Closet Manicheanism
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 10:35 am
Subject: Closet Manicheanism
--- In [email protected],
Joel Wendt wrote:
But then, I don't believe you care about
the truth or knowledge, but rather are in love with your own
opinions more.
But that's just my belief, its not knowledge
(at least I don't think so, it could be true by accident. But
certainly, since it is only my belief, how can I be held responsible
for its effect?). Then of course there is the hypocrisy latent
in this view which you take, given that the same loose relationship
to knowledge and the truth could (which you justify as okay for
yourself) be claimed by Dan Dugan and Peter S as regards their
"beliefs". So how can you insist they speak the truth
and from knowledge, but you aren't held to the same standard?
AS near as I can tell, everything in the
above paragraph is, on your part, complete invention. What you
don't like in existence, and seems the most horrible, has been
by you characterized as coming from the Asuras. Yet, clearly
you have no knowledge of this - you do not see the supersensible
relationships, but only attribute toward that which you have
antipathy, the direst characterizations.
I don't see this as any different from
the thinking by which fundamentalist Christians believe that
New Age impulses come from Satan. You demonize what you don't
like, borrowing spiritual scientific vocabulary to support your
biases.
Such thinking is not based upon anthroposophy.
Bradford comments;
Joel I respect your compassionate and thoughtful
insights. You very often, for me, find deeper kernels than anybody
I know. I would jump to the assumption, probably in error, that
anybody who hands you undigested quotes from Steiner is part
of the problem. But here is what puzzles me.
First and formost the lack of Discerning ability
to carry a thought in a positive direction. Is this an Old Man's
gripe?
Second is the fact that both Tarjei and you
have earned some stripes in both attempting to call Anthros out
of their blind slumber. Both of you are in a window where "your
time has come". Anarchists and rebels before it was popular
to be rebels can now speak with maturity.
So I ask myself Joel, aside from the fact
that we do not give loyality out like cracker jacks...people
earn our respect, do you have no sense of Loyalty to a brother
or a sister who has stood the test of time manifesting the very
type of courage that you had fostered long before it was popular?
I am always glad that you offer inner stucture,
etheric stability, and I know from where I speak about etheric
stability. Etheric stablity out of the Theory of Knowledge has
had a refining effect on your soul. The 12 Step program and concrete
thinking with your efforts and compassion have brought on some
very fine, rich maturity and ripeness in you. It shines through.
But because we offer different angles on the
Michael School and because our ability might be to find the rich
threads of research that we can identify with each others works,
doesn't allow us the leisure to indulge in the tendency to fall
back on jealousy, bickering and the usual immaturity that reveals
subjective mood swings and not objective observation. This always
troubles me.
If it were a woman I would say it was that
time of the month, and cut you some slack... My wife and I have
had to come to an agreement of self knowledge. Such a brilliant
and wonderful woman can, unconsciously suddenly turn ugly, not
that I don't deserve it, but there is a border of subjective
self knowledge that alerts each of us that something is not in
order with a kind of bitchiness, undeserved.
We still meet that and god knows we do deserve
what we get and it does cause us to reflect and raises subjective
conflicts. However what is the point of rubbing each other the
wrong way on a list and a place where I hold you in utmost respect?
Bad Hair day, okay, I'll have my bad hair days and please tell
me when I am having a bad hair day. But not because someone who
works with their heart and soul on Michael School issues has
a different, radically different take than my own. I relish different
takes that at least make the effort to rise to insight.
I know it is temporary, but it almost smells
like jealousy and envy or some little pesty untransformed soul
chunk that I fail to track sometimes. It certainly is apparent
to me that Tarjei and you have done massive and rich service
and continue to strive to serve the great work of Dr. Steiner.
The third thing: Closet Manicheanism:
Now if this has to do with the immense guilt,
darkness and failure that we all share and that arises in the
lost years, before the 12 step program and when anybody mentions,
darkness...it calls forth, that these little midgets, us, don't
know what darkness, addiction and eating away of the soul really
is....and only someone of your long suffering does...It amounts
to an untracked aspect of soul guilt and sorrow that has very
little, yet everything to do with not wanting to have Asuras
eat our dust.
Let me walk a little deeper here into just
the type of richness that is very difficult to express. Some
of us have had complex, immense suffering and survived massive
splintering dysfuntion. Some have even come out of addiction,
some of us, never wanted it but never shunned or ran away or
ran towards the disillusionment of the junkie. Some of us could
have plunged deeper, but it wasn't for cowardice that we did
not. It was because of the Amazing Grace of Spiritual Science
that revealed all that we suspected were the heights and depths
of the human spirit. Spiritual Science allowed us to take stock
of our own lives...even better if a 12 step program and The Philosophy
of Spiritual Activity brought much needed refreshment to our
weary soul journey.
All of this and not requiring Steiner to prove
that he has suffered as much as we have, that his words are true,
that thinking and soul experience can give humanity their dignity,
and this can be done objectively. The problem as I see it, is
that some souls don't trust anyone who doesn't have EXPERIENCE
meaning their subjective EXPERIENCE of suffering. Therefore they
can be discounted. This, if it were true would be a complete
distortion of the facts of Spiritual Science, Waldorf Educaton
and life itself.
However - in favor of that perception - I
will argue that we have needed these Wars this nuclear age, the
catastrophe of suffering and human beastliness to truly give
us heart soul and courage to weigh what is and what is not. It
is we ourselves who call down tragedy upon tragedy upon our heads
and without rich soul experience and climbing back from the brink
of nightmare or HORROR, we would just be simpering little sentimental
goody goodies without the soul insight or strength to see our
own demons and realize it is us...it is in us.. we are that!
Which is why, I suspect, you always seem to want to put certain
people to the test - deny their credibility. I may understand
the motives but I may not agree with your targets sometimes.
With due Respect and admiration
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Dear Bradford,
One of the things that 12 Step work teaches
is that it is the double that encourages us to cut others slack.
We start with brutal self honesty, and then create a community
in which that same questioning attitude is fostered for all.
We then live in a rich soup of insistence on not giving into
the lies to the self - lies which in anthro-speak we know as
caused by the double, and in the twelve steps as an aspect of
"our disease".
Read again Gordienko's introduction to her
book: Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality, where she covers
all the relevant points from out of the "scientific"
spirit of the age, such as: Criticism among spiritual scientists
is essential. During which she quotes the Good Doctor (RS), as
follows: "An incorrect result of research in the spiritual
world is a living being. It is there; it must be resisted, it
must first be eradicated." (22.10.1915, GA 254)
I am in the process of a long conversation
with another American over the state of being of the anthroposophical
society and movement, in which I have advocated to him the essential
need, before any other act, of facing the shadow within ourselves,
and facing it as that has been allowed to manifest in our associations.
