return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: a great story about growing up in an Anthroposophical monastery
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: a great story about growing up in an Anthroposophical monastery
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:18:14 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Frank wrote:
: ... Steiner says: “of course if
) )it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of people [to
) )expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there might be
) )no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society will
) )someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) )effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) )understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) )provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia
) )sinks. But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only
) )resign ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is find
) )enough people who can be active in our movement, who can be active in
) )the sense of our social threefolding. And in this direction – it must be
) )said – we have not worked with sufficient intensity.”
) )In order words he means the exact opposite of what you claim.
Peter responded:
) Huh? That is exactly what I claim. As a surrogate for a full spiritual
) solution, go ahead and vote for Prussia; the real goal is to keep
) propagating threefolding within the German Volk because that's where
) understanding for threefolding will come from, as part of Mitteleuropa's
)
) mission and so on. How do you make this out to be the opposite of what I
)
) said?
Val:
This exchange reminded me of the recent discussion regarding the meaning
of the phrase-nichts weniger als. Does nichts weniger als mean anything
but or does it mean anything but-anything but? I think this example
above is much more interesting maybe because it's in English but it
seems two people are reading this passage and coming away with entirely
different meanings.
I too read what Steiner is saying in this passage above to be more or
less the opposite of Peter's intepretation. I don't, for instance, get
that Steiner is saying-go ahead and vote for Prussia-when he says
"resign ourselves to what we are suffering under."
So I have to consider that one of us is comprehending this passage
correctly and the other is looking through some funky glasses-maybe of
the rose colored variety or maybe some old moldy ones, or maybe even,
God forbid, cracked. Which is just interesting to me-right there-my
thought is-hey take your glasses off-and what I often read on this list
is "put your reading glasses on" (most recently from Frank) but perhaps
that is just a knee-jerk projectile from the bat cave.
Anyway, I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility that we can
and often do read through the lens of our own biases and our own
worldview and that there are corrective lenses for that.
But what I think is more interesting to consider, more novel at least,
is the possibility of there being two voices here. Perhaps there is a
duplicity at work here in general.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:51:29 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Val,
)Frank wrote:
)
): ... Steiner says: “of course if
) ) )it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of people [to
) ) )expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there might be
) ) )no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society will
) ) )someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) ) )effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) ) )understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) ) )provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia
) ) )sinks. But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only
) ) )resign ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is
)find
) ) )enough people who can be active in our movement, who can be active in
) ) )the sense of our social threefolding. And in this direction – it must
)be
) ) )said – we have not worked with sufficient intensity.”
) ) )In order words he means the exact opposite of what you claim.
)
)Peter responded:
)
) ) Huh? That is exactly what I claim. As a surrogate for a full spiritual
) ) solution, go ahead and vote for Prussia; the real goal is to keep
) ) propagating threefolding within the German Volk because that's where
) ) understanding for threefolding will come from, as part of Mitteleuropa's
) )
) ) mission and so on. How do you make this out to be the opposite of what I
) )
) ) said?
)
)Val:
)
)This exchange reminded me of the recent discussion regarding the meaning
)of the phrase-nichts weniger als. Does nichts weniger als mean anything
)but or does it mean anything but-anything but? I think this example
)above is much more interesting maybe because it's in English but it
)seems two people are reading this passage and coming away with entirely
)different meanings.
)
)I too read what Steiner is saying in this passage above to be more or
)less the opposite of Peter's intepretation. I don't, for instance, get
)that Steiner is saying-go ahead and vote for Prussia-when he says
)"resign ourselves to what we are suffering under."
It is remarkably unclear why you and Frank think this is the opposite of my
reading of the passage. Steiner acknowledges that he and his followers are
suffering under conditions they don't like (lost war, Entene meddling,
League of Nations imposed plebiscite, etc). If they can't convince the rest
of the world of the wonders of threefolding, then they're stuck with those
conditions. In that case, he says, sympathizers of threefolding may have no
other choice than to fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia. That
really is what the passage says. Do you disagree with this? He isn't
enthusiastic about it. He isn't happy about. He is indeed resigned about it.
But he recognizes that it's going to be the case as long as threefolding
doesn't gain broad acceptance. Steiner didn't want the whole plebiscite to
even take place in the first place, as I've pointed out several times. He
conspicuously does not entertain the possibility -- even as a surrogate
option, even provisionally, even resignedly, even as a have-no-other-choice
situation -- of voting for Poland. Perhaps you could explain what about the
above passage you think indicates otherwise.
To recall the context again: Upper Silesia already belonged to Germany.
There were some groups in the province that argued for secession and for
independence, who wanted to form a separate sovereign entity, a free state
of Upper Silesia. The threefolders were not among them. When some German
critics of anthroposophy charged that the threefolders endorsed secession
and independence, the threefolders emphatically (and truthfully) denied it.
Instead, what they argued was that threefolding in Upper Silesia would
retain important economic resources for the German economy, and was indeed
the best way to protect Germany's true interests and to escape from being
strangled by the West. It may well be that these arguments contradict
Frank's conception of what the threefolding idea really ought to mean, but
they are arguments that were actually advanced by the threefolding movement
at the time.
I think your question about the real Rudolf is a very good one, by the way,
and one that a number of latter-day critics of anthroposophy have asked
before. Steiner contradicted himself a lot. Maybe you think there is some
contradiction in the above passage that I am missing? I encourage you to
point it out if so. Friendly greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:41:02 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hi Val,
)
)
) )Frank wrote:
) )
) ): ... Steiner says: “of course if
) ) ) )it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of people [to
) ) ) )expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there might be
) ) ) )no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society will
) ) ) )someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) ) ) )effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) ) ) )understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) ) ) )provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia
) ) ) )sinks. But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only
) ) ) )resign ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is
) )find
) ) ) )enough people who can be active in our movement, who can be active in
) ) ) )the sense of our social threefolding. And in this direction – it must
) )be
) ) ) )said – we have not worked with sufficient intensity.”
) ) ) )In order words he means the exact opposite of what you claim.
) It is remarkably unclear why you and Frank think this is the opposite of
) my
) reading of the passage. Steiner acknowledges that he and his followers
) are
) suffering under conditions they don't like (lost war, Entene meddling,
) League of Nations imposed plebiscite, etc). If they can't convince the
) rest
) of the world of the wonders of threefolding, then they're stuck with
) those
) conditions. In that case, he says, sympathizers of threefolding may have
) no
) other choice than to fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia. That
)
) really is what the passage says.
No, it isn't what this passage says, at least in English, above.
)Do you disagree with this?
Yes, I do and I'm willing for the moment instead of wrangling about what
the words mean to say this is not what this passage says to me-it's not
my reading of it at all and I understand that it is yours. And I find
that interesting, in and of itself. The opposition comes in for me as a
which comes first-the chicken or the egg kind of thing. You have him
saying if we don't do T. we're going to be stuck with P. like he's some
kind of meglamaniac or something. What I read is-here's what we're stuck
with (P. or the equivalant)ergo we'd better get our rears in gear.-Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:17:16 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: a great story about growing up in an Anthroposophical monastery
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) http://www.robertsmith-hald.com/biography.htm
)
) -dD-
That is hilarious!
Things have, of course, changed.
I now work at a Camphill VERY close to the one mentioned, and will
probably be bringing my (electric!) blues band there for a party.
We have TV, movies, sweets, and we teach students how to use computers,
DJ equipment and microwave ovens.
You'd like it here, Dan!
c
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:44:10 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: a great story about growing up in an Anthroposophical monastery
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ) http://www.robertsmith-hald.com/biography.htm
) )
) ) -dD-
)
) That is hilarious!
Ah Charlie. If *only* you had left that out.
) Things have, of course, changed.
Probably. Critic or supporter I guess we would all certainly hope so.
) I now work at a Camphill VERY close to the one mentioned, and will
) probably be bringing my (electric!) blues band there for a party.
) We have TV, movies, sweets, and we teach students how to use computers,
) DJ equipment and microwave ovens.
) You'd like it here, Dan!
Interesting. Can you indicate how often the villagers are afforded such
opportunities?
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:44:18 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
2007-02-01
Dear all,
I like the characterisation and discovery of Peter of the latter days
critics: "I think your question about the real Rudolf is a very good one, by
the way, and one that a number of latter-day critics of anthroposophy have
asked before. Steiner contradicted himself a lot."
Humanity needs an "inspired version" of the books and lectures of Rudolf
Steiner. The publisher could be W.C. The Waldorf Church of Steiner of the
latter days. There will be a lot of foot notes, as in the work of Joseph
Smith. There will probably be foot notes of foot notes of footnotes, by
Peter, Frank, Val, Peter etc.
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Val,
(....)
I think your question about the real Rudolf is a very good one, by the way,
and one that a number of latter-day critics of anthroposophy have asked
before. Steiner contradicted himself a lot. Maybe you think there is some
contradiction in the above passage that I am missing? I encourage you to
point it out if so. Friendly greetings,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:22:46 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Val,
) ) It is remarkably unclear why you and Frank think this is the opposite of
) ) my
) ) reading of the passage. Steiner acknowledges that he and his followers
) ) are
) ) suffering under conditions they don't like (lost war, Entene meddling,
) ) League of Nations imposed plebiscite, etc). If they can't convince the
) ) rest
) ) of the world of the wonders of threefolding, then they're stuck with
) ) those
) ) conditions. In that case, he says, sympathizers of threefolding may have
) ) no
) ) other choice than to fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia. That
) )
) ) really is what the passage says.
)
)No, it isn't what this passage says, at least in English, above.
Can you say anything at all about the first sentence? Here it is, in Frank's
translation:
“of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there
might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society
will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote provisionally
for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks."
You are trying to argue that this does *not* say that under the current
conditions sympathizers of threefolding may have no other choice than to
fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia? Could you somehow explain
that? Even a little bit? What exactly does it say, in your view?
Since you and Frank aren't being particularly forthcoming on the matter, I'm
going to go out on a limb and guess that you think the subsequent sentences
reverse the meaning of the first. The subsequent sentences read, in Frank's
translation:
"But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only resign
ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is find enough
people who can be active in our movement, who can be active in the sense of
our social threefolding. And in this direction – it must be said – we have
not worked with sufficient intensity.”
Is your claim that these words retract the statement in the first sentence
about provisionally voting for Prussia? Possibly because of the "but that is
merely a surrogate" part? Because that sounds to you like a bad thing that
Steiner wants his followers to avoid? Or are you trying to say that the
"sufficiently large number of people" from the first sentence does not refer
to the same thing as the "enough people" and the "sufficient intensity" from
the following sentences? Or do you see no relation between the first
sentence and the subsequent sentences?
) )Do you disagree with this?
)
)Yes, I do and I'm willing for the moment instead of wrangling about what
)the words mean to say this is not what this passage says to me-it's not
)my reading of it at all and I understand that it is yours.
What is your reading of it? You think Steiner is saying "don't even think
about voting provisionally for Prussia, we've got way more than enough
threefolders out there and we are sure to transform all of Europe before the
plebiscite takes place"? I can't say the point strikes me as particularly
important, but it would certainly be interesting to get some hint about what
your reading of the passage might be. Are we back to secret codes perhaps?
)And I find
)that interesting, in and of itself. The opposition comes in for me as a
)which comes first-the chicken or the egg kind of thing. You have him
)saying if we don't do T. we're going to be stuck with P.
Yes, that is indeed what the passage says. That is what a "surrogate" means,
no? That is what it means to be "resigned", no? My best guess is that you
think Steiner is saying something along the lines of "to resign ourselves to
the current circumstances is so painful a thought that I don't want the rest
of you to even entertain it for a moment, I want you to banish it from your
minds, I want you to tell all the others back in Upper Silesia that we will
countenance nothing less than full victory for threefolding, so don't even
consider the possibility of falling back on a vote for Prussia under present
conditions!" That would be a creative reading of the passage, at least. If
it is indeed your reading, can you point to what in the passage itself
suggests it to you?
