Summary and Temporary Goodbye
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:05 am
Subject: summary and temporary goodbye
Dear List-mates,
I will be leaving tomorrow to go to New England
for two weeks, to give two public political talks, and two talks
about aspects of my current work - basically what I am going
to do, now that I have "retired" from working for "the
man" (one on the anthroposophical background to the coming
seminars: "Conversations in the Key of Love - eros and agape
in the modern world"; and the other on "Moral Grace",
which concerns the inner relationship between the Philosophy
of Freedom, the 12 Steps, and the What Would Jesus Do movement).
I will also be there visiting my girlfriend,
meeting some of her family I have yet to met, and making plans
for our mutual future.
At the time of writing this I am packing,
and there still are 26 unread messages in my message cue for
this list (and no doubt more will arrive before I leave tomorrow).
I will try to read as many of these as possible and reply, but
in the interim, I'd like to recapitulate what I see as going
one here.
This all began when I questioned Targei's
"authority" to speak as regards whether certain social
phenomena were reflections of the activity of the asuras.
There have been a lot of strong reactions
(which is good in my view), but certain aspects of these reactions
are quite troubling.
Dottie, for example (she is not the only one)
resents what I am doing as it appears to her that I am abrasive
and not Christ-like. Similar characterizations have been made
by others.
The plain fact is that at 63 I am not only
entitled to be the way I am being, but rather obligated to speak
for the truths with which life as graced me. I either begin to
pass on what has been given to me, or I will choke on it. What
appears in the soul must "pass through" or we become
more and more "constipated".
Those of you are are much younger will resent
this, for one of the characteristics of youth is egoistic confidence
of a certain kind, while one of the characteristics of age is
cultivated ignorance. When I get up in the morning, and do my
daily "exercises", I pray to be of service and express
deep gratefulness for what comes to me each day as teaching,
and then as the day goes forward, I either trust what arises
in my soul, or that part of my soul will die (Emerson says: "In
self trust all virtues are comprehended").
Now the most curious thing, for those who
might want to look objectively at the last several days on this
list, is that the reactions to what I have said have been universally
emotional, accusatory, and almost never speak to the points being
raised.
Targei, for example, slides off to the side,
attacks me for being in sympathy with Catherine, but never really
addresses whether or not he has been a spiritual scientist in
his pronouncements upon what in modern social life is or is not
asuric.
This characteristic of not responding to what
are legitimate questions (what entitles us to claim to know spiritual
facts?) is quite common here. Instead of arguing with what is
presented by me concerning the method of thinking that is needed
in order for one to justify that one has real knowledge, most
everyone indulges themselves in emotional personal attacks against
me.
I quote Steiner's First Leading Thought, but
no one argues against that, or what I suggested logically follows
from that Thought. I refer to Gordienko's book, with its clear
examination of what it means to be a spiritual scientist, and
the role of criticism in any kind of science, but no one - No
One - meets that point in any way, but rather each tries to slide
off to the side and find something wrong with me.
The assumption is that since what I write
suggests that folks on this list have not entirely been operating
as spiritual scientists, or following the clearly enunciated
rules regarding knowledge in the epistemological works, or regarding
spiritual research in True and False Paths, this is an unjustified
moral judgment on my part. But no one goes beyond claiming I
am wrong to be judging, to begin addressing the real issue as
to what it does mean to be an anthroposophist (spiritual scientist).
Frankly it doesn't bother me at all to be
denounced. I assumed this would happen when I began this line
of inquiry. After 18 years in mental health, I've been cursed
by the best, and as my Buddhist teacher once remarked concerning
folk's dismay when you speak truth: "Be like a rock in a
waterfall".
I have no desire, by the way, to be anyone's
teacher. That temptation I dealt with a long time ago, during
a period of life when I suffered a case of hubris big enough
to stink up a house. At the same time, life teaches, and old
farts have to pass on, whether the younger assholes like it or
not. If just one sentence sticks to someone who is not even posting
to this list, but just lurking, then all the upheaval has been
well worth it.
