understanding rabid denial
From: holderlin66
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:25 pm
Subject: understanding rabid denial
Bradford writes;
A small complimentary study going along with
Christine's contribution of "The
Grand Inquisitor". When did the Ahrimanic creep, sneak
and enter into our soul life and what does it feel like? Our
study should allow us to see and taste for ourselves the experience
in our soul that haunts all of humanity at the Karmic threshold
of the Ahrimanic world.
Do we admire Dr. Steiner's thorough investigation
of Death and the Christ Event? Do we admire and hear Maria Corelli
and "Barrabas Dream of the World's Tragedy"? Do we
begin to appreciate the scaffolding of physical, etheric, astral
and I AM structures so vividly reasoned and explored by Steiner?
The answer is, we don't appreciate them until we have tasted
the bitter logic that now prevails in the souls of humanity today.
This bitter logic of being duped by the Church presents a Karmic
consequence that has led to Science and the Church of Ahrimanic
insights.
To really enter into the struggle of hypocrisy
and the intimacies of the intellectual soul, you need freedom
shattered and see for yourself the Karmic relationship between
what was Luciferic for the Church 550 years ago, that has now
shifted to Ahrimanic because of the battle of the human I AM
at the threshold. Can anyone avoid this battle or not taste it?
It is a shivering to the logic of the soul.
The replica here presented is the common ground
of souls soaked with natural science who cling to hypocrisy and
have not gambled either on the Spiritual World; but side with
sympathy on the world of Ahriman. In that definition Fundies
are all hypocrites who shy away from the threshold but coyly
flirt with Ahrimanic Spin in order to find some Sympathy and
hopes that in that Sympathy their non-existent soul and spirit
will avoid the dumpster where Ahriman's cliff notes spill out
the guts of those who look for Sympathy from the Devil.
[from
"gene pool and the Darwin Award":]
Marquis de Sade, French libertine (1740-1814).
In his dialogue, Philosophy in the Bedroom,
de Sade insults and derides Christianity several times. In his
novel 120 Days of Sodom, he is quoted as saying "The idea
of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind."
Also, the "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man,"
which can be found online is clearly the work of someone with
contempt for religion.
http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/SADE_dialogue_between_a_priest_and_a_dying_man.htm
"My friend, prove to
me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove
to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I'll let you
imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing
from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only
through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond
that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I
see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable
matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not
amaze me. `Tis a mechanical operation, perhaps as simple as the
workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand.
(snip)
"Your god is a machine
you fabricated in your passions' behalf, you manipulated it to
their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it
out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this
moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy,
belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but
will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it;
good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul
and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly
modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she
formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has
an equal need of vices and virtues, whenever she was pleased
to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed
from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even
so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but to her workings for the
unique cause of our fickle human behavior, and in her laws hope
to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.
PRIEST - And so whatever is
in this world, is necessary.
DYING MAN - Exactly.
PRIEST - But is everything
is necessary - then the whole is regulated.
DYING MAN - I am not the one
to deny it.
PRIEST - And what can regulate
the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?
DYING MAN - Say, is it not
necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?
PRIEST - Yes.
DYING MAN - And do you find
any presence of wisdom in that?
PRIEST - None.
DYING MAN - It is then possible
that things necessarily come about without being determined by
a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive
logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason
or wisdom in that primary cause.
PRIEST - What are you aiming
at?
DYING MAN - At proving to
you that the world and all therein may be what it is and as you
see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing
it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural
causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural
ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would
require to be explained and who would at the same time be the
explanation of nothing; and that once `tis plain your god is
superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would
greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore non-existent;
thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other
argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.
PRIEST - At that rate there
is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.
DYING MAN - True, but why
not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent
to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and
stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are
facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer
me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside:
were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning
the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary,
under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you
have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities
of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the
blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian's sun or Moses' Lord of Hosts,
to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy
would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.
PRIEST - Can it be doubtful?
DYING MAN - Then `tis egotistical.
PRIEST - No, my son, `tis
as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace
my creed.
