Dear Visitors to this Site,
There is a contributor on this site, Carl Flygt, who expresses views that make me feel ashamed.
Despite the shame, I continue to be connected with this site because I believe in freedom and not in repression. The views of this individual are not views that I agree with nor that I want anything to do with. I do not believe that he is expressing anything illegal - if I am wrong, please tell me because then it would be necessary to take action to remove and prevent the expression of such views on this web site.
Other regular contributors, who feel connected in the purpose of this site, might like to indicate their agreement with the position I am taking with regard to this issue.
Anthroposophy is not racist
Neither was Steiner's picture of world evolution racist. However it is apparently easy for people who are racist to appropriate it. However, this is a serious misapplication of the insights that Steiner brought.
The picture Steiner brings of society is of equality and love. Individual spiritual capacities supported in a society that facilitates the discovery of self within the context of supporting each other. See my article http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/2294 for more information.
Steiner also brings some thoughts on the destiny of different cultures. The task of different cultures at different times is carried by the people living in those cultures. Steiner asserts that all present in those cultures work under the guidance of the folk soul (zeit geist) of that culture. I, along with many others, feel comfortable with the concept of folk-soul and can see how different cultures have had different roles throughout history.
A terrible mistake is made when this macro-cultural picture is brought down to the individual. Assumptions about capacities the individual has CAN NOT be made on the basis of the culture from which they appear to be or are descended.
The individual spirit of the human being can work with any folk-soul, any human being from any culture can move to another culture and become absolutely as one with that culture. It is possible, and this happens to many people, for an individual to work with many folk-souls during their daily, or whole lives.
It is utterly pointless to define a person by their colour in attempting to understand their individuality. This information adds nothing to an understanding of the potential of that individual.
It is invidious (offensive, horrible etc) to base an argument on the colour of the human being’s skin – even as an indicator of the cultural origin this is a totally unreliable indicator of their individuality. To do so can only alienate and create division.
For me Anthroposophy is about being a human being, about finding my own path to a connection with my I AM and through that a deeper connection to my family, friends, co-workers, society, world community and Nature.
Anthroposophy is a resource for everyone and I deplore the idiotic un-thought through assertions made by Carl on this site. Assertions of this type alienate Anthroposophy from the world because they are untrue. The untruth is intuitively grasped by many but this intuitive doubt is consciously assigned to Anthroposophy not to the author of the nonsense.
Anthroposophy is defenceless against people who claim it in their own name. All anyone can truthfully ever speak about is their own experience. Carl consistently talks about Anthroposophy as if he owns it. He does not.
On the quest for freedom,
Sebastian Parsons
Much thanks Sebastian
Dear Sebastian,
Much thanks for your clear statement on what Anthroposophy is and what it is not. People like Carl and his personal prejudice are a big reason that the General Anthroposophical Society is unable to attract new members, especially among the young.
More on this subject later.
Love,
Patri
Path to the door
I appreciate what you have written Sebastian, and thanks Patri for allowing us to look at the Anthroposophical Society in this context.
I am naturally not a joiner of societies. I joined the General Anthroposophical Society because I saw that it had value in promoting common exploration of Steiner's work. I do not find sufficient reason to write it off just yet, especially because Steiner invested his personal karma in it. My hope is that change can come from within the Society, because that is where all real change comes from: an internal moral initiative. It is possible to take a position in the Society in the same way Sebastian has stated that he remains associated with this site. One person's presence does not imply complete agreement with all other members. In fact - stated as part of the GAS constitution as far as I remember - it does not imply agreement with anything but the notion that something of value is to be found there.
It may be challenging to live and let live within the Anthroposophical Society, but that may be just the point of becoming a member, to practice living one's ideals in a challenging environment.
I need more time to think through possible solutions to the dilemmas that clearly beset our endeavours this site, and the endeavours in the Society. I start from the conviction - open to the usual challenges - that ethical initiative is the way forward, based on love and the intention to serve the whole of eathly evolution's unfolding.
Anthroposophy is not Racist
I agree Sebastian, anyone who reflects on the whole tenor of Steiner's thought and his characterisation of reincarnation and the task of folk souls would have a hard time justifying racist beliefs. However I imagine there are people in the Anthroposophical Society, as there are elsewhere, who hold these beliefs for other reasons.
I think I have found the comment from Carl referred to now - quite simply I don't think Rudolf Steiner would have ever used words like that to discuss the race situation in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter). I'll leave it at that.
me too
Hi, good stuff Sebastian,
I don't think Steiner was racist in the way we normally talk about it at all. AT ALL. In fact, to me it is obvious that the thrust of his work aims at dissolving most of the types of thought-forms that Carl presented....but not ALL and that it is where it genuinely is a little bit tricky.