)like he's some
)kind of meglamaniac or something.
But that isn't what my reading says at all (though it might well be what
your reading says, if the hypothesis I just offered is close to your
reading). It isn't hard to find megalomaniacal tendencies in Steiner. But
they are obviously not what I am positing in this instance. According to my
reading, Steiner is here being realistic, unhappily so, resignedly so, he is
offering a fall back position for those who despair of achieving full
threefolding in time for the referendum, he is saying essentially let's go
for the gold but let's recognize that it might not be within our grasp at
the moment and if not, for now we'll settle for the bronze.
)What I read is-here's what we're stuck
)with (P. or the equivalant)ergo we'd better get our rears in gear.-Val
Yes, that's what I read here too. This is one reason why it is more than a
little puzzling that you and Frank think the passage says "the exact
opposite" of my reading. In the lecture as a whole Steiner is firing up the
troops. He's doing his best to get them out there energized and hopeful. In
this passage he acknowledges that the maximum program may not be possible as
things presently stand, and he gives a nod toward those who are inclined to
settle for the less lofty goal, namely voting provisionally for Prussia, so
that threefolding work can continue after the plebiscite. I have no idea why
you think the passage says the exact opposite of this, and I welcome you to
clarify if you see fit. Friendly greetings,
Peter S.
) ) ): ... Steiner says: “of course if
) ) ) ) )it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of people [to
) ) ) ) )expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there
)might be
) ) ) ) )no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society
)will
) ) ) ) )someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) ) ) ) )effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) ) ) ) )understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) ) ) ) )provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this
)Prussia
) ) ) ) )sinks. But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only
) ) ) ) )resign ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is
) ) )find
) ) ) ) )enough people who can be active in our movement, who can be active
)in
) ) ) ) )the sense of our social threefolding. And in this direction – it
)must
) ) )be
) ) ) ) )said – we have not worked with sufficient intensity.”
_________________________________________________________________
Valentine’s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:26:22 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Franky,
)Humanity needs an "inspired version" of the books and lectures of Rudolf
)Steiner.
I think a critical edition would do the trick. By the way, what happened to
that historical-critical edition of Steiner's books and lectures that you
thought existed? As near as I can tell, you meant a comparative translation
of PoF into French. Feel free to fill me in at any point. Inspired
greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2441
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: a great story about growing up in an Anthroposophical monastery
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Question about language
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Question about language
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By dan dandugan.com
Council's blow to eco-academy bid
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:12:13 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
eurythmy wrote:
) Humanity needs an "inspired version" of the books and lectures of Rudolf
)
) Steiner. The publisher could be W.C. The Waldorf Church of Steiner of
) the
) latter days. There will be a lot of foot notes, as in the work of Joseph
)
) Smith. There will probably be foot notes of foot notes of footnotes, by
) Peter, Frank, Val, Peter etc.
Dear Franky,
Well, you know the saying-great minds think alike and small minds can't
help but follow along-something like that-actually I forget-but how
'bout-if the shoe fits, wear it!!!
Small mindedly,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:19:14 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: a great story about growing up in an Anthroposophical monastery
David Dodds wrote:
)
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )
) )
) ) Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) http://www.robertsmith-hald.com/biography.htm
) ) )
) ) ) -dD-
) )
) ) That is hilarious!
)
) Ah Charlie. If *only* you had left that out.
Humor often draws a little blood.
I'm OK with that.
)
) ) Things have, of course, changed.
)
) Probably. Critic or supporter I guess we would all certainly hope so.
)
) ) I now work at a Camphill VERY close to the one mentioned, and will
) ) probably be bringing my (electric!) blues band there for a party.
) ) We have TV, movies, sweets, and we teach students how to use computers,
) ) DJ equipment and microwave ovens.
) ) You'd like it here, Dan!
)
) Interesting. Can you indicate how often the villagers are afforded such
) opportunities?
)From weekly to daily.
For instance, movie night is once a week (I'm not completely sure, but
some villagers may go to different houses and see more than one
movie/week), and there are classes that teach computer, DJ-ing, and
cooking that are 2-3 days/week.
It also bears mentioning that my Camphill is mainly for people aged
about 18-25...adults.
But, believe me, the children at Beaver Run have DVDs, IPODs, and more.
I'm not sure if the 21st century has completely come to Camphill, but
the 20th has. ;-)
c
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:23:38 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Can you say anything at all about the first sentence? Here it is, in
) Frank's
) translation:
Dear Peter,
Of course I can. Why is this *Frank's* translation, all of the sudden?
) “of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
) people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then
) there
) might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold
) society
) will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) provisionally
) for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks."
)
)
) You are trying to argue that this does *not* say that under the current
) conditions sympathizers of threefolding may have no other choice than to
)
) fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia? Could you somehow explain
)
) that? Even a little bit? What exactly does it say, in your view?
My view is that the above statement by Steiner does not explicitly
recommend a fall-back option vote. In fact, that is a question for
you-since this seems to be the line of discussion that you prefer-how
exactly do you get an explict recommendation out of the above?
P: By the way, Steiner also says explicitly that if a full spiritual
solution is not possible at the moment in Upper Silesia, then he
recommends as a fall-back option to vote provisonally for Prussia
(despite the fact that it is under the yoke of the Entente, in his
view), so that threefolding can continue to be propagated "within the
German Volk" (p. 231).
) Since you and Frank aren't being particularly forthcoming on the matter,
) I'm
) going to go out on a limb and guess that you think the subsequent
) sentences
) reverse the meaning of the first. The subsequent sentences read, in
) Frank's
) translation:
If there is some other translation that supports your reading-your
translation perhaps then why didn't you just say-hey that's not how I
translated it? Instead you asked Frank how he got a different
understanding out of this passage. Anyway, I thought the passage in
question was from a book-was Frank's translation from a book and if so,
was Frank the translator?
)
)
) "But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only resign
) ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is find enough
)
) people who can be active in our movement, who can be active in the sense
) of
) our social threefolding. And in this direction – it must be said – we
) have
) not worked with sufficient intensity.”
)
)
) Is your claim that these words retract the statement in the first
) sentence
) about provisionally voting for Prussia? Possibly because of the "but
) that is
) merely a surrogate" part? Because that sounds to you like a bad thing
) that
) Steiner wants his followers to avoid? Or are you trying to say that the
) "sufficiently large number of people" from the first sentence does not
) refer
) to the same thing as the "enough people" and the "sufficient intensity"
) from
) the following sentences? Or do you see no relation between the first
) sentence and the subsequent sentences?
My *claim" here is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
) What is your reading of it? You think Steiner is saying "don't even
) think
) about voting provisionally for Prussia, we've got way more than enough
) threefolders out there and we are sure to transform all of Europe before
) the
) plebiscite takes place"? I can't say the point strikes me as
) particularly
) important, but it would certainly be interesting to get some hint about
) what
) your reading of the passage might be. Are we back to secret codes
) perhaps?
I never got into that secret decoder ring thing-it was before my time-I
think you are dating yourself here. But yeah, I do think the statement
is one of-don't even think about voting for P.-not because "we've got
way more than enough threefolders out there and we are sure to transform
all of Europe before the plebiscite takes place" but I have to say I got
a good laugh out of that one.
) )And I find
) )that interesting, in and of itself. The opposition comes in for me as a
) )which comes first-the chicken or the egg kind of thing. You have him
) )saying if we don't do T. we're going to be stuck with P.
)
)
) Yes, that is indeed what the passage says. That is what a "surrogate"
) means,
) no? That is what it means to be "resigned", no? My best guess is that
) you
) think Steiner is saying something along the lines of "to resign
) ourselves to
) the current circumstances is so painful a thought that I don't want the
) rest
) of you to even entertain it for a moment, I want you to banish it from
) your
) minds, I want you to tell all the others back in Upper Silesia that we
) will
) countenance nothing less than full victory for threefolding, so don't
) even
) consider the possibility of falling back on a vote for Prussia under
) present
) conditions!" That would be a creative reading of the passage, at least.
) If
) it is indeed your reading, can you point to what in the passage itself
) suggests it to you?
More creative, you think, than having Steiner expressing an explicit
recommendation? You offered your reading, your take on Steiner's view
and then Frank provided the relevant passage I believe. So again-why not
offer another translation if there is one that supports your statement?
Your guess above kind of misses the mark but I appreciate the mental
gymnastics you seem to be going through here-I hate guessing what other
people are thinking because I always guess wrong-it's flat out amazing
the things people think-I just never would have guessed!!! But I do get
Steiner as saying-don't even go there-that's more of the same-that's not
where the work is or where our focus needs to be-it's not a solution but
rather a continuation of the current state of affairs.
In one of your posts on this subject you described Steiner's
mood-resigned, saddened and here again you have the motivation as being
"painful circumstances". I don't ever really pick up any emotional
states from Steiner which is one of the reasons I think it's possible we
may be reading different authors or two different aspects of the same
author.
) But that isn't what my reading says at all (though it might well be what
)
) your reading says, if the hypothesis I just offered is close to your
) reading). It isn't hard to find megalomaniacal tendencies in Steiner.
) But
) they are obviously not what I am positing in this instance. According to
) my
) reading, Steiner is here being realistic, unhappily so, resignedly so,
) he is
) offering a fall back position for those who despair of achieving full
) threefolding in time for the referendum, he is saying essentially let's
) go
) for the gold but let's recognize that it might not be within our grasp
) at
) the moment and if not, for now we'll settle for the bronze.
No, he's not!!! If he wanted to say that why wouldn't he have said that?
He doesn't say I recommend, or I think, or I feel-there is no 'I'
statement. What he says is if/then there might be no other choice for
our friends than to say, let's look on the bright side, there could be a
silver lining here in the clouds, when life gives you lemons, make
lemonade.
) )What I read is-here's what we're stuck
) )with (P. or the equivalant)ergo we'd better get our rears in gear.-
) Yes, that's what I read here too. This is one reason why it is more than
) a
) little puzzling that you and Frank think the passage says "the exact
) opposite" of my reading. In the lecture as a whole Steiner is firing up
) the
) troops. He's doing his best to get them out there energized and hopeful.
)
By being Mr. Sad Sacks? Really? Would you be fired up by a mood of
sadness, despair, resignation, and painful cicumstances? Is this what
charges your engine? Hmmmmmmmm...Doesn't do zip for me and if this is
his best, man, I'd hate to be reading him at his worst! Frankly, if I
heard someone lecturing on why we should go with T. all sad and
despairing and resigned-I'd say what's the point-that battle's already
lost-why lend my energy to it? I think your rendition of this passage is
the opposite of rousing-I think it's rather pathetic. In a meglamaniac
sort of way, of course. Like Steiner was a pathetic meglamaniac.
In
) this passage he acknowledges that the maximum program may not be
) possible as
) things presently stand, and he gives a nod toward those who are inclined
) to
) settle for the less lofty goal, namely voting provisionally for Prussia,
) so
) that threefolding work can continue after the plebiscite. I have no idea
) why
) you think the passage says the exact opposite of this, and I welcome you
) to
) clarify if you see fit.
Where are you seeing the acknowledgement that-the maximum program may
not be possible as things presently stand? First sentence? Is that all
rolled into the word 'if'
Snowy day greetings,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:56:30 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Question about language
The discussion about translating texts brings to mind a question:
Did Steiner only speak/read/write German or was he also similarly fluent
in English?