For any who might be interested in my current
work, here is a small book being worked on: human becoming, at:
http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/human%20becoming.html
warm regards,
joel
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m <bryanmillermail>
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
Well, Joel, I for one thoroughly appreciate
your messages and interestingly enough never detected in your
words aggression or arrogance, though I believe they were real
for others. I guess this only goes to show how our individuality
affects our perceptions. Keep writing, my friend.
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
Joel wrote:
There have been a lot of strong reactions
(which is good in my view), but certain aspects of these reactions
are quite troubling.
Dottie, for example (she is not the only
one) resents what I am doing as it appears to her that I am abrasive
and not Christ-like. Similar characterizations have been made
by others.
Dear Joel,
This is exactly what I am speaking on regarding
you think you know about another and the truth is you do not.
1) I am not resentful in anyway and for the most part appreciate
your posts, 2) I think the word is more like arrogance versus
abrasive in how I have seen these last posts of yours regarding
others and 3) I do not think my writings say anything about you
not being Christ-like. And if I did make such an insinuation
I would be way out of bounds. I definitely do not feel you are
un Christ-like.
Have a great trip to New England and much
success in your talks. I do wish you were around in Cali so I
could attend a few of them.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
Yeah Joel,
Quoting you directly:
"WHATEVER???"
Have a nice trip!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
Joel wrote:
The plain fact is that at 63 I am not only
entitled to be the way I am being, but rather obligated to speak
for the truths with which life as graced me. I either begin to
pass on what has been given to me, or I will choke on it. What
appears in the soul must "pass through" or we become
more and more "constipated".
This and the next paragraph is pure Lucifer.
No one is entitled to a way of being, and no one on a spiritual
path can afford to justify negative traits as a right of old
age. Further, silence is one of the most powerful tools for self
development. Rather than becoming "constipated" you
develop inner strength when you actively resist the urge to talk.
Hence the importance of vows of silence in monasitc orders. It
is a trick of Lucifer by which one sees ones weaknesses as strengths,
and if there is any "proof" of a failure to meet the
lower guardian, it is in the paragraph above.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
[Joel wrote:]
I quote Steiner's First Leading Thought,
but no one argues against that, or what I suggested logically
follows from that Thought. I refer to Gordienko's book, with
its clear examination of what it means to be a spiritual scientist,
and the role of criticism in any kind of science, but no one
- No One - meets that point in any way, but rather each tries
to slide off to the side and find something wrong with me.
Joel,
Perhaps you are not listening (reading). I addressed Gordeienko's
book directly in relation to an artilcle you wrote that I reviewed
here for the list. I could have been more explicit. Gordienko
would probably criticise aspects of your article the same way
she went after Prokofieff. She was explicitly contemptuous of
Prokofieff as a "Teacher of Morals" and she would no
doubt have the same objection to parts of your writing. Morals
are taught by example, and not by moralizing. You seem to have
read Gordienko selectively, latching on strongly to the "it's
important to criticise" theme. If there is any criticism
of Gordienko, it is that she could have made her point far more
effectively if she had altered her tone. Appearently she herself
realized this, since she did not want her manuscript published.
It was published posthumously, but I imagine that if she had
lived, she would have rewritten it in a more moderate tone.
Further, Gordienko criticised Prokofieff strongly
for (in her opinion) presuming to talk like an initiate without
having undergone initiation. The body of her book is finding
all the spiritual-scientinfic "discoveries" of Prokofieff's
that he (again, in her opinion) is not capable of justifying
given his acknowledged failure to meet the Lower Guardian of
the Threshold. The article you recommended to me repeats this
failure, speaking of spritual realities as fact where nothing
in your background gives any indication that you are an initiate.
The thrust of all my responses to you has been to coax you towards
looking at the lower guardian, but you seem determined to avoid
this step.
I hope you have a good time in New England,
and I look forward to your reply when you return.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
Joel wrote:
This all began when I questioned Targei's
"authority" to speak as regards whether certain social
phenomena were reflections of the activity of the asuras.
