To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040311170443.39741.qmail@web14427.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:46:06 -0500

HI Daniel, you wrote:
"Steiner singled out Jews as his favorite example of group-soulness and national insularity only in the few quotes you have pulled out."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Don't be silly. We haven't even begun to discuss all the texts where Steiner singles out the Jews as the primary embodiment of group-soulness. Take a look at The Universal Human, for example ("I have often pointed out that consciousness of this group-soulness existed preeminently among the ancient Hebrews." p. 10); or check out Das Hereinwirken geistiger Wesenheiten in den Menschen pp. 100-101 or 191-192.

Daniel:
Peter, I must urge you to ceace the sillyness. Steiner talked about the harm of racism and nationalism in about 80% of his lectures from 1914 to 1920 (that is probably between 2000 and 3000 times). It was one of his main themes during and after World War I. Against this, the dozen or so statements on Jews is proportionally small indeed.

Basic Math (You indicated previously that it would be no disprespect to point out your self-professed ignorance of Calculus; I hope you won't mind if I go over some even more foundational concepts just in case):

Proportion refers to the relationship of a part to the whole. It is not possible to calculate the proportion from the part alone.

If you state that, against over 2000 statements on the harm of racism and nationalims, two additional examples will make a significant difference in the overall proportion, that is silly indeed.

----------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"This is simply not representative of his approach to the issue of group-soulness and national insularity in general; he was strongly and in principle agains all forms of group-soulness and national insularity, and mostly talked in general on the theme."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, and when he gave examples he usually pointed to the Jews. I have found one passage where he mentions group-soulness among the ancient German tribes. Do you know of any others?

Daniel:
I'll start to look, if you like. I should point out that of course all the examples that you have found so far refer to the Jews; you are looking for all statements about the Jews, and those are the ones you are familiar with. Systematically surveying over 100 volumes for other examples without the aid of an index will take some time.

------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"You have found the few places where, because he was specifically asked, he talked about Jews in particular."

Peter Staudenmaier:
He was not specifically asked about Jews in any of the instances we've examined other than the 1924 lecture. What are you talking about?

Daniel:
Steiner was known in general to usually only talk on subjects for which he had recieved some sort of request (for example, privately before the start of the lecture). This is the type of general background information to the study of Steiner that you seem to lack - the historical context, if you will. In fact, major Steiner scholars have identified just a few themes that Steiner appears to have spoken of without any request. Just because it is not in a question and answer session does not mean that it was not in response to a question.
---------------------------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"Jews most certainly did not constitute anything like his favorite example to be trotted out whenever the theme arose."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Can you substantiate that claim? What do you think his favorite examples were, and where does he discuss them?

Daniel:
I'll work on it. It might take some time, but I'll get you an answer. I have already stated that Steiner most often spoke in general on this theme, without any examples. As his listeners were mostly German, it would not be at all unreasonable to imagine that he meant them.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"I just posted a translation of a quote that you shortened severely."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I did not shorten the quote.

Daniel:
You are right. Sorry about that.
--------------------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"I find nothing in Steiner's statement to preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their religious practices and assimilating precicely as they desired (and as you claim Steiner was against)."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Assimilationist Jews did not want Jewry as a people to cease to exist. Rudolf Steiner did want Jewry as a people to cease to exist. Are you having some sort of trouble grasping the distinction?

Daniel:
And I repeat: "I find nothing in Steiner's statement to preclude Jews from maintaining some form or their religious practices and assimilating precicely as they desired (and as you claim Steiner was against)." Perhaps there are different ways of understanding what the phrase "as a people" might mean. You seem to imagine that Steiner meant that Jews would no longer be Jews. I tend to think that Steiner wanted Jews not to be recognizable as Jews by any external or cultural cues, so that you could not tell whether a person was or was not a Jew merely by talking to them in a cafe. I don't think he was intent on abolishing all religious practices, religion being an area that he felt to be the responsibility of the free individual. This type of assimilation appears to me to be the goal of a large number of liberal Jews during that time period, and something that has been achieved to a large degree in the US today.