DYING MAN - And I wonder how
the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to
deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.
PRIEST - But who can be mistaken
about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?
DYING MAN - He who sees in
him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and
the most arrent of all imposters.
PRIEST - O God, you hear him
and your wrath thunders not forth!
DYING MAN - No my friend,
all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from
impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being
whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension
for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to
your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were
he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have
selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than
those your Jesus incarnates.
PRIEST - What! the prophecies,
the miracles, the martyrs - are they not so many proofs?
DYING MAN - How, so long as
I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as
proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy
could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain
it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong
to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical
facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if
to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted
to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they
preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights
if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me
that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not
a stratagem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts
a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime?
As for your miracles, I am
not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have
performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I'd be
persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure
the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws
of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous;
and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the
precise point where it is infringed upon?
Only two things are needed
to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons;
tush, there's the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents
to a religious sect have wrought some; and more extraordinary
still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them.
Your Jesus' feats do not surpass
those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter
for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these
are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you
need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the
other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them
as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe
one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider
all of them pitiable.
Ah my friend! were it true
that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr,
or prophecy to secure recognition? and if, as you declare, the
human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for
the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for
all mankind because emanating from a just god, then would it
be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from
one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate
and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble each other
through the homage they would render the god whence they had
got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner,
and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of
resisting the inward impulse to worship him.
Instead of that, what do I
behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries;
as many different cults as there are different minds or different
imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it physically
impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god's doing?
Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present
him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he
exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do
you through your blasphemies.
Return to your senses, preacher,
your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than
Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius,
who did after all have some wise things to say while the others
did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all
mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them,
and justice ought to have hanged them.
PRIEST - Alas, justice dealt
only too harshly with one of the four.
DYING MAN - If he alone got
what he deserved it was he who deserved it most richly; seditious,
turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon,
and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk
and stirring up the rabble; and hence came in line for punishment
in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem
then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this
perhaps is one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely
tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse
any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one
lives under, kings and their majesties are the only thing I respect;
and whoever does not love his country and his king were better
dead than alive.
PRIEST - But you do surely
believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some
time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding
our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your
anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide
him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him
whose life has been good?
DYING MAN - What other, my
friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me,
in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all
other theories are of pride's composition, this one alone is
of reason's. Moreover, `tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this
nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature's
perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in
the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow,
the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing?
And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in
me through no fault of my own, or again punished for crimes wherefore
the ultimate responsibility is not mine? how are you to put your
alleged god's goodness into tune with this system, and can he
have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing
me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave
me free will to determine?
PRIEST - You are free.
DYING MAN - Yes, in terms
of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory
of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of
grace, which was to acquire such importance in your reveries.
What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime,
would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns
of an irresistable force, and never for an instant is it within
our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge
ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not
a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely
not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect
balance she maintains between the one and the other that her
immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our
weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto
the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into
your skin.
PRIEST - Then we should not
shrink from the worst of all crimes.
DYING MAN - I say nothing
of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice
smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by
misfortune we do commit it even so, let's not cry over spilled
milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from
crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd
to beat one's breast, more absurd still to dread being punished
in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this.
God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime,
no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn
to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead
to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately
steadfast soul.
Reason, sir - yes, our reason
alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring
happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity
is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety
of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others
as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more
pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands.
There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should
observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate
and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart.
But I feel my strength ebbing
away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be
human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your
religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to
set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors
has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars
and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another
world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being
happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you
no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. -
My friend, lewd pleasures
were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them
all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my
end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are
waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this
moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace
them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their
caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical
beliefs.
NOTE
The dying man rang, the women
entered; and after he had been a little while in their arms the
preacher became one whom Nature had corrupted, all because he
had not succeeded in explaining what a corrupt nature is.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Haven't read the whole thing yet - just got
my monitor back. But did you see "Quills"?? Loved it.
I know and understand de Sade very well.
