtful comments, that in todays Holland would
be prosecutable, with our now _very_ great consciousness and
awareness of every mention of the concept in almost _any_ connection
and its possible offensive character.
Who of us have investigated, thought and talked
so much (I won´t mention all the other things he did except
"talk", like at the same time as organising a number
of activities, participating in endless conferences and meetings
of different sorts, meeting and answering questions by numerous
people of all sorts, following up on much of the new literature
of his his day, leading the building of the first Goetheanum,
painting, sculptoring, writing dramas or one of his many books,
like "Riddles of Philosophie" and others and preparing
the lectures he held constantly travelling around Europe, sometimes
holding 3 or 4 lectures on completely different subjects a day,
many of them _very_ original, only leaving 3 or 4 hour left for
sleep a night, as this inevitably I´m sure will draw accustions
and bashing from Mr KOPP and/or others for being too impressed
by Rudy) and succeeded in saying so _few_ dumb things?
Some, who don´t understand who they
are or what they say, say they feel proud of belonging to one
or another "race". Most others completely justifiedly
feel deeply offended when judged or treated primarily on the
basis of their belonging to one or another "race" or
only looked upon as a member of this one or another "race"
as they feel it does not do justice to who they _really_ are.
I _completely_ agree with them, _especially_
on the basis of anthroposophy as I have come to understand it
through almost 30 years of in periods having tried to.
Alan says he is basing his understanding of
anthroposophy on three years of superficial exposure to anthroposophy,
having read some (?), maybe most of it from Dan´s extremely
limited and particular choise on his site, meeting an open German
waldorf pupil discussing the controversy in Holland (?) and seemingly
happening to have been in Denver at the time of the tragic event
of one son of one founder of the Denver waldorf school.
Against _that_ background I don´t blame
him for seeing anthroposophy as he seems to and can only feel
sad for his having been drawn into the strange and distorted
discussions discussions of anthroposophy on this list, instead
of reading up and thinking for himself and getting an experience
of different "anthroposophícal" or anthroposophically
inspired activities at his own pace, and not in the so forcefully
strange way that seems to be the nature of this list.
After my first more quiet and probably more
intense 3-4 years of taking a rather deep interest in anthroposophy
in the begining of my twenties, after my strongly natural scientific
orientation at high school, I still did not feel I understood
anthroposophy more than someone touching one of the four legs
of an otherwise invisible, only intuitively felt elephant.
You have experienced the warts on the elephants
that is the theme of this list, and few other parts of the elephant,
Alan (in my judgment).
I can only wish you a more full investigation
of the elephant "anthroposophy" if you really want
to get a basis for judging it, not to make you like it, but basing
it on a knowledge that is more truthful than the warts, hairy
tail and elephant beard Dan is so fond of.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:09:48 +0100
Sune wrote:
I must say that it feels very sad that
Dan succeeds so well in his campaign to repeatedly associate
the word anthroposophy with the concept of "race",
which, I feel is _completely_ misleading in relation to anthroposophy
and only possible because there is almost _nothing_ that Steiner
did not try to understand, sort out the concepts about and describe
his perspective on. Almost _NOTHING_.
There is another thing I find disturbing.
It is the repeated allegation that Rudolf Steiner was a liar,
a deceiver, a trickster. He was not simply mistaken on certain
point, or many points, or all points. No, he *invented* science,
he made things up, he used guru tricks while laughing at the
gullible believers behind their backs. This is implied agan and
again in soooo many posts by Dan Dugan. And the allegation at
hand is a most serious one, when we take into account that Rudolf
Steiner regarded lying, the deliberate telling of an untruth,
for spiritual murder.
So this is what we get from the hardcore critics
again and again: That Rudolf Steiner was not just a racist and
a pre-Nazi Nazi, but he was *a liar,* and "a lesser person
than anthroposophists of today." And when I protest against
this malignant and false slandering of Rudolf Steiner's personal
and moral character, I am being told that my views are evidence
of my having been brainwashed by the cult. And then a doctor
who tells us that he has experience with treating patients for
cult-involvement and mind control, says that my defense of Steiner
rings his alarm bells! I call that sleazy debating tactics.
Sune also wrote:
I _completely_ agree with them, _especially_
on the basis of anthroposophy as I have come to understand it
through almost 30 years of in periods having tried to.
That goes for me too, which means that Sune
and I have between us something in excess of sixty years of anthroposophical
studies, anthroposophical work. And when we defend Steiner against
superficial and bigoted allegations, we are told that we are
mind-controlled brainwashees, incapable of critical thinking.
