|
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040312192742.90419.qmail@web14424.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:49:29 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"Or do you feel that it is merely a matter of which version
is convienient to you in a given line of argument?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't see what convenience has to do with it. I think that
Steiner's post-theosophical statements on race are at least
as racist as his 1910 statements. I also think your idea (if
I got it right) that the far-in-the-past sense of root races
did not include biological races is completely wrong. You
say you've read The Secret Doctrine. Do you mean that Blavatsky's
use of root races in that text excludes biological races?
Daniel:
Peter, I really wish you would quit the selective quotation.
For review:
Detlef:
"Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse"
synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does
not create identity between them!"
Peter Staudenmaier:
What does identity between the concepts have to do with anything?
The whole point is that Steiner and other theosophists repeatedly
used a range of related terms to designate several different
concepts.
Daniel:
Then Peter, perhaps you might consider trying to achieve clarity
on which concept was intended in each instance? Or do you
feel that it is merely a matter of which version is convienient
to you in a given line of argument?
Subtlties, Peter, subtlties. Blavatsky's use of root races
sometimes corresponded to elements of biological races. But
this is not a one to one, or strong correspondence. An issue
like this deserves in-depth examination, and not some silly
back and forth over which gross oversimplification is more
wrong. Check back with me when you have finished The Secret
Doctrine.
Daniel Hindes
|