Tarjei advanced a hypothesis. He wasn't modest
enough to preface it as such. Others noticed, but you jumped
at him. The reactions were not so much to what you said, but
to how you said it. People lost the point because of the delivery.
This is the same problem Gordienko has. I have been suggesting,
over the last several posts, that you might consider adjusting
your tone to be more effective in discussions. This point appears
to have been lost on you, and instead you bemoan your fate as
an ignored prophet of true Anthroposophy. Adjustment of tone
requires adjustment of attitude, and therby some inner work.
You, on the contrary, state that you have done all the inner
work necessary, and the problem is with everyone else. This is
a statement of arrogance, and quite luciferic. It is also in
contradiction to the morality you have been preaching. People
attempt to call you on it, but you see it as "personal attaks".
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
Joel Wrote:
The assumption is that since what I write
suggests that folks on this list have not entirely been operating
as spiritual scientists, or following the clearly enunciated
rules regarding knowledge in the epistemological works, or regarding
spiritual research in True and False Paths, this is an unjustified
moral judgment on my part. But no one goes beyond claiming I
am wrong to be judging, to begin addressing the real issue as
to what it does mean to be an anthroposophist (spiritual scientist).
Dear Joel,
I respect your question. I was involved in "Practical training
in thought" for a while; doing all the exercises suggested
in KHW, and Occult science; practicing the Rik-shaw (sp?)ect,
on top of many years of meditative study. The result of which
brought me in direct contact with an aspect of myself that I
can only describe as intrinsic morbidness. A very lucid sense-free
figure was set in my minds eye, that, had I not been prepared,
through years of gut-wrenching Moral inventories, would have
scared the living daylights out of me. In fact, there was a moment
where fear swelled up to the point of goose bumps, but I kept
my concentration, and the fear lessened, and then I realized
I was staring at what we would call "the lesser Guardian."
So, here is a result of my own Spiritual scientific research
that I have confirmed for myself. But to be honest, something
doesn't jive with me about the idea of trying to talk about it.
I think that what Daniel said about silence is very valid, and
I remember somewhere (in KHW I think) that suggestion being made.
And, didn't Steiner keep silent for quite a while?
Is this what you are suggesting? That we share the results of
our personal Spiritual scientific research? If so it would help
a newcomer like me to here you (and Others - Hey Bradford, are
you listening?) share some of the results you have come to, and
the "Method" by which you achieved them.
Thanks in advance
Truth and Love
Mike
PS, I'll see you at Ghor farm on the 25'th.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] summary and temporary goodbye
At 20:05 13.01.2004, Joel wrote:
The assumption is that since what I write
suggests that folks on this list have not entirely been operating
as spiritual scientists, or following the clearly enunciated
rules regarding knowledge in the epistemological works, or regarding
spiritual research in True and False Paths, this is an unjustified
moral judgment on my part.
The problem with this is not only that Joel
hereby claims to be an "operating spiritual scientist,"
but when he projects this onto advanced seership stuff like the
Asuras, he is, just like MacCoun who portrays RS as a practitioner
of Jungian-occult sado-masochistic kink, Steiner's peer - provided
that Knight Rudy is knocked offf his horse first in the ethical
department!
Joel reminds me of "dr. Apop" in
the opening sequence of my mini-play, "Anthroposophy in
Court":
Apop Religion in Court
I just imagined a session
in court with an apop on the witness stand trying to establish
that anthroposophy is a science and not a religion:
- So Anthroposophy is not
a religion?
- It most certainly isn't.
- And Anthroposophy is not
even religious?
- Of course not. It is scientific.
- Scientific?
- Correct. Anthroposophy is
not a religion, it is a science.
- You have us a little puzzled
here, dr. Apop. Tell me, Isn't Anthroposophy a teaching about
gods, angels, archangels, demons, and life after death?
- That's right.
- And that is not religious?
- No it isn't. It has nothing
to do with religious faith. It's science.
- Angels are science? Would
you mention some examples of documented scientific evidence of
angels, dr. Apop?