We believe an entirely too convenient and false history of our
work and our movement, including never considering that Steiner
could make any errors.
One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko
addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the
false view that being "spiritual", means being nice
- being polite. In the 12 Steps, we can have (and need to have)
someone called our "sponsor". Were this person to be
"nice" to us, we'd both soon be lost. Everything is
about detecting bullshit as soon as it surfaces, and before it
can cause harm. Here on this list the b.s. flies fast and furious,
just like most anthroposophical groups and branches I have been
in over the years, and many internet discussion lists as well.
Everyone is so nice and polite, and this encourages
us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply by discussing
who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any of us had a real
clue, based upon original spiritual scientific research that
was independent of the authority of others.
Now this, in itself, is more easily correctable
than might otherwise seem, for it really is a matter of nuance.
We begin with ourselves, and place before our own moral imagination
the question of whether an opinion is the truth, or just a belief.
We then make clear to ourselves (brutal self honesty) that we
lack knowledge, and are only combining the work of various "authorities"
in building up the picture (the mental image - see The Philosophy
of Freedom) we are inwardly beholding. We let ourselves recognize
that this mental representation is not knowledge, and that we
cannot morally (using our moral imagination) justify it to others
as knowledge.
We have a good instinct for this, when we
use such terms as "this is my view", "this is
my belief", or "I think" where "think"
in this instance really means to say "believe". But
to do this comfortably and with a certain self trust, practical
experience with the epistemological works is necessary. Steiner
started his life's work there, and we dishonor his legacy by
skipping over that step, and yet insist on calling ourselves
anthroposophists.
You, Bradford, make a long post below in which
you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding
the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.
As I suggested above, there is a lot on this
list which suffers similar confusions regarding what we know
and what we believe we know on the basis of Steiner's "authority".
I go after Tarjei precisely because of the fact that he has the
strength to take it, and stick to his guns. At the same time,
I am no longer willing to tolerate the pretense that to practice
spiritual science can be done by reading lectures and books,
without basing one's present in the moment thinking on the inner
work demanded by the epistemological books on which Steiner founded
his life's efforts.
I do this out of love for Steiner, which love
fills and motivates much that I do in the present. Everything
that I have done in this life, that has been grounded in the
truth, flows directly from the training I have received from
him concerning the question of knowledge. The best way I can
be grateful to his legacy then seems to me to be to hold up in
front of everyone, as did Gordienko, that for anthroposophy to
be a "science" has to mean certain things.
When anthroposophy is allowed to degenerate
into a system of beliefs about which one allows one's self to
indulge in fantasy concerning what is true, and a false and illusory
dependence upon the writings and lectures of Steiner, then spiritual
science no longer lives in the world, but rather only its Egregore:
Steinerism.
It is Steinerism that the WC folks met in
Waldorf, and they have every possible justified reason to hate
it. Steinerism is evil, and it comes from us when we live in
beliefs instead of knowledge, and have no clue as to the difference
in our own soul life.
Should we want to appreciate this, we need
only look to Dan D. and Peter S., for they commit the same evil
gesture as the perfect mirror of what they have seen. They too
live in beliefs, have no authentic interest in the truth, and
following that excess of passion (which the double encourages
to cover up the soul's own valid doubts about our beliefs) they
attack what they don't like (if it is different from my beliefs
it must be wrong and evil).
I don't see any difference between what they
do, and what Tarjei did in ascribing Asuric causality to all
manner of social evil that he "perceived", but had
no true knowledge regarding. The inner gesture is the same, and
while common to our Age (and is related to what Steiner spoke
of when he suggested we would come dangerously close at this
time to the War of All Against All), this gesture is rooted in
the double, and is the basis for materialism. We don't overcome
materialism by substituting another theory (in our case a spiritual
one), but only by the redemption of the "act" of thinking,
through bringing the will into it. Or as Ben-Aharon points out
in his remarkable: The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth Century,
by brining the will into thinking, and thinking into the will.
We can never conquer evil in the world, except
as it lives in ourselves. I can only root out Steinerism from
my own soul, where I had come to know it quite intimately. At
the same time, having meet this shadow in myself, and come to
know its many forms of manifestation, this enables me to speak
of it in places where it might help others who are willing to
face this darkness in themselves.
So I speak of it here, and challenge it here,
on this discussion list which places before us a remarkable ideal:
Anthroposophy Tomorrow.
warm regards,
joel
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m <bryanmiller>
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Now this is a post worth keeping and re-reading.
That's Anthroposophy as I understand it. I'm not a good Bible-quoter
but I'm reminded of what Jesus said, something about him bringing
the sword to this world, putting son against father. In other
words, fierce struggle, not some kind of bland fake harmony.
There's too much glovewearing in the spiritual community. As
if talking nice had anything to do with being spiritual, as Joel
so well put it. It's a tough fight out there, friends. It takes
guts and strenght and yes, we dig in the dirt to get to the truth,
that's what being in this world is about. If we were supposed
to be floating with the angels in some fluffly cloud talking
nicely 'bout the best airy heavenly-underwear available or some
other metaphysical mysteries, we wouldn't be here now, would
we.
Bryan
Joel Wendt wrote:
Dear Bradford,
One of the things that 12 Step work teaches
is that it is the double that encourages us to cut others slack.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
At 19:08 08.01.2004, Joel wrote:
One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko
addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the
false view that being "spiritual", means being nice
- being polite.
To be consistent here, it's a good idea to
keep in mind that telling Asuric horror stories ain't nice and
not necessarily polite either :)
Everyone is so nice and polite, and this
encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply
by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any
of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific
research that was independent of the authority of others.
By the same token, nobody is capable of knowing
or saying anything at all about the Spanish Civil War then, unless
he was there in person or can read about it in the Akasha. If
one is stuck with the "authority" of George Orwell
and Ernest Hemingway and others, one should shut up about it
and know nothing and venture no opinion? Bull.
Steiner started his life's work there,
and we dishonor his legacy by skipping over that step, and yet
insist on calling ourselves anthroposophists.
There's a thread about that particular piece
of semantic from the WC list anno 1999 carried into breaindead
absurdity, republished by Uncle Taz: "Who
is an Anthroposophist?" -
Some people claim that only AS members have
the right to call themselves anthroposophists. You come up with
another set of rules in this regard. Frankly, not many of us
give a damn. We decide ourselves what to call ourselves and we
decide upon our own set of rules and conditions to do so. With
a title like "Outlaw Anthroposophy," you should be
able to appreciate that better than most. If you can be a self-defined
outlaw apop, so can everybody else.
You, Bradford, make a long post below in
which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding
the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.
That statement presupposes that you can enlighten
us about the topic at hand and correct our errors. Please tell
us all about the Asuras then.