And skimming over what you have just sent
here reminds me of the whole movie "Amadeus" which
is Salieri's whole argument to the priest who visits him, ending
with him (Salieri) calling himself the "patron saint of
mediocrities". I love it!
That whole thing with the posting about Steiner
being a sadist because some chick was in love with him and he
was "mean to her" really makes me laugh! Whoever is
writing that trash hasn't got a CLUE as to the meaning of the
word "sadism". Really. To back this up, I would have
to speak privately. But REALLY!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 7:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Bradford writes:
<snip>
The replica here presented is the common ground of souls soaked
with natural science who cling to hypocrisy and have not gambled
either on the Spiritual World; but side with sympathy on the
world of Ahriman. In that definition Fundies are all hypocrites
who shy away from the threshold but coyly flirt with Ahrimanic
Spin in order to find some Sympathy and hopes that in that Sympathy
their non-existent soul and spirit will avoid the dumpster where
Ahriman's cliff notes spill out the guts of those who look for
Sympathy from the Devil.
<snip>
Jesus Bradford, you really know how to suck
the luciferic fantasies out of a guy. I had to read an old Sufi
tale (The clever fish) to bring myself out of the black hole
that the dieing man brought me into.
I read a sad story about a baby with a parasitic
malformed second head that had surgery recently. There were pictures
that were quite horrific for me to look at. The baby unfortunately
did not survive the surgery.
Made me think of the surgery that we have
to perform on our own intellects, and how the "dieing man"
might get reincarnated.
Those of us who are baptized by water, may
not have to fall into the pit of Kazad-dum. But we all have to
stand at the bridge - I think.
Thanks Bradford
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
I wrote:
I had to read an old Sufi tale (The clever
fish) to bring myself out of the black hole that the dieing man
brought me into.
Oops, actually the story is called "the
three fishes."
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Dear Christine,
As frequently happens when inaccuracies are
freely created, Targei's comments on sadism in Catherine's article
have apparently led you to making some assumptions. Here is what
she actually wrote, which clearly has nothing to do with the
typical sexual way we interpret the use of the term "sadomasochism"
"The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in
what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not
implying repressed sexual anything. On a psychic level, sadomasochism
is a state of polarization in which one partner takes a path
of descent, the other a path of ascent. As the submissive goes
down into the dark, irrational, death-oriented underground of
the subconscious, the dominant ascends to blazing heights of
clarity, precision and control. The temporary objectification
or casting-out of the inferior element fills him with vitality
and strength. It's called "dominant euphoria."
"Alice's preferred direction
of movement seems to have been downward, Steiner's upward, so
they were well-suited as partners in such a dance. His evident
dominant euphoria is what makes this particular volume of his
lectures is so much fun to read. In place of his usual dreamy,
diffident circumlocutions, we get swashbuckling declarative sentences,
exultantly witty common sense and bold self-assertion. His gleeful
wrath does not stop with Alice. It slashes into all that is neurotic
and silly and ineffectual in his own creation--the Anthroposophical
Society. About that, he is brilliantly precise, and his lectures
are well worth reading for their analysis of what's wrong with
the Society even now. The abrupt changes of level that make his
remarks so laugh-out-loud funny are a welcome comedown from the
dreamy oxygen-deprived heights where he himself had placed the
thing. He's cruel, yet somehow likeable. The euphoria is infectious."
Please keep in mind that I have taken this
out of its context and I am not advocating (or not not advocating)
its views. I am only posting this to suggest that people read
the original material and not make assumptions because someone
with an ax to grind has made allegations.
warm regards,
joel
On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 20:01, golden3000997
wrote:
Haven't read the whole thing yet - just
got my monitor back. But did you see "Quills"?? Loved
it. I know and understand de Sade very well.
And skimming over what you have just sent
here reminds me of the whole movie "Amadeus" which
is Salieri's whole argument to the priest who visits him, ending
with him (Salieri) calling himself the "patron saint of
mediocrities". I love it!