- It's all in dr. Steiner's
Basic Books. Just follow his exercises and see for yourself.
- And that is what you have
done, dr. Apop?
- Not yet, but I will very
soon.
- So you have not seen these
angels yet.
- No, but I have experienced
them in my willing, feeling, and thinking.
- I see. Your willing, feeling,
and thinking is the best you can produce as evidence of angels
being scientific and not religious?
- Of course not. Dr. Steiner
researched them thoroughly. They are absolute scientific facts.
- But you have not seen these
scientific facts. They have not been recorded by any microscopes
or other instruments. You will soon see these angels, but until
you do, are you certain that you do not believe in them religiously,
accept dr. Steiner's claims on faith?
- Of course I don't. I'm a
spiritual scientist. I see the proof of angels in my thinking,
feeling, and willing.
The rest of this mini-play can be read at
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocourt.html
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: summary and temporary goodbye
Mike wrote:
Is this what you are suggesting? That we
share the results of our personal Spiritual scientific research?
If so it would help a newcomer like me to here you (and Others
- Hey Bradford, are you listening?) share some of the results
you have come to, and the "Method" by which you achieved
them.
Dear Mike
In looking at people who keep silent regarding
their personal investigations it seems to me that it is hard
to trust that your discoveries will not be used against you.
Esoteric developement seems to be a seroius business and something
one reveals may not be considered legitimate or even fantasizing
to a certain extent.
And this email realm is really such a hard
place to trust to reveal ones most inner revelations as it can
be really trampled on by people thinking they 'get you' when
in actuallity there is a lot of projection going on considering
ones own spiritual discoveries.
With that being said, looking at Jerry's post
today, about how it is considered that really no one has attained
whatever they think we should attain according to Dr.Steiners
teachings, one can never be good enough according to other peoples
opinions. And I think that sucks.
I personally would like to know,if you can
share it, what the Lower Guardian appeared to you. See, to me
the Lower Guardian appears to be me and what I have done to hurt
my original state of being. And from that moment I get to love
that which I AM and have done and begin the 'ascent' with a new
understanding. Sojourner Truth spoke of a similar moment when
she was confronted by what she percieved as being 'God in an
instant' and from that moment on she was confronted by the horror
of her behaviours towards her children and such and worked to
better herself.
Since the first time having read of this Guardian
I have been terrified to see it or even contemplate it. But,
I really have come to understand, it is because I do not know
the true capacity of Love. For if I did, I would know that no
matter what is seen or confronted, Love conquers all. And in
that I melt and slowly make my way to see that which is abhorrent
within me. And to me this is going to the Mothers: that all knowing
love that has existed since the beginning of our existance.
My Best,
Dottie
p.s. I am happy for you that you are finding
a way to dig out and work your relationship to the best it can
be. I think we can all do that whether it be in our love relationships,
family or even internet friendships. I think it is through this
we all truly grow towards the highest ideal we can have of ourselves.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:34 pm
Subject: Spiritual Scientific Research
[Dottie wrote:]
Mike wrote:
Is this what you are suggesting? That we
share the results of our personal Spiritual scientific research?
If so it would help a newcomer like me to here you (and Others
- Hey Bradford, are you listening?) share some of the results
you have come to, and the "Method" by which you achieved
them.
Dear Mike
In looking at people who keep silent regarding
their personal investigations it seems to me that it is hard
to trust that your discoveries will not be used against you.
Esoteric developement seems to be a seroius business and something
one reveals may not be considered legitimate or even fantasizing
to a certain extent.
Mike:
Yes. The fear of being judged is defiantly a factor. I think
also that there is a huge gap when it comes to language, that
makes it even more difficult to relate experiences.
In the movie "Final Fantasy", human beings had made
a discovery that allowed them to record their dreams, using a
technology they called "the Bio Etheric Wave." Sound
like an Anthroposophical thing, doesn't it?