Should we want to appreciate this, we need
only look to Dan D. and Peter S., for they commit the same evil
gesture as the perfect mirror of what they have seen. They too
live in beliefs, have no authentic interest in the truth, and
following that excess of passion (which the double encourages
to cover up the soul's own valid doubts about our beliefs) they
attack what they don't like (if it is different from my beliefs
it must be wrong and evil).
I don't see any difference between what
they do, and what Tarjei did in ascribing Asuric causality to
all manner of social evil that he "perceived", but
had no true knowledge regarding.
No wonder they're having a field day with
your posts on the WC list when you write so much bull. Drawing
conclusions based upon information provided through Steiner's
lectures does not make anyone a Dan Dugan of PLANS. And your
claim that your "love of Steiner" - whose personal
moral character you drag into the gutter by publishing "Work
on What has Been Spoiled", which is a piece of dirty gossip
- makes it so hard for you to accept that people discuss and
have opinions about the content of Steiner's lectures, does not
hold water.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Dear Tarjei,
I've placed a couple of comments below in
[brackets].
warm regards,
joel
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 16:35, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
At 19:08 08.01.2004, Joel wrote:
One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko
addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the
false view that being "spiritual", means being nice
- being polite.
To be consistent here, it's a good idea
to keep in mind that telling Asuric horror stories ain't nice
and not necessarily polite either :)
Everyone is so nice and polite, and this
encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply
by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any
of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific
research that was independent of the authority of others.
By the same token, nobody is capable of
knowing or saying anything at all about the Spanish Civil War
then, unless he was there in person or can read about it in the
Akasha. If one is stuck with the "authority" of George
Orwell and Ernest Hemingway and others, one should shut up about
it and know nothing and venture no opinion? Bull.
[Not by the same token, that is if you read
the whole message. The problem is to be able to distinguish between
what we know, and what we believe and to write with that in mind,
making clear to the reader we know this distinction in ourselves,
and are not claiming to know more than we do.]
Steiner started his life's work there,
and we dishonor his legacy by skipping over that step, and yet
insist on calling ourselves anthroposophists.
There's a thread about that particular
piece of semantic from the WC list anno 1999 carried into breaindead
absurdity, republished by Uncle Taz: "Who
is an Anthroposophist?" -
Some people claim that only AS members
have the right to call themselves anthroposophists. You come
up with another set of rules in this regard. Frankly, not many
of us give a damn. We decide ourselves what to call ourselves
and we decide upon our own set of rules and conditions to do
so. With a title like "Outlaw Anthroposophy," you should
be able to appreciate that better than most. If you can be a
self-defined outlaw apop, so can everybody else.
[Well people can call themselves jackasses,
but it doesn't make them so. Same with anthroposophist. If anyone
can call themselves an anthroposophist, then the name has no
meaning whatsoever. The question would be what does Steiner suggest
an anthroposophist is, that is if we wish to honor any meaning
he made have given to the term. The First Leading Thought is:
"Anthroposophy is a path of cognition from the spiritual
in man to the Spiritual in the Universe."
Some times instead of "cognition"
erkennen has been translated as "knowledge" but the
German speakers I have met suggest that the term is less noun
and more verb - referring to an activity, not a thing.
This means that to Steiner anthroposophy is
something that we do. This doing means a gesture in movement
from our own spirit, our I, to the I of the Universe (Christ?).
If cognition is a good rendering of erkennen,
then we have to do with thinking, which is certainly what Steiner
seems to have suggested by his epistemological works. This being
the case than someone is an anthroposophist, following Steiner's
meaning of the term, who practices those disciplines connected
to thinking that lead from the individual I-am to the Cosmic
I-AM.
This thinking is described by others such
as Kuhlewind, Ben-Aharon and the Italian Massimo Scaligero, in
great detail.
These thinking disciplines are not just any
old kind of thinking, but are rather carefully elaborated in
the epistemological works, and if one understands them in practice,
than the difference between Anthroposophy and Steinerism is clear.]
You, Bradford, make a long post below in
which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding
the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.
That statement presupposes that you can
enlighten us about the topic at hand and correct our errors.
Please tell us all about the Asuras then.
[No it doesn't presuppose any such thing.
It says quite clearly that I don't believe you know what you
are talking about in that regard. So far all you have said in
response to my questions is to proclaim that opinions are valid
in this field of discourse. I disagree.]
Should we want to appreciate this, we need
only look to Dan D. and Peter S., for they commit the same evil
gesture as the perfect mirror of what they have seen. They too
live in beliefs, have no authentic interest in the truth, and
following that excess of passion (which the double encourages
to cover up the soul's own valid doubts about our beliefs) they
attack what they don't like (if it is different from my beliefs
it must be wrong and evil).
I don't see any difference between what
they do, and what Tarjei did in ascribing Asuric causality to
all manner of social evil that he "perceived", but
had no true knowledge regarding.
No wonder they're having a field day with
your posts on the WC list when you write so much bull. Drawing
conclusions based upon information provided through Steiner's
lectures does not make anyone a Dan Dugan of PLANS. And your
claim that your "love of Steiner" - whose personal
moral character you drag into the gutter by publishing "Work
on What has Been Spoiled", which is a piece of dirty gossip
- makes it so hard for you to accept that people discuss and
have opinions about the content of Steiner's lectures, does not
hold water.
[Well, I can understand your distress. You
have yet to provide a justification, in terms of Steiner's epistemological
works, for proclaiming that what we read in Steiner represents
"knowledge" in the sense those works describe. As to
Catherine's work that is on my website, what does that have to
do with anything, other then being a lame shot on your part trying
to distract the conversation from the real subject under discussion
- namely: do we as anthroposophists have to actually know anything,
or can we just be content with beliefs. I mean Tarjei - "dirty
gossip" - is that the best you can do with regard to something
written by someone who is not here to respond. Sounds even more
like the WC list.]
[Continued
in another thread]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Steinerhead
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:50:22 EST
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
In a message dated 1/8/04 6:14:26 PM Joel
writes:
One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko
addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the
false view that being "spiritual", means being nice
- being polite. In the 12 Steps, we can have (and need to have)
someone called our "sponsor". Were this person to be
"nice" to us, we'd both soon be lost. Everything is
about detecting bullshit as soon as it surfaces, and before it
can cause harm. Here on this list the b.s. flies fast and furious,
just like most anthroposophical groups and branches I have been
in over the years, and many internet discussion lists as well.
Dearest brother Joel,
My old Sponsor of ten+ years used to always
tell me that, "there's a wrench for every nut in the world."
