Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:10, 9 September 2006

Architecture Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Steiner and theosophy

overlap with anthroposophy article

For me, at least, there has been some unclarity about what belongs in this article and what in anthroposophy. I would like this to take some form now.

Steiner's ideas initially formed anthroposophy, but anthroposophy has had a rich existence and development apart from Steiner's own thought and work. I'd like to begin moving what is particular to Steiner into this article, and make the anthroposophy article less one-sidedly Steiner-centric.

This is a long-term project, probably. Any contributions or suggestions would be most welcome.Hgilbert 00:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Star of the East

The fact remains that members of The Star of the East were excluded from Steiners organization because of their religious beliefs. --Vindheim 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

if i may snip in, i think you are pushing it a little. your edit has a critical undertone. the tolerant theosophist on one side and the 'steiner organisation' on the other excluding people for their religious beliefs. i think if you have valid criticism you should put it into the section 'criticism', but keep the tone of the rest of the article descriptive and neutral. --trueblood 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

actually I react to sanctification of Steiner and the attempt by him and his followers to put all blame for the split on the theosophists. objectivity means accepting several viewpoints. Sentence reinstated.--Vindheim 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They were not excluded because of their religious beliefs, just as a religious sect trying to spread anthrax bacteria would not be suppressed because of their religious beliefs. In the case of Krishnamurti, anyone could believe whatever they wanted; if they joined an organization (not a religion) that was involved in a political struggle against the T.S. in Germany, however, they were not welcome in that latter group. Hgilbert 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing a religious group with other views than Steiner to bacteria? If so it is very revealing of a secterian outlook. --Vindheim 10:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

just for the record i am not a follower and my objection is because the sentence reads like an attempt to bring in criticism between the lines. but as i said before if you have criticism bring it in, go for it, but in it's place. or if it is really that important how about finding a quote by some theosophist of the time commenting on steiner's decision. if you are concerned with sanctification, i think, you should get a really good, referenced critical section together rather than smuggling in critical passages here and there.--trueblood 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not really see why different points of view can not be present throughout the article. And, just for the record, the point about excluding Star of the East members being in breach of basic theosophical principles was not made by just any theosophist, it was a major argument used by Annie besant at the time. I beleive it is relevant to show how the other party perceived the conflict. --Vindheim 10:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

because it is an encyclopedia. in a political article for instance i would not agree with an edit that criticises a certain policy, say the patriot act, but only with one that quotes or sums up the criticism that was made in some sort of public forum. --trueblood 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Different points of view can be included, but as editors we do not editorialize (present our own point of view), but present different facts or cited authorities to bring out different sides of a question. Can you see the difference?

For example, you would like to show how Besant viewed the conflict; then you can say that Besant objected to the exclusion on this basis. (Do you have a citation for Besant and Leadbeater criticizing Steiner's exclusion of Star of the East members as violations of the theosophical religious inclusivity? I'd appreciate it if you could give, at least here, or in a footnote in the article, a quotation of the actual passage that claims this and not just a page number; it helps tremendously in a case like this if we can see exactly what was said at the time.) Hgilbert 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can find a relevant quotation on the besant/steiner conflict within a day or two. As for encyclopaedic reliability - precisely in order to be encyclopaedic it is necessary that this article not only contain fawning admiration of the late genius, but presents him in context.--Vindheim 14:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The statements by Annie Besant seem to have been in old issues of the magazine The Theosophist which I at one time studied but no longer have available. However, in the magazine Theosophical History, vol 4, no 1 january 1992, there is an article by Leslie Price: "The loss of Rudolf Steiner" from which I quote:

".. we may readily identify the steps which organizationally led to the exit of the German Section. A General Secretary of the Adyar TS or an Executive Committee of a national Section, cannot refuse to accept as members of that Section, those who belong to some other body. TS members can join whatever bodies they like. No doubt, as every Theosophical leader from HPB onwards has found, this has made the TS a limited instrument for spiritual work, but that is the price to be paid for such advantages as freedom. Rudolf Steiner rejected profoundly the Star beliefs ... He like others could have left the TS in disgust. He and his friends could not constitutionally introduce as a qualification for membership of the German Section, a stipulation about nonmembership of another body. " (I can scan the whole article and email to you if you like, just give me your email)

The point here is not that the quarrel between Besant and Steiner was about legal and organizational technicalities, only that such technicalities marked the progress of the quarrel towards the eventual and probably inevitable split (and of course that both parties added fuel to the fires of the quarrel). --Vindheim 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In my mail today was The Occult Tradition(Jonathan Cape, London) by David S. Katz, professor at Tel Aviv University. He writes (p.170)

"Leadbeater inaugurated the Order of the Star in the East in Krishnamurti's honour in 1911, proclaiming him to be the World Teacher. Rudolf Steiner was so appalled by this turn of events that he refused membership in his German Section to anyone who had anything to do with the Krishnamurti cult, and was expelled from the Theosophical Society for his trouble. Steiner founded his own Anthroposophical Society which continues to thrive from its headquarters in Dorlach (sic), Switzerland."

Please note that professor Katz supports the version I have tried to present of the mechanism of the breach between the AS and the TS. --Vindheim 12:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

However the Professor is incorrect. The Order was created by George Arundale. Let me quote Mary Lutyens on this issue. From Krishnamurti:The Years of Awakening, Avon Books, 1975, p 49: "On January 11 of the following year, 1911, on the anniversary of Krishna's Initiation, George Arundale, in Benares, formed yet another organization, the Order of the Rising Sun, the purpose of which was to draw together those in India who believed in the near coming of a great spiritual teacher, to help prepare public opinion to receive him and to create an atmosphere of welcome and reverence. A few months later the idea was enthusiastically taken up by Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater and under the new name of the Order of the Star in the East turned into an international organization." Wjhonson 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. However the professor got it right about Steiners reaction to the order, and Besants further reaction to that. --Vindheim 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that the circle around Besant experienced it one way, and the circle around Steiner another (see the historian Lindenberg's comprehensive biography of Steiner for details). To select one of these as the definitive version is to drop neutrality of POV. Hgilbert 02:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