In approaching this paragraph, the subtlties of the German word "Volk" should be observed. I read the statemet of Steiner's to indicate that he wanted the "Folk" element of Jewishness to cease being a point of self-identification. As I have pointed out, Steiner wanted the "Folk" element of German-ness to disappear as well; he wanted the "Folk" element of every nationality and ethnic group to disappear. Steiner most emphatically did not want the individual Jews to cease to exist. This can be confusing by rendering the German word "Folk" as "people" as I'm sure you realize with your excellent command of German.
----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"How, if Steiner talked repeatedly on how ALL forms of nationalism are harmful, does this somehow NOT apply to Germans?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Your'e not answering the question. If you believe that Steiner denounced German national insularity and ethnic particularism in the same way as, or as frequently as, he denounced Jewish nationalism and ethnic particularism, then please tell me where you have found such passages in his published works.

Daniel:
Peter, you are simply not following me, so I'll repeat: "How, if Steiner talked repeatedly on how ALL forms of nationalism are harmful, does this somehow NOT apply to Germans?"

Or put in the positive, by speaking to a German audience about how all forms or nationalism based on ethnic self-identification are harmful, he WAS directly telling the Germans that thier nationalism and ethnic particularism was harmful. And if you haven't come across such passages, you have not read much Steiner.
---------------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"Steiner did not focus on Jews as the ones who need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples."

Peter Staudenmaier:
You could easily demonstrate that claim by giving a counterexample. Show me where Steiner says that Germans need to disappear by blending in with the other peoples.

Daniel:
Steiner's views have been summed up quite nicely by the Nazi's: Steiner's Anthroposophy stood for an international cosmopolitanism over and against German ethnic particularism. I can point you to the relavant documents, if you are not already aware of them. Your obtuseness on this issue is puzzling for someone of you intellect. Understanding this does not require finding a passage with the exact same formulation and a different object. I thought you were a historian. Figuring these types of things out is the basic work of a historian.
-----------------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"But if you actually read their careful justification for the ban, you will notice that they had a very accurate understanding of Anthroposophy, and were very specific about why they were banning it."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree that Heydrich's understanding of anthroposophy was accurate.

Daniel:
Perhaps, but Hauer was quite a bit more knowledgeable.
---------------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"It is these denunciations that demonstrate that Steiner was trying to prevent the type of racial and national chauvenism that animated the Third Reich."

Peter Staudenmaier:
That's the very same non sequitur you just made and then corrected. How could such denunciations by Nazi officials demonstrate anything about what Steiner was trying to do?

Daniel:
I have a little more intelligence than to repeat something that I already said if I thought you had successfully understood it once. Your continued insistence on the supposed non-sequitur shows that you didn't carefully read what I wrote. Here it is again (try to understand it before dismissing it):

"Granted, the mere fact that the Nazi's banned Anthroposophy does not say anything about the content of Anthroposophy. But if you actually read their careful justification for the ban, you will notice that they had a very accurate understanding of Anthroposophy, and were very specific about why they were banning it. It is these denunciations that demonstrate that Steiner was trying to prevent the type of racial and national chauvenism that animated the Third Reich. I can point you to the relevant documents, if you are not familiar with them."

Got that? Or do I need to reformulat it?
------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"Granted, every last thought of Steiner's is takes us too far afield. You could restrict yourself to his main themes, for example, just the things he mentioned more than twenty times, to set a rather arbitrary threshold."

Peter Staudenmaier:
He mentioned Jews a lot more than twenty times. He mentioned race much, much more often.

Daniel:
Ok. Great. Now what else did he mention a lot more than 20 times? You seem to have a one-track mind for race and Jews. Try broadening your horizons. It is necessary as a historian.

Daniel Hindes

This thread continues.