He was good at not letting me believe in my own bullshit, but
he was also, at times, very kind and polite. I understand the
need for rigorous self-honesty, but having sponsored a few different
people, I realize the importance of meeting them where their
at, which is always slightly different for each person. "Some
are sicker that others." This reminds me of something in
the POF (can't remember exactly so please correct me...but do
it nicely please) about how a truly Moral act is subject to the
individual circumstances surrounding it.
I realize that you said you give Tarjei shit
cause "he can handle it, and will stick to his guns,"
But what about those of us who are enlivened by the idea of pondering
ancient mysteries, and bringing ideas to the surface, that might
help us make better sense of our place in the world? How do you
know that some of us have no knowledge about these things?
I heard a speaker recently who was very involved
in a hard-core sponsorship family that practiced brutal honesty,
and what they called "tuff-Love." This might have been
well and good for most, but it was to much for one of them, and
he wound up blowing his brains out. He was not using when he
did this, and had been clean for many years.
I'm not sure about the difference between
bullshit and the putting forth of ideas that seem to make sense.
All the words that Steiner used to describe the Spiritual world,
were metaphorical references used to help make better sense of
his ideas. These ideas supposedly came to him by direct cognitive
experience of this "Spiritual world" that supposedly
exists beyond our physical senses. Now, until I can fine-tune
my clairvoyant abilities, and read the Akasha as Steiner supposedly
did, I'll need to settle for the ideas the bubble up from time
to time, and throw them out there in a freespeach forum and see
if they hold together.
I wasn't "making nice" to Tarjei
as much as I was making nice to the fact that I learned something
from his notion about these Asuras bad guys. A newer stronger
version of an older idea came to boil within me and it rang true
in my heart. And then you come along and crashed the party, and
now I've got more living ideas bubbling up that need rendering...
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:34 am
Subject: Re: Closet Manicheanism/The Hunger
--- In [email protected],
Joel Wendt wrote:
You, Bradford, make a long post below in
which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding
the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.
Dear Joel;
That certainly was a fine post you crafted
in response. I guess, knowing how you hate to go unanswered,
it requires 'fair and balanced' response to what I didn't raise
and had put so much of the burden of proof onto your wide shoulders.
Grampa?
Proof requires that we enter into exactly
what you brought up so wisely Joel, the inner effort to determine
if the fragments and shed cast off of the Imprinted lower ego
in this the lower world we inhabit, will be used to rip fragments
of identity of the body off the I Am. Tarjei did not cover it,
as far as I could see he dropped the usual mother of all bombs
in the middle of the list and watched us scramble and scatter
for cover.
Joel it was your intuition and accurate piercing
of the problem that opened the gates to what merely stands there
as some sensational blabbering that Steiner uttered after having
one too many Starbucks with triples shots.
Did anyone go there? WEll not only has Joel
gone into Media investigation but he as also gone into research
on Man and Animal. So taking up the profound links of what is
left as shedded antlers, the animal kingdom doesn't have the
specific identity markers that are imprinted by the I AM in its
descent into incarnation. You know why that is of course! It
is because each I AM is an entire species that leaves its corpse
trail, DNA, "Gattica" skin markings, sperm code in
rape victims, fingerprints, Iris identity, voice idenity and
heat signature, as a cast off product of the gods.
This heat signature is used in Military for
missile tracking. Occultly the signature of the astral body,
the etheric body and Tarjei minor indication about those souls
who are inhabited by beings that are serial killers, should not
be given a premature death penalty. Why? Because the Life Force
should expend itself within the shell of the body that has been
inhabited. Life term and let the life force run out of gas on
its own with the genii still corked in the bottle.
If we send the soul over prematurely, cyanide
wise, (which is food for the very beings we do not wish to encourage
- Remember that the blood of Alien in the Alien films was Acid
). So we do not want to let these decaying shells cook and become
vehicles and festering astral shells that any black magician
or any lab researcher seeking to enhance viral weapons can tap.
Is this too hard to understand? This is the
missing factors of Science and where do the Asuras play a part
in such an idea that Steiner presented after his fifth latte?
Well it is in the by-products of the cast off ego that were explored
not only with the Nazi concentration camp experiments but with
the entire J.E. Hoover and Hitler, Ahrimanic fall out. In America
Mr. Hoover started externally tracking the I AM with fingerprints.
Do we wish to think about these things? Well
I do, but as I said Joel, you supplied the richest critical observation
which opened the window and knocked it off its sensational footstool.
Do we wish to understand the Death penalty and how hundreds of
human beings are sitting on death row, when their DNA would show
that they shouldn't have been executed in the first place.
Which brings me to the Angel of Death and
the Angel of the Death Penalty, George Bush. There are many bad
souls in the universe. Saddam was one. One that we encouraged
to gas thousands of souls and supplied the weapons to do so.
George gained his whole cowboy stance in the idea that arbitrary
death penalty, thoughtless, unpenetrated sentient soul bull shit,
feeds beings on the otherside of the threshold. The death penalty
is not wrong because it is an error to kill humans and sit sentimentally
as if we aren't macho enough. It is rather that we are in a very
important phase of seeing into biological weapons, occult weapons
and using them with Ahriman's usual blinders to shoot ourselves
in the foot.
This is the 'Carapace' mystery. So, if we
stand in an instant replay of Atlantis, we see that cloning,
mixing beast and human, animal and plant codes, we come into
the fragmention of "The Finished or Accomplished Work of
the Gods". Ahrimanic forces are assisting our ride toward
the Asuric fragmentation of the I AM. They want the cast off
ownership of the "Finished Work of the Gods" for themselves.
We have made to wear, form fitting etheric
bodies. We have ready to wear form fitting, specifc astral bodies.
These are not interchangable parts and pieces. But Baconian science
and Ahriman with Darwinian foundations hasn't a clue about herds
of animals that aren't imprinted with I AM identity. Look at
us trying to trace specific beef and turning the animal kingdom
and us into cannibals. Cannabalising the I AM, the etheric, the
astral and making distorted copies of Dollies or Geeps is not
the same as pulling down fragments of the I AM, grave robbing
in the Stephen King sense of the word, and cannabalizing creation
itself.
That which was made out of the Stars...ARe
we getting this people? That which is made specifically for your
I AM and with all due respect, shuttles us from our I AM in the
spiritual world to a specific tone, and devachan NAME and identity
in the physical world is a unique, one owner vehicle. But the
gods have left the building, like Elvis. The Gods except those
that have truly concerned themselves with keeping the little
Earth Incarnation system open for Humanity, have left the building
like Elvis.
It just us and matter and beings who are scrambling
over the cast off portions of the I AM, the I AM etheric, the
I AM astral that are starving for dinner and do not wish to fall
any lower in the chain of being and will use every means to eat
what has fallen off the Masters Table. Our military budget pays
for ways to feed them. Are we insane? Don't answer that, after
all you do want to sleep well tonight don't you. Well take comfort,
there is nothing you can do but go ahead with the sincerity of
your path.