and again racism

i reverted the 'clarication' of the racism section because i did not clarify anything. as it is now it is relatively neutral. the in depth treatment is left to the steiner on races article where one finds a critical and a sympathetic voice on steiner's alleged racism. adding the dutch anthropop soc report in here again tilts the balance to one side. and why does it say citation needed. do you want a racist steiner quote. watch out because i might just find you one the may appear offensive to modern ears. i am not sure if the article would really benefit from that.--trueblood 11:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with a summary line from the article dealing specifically with the topic? Aquirata 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to create a balanced summary that will satisfy all sides. The present format seems to be meeting with acceptance from all sides and I think it is really fair. The sub-article is there for all the striven-over stuff that needs comments from various sides. Hgilbert 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the summary of the racism article cannot be that there are simply no grounds for accusations of racism, since steiners idea are as stated in the article 'complex'. the article also states that : The conclusion of the Commission is that sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands. it is just that steiner said a couple of things that 'may appear racist to modern ears'. just leave as it is, otherwise it is only a question of time until someone gets really worked up about this 'anthroposophical whitewash' (might happen anyway) trueblood 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages standards are to avoid personal statements and especially attacks; these only serve to heat up arguments, not to improve articles, which is our mission. Please keep calm and assume good will on all sides, as we all do; it will make editing a much more pleasant experience for everybody. A neutral tone in discussion also gives the impression that the writer is capable of reaching a higher level of objectivity, which probably tends to give more confidence in the objectivity of his or her edits, as well. Adding objective content to articles speaks most strongly.

A calm approach will also help you recognize when people are actually agreeing with you; your last comment and mine are both supporting the current version.Hgilbert 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry i did not mean to sound worked up, i was not. i really meant, that there are this charges of racism (with certain reasons) , and if the article sound too apologetic then it is really just a matter of time until someone stumbles over, gets really worked up and starts an edit war because of this 'whitewash', meant that as a quote. also i wanted to respond to aquirata, rather than you trueblood 11:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We have worked through to a reasonable balance for the race issue; a brief summary that mentions both aspects of the situation and a detailed analysis in a sub-article. This came out of conversations on the Talk:Anthroposophy page, and all sides felt well met by the solution. Let's not start an edit war here; the section was over-large trying to incorporate the enormous complexity of Steiner's views (see Rudolf Steiner's views on races) within an overview article that is anyway larger than Misplaced Pages standards suggest. Hgilbert 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need to save room, take out the stuff about the Goetheanum. Architects don't find it spectacular, it's a church like any other church. Only Anthroposohists think it's great. Steiner's racism, however, is of significant imprtance to people and a whitewash of his teachings is in place here. Steiner's racist remarks are, as I have said, sometimes almost indistinguishable from Hitler's, and this absolutely NEEDS to be reflected here. Steiner was a philosopher - and racism was part of his philosophy. To suggest otherwise is to sweep under the rug the entire basis of Anthroposophy which has at its core physical and spiritual hierarchies. In Steiner's view of spiritual hierarchies, Thrones are higher than archangels, archangels are higher than angels and stuff like that. In Steiner's veiw of physical hierarchies, diamonds are higher than emeralds, roses are higher than carnations, and white people are higher than black people. Racism is part of Anthroposophy and it should be part of this article. --Pete K 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

hu, chill out a little. comparing steiner to hitler is way over the top. the goetheanum takes a lot more important place in steiners output, than a few racist comments. those few are really ugly, but i don't think they proove that anthroposophy is build on racism trueblood 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the one who needs to chill out my friend. Please slow down and re-read what I wrote. I was comparing Steiner's remarks on race to Hitler's remarks on race, not comparing Steiner to Hitler. Some of them are indistinguishable from Hitler's. If you don't think building a philosophy (Anthroposophy) on spiritual hierchies that are based in racism is important, or significant, or evident, perhaps you need to read a bit more of Steiner's material. People who characterize Steiner's racism as "a few racist comments" make me question if they have a thorough grasp of the subject. --Pete K 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A fair presentation of Steiner's comments will show all sides of his work. Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest avoiding loaded and variously interpreted terms such as racism; instead, show what the person said, wrote and did, and let the reader make up her or his own mind what this means. We are trying to do that on the Rudolf Steiner's views on races page. We can interpolate more quotes (of all kinds) on that page. The issue is truly complex, and I know of no qualified historian, philosopher or corresponding authority who has examined Steiner's works and called them racist. Yet there are certainly comments that characterize races or ethnic groups in ways that imply or state judgments about their relative strengths and weaknesses, sometimes in extreme ways. We need not shy away from presenting these, as well. Hgilbert 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The issue is truly complex, and I know of no qualified historian, philosopher or corresponding authority who has examined Steiner's works and called them racist." You're kidding right? Have you looked on the web? There are 248,000 links for Steiner+Racism on Google, 121,000 for Steiner+racist. And you know of no "qualified" historian. Have you heard of Steiner historian Peter Staudenmaier? Oh, yes, he sent you articles and published works about Steiner's racism. You've had discussions with him several times. What, in your opinion, disqualifies the foremost historian on Steiner's racism? His academic research? His published works? His PhD? Just curious. --Pete K 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, PS has no qualifications as a historian, though he is seeking to attain these.

oh dude, as it is i am completely chilled. since i don't seem to have a thorough grasp of the subject i say no more, except what is your thorough grasp on the subject based on, except the google search steiner + racism. can you tell me of one encyclopedia were they left out the gotheanum to have enough space for his racist views? on a different note hgilbert or whoever i would like to delete three words from steiner and ethnicity, as this section is probably soon called: including his own, unless someone show me one quote were steiner spoke about his own race in a way that may appear denigrating to some modern ears... trueblood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner spoke of the white race as being potentially far more decadent than any other. Give me a couple of days to find this reference, and perhaps one or two others relevant to this statement. Hgilbert 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. White people take on the qualities of foreign areas more than other races. They decay individually more than other races when they leave their homeland. GA 349, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, p. 62
2. The white race is the result of a cooperation between normal and abnormal spirits: GA 121, p. 85.(English: Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology)
3. Native Americans are able to hear in nature the voice of the creative Spirit, while Europeans have such a materialistic culture that they can't hear the voice of nature any more. GA100, p. 244

From the article: "He discarded the theosophical terminology of root races, prefering to speak of earth epochs." I don't think this sentence is supportable at all - in fact I think it is an outright lie. Steiner ABSOLUTELY talks about root races throughout his lectures and books. As I recall, in his book Atlantis and Lemuria" he spends almost the entire book talking about root races. Here's a quote from one of his defining works "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" p 207 (the title has been changed in recent years to something like "How to Know Higher Worlds") "According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are quite differentfrom those of the preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and allthat belongs to it.In each root race various stages must also be gone through. There are always seven of these. In the beginning of a period identified with a root race,its principal characteristics are in a youthful condition; slowly theyattain maturity and finally enter a decline. The population of a root raceis thereby divided into seven sub-races. But one must not imagine that onesubrace immediately disappears when a new one develops. Each one may maintain itself for a long time while others are developing beside it. Thus there are always populations which show different stages of developmentliving beside each other on earth."