Now, something like that might help. But then again, knowing
what little I know about the intellectual soul, It would probably
make things more difficult. You can always count on it (intellectual
soul) to screw up a free lunch. Any honest person, with a certain
amount of emotional intelligence, can look at our worldly societal
situation, and see that (IMHO) the idea of a truly humane society,
in which every human being matters, ought to be serious business,
and it certainly sounds ligitamate. But for the intellectual
soul, which pretty much governs most of our societal affairs,
it is but a fantasy.
So my question is: Why should we be afraid to be judged by intellectualism,
and its resulting inhumane consumer-culture?
Dottie:
And this email realm is really such a hard
place to trust to reveal ones most inner revelations as it can
be really trampled on by people thinking they 'get you' when
in actuallity there is a lot of projection going on considering
ones own spiritual discoveries.
Mike:
Dennis Kloeck talks allot about the difference
between intuition and fantasy in his book,"Seeking spirit
Vision." My personal projections or fantasies about my so
called spiritual discoveries, usually have more to do with my
obsessions and personal bias. They are "a form of cognitive
stagnation", which always end with -- ME. My truly intuitive
experiences are something quite different. For they always have
a more fluid and universal "god in an instant" character
to them.
Dottie:
With that being said, looking at Jerry's
post today, about how it is considered that really no one has
attained whatever they think we should attain according to Dr.Steiners
teachings, one can never be good enough according to other peoples
opinions. And I think that sucks.
Mike:
I think that sucks too. And I refuse to believe it. Reason being,
is that it sounds to fixed. Lets put a PERIOD at the end of the
sentence that says that we little morons will never reach the
level of Steiner. Well, I guess that leaves us to Worship him
as a Guru then. And to that I say....
FUCK THAT!
Dottie:
I personally would like to know,if you
can share it, what the Lower Guardian appeared to you. See, to
me the Lower Guardian appears to be me and what I have done to
hurt my original state of being. And from that moment I get to
love that which I AM and have done and begin the 'ascent' with
a new understanding.
Mike:
For me it's also my self destruction; my arrogance
based on ignorance; all the Hell that I lived, which is "a
time, a place, our a state of mind in which there is no LOVE."
As for the pictorial cognitive experience that I had, to which
I assigned the words "Lower Guardian", I have to say
again that it was not something that we see or experience in
our waking consciousness.
I have been blessed/plagued with frequent Lucid dreams from the
time that I was a child. Two of which were precognitive, in that
they actually predicted events that were to happen years later.
These experiences, along with astounding synchronistic events
(many of which my wife can attest to) have left an irrefutable
certainty about the universal nature of thought in me.
With that, I will say that one morning last year, while waking
up, I had a lucid dream experience: There was a three dimensional
wall (if you can picture that) through which a kind of melting/burning
process started to make an opening of sorts. Something in me
knew that what was coming through was horrifying, and I started
to hyper-ventilate. But another part of me knew that I had to
see it. This intrinsically morbid figure slowly burned its way
through, and when it finally appeared, I stopped breathing. It
did not move; it just stared at me with what you might call eyes.
There was not the slightest hint of any HOPE at all in this thing.
It was so sad to see it there looking at me for the first time,
as if it knew who I was.
Dottie:
Sojourner Truth spoke of a similar moment
when she was confronted by what she percieved as being 'God in
an instant' and from that moment on she was confronted by the
horror of her behaviours towards her children and such and worked
to better herself.
Mike:
I've had a moment like that. Not the "Lower
Guardian" thing, but a more inspiring moment, where I realized
an aspect of myself that I had only till then theorized about.
"God in an instant" sums it up quite nicely.
Another experience I had when I was 26, that
put me on a path to try and make sense of all this consciousness
stuff, was during a guided meditation; where I experienced for
a split second, a vision of a landscape in my minds eye in which
I could see in all directions, 360 degrees, all at the same time???
Dottie:
Since the first time having read of this
Guardian I have been terrified to see it or even contemplate
it. But, I really have come to understand, it is because I do
not know the true capacity of Love. For if I did, I would know
that no matter what is seen or confronted, Love conquers all.