Now this concept of the Dogs eating what falls
off the Masters table applies all the way up to black magic in
military and super virus experimentation to assault the immune
system of humanity. Lab rats with white coats are diligently
working for cannabalizing, linking and bridging the gulf to a
world of deadly, consuming Asura beings. Their rank is rather
Sorathian. Astral passions are real tasty food and I bet, you
can bet they are very hungry critters.
Sexually we attempt to devour each other,
but in the passions, pathologies and carried karmic gruemsomeness,
a Jeffery Dahlmer and others are waiting in the wings to feed
off of ----- here I must break off, because it is rather ugly...but
let me just say that Snuff films and various appetites that are
now cultivated are desperatly seeking food.
Do we have the ethical strength to have a
U.N.; A death penalty policy; A cloning and biological warfare
policy; that follows the high road? We do not! We do not! We
do not! Why, because we fail to think through with depth of vision
just what Joel and Tarjei brought up. It has been brought up
many times and usually the best we can do is go.. OOOOOH MY 666-1332-1998...OHHHH
scary. Stephen King is a better guide and watcher on the Threshold
than we as members of the Michael School.
If copies of the Astral, Etheric and Atma
body of the Christ being can be reserved for humanity, what other
beings and methods will be used to get fallen copies that feed
the hordes of beings that crave what humans have been given freely.
Grace-The Fall-The Freedom and the Christ Being. Why in hell
do we call it the Central Intelligence Agency...well friends
there are hundreds of these well paid thoughtless idiots running
around. The problem with Stephen King's "The Stand"
is that these beings don't want humanity to be wiped out..they
need us as food. These Beings would be happy to have us in Matrix
tubes, dreaming of how wonderful sentimental and good we were.
So, I question what Tarjei brought and I question
that the type of safeguards that should be shouted from the roof
tops in the Michael School is just so much pablum for sensationalism.
So if it could come to serious discussion and we walked into
how the I AM sits as a Living Signature of unique revelation
in the system of mineral, plant, animal and human and we were
mature enough, by the Gandalf school of Barlog, turning our hair
white... we would stop this flag waving stupidity and this massive
military budget and this idiotic push to outer space. Will we?
Well folks, its because of the limp dick of the Michael School
and our petty picking on Stephen King that we fail to see anything.
I hate catastrophe. I hate the very idea of
what humnaity did in the concentration camps. I hate to see a
child abused, misdireted and robbed of their intelligence and
their innocence. Unless we punch right back effectively...as
this TIME requires, the whole mystery of what 1998 means will
just take our little sentimental sweetness and serve it up...
Cook Book lesson - "How to Serve Man"... run, it is
a recipe book not a book on how to best do the right thing by
Man. Run for it.
So, Joel, I think Tarjei merely made us look
at how stupid and immature we are. Because, as Steiner has so
wonderfully indicated, we are on the Brink of the very best that
the Christ Being can offer and the very worst that humanity can
do to itself.
Death penalty;
Cannabalizing Mad Cow;
Cannabalizing creation;
"The Finished Work of the Gods";
"The final solution"
And if we bring to extinction all manner of
animal beings on the planet, what becomes of their orbiting capacities,
their orbiting group soul contributions..do we absorb these extinct
species back into super capacities created from labs.. Do new
super instincts and super animal intelligence become rerouted
into our cheering and immoral culture? Will the SuperMan, severed
from the Gods appeal to us more than the humble loving penetration
of child, matter and nature that Christ offers us to rebuild
our shattered souls? Get Gandalfian here, or at least stay away
from the sharks until we learn how to swim..and at this rate,
it may be a long tragic learning curve.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:57 pm
Subject: Re: Closet Manicheanism
Joel wrote:
Everyone is so nice and polite, and this
encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply
by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any
of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific
research that was independent of the authority of others.
Dottie:
I just can not stand arrogance like this anylonger
without commenting. Each person has a different task to accomplish
here. When one reveals how one knows such a thing from a spiritual
experience it is shot to hell. When one tries to use the physical
sense of such a mystery as the Magdalene/Lazarus one is shot
to hell by the likes of what you have written here.
I not only have a clue I have the mystery.
And to push it further to say how I have it just makes no sense
as it would be ridiculed to all hell. Visions and meditation
seem to go only so far and because one can not express it in
physical intelligent terms seems to be a reason to disregard
it. Too bad one does not go in and search the spiritual worlds
to see if what was discussed is an actual reality before declaring
this work of mine as to being one without a clue.
Too bad, your loss,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Dear Mike,
What you write below is very important. Obviously
I painted an extra stark picture, but as a friend has said to
me, in this Age of Michael, we need both sword and shield. Along
the same lines, my favorite Buddhist teacher wrote a book called:
Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.
We are raised materialists - its almost in
our bones and our blood. Becoming "spiritual" often
carries with it the ideas of materialism in all kinds of ways
we wouldn't expect. We seek to be spiritual, but bring materialistic
thinking even to our spiritual striving.
One way we do this is to engage in thinking
activity which is not spiritual in nature, but rather only substitutes
a spiritual theory of the universe for a material one. Instead
of believing in the Big Bang and Evolution, we believe in the
Prior Incarnations of the Earth and the teachings of Revelations.
In both cases we don't know, we only believe.
The purpose of the consciousness soul age is to go beyond beliefs,
to experience - to add to faith, knowledge.
Yes, it is fun to spin ideas about cosmic
evolution and who the heck was Lazarus, but we would do well
not to assume that we are being "spiritual" because
our theorizing is based upon Steiner's teaching. It is even worse,
in its effect on the soul, if we take Steiner's teachings, which
are only at best a map, and mistake them for the territory.
What happens is that when we spin fun ideas
about the spiritual, we end up playing with maps, and sometimes
end up arguing about whose map is best, meanwhile forgetting
that there is an actual territory. Further this territory is
not out there some place, but right inside us, right in front
of us.
If you can give me a concrete example of how
answering the question of who was Lazarus/John, or speculating
on the nature of the Asuras, actually helps someone with the
moral dilemmas of life (for each step forward in spiritual development,
one must take three steps in moral practice - RS), then I'd find
it easier to support such speculation. If you can convince me
that playing with imaginary maps is "anthroposophy",
then I'd be glad to encourage this activity.
I don't think you can do this. I could tolerate
it more (this playing with maps) if it was balanced with a real
discussion of practice, and a sharing of what is being learned
in the journey the ancients called: Know Thyself! I could tolerate
it more if this playing with maps was joined to discussion and
sharing about how it helps a particular person become more conscious
of their own inwardness. I would love to see such balance on
this list.