Here's another one: "We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on earth. If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race lived in the distant past in Ancient India. And the present-day Indians are descendants of that first Sub-Race, whose spiritual life is still extant in the ancient Indian Vedas. The Vedas are indeed only echoes of the ancient culture of the Rishis. At that time there was of course no writing yet - there was only tradition. Then came the second, third and fourth Sub-Races. The fourth Sub-Race adopted Christianity. Then, halfway through the Middle Ages, we see that the fifth Sub-Race formed itself, to which we and the neighboring nations belong." (Steiner, Rudolf. The Temple Legend: Freemasonry and Related Occult Movements: Twenty Lectures given in Berlin between 23rd May 1904 and the 2nd January 1906. (1904-1906) Trans. John M. Wood, Edited E.M. Lloyd. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1985, p. 220)

Rather than delete the sentence completely and offhandedly, I'd like to leave this open to discussion for a day or two first. --Pete K 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

yep, you so proofed your thorough grasp. impressed. trueblood 22:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He certainly used the terminology "root race" in his early theosophical period, before splitting off from the Theosophical Society. All the works you quote are from before 1907 or so, when he began changing a great deal in his presentations, including this. Hgilbert 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, LOL! So he didn't "discard" it at all. He used this langage, in his lectures and books and at some point in 1907 when he split off from the Theosophical Society, reinvented HIS OWN terminology to separate himself from Blavatsky. This is hardly what the sentence says now, is it?

Re: Peter Staudenmaier, since you are currently in communications with him, why don't you simply ask him about his qualifications as a historian. He is on the WC list right now describing your exchanges with him - and that you are denying, apparently, what is clearly historical information that he is providing to you. Living in denial of the facts is unhealthy, Harlan.

Re: Denegration of white races - again, what you have demonstrated by your examples IS racism. Your efforts here, and Sune's efforts on the Waldorf page are proving the point - that Steiner considered race to be an important factor in determining things like intelligence, morality, decadence and went into detail about how some races had their internal parts harden too soon, or were burned by the sun and all sorts of other nonsense (to modern ears <G>). Now, I have 25 pages of quotes from Steiner that denegrates all races but the white race, and you have three snippets out of 40 books and 6000 lectures (and even those snippets are taken completely out of context) that say white people decay when they leave their homeland or are more materialistic than Native Americans - as a defense of this "across the board" idea you are trying to promote. It's really ridiculous to suggest this Harlan. In fact, Steiner was against the "mixing of the blood" and that's why he prefered white races not populate areas where "savage" races were.

Trueblood, I studied Steiner in earnest for more than a decade. I apologise for mentioning google searches in my comment above as that may have misled you to think my understanding of this subject is superficial. --Pete K 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding HGilbert's claim that "I know of no qualified historian, philosopher or corresponding authority who has examined Steiner's works and called them racist." Here's one - and since you read German, you won't mind:

Helmut Zander, “Der Weltgeist auf dem Weg durch die Rassengeschichte. Anthroposophische Rassentheorie” in Stefanie von Schnurbein and Justus Ulbricht, eds., Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2001)

Helmut Zander, “Sozialdarwinistische Rassentheorien aus dem okkulten Untergrund des Kaiserreichs” in Uwe Puschner, Walter Schmitz, and Justus Ulbricht, eds., Handbuch zur ‘Völkischen Bewegung’ 1871-1918 (Munich: Saur, 1996)

So now you can no longer honestly make that claim. --Pete K 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added this quote by Steiner:

"e are not justified in thinking that human beings were originally like the savages of today. The savages have developed into what they now are--with their superstitions, their magical practices and their unclean appearance--from states originally more perfect. The only superiority we have over them is that, while starting from the same conditions, we did not degenerate as they did. I might therefore say: The evolution of man has taken two paths. It is not true that the savages of today represent the original condition of mankind. Mankind, though to begin with it looked more animal-like, was highly civilized. ... Just as the present savages have fallen from the level of the human beings of primeval times, so the apes are beings who have fallen still lower." (Steiner, 1924, EEM p. 126)

Let's see how long it stays before the revisionists remove it. Anyone interested in seeing the breadth of Steiner's racism can certainly go back through the history pages here and read a new quote every day. If there is any question that his remarks were of racist intent, the abundance of quoted material here should clear that up.--Pete K 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it only took a few minutes for the revisionists to remove the quote. I've added a new quote:

But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the nature of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who can deny that this question is closely linked to that of race, which at the present time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this question of race is one that we can never understand until we understand the mysteries of the blood and of the results accruing from the mingling of the blood of different races. And finally, there is yet one other question, the importance of which is becoming more and more acute as we endeavor to extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless methods of dealing with it, and seek to approach it in its more comprehensive bearings. This problem is that of colonization, which crops up wherever civilized races come into contact with the uncivilized: namely - To what extent are uncivilized peoples capable of becoming civilized? How can an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? And in what way ought we to deal with them? And here we have to consider not only the feelings due to a vague morality, but we are also confronted by great, serious, and vital problems of the very fact of existence itself.

Those who are not aware of the conditions governing a people - whether it be on the up- or down-grade of its evolution, and whether the one or the other is a matter conditioned by its blood - such people as these will, indeed, be unlikely to hit on the right mode of introducing civilization to an alien race. These are all matters which arise as soon as the Blood Question is touched upon." Rudolf Steiner, Occult Significance of Blood, An Esoteric Study -Berlin, October 25, 1906 GA 55 --Pete K 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote was deleted an again, I've added it back today. I'm documenting here the attempts by revisionists to remove Steiner's quotes. --Pete K 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed your pet quotation. If you want to add something "proving" Steiner's racism, add a quotation from a repudable scholar on Steiner. What you are doing is original research. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not paying attention - my "pet quotation" is one of about a dozen or more quotations I've posted here over the past couple of weeks. It's not a "pet quotation" - it's characteristic of Steiner's racism. I don't need to "prove" Steiner's racism by a quote from a reputable scholar, Steiner's own words speak for themselves. There is NO original research involved in quoting the man's OWN words. What you are doing here is REVISING HISTORY. I'll add back yet another quote. You have no right to deny users of Misplaced Pages the right to view an example of Steiner's own words regarding the races - nor do you have the right or authority to subjugate my edits and remove these quotes. Do you deny that Steiner said these things? If not, then leave them in the article. --Pete K 18:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we can't put everything that Steiner said in the article, your selection of which of his words to quote constitutes scholarship. There is an entire article on Steiner's views on race, and your attempt to spotlight negative quotations by repeatedly inserting them into this page constitutes POV advocacy. Furthermore, your use of the word "malicious" constitutes a personal attack. Please stop. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As if this isn't an organized attempt to keep this stuff off the page... LOL! My "Malicious" vs your "Vandalism" - I think both could be considered a personal attack - so I'm not buying what you're selling - and I don't frighten easily. I'm not selecting words to demonstrate Steiner's "scholarship", I'm demonstrating his "racism". If there's room in this article to discuss the ANTHROPOSOPHICAL commission's views on Steiner's racist commentary, then there's room here for examples of the actual words HE used. It's inappropriate to allow Anthroposophists to white-wash the racial issue (as if that isn't a POV advocacy) and then remove discussion to demonstrate the opposite from the page. Please stop with this silly whitewash. Steiner's racist language IS appropriate RIGHT HERE on an article about Steiner and on the topic of racism. I've included complete citations of each quote and each one has been removed by revisionsts here. --Pete K 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking editors personally. Discuss content, not contributors. — goethean ॐ 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think YOU are doing by characterizing my edits as "vandalism"? Why don't you stop deleting the quotes I put up here? The content apparently isn't at issue here because I've put lots of different quotes up and they all seem to disappear. So it isn't the content of the material, it's the entire idea of quoting Steiner in this article that you find objectionable. Why not give it a rest and let Steiner's words speak for themselves? --Pete K 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After several attempts today to get a quote to stick, I'll start, again, posting the quotes I'm adding on the discussion pages here. At least people who are interested and savy enough to search the disucssion pages will find this material. Today's quote is:

"Man himself continued to progress, and now passed on into the middle of the Atlantean epoch; the present human form only began to develop during the first half of that epoch; only then did man begin to feel fully at home in it.

Now, there were some beings in those ancient times who were very low down in the scale of humanity; these became the backward races; there were others who kept themselves plastic; and, again, others who only occasionally inhabited human bodies. What I am now about to describe happened very frequently in the first part of the Atlantean epoch. Imagine a man of that time who for an Atlantean was highly evolved; through certain procedures it frequently happened that such a man was caused to separate his physical body (which was then very plastic) and his etheric and astral bodies from his more spiritual parts, which then withdrew more into the spiritual world so as later to take on another body.

It very frequently happened that, long before the physical, etheric and astral bodies were ready to die, they were willingly vacated by their soul and spirit-principles. These, when they had belonged to especially exalted individuals, were pure and good bodies. Highly spiritual beings then let themselves descend into these bodies; and so it frequently happened during the ancient Atlantean epoch that beings who were otherwise unable to incarnate on earth made use of such advanced bodies in order to descend among men. These were the beings who acted as great teachers in the Atlantean schools of initiation. They worked powerfully with the means available at that time."

(http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA/GA0105/19080811p01.html ; p. 104 in the book - lecture, number 7, from August 11, 1908)

Editors who continually remove this type of material are doing a disservice to people who are interested in the topic. --Pete K 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A new editor in the Waldorf revisionist tag-team has arrived to delete the quotes revealing Steiner's racist comments. This time they deleted the following:

"You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people and its mission. In a profound occult sense the Biblical writer was able to claim that Jahve or Jehovah had made this people his own. If you add to this the fact that Jahve cooperated with the Mars Spirits who worked principally in the blood, you will understand why racial continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to the Semitic Hebrew people and why Jahve describes Himself as the God who is present in the blood of the generations, in the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When he declared himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He proclaimed that He was present in the blood-stream of the Patriarchs. Whatsoever works in the blood, whatsoever must be determined through the blood - the cooperation with the Mars Spirits - that is one of the mysteries which give us a deep insight into the wise guidance of all mankind.

The blood of mankind is thus subject to a twofold influence; two races emerge, the Mongolian race and the Semitic race. This points to the existence of an important polarity in mankind and we must emphasize the immense importance of this polarity if we wish to plumb the depths of the Folk Souls. "

"Consequently the various peoples may assume the most diverse forms. According as the eye or the ear or one of the other senses predominates, so will the different peoples respond in this or that way to the particular national tendency within the racial character. In consequence of this they are faced with quite specific tasks. The particular task of the Caucasian race is to find the way to the spirit through the senses, for this race is orientated chiefly towards the sense-world.

Here is disclosed something that introduces us to the deeper secrets of occultism; it shows how, in those peoples who are subject to the Venus forces, the initial steps in development, even in occult development, must be concentrated on the respiratory system. Amongst the peoples living more in the Western Hemisphere, on the other hand, the initial steps must start from an enrichment and a spiritualization of the life of the senses. This is experienced by those peoples inhabiting countries more towards the West in their stages of higher cognition, in Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition, in so far as the Jupiter Spirit originally modified the character. "

"Finally, the abnormal Spirits of Form who have their centre in Saturn work indirectly via all the other systems into the glandular system. In the Saturn race, therefore, in everything to which we must ascribe the Saturn character, we must expect to find the combination of the forces leading to the twilight of mankind, forces which set the seal upon its development and sow the seeds of its ultimate decline. This action and its effect upon the glandular system can be seen in the American Indian race and was the cause of its ultimate extinction.

The Saturn influence finally works via all the other systems into the glandular system which secretes the hardest parts of man. This slow decline is characterized by a kind of ossification which is clearly reflected in the external form. If you look at the pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification described above is evident in the decline of this race. In a race such as this everything pertaining to the forces of the Saturn evolution has become realized in a special manner; then Saturn withdrew into itself, abandoned man to his bony system and thus hastened his decline. " The Mission of Single Folk Souls in Relation to Germanic-Nordic Mythology - Lecture 6 - The five main races of Mankind. --Pete K 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner for intermarriage

"... In fact, Steiner was against the "mixing of the blood" and that's why he prefered white races not populate areas where "savage" races were. ..." Pete K 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is contradicted by a lecture, that on the one hand is a comment on a comment by Mefistofeles in Goethe's Faust, and at first formulates the probably questions of a number of his audience, then to continue at the end to tell what Steiner himself thought of intermarriage:

"In earlier times tribes held aloof from each other, and the individual members of families intermarried. You will find this to have been the case with all races and with all peoples; and it was an important moment for humanity when this principle was broken through, when foreign blood was introduced, and when marriage between relations was replaced by marriage with strangers, when endogamy gave place to exogamy. Endogamy preserves the blood of the generation; it permits of the same blood flowing in the separate members as flows for generations through the entire tribe or the entire nation. Exogamy inoculates man with new blood, and this breaking-down of the tribal principle, this mixing of blood, which sooner or later takes place among all peoples, signifies the birth of the external understanding, the birth of the intellect.