And in that I melt and slowly make my way to see that which is
abhorrent within me. And to me this is going to the Mothers:
that all knowing love that has existed since the beginning of
our existance.
Mike:
There's an old saying: "The pain of doing
it, is less than the pain of not doing it."
I don't know the capacity of LOVE either. It think some of it
lies in the fluid unfixed moments of our lives when we experience
each other as human beings; as connected in some way, weather
in person, or on the internet. It's so easy to put a persons
intellectual ponderings and personality in front of their humanity,
and then cast a final judgment. I'm totally guilty of this with
Peter S.
My Best,
Dottie
p.s. I am happy for you that you are finding
a way to dig out and work your relationship to the best it can
be. I think we can all do that whether it be in our love relationships,
family or even internet friendships. I think it is through this
we all truly grow towards the highest ideal we can have of ourselves.
Mike:
Thanks Dottie, I was miserable and lonely
for six months living away from my family. I had many opportunities
to cure the pain with a new romantic/sexual fling, but I hung
in there, and for that I am extremely grateful.
Things are fresh with my wife and I, and my children are very
happy to have me home.
Now if someone would just drop a big bag of money in my front
lawn??
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:57 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Scientific Research
Mike wrote:
So my question is: Why should we be afraid
to be judged by intellectualism, and its resulting inhumane consumer-culture?
Hi Mike,
Because it might discount the work we have
done and we would look bad in anothers eyes. And another factor
is that many are not able to make the leap because of how inhumane
this internet thing is. People can jump out and ruin a reputation
based on one paper or at least try kind of like a witch hunt
or something. WE are creating these egregors everyday and it
is pretty sad.
I mean it seems to me that we do not count
on these relationships to actually be anything real. We can walk
away and never speak to the person again. Now there are some
that stick together but for the most part there is a real strong
distrust. I find it funny people say that 'you are not in my
karma so balyhou to you'. It's not true. Just because it is internet
does not make it any less important that the way we treat others
in our lives. We will all have to pay for the way we treat one
another, whether that be on line or at home, it does not matter.
Now, if we could all get real with one another
and agree to respect that others feel differently and agree that
we are all looking to grow through all of our experiences things
might be different. But that would require we see each other
as true brothers and sisters of Anthroposophy. I do not have
and have not had much hope in the way the Christians handle themselves
but somehow I expect(ed), which is a fault of mine it seems,
that Steiners students would behave differently regarding the
revelations left to us by Christ and clarified by Dr.Steiner.
In thinking on Silence, yes I understand the
beauty of that. The whole silence is golden and so forth. However
there does come a point, I believe/think, when one might get
to point where a thing can be shared so as to be, and agreededly,
worked through or even a confirmation for others who may be having
the same type of experiences happen or that begin happening.
Having said that I am so way guilty of speaking before it was
jelled in me and that really taught me a lesson. And that is
where Steiners thought in How to know higher worlds, regarding
not speaking until it is clear inside or others might respond
and the delicate spiritual sprout trying to grow up can be wilted
until another time.
You shared about a burnishing. I get that.
That figure I have not seen however I have had other things burnish
through that were absolutely amazing. I have not had it in a
while but I know when I am light of spirit and allow my self
to just be, these kinds of teachings return.
And I am glad you put a word to it: burnishing.
It's actually like that isn't it? For me it tends to come in
from the dark of my minds eye and then slowly comes into being
and then once recognized it slowly passes away.
Mike:
My truly intuitive experiences are something
quite different. For they always have a more fluid and universal
"god in an instant" character to them.
Dottie
Yeah I get that. But I am unfortunately a
doubting Thomas and it takes a few minutes after the fact and
sometimes days after to really confirm within me that I just
experienced that and come to know it.
Mike:
Well, I guess that leaves us to Worship
him as a Guru then. And to that I say....
FUCK THAT!
Dottie
Well I would have to say I can appreciate
that.
Mike:
As for the pictorial cognitive experience
that I had, to which I assigned the words "Lower Guardian",
I have to say again that it was not something that we see or
experience in our waking consciousness.
