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

Search this site powered by FreeFind