The important thing to bear in mind here is that in olden times there was a hazy clairvoyance, from which the myths and legends originated. This clairvoyance could exist in the nearly related blood, just as our present-day consciousness comes about owing to the mingling of blood. The birth of logical thought, the birth of the intellect, was simultaneous with the advent of exogamy. Surprising, as this may seem, it is nevertheless true. It is a fact which will be substantiated more and more by external investigation; indeed, the initial steps along this line have already been taken.

But this mingling of blood which comes about through exogamy is also that which at the same time obliterates the clairvoyance of earlier days, in order that humanity may evolve to a higher stage of development; and just as the person who has passed through the stages of occult development regains this clairvoyance, and transmutes it into a new form, so has our waking consciousness of the present day been evolved out of that dim and hazy clairvoyance which obtained in times of old."

--Thebee 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! How is "intermarriage" the mixing of the blood of races? Nobody is talking about brother marrying sister here Sune. "Exogamy" means no inbreeding - i.e. small villages or tribes should seek people outside their tribe - it doesn't in any way refer to interracial marriages. That you have misunderstood what he wrote is no reason to cut the quotes I have been posting. --Pete K 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Exogamy means "marriage outside a particular group with which one is identified"; this can be on any scale. Hgilbert 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need an English lesson Harlan, nor do I need help interpreting this quote or any of Steiner's material. The quote is NOT talking about marrying outside one's race. Revisionists, like you perhaps, try to use nonsense like this to convey that Steiner was talking about the mixing of races. The quote does not say this at all, and it doesn't imply this at all - and Steiner was not in favor of this at all - in fact he was very much opposed to the mixing of the blood of different races. Do you want me to post quotes here to support what I have just said? Here's one:

"Occult investigation shows decisively that all the things which surround us in this world - the mineral foundation, the vegetable covering, and the animal world - should be regarded as the physiognomical expression, or the "below," of an "above" or spirit life lying behind them. From the point of view taken by occultism, the things presented to us in the sense world can only be rightly understood if our knowledge includes cognition of the "above," the spiritual archetype, the original Spiritual Beings, whence all things manifest have proceeded. And for this reason we will today apply our minds to a study of that which lies concealed behind the phenomenon of the blood, that which shaped for itself in the blood its physiognomical expression in the world of sense. When once you understand this "spiritual background" of blood, you will be able to realize how the knowledge of such matters is bound to react upon our whole mental outlook on life.

Questions of great importance are pressing upon us these days; questions dealing with the education, not alone of the young, but of entire nations. And, furthermore, we are confronted by the momentous educational question which humanity will have to face in the future, and which cannot fail to be recognized by all who note the great social upheavals of our time, and the claims which are everywhere being advanced, be they the Labor Question, or the Question of Peace. All these things are pre-occupying our anxious minds.

But all such questions are illuminated as soon as we recognize the nature of the spiritual essence which lies at the back of our blood. Who can deny that this question is closely linked to that of race, which at the present time is once more coming markedly to the front? Yet this question of race is one that we can never understand until we understand the mysteries of the blood and of the results accruing from the mingling of the blood of different races. And finally, there is yet one other question, the importance of which is becoming more and more acute as we endeavor to extricate ourselves from the hitherto aimless methods of dealing with it, and seek to approach it in its more comprehensive bearings. This problem is that of colonization, which crops up wherever civilized races come into contact with the uncivilized: namely - To what extent are uncivilized peoples capable of becoming civilized? How can an utterly barbaric savage become civilized? And in what way ought we to deal with them? And here we have to consider not only the feelings due to a vague morality, but we are also confronted by great, serious, and vital problems of the very fact of existence itself.

Those who are not aware of the conditions governing a people - whether it be on the up- or down-grade of its evolution, and whether the one or the other is a matter conditioned by its blood - such people as these will, indeed, be unlikely to hit on the right mode of introducing civilization to an alien race. These are all matters which arise as soon as the Blood Question is touched upon." Rudolf Steiner, Occult Significance of Blood, An Esoteric Study -Berlin, October 25, 1906 GA 55

And for one of my favorites:

STEINER (1923) "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner, Rudolf. *Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year*. (1923) Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988, pp. 87-88.]

And who can forget this one:

"I am convinced that if we get yet another set of Negro novels and give them to pregnant women to read, then Negroes do not have to come to Europe to conceive mulattos; just by reading Negro novels, half-blood children will be born in Europe" (from Steiner's "Health and Illness").

If you need more support for what I have said, please let me know. --Pete K 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first quote doesn't say anything against mixing of races. The second says that bringing black people to Europe will weaken French blood and race; it is not clear that he means by intermarriage. The German says that "this deed, this terrible cultural brutality, works back unbelievingly strongly on France to weaken its blood, its race." - it is the deed itself that has this effect. The third is Steiner's weirdest ever quote (it is not new to me, I say this out of long experience); it actually doesn't directly address the issue, but indirectly gives credence to your standpoint. Against this stand various quotes: the one about Christ:

'Christ could be born in Galilee just because members of many peoples from various parts of the world were assembled in one spot; there was far less blood relationship, and, above all, far less faith in this than in Judea, in the narrow circle of the Hebrew people. Galilee was a heterogenous racial mixture....Christ's task was intimately connected with this mixing of blood.' (quoted and referenced in article)

A critique of Spengler's emphasis on everything coming from the "blood" (GA 36/p. 98)

"Someone who wishes to go to the root of the German nature cannot be content with that which a materialistic view calls "blood" or "race" of a folk." GA64/p.225

"Another memory lingering into Atlantean times was that although a man no longer felt the Folk-soul directly within him as on the Moon yet he experienced the influence of the old Folk Souls, Race-souls. This influence was so strong that it would have been quite impossible in those times for anyone who belonged to one Race or Folk-soul ever to unite with one who belonged to another race. There was a deep antipathy between the peoples of the various Folk-souls, love only existed between those belonging to the same. We may say that the common blood which earlier in the Moon-period had been poured down from the Folk-soul was the basis of this kinship." Theosophy of the Rosicrucians, lecture 9. This also clarifies the earlier quote about exogamy and shows that Steiner did specifically mean races, not just tribes.

"It will come about that all connections of race and family stock will cease to exist, men will become more and more different from one another, interconnection will no longer depend on the common blood, but on what binds soul to soul. That is the course of human evolution.