That whole thing with the posting about
Steiner being a sadist because some chick was in love with him
and he was "mean to her" really makes me laugh! Whoever
is writing that trash hasn't got a CLUE as to the meaning of
the word "sadism". Really. To back this up, I would
have to speak privately. But REALLY!
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
At 19:21 09.02.2004, Joel quoted Catherine
MacCoun's article about RS and Alice Sprengel:
The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in
what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not
implying repressed sexual anything.
In other words, Rudolf Steiner abused this
lady ferociously. If we don't believe that, we're saying that
he was an inerrant saint without human weaknesses. If we admit
that RS was human and had his faults, we should also agree that
perhaps he was a ferocious abuser of women, whether you call
it sadism or sadomasochism or plain meanness.
Joel, I'm not a saint. I've done cocaine and
cat houses and casinos and drinking and you name it. But I've
never abused women. And I could not admire, much less try to
emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.
Don't you realize that MacCoun's article is
nothing but a piece of dirty, malicious gossip, as though the
author were the reincarnation of Alice Sprengel out to revenge
herself on Steiner for declining to please her romantic aspirations?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 11:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 11:41, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
At 19:21 09.02.2004, Joel quoted Catherine
MacCoun's article about RS and Alice Sprengel:
The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in
what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not
implying repressed sexual anything.
In other words, Rudolf Steiner abused this
lady ferociously. If we don't believe that, we're saying that
he was an inerrant saint without human weaknesses. If we admit
that RS was human and had his faults, we should also agree that
perhaps he was a ferocious abuser of women, whether you call
it sadism or sadomasochism or plain meanness.
Dear Targei,
[I would guess that one has to read the relevant
lectures where he speaks of her to judge whether he "abused
her with ferocity". I haven't, and I am pretty sure you
haven't either. Catherine, however, has cited the lectures as
sources, so it seems that if one is really interested in what
he said, then they are free to check those lectures out, or to
read the book with which Catherine began her essay: "Community
Life, Inner Development, Sexuality and the Spiritual Teacher".
You also suggest that somehow this means that
he "was a ferocious abuser of women", which is nowhere
suggested in the Catherine's article or even in the quoted statements.
I can't follow your reasoning here at all.]
Joel, I'm not a saint. I've done cocaine
and cat houses and casinos and drinking and you name it. But
I've never abused women. And I could not admire, much less try
to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.
[again, where is this said? Catherine's point
is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]
Don't you realize that MacCoun's article
is nothing but a piece of dirty, malicious gossip, as though
the author were the reincarnation of Alice Sprengel out to revenge
herself on Steiner for declining to please her romantic aspirations?
[Oh really? Okay, have it your way, but keep
in mind that I think we can do better than making statements
about "dirty malicious gossip". Not sure that adds
anything to the underlying questions being examined, which have
to do with certain social effects in the Anthroposophical Society
engendered by what perhaps is worth calling Steiner's own shadow.
I can't quite buy: he was perfect, we are flawed. I also can't
buy he didn't create any karma either. But the fact is I don't
have knowledge of these facts, just that to think otherwise disturbs
the logos-nature of my thinking.]
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Joel quoted CM:
The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware.
Tarjei:
And I could not admire, much less try to
emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.
Joel:
[again, where is this said? Catherine's
point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]
Catherine's point is, according to your
own quote, that Steiner abused Alice Sprengel with ferocity.
You may argue that Steiner did not abuse any other women
ferociously, which would make him a ferocious abuser of a
woman and not of women. A question of semantics or
grammar or detail I assume.
You're trying to say that the author did not
intend to convey what is there in plain language for all to read,
which looks to me like a clumsy attempt to backpaddle by confusing
the issue.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Thank you Joel, but I am NOT taking this as
a simple, sexual connotation. I have a broad and deep and personal
knowledge and experience of what is being talked about here -
the mental, emotional, psychological, spiritual and physical
realities of the S/m relationship.
I can't go into greater depth on a public
forum, but I maintain that I know exactly what is being described
and that the rest of her article's description of Steiner and
this woman's relationship does not warrant the label of S/m.
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:03 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Pls excuse me if I jump in,Tarjei, but I have
discussed myself this topic in the past directly with Joel so
I let myself say the following.
And precisely :
I don't know why an "honourable guy"
like Joel is here and there trying to demonstrate that "Steiner
was not perfect" and "he didn't overcome his double"
and so on.
Well, I can't stand firstly the meaning of
such nonsenses (Joel organized also a "poll" about
it on his website) secondly that if he is pleased to "demonstrate"
this fact he looks at Mc Coun's coillection of garbage obviously
not the facts of Springer's paranoia but Mc Coun's fantasies
about it), that in itself is able only to show MC Coun's preconceiptions.
And I'm saying " Mc Coun's garbage"
just AFTER having read 1915's lectures about the "Spiritual
teacher".
Andrea the ( once more choleric) Italian.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Joel quoted CM:
The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware.
Tarjei:
And I could not admire, much less try to
emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.
Joel:
[again, where is this said? Catherine's
point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]
Catherine's point is, according to your
own quote, that Steiner abused Alice Sprengel with ferocity.
You may argue that Steiner did not abuse any other women
ferociously, which would make him a ferocious abuser of a
woman and not of women. A question of semantics or
grammar or detail I assume.
You're trying to say that the author did
not intend to convey what is there in plain language for all
to read, which looks to me like a clumsy attempt to backpaddle
by confusing the issue.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Oh come off it Targei. The question is not
the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what Catherine
wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated a woman
in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question
of fact - did he or did he not.
All I have done is have the essay on my website,
for which act you berate me. You don't know what he said in those
lectures. When you care to quote what he said (which is the real
factual issue), then we can talk about whether Catherine was
a gossip or not. Your asserting it does not make it so.
j.
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 13:15, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Joel quoted CM:
The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware.
Tarjei:
And I could not admire, much less try to
emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.
Joel:
[again, where is this said? Catherine's
point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]
Catherine's point is, according to your
own quote, that Steiner abused Alice Sprengel with ferocity.
You may argue that Steiner did not abuse any other women
ferociously, which would make him a ferocious abuser of a
woman and not of women. A question of semantics or
grammar or detail I assume.
You're trying to say that the author did
not intend to convey what is there in plain language for all
to read, which looks to me like a clumsy attempt to backpaddle
by confusing the issue.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
--- Joel Wendt wrote:
Oh come off it Targei. The question is
not the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what
Catherine wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated
a woman in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question
of fact - did he or did he not.
All I have done is have the essay on my
website, for which act you berate me. You don't know what he
said in those lectures. When you care to quote what he said (which
is the real factual issue), then we can talk about whether Catherine
was a gossip or not. Your asserting it does not make it so.
Dear Joel,
So, Rudolf Steiner can be held accountable
for what he said in a lecture but Catherine MacCoun can NOT be
held accountable for what she said in an essay?
I believe you were not only present for, but
also participated in, the extensive discussion of this subject
on Anthroposophical Views in 1999 during which Malcolm Ian Gardner
showed that Catherine's interpretation of events was incorrect,
complete with extensive quotes from the relevant lectures, which
had (at that time) only recently appeared in English. If quoting
from the lectures did not convince you then, why should one believe
that quoting from the lectures will convince you now?
Musing on just the facts, ma'am, just the
facts,
JoAnn
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
At 20:16 10.02.2004, Joel wrote:
Oh come off it Targei. The question is
not the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what
Catherine wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated
a woman in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question
of fact - did he or did he not.
He did not. He merely defended himself against
speculations and gossip that tended to arise from such incidents
that were none of his doing. It got so bad at one point that
he had to announce an end to private interviews, with the exception
of his closest friends (like Rittelmeyer).
RS did not abuse anyone, male or female. But
of course he had his faults and weaknesses and prejudices and
idiosynchrasies. He spoke about healthy diets and so on, but
his personal favorite was black coffee and Swiss chocholate with
a glass of cognac. And he made errors of judgement, but not in
the moral-ethical department.
Rudolf Steiner was indeed a saint, and he
was canonized too, as Thomas Aquinas.
All I have done is have the essay on my
website, for which act you berate me.
I did no such thing. I merely pointed out
the hypocrisy in claiming that I remind you of Peter Staudenmaier
and Dan Dugan while at the same time publishing MacCoun's dirty
slander about Rudolf Steiner. You were all worked up and hostile
because I wrote some posts about the Asuras, as if it freaked
you out or something, making me wonder if you've been bitten
by an Asura who took a chunk of your ego out of your ass.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel:
She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress
in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also
made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated
by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went
to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first
Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical
element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief.
Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society
by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach
and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)
Frank
At 19:21 09.02.2004, Joel quoted Catherine
MacCoun's article about RS and Alice Sprengel:
The ferocity with which
he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in
what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not
implying repressed sexual anything.
In other words, Rudolf Steiner abused this
lady ferociously. If we don't believe that, we're saying that
he was an inerrant saint without human weaknesses. If we admit
that RS was human and had his faults, we should also agree that
perhaps he was a ferocious abuser of women, whether you call
it sadism or sadomasochism or plain meanness.
Joel, I'm not a saint. I've done cocaine
and cat houses and casinos and drinking and you name it. But
I've never abused women. And I could not admire, much less try
to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.
Don't you realize that MacCoun's article
is nothing but a piece of dirty, malicious gossip, as though
the author were the reincarnation of Alice Sprengel out to revenge
herself on Steiner for declining to please her romantic aspirations?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
At 23:56 10.02.2004, Frank wrote:
In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel:
She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress
in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also
made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated
by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went
to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first
Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical
element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief.
Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society
by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach
and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)
Frank
Thank you, Frank.
In her article "Work On What Has Been
Spoiled," MacCoun implies that RS also had a strong psycho-pathological
trait in common with Sprengel, resulting in a sadomasochistic
relationship. Some commentators theorize that the author may
have projected some pathologies of her own into this, which is
not implausible.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
After her falling out with Steiner, Alice
Sprengel joined Theodore Reuss' OTO. Here is a snippet on her
life from the OTO perspecitve by Peter-R. Koenig :
"Alice Sprengel (September
28th 1871-1947) came from Berne, but was the illegitimate child
of a Lutheran pastor from Pomerania; she was one of Rudolf Steiner's
closest colleagues in Berlin [51]. She acted in his first mystical
drama "Die Pforte der Einweihung" ("The Portal
of Initiation") on August 15th 1910 in Munich; she played
the rôle of Theodora. But when Steiner married Mlle. Sivers
in December 1914, she transferred her loyalties to Theodor Reuss,
obtaining an authorisation to found O.T.O. lodges, [52] becoming
one of the O.T.O.'s "executive council of 3 (supreme council)"
[53] at the "Anational Grandloge & Mystic Temple, "Verità
Mistica", Or[ient] Ascona"; the other two members of
the council maybe were Frau Hardegger and Frau Jantzen.
51. Heinrich Wendt to Yorke, 1957. Also quoted in Ellic Howe:
"The Magicians of the Golden Dawn", London 1972, p.
282.
52. Wendt to Yorke on 24.11.57.
53. Grunddahl Sjallung to Crowley, letter "circa" 1938,
Warburg Institute"
From: http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/consider.htm
Koenig has a Q&A section that discusses
Sprengel and Steiner: http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/early.htm
Q: What lies behind the story
told by Alice Sprengel, that Steiner was supposed to have torn
up the diploma that made him an O.T.O. member?
A: This becomes clear in the
proper context. Alice Sprengel nursed hopes that Steiner would
marry her; when he jilted her in 1915, she was disillusioned,
and transferred her esoteric loyalties to Reuss. Frau Sprengel's
relationship with Steiner is shown in her letters to him, which
can be found in Volume 253 of Steiner's "Collected Works".
Q: What did Frau Sprengel
do in the O.T.O.?