As strongly and clearly as we express how not racist Steiner's work was, we should be able to go into the comments he made that throw our non anthroposohical friends into tailspins.
Steiner did say things about black people that mirror Carl's statements. I've read the lecture in which he says that black people's faces are not as beautiful as white people's. He said it as if it were a fact. He did not say it to be mean or to promote a hateful world view. He presented it as a scientist listing off observations and relating them to an objective model he was trying to ge across. This is not inherently racist but it requires calm and careful consideration. We should expect some of Steiner's more race specific comments to draw fire from people we respect.
I remember how awkward I felt when a group of my politicaly progressive friends (6 years ago) came over to my house. One morning they were going through my massive Steiner library, just reading pages and asking me questions. It was kind of fun. But then my buddy, Greg, opened a lecture in which Steiner was talking about black people's blood (i don't remember this perfectly, but i've read most of his comments that elicit anger from progressive modern views). Greg read out loud and Steiner was talking about how the blood in black people makes them more prone to such and such (it wasn't music, as Carl said, but it had to do with Steiner's view that black people are more tied to the earth and this shows up in psychological and mental tendencies).
I felt very uncomfortable but it turned into a good conversation. My friends were not overtly spiritual but they were good listeners and delt with my extreme defensiveness. I talked about how Steiner would equate every one of us as Ego's but he would differentiate on the "lower" levels of astral, etheric and phyisical bodies. There is no getting around that Steiner points to times in History in which one race was the "most" evolved: and, yes, he doesn't shy away from strong and pointed language on these issues (read what he would say about Jews in this case)....
It is very important that we learn how we (those who wish) distinguish our views from Carls, but we've got to let it be somewhat complicated and we must acknowledge those comments (and kinds of comments) from Steiner that people will easily use to associate Steiner with Carl.
I'm not as concerned about how a racist might try to use those comments. They will use anything. I'm thinking about how politically creative and active progressive people are often immediately turned off when they come across the harder comments by Steiner. This is not a case where it is as simple as reminding people that Steiner's lectures weren't perfectly recorded because he said this type of statement (including the comments on faces) more than once and it always fits in the context of the lectures.
I'm not supporting Carl's views. I've written on that. But I want to say that for actual steps to be taken from within anthroposophy, it is my view that there will need to be a much more robust and open conversation than happens these days. Personally, I think it is so easy to show how Steiner's overall view is about as anti-racists as you can get; he provides us with mountainloads of quotes that I'm proud to show anybody. But it's like politics today. Most of these guys say wonderful things in regards to race differences, but then you find what they say when they are alone and that's where the fire starts. I'm not equating Steiner with our less savery politicians, but nice, open hearted and racially sensitive people who come across Steiner's more confusing statements might not take the time to make sense of them.
gulp
Materialistic View
Racism may be a natural result of a one-sided Materialistic world-view. In chapter 14 of The Philosophy of Freedom Steiner asks whether individuality is possible considering that we bear the characteristics of our race (14-0).
The Materialistic view (genetics for example) of this question is:
The Spiritist view and one of the main points of the freedom philosophy is that we are able to free ourselves from these generic characteristics:
The Materialistic view artificially denies freedom as a possibility. All you have to do is get to know a few people and you can recognize we have individual characteristics in addition to racial characteristics. Throughout the book The Philosophy of Freedom begins with the Materialistic view and then rises above it.
What Are We Going To Take Racism To Mean?
I dunno about all this racism excitement. It seems to me people here aren't thinking very clearly.
If what we want to mean by racism is racial difference, it seems pretty clear that anthroposophy, as well as everything else in world history, is racist. Christianity's anti-Semitism would be a good example here, and one I think we will need to go into.
But defining racism as acknowledgment of racial difference is a dumb way to think about racism.
What racism really means, or should mean, is racially based hatred. There it seems clear that anthroposophy isn't racist in the least. Racism of that sort is largely confined to peculiar institutions and to lower class, uneducated segments of most societies.
So what are we going to take racism to mean? Mean-spiritedness or material objectivism?
Carl, racism, anthroposophy and PoF
Firstly, I'm sorry Tom, but one is not a little bit pregnant. Some of the things that Carl has said on this website have not only been purposefully provocative ("shock jock" as you use the term) but also have been purposefully racist. He has not even had the courage to say what he meant by "jungle bunnies" which started this conversation in the first place. I think it is very good that we are having this conversation here, as there is an undercurrent of suppressed feelings about racism and anthroposophy that people like to pretend don't exist.