"In the first Atlantean races there still existed a strong bond of union and the first sub-races grouped themselves according to their colouring. This group-soul element we have still in the races of different colour. These differences will increasingly disappear as the individualising element gains the upper hand. A time will come when there will no longer be races of different colour; the difference between the races will have disappeared, but on the other hand there will be the greatest differences between individuals. The further we go back into ancient times the more we meet with the encroachment of the racial element; the true individualising principle begins as a whole only in later Atlantean times. Among the earlier Atlanteans members of one race actually experienced a deep antipathy for members of another race; the common blood caused the feeling of connection, of love; it was considered against morality to marry a member of another stock. " ibid. lecture 10, further confirming that exogamy among races is what he means here.

"If in man of an earlier time there flowed blood which bound him with his tribe, today the love which still flowed in the earlier blood shows greater and greater cleavage; a love of a spiritual kind must take its place and then we can ascend again to spiritual realms. There is good reason for us to have come down from spiritual heights, for man must go through this descent in order to find the way up to spirituality out of his own strength. The mission of Spiritual Science is to show mankind this upward path." ibid.

In Central Europe, what is essential is not a matter of outer determinations such as blood or race, but something like a spiritual substance that permeates the world. GA159/p. 58

In GA325, Steiner speaks of the evolutionary/cultural impulses carried by inheritance, by the blood, carrying through to Greek/Roman times, but then reaching a dead end; "nothing more was dependent upon, nothing more came from the blood....the blood gave nothing more"

There's a first selection. Hgilbert 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these support your point at all Harlan. He doesn't say anything about mixing the blood of the races, he says that "individuality" will overcome the "racial element". And as for the French quote, here is another version:

"The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul acquires nothing more than the possibility of cliches. Those who enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood. The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting."

(Rudolf Steiner, Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner, New York 1998, pp. 558-559)

What do YOU think he means, then? Are you suggesting that Steiner believed that simply bringing blacks to France would somehow have an effect on the blood of the French? "Ruin" their blood? This is an interesting point of view - perhaps supported by Steiner's claim that simply reading a novel about blacks could cause pregnant women to give birth to mulatto babies.

"I am convinced that if we get yet another set of Negro novels and give them to pregnant women to read, then Negroes do not have to come to Europe to conceive mulattos; just by reading Negro novels, half-blood children will be born in Europe" (from Steiner's "Health and Illness").

And lest Sune get on here and try to convince anyone that this was Steiner joking around, he made the same agrument again:

"You see, if a pregnant woman today were to ask for something to read, there is nothing to give her! There isn’t even anything to recommend! Recently I went into a bookstore in Basel and found an example of the latest publishing agenda: a Negro novel, just as the Negroes in general are entering into European civilization step by step! Everywhere Negro dances are being performed, Negro dances are being hopped. But we even have this Negro novel already. It is utterly boring, dreadfully boring, but people devour it. I am personally convinced that if we get more Negro novels, and give these Negro novels to pregnant women to read during the first phase of pregnancy, when as you know they can sometimes develop such cravings, if we give these Negro novels to pregnant women to read, then it won’t even be necessary for Negroes to come to Europe in order for mulattoes to appear. Simply through the spiritual effects of reading Negro novels, a multitude of children will be born in Europe that are completely gray, that have mulatto hair, that look like mulattoes!"

p. 189 of Über Gesundheit und Krankheit (Dornach 1994) (from 1922)

Steiner is, by the way, referring to Rene Maran's novel Batouala.

So which is it? Was Steiner talking about the ruining of the blood through interbreeding, or was he talking about osmosis through close proximity to the black race - or even BOOKS about the black race causing "half-blood" children? --Pete K 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the original German, he refers to the terrible deed of cultural brutality involved in bringing people forcibly from Africa to Europe. He then says that this deed will have an effect on the blood and race of France. He does not say that this will be as a result of intermarriage. Since Steiner did believe that good or evil deeds could affect one's physical being even down to the inherited being, I don't know if he meant this or that there would be mixed-race children born. It's impossible to determine from the context. Hgilbert 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only "impossible to determine" if you don't want to see the context. Steiner was talking about the black soldiers who were stationed in France. This wasn't slavery. If Steiner wanted to comment about slavery, he could well have talked about the United States. He talked about France because France is part of Europe and that blacks were brought into Europe bothered him. Steiner made lots of comments about the social implications of mixing cultures (and blood - I've quoted some above), about how "savages" would corrupt the Europeans. Steiner, himself, never met a black man. Steiner was referring to Rene Maran's novel 'Batouala' when he was talking about pregnant women reading novels and giving birth to mulatto children. If you are convinced that you don't know what he meant, then why are you arguing? Why not let editors who have studied this and actually KNOW what he meant perform edits to this article that are supported by evidence? --Pete K 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, such interpretations are considered original research and have no place here. We can quote published studies by competent authorities to bring their interpretations to bear, but cannot impose our own. Hgilbert 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Steiner's OWN WORDS are quotable here and I intend to quote Steiner right here. People can make up their own minds. --Pete K 04:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated violation of earlier agreement on sub pages

I have never given the above view of RS as reason for cutting the quote I've been cutting, as you seem to argue. I have cut them for four reasons.

One is that the "quote" already is described with regard to its actual content at the special sub page of the Steiner page on the issue, linked to in the section.

Another reason is that the "quote" you repeatedly insist on adding to the main page is erroneous and misleading. The original does not say that "a violent battle of white humankind against colored humankind" will take place. It just describes that battles in question -- in some 1,600 years (One of Huntington's 'Clashes of civilizations') - "will" develop between "white humanity" and "colored humanity" (in the context mainly seemingly referring to "Mongoles") but says nothing about who "will" "start" them (insinuated by the erroneous translation: "white" humanity against "colored" humanity), just that a difference between two different ways of relating to the spirit will be the basis of it. That's one of the typical subtle mis(?)translations by the person you've gotten it from.

A third reason is that the quote misrepresents the original source, from where it is taken. The original tells, not as implied in a second step between lines of the erroneous translation, that 'white humankind' will prevail in the battles. Instead it tells that the way of relating to the spirit as something living outside man, as represented in mongol culture, will come to be the basis for the further cultural development of mankind after "the" battles in some 1,500 years in Steiner's view, not something opposite of this, as the translator tries to insinuate. This is all told at the sub page, that you disregard.

The fourth reason is that the quote, like all other quotes you insist on quoting at the main to try to make it into another additional discussion page - disregarding the discussion of the subject at the sub page - violates an agreement developed after long earlier discussions on - as a unified standard in the articles - keeping the introduction of different subjects, discussed at sub pages, short at the main page, and instead present and discuss the issue at the subject page, an agreement you repeatedly violate. --Thebee 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Burying ALL racist Steiner quotes is very bad policy and deceitful.

Misplaced Pages treats complex topics in special articles. This is not considered burying, but rather giving adequate consideration. One-sided presentations, on the other hand, are violations of the NPOV principle.

