"saints" are only bullshit
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:31 pm
Subject: "saints" are only bullshit
At 07:35 15.01.2004, Jerry
wrote (to Jan):
Do you term it as such because, had Steiner
been guilty of any of the things Catherine wrote about, his work
should have been immediately discarded? The idea that Steiner
had to be perfect to be able to do what he did is, in my opinion,
a bit naive and not very realistic.
This line of reasoning is on collision course
with Knowledge of the Higher Worlds (and many other of Steiner's
lectures). For each step you make in esoteric knowledge, you
should make three steps toward perfecting your personal character.
The conclusion to be drawn from your allegations is that Steiner
did not follow his own guidelines, which in consequence would
make him a hypocrite and a liar.
Perhaps you don't only have a problem with
contemplating Saint Steiner, but with contemplating any saints
at all. They don't exist and have never existed because they
all have skeletons in their closets? John the Evangelist was
an abusive ass from time to time? And Christ, of course, had
lovers and played around with his women. Sainthood is bullshit
and not to be contemplated.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:14 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "saints" are
only bullshit
Tarjei, this is just completely over the edge.
I've studied Knowledge of Higher Worlds intensively, and I think
you have misunderstood. A thorough grasp and deep respect for
morality--not that I'm claiming these for myself, but I do feel
I have some understanding of what would constitute that state--does
not always override passion, or prevent an occaisional slip.
I wouldn't presume to know what the situation might have been
with Steiner in that regard, regardless of whether I knew him
to be guilty of the things that Catherine theorizes or not. But
as I've said all along, I wouldn't rule it out.
Are you, in fact, claiming that Steiner was
a perfect human being? If so, you are the one who is contradicting
the man, not me, and I wish you would take time out from sarcasm
and explain your reasoning. Then kindly explain to me what constitutes
perfection. Like I said, I'm ready to be corrected but not abusively.
Somehow I doubt that your thinking on the subject is so flimsy
that you feel it's your only recourse.
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:52 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "saints" are
only bullshit
At 05:14 16.01.2004, Jerry wrote:
Tarjei, this is just completely over the
edge. I've studied Knowledge of Higher Worlds intensively, and
I think you have misunderstood. A thorough grasp and deep respect
for morality--not that I'm claiming these for myself, but I do
feel I have some understanding of what would constitute that
state--does not always override passion, or prevent an occaisional
slip.
I agree. But we're not talking about an occasional
slip or an outburst of passion here.
I'll give you an example of Steiner's occasional
unreasonableness and of how he corrected himself afterwards:
It's at the end of some notes from Andrei Belyj's memoirs:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/belyi.htm
"A friend also described to me this warmth
that seemed to emanate directly from the heart. She had arrived
altogether unexpectedly, to leave again soon, and for a long
time. She had the absolutely urgent desire to be received by
Steiner, but the Doctor was overburdened; he couldn't suppress
the annoyed exclamation: 'Why do you come during the conference?
I don't have a free minute!' And my friend replied in the same
vein, 'We cannot come whenever we want to, only when we are able
to!' She turned around and walked away. She heard a voice calling
her name and looked around. Doctor Steiner was running after
her with outstretched arms; he took both her hands, was full
of warmth..."
That's a classic example of Steiner's "occasional
slip." there is a world of difference between that and the
sadomasochistic dimension Catherine attributes to Steiner's relationship
with Sprengel, which is the heart of Catherine's defamation,
innuendo, and slander against Steiner. I'm left with the distinct
impression that you cannot see what a serious charge she
is laying against him.
I wouldn't presume to know what the situation
might have been with Steiner in that regard, regardless of whether
I knew him to be guilty of the things that Catherine theorizes
or not. But as I've said all along, I wouldn't rule it out.
I would.
Are you, in fact, claiming that Steiner
was a perfect human being?
No I'm not. If he had been perfect, he wouldn't
have been annoyed with the woman in the episode cited above.
Cheers,
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