It amazes me that critics find it necessasy
to mount personal attacks of this kind against anthroposophists
for the sole purpose of keeping Waldorf education out of public
schools in America. And no attack can be more personal than the
subtle hint that someone who defends Steiner's moral character
is in need of psychiatric help!
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:44:26 -0700
I do not know why you or Sune might feel attacked
personally by me. I never said that you are racist or brainwashed
or anything. I said that Steiner was racist. I said that I see
certain states of mind as unhealthy, and uncomfortable to me.
I said that Anthroposophy encourages that state of mind. I said
that many posts about Steiner do not reassure me. Why do take
that so personally?
Alan S. Fine MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:30:54 +0100
Dear Alan,
You wrote:
I do not know why you or Sune might feel
attacked personally by me. I never said that you are racist or
brainwashed or anything. I said that Steiner was racist. I said
that I see certain states of mind as unhealthy, and uncomfortable
to me. I said that Anthroposophy encourages that state of mind.
I said that many posts about Steiner do not reassure me. Why
do take that so personally?
First off, if the anthroposophical view of
history and evolution is racist, then I am a racist pure and
simple.
Wed, 10 Feb, you wrote:
"The essence of the
cult nature of anthroposophy is the group's mass adherance and
unquestioning faith in a single individual's beliefs, including
not only realities, but magical beliefs as well."
Sune and I belong to the group you describe.
On the same day, you wrote:
"As to why Anthroposophy
is cult-like, the tireless defenses of Steiner's idiosyncratic
views, as in this posting, is proof enough."
You were referring to my posting, where I
simply mentioned something I had heard on the news where a surgeon
said in an interview that the heart-as-pump might be a questionable
theory.
Sat, 13 Feb, you wrote:
"The offence that
you have taken to the implication that you might actually be
a better person than Steiner, is a powerful reflection of the
state of mind of a cultist in relationship to a guru. It is reactions
like these that prompt outsiders like me to see Anthroposophy
as cult after all."
I was defending Rudolf Steiner's moral character,
and you are actually diagnosing me as being under someone else's
mind control.
Wed, 17 Feb, you wrote:
"It is surprising
that for all his knowledge and inspiration, Steiner did not show
us the inhumanity behind universalizing spirituality this way."
What you are saying is that Sune and I have,
for 30 years each, meticulously studied and worked with *an inhumnan*
spiritual teaching, though the word "Anthroposophy"
signifies a striving for the opposite. That makes us either stupid,
or inhuman.
I see that you assure us constantly that you
mean no offense and that you have respect and and so on, as long
as nobody believes in any universal spiritual truths. You also
keeps reminding us that you are "not assured" as if
somebody is trying to convince you of anything. But I'm still
scratching my head wondering whether or not it was right for
me to apologize for suggesting that you were a bigot.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 11:38:41 +0100
Dear Alan,
you write:
I do not know why you or Sune might feel
attacked personally by me. I never said that you are racist or
brainwashed or anything. I said that Steiner was racist. I said
that I see certain states of mind as unhealthy, and uncomfortable
to me. I said that Anthroposophy encourages that state of mind.
I said that many posts about Steiner do not reassure me. Why
do take that so personally?
I don´t feel attacked by you personally.
But it bothers me logically somewhat how the
basic perspective I have chosen on life, basically that of "anthroposophy"
as I understand it, as it to me; in my judgement, complementing
my else basically natural scientific inclination and education,
gives the widest, deepest and most true understanding of life
I´ve found so far when put into context, how this "anthroposophy"
can be so permeated with the "racism" you says it is,
when it to me at the same time is the very basis for my take
on "racism" that I tried to describe with:
"Some, who don´t understand who
they are or what they say, say they feel proud of belonging to
one or another "race". Most others completely justifiedly
feel deeply offended when judged or treated primarily on the
basis of their belonging to one or another "race" or
only looked upon as a member of this one or another "race"
as they feel it does not do justice to who they _really_ are.
I _completely_ agree with them (the last group),
_especially_ on the basis of anthroposophy as I have come to
understand it through almost 30 years of in periods having tried
to."
It also bothers me somewhat (or rather much
actually) logically how your experience of waldorf education
and teachers, that is in complete accordance with mine as a trained
waldorf teacher and that you describe with
I have never noticed what I could call
racism spontaneously demonstrated among any Waldorf teacher,
except for the single encounter with one prominent Anthroposophist
that I referred to in another post. He is the big cheese around
here, though, so his highly objectionable views carried weight
with me.
can be true if Dan´s and your allegation
of Steiner being so deeply racist and Dan´s view (if I
remember correctly) that anthroposophy permeates every hour,
minute and second is _also_ true. The equation to my understanding
must be faulty somewhere.
