My problems with Chapter 2

Submitted by Slowthinker on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 4:56am.

Hi, folks! I'm new here, so please give me a chance! I got some problems with Steiner's text.

I met a Anthroposophical VIP and he told me he conducts a course for Steiner's Esoteric School or First Class. I asked him to explain and he said it's about the >Ohnmacht< of thinking. He asked me what I imagine would be a good translation for the German word. I was pretty unsure and could only say <powerlessness<. He suggested >impotence<. I told him I don't remember seeing this word (<Ohnmacht<) in Steiner's philosophical writings, but I admit I don't remember things well. >Macht< means power or might. >ohne< means without. Now I ran across just this word >ohnmacht< in chapter 2 - right in front of my nose. But it's the adjective >ohnmächtig<. I checked to see what English word has been recommended here on this website, but until now i just found <ineffectual<. Can you help me out?

At the same comment exchange about chapter 2 where I saw <ineffectual<, I read that that sentence about the Dualist who subsumes <I< or Self to the side of Spirit is a big problem in English translation. But the conmmentator doesn't say why. I think the reason is easy to recognize: English ain't got no conjunction like the German <indem<!

Now I'm busy trying to understand what Steiner means in that second chapter by >Ich<, but I just don't get it! Please don't quote those remarks at the end of the chapter because I'm not interested in what philosophy and psychology define as >Ich< - I want to understand what Steiner means! Furthermore, Steiner doesn't present any definition of >Ich< when he says he doesn't want to proceed their way anyway, so we can forget them!

Wilson's translation

Submitted by Slowthinker on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 5:31am.

I just checked the English translation by Wilson. He translates this German <ohnmächtig< as vain - vain struggle! I don't get the point. If I do something <in vain< that's suppose to mean my struggle as a Dualist is a waste of time? But if I say my effort is without power - that's in regard to me. To do something <in vain< can be in regard to something else, right? Anyway, vain is a vice - what does that have to do with power?

PS: I just checked other translations - Hoernle uses <vain<, too. Wilson simply copied. Stebbing uses the same. But Lindemann changes to <ineffectual<! That's what I saw here on this website, but it seems I overlooked his name? Is Lindemann a German? The Spanish translation uses <impotente< - that's <impotent< in English, isn't it? But that Esoteric School Class Reader didn't mention the Spanish tranlsation. Interesting that the language which contributes the word <macho< and <machismo< which I was told goes back to a word for male animal (maybe wrong?) here uses a word which is often used for ability of the male to have sexual intercourse. I've heard the word <potent< used in homeopathic connections, but not its negation. My <impotent< reading of that chapter to get what Steiner means by <Ich< or Ego, Self, etc. I figure means the same as Not-World. But I think Ego is more difficult to understand than World. Maybe I'm wrong?

Ich

Submitted by manselton on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:55am.

The German word Ich for I was invented by the first German christian, Ulfilas, in the 4th century AD. It was a shortening of Jesus Christ. The Ich or ego or I-being is the spiritual self, the core at the centre of the subjective self. It is the immortal part of you. The soul (or consciousness or personality) perishes but the Ich is the individuality which goes on to the next life. Seizing hold of your own I takes a great effort and is not merely given to us. "Not I but Christ in me" is a famous saying by St. Paul. The I is the fire of the spirit of Christ which lives in every human being.

I think Lindeman is

Submitted by Tom Last on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:12am.

I think Lindeman is American or at least lives in America.

Where did Lindemann learn German?

Submitted by Beginner on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:14am.

It is remarkable how little the person responsible for this website dedicated to a book knows about the translators of the book! And that no other reader of this journal is interested enough to contribute what he or she knows!

Clemency!

Submitted by Beginner on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 1:33pm.

Gosh, that's really amazing - Slowthinker thinks just like me!

So I guess Slowthinker feels that such a translation as <power-less-ness< is a bit tricky. Strictly speaking, such a word could easily be constructed in German as Macht-los-ig-keit.