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:00:48 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
eurythmy wrote:
) Humanity needs an "inspired version" of the books and lectures of Rudolf
)
) Steiner. The publisher could be W.C. The Waldorf Church of Steiner of
) the
) latter days. There will be a lot of foot notes, as in the work of Joseph
)
) Smith. There will probably be foot notes of foot notes of footnotes, by
) Peter, Frank, Val, Peter etc.
Dear Franky,
In case you think I was somehow remiss in not mentioning the obvious (at
least to me) inspired companian song lyric in my last post-I can only
say that popular song lyrics are not allowed in the Waldorf Church of
the Latter Day Steiners. They are not topical, they are not relevant,
and they are not interesting. Do you fe, do a lot of eurythmy to songs
that play on the radio? Maybe. I do, every once and awhile. But that is
not going to happen here apparemtly nor is it a common practice in
anthro circles.
More or less socially unacceptable in either camp-the only difference
being that an anthro would say childish, juvenile, immature, rather than
non-topical, irrelevant, uninteresting. So, seems like a perspective
issue to me-like maybe the anthros are in the balcony and the critics
are in the pews on the main floor. Or maybe, yeah just maybe I really
don't belong in this sanctuary after all, at all.
Even so-change of venue from dance floor to church means change of
shoes-eurythmy shoes are not street shoes. Tap shoes are not street
shoes-geeez-it's the same ole' same ole'-say you are a dancer to someone
and they think you're a loose woman or cannon or loose exotic or
neurotic or maybe exotically neurotic-I wish that were the case because
at least that might be seen as interesting.
Anyway, I'm changing my shoes and I will keep the stated preferences of
the Latter Day Steiners in mind and the idea of the Waldorf Church-W.C.
Handy. Thanks, Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:22:20 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Valerie Walsh wrote:
)
) eurythmy wrote:
)
) ) Humanity needs an "inspired version" of the books and lectures of Rudolf
) )
) )
) ) Steiner. The publisher could be W.C. The Waldorf Church of Steiner of
) ) the
) ) latter days. There will be a lot of foot notes, as in the work of Joseph
) )
) )
) ) Smith. There will probably be foot notes of foot notes of footnotes, by
) ) Peter, Frank, Val, Peter etc.
)
) Dear Franky,
Maybe it's like that other old saying-you know-those who can, dance
(they do the can-can of course) amd those who can't take
footnotes...maybe that's why I learned shorthand or maybe I'm just in a
bad mood in the middle of my mid-life crisis personal blog. Since one of
my mainfold (wish I could say trifold) shortconings is that I cannot
quote Steiner chapter and verse I have to wait until quotes like this
one come across my desk:
In the world things exist and things become, but only what is in the
process of becoming is alive; what is already in existence is always
dead. What is in existence is the corpse of what was becoming…. What
people want today is to attain as quickly as possible a complete and
finished view of the world. Much of what comes to expression as inner
disturbances and dissatisfaction will be alleviated only when, instead
of demanding finished truths, our interest awakens for participation in
the coming-into-being of truth. Certainly truths must be clearly
defined, but what is expressed in finished concepts always refers to
something that belongs to the past. However, the truths deposited, as
it were, by the past we can absorb; by so doing they live in us, and we
can in this way participate in truth.
Aspects of Human Evolution
1917 Rudolf Steiner p. 160
Happy Candlemas or Groundhogs Day (whichever you celebrate)
Val
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:03:42 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Val,
)Of course I can. Why is this *Frank's* translation, all of the sudden?
It was Frank's translation all along.
) ) “of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
) ) people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then
) ) there
) ) might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold
) ) society
) ) will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) ) effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) ) understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) ) provisionally
) ) for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks."
) )
) )
) ) You are trying to argue that this does *not* say that under the current
) ) conditions sympathizers of threefolding may have no other choice than to
) )
) ) fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia? Could you somehow explain
) )
) ) that? Even a little bit? What exactly does it say, in your view?
)
)My view is that the above statement by Steiner does not explicitly
)recommend a fall-back option vote.
Do you mean: he doesn't actually recommend it, he just says maybe they don't
have a choice? In that view, then, it wouldn't even really be a fall-back
option, it'd just be an inevitability? It is hard to square that with the
other things you've said about the passage.
)In fact, that is a question for
)you-since this seems to be the line of discussion that you prefer-how
)exactly do you get an explict recommendation out of the above?
That is the fall-back option that he endorses. He is expressing
understanding for those threefolders who feel that they have no choice,
under the existing circumstances, but to vote provisonally for Prussia.
Which, as it turns out, is something that other threefolders themselves said
afterwards.
)If there is some other translation that supports your reading
Frank's translation supports my reading. It does not support your reading.
It's hard to tell if it supports Frank's reading, whatever Frank's reading
might be, which he says is the exact opposite of mine. I haven't even
checked Frank's translation yet, by the way; it reads pretty much as I
recall the original reads.
)-your
)translation perhaps then why didn't you just say-hey that's not how I
)translated it? Instead you asked Frank how he got a different
)understanding out of this passage. Anyway, I thought the passage in
)question was from a book-was Frank's translation from a book and if so,
)was Frank the translator?
Yes, it is from a book, a book in German, and yes, Frank translated the
passage in question, just a couple days ago, right here on this list. I am
not troubled by his translation, or questioning it, if that is what you're
getting at.
) ) Is your claim that these words retract the statement in the first
) ) sentence
) ) about provisionally voting for Prussia? Possibly because of the "but
) ) that is
) ) merely a surrogate" part? Because that sounds to you like a bad thing
) ) that
) ) Steiner wants his followers to avoid? Or are you trying to say that the
) ) "sufficiently large number of people" from the first sentence does not
) ) refer
) ) to the same thing as the "enough people" and the "sufficient intensity"
) ) from
) ) the following sentences? Or do you see no relation between the first
) ) sentence and the subsequent sentences?
)
)My *claim" here is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
)Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
You can't say anything at all about how the first half of the passage and
the second half of the passage relate to one another in your reading? Not
even a hint?
)I never got into that secret decoder ring thing-it was before my time-I
)think you are dating yourself here.
It was a reference to all of three months ago. Franky evidently believed
that PoF was written in an esoteric code. He hasn't said much about that
lately.
)But yeah, I do think the statement
)is one of-don't even think about voting for P.-not because "we've got
)way more than enough threefolders out there and we are sure to transform
)all of Europe before the plebiscite takes place" but I have to say I got
)a good laugh out of that one.
The reason my formulation is funny is the same reason that your reading
makes no sense. In early 1921 the threefolding forces were not in fact on
the brink of transforming all of Europe into a threefold commonwealth. They
didn't even have significant support in Upper Silesia itself. Thus Steiner's
remarks about not having a sufficiently large number of people was not some
sort of hypothetical, golly-let's-imagine-what-if scenario. It was a
description of the real situation at the time. That is why the line "there
might be no other choice" is important. That is also why the relationship
between the first half and the second half of the passage is important. As
near as I can make out, you have not addressed those matters in any way.
) ) Yes, that is indeed what the passage says. That is what a "surrogate"
) ) means,
) ) no? That is what it means to be "resigned", no? My best guess is that
) ) you
) ) think Steiner is saying something along the lines of "to resign
) ) ourselves to
) ) the current circumstances is so painful a thought that I don't want the
) ) rest
) ) of you to even entertain it for a moment, I want you to banish it from
) ) your
) ) minds, I want you to tell all the others back in Upper Silesia that we
) ) will
) ) countenance nothing less than full victory for threefolding, so don't
) ) even
) ) consider the possibility of falling back on a vote for Prussia under
) ) present
) ) conditions!" That would be a creative reading of the passage, at least.
) ) If
) ) it is indeed your reading, can you point to what in the passage itself
) ) suggests it to you?
)
)More creative, you think, than having Steiner expressing an explicit
)recommendation? You offered your reading, your take on Steiner's view
)and then Frank provided the relevant passage I believe. So again-why not
)offer another translation if there is one that supports your statement?
)Your guess above kind of misses the mark but I appreciate the mental
)gymnastics you seem to be going through here-I hate guessing what other
)people are thinking because I always guess wrong-it's flat out amazing
)the things people think-I just never would have guessed!!! But I do get
)Steiner as saying-don't even go there
Sorry, Val, that is completely incompatible with the text you are looking
at. A person who means "don't even go there" does not say sympathetically
"there might be no other choice for our friends" and so forth. A person who
means "don't even go there" says "some of our friends foolishly think they
have no other choice, but boy are they dead wrong, and here's why". The only
remotely plausible aspect of the passage that might conceivably fit that
kind of interpretation is the line "but that is merely a surrogate";
although I think such a construal of that clause is far-fetched, it might be
tweaked enough to fit your reading. Alas, much of the rest of the passage
would then become nonsensical, and in any case, this would hardly yield "the
exact opposite" of my reading, but rather a watered-down version of my
reading. On that view, it wouldn't be a recommendation but a sort of a
concession.
)-that's more of the same-that's not
)where the work is or where our focus needs to be-it's not a solution but
)rather a continuation of the current state of affairs.
Yes, quite so, that is very much what Steiner is saying. The fall back
option of voting provisionally for Prussia would indeed mean more of the
same, a continuation of the current state of affairs, and would not be a
solution and is not where our focus needs to be. All of that is in the
passage. All of that is in what I say is in the passage. And all of that is
accompanied by the line about how our friends might have no other choice
than to vote provisionally for Prussia.
)In one of your posts on this subject you described Steiner's
)mood-resigned, saddened and here again you have the motivation as being
)"painful circumstances". I don't ever really pick up any emotional
)states from Steiner
Those are not descriptions of his emotional state but of his political
outlook at the time.
)which is one of the reasons I think it's possible we
)may be reading different authors or two different aspects of the same
)author.
There are several different aspects in the passage itself. You seem to be
steadfastly ignoring at least one of them.
) ) According to
) ) my
) ) reading, Steiner is here being realistic, unhappily so, resignedly so,
) ) he is
) ) offering a fall back position for those who despair of achieving full
) ) threefolding in time for the referendum, he is saying essentially let's
) ) go
) ) for the gold but let's recognize that it might not be within our grasp
) ) at
) ) the moment and if not, for now we'll settle for the bronze.
)
)No, he's not!!! If he wanted to say that why wouldn't he have said that?
)He doesn't say I recommend, or I think, or I feel-there is no 'I'
)statement. What he says is if/then there might be no other choice for
)our friends than to say, let's look on the bright side, there could be a
)silver lining here in the clouds, when life gives you lemons, make
)lemonade.
Yep. That is what it means to settle for a less than optimum outcome. What
the threefolders had in Upper Silesia were a bunch of lemons. If the passage
said the exact opposite of my reading, then Steiner would be telling them
"whatever you do, don't make any lemonade!" In reality he tells them "okay,
go ahead and make lemonade if that's the best we can do for now".
) ) Yes, that's what I read here too. This is one reason why it is more than
) ) a
) ) little puzzling that you and Frank think the passage says "the exact
) ) opposite" of my reading. In the lecture as a whole Steiner is firing up
) ) the
) ) troops. He's doing his best to get them out there energized and hopeful.
) )
)
)By being Mr. Sad Sacks? Really? Would you be fired up by a mood of
)sadness, despair, resignation, and painful cicumstances?
If I may say so, I think you are not paying very close attention. What I
said above is that *in the lecture as a whole* Steiner is firing up the
troops. In the little passage we're arguing about, he is instead
acknowledging the limits of that cheerleader approach, and granting
legitimacy to the skepticism of those threefolding sympathizers who see no
choice but to vote provisonally for Prussia. I take it that was not clear
the first three times around?
)Is this what
)charges your engine? Hmmmmmmmm...Doesn't do zip for me and if this is
)his best, man, I'd hate to be reading him at his worst! Frankly, if I
)heard someone lecturing on why we should go with T. all sad and
)despairing and resigned-I'd say what's the point-that battle's already
)lost-why lend my energy to it?