OK, maybe you can point me to where those quotes are still visible on the Misplaced Pages pages. "One-sided presentations" are not advanced by quoting EXACTLY what Steiner said. It is, in fact, one-sided to act like the Misplaced Pages broom and sweep all examples of racism from this page.

Look in the sub-article; some were brought over. Some may be in footnotes; the sub-article has not had longer quotes in the main text (for space reasons, and this applies to both sides), but has relied on summaries with footnotes or links containing the full quotes. I recommend this practice - if the longer quote is in a footnote, it is still fully accessible without breaking the article's flow.

2) If you have a better translation, let's us it. Just because you don't agree with the translation is no reason to remove it completely. Provide a better translation of the same quote, or leave it there.

3) Your own translation of this quote would solve this problem too. I've read your criticism of this quote many times Sune, and I don't agree with it - but again, I invite you to provide your own translation instead of deleting the quote - and EVERY quote that has been placed on the face of the article.

The problem is that the quote you added presents only one side of the situation; if we present a full view, the main article gets swamped. That's why the sub-article was created in the first place, because this section grew too long by far.

Where, on the main article, is the "sub-article" referenced. I've made suggestions to remove some of the stuff that isn't of any importance to make room for the stuff that is. The Goetheanum, for example, is GONE... burned down. It wasn't an architectural masterpiece, it was an oddity. If you want to send something to a sub-article, it should be this.

There are two clear links, one in the "main article" line that starts the section on race, one in the first sentence of that section. Click on either one.

The first Goetheanum is widely recognized as a masterpiece; see article for references. The second has been recognized as a national architectural landmark by the Swiss nation.

4) As far as I'm concerned, any agreement that doesn't challenge whether Steiner's philosophy was based on racism isn't an agreement I can abide by. I don't know or care who agreed to this. Steiner's words speak for themselves. Why don't you let them do that?

We do. See the article devoted wholly to the topic. Add to this to ensure a full and well-rounded and accurate presentation of this complex topic.Hgilbert 12:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see that you do at all. I see that you remove any and all quotes immediately. If you have a quote from Steiner that contradicts ANYTHING that I have quoted, going back, what, two weeks now - then you should post that QUOTE. You can say that it is one-sided to make a claim until you are blue in the face - if you can't support your argument, then I will contninue to make the claim AND support it with Steiner's OWN words.

There is a special article on the subject. That is the proper place for describing the issue. The task of Misplaced Pages is not to challenge different philosophies, but to describe them in a broad neutral way in articles dedicated to different subjects and aspects of them. What is important also is not to argue about different subjects in articles. With regard to Steiner, who's work is extremely complex, encompassing among other things appr. 6,000 lectures held over two decades, single quotes are less interesting than the actual argumentation in the lectures and lecture series. Also, the same or similar issues may be described and discussed from different perspectives in different lectures during different periods of his life. The task of Misplaced Pages is to do justice to the work in its totality, also with regard to different sub-subjects, that then are described in sub-articles. --Thebee 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner's work, in totality, was racist. Anthroposophy is a racist philosophy - it claims that the white race is superior to all others. This is documented in dozens of quotes by Steiner. The sub article doesn't express this at all - in fact it excuses it. It is apparently written by people who don't believe this to be true. So are you saying that the place for ACTUAL quotes from Steiner would be in the sub-article, and that if I provide them they you won't immediately remove them? This is an exhausting process - to go to the effort to find material that supports a view, material that is in the man's OWN words, and then, after presenting that material, having revisionists remove it. I guess, once again, the administrators have to get involved. This is incredibly childish, in my view. Let the man's work speak for itself. --Pete K 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See quotes above that show the opposite. I'm afraid the exhausting process you describe is the very nature of expository, as opposed to creative, writing. We are not here to vent, but to document - indeed, to let the man's work speak for itself. Hgilbert 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the quotes above don't show the opposite. If the man's work is to speak for itself, then let's POST IT HERE. That's what an encyclopedia is for - presenting the facts, not whitewashing the truth. The fact is, Steiner said ALL the things I have quoted here and that you and others have been systematically removing in order to paint your guru in a good light. It's dishonest not to provide people with the opportunity to see both sides of this issue. You don't get to choose what people are allowed to see of Steiner, Harlan. I think anyone reading these back pages will see that there is more to the story than you are allowing to be presented here. Please, give it up and let both sides be heard. This is not the place for revisionist history. Let Steiner's words speak for themselves - ALL of them. --Pete K 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We are trying to represent both sides. It is impossible to do so adequately within the main article. There is no revisionist history, all quotes from all aspects of his work have a place in the article devoted exclusively to the subject.

I am open to extending the summary somewhat, but then it must be representative, and this has always led to conflicts. I suggest this is another place to find an agreement on a replacement on the talk page first. Hgilbert 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Burying "difficult" discussion items is not representing both sides. You have been accused of this before by other editors. Selecting the link in the main article doesn't bring me to Steiner's racist quotes, it brings me to an article that tries to explain away Steiner's racism. These tactics are the type of tactics revisionists use. There will be no agreement that says Steiner didn't say what he said. Let Steiner's words speak for themselves. --Pete K 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

esoteric anatomy and world evolution

Steiners presentation of the invisible bodies of the human being is the same as that presented by other theosophical offshoots. From the point of Religious Science it is possible to claim he lifted the scheme in its entirety from Blavatsky. This claim is not made here, but the point is made that Steiner's and Blavatsky's esoteric anatomies are identical (as are many other parts of anthroposophical and theosophical teachings. It is true that Steiner in his autobiography and elsewhere claimed not to have been influenced by theosophy, but this is obviously not true.--Vindheim 10:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If Hgilbert believes Steiners esoteric anatomy is different from Blavatskys, it is up to him to show the difference. I see no opposition between the scheme of the higher bodies of the human being presented by Steiner in "Theosophy" from those presented by Blavatsky, Leadbeater or Bailey. --Vindheim 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And you could say that in the article: there is no opposition between them. To claim identity between two so different presentations is unjustified. The skeleton is similar: the seven-fold human being (though already here Steiner uses a new vocabulary, with different emphasis). Already here, however, Steiner emphasizes that the etheric body is not just a refined physical (a theosophical concept). In addition, Steiner distinguishes three elements of the soul, three of the body and three of the spirit, resulting in a nine-fold presentation; does this appear in any theosophical work? In any case, most of Steiner's actual characterizations (beyond the barest skeleton) are very particular to him, as those of Blavatsky and other Theosophists are to them, and the styles are so fully different (cf. Blavatsky vs. Steiner!!!); these factors preclude any usage of terms like identity.