Do I seem harsh to you? Good, I intend to
be harsh. Too much is at stake. It is a duty I choose under the
principles and experiences defined and pointed toward in The
Philosophy of Freedom. I owe it to Rudolf Steiner, and my being
liked or not liked for saying these things is irrelevant.
warm regards,
joel
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 23:50, Steinerhead wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/04 6:14:26 PM Joel
writes:
One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko
addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the
false view that being "spiritual", means being nice
- being polite. In the 12 Steps, we can have (and need to have)
someone called our "sponsor". Were this person to be
"nice" to us, we'd both soon be lost. Everything is
about detecting bullshit as soon as it surfaces, and before it
can cause harm. Here on this list the b.s. flies fast and furious,
just like most anthroposophical groups and branches I have been
in over the years, and many internet discussion lists as well.
Dearest brother Joel,
My old Sponsor of ten+ years used to always
tell me that, "there's a wrench for every nut in the world."
He was good at not letting me believe in my own bullshit, but
he was also, at times, very kind and polite. I understand the
need for rigorous self-honesty, but having sponsored a few different
people, I realize the importance of meeting them where their
at, which is always slightly different for each person. "Some
are sicker that others." This reminds me of something in
the POF (can't remember exactly so please correct me...but do
it nicely please) about how a truly Moral act is subject to the
individual circumstances surrounding it.
I realize that you said you give Tarjei
shit cause "he can handle it, and will stick to his guns,"
But what about those of us who are enlivened by the idea of pondering
ancient mysteries, and bringing ideas to the surface, that might
help us make better sense of our place in the world? How do you
know that some of us have no knowledge about these things?
I heard a speaker recently who was very
involved in a hard-core sponsorship family that practiced brutal
honesty, and what they called "tuff-Love." This might
have been well and good for most, but it was to much for one
of them, and he wound up blowing his brains out. He was not using
when he did this, and had been clean for many years.
I'm not sure about the difference between
bullshit and the putting forth of ideas that seem to make sense.
All the words that Steiner used to describe the Spiritual world,
were metaphorical references used to help make better sense of
his ideas. These ideas supposedly came to him by direct cognitive
experience of this "Spiritual world" that supposedly
exists beyond our physical senses. Now, until I can fine-tune
my clairvoyant abilities, and read the Akasha as Steiner supposedly
did, I'll need to settle for the ideas the bubble up from time
to time, and throw them out there in a freespeach forum and see
if they hold together.
I wasn't "making nice" to Tarjei
as much as I was making nice to the fact that I learned something
from his notion about these Asuras bad guys. A newer stronger
version of an older idea came to boil within me and it rang true
in my heart. And then you come along and crashed the party, and
now I've got more living ideas bubbling up that need rendering...
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
At 00:27 11.01.2004, Joel wrote:
If you can give me a concrete example of
how answering the question of who was Lazarus/John, or speculating
on the nature of the Asuras, actually helps someone with the
moral dilemmas of life (for each step forward in spiritual development,
one must take three steps in moral practice - RS), then I'd find
it easier to support such speculation. If you can convince me
that playing with imaginary maps is "anthroposophy",
then I'd be glad to encourage this activity.
Do you believe that publishing articles smearing
and insulting Rudolf Steiner's personal character helps your
three steps forward in moral practice? While doing this, you're
questioning the morality of others on this list because they
like to discuss Rudolf Steiner's lectures, demonology and the
nature of evil and the authorship of the Gospels! This you consider
morally questionable!
I call that hypocrisy, Joel. You're hurling
bricks from a glasshouse.
Do I seem harsh to you? Good, I intend
to be harsh.
Very well. I intend to be frank.
Too much is at stake. It is a duty I choose
under the principles and experiences defined and pointed toward
in The Philosophy of Freedom. I owe it to Rudolf Steiner, and
my being liked or not liked for saying these things is irrelevant.
What you owe to Rudolf Steiner is an apology.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Closet Manicheanism
GO DOTTIE!!!!!!
(YEAH!!! GO EOWYN!!! GO SOPHIE!! GO JEANNE
D'ARC!!!)
Keep thinking, Keep feeling, Keep working,
Keep swimming, swimming, swimming.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Dear Tarjei,
I have made some comments below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 18:29, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
At 00:27 11.01.2004, Joel wrote:
If you can give me a concrete example of
how answering the question of who was Lazarus/John, or speculating
on the nature of the Asuras, actually helps someone with the
moral dilemmas of life (for each step forward in spiritual development,
one must take three steps in moral practice - RS), then I'd find
it easier to support such speculation. If you can convince me
that playing with imaginary maps is "anthroposophy",
then I'd be glad to encourage this activity.
Do you believe that publishing articles
smearing and insulting Rudolf Steiner's personal character helps
your three steps forward in moral practice?
[let's examine the logic of your comments
regarding my placing on my website Catherine's article. First,
you distort her clear meanings (and in fact in some instances
lie about it), and in effect invent what you think it says (smearing
and insulting Steiner's personal character), without actually
quoting anything from the article. Second, you suggest that because
I have posted this article, whose meaning you have invented,
this means that something is wrong with me. Now this is exactly
how Peter S. behaves on the WC List. He invents the meaning of
Steiner's writings (claiming it is racist), and then condemns
by association those who support Steiner's works.]
While doing this, you're questioning the
morality of others on this list because they like to discuss
Rudolf Steiner's lectures, demonology and the nature of evil
and the authorship of the Gospels! This you consider morally
questionable!
[Please quote where I "questioned"
the morality of others on this list.]
I call that hypocrisy, Joel. You're hurling
bricks from a glasshouse.
Do I seem harsh to you? Good, I intend
to be harsh.
Very well. I intend to be frank.
Too much is at stake. It is a duty I choose
under the principles and experiences defined and pointed toward
in The Philosophy of Freedom. I owe it to Rudolf Steiner, and
my being liked or not liked for saying these things is irrelevant.
What you owe to Rudolf Steiner is an apology.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:43 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Dear Joel,
I find your definition of an Anthroposophist
likened to that of the Christians who claim sole true understanding
of Jesus' intent.
In reading your posts I am quite shocked at
how abrasive you become when you claim to just be 'giving the
facts mam'. You do yourself a disservice as well as others. If
you look to emmulate Steiners work and make it your own, you
wouldn't dare treat peoples understandings in the manner you
have. This is not Christ like and it has nothing to do with respect
rather it has to do with the teachers crede. And it seems to
me you may lack the ability to understand or even care the journey
others take.
Your claim, whether you are aware of it or
not, that you have the true definition of Steiners work, does
a great disservice to those studying and applying themselves
to the Anthroposophical Stream.
I do not find your work to be in comparison
to Catherines because although she may propose us to rise to
questions, and I do not like talking about her when she is not
on list, you seem to think you know the answers. And that is
fine if you do, but your mannerisims and way of bringing them
forth show a different story. Now, I have been appreciating your
words when suddenly this ugly devouring persona comes up and
looks to denigrate others through your own intellectual learnings.