The whole idea was to still lend their energies to a full-scale threefolding
effort, while making a tactical allowance for the realities on the ground.
Activists do this very frequently.
)I think your rendition of this passage is
)the opposite of rousing
Yes, that's the point. The passage we are looking at forms an interesting
turning point in the lecture as a whole. I really didn't say the passage was
rousing. I said the lecture as a whole was. I made that point precisely in
order to highlight the function of this one passage within the broader
lecture.
)
)In
) ) this passage he acknowledges that the maximum program may not be
) ) possible as
) ) things presently stand, and he gives a nod toward those who are inclined
) ) to
) ) settle for the less lofty goal, namely voting provisionally for Prussia,
) ) so
) ) that threefolding work can continue after the plebiscite. I have no idea
) ) why
) ) you think the passage says the exact opposite of this, and I welcome you
) ) to
) ) clarify if you see fit.
)
)Where are you seeing the acknowledgement that-the maximum program may
)not be possible as things presently stand? First sentence? Is that all
)rolled into the word 'if'
Yes, now you're catching on. Steiner answers the "if" in the concluding
sentence of the passage. He was not merely speculating about 'what if we
didn't have enough active supporters of threefolding at the moment?' He says
that we haven't done enough to get them. So what to do? Keep working for the
real goal, all-out threefolding. And when the vote comes, if we haven't
achieved that goal, then yes, it's alright to fall back on voting
provisionally for Prussia. You appear to be saying, in contrast, that
Steiner believed that all-out threefolding was essentially right there
within their grasp as things currently stood at the time of the lecture.
That would indeed be very good evidence of megalomania. More to the point,
it is not supported by the passage itself. It is indeed controverted by the
passage itself. On the off chance that it will do some good, here is the
passage again:
“of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there
might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society
will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote provisionally
for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks. But that is
merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only resign ourselves to what we
are suffering under. What we must do is find enough people who can be active
in our movement, who can be active in the sense of our social threefolding.
And in this direction – it must be said – we have not worked with sufficient
intensity.”
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy
Awards® http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:04:02 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Question about language
Hi Keith,
)The discussion about translating texts brings to mind a question:
)
)Did Steiner only speak/read/write German or was he also similarly fluent
)in English?
That's a good question. Anthroposophist sources give conflicting answers.
Some say that Steiner only really spoke German, others say that he
translated theosophical texts from English into German. I don't know which
of those is more accurate. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:38:02 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
2007-02-01
Dear all,
Contradiction as a method or as a code of practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Val: Does nichts weniger als mean anything but or does it mean anything
but-anything but? I think this example above is much more interesting maybe
because it's in English but it seems two people are reading this passage and
coming away with entirely different meanings.
Peter: I think your question about the real Rudolf is a very good one, by
the way, and one that a number of latter-day critics of anthroposophy have
asked before. Steiner contradicted himself a lot. Maybe you think there is
some contradiction in the above passage that I am missing? I encourage you
to point it out if so. Friendly greetings, Peter S.
*Franky: I enjoy thoroughly this Rudolf Steiner of the latter-days-Critics
against Rudolf Steiner of the latter-days Readers.
When lost for words Peter S. needs to stand up he fights an argument which
no one has presented. Does it show a high respect for his contradictors,
does it show what is in the back of his mind when he reads other's posts?:
'Are we back to secret codes perhaps?' writes Peter S..
Then I am 'non-the-wiser" on how to translate: Du bist "nichts weniger als
Besserwisser", the only two German words I learned from this list? How both
latter-days camp do it?
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:23:20 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner vs Staudenmaier [ Round 1]
2007-02-01
Dear all,
About reading texts and not rock the boat. When a higher world is as flat as
a sea shore.
It is the story of people who went from the shore of sense percept to the
'other shore' and how not to loose the ego consciousness in the middle. The
brain, the preserver of earthly ego-consciouness, is floating in a liquid, a
sea. It start in day-consciousness of the senses percepts and that falls
away with the night falling. The ideas appear like ghost, anxiety, fear have
come as they loose their sense of ego-consciousness and struggle en route to
the other shore.
"And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to
go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away....and
when the evening was come...the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed
with waves: for the wind was contrary. And Jesus went unto them, walking on
the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were
troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But
straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not
afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come
unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out
of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the
wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying,
Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught
him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were
in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of
God. And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret. "
Matthew 14:17-34
The scene is on the sea of Galilee. North side, nearer to the origin of the
Jordan, the south side is the place of baptism, nearer the dead sea, where
the fresh water meet the salt water. They go from West to East, so the wind
is coming from the East. They think it is a ghost, they speak/cry out, and
finally Peter walks. A reverse way for Jesus, the bearer of 'I am the I am',
who walks, then speaks, then thinks the doubt and faith of Peter.
It is not the only time Peter has to conquer fear, here it is at start of
night, later on in his life at day break, when the cock crows he will be
faced with his fears again. Peter as a 'stone' has to experience fear and
the fall of gravity until the bitter end when his hard head is closest to
the ground in his upside down crucifixion.
Kind Regards,
Franky
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:00:50 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Steiner said (in Franky's translation),
)of course if it isn’t possible to find a
)sufficiently large number of people [to expound
)the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then
)there might be no other choice for our friends
)than to say: The threefold society will someday
)advance from labor pains to the extent that it
)will be effective, and due to privation the
)German people will develop an understanding for
)the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
)provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany in the
)hope that this Prussia sinks.
When he mentions that strategy I'm reminded of
the Communists' strategy about Hitler. They
decided not to oppose him; they thought that
things would be so bad in Germany under Hitler
that the next election would turn to the left for
relief.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:40:54 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Council's blow to eco-academy bid
Hereford Times
(http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/htnewseducation/display.var.1162012.0.councils_blow_to_ecoacademy_bid.php)
Council's blow to eco-academy bid
A KEY element of government education policy is
put to the test this week after planners rejected
a £10 million bid to build Britain's first-ever
eco-academy in the Herefordshire countryside.
Whitehall wanted to spend millions on building an
academy, specialising in the study of the natural
environment, at the Hereford Waldorf School site,
Much Dewchurch - but had its homework sent back.
Herefordshire Council's southern area planning
sub-committee said the scheme was too big for
itself and breached local development policies.
Both the government and the Waldorf School are
now thinking over what happens next. Neither
wants to give up on the eco-academy idea and an
appeal or a new plan looks likely.
If Whitehall got its way, the fee-paying Waldorf
School would be rebuilt - boosted by about £10
million from the Department for Education and
Skills - as the country's first state-funded
academy offering Steiner schooling with its
distinctly non-competitive curriculum and
holistic approach to academic studies.
The plan ran into trouble when first pitched last year.
Herefordshire Council told Whitehall that a
Steiner Academy wasn't wanted when village
schools around the county were already struggling
to survive as pupil numbers started dropping away.
The committee heard, however, that the Education
and Inspection Act placed a responsibility on
local authorities to maximise diversity and
parental choice. On this issue, members heard,
the council recognised the greater choice the
Steiner school would bring and that the need for
the academy should be judged in that context.
Planning officers first recommended the academy
for rejection because of potential traffic
troubles and fears of overloading local water and
sewerage systems.
By the time the committee met last Wednesday,
that recommendation had changed. Members were
urged to approve the scheme because the problems
had seemingly been sorted.
The committee wasn't convinced and a nine-to-one
vote saw the plan thrown out. Members opted to
put local planning policy defining development
scale over the government's education agenda and
its parental choice principle.
Councillor Godfrey Davis said he couldn't see why
government was giving one school "millions" to
make itself an academy when the county was crying
out for cash to keep village schools going.
A first state-funded Steiner Academy -
specialising in the study of the natural
environment - is a key element of the
government's academies programme, established in
2000 as an initiative to improve education
standards.
Academies are public-funded independent schools
set up by private sponsors, which have so far
tended to be business or faith groups.
Academies are not allowed to select pupils by
ability, but sponsors do have control over the
curriculum and standards of the school.
The independent status of an academy is intended
to allow them flexibility to be "innovative and
creative" in their approaches to learning, while
working outside the funding control of a local
authority.
Running costs for an academy are met in full by
the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
Capital costs are shared between the DfES and
sponsors.
The main sponsor for the Waldorf project would be
the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, with £2
million. Money to improve the buildings would
come from the government.
Opened at Much Dewchurch 21 years ago, the
Waldorf School now takes nearly 270 pupils from
all over the county. Academy status would mean
the school taking about 330 pupils.
Speaking after the meeting, William Braid, the
governor driving the academy plan, said any extra
numbers could be absorbed by the school's current
waiting list. He said the rejection of the bid
was a "great disappointment" and an appeal or a
re-submission was being considered.
Charlotte Redman, for the DfES, said the
department was now thinking over "the next step"
for the academy idea.
10:40am Thursday 1st February 2007
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:12:33 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Val: Why is this *Frank's* translation, all of the sudden?
Peter: It was Frank's translation all along.
Hi Peter!
I was unaware of this so news to me. Is it important news or
not-headline, sidebar, advertisement, what?
) “of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
) people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then
) there
) might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold
) society
) will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) provisionally
) for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks."
) )My view is that the above statement by Steiner does not explicitly
) )recommend a fall-back option vote.
)
)
) Do you mean: he doesn't actually recommend it, he just says maybe they
) don't
) have a choice? In that view, then, it wouldn't even really be a
) fall-back
) option, it'd just be an inevitability? It is hard to square that with
) the
) other things you've said about the passage.
Yes, I mean Steiner did not actually recommend it or even imply a
recommendation. I do not see him recommending this as a fall back
position nor do I see Steiner saying it's an inevitability. I certainly
don't mean to make things difficult for you.
) )In fact, that is a question for
) )you-since this seems to be the line of discussion that you prefer-how
) )exactly do you get an explict recommendation out of the above?
) That is the fall-back option that he endorses.
I'm not seeing an endorsement-actual or implied. I'd expect words to the
effect of if/then I would recommend blah, blah, blah. That would
constitute an endorsement or a recommendation to me. For you an
endorsement is Steiner saying-hey some people might think this is a good
idea but THEN we would only be resigning ourselves to our current
conditions?
He is expressing
) understanding for those threefolders who feel that they have no choice,
) under the existing circumstances, but to vote provisonally for Prussia.
) Which, as it turns out, is something that other threefolders themselves
) said
) afterwards.
I see no indication of any understanding of the threefolders feelings-I
see a possible line of thinking attributed to them. You read-no choice
under current conditions-what happened to the whole if this happens then
the friends might say-cause and effect statement? How could Steiner be
expressing understanding for threefolders' feelings, waaahh btw, if the
sentence was conjecture in the first place?
) Frank's translation supports my reading. It does not support your
) reading.
) It's hard to tell if it supports Frank's reading, whatever Frank's
) reading
) might be, which he says is the exact opposite of mine. I haven't even
) checked Frank's translation yet, by the way; it reads pretty much as I
) recall the original reads.
The question is, is it an acceptable translation or not?
) Yes, it is from a book, a book in German, and yes, Frank translated the
) passage in question, just a couple days ago, right here on this list. I
) am
) not troubled by his translation, or questioning it, if that is what
) you're
) getting at.
I went back on the UK article thread and I thought you guys were talking
about a newspaper article to begin with. Then Frank brings this quote
after "Steiner says" and I didn't see the book noted. Nor did I see the
passage in German and then Frank's translation so I really don't know
what you mean by Frank translated this right here on this list.