Dottie
Well, Mike, I think these things too can be
seen in our waking consciousness although it is highly unlikely.
I have had my eyes wide open when doing a workshop on Faireys
one time and the eyes that I had been seeing on the inner side
appeared to me on the outer yet inner. It's hard to explain but
it can happen.
And it is right in here where problems arise
with sharing things. One person will say 'oh that's not real'
and maybe because of her/his lifes experiences she/he is halucinating
or maybe even she is delusional and so forth. All this phsychoanlizing
of why the other person has not seen such a thing. I keep hearing
that 'oh I do not want to be spiritually gifted and all that
comes with it and so forth' and yet these same people will judge
others who dare to make the leap.
Mike:
With that, I will say that one morning
last year, while waking up, I had a lucid dream experience: There
was a three dimensional wall (if you can picture that) through
which a kind of melting/burning process started to make an opening
of sorts. Something in me knew that what was coming through was
horrifying, and I started to hyper-ventilate. But another part
of me knew that I had to see it. This intrinsically morbid figure
slowly burned its way through, and when it finally appeared,
I stopped breathing. It did not move; it just stared at me with
what you might call eyes. There was not the slightest hint of
any HOPE at all in this thing. It was so sad to see it there
looking at me for the first time, as if it knew who I was.
Dottie
Yeah I get that. It's pretty amazing. But
you just gifted me with something really wonderful. You are the
first person in my three years on the net, that I can recall,
who actually shared that particular experience. And now I feel
a bit more courageous as it seems to be the process. I for some
reason have thought it as to be something that would appear outside
of me and would scare the shit out of me. But its' not is it?
It's not some big monster that is going to eat me up and all.
I think because I was still a noncourageous cat when first discovering
Steiner it scared me deeply. I mean my nightmares would scare
me to the point where I would have to wake my self up and out
of them and right quickly I might add. But now I can stay in
any nightmare that might have normally had me up all night. And
this I found through Steiners words and his exercizes.
Mike:
Another experience I had when I was 26,
that put me on a path to try and make sense of all this consciousness
stuff, was during a guided meditation; where I experienced for
a split second, a vision of a landscape in my minds eye in which
I could see in all directions, 360 degrees, all at the same time???
Dottie
I had something similar in a way and it is
how the things confirm for me now. I am laying in bed thinking
about things before I open my eyes when suddenly somethign will
come in from the dark and make itself known to me. One most poingnant
one was where a little white cloud or opening slowly cleared
the dark away and I could see a mound of dirt right in front
of me as if I was standing just before it or something. And then
I noticed to my left I heard a hammering of sorts. And then beyond
the mound I saw a castle of sorts in the backround with a field
of sorts that separated the mound from the road a bit of a distance
off. In pondering this I wondered if I had not been at Golgatha.
With the steady hammering and the way it appeared to me this
was a strange possibility. So I called up a Palestinian friend
of mine and here he lived and walked that road everyday. He said
it was off the Villa della Rosa which is the road he would take
home everyday and that there indeed was a castle/vineyard of
sorts that could be seen in the backround. And that was a pretty
amazing thought that somehow something inside of me is trying
to make itself known.
Mike:
I don't know the capacity of LOVE either.
It think some of it lies in the fluid unfixed moments of our
lives when we experience each other as human beings; as connected
in some way, weather in person, or on the
Dottie
But we can feel the love in others can't we?
And we can feel the love when others share it with others. That
is the moment when I am the most happiest: seeing others loving
one another.
Gotta run to catch a four day train, whew,
Love,
Dottie
p.s. I am such a hermit in my private life.
I really only go out to work with the homeless youth and so forth.
This train trip was absolutely excruciating because when one
goes to eat in the dining car one is put in a group of others.
And it was horrifying but once I got into what was being shared
I could calm down until the next time I had to go eat where I
would suddenly be thinking about whether or not I had to eat:))))
I love that I have been put in the situation to see how isolated
I have become outside my work. Things are needing to be changed
it seems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