I can see your point on many things yet the devouring guy comes
up and just leaves you standing alone. And it will time and time
again. And that may be fine with you but one day it will not
be fine.
I also have the question in my life if I am
to share what I sense in others or if I am to keep it to myself.
And on further reflection I can see as to why that particular
biography reacts in a certain way and then I have a better understanding
not only of my self but also of the other person. Whereas you
just do not seem to know when to stop and what is right and wrong
in regards to your personal conclusions on others thoughts. YOu
seem to think, and I know that sometimes it is right, that one
can tell by how one writes or speaks, denotes their spiritual
understandings but you are not wholly correct. And in there is
your missing link it seems to me.
Now, I write this because it was quite shocking
to see to the extent you are willing to harm others yet declare
it to be truth. Which then leads me to know you do not in fact
know the truth or you would not have demonstrated yourself in
the manner you have against your brothers and sisters with total
lack of understanding.
It is funny to see one act as if something
a person says has not touched inwardly when in fact one can see
it has by the reaction of said person. Lots of wounding going
on for no reason other than to show our true selves so that we
might get to the bottom of what is needed for our lives. It just
seems like you Joel only recognize what you percieve as others
truths and only see yours in a light manner as if you have already
handled that. It's not handled.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Closet Manicheanism
Dear Dottie,
I've made some comments below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 23:57, dottie zold wrote:
Joel wrote:
Everyone is so nice and polite, and this
encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply
by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any
of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific
research that was independent of the authority of others.
Dottie:
I just can not stand arrogance like this
anylonger without commenting. Each person has a different task
to accomplish here.
[I agree.]
When one reveals how one knows such a thing
from a spiritual experience it is shot to hell.
[This may be true in your mind, but it certainly
was not in Steiner's practice, nor in those who have published
since with similar depth (Tomberg, Ben-Aharon, Kuhlewind etc.).
All of these spoke deeply of method, for it was our common method
that makes what we do "science".
I am not disputing your experience, which
is no doubt quite wonderful, but I would betray Steiner's legacy
to let it be called spiritual scientific work.
When one tries to use the physical sense
of such a mystery as the Magdalene/Lazarus one is shot to hell
by the likes of what you have written here.
[I'm sorry Dottie, but I don't understand
this.]
I not only have a clue I have the mystery.
[You might very well have the mystery, but
Steiner's effort was that we all become able to have the same
mystery, by finding a shared method.]
And to push it further to say how I have
it just makes no sense as it would be ridiculed to all hell.
Visions and meditation seem to go only so far and because one
can not express it in physical intelligent terms seems to be
a reason to disregard it. Too bad one does not go in and search
the spiritual worlds to see if what was discussed is an actual
reality before declaring this work of mine as to being one without
a clue.
[Please reread what I wrote, for the term
"clue" was followed by the following: "based upon
original spiritual scientific research..." This problem
is precisely the matter under discussion in Gordienko's book,
and the failure to hold ourselves to "standards" of
research methods is what has eaten the scientific heart out of
the anthroposophical movement and made it vulnerable to the vague
mystical leanings of Prokofieff.
For all your reading of Steiner, have you
read "True and False Paths in Spiritual Investigation"?]
Too bad, your loss,
Dottie
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:44 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Dear Dottie,
okay, lets assume that you are right and I
am wrong as regards what anthroposophy is about, and what Steiner
intended for it.
in that case please answer the following questions,
quoting Steiner, since it is Steiner who we are "interpreting".
What is spiritual science?
How is spiritual science practiced?
What evidence is there that this practice
stands behind what people generally post to this list?
warm regards,
joel
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:43, dottie zold wrote:
Dear Joel,
I find your definition of an Anthroposophist likened to that
of the Christians who claim sole true understanding of Jesus'
intent.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
Joel wrote:
okay, lets assume that you are right and
I am wrong as regards what anthroposophy is about, and what Steiner
intended for it.
Dear Joel,
Please lets not assume I am right about anything
nor you wrong. You have so many hard working years in anthroposophy
and your mind and ability to convey your learning is amazing.
From when I first met you until now I sense even more great gifts
being offered than ever before. And, then, there is this other
part of you that seems to think, or at least it seems so to me,
that you know better than all the rest. It is a devouring energy
of sorts is how I experience it.
I get the way you challenge people to think.
I get what you have attained for yourself through this Steiner
process. But it seems you leave no room for others to grow into
a thing. It's either black or it is white and there is no in
between regarding their personal process of being an anthroposophist.
My way seems to have been different than yours
to start out with. My brain, I truly do believe, is not hardwired
like yours and many of those that study Dr. Steiner. I am more
like, in my thoughts, those unlearned men who he had a great
respect/love for, that others could not understand. I am a simple
person looking for Christ in my life and in others. I am looking
to allow Christ to live through me as well as the angels. I give
myself up to that.
I started out with ArchAngel Michael his mission
and ours. Took me years to get that book and by the end I knew
and felt Michael in my life. I had actually felt it before which
is what made me pick up the book in the first place: I was so
shocked that there was actually an Angel named Michael.
You state in the other post to me that I seem
to have had nice experiences regarding Michael and all. They
were not nice they were absolutely terrifying. I was studying
Dr. STeiners Guidence of Essoterica when these things started
to make themselves known to me. The only thing that calmed me
was the idea as put forth by Dr. STeiner that 'these things happen
always around us, it is just now that we can see them'. I brought
these things down before me and looked at them and contemplated
how a thing of this nature can be known to me and then my quest
to help make them palatable to others whom I loved.
I studied that particular book and did those
particular meditations and daily and monthly excercizes for many
hours a day for years, as my soul intent was to know Christ on
a different level: I felt pulled to know Christ in the spirit.
'In the purest outpoured light
shimmers the godhead of the world
In the purest love towards all that is
outpours the godhead of my soul
I rest within the godhead of the world
there shall I find myself
in the godhead of the world.'
And suddenly after hours upon hours of daily
meditations a white cloud parted before my eyes and all was made
clear. EXCEPT that I pulled myself out of it because I did not
know what was going to be shown and I had not built my courage
up to see that, whatever it was. And many other things happened
as well. There are just certain experiences that makes one aware
of others who have crossed a certain line so to speak.
So, my path has taken me from seven years
old and accepting Christ to Dr.Steiner confirming for me all
the questions I had regarding the Bible. Christ is all there
is for me and that is who I seek. Steiners book allowed me to
find my moral high ground tied to the spiritual worlds. Through
his exercises I found the spiritual world and my self. He, through
his work, allows me to strive for congition in a way that seems
not natural to my brain. I have said it before and I will say
it again 'I am unrecognizable to my self'. I strive for the way
to think in the manner that you, Harvey, Catherine, Tarjei, Bradford
and Paulina do. These ongoing discussions are so absolutely painful
to me but I know I am to continue to find a way to rise my brain.