All I know about Mr Lindemann is that he wrote in his translator's commentary to his translation that Steiner's book needed no preparation. I wrote Mr. Lindemann care of the publishing company, quoted what he claimed, and asked him if that was his opinion or if he believed it was Steiner's, if he would please give the the source where Steiner said that about reading his book. I got no answer from Mr. Lindemann.

Does anybody got details on Mr Lindemann's qualifications as a translator or know the guy? He's translated ohnmächtig as ineffectual which is closer to without power than vain. Potent is used in financial judgment, too.

Lindemann says in his

Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 1:48pm.

Lindemann says in his translator comments that he is doing a literal translation from the German. While it is poor English, it makes a good resource for knowing what Steiner said. Other translators may add or subtract a few words and rearrange the sentece structure for clarity. Word for word literal translations are not normally considered good translations, but his is a good reference.

The download page has the various translations. The translator group page has comments about the translators.

Who is Lindemann?

Submitted by Beginner on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 2:05pm.

If Lindemann says something, how do you know it is true? If Lindemann claims he's translating literally, what does that mean?

I understand German and I have no idea what Lindemann means if he claims he translates Steiner's text "literally". How can you translate a text into another language "literally"?

Lindemann claims the reader doesn't need any conditions to understand Steiner's text. That's ridiculous.

In the case of ohnmächtig, Lindemann used ineffectual. Your translator group didn't use this choice - why not?

By the way, I've never heard of Lindemann - but I have heard of Owen Barfield. Who is Lindemann? Lindemann probably got the job because he has connections with the persons who control the publishing house - thats how it works in "Anthroposophical" society!

If you compare the various

Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 3:02pm.

If you compare the various translators on how they translate POF sentences enough times their approach becomes obvious. Lindemann is unique in that his translation is not a revision but actually new. Others are just revised editions even though they may claim new (except the original Hoernle). Though I think translators should build off previous translations.

Lindemann translates like a computer translator that follows a program to replace a word or group of words with the English that a Steiner spiritualist would like without adding, subtracting, or rearranging anything to improve clarity.

Stop your own spiritualism and start clarifying, Tom

Submitted by Beginner on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:38pm.

I asked you about why the translation group to which you belong ignore Lindemann's translation of >ohnmächtig< (ohne Macht - without power) as <ineffectual<. (In second chapter where Steiner refers to what he calls the Two World Theory.) Lindemann's translation is better than the choice preferred by a translation and imitated by others: <vain< because at least "in-effect-ual" conveys an aspect of of the absence of power (Macht).

This is an interesting

Submitted by Tom Last on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:45pm.

This is an interesting question, but I don't have a quick answer and I don't want to put the time into it now until I go back to working on the translation after I finish cartooning the book.

Cartoons

Submitted by Beginner on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:16am.

Your answer is startling - you prefer "cartooning" the book.

Steiner wanted POF redone

Submitted by Tom Last on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:21pm.

Steiner wanted POF redone in a way appropriate to modern culture. What better reflects modern culture than cartoons?

Tom Disney and Daffy Steiner

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:29pm.

You confuse your street life in California with science. Your problem is the level of thinking you employ to understand what you read.

Do you have a "slow" answer?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:31pm.

Are you finished cartooning yet?

Maybe, right now I am

Submitted by Tom Last on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:10pm.

Maybe, right now I am preparing some observation exercises to hopefully be posted soon.

Ohnmacht and Macht

Submitted by Beginner on Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:55pm.

The concept of power is the problem - according to what Steiner calls the Two World Theory - this judgment or collection or set of judgments fails to have this quality of power in its <Ringen>. In German, one can fall into <Ohnmacht>. This expresses a state of consciousness.

nice guy

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 5:48pm.

You can tell by the way that that person is talking to Tom that he or she REALLY practices PoF.