In any case, the Outline of Esoteric Science is wildly and completely different than any theosophical presentation of similar material. Hgilbert 10:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. identity is too strong. --Vindheim 11:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

people influenced by steiner

Many people were and are interested enough in Steiner to have read books, seen or read his plays, and so on. Nevertheless, no major influence can be assumed merely because someone reads an author's book. What is the evidence that Kafka was actually influenced by, rather than merely curious about or even interested in, Steiner's work? Hgilbert 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i object to mentioning zweig, kafka and tarkovsky in this list without providing further evidence than the link. just the fact that these people have met or have said something about him does not say much. i wonder if any of these even went as far as read a book by steiner. --trueblood 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See Tarkovsky's memoirs from 31 January, 1986 in "Paris, hospital" where he discusses the possibility of making a short film about Steiner (from the Polish edition of Martyrolog, ed. and trans. by Seweryn Kuśmierczyk. Retranslation by Jan at Nostalghia.com, seen here: http://ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheDiaries/sacrifice.html). Tarkovsky writes, "... then — to Berlin where — perhaps — I'll make a short film about Rudolf Steiner with Alexander Kluge...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.69.229 (talk • contribs)

again wanting to make a movie about steiner might mean he was interestered in steiner, but not necessary that he was influenced by steiner. trueblood 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Steiner and theosophy

This section of the biography has grown out of proportion to the remainder. I am moving parts to footnotes, where they are accessible to interested readers but do not get in the way of what is meant to be a concise overview. In particular, the years from 1910-1925 still need much more detail - these were easily the most full years of Steiner's life. Hgilbert 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Steiner founded the A.S. before the T.S. threw his group out; I have fixed this in the text. Do you have any citations to back up the claim that Besant ejected them on the basis of the T.S. statute on religious freedom? Hgilbert 12:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised the text slightly and added reference to Theosophical History--Vindheim 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Added more references so both viewpoints appear. Hgilbert 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

i find it unacceptable that you claim this section is too long, and remove parts of it, and then add heaps of detail supporting the anthroposophical version of the split. This makes the article even more unbalanced and propagandist than it was before. I put an objectivity tag on this section, I am sure it could have been placed on the whole article. --Vindheim 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is much too long. But you keep adding the claim that Steiner's exclusion of the Star of the East members violated the T.S. constitution - a claim wholly derived from theosophical sources, a single POV. If the claim is there, then the facts behind this (with quotations from Besant!!) should be there, too, and the German section's POV, which is that the Order had a dogma, contrary to religious freedom. If we drop the claim and just have the fact that the German group was excluded, then the whole documentation of the incident (which doesn't belong here!!) can go.

I have put most of the detailed information in footnotes where it is available to the interested but doesn't overwhelm the article. I hope this is a satisfactory solution.Hgilbert 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Theosophical History <http://www.theohistory.org/> is a magazine for scholars of history and religion, not for members of the TS. That Steiner's exclusion of one sect with which he disagreed - The Star of the East - was an exclusion of a religious point of view is a fact, and has been documented to be instrumental in forcing the formal breach between the TS and the AS. It looks as if you are unwilling to include any information which shows Steiner too have been less than saintly. --Vindheim 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the neutrality tag because you disagree with it, eh? This article is not your personal playground, Hgilbert. Do that again and I'll bring it to the village pump --Vindheim 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That the German section (not Steiner) excluded members of the Order is a fact. That this is an exclusion of a religious viewpoint and thus a contravention of the T.S. statutes is an interpretation. I am happy to include this information and interpretation, but the NPOV principle states that alternate interpretations should also be included. You are upset if no interpretation appear in the main text, and upset if both do. It seems that you want to force a single point of view into the article. I am genuinely puzzled. I am happy with either solution; either we state the fact of the exclusion and leave the interpretation, or put in the various interpretations.

Perhaps it is helpful to emphasize the distinction between facts and citations. Because a historian says something does not make it a fact; it may well be an interpretation. It becomes citable, but alternate interpretations by other historians (Lindenberg is a notable historian) are also possible and equally citable. Hgilbert 00:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to combine versions. The footnote extensively documents the relationship of Steiner's growing popularity (especially outside German-speaking areas) to the tensions.

Please identify areas where the article generally is not balanced in POV to justify the general template. Hgilbert 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: the user who had added the template promptly removed it after the above query. Hgilbert 06:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unclear reference:

The very first line in the section Steiner and the Theosophical Society begins: "A turning point in Steiner's life came when, in the August 28, 1899 issue of this magazine... ". As near as I can tell, this is an allusion to "the literary journal Magazin für Literatur" referred to at the end of the section Writer and philosopher. I suspect that the intervening section was added -- and the continuity was lost -- during an edit. In any event, the magazine being referred to needs to be clarified. Cgingold 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerns have been expressed about article length; I have moved the extensive section on the T.S. to a special, detailed article on Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophical Society to preserve the excellent work there, and put a summary with link in this article. Hgilbert 10:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Goetheanum

I think there needs to be a sentence or two that describes the social/ political/ historical context in which the first Goetheanum was burned down. Was there ever such a line in the article? I realize that the identity of the arsonist(s) was not established, but the general take on this question is that Steiner had stirred up a lot of animosity, particularly among right-wing elements, including Adolph Hitler. (It might even make sense to develop this within section 3.2 Social activism.) I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this issue before I write it up. Cgingold 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There had been a direct threat published in a right-wing extremist journal; see this description with a reference to Steiner's lecture where he mentioned the threat (of spiritual sparks igniting the building). Hgilbert 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

I have once again put the events in chronological order in the section about the Theosophical Society. Please stop reversing them; 1912 (A.S. formed) comes before 1913 (T.S. casts out German section). Hgilbert 09:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive and Theosophical Society Archive

I have established two archives; one for past discussions and one for discussion about the Theosophical Society specifically. I propose that recent and current discussion about the latter remain on this page for now, but will be archived to the latter when no longer active. Hgilbert 09:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper page for subject discussion

I suggest discussions on RS views on "races" is moved to its proper place, the Talks page on that issue. Thanks, --Thebee 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, not surprisingly. Rudolf Steiner's views on race belong right here not buried elsewhere. This is, again, another attempted "clean-up" so even the Rudolf Steiner Talk page can stay pristine. This is part of your effort to keep Steiner's ideas about race hidden from public view. If they are moved, I will move them back here. The discussion here is exactly about whether Steiner's views on race should be available on THIS article and not on the sub-page. The discussion is relevant right here. --Pete K 04:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Architecture articles
• Unknown-importance Architecture articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles