more questions,
more anwers
in my view?
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:30 am
Subject: in my view?
Daniel:
[from
"questions and answers"]
You have never conceeded a point no matter
how I put it, or how many times I reiterated it.
Peter:
[from
"more questions, more anwers"]
That's true. You haven't made any successful
arguments yet, in my view. Don't worry, I'm a patient fellow.
Mike:
I think that the statement "in my view"
is a key factor here.
I think that Detlef, in his view, has proved you wrong about
your translation.
I think that Sune, in his view, has proved that you deliberately
publish untruths.
I think that Daniel, in his view, had proved that you are not
a credible scholar or historian.
I think that Bradford, in his view, has proved that you are a
dialectic materialist, and you really don't know much at all
about an anthroposophical world view.
I think that Tarjei, in his view, has also proved that you really
don't understand much at all about an anthroposophical world
view, and that your motives are clearly bent on destruction and
association smear tactics.
I think that Patrick, in his view, has proved that you are trying
to pull the wool over our eyes, and participating in a smear
campaign.
I think that Andrea, in his view, has proved that you don't photograph
very well...:)
I think that Bryan, in his view, has prove that you think like
a machine (and he learned to write poetry as a result).
I think that Dottie, in her view, has proved that you are a slippery
eel-like shape-shifter when it comes to debate.
I think that Paulina, in her view, has proved that your motives
for your attacks on RS are connected to the proliferation of
your own ideological bend.
And I think that I, in my view, have proved that you really don't
understand the hands on true nature of "Empathy."
And I also think that I, and many others, agree with all of the
above. You have been proved wrong by many people on this list
and no amount of icy-witted vigilance/audacity is going to change
that.
Sorry if I left anyone out, or if I got it wrong in some way.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] in my view?
Hi Mike, you wrote:
I think that the statement "in my view" is a key
factor here.
Yes, of course it is. You thought maybe there was some committee
somewhere that determined whether specific arguments are successful
or not?
You have been proved wrong by many people on this list and
no amount of icy-witted vigilance/audacity is going to change
that.
Yes, that's obvious. According to your standards of "proof",
there is no way that this could ever change. All of the people
you mentioned believe that anthroposophy cannot possibly be racist.
This a priori belief prevents them from formulating meaningful
arguments about the issue; all they keep saying is that Steiner
must have meant what they want him to mean, because after
all, that's just how anthroposophy is. Oblivious to the tautology,
they think that this stance renders their understanding of Steiner
immune to criticism.
Sorry if I left anyone out, or if I got it wrong in some way.
No, you got it all exactly right. This is why people who do not
consider critical thinking a tool of Ahriman find the 'arguments'
presented on this list so amusing: those who hold as a matter
of faith that Steiner cannot possibly ever have taught racist
doctrines are, amazingly enough, impressed by the claims put
forward by Steiner's would-be defenders.
Moreover, some of you still think it a sign of arrogance when
non-anthroposophists point out that this self-congratulatory
atttitude does not indicate a particularly solid grasp of public
discourse, and when we gently explain that for this very reason
you are not exactly the ideal audience for rational and informed
debates about textual and historical matters. When we have the
audacity to make these rather simple observations, you think
we're saying that you are all terrible people who are stupid
to boot.
But that is not what critics of anthroposophical race theory
are saying. In my eyes, the sort of "proof" that you
find convincing does not mean you are all stupid or terrible
people. It simply means you have a lot of trouble making sense
of this particular topic. As far as the topic of anthroposophical
race theory goes, your behavior makes you, in my eyes, incompetent
readers, muddled thinkers, and poor judges of racism. It does
not make you liars, forgers, or survivors of childhood sexual
abuse. It remains unclear to me why you find this arrogant and
unempathetic.
Yours for public discussion,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] in my view?
Bull's eye, Mike.
Tarjei
At 19:30 23.04.2004, Mike wrote:
Daniel:
[from
"questions and answers"]
You have never conceeded a point no matter
how I put it, or how many times I reiterated it.
Peter:
[from
"more questions, more anwers"]
That's true. You haven't made any successful
arguments yet, in my view. Don't worry, I'm a patient fellow.
Mike:
I think that the statement "in my
view" is a key factor here.
I think that Detlef, in his view, has proved you wrong about
your translation.
I think that Sune, in his view, has proved that you deliberately
publish untruths.
I think that Daniel, in his view, had proved that you are not
a credible scholar or historian.
I think that Bradford, in his view, has proved that you are a
dialectic materialist, and you really don't know much at all
about an anthroposophical world view.
I think that Tarjei, in his view, has also proved that you really
don't understand much at all about an anthroposophical world
view, and that your motives are clearly bent on destruction and
association smear tactics.
I think that Patrick, in his view, has proved that you are trying
to pull the wool over our eyes, and participating in a smear
campaign.
I think that Andrea, in his view, has proved that you don't photograph
very well...:)
I think that Bryan, in his view, has prove that you think like
a machine (and he learned to write poetry as a result).
I think that Dottie, in her view, has proved that you are a slippery
eel-like shape-shifter when it comes to debate.
I think that Paulina, in her view, has proved that your motives
for your attacks on RS are connected to the proliferation of
your own ideological bend.
And I think that I, in my view, have proved that you really don't
understand the hands on true nature of "Empathy."
And I also think that I, and many others, agree with all of the
above. You have been proved wrong by many people on this list
and no amount of icy-witted vigilance/audacity is going to change
that.
Sorry if I left anyone out, or if I got it wrong in some way.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike
Helsher
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] in my view?
M:
I think that the statement "in my
view" is a key factor here.
P:
Yes, of course it is. You thought maybe
there was some committee somewhere that determined whether specific
arguments are successful or not?
M:
Well no, but you are a loose member of a committee
that has a very bias agenda.
M:
You have been proved wrong by many people
on this list and no amount of icy-witted vigilance/audacity is
going to change that.
P:
Yes, that's obvious. According to your
standards of "proof", there is no way that this could
ever change. All of the people you mentioned believe that anthroposophy
cannot possibly be racist. This a priori belief prevents them
from formulating meaningful arguments about the issue; all they
keep saying is that Steiner must have meant what they
want him to mean, because after all, that's just how anthroposophy
is. Oblivious to the tautology, they think that this stance renders
their understanding of Steiner immune to criticism.
M:
I'm not sure that we will ever resolve our
differences of what constitutes "Proof."
I don't believe that Anthroposophy, in written form, couldn't
possibly be interpreted racist. Quite the contrary. Especially
if that's all you're looking for.
I also don't believe that RS is thought of by many on this list
as being "immune to criticism." That's one of the reasons
that this list was founded as an open free speech forum.
If I may make a suggestion: Instead of saying "all they
keep saying" as you do above, you might want to try 'all
I keep hearing.' This kind of approach, I think, is much
more inclusive and less likely to set off other peoples defenses.
M:
Sorry if I left anyone out, or if I got
it wrong in some way.
P:
No, you got it all exactly right. This
is why people who do not consider critical thinking a tool of
Ahriman find the 'arguments' presented on this list so amusing:
those who hold as a matter of faith that Steiner cannot possibly
ever have taught racist doctrines are, amazingly enough, impressed
by the claims put forward by Steiner's would-be defenders.
M:
I think there's a fine line between "critical
thinking" and Cynicism. I don't really know much about the
"Ahriman" metaphor, except that it seems to represent
to much thinking with the head, and not enough thinking with
the heart.
Steiner"s would-be defenders?
P:
Moreover, some of you still think it a
sign of arrogance when non-anthroposophists point out that this
self-congratulatory atttitude does not indicate a particularly
solid grasp of public discourse, and when we gently explain that
for this very reason you are not exactly the ideal audience for
rational and informed debates about textual and historical matters.
When we have the audacity to make these rather simple observations,
you think we're saying that you are all terrible people who are
stupid to boot.
M:
Well, look at it this way, from the above
paragraph:
some of you still think...
when non-anthroposophists point out...
and when we gently explain...
you are not exactly the ideal...
When we have the audacity....
you think we're saying that you are all
terrible people...
P:
But that is not what critics of anthroposophical
race theory are saying. In my eyes, the sort of "proof"
that you find convincing does not mean you are all stupid or
terrible people. It simply means you have a lot of trouble making
sense of this particular topic. As far as the topic of anthroposophical
race theory goes, your behavior makes you, in my eyes, incompetent
readers, muddled thinkers, and poor judges of racism. It does
not make you liars, forgers, or survivors of childhood sexual
abuse. It remains unclear to me why you find this arrogant and
unempathetic.
M:
Maybe it's because those who utilize anthro
ideas on occasion, like me for instance, don't make sense of
it in the same way that someone else would. And why should I?
For someone that claims to be a anarchist,
you seem to adhere to allot of "standards" as to what
constitutes racism, incompetent readers, muddled thinkers and
the like. That surprises me.
I think that arrogance and a lack of empathy is, for the most
part, based on ignorance.
Reminds me of a saying of an old friend of mine who died of Aids
a while back. He used to describe his relationship to his understanding
of God as follows:
"It's like great sex
Mike. If you've had it, then you know what it is. And if you
haven't, well, how can I explain it to you."
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:14 pm
Subject: Ahriman and critical thinking (was: in my view?)
At 23:02 23.04.2004, Mike wrote:
I think there's a fine line between "critical
thinking" and Cynicism.
Indeed.
I don't really know much about the "Ahriman"
metaphor, except that it seems to represent to much thinking
with the head, and not enough thinking with the heart.
Without Ahriman we would have no intellect,
no science, no technology. Critical thinking is the fruit of
Ahriman's gift; it completes the autonomy and independence of
the individual that started with Lucifer's Deed. Ahriman is cold,
ice cold, but that's how our heads need to be. We need cold heads
- the brain does have lower temperature than the rest of the
body - and warm hearts, and with the latter comes also "the
thinking of the heart" that needs to accompany cold head-thinking.
It is slightly a misnomer to call Ahriman's
bestowal of the intellect, a "gift." The Deed of Lucifer
was a gift, and so was the Deed of Christ, but the Deed of Ahriman
is something else. It's not a gift, but "loot." Just
like in the Norwegian fairy tales where the hero must outwit
the troll, liberate the captive princess (the soul), and steal
the gold from the troll's lair deep inside the mountain. Once
again the hero is a thief, just like in Bob Dylan's "All
Along the Watchtower":
http://www.uncletaz.com/thiefspoke.html
In the same manner, man must steal the intellect
from Ahriman and give it to Michael. Ahriman has given man the
intellect in order to deceive him through it. Man's task is to
capture this treasure, the intellect, and get away with it without
falling prey to Ahriman's deceptive traps. And here is the clincher:
Every single one of us is more or less entangled in Ahriman's
deceptions and illusions. The first step towards true freedom
is to recognize such deceptions and illusions for what they are.
They cannot be abandoned right away, because our very brain functions
depend upon them.
The higher hierarchies contain
in their being the forces that have formed Saturn, the Sun, the
Moon and finally the Earth. If the higher hierarchies had expressed
their teachings amongst themselves, as it were, up to the Mystery
of Golgotha, they would have said: We can form the Earth out
of Saturn, Sun and Moon. But if the Earth were to contain only
what we have placed into Saturn, Sun and Moon it would never
have been able to develop beings who know something about death,
and can therefore develop the intellect within them. We, the
higher hierarchies, are able to let an Earth proceed out of the
Moon, on which there are men who know nothing of death, and on
which they cannot develop the intellect. It is not possible for
us, higher hierarchies, to form the Earth in such a way that
it is able to supply the forces which lead man towards the intellect.
We must rely, for this, on an entirely different being, on a
being who comes from another direction than our own - The Ahrimanic
Being. Ahriman is a being who does not belong to our hierarchy.
Ahriman comes into the stream of evolution from another direction.
If we tolerate Ahriman in the evolution of the Earth, if we allow
him a share in it, he brings us death, and with it, the intellect,
and we can take up in the human being death and intellect. Ahriman
knows death, because he is at one with the Earth and has trodden
paths which have brought him into connection with the evolution
of the Earth. He is an initiate, a sage of death, and for this
reason he is the ruler of the intellect. The gods had to reckon
with Ahriman - if I may express it in this way. They had to say:
the evolution cannot proceed without Ahriman. It is only a question
of admitting Ahriman into the evolution. But if Ahriman is admitted
and becomes the lord of death and, consequently, of the intellect
too, we forfeit the Earth, and Ahriman, whose sole interest lies
in permeating the Earth with intellect, will claim the Earth
for himself. The gods faced the great problem of losing to a
certain extent their rule over the Earth in favour of Ahriman.
There was only one possibility - that the gods themselves should
learn to know something which they could not learn in their godly
abodes which were not permeated by Ahriman - namely, that the
gods should learn to know death itself, on the Earth, through
one of their emissaries - the Christ. A god had to die on earth,
and he had to die in such a way that this was not grounded in
the wisdom of the gods, but in the human error which would hold
sway if Ahriman alone were to rule. A god had to pass through
death and he had to overcome death.
Thus the Mystery of Golgotha
meant this for the gods: a greater wealth of knowledge through
the wisdom of death. If a god had not passed through death, the
whole Earth would have become entirely intellectual, without
ever reaching the evolution which the gods had planned for it
from the very beginning.
- Rudolf Steiner: "Exoteric and Esoteric
Christianity" (Das Sonnenmysterium von Tod und Auferstehung),
Dornach, 2 April, 1922, GA 211)
http://www.uncletaz.com/exoeso.html
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:43 pm
Subject: Re: Ahriman and critical thinking (was: in my view?)
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Tarjei Straume wrote:
At 23:02 23.04.2004, Mike wrote:
I think there's a fine line between "critical
thinking" and Cynicism.
Indeed.
I don't really know much about the "Ahriman"
metaphor, except that it seems to represent to much thinking
with the head, and not enough thinking with the heart.
A god had to pass through
death and he had to overcome death.
Thus the Mystery of Golgotha
meant this for the gods: a greater wealth of knowledge through
the wisdom of death. If a god had not passed through death, the
whole Earth would have become entirely intellectual, without
ever reaching the evolution which the gods had planned for it
from the very beginning.
Refreshing Posts Knights of the Grail;
Holding 'Sting' against dialectical materialism
is as Andrea has rightly said, second string Nominalistic nut
cases incarnated to give us Michael/Goethean Realists are hard
time. Nothing like exercising the muscle. But say to you this.
That that substance which he breathed out on the disciples, Holy
Ghost, raw language bearing, thought lifting, tongues of flame,
is in very low simmer in every word of Spiritual Science.
Surely we can understand the Science of the
Christ contrasted against the shuddering show of nuclear blast.
Now there stood before the disciples, to touch, and to hold and
yet what was really the flowing substance of this gathering of
matter before their eyes? Archangel, Exusai and Thrones... Father
-Son and Holy Ghost... Father of matter, movement of the soul
and planets - language of thought as Archangelic Holy Ghost community
of Ideas seen in the thoughts of others and Karma of the Individual
Angels in the disciples, feeling the full impact of the New Breath
from the height of the Thrones. Creation had new air in its sails,
(" Lots of Love in that Room" -) Gee, Dialectical Materialism
would shrivel like a dried moth.
And arrives for us now, in our time, this
condensed dose of all the Love that the Michael School could
condense into - not a League of Nations allah Woodrow Wilson,
but a Thinking Community, a U.N. of the Holy Ghost streaming
from the periphery. Nice work Tarjei, Andrea, Mike.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] in my view?
Peter:
all they keep saying is that Steiner must
have meant what they want him to mean,
Oh man, this is just getting so stupid. I
mean it is way past stupid for a man your age and intellect to
continue in such a manner. And you are saying what Peter: Steiner
must have meant what YOU say he meant. Puhleassse man. Have you
no conscious whatsoever? No self reflection in any part of your
intellect?
Peter:
This is why people who do not consider
critical thinking a tool of Ahriman find the 'arguments' presented
on this list so amusing:
Yeah, that's right Staudenmaier, throw the
ol 'oh they believe in Ahriman comments to get your critic audience
past the point of recognizing your ignorance on the subject you
say you understand. You understand nothing and Detelf Hardorp
has showed you that piece by piece. Your argument has been disected
for all to see. Your ignorance of the subject rings loud and
clear: your arguements are nothing but straw men Staudemaier.
Nothing but straw men.
Your charade has been revealed by the great
students of Steiner and not a moment too soon. And by this you
have pigeonholed yourself into a polemic writer versus a Historian.
You have made yourself irrelevent to serious scholarship and
history. Too bad.
Dottie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