In here is my quest with these students of
Steiner. I am so much more comfortable with Jacob Bohme. I get
him so easy. I know this work so easy and so well.
So, for me to hear you say this is the only
way one can truly be called an anthroposophist feels really really
wrong. And not just for me but for the many others that you claim
the same. And I get what you are saying regarding 'seeing' others
thinkings and knowing what might be missing for them in the learning
and so forth however the way you handle it shows what you are
missing and I do not know if you are aware of it or not.
And I also have to apologize in the manner
I sent my two emails to you. I was feeling a little gnarly and
wished I had waited to send it in better thoughts. I have not
read what you have written below as I am in Philly on vacation
with my family and I am not sure I can handle any more confrontation
at this point. If I do not find it to be pushing me to far in
my head I will respond if not I will respond when I get back
from Philly.
Joel
in that case please answer the following
questions, quoting Steiner, since it is Steiner who we are "interpreting".
Dottie
Okay, I can do this.
First of all why would you like me to quote
Steiner versus what lives within me from his teachings? I shall
answer how I percieve within me Steiners teachings for me. That
which lives within me.
Joel
What is spiritual science?
Dottie
Spiritual science is the study of the spirit
using verifiable ways of knowing, something that can be traced
by certain exercises that will bear that which anyone can find
depending on the talent of ones spirit in that particular lifetime.
There are certain practices/methods that attain enlightment.
And the fruits of this labor are clear to those who reverantly
apply these methods to ones life.
Joel
How is spiritual science practiced?
Dottie
Well, I practice it by the methods laid out
in How To Know Higher Worlds and also by Essoteric Guidance.
I observe all that is around me and I question the beginningness
of the thing appearing before me. I contemplate all that surrounds
me as in nature, humans and that which is unseen but felt by
me. I sink myself into that which I lead myself and am sometimes
that which I am led to. I sense into the spirit of the words
spoken by the person before me. I try to work from the seat of
the heartmind which seems to think within me. I sense my self
outside my self and realize that I am walking the body and recognize
others walking their bodies as well. I see Christ and want to
know how it is that I see him. I see Magdalene and want to know
how it is that I see her. Nature seems to fold/bend/shipshape
itself around meanings and answers to the questions I ask and
I look to see how that is. I work every minute of the day on
my self in order to be Christ like in my nature. To be one with
Christ is what I work towards through the exersizes that have
opened a whole world before my heart. To contemplate the alchemist
from an inner level as a soul experience.
Joel
What evidence is there that this practice
stands behind what people generally post to this list?
Dottie
Well Joel I don't think that is fair. We are
all at different levels of attainment. Harvey and Catherine are
the closest to what I understand is produced out of this work.
One can see it in their writings that they have gone to a place
and their ongoing changes bear further growth since when I had
first met them. And yet they both appear to hold different poles
within the same spiritual teachings. Harvey seems more in touch
with Grace than Catherine yet Catherine has a fine point finger
that shows light on how such a thing can be achieved as does
Harvey. But I sensed Grace making her way closer to Catherine
towards the end of that magnificant Ark journey.
I see quite a few here that have their thinking
linked with Steiner and you as well in the sense that it is intellectually
vibrant. I sense the true striving to know a thing. I just go
to know love more than I love intellect although I do strive
hard to understand in a similar manner as you all do. Then I
wonder if you strive to know love as well as I do. Is one more
important or do they go hand in hand at some point?
Steiners work bears itself out within the
person so studying it with a reverant heart. The idea that one
can not enter into a deeper relationship with the spirit world,
if he still holds the ability to hurt others on purpose, or carelessly
has always been at the forefront of how I live my life since
reading Steiner. I have failed miserably at times but that is
the goalpost while I walk further on the path towards Christ.
I am wondering Joel, if you see the part of
you that doesn't work? I see that part of my self very clearly
and again it is extremely painful. Truly. Can the heart and the
intellect meld into one that we take into consideration that
which befalls our fellow man? Or am I the most important aspect
of our fellow man?
Steiner knew more than all the rest but he
loved us to ourselves. If anyone could have claimed a moral high
ground or act in a pompass manner there is none better than he.
He is the most in my mind. He revealed Christs words in a way
that allows us all to attain a Christ like nature. There is goading
and then there is loving ones fellow man to himself, hence ourselves.
There is showing man not how much I know rather how much he knows
that saves the day.
If I want to know more I am aware it is available
to me. As of yet I am still not ready within me to experience
the spiritual worlds as a full true reality, naked so to speak.
It can be in this lifetime if I so allow it and it has nothing
to do with my outer intellect. It has to do with my inner intellect.
Love,
Dottie
p.s. It occurs to me that you and others might
think I am totally clueless when it comes to Steiner. And that
is okay. I shall keep doing what I do and when I am no longer
afraid and have built the courage to move further I will and
it will be because of Dr. STeiners amazing gift to humanity of
which I am deeply grateful.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism
At 17:06 12.01.2004, Joel had a little temper
tantrum:
let's examine the logic of your comments
regarding my placing on my website Catherine's article. First,
you distort her clear meanings (and in fact in some instances
lie about it), and in effect invent what you think it says (smearing
and insulting Steiner's personal character), without actually
quoting anything from the article. Second, you suggest that because
I have posted this article, whose meaning you have invented,
this means that something is wrong with me. Now this is exactly
how Peter S. behaves on the WC List. He invents the meaning of
Steiner's writings (claiming it is racist), and then condemns
by association those who support Steiner's works.
As Star Trek's Spock would say: Fascinating.
First off, I did quote Catherine's article
to illustrate my point, but in all this excitement with so many
flame wars, I've forgotten whether it was before or after you
posted this message, so I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt.
If I quoted her before you shot this bullet, it could blow your
argument clean off. Do you feel lucky, Punk?
Secondly, I have not suggested that something
is wrong with you. That doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with
you, but I have never offered to diagnose your condition, whatever
it may be. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with you; I have no
idea.
Thirdly, I don't think it matters much that
you put me and Peter Staudenmaier in the same box, because he
puts me and you in the same box. In other words, it's you and
Peter S who play by the same rules, not me and him.
Fourthly, it's no invention of mine, and no
lie, that Catherine MacCoun is smearing and insulting Steiner's
personal character with her article. Cruel sado-masochism does
not make Steiner human; it makes him sub-human and suggests that
he practiced some kind of sexual magic. I don't know if you've
been into Aleister Crowley trying out any of that stuff, but
isn't Franz Bardon's magic something similar?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