) ) ) Is your claim that these words retract the statement in the first
) ) ) sentence
) ) ) about provisionally voting for Prussia? Possibly because of the "but
) ) ) that is
) ) ) merely a surrogate" part? Because that sounds to you like a bad thing
) ) ) that
) ) ) Steiner wants his followers to avoid? Or are you trying to say that the
) ) ) "sufficiently large number of people" from the first sentence does not
) ) ) refer
) ) ) to the same thing as the "enough people" and the "sufficient intensity"
) ) ) from
) ) ) the following sentences? Or do you see no relation between the first
) ) ) sentence and the subsequent sentences?
) )
) )My *claim" here is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
) )Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
)
)
) You can't say anything at all about how the first half of the passage
) and
) the second half of the passage relate to one another in your reading?
) Not
) even a hint?
Okay-your questions again:
) Is your claim that these words retract the statement in the first
) sentence
) about provisionally voting for Prussia?
No, my claim is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
)Possibly because of the "but that is merely a surrogate" part?
No, because my claim is not that these words retract the statement in
the first sentence about provisionally voting for Prussia but rather my
claim is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
)Because that sounds to you like a bad thing that Steiner wants his
))followers to avoid?
No, not because I think "surrogate" sounds bad but because my claim is
that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said. Period. Steiner didn't
say IT but you read IT.
)Or are you trying to say that the "sufficiently large number of )people"
)from the first sentence does not refer to the same thing as )the "enough
)people" and the "sufficient intensity" from
)the following sentences?
I'm only saying and have said that Steiner did not say what you have
stated that he said. The words you attribute to Steiner-an endorsement-a
recommendation-a rousing appeal to the troops aren't found in this
passage.
)Or do you see no relation between the first sentence and the )subsequent
)sentences?
I'm not seeing the relation between an explicit recommendation or an
endorsement of a fall-back position and this passage.
) )I never got into that secret decoder ring thing-it was before my time-I
) )think you are dating yourself here.
) It was a reference to all of three months ago. Franky evidently believed
)
) that PoF was written in an esoteric code. He hasn't said much about that
)
) lately.
This is like totally bumming me out-here all this time-all of five
months I have been under perhaps the illusion that you were an older
man. But you were not referencing the secret decoder ring which either
means that you are a younger man or were seriously deprived as a youth.
Even worse than possible cultural deprivation is the realization that
the-are we using secret code comment had nothing to do with me. And what
Franky evidently believed three months ago is still fresh in your mind.
Perhaps you just got the two of us confused-in that case I'm flattered,
I'm sure.
) )But yeah, I do think the statement
) )is one of-don't even think about voting for P.-not because "we've got
) )way more than enough threefolders out there and we are sure to transform
) )all of Europe before the plebiscite takes place" but I have to say I got
) )a good laugh out of that one.
)
)
) The reason my formulation is funny is the same reason that your reading
) makes no sense.
Well, it can't be everyday that you get to be funny by speaking
nonsense. Perhaps you should savor the moment.
)In early 1921 the threefolding forces were not in fact on
) the brink of transforming all of Europe into a threefold )commonwealth.
You don't say?
They
) didn't even have significant support in Upper Silesia itself. Thus
) Steiner's
) remarks about not having a sufficiently large number of people was not
) some
) sort of hypothetical, golly-let's-imagine-what-if scenario.
His remark was not that they didn't already have a sufficiently large
number of people but "IF it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large
number of people".
It was a
) description of the real situation at the time.
The statement was explicitly a projection of a possibility in the
future. Implied by the statement that a sufficient number must be found
is the fact that the number of people was not already sufficient.
That is why the line "there
) might be no other choice" is important.
If it's not a hypothetical, golly-let's-imagine-what-if scenario then
why use the word 'might'-why not just there would be no other choice
which seems to be your reading anyway.
That is also why the relationship
) between the first half and the second half of the passage is important.
) As
) near as I can make out, you have not addressed those matters in any way.
Because it was a real description of the real situation at the time?
Again, where does the might come in? No possibility that anything could
change or be different in the future in this passage? Just an
explanation of present conditions?
) ) ) Yes, that is indeed what the passage says. That is what a "surrogate"
) ) ) means,
) ) ) no? That is what it means to be "resigned", no? My best guess is that
) ) ) you
) ) ) think Steiner is saying something along the lines of "to resign
) ) ) ourselves to
) ) ) the current circumstances is so painful a thought that I don't want the
) ) ) rest
) ) ) of you to even entertain it for a moment, I want you to banish it from
) ) ) your
) ) ) minds, I want you to tell all the others back in Upper Silesia that we
) ) ) will
) ) ) countenance nothing less than full victory for threefolding, so don't
) ) ) even
) ) ) consider the possibility of falling back on a vote for Prussia under
) ) ) present
) ) ) conditions!" That would be a creative reading of the passage, at least.
) ) ) If
) ) ) it is indeed your reading, can you point to what in the passage itself
) ) ) suggests it to you?
) )
) )More creative, you think, than having Steiner expressing an explicit
) )recommendation?
) )Your guess above kind of misses the mark but I appreciate the mental
) )gymnastics you seem to be going through here-I hate guessing what other
) )people are thinking because I always guess wrong-it's flat out amazing
) )the things people think-I just never would have guessed!!! But I do get
) )Steiner as saying-don't even go there
)
)
) Sorry, Val, that is completely incompatible with the text you are
) looking
) at.
So that's your answer? Your reading IS the more creative as mine now is
completely incompatible-is that totally off the creativity meter?
A person who means "don't even go there" does not say sympathetically
) "there might be no other choice for our friends" and so forth.
Sympathy-smipanthy-stop already with the sympathy-is he displaying
sympathy by calling people friends? Is that the 'S' word? What
constitutes the so forth?
A person who
) means "don't even go there" says "some of our friends foolishly think
) they
) have no other choice, but boy are they dead wrong, and here's why".
No, that would be to say some of our friends already went there and that
was a mistake-past tense.
The only
) remotely plausible aspect of the passage that might conceivably fit that
)
) kind of interpretation is the line "but that is merely a surrogate";
) although I think such a construal of that clause is far-fetched, it
) might be
) tweaked enough to fit your reading. Alas, much of the rest of the
) passage
) would then become nonsensical, and in any case, this would hardly yield
) "the
) exact opposite" of my reading, but rather a watered-down version of my
) reading. On that view, it wouldn't be a recommendation but a sort of a
) concession.
Again, I appreciate the lengths you're going to here to try to figure
out what I must be thinking about this passage.
) )-that's more of the same-that's not
) )where the work is or where our focus needs to be-it's not a solution but
) )rather a continuation of the current state of affairs.
) Yes, quite so, that is very much what Steiner is saying. The fall back
) option of voting provisionally for Prussia would indeed mean more of the
)
) same, a continuation of the current state of affairs, and would not be a
)
) solution and is not where our focus needs to be.
He never says anything about a fall back option-this is a statement of
what others might think they should do given circumstances that might
arise.
) )In one of your posts on this subject you described Steiner's
) )mood-resigned, saddened and here again you have the motivation as being
) )"painful circumstances". I don't ever really pick up any emotional
) )states from Steiner
)
)
) Those are not descriptions of his emotional state but of his political
) outlook at the time.
This is a new one on me-he had a saddened, despairing, resigned
political outlook?
) There are several different aspects in the passage itself. You seem to
) be
) steadfastly ignoring at least one of them.
)
)
) ) ) According to
) ) ) my
) ) ) reading, Steiner is here being realistic, unhappily so, resignedly so,
his political outlook?
) ) ) he is
) ) ) offering a fall back position for those who despair of achieving full
) ) ) threefolding in time for the referendum,
if they despair-do they despair because they share Steiner's political
outlook?
) )No, he's not!!! If he wanted to say that why wouldn't he have said that?
) )He doesn't say I recommend, or I think, or I feel-there is no 'I'
) )statement. What he says is if/then there might be no other choice for
) )our friends than to say, let's look on the bright side, there could be a
) )silver lining here in the clouds, when life gives you lemons, make
) )lemonade.
)
)
) Yep. That is what it means to settle for a less than optimum outcome.
) What
) the threefolders had in Upper Silesia were a bunch of lemons. If the
) passage
) said the exact opposite of my reading, then Steiner would be telling
) them
) "whatever you do, don't make any lemonade!" In reality he tells them
) "okay,
) go ahead and make lemonade if that's the best we can do for now".
No, again-he doesn't in reality say-go ahead and make lemonade if that's
the best we can do for now. He's saying people might think that there's
going to be lemonade but it's not lemonade it's just more compost for
the lemon tree.
)
)
) ) ) Yes, that's what I read here too. This is one reason why it is more than
) ) ) a
) ) ) little puzzling that you and Frank think the passage says "the exact
) ) ) opposite" of my reading. In the lecture as a whole Steiner is firing up
) ) ) the
) ) ) troops. He's doing his best to get them out there energized and hopeful.
) ) )
) )
) )By being Mr. Sad Sacks? Really? Would you be fired up by a mood of
) )sadness, despair, resignation, and painful cicumstances?
)
)
) If I may say so, I think you are not paying very close attention.
You may say anything you want. Here's what you said just above-Yes,
that's what I read here too-I think I was responding to your agreement
which I found rather incredulous. Unfortunately, I no longer know why
because whatever you were agreeing with isn't here to read. I assume you
cut it out because you found the part I wrote that you were agreeing
with irrelevant. But without it what I wrote above makes no sense and so
you can assign blame to me-well assign away...
Here's the deal-I said something like-I think your rendition is gee we
can't do T. then we'll be stuck with P. and my reading is we're already
stuck with P. so we'd better get moving with T. Better get our rears in
gear is what I think I said. Now you say here-yes that's what you read
in this passage too. Like you find your version of this passage a
rear-end rouser. I'm sorry it isn't even conceivable by any stretch of
the imagination.
What I
) said above is that *in the lecture as a whole* Steiner is firing up the
) troops.
No, what you said above was you read this passage as a we'd better get
our rears in gear passage. You cut out what you were refering to-what
you were agreeing with but you know my memory is bad but it's not quite
that bad. But golly I'll go get the statement that you agreed with-here
it is now-
Val: What I read is-here's what we're stuck
with (P. or the equivalant)ergo we'd better get our rears in gear.
Peter: Yes, that's what I read here too.
In the little passage we're arguing about, he is instead
) acknowledging the limits of that cheerleader approach, and granting
) legitimacy to the skepticism of those threefolding sympathizers who see
) no
) choice but to vote provisonally for Prussia. I take it that was not
) clear
) the first three times around?
Where does the let's get our rears in gear come in-in the acknowledging
the limits of the cheerleader approach (a downer) or granting legitimacy
to skepticism (another downer)? What's not clear to me is how you could
consider your reading of this passage to be in any way a "we'd better
get our rears in gear" statement. Your reading as I understand it is not
motivational in any way-it is totally devoid of any motivation.
) The whole idea was to still lend their energies to a full-scale
) threefolding
) effort, while making a tactical allowance for the realities on the
) ground.
) Activists do this very frequently.
If a tactical allowance was made then it wouldn't be a full-scale
threefolding effort by definition. Are you refering to the methods of
today's activists?
) )I think your rendition of this passage is
) )the opposite of rousing
) Yes, that's the point. The passage we are looking at forms an
) interesting
) turning point in the lecture as a whole. I really didn't say the passage
) was
) rousing. I said the lecture as a whole was.
Just now in this post you are making this point that this passage isn't
rousing-though you agreed that it constitutes a statement of -we'd
better get our rears in gear-there's a contradiction there.
Unless you're reading it like we'd better get our rears in gear because
of this club that we're going to be hit with-again non-motivational if
not demotivational. Are you saying now that support for your
intepretation of this passage can be found within the context of the
entire lecture?
I made that point precisely in
) order to highlight the function of this one passage within the broader
) lecture.