I, for one, Love what Rudolf Steiner communicates about Spiritual Science through PoF, Theosophy, etc. But, I don't think sticking one's head in the sand and pretending there may not be a problem is helpful. I don't know Carl personally like you so I cannot speak to other than what he has placed on this website. There is a lot of very negative writing on the Internet pertaining to Rudolf Steiner and racism and people like Carl who makes vicious silly statements only inflame this.
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. This is not Steiner, but it certainly sounds like Carl.
When friends ask about Steiner and supposedly racist comments he made, I do not excuse those comments. I reply that I think he made mistakes in some areas and this is one of them. But, if you look at the overall picture of what Steiner was communicating you would see that what he communicates as spirit far outweighs the negative comments he supposedly made. I think, despite his great spiritual ability, that Steiner in many ways was the product of his culture and made mistakes and inappropriate statements in this regard.
Again, it is good this is out in the light, as we all need to really look at this.
Love,
award
That gets the gulpian "most balanced post of the week" award. It's not very prestigous award yet, but I appreciate how you put all that, Patri.
gulp
Shock Jock
I think it can be easy to stereotype Carl into being something he is likely not (not completely anyways) because of his communication style which is that of a "shock jock". He seems to make a statement designed to inflame others for the purpose of drawing attention to an issue he would then like to discuss on a deeper level.
Rush "Carl" Limbaugh has been successful getting attention on this website in the same way lower nature emotionalism is successful for commercial radio and television ratings. Carl's Journals are by far the most commented on. The problem with this approach is that emotionally inflamed people have a difficulty participating in a contemplative conversation. So it is hard to understand why someone who is an advocate of quality conversation would use emotional triggers to get attention. I would expect they would try to avoid them.
I am also surprised that others haven't figured it out yet but continue to be unconsciously baited into emotional reactions by this technique. You can ask the same question about the commercial shock jocks. Do we enjoy the rush of emotionally charged anger they give us? Does it make us feel alive? It has an awakening effect but maintaining the mood of contemplative conversation is a much more awakening experience.
Not content with being
Not content with being racist, he is now attacking the lower classes.
Maybe Carl just wants attention, but what a backwater to have to try to get it! He can't be here because he wants his ideas discussed as he doesn't put them in a way that leaves the option of discussing them open!
Moving on to Gulp's point.
Different races have different tendencies to illness. Have you ever noticed how peoples' fingers fit in to different shape categories?
Unless you are a doctor working with the physical body these physical differences are not relevant.
Critically, this thinking, feeling, willing anthroposophical consciousness developing stuff is about the spirit, the I AM. About which there is no argument that we all have the same potential.
The rights realm holds our equality, everything that is the same for all of us. It applies equally to all people. There is never a need to know what colour someone's skin is in order for them to participate in society.
S.
Ahriman 1 :language 0.
I'm afraid the game is over as far as language and the discussion of racism goes. We lost., I lost, and the spirit of language in our culture lost.
Bitter experience in attempting to debate the issue recently with young and even comparatively intelligent people showed me I had to give up. There was nothing else for it. This was the first time when I realised that thinking and language in our culture has been under attack, and the first round is lost.
The passionate abstraction of the equality of all individuals has totally suffocated real meaning when it comes to pointing out racial distinctions in "the other". The sharks circle anyone in discussion who might speak less than wholly inclusively in politically sanitized terms. They just can't help themselves any more.
I wonder what's next. Scientific method only please. The criminalisation of metaphor. Please confine discourse to evidence based statements. One idea at a time. No subordinate clauses thank you. ???
I am serious, the battle has been lost on this one in the last two decades. Whats next?
I offer this from YouTube.
Love
Bryn
Who is that little genius?
Who is that little genius? I'm going to be spreading that one for a few days!!! Thanks....
gulp
Racial distinctions used to hate the other
Bryn,
from your post: The passionate abstraction of the equality of all individuals has totally suffocated real meaning when it comes to pointing out racial distinctions in "the other". The sharks circle anyone in discussion who might speak less than wholly inclusively in politically sanitized terms. They just can't help themselves any more.
Perhaps it's because these so-called racial distinctions, in this recent last century, were used as an excuse to purposefully murder millions upon millions of innocent people.
Love,
Patri
Hey. I'm an innocent person Patri
Leave me out of this.
Love
Bryn Davies
(Welsh)