Mc Coun's pamphlet in a wider context
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:57 am
Subject: Mc Coun's pamphlet in a wider contextMcCoun's pamphlet
in a wider context.
McCoun's pamphlet in a wider context.
Dear listmates,
after having discussing, mostly on AT, various
issues about Mc Coun's pamphlet on 1915's events in Dornach,
it's time to examine it all in a wider context.
In my opinion there have been, and there are,
some streams in the world of Anthroposophy (or, to say better,
walking border-line between Ant. and something else) whose aim
is to find some "lack of something" inside Spiritual
Scientific path.
So, here and there, there was said, and it
is presently said again and again, that Steiner's path lacks
of "magic", "life", "warmth", (Tomberg
played a biggest role in those attempts and Heindel too acted
this way in the 1910s) "linkage between vertical and horizontal"
(this is Mc Coun's case) and so on.
So how have to look at these statements the
anthro-pops who, on the contrary are able to grasp the full completeness,
both for soul's and social life, of the inner development path
built by Steiner and carried on by people like Stein, Zeylmans
van Emmichoven, Polzer Hoditz, Colazza, Scaligero, Kuhlewind,
Lievegood, Ben Aharon among many others ?
Well if the lack of capacity of grasping the
wholeness of the path remain in a purely personal subjective
mood, that's only a personal problem of the guy involved in it
and a purely private karmic matter.
There is no social damage at all and, if in
case, we can try to help those guys.
The very problem arises when such a problem
begins to be spread all around in a somewhat "objective"
way by the means of a public communication via the media.
We have always seen, in the whole of the above
said cases, that, in order to support their statements, those
guys (some of them rather important in spiritual history of XX
Century) ended up to spread also lies and falsehoods. And here
the issue begin to become "smelling of sulphur".
This the case also in Mc Coun's pamphlet that
presents Steiner's personality in a slanderous, sadomaso way
(ridiculous better than dangerous indeed) ) and, in the same
time, keeps on forgetting the following facts.
1) Goetsch was a mental disturbed person that,
after leaving Dornach, spent all his years trying to denigrate
Steiner's work.
2) Springel was a personality who thought
of herself to be a great, great Initiate drowning more and more
in a sea of esoteric ambition also after having left Dornach
for the ambiguous gang of OTO.
And, talking about OTO here is also possible
to say that the whole of all the Goetsch-Springel querelle was
carried on following an occult attempt of OTO (maybe A.Crowley
himself) to disrupt the AS and Steiner's work.
What else ?
Andrea the Italian
...................................................................................................................................
From: kroklokwafzi2001
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:41 am
Subject: Re: Mc Coun's pamphlet in a wider context
Dear Andrea,
I am a German anthroposopher. Gisele invited
me to share this group. I have been following the happenings
on the market-place since about four weeks now. And I do get
the impression, that some critics should not be taken too serious.
Thank You very much for Your open words on McCoun. A "critic",
who cannot differ between an assumption and an insight, is not
critical against himself, he has no knowledge of his own foregoing
in the intellectual process. He would have no chance in any academic
discussion. His reasonings are not the result of insight. So
what can be his fundamental drive?
I think, he doesn't know his own reasons,
since he isn't able to observe his logic and to control it. This
would be fundamental for any scientific work. A full conscience
of ones own methods, thats what the time is crying for. This
"critic" is arguing like a drunkard.
We have had enough of his bottle!
Rolf from Hamburg
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: McCoun's pamphlet in
a wider context.
At 19:41 15.02.2004, Rolf wrote:
A "critic", who cannot differ
between an assumption and an insight, is not critical against
himself, he has no knowledge of his own foregoing in the intellectual
process. He would have no chance in any academic discussion.
His reasonings are not the result of insight. So what can be
his fundamental drive?
I think, he doesn't know his own reasons,
since he isn't able to observe his logic and to control it. This
would be fundamental for any scientific work. A full conscience
of ones own methods, thats what the time is crying for. This
"critic" is arguing like a drunkard.
First off, it looks like you're contributing
to my confusion about people's genders here - it's not always
easy to sort out when some names don't have 'male' or 'female'
written all over them or are in other ways misleading. I may
be wrong, but it looks like you're talking about Catherine MacCoun
here, who published her article "Work on What Has Been Spoiled"
back in 1996 or something:
http://members.aol.com/kitmac/workon.htm
Joel and other supporters of Catherine MacCoun's
article just call her Catherine and keep urging us not to criticize
her wonderful masterpiece because she is such a brilliant and
sensitive lady and good friend. She is in fact an accomplished
author:
http://www.isbn.nu/author/MacCoun,%20Catherine/
I call her by her last name, however, to remind
all those anthroposophist knights in shining armor who
defend her so valiantly, that I am not criticizing "dear
Catherine," but a published article by MacCoun, the writer.
One of MacCoun's knights is Joel Wendt, another
anthroposophist who is so impressed with the above-mentioned
article of hers that he has been featuring it as a guest essay
on his website for many years:
http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/ktmc1.html
Wendt just unsubscribed from Anthroposophy
Tomorrow because he did not get the adoration and admiration
here that he was seeking for himself and MacCoun, but the list
archives are public, so nobody needs to forward anything to other
lists or to former subscribers to get them to read it. They can
read it if and when they want to by visiting the Yahoo! website.
There was a curious phenomenon around Catherine
MacCoun that became known as the "Cult of Catherine."
A number of anthroposophists(!) became very upset whenever their
queen was challenged, especially about her article concerning
Alice Sprengel and Heinrich Goesch. These people are, in other
words, not "critics," although the critics of RS and
anthroposophy and Waldorf are of course very pleased with MacCoun's
article and link it up all over the web.
The funny thing about Joel Wendt is that he
seems to claim a monopoly on the word "anthroposophist".
Only those who share his understanding of Philosophy of Freedom,
he argues, can call themselves anthroposophists. In the same
breath, Joel Wendt calls Steiner's cosmology bad science fiction,
i.e. uninteresting fabrication. Is that what he means by "outlaw
anthroposophy"?
Joel, I can't say I miss your presence at
the moment, but I hope you're reading this. Come back when it
gets a little too serious around here and we need some fun.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
Continued
in "Another Article"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