Your point now being that this passage is the opposite of rousing? Well,
I certainly find your version non-rousing. And my rear doesn't shift
gears for a club. It just sits down-in fact, historically speaking, the
day of my birth heralded the start of the "sit in" movement in America.
) Yes, now you're catching on. Steiner answers the "if" in the concluding
) sentence of the passage. He was not merely speculating about 'what if we
)
) didn't have enough active supporters of threefolding at the moment?' He
) says
) that we haven't done enough to get them. So what to do?
I get that you see the two connected and the second part supporting the
"if". He isn't speculating about what they have or don't have in the
moment-he's speculating about what may come about. If it was the present
moment then I would expect to see-we haven't found enough people so
here's what we should do.
Keep working for the
) real goal, all-out threefolding. And when the vote comes, if we haven't
) achieved that goal, then yes, it's alright to fall back on voting
) provisionally for Prussia.
That's just not there, Peter-there's no-it's alright to fall back. If it
was there then I'd have to say Steiner was a stupid, pathetic
meglamaniac. Is that your view? It's fine with me if it is-that's what I
get out of your version so far.
You appear to be saying, in contrast, that
) Steiner believed that all-out threefolding was essentially right there
) within their grasp as things currently stood at the time of the lecture.
)
No, I think that's rather extreme-that it was essentially right there
within their grasp. I also find the whole woe is me despair scenerio
rather extreme-is there nothing in between in your mind? Maybe not when
you're dealing with a meglamaniac.
Seasonal Greetings,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 03:55:20 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Franky,
)Peter: I think your question about the real Rudolf is a very good one, by
)the way, and one that a number of latter-day critics of anthroposophy have
)asked before. Steiner contradicted himself a lot. Maybe you think there is
)some contradiction in the above passage that I am missing? I encourage you
)to point it out if so. Friendly greetings, Peter S.
)
)*Franky: I enjoy thoroughly this Rudolf Steiner of the latter-days-Critics
)against Rudolf Steiner of the latter-days Readers.
)
)When lost for words Peter S. needs to stand up he fights an argument which
)no one has presented.
I am not sure whether Val presented an argument about supposed
contradictions in the Steiner passage we were discussing. That is why I
wrote: "Maybe you think there is some contradiction in the above passage
that I am missing? I encourage you to point it out if so."
)Does it show a high respect for his contradictors,
Whose contradictors? The question was about Steiner contradicting himself.
)does it show what is in the back of his mind when he reads other's posts?:
Not to mention in the front of my mind. My question was explicit.
)'Are we back to secret codes perhaps?' writes Peter S..
Yes, that was a reference to your efforts at PoF cryptography. I note that
you have dropped this line of argument lately. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy
Awards® http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 04:02:08 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Val,
)Yes, I mean Steiner did not actually recommend it or even imply a
)recommendation.
You don't see "let’s vote provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany"? May I
ask why you don't see this? It is, as it happens, in the text you are
looking at.
)For you an
)endorsement is Steiner saying-hey some people might think this is a good
)idea but THEN we would only be resigning ourselves to our current
)conditions?
Yes. As long as those conditions obtain, then the fall-back option is cool
with him. That is what a fall-back option means, by the way.
)I see no indication of any understanding of the threefolders feelings-I
)see a possible line of thinking attributed to them. You read-no choice
)under current conditions-what happened to the whole if this happens then
)the friends might say-cause and effect statement? How could Steiner be
)expressing understanding for threefolders' feelings, waaahh btw, if the
)sentence was conjecture in the first place?
It wasn't conjecture. All you have to do is read the next three sentences.
Or, for that matter, pay a little more attention to your own arguments; you
agree that the threefolders were not in fact on the brink of instituting
full-scale threefolding.
)The question is, is it an acceptable translation or not?
I have no reason to distrust Frank's translation, and it plays no role in
our dispute. I haven't said anything at all the least bit skeptical about
the translation. I just went and re-checked the original, and they both read
about the same to me. It seems to me that you have never quite gotten clear
what Frank and I were disagreeing about in the first place.
)I went back on the UK article thread and I thought you guys were talking
)about a newspaper article to begin with. Then Frank brings this quote
)after "Steiner says" and I didn't see the book noted. Nor did I see the
)passage in German and then Frank's translation so I really don't know
)what you mean by Frank translated this right here on this list.
There is no English translation of the book. Frank provided his own quick
translation in the post that you read. That's what he and I and other
readers of German usually do when discussing in an English-speaking context.
The book in question is Rudolf Steiner, Wie wirkt man für den Impuls der
Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, and the passage in question appears
on p. 231. All of this, for what it's worth, was explicit in the exchange
between me and Frank.
)No, because my claim is not that these words retract the statement in
)the first sentence about provisionally voting for Prussia but rather my
)claim is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
)Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
So the line "let’s vote provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany" isn't
really in the passage? I dreamt that part? Wouldn't it make more sense, Val,
to explain why you think Steiner is rejecting rather than endorsing this
notion, instead of pretending that the notion does not appear in the text?
I've offered several possibilities for why a reader might conclude that
Steiner was rejecting rather than endorsing this notion, but so far you have
repudiated each of those possibilities. Will the real Val please stand up?
)I'm only saying and have said that Steiner did not say what you have
)stated that he said. The words you attribute to Steiner-an endorsement-a
)recommendation-a rousing appeal to the troops aren't found in this
)passage.
One increasingly obvious problem here is that you haven't understood what I
said, much less what Steiner said. I did not say that a rousing appeal to
the troops is to be found in this passage. I said more or less the opposite.
I said that the rest of the lecture is a rousing appeal to the troops, and
that what makes this passage (a very small part of the lecture as a whole)
distinctive is precisely that in this passage Steiner pulls back from
cheerleader mode and instead makes a significant allowance to those
threefolders who point out that achieving the maximum goal before the
plebiscite is unlikely.
)His remark was not that they didn't already have a sufficiently large
)number of people
Yes, I'm afraid it was, Val. Try reading the final sentences of the passage
again. For that matter, here's how the very next sentence, just after where
Frank's translation of the passage ends, reads in full: "Everywhere where we
need supporters who can be effective, we do not have them today."
)The statement was explicitly a projection of a possibility in the
)future.
Yes, the plebiscite was a couple months away still.
)Implied by the statement that a sufficient number must be found
)is the fact that the number of people was not already sufficient.
Yep. Though this isn't merely implicit in the passage as a whole.
)If it's not a hypothetical, golly-let's-imagine-what-if scenario then
)why use the word 'might'-why not just there would be no other choice
)which seems to be your reading anyway.
That is usual in characterizing views one is evaluating. I do it a lot on
this list, for example.
)Because it was a real description of the real situation at the time?
Yes. I think this is a point where some background knowledge about the
conflict in Upper Silesia would come in handy. And on the state of the
threefolding movement in this period. Just on one detail: the lecture we're
discussing was given to threefolding activists from Silesia. According to an
extremely detailed account of Steiner's daily activities at the time, there
were all of seven Silesian threefolders in attendance at this lecture.
(Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Chronik, p. 451; Lindenberg
mistakenly identifies these seven threefolders as being from Upper Silesia;
in fact Moritz and Erhard Bartsch, for example, were from Breslau, in Lower
Silesia; it is not clear that there were any Upper Silesians present at
all.) Seven of them. Aside from the textual evidence that you seem not to
have noticed, that is one obvious reason why the part about
if-we-don't-have-enough-people was not mere conjecture.
)Again, where does the might come in? No possibility that anything could
)change or be different in the future in this passage?
Yes, very much so: if we somehow manage to pull off a full-scale
threefolding transformation before the plebiscite, then forget about that
voting provisionally for Prussia bit. There is no need for a fall-back
option if you get your first choice.
)Sympathy-smipanthy-stop already with the sympathy-is he displaying
)sympathy by calling people friends?
Not just that. He is acknowledging that their calculation is, under current
circumstances, correct. That's why he says "we have not worked with
sufficient intensity" at the end of the passage.
)Again, I appreciate the lengths you're going to here to try to figure
)out what I must be thinking about this passage.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you might do a little work on that
yourself...
)He never says anything about a fall back option-this is a statement of
)what others might think they should do given circumstances that might
)arise.
Sort of, but more circumstances that already exist and that might not change
(indeed in all likelihood won't change enough) in time for the plebiscite.
)This is a new one on me-he had a saddened, despairing, resigned
)political outlook?
Yes. This is common in political thought, not to mention among political and
social activists. There's a fine quote from Gramsci: optimism of the will,
pessimism of the intellect.
)No, again-he doesn't in reality say-go ahead and make lemonade if that's
)the best we can do for now. He's saying people might think that there's
)going to be lemonade but it's not lemonade it's just more compost for
)the lemon tree.
Sounds okay to me. Since the tree grows in German soil and not in Polish
soil, why do you still think you are disagreeing with my reading?
)Here's the deal-I said something like-I think your rendition is gee we
)can't do T. then we'll be stuck with P. and my reading is we're already
)stuck with P. so we'd better get moving with T.
And you appear to think that those things are somehow mutually exclusive.
That is not how Steiner posits them in the passage in question.
)Where does the let's get our rears in gear come in-in the acknowledging
)the limits of the cheerleader approach (a downer) or granting legitimacy
)to skepticism (another downer)?
The part about let's nevertheless keep working toward full threefolding.
)What's not clear to me is how you could
)consider your reading of this passage to be in any way a "we'd better
)get our rears in gear" statement. Your reading as I understand it is not
)motivational in any way-it is totally devoid of any motivation.
Why? When I go to anti-war demonstrations, for example, I do not expect to
come home and find that the war has suddenly ended because of our
demonstration. This scarcely means that I am unmotivated to attend in the
first place.
) ) The whole idea was to still lend their energies to a full-scale
) ) threefolding
) ) effort, while making a tactical allowance for the realities on the
) ) ground.
) ) Activists do this very frequently.
)
)If a tactical allowance was made then it wouldn't be a full-scale
)threefolding effort by definition.
Yeah, that's the idea. That's what a fall-back option is. Are you trying to
say that you think it is impossible to work toward both at once?
)Just now in this post you are making this point that this passage isn't
)rousing-though you agreed that it constitutes a statement of -we'd
)better get our rears in gear-there's a contradiction there.
What contradiction do you discern there? The passage is sobering, not
rousing. It sounds like you think that sobering assessments are in principle
demotivating. This is not only mistaken as a general claim, it is belied by
the passage we're discussing.
)That's just not there, Peter-there's no-it's alright to fall back. If it
)was there then I'd have to say Steiner was a stupid, pathetic
)meglamaniac. Is that your view?
In other ways, sure, but that is not at all what I have been saying about
this passage. By my reading, Steiner is being basically reasonable here,
even though his proposed strategy and tactics are in my view foolish (I
think Dan's analogy to Communist attitudes is in may ways apt); but the
notion of doing one's best to achieve a maximum goal while simultaneously
recognizing and pursuing the available secondary options is not in itself
stupid or pathetic or megalomaniacal, indeed it is sort of the opposite.
Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_donation&FORM=WLMTAG
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2442
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By eltrigal78 yahoo.com
Student hobbled by anthroposophy's isolationist beliefs
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
The Passage
By isenhart7 yahoo.com
RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:14:11 -0000
From: "eurythmy" (eurythmy tinyworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
20707-02-02
Dear Dan,
I did not translate this
Kind Regards,
Franky
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Steiner said (in Franky's translation),
)of course if it isn't possible to find a sufficiently large number of
)people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there
)might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society
)will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
)effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
)understanding for the threefold society; therefore let's vote provisionally
)for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks.
When he mentions that strategy I'm reminded of
the Communists' strategy about Hitler. They
decided not to oppose him; they thought that
things would be so bad in Germany under Hitler
that the next election would turn to the left for
relief.
-Dan Dugan
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:12:27 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) )'Are we back to secret codes perhaps?
)
)
) Yes, that was a reference to your efforts at PoF cryptography. I note
) that
) you have dropped this line of argument lately. Greetings,
Tales from the crypt?-Val
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:28:21 +0000
From: Valerie Walsh (isenhart7 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) You don't see "let’s vote provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany"?
) May I
) ask why you don't see this?
Because it's not in the text to be seen.
It is, as it happens, in the text you are
) looking at.
Where? Exactly? Explicitly- meaning a clear and precise statement of
"let's vote provisionally" by Steiner?
)
)
) )For you an
) )endorsement is Steiner saying-hey some people might think this is a good
) )idea but THEN we would only be resigning ourselves to our current
) )conditions?
) Yes. As long as those conditions obtain, then the fall-back option is
) cool
) with him. That is what a fall-back option means, by the way.
Sorry, Peter but -hey some people might think this is a good
idea but THEN we would only be resigning ourselves to our current
conditions does not constitute an endorsement to me. It might very well
be a fall-back position in reality since they would be falling back to
what they already have but there is no endorsement here for a fall-back
option cool or otherwise.
) )I see no indication of any understanding of the threefolders feelings-I
) )see a possible line of thinking attributed to them. You read-no choice
) )under current conditions-what happened to the whole if this happens then
) )the friends might say-cause and effect statement? How could Steiner be
) )expressing understanding for threefolders' feelings, waaahh btw, if the
) )sentence was conjecture in the first place?
)
)
) It wasn't conjecture. All you have to do is read the next three
) sentences.
) Or, for that matter, pay a little more attention to your own arguments;
) you
) agree that the threefolders were not in fact on the brink of instituting
)
) full-scale threefolding.
So if it was conjecture then Steiner couldn't have been, in fact,
sympathizing with the threefolder's feelings? That was my question.
) )The question is, is it an acceptable translation or not?
) I have no reason to distrust Frank's translation, and it plays no role
) in
) our dispute. I haven't said anything at all the least bit skeptical
) about
) the translation. I just went and re-checked the original, and they both
) read
) about the same to me. It seems to me that you have never quite gotten
) clear
) what Frank and I were disagreeing about in the first place.
Right-all I said was seems to me there are two very different views
here-If and when you're clear on what Frank and you disagree on let me
know. It would thrill me to no end, if, in fact, Frank held a third as
yet unknown to me view because, as Franky might agree, we couldn't do
any better on this list than to demonstrate triangulation
) )I went back on the UK article thread and I thought you guys were talking
) )about a newspaper article to begin with. Then Frank brings this quote
) )after "Steiner says" and I didn't see the book noted. Nor did I see the
) )passage in German and then Frank's translation so I really don't know
) )what you mean by Frank translated this right here on this list.
)
)
) There is no English translation of the book. Frank provided his own
) quick
) translation in the post that you read. That's what he and I and other
) readers of German usually do when discussing in an English-speaking
) context.
) The book in question is Rudolf Steiner, Wie wirkt man für den Impuls der
)
) Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, and the passage in question
) appears
) on p. 231. All of this, for what it's worth, was explicit in the
) exchange
) between me and Frank.
No it wasn't.
) )No, because my claim is not that these words retract the statement in
) )the first sentence about provisionally voting for Prussia but rather my
) )claim is that Steiner didn't say what you stated he said.
) )Period. Steiner didn't say IT but you read IT.
)
)
) So the line "let’s vote provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany" isn't
)
) really in the passage?
No, it's not actually.
)I dreamt that part?
I couldn't possibly know unless, of course, I am part of your dream
life.
Wouldn't it make more sense, Val,
) to explain why you think Steiner is rejecting rather than endorsing this
)
) notion, instead of pretending that the notion does not appear in the
) text?
) I've offered several possibilities for why a reader might conclude that
) Steiner was rejecting rather than endorsing this notion, but so far you
) have
) repudiated each of those possibilities.
My argument is now a pretense? What makes sense to me is that you
substantiate your claim that Steiner provided a recommendation. When I
asked you to explain why you thought Steiner was recommending a vote-you
said because this is the fall-back option he endorsed.
So okay following your own argument (as I assume it makes sense to
you)-you say to me now-hey Val-explain why you think Steiner is
rejecting this notion and my answer is because that's the notion he
rebuffed.
Will the real Val please stand up?
Perhaps with sufficient provocation-and you are nowhere in the vicinity
of getting me off my butt.
) )I'm only saying and have said that Steiner did not say what you have
) )stated that he said. The words you attribute to Steiner-an endorsement-a
) )recommendation-a rousing appeal to the troops aren't found in this
) )passage.
) One increasingly obvious problem here is that you haven't understood
) what I
) said, much less what Steiner said.
Obvious to you, explicit to you perhaps.
I did not say that a rousing appeal to
) the troops is to be found in this passage.
No-once again you agreed with me that it was a "we'd better get our
rears in gear" passage. The only way that makes sense to me is if you
see the adversity of the situation as a sufficient motivator-I already
said that I did not consider the passage by your reading motivational.
I said more or less the opposite.
) I said that the rest of the lecture is a rousing appeal to the troops,
) and
) that what makes this passage (a very small part of the lecture as a
) whole)
) distinctive is precisely that in this passage Steiner pulls back from
) cheerleader mode and instead makes a significant allowance to those
) threefolders who point out that achieving the maximum goal before the
) plebiscite is unlikely.
Yes, later in the post you bring this important point of the greater
context of the entire lecture. Where do you see the threefolders
pointing out that achieving the maximum goal before the vote is
unlikely? Not in this passage. For that matter there is no significant
allowance either, nor recommendation, nor endorsement.
) )His remark was not that they didn't already have a sufficiently large
) )number of people
) Yes, I'm afraid it was, Val. Try reading the final sentences of the
) passage
) again. For that matter, here's how the very next sentence, just after
) where
) Frank's translation of the passage ends, reads in full: "Everywhere
) where we
) need supporters who can be effective, we do not have them today."
Quantity versus quality-apples versus oranges.
) )The statement was explicitly a projection of a possibility in the
) )future.
) Yes, the plebiscite was a couple months away still.
) )Implied by the statement that a sufficient number must be found
) )is the fact that the number of people was not already sufficient.
) Yep. Though this isn't merely implicit in the passage as a whole.
Right, there's a statement at the end as well.
) )If it's not a hypothetical, golly-let's-imagine-what-if scenario then
) )why use the word 'might'-why not just there would be no other choice
) )which seems to be your reading anyway.
)
)
) That is usual in characterizing views one is evaluating. I do it a lot
) on
) this list, for example.
So it's a technique that you use? Do you think that Steiner used it as
well?
) )Because it was a real description of the real situation at the time?
) Yes. I think this is a point where some background knowledge about the
) conflict in Upper Silesia would come in handy. And on the state of the
) threefolding movement in this period. Just on one detail: the lecture
) we're
) discussing was given to threefolding activists from Silesia. According
) to an
) extremely detailed account of Steiner's daily activities at the time,
) there
) were all of seven Silesian threefolders in attendance at this lecture.
) (Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Chronik, p. 451; Lindenberg
) mistakenly identifies these seven threefolders as being from Upper
) Silesia;
) in fact Moritz and Erhard Bartsch, for example, were from Breslau, in
) Lower
) Silesia; it is not clear that there were any Upper Silesians present at
) all.) Seven of them. Aside from the textual evidence that you seem not
) to
) have noticed, that is one obvious reason why the part about
) if-we-don't-have-enough-people was not mere conjecture.
Yes, the number seven would have indeed tipped the scales in the
conjecture versus reality department if the statement had been as you
say- if we don't have enough people. But the statement was if a
sufficient number couldn't be found, then--future tense.
)
)
) )Again, where does the might come in? No possibility that anything could
) )change or be different in the future in this passage?
)
)
) Yes, very much so: if we somehow manage to pull off a full-scale
) threefolding transformation before the plebiscite, then forget about
) that
) voting provisionally for Prussia bit. There is no need for a fall-back
) option if you get your first choice.
Forget about the vote-it accomplishes nothing-concentrate on
threefolding.
) )Sympathy-smipanthy-stop already with the sympathy-is he displaying
) )sympathy by calling people friends?
)
)
) Not just that. He is acknowledging that their calculation is, under
) current
) circumstances, correct.
What calculation is attributed to the threefolders in this passge?
) )Again, I appreciate the lengths you're going to here to try to figure
) )out what I must be thinking about this passage.
) Not to put too fine a point on it, but you might do a little work on
) that
) yourself...
You mean I should do some work on trying to figure out what I think
about this passage? Why? I already know what I think about this passage.
) )He never says anything about a fall back option-this is a statement of
) )what others might think they should do given circumstances that might
) )arise.
)
)
) Sort of, but more circumstances that already exist and that might not
) change
) (indeed in all likelihood won't change enough) in time for the
) plebiscite.
Sort of? He never explicitly says anything about a fall-back option.
There is a statement of what the threefolders might see as warranted in
the future. There are also statements regarding the situation as it
alreday exists. There is nothing in this passage regarding the
likelihood of change or timing of the vote.
) )This is a new one on me-he had a saddened, despairing, resigned
) )political outlook?
) Yes. This is common in political thought, not to mention among political
) and
) social activists. There's a fine quote from Gramsci: optimism of the
) will,
) pessimism of the intellect.
So you're seeing Steiner here as some kind of political activist
intellectual pessimist? I know he's thought to have worn many hats.
) )No, again-he doesn't in reality say-go ahead and make lemonade if that's
) )the best we can do for now. He's saying people might think that there's
) )going to be lemonade but it's not lemonade it's just more compost for
) )the lemon tree.
)
)
) Sounds okay to me. Since the tree grows in German soil and not in Polish
)
) soil, why do you still think you are disagreeing with my reading?
The saying is about making the best with what you've got. A lemon tree
will still produce lemons no matter whose soil it's grown on.
)
)
) )Here's the deal-I said something like-I think your rendition is gee we
) )can't do T. then we'll be stuck with P. and my reading is we're already
) )stuck with P. so we'd better get moving with T.
)
)
) And you appear to think that those things are somehow mutually
) exclusive.
No-I see one as motivating-the other not. You may disagree-we may be
motivated by different things-dunno.
) That is not how Steiner posits them in the passage in question.
I disagree.
) )Where does the let's get our rears in gear come in-in the acknowledging
) )the limits of the cheerleader approach (a downer) or granting legitimacy
) )to skepticism (another downer)?
) The part about let's nevertheless keep working toward full threefolding.
Let's nevertheless keep working is not, to me, let's get our rears in
gear-it's let's drive forward while we are covering the brake.
) )What's not clear to me is how you could
) )consider your reading of this passage to be in any way a "we'd better
) )get our rears in gear" statement. Your reading as I understand it is not
) )motivational in any way-it is totally devoid of any motivation.
)
)
) Why? When I go to anti-war demonstrations, for example, I do not expect
) to
) come home and find that the war has suddenly ended because of our
) demonstration. This scarcely means that I am unmotivated to attend in
) the
) first place.
Do the presenters say things like-go ahead and vote for more war because
sometimes things have to get worse before they get better but meanwhile
let's all work toward that day when there is no more war?
) ) ) The whole idea was to still lend their energies to a full-scale
) ) ) threefolding
) ) ) effort, while making a tactical allowance for the realities on the
) ) ) ground.
) ) ) Activists do this very frequently.
) )
) )If a tactical allowance was made then it wouldn't be a full-scale
) )threefolding effort by definition.
) Yeah, that's the idea. That's what a fall-back option is. Are you
) )trying to say that... "doing both is impossible"? (sorry the text
) deleted here)
I think it's like driving with one foot on the gas and one foot on the
break-what would be the point?