A: I refer you to my book
"The O.T.O. Phenomenon", where the story is told in
detail. Reuss gave her an authorisation to set up O.T.O. lodges,
and made her a member of the O.T.O.'s "executive council
of three" in 1921. The other two members of the "three"
were also women, which presumably started tongues wagging in
the moral climate of those days. After Reuss died in 1923, almost
everyone in the O.T.O. was jockeying to become his heir, but
nobody knew which of his various Orders could be passed on, or
even if Reuss had named his successor. So far, not one document
has been found which unambiguously states who Reuss's heir was,
although there have been several claimants to the title. This
has meant from that day to this that an endless round of plotting
and scheming is part of every O.T.O.'s stock-in trade, in an
effort to prove that they alone are the 'real' O.T.O.; something
which started in the Swiss O.T.O. lodges Reuss had left behind.
Before World War Two, Frau Sprengel's Swiss branch of the O.T.O.
acted as a sort of 'exiles lodge' for occult refugees from all
over Europe, such as the notorious founder of the German Fraternitas
Saturni, Eugen Grosche.
It is quite conceivable that
two dozen years after her disappointment with Steiner, one sunny
afternoon at her headquarters in the sunny southern Swiss canton
of Ticino, Frau Sprengel (surrounded of course by her favourite
followers) suddenly 'remembered' Steiner's supposed O.T.O. membership-certificate,
which he had promptly torn to bits. She then took good care to
write down the wording of this certificate from memory all those
years later. As an old member of the O.T.O. with a high degree,
it is possible that she confused Steiner's oath on joining the
MM (dated 3 January 1906) with the longer candidate's oath of
Reuss's subsequent MM-O.T.O., which she now shortened to "Alte
und Primit. Ritus von M. u. M. O.T.O." (Ancient and Primit[ive]
Rite of M[emphis] a[nd] M[israim O.T.O.). The abbreviations used
are evidence that she could have had an O.T.O. certificate to
hand when 'remembering' Steiner's supposed certificate - but
also that she was in a hurry, because such documents never use
abbreviations. Nor did Frau Sprengel's original note of what
she recalled survive; only a copy of it which came into the hands
of a certain Gundula Bader (later mixed up in Metzger's O.T.O.),
who passed it on to one Emil Bock. By way of yet another intermediary
called Erich Gabert, the copy eventually fetched up in the archives
of Steiner's Anthropsophical Society at the 'Goethenæum',
and was duly included in Steiner's immense "Collected Works",
in Volume 265 on page 100. Therefore it can hardly be called
a mysterious business at all.
Q. What was behind Reuss's
announcement of a forthcoming book about 'Sex in Theosophy and
Anthroposophy, with the original pledges of the leaders'?
A: I have to admit I haven't
got the faintest idea.
Daniel
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel:
She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress
in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also
made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated
by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went
to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first
Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical
element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief.
Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society
by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach
and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:14 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
Hi Tarjei
there is a further topic (last but not least)
about the thread "Mc Coun'a article-Sprengel-Steiner".
Did anyone imagine what really means on a
actually occult level to scatter falsehoods and twisted pictures
about an Initiate like Steiner and, moreover, to cooperate to
their "movement" in the world (web or not)? It's a
play with fire.......
A.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
At 23:56 10.02.2004, Frank wrote:
In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel:
She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress
in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also
made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated
by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went
to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first
Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical
element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief.
Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society
by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach
and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)
Frank
Thank you, Frank.
In her article "Work On What Has Been
Spoiled," MacCoun implies that RS also had a strong psycho-pathological
trait in common with Sprengel, resulting in a sadomasochistic
relationship. Some commentators theorize that the author may
have projected some pathologies of her own into this, which is
not implausible.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Andrea wrote:
Did anyone imagine what really means on
a actually occult level to scatter falsehoods and twisted pictures
about an Initiate like Steiner and, moreover, to cooperate to
their "movement" in the world (web or not)? It's a
play with fire.......
Dear Valentina, Tarjei and Joel,
It doesn't matter whether you scatter false
hoods about an Initiate any more than if you do about a regular
joe walking down the street. First of all one would have to consider
whether Catherine actually did scatter false and twisted pictures
of Steiner on purpose and with the