Either - both you and me and the greater part
of all waldorf teachers are seriously duped about anthroposophy
or - Dan is wrong, in that anthroposophy _doesn´t_ permeate
every hour, minute and second of WE as he means, or - Dan is
right in that anthroposophy as a basic attitude _does_ permeate
every second of waldorf education but both Dan and you are wrong
in the allegation that the anthroposophy made conscious and given
one form by Steiner is basically racist, or, as a somewhat strange
variant, - Steiner was basically a racist but the "anthroposophy"
he made conscious and gave a form is not racist.
Personally I would probably lean most towards
the third alternative.
A third point that bothered me in its logic
(yeeh!, you _really_ have made feel like a DTF; "Defender
of The Faith") was how so many people with an anthroposophic
leaning can base their life on the views of a person in relation
to whom they, in your view "are far better human beings
than" as you lightly remarked in passing (12 March). That
would take them being both _very_ good AND _very duped_, a reasonable
combination to Dan and a number of others on this list, maybe,
but to me standing out as - well - somewhat strange,if true.
Alan, don´t take me wrong. I´m
very grateful for your comments as the basic reason I am on this
list is to get the possiblílity to investigate the logic
of my basic world view, which I have put not an only small effort
into through the years, through looking for the most serious,
interesting and challenging critique of anthroposophy that people
try to formulate.
For providing the forum for such a formulation,
I admit my gratitude to Dan, even though my perspective may differ
from his.
I also understand your basic worry about the
"guru" problem, that I think many "anthroposophists"
are aware of and that I tried to comment on in a posting on 13
Jan, before you came on the list, that led to a long discussion
via a hotly spiced but very interesting, thought provoking and
well formulated answer by Michael Kopp.
But I won´t repeat them here. If you
want to read it, and don´t want to browse all the almost
300 posting from Jan in the archive, I´d be happy to provide
it and Michael´s comment.
Hot air on the list, heh?
Friendly greetings,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:29:05 +0100
Dear Alan,
There is one point, mentioned by Sune, that
I would like to have explained
by you.
Sune writes:
A third point that bothered me in its logic
(yeeh!, you _really_ have made feel like a DTF; "Defender
of The Faith") was how so many people with an anthroposophic
leaning can base their life on the views of a person in relation
to whom they, in your view "are far better human beings
than" as you lightly remarked in passing (12 March). That
would take them being both _very_ good AND _very duped_, a reasonable
combination to Dan and a number of others on this list, maybe,
but to me standing out as - well - somewhat strange,if true.
He is referring to your post Fri, 12 Feb 1999,
when you wrote:
"I hope today's Anthroposophists
(most of whom in my view are far better human beings than Steiner)
have enough autonomy to challenge those aspects of Steiner's
views and to form Anthroposophy into something more enlightened."
On which sources do you base that kind of
judgement? Let me take this opportunity to refer once more some
of my own sources, which I have posted on my website.
http://www.uncletaz.com/belyi.html
http://www.uncletaz.com/zeylman.html
These are two descriptions of Rudolf Steiner
and his character by people who met him personally. And by the
way, dr. F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven was a colleague of yours,
a Dutch psychologist.
These men may be accused of "an uncritical
affection for the guru" of something like that. I think
the point is that they felt reverence, love, and respect for
a person they saw as greater than themselves. My wiew of Steiner
as a better-than-average human being is based upon such accounts,
plus the works by the man himself. This is why I wrote an extensive
response to your baseless statement Sat, 13 Feb. The same day,
you wrote:
"The offence that
you have taken to the implication that you might actually be
a better person than Steiner, is a powerful reflection of the
state of mind of a cultist in relationship to a guru."
You don't use the word "brainwashed,"
but you are saying that my defence of Steiner is based not upon
perfectly natural conclusions drawn from my sources, but from
mind control or brainwashing. And that, Alan, is a *personal*
attack.
You are very clever, because you clothe the
allegation that I am cult-brainwashed in such a way that you
think you can deny it and say that you weren't referring to me,
or to all anthroposophists, or to anthroposophists at all, etc.
You say you respect spiritual paths, and then you say it is dangerous
and offensive to believe in universal spiritual truths.
Perhaps we have all misuderstood you because
of your often confusing and contradictory statements. In that
case, please describe Rudolf Steiner's moral character and explain
what makes him a lesser person than the guy or girl next door
of today . You should also describe which temptation you say
that he succumbed to. Where and how did he fall to which temptation,
and what are your sources? References please.
I would also have explained by you what makes
me cult-brainwashed just because I have a high regard for Rudolf
Steiner's character and disagree with your opinion. Please describe
my pathology in detail, and use medical terminology if necessary.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"