) )Just now in this post you are making this point that this passage isn't
) )rousing-though you agreed that it constitutes a statement of -we'd
) )better get our rears in gear-there's a contradiction there.
)
)
) What contradiction do you discern there? The passage is sobering, not
) rousing. It sounds like you think that sobering assessments are in
) principle
) demotivating. This is not only mistaken as a general claim, it is belied
) by
) the passage we're discussing.
No sobering can be motivational. I guess the question is motivational
for what?
) )That's just not there, Peter-there's no-it's alright to fall back. If it
) )was there then I'd have to say Steiner was a stupid, pathetic
) )meglamaniac. Is that your view?
) In other ways, sure, but that is not at all what I have been saying
) about
) this passage.
So he does exhibit stupid, pathetic, and meglamaniac behavior but not in
this instance.
By my reading, Steiner is being basically reasonable here,
) even though his proposed strategy and tactics are in my view foolish (I
) think Dan's analogy to Communist attitudes is in may ways apt); but the
) notion of doing one's best to achieve a maximum goal while
) simultaneously
) recognizing and pursuing the available secondary options is not in
) itself
) stupid or pathetic or megalomaniacal, indeed it is sort of the opposite.
)
Per your reading you find him foolish but realistic and I see the
statement you are attributing to him as downright stupid thing for him
to have said.
Happy Groundhog's Day,
Val
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:03:56 +0000
From: Frank Smith (eltrigal78 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hi Val,
)
)
) ) ) It is remarkably unclear why you and Frank think this is the opposite of
) ) ) my
) ) ) reading of the passage. Steiner acknowledges that he and his followers
) ) ) are
) ) ) suffering under conditions they don't like (lost war, Entene meddling,
) ) ) League of Nations imposed plebiscite, etc). If they can't convince the
) ) ) rest
) ) ) of the world of the wonders of threefolding, then they're stuck with
) ) ) those
) ) ) conditions. In that case, he says, sympathizers of threefolding may have
) ) ) no
) ) ) other choice than to fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia. That
) ) )
) ) ) really is what the passage says.
) )
Val: )No, it isn't what this passage says, at least in English, above.
)
)
P: Can you say anything at all about the first sentence? Here it is, in
Frank's
) translation:
)
)
) “of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
) people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then
) there
) might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold
) society
) will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) provisionally
) for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks."
)
)
) You are trying to argue that this does *not* say that under the current
) conditions sympathizers of threefolding may have no other choice than to
)
) fall back on voting provisionally for Prussia? Could you somehow explain
)
) that? Even a little bit? What exactly does it say, in your view?
F: No, he does not say that. He says that "perhaps" (unter Umstaenden -
I skipped that word) they will be tempted TO SAY...but that would be a
mistake.
)
) Since you and Frank aren't being particularly forthcoming on the matter,
)
No? pray where did you get that idea?
I'm
) going to go out on a limb and guess that you think the subsequent
) sentences
) reverse the meaning of the first. The subsequent sentences read, in
) Frank's
) translation:
)
)
) "But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only resign
) ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is find enough
)
) people who can be active in our movement, who can be active in the sense
) of
) our social threefolding. And in this direction – it must be said – we
) have
) not worked with sufficient intensity.”
F: Ok, Peter, since you're having such a hard time getting this through
your noodle, I'll put in in the venacular.
"Listen you dumbkopfs, if this doesn't work, there are going to be
menschen who say, gut, we got no choice but to vote for Germany. How
many times have I told you in the past few days that we should NOT vote
to give U. Silesia to those freakin Prussian krauts, which would a total
disaster (see Frank's translation somewhere in the archives) and wait
for Krautland to collapse. That's a surrogate (look it up) - a
substitute for what we and the Up. Silesians and Europe needs: the
threefold society. So get your asses moving - more people, more energy.
It ain't over yet." Get it now, Peter? I'm making it as easy as possible
for you.
P: Is your claim that these words retract the statement in the first
sentence
) about provisionally voting for Prussia? Possibly because of the "but
) that is
) merely a surrogate" part? Because that sounds to you like a bad thing
) that
) Steiner wants his followers to avoid? Or are you trying to say that the
) "sufficiently large number of people" from the first sentence does not
) refer
) to the same thing as the "enough people" and the "sufficient intensity"
) from
) the following sentences? Or do you see no relation between the first
) sentence and the subsequent sentences?
F: That gobbledeegook (sp?), but you still have time to retract.
)
)
P: ) )Do you disagree with this?
) )
V: )Yes, I do and I'm willing for the moment instead of wrangling about
what
) )the words mean to say this is not what this passage says to me-it's not
) )my reading of it at all and I understand that it is yours.
)
)
P: What is your reading of it? You think Steiner is saying "don't even
think
) about voting provisionally for Prussia, we've got way more than enough
) threefolders out there and we are sure to transform all of Europe before
) the
) plebiscite takes place"? I can't say the point strikes me as
) particularly
) important, but it would certainly be interesting to get some hint about
) what
) your reading of the passage might be. Are we back to secret codes
) perhaps?
F: He's saying, again, the opposite, that they need MORE threefolders
and more energy.
)
)
V: And I find
) )that interesting, in and of itself. The opposition comes in for me as a
) )which comes first-the chicken or the egg kind of thing. You have him
) )saying if we don't do T. we're going to be stuck with P.
)
)
P: Yes, that is indeed what the passage says. That is what a "surrogate"
means,
) no? That is what it means to be "resigned", no? My best guess is that
) you
) think Steiner is saying something along the lines of "to resign
) ourselves to
) the current circumstances is so painful a thought that I don't want the
) rest
) of you to even entertain it for a moment, I want you to banish it from
) your
) minds, I want you to tell all the others back in Upper Silesia that we
) will
) countenance nothing less than full victory for threefolding, so don't
) even
) consider the possibility of falling back on a vote for Prussia under
) present
) conditions!" That would be a creative reading of the passage, at least.
) If
) it is indeed your reading, can you point to what in the passage itself
) suggests it to you?
)
F: Everything in the paragraph (and the rest of the lecture and book)not
only suggests, but confirms it. Thanks for expressing it so clearly.
)
) )like he's some
) )kind of meglamaniac or something.
)
)
) But that isn't what my reading says at all (though it might well be what
)
) your reading says, if the hypothesis I just offered is close to your
) reading). It isn't hard to find megalomaniacal tendencies in Steiner.
F: Please don't ask what tendencies I find in Peter S. I'm already on
the adhom shitlist.
P: But
) they are obviously not what I am positing in this instance. According to
) my
) reading, Steiner is here being realistic, unhappily so, resignedly so,
) he is
) offering a fall back position for those who despair of achieving full
) threefolding in time for the referendum, he is saying essentially let's
) go
) for the gold but let's recognize that it might not be within our grasp
) at
) the moment and if not, for now we'll settle for the bronze.
P: And I thought for a moment that you were overcoming your addiction to
fuzzy thinking. Now you've gone back to the WC bottle.
V: What I read is-here's what we're stuck
) )with (P. or the equivalant)ergo we'd better get our rears in gear.-Val
)
)
P: Yes, that's what I read here too. This is one reason why it is more
than a
) little puzzling that you and Frank think the passage says "the exact
) opposite" of my reading. In the lecture as a whole Steiner is firing up
) the
) troops. He's doing his best to get them out there energized and hopeful.
) In
) this passage he acknowledges that the maximum program may not be
) possible as
) things presently stand, and he gives a nod toward those who are inclined
) to
) settle for the less lofty goal, namely voting provisionally for Prussia,
) so
) that threefolding work can continue after the plebiscite. I have no idea
) why
) you think the passage says the exact opposite of this, and I welcome you
) to
) clarify if you see fit. Friendly greetings,
F: And I have no idea how you can possibly say that Steiner is telling
them to vote provisionally for Prussia when he specifically says not to
- here saying that it'd be a surrogate and a sign of resignation, and
otherwhere as clearly as possible.
Frank
) ) ) ): ... Steiner says: “of course if
) ) ) ) ) )it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of people [to
) ) ) ) ) )expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there
) )might be
) ) ) ) ) )no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society
) )will
) ) ) ) ) )someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
) ) ) ) ) )effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
) ) ) ) ) )understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote
) ) ) ) ) )provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this
) )Prussia
) ) ) ) ) )sinks. But that is merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only
) ) ) ) ) )resign ourselves to what we are suffering under. What we must do is
) ) ) )find
) ) ) ) ) )enough people who can be active in our movement, who can be active
) )in
) ) ) ) ) )the sense of our social threefolding. And in this direction – it
) )must
) ) ) )be
) ) ) ) ) )said – we have not worked with sufficient intensity.”
)
http://SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:20:12 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Will the Real Rudolf Please Stand Up?
Hi Val,
)Sorry, Peter but -hey some people might think this is a good
)idea but THEN we would only be resigning ourselves to our current
)conditions does not constitute an endorsement to me.
Because you think resigning ourselves to current conditions is a bad thing,
I take it. I don't know why you believe this, but more to the point, I don't
know why you think Steiner believed it, much less expressed it in the
passage we're talking about.
)It might very well
)be a fall-back position in reality since they would be falling back to
)what they already have but there is no endorsement here for a fall-back
)option cool or otherwise.
In other words, you think Steiner really means that "our friends" do have
another choice. Can you point to any part of the passage that you think
supports this reading?
)So if it was conjecture then Steiner couldn't have been, in fact,
)sympathizing with the threefolder's feelings? That was my question.
He could have been, I suppose, but it's hard to see why that would matter.
In the passage itself, it isn't a mere conjecture, it's an assertion that
Steiner affirms.
) ) There is no English translation of the book. Frank provided his own
) ) quick
) ) translation in the post that you read. That's what he and I and other
) ) readers of German usually do when discussing in an English-speaking
) ) context.
) ) The book in question is Rudolf Steiner, Wie wirkt man für den Impuls der
) )
) ) Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, and the passage in question
) ) appears
) ) on p. 231. All of this, for what it's worth, was explicit in the
) ) exchange
) ) between me and Frank.
)
)No it wasn't.
Hmmm... maybe this has something to do with your curious reading of the
passage in question? Frank cited the full title of the book in his very
first post in the thread, on 1/25/07, and noted that he was providing "my
quick translation", in his words, and the page number is very clearly given
in both his and my initial posts containing the passage in question. I take
it you missed all that?
) ) So the line "let’s vote provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany" isn't
) )
) ) really in the passage?
)
)No, it's not actually.
Here is the passage again:
“of course if it isn’t possible to find a sufficiently large number of
people [to expound the social threefold idea in Upper Silesia] then there
might be no other choice for our friends than to say: The threefold society
will someday advance from labor pains to the extent that it will be
effective, and due to privation the German people will develop an
understanding for the threefold society; therefore let’s vote provisionally
for joining Prussia-Germany in the hope that this Prussia sinks. But that is
merely a surrogate, by doing that we would only resign ourselves to what we
are suffering under. What we must do is find enough people who can be active
in our movement, who can be active in the sense of our social threefolding.
And in this direction – it must be said – we have not worked with sufficient
intensity.”
The line "let’s vote provisionally for joining Prussia-Germany" is in the
second half of the first sentence, pretty much right in the middle of the
passage. It is more than a little odd to be pointing this out at this late
stage.
) )Wouldn't it make more sense, Val,
) ) to explain why you think Steiner is rejecting rather than endorsing this
) )
) ) notion, instead of pretending that the notion does not appear in the
) ) text?
) ) I've offered several possibilities for why a reader might conclude that
) ) Steiner was rejecting rather than endorsing this notion, but so far you
) ) have
) ) repudiated each of those possibilities.
)
)My argument is now a pretense? What makes sense to me is that you
)substantiate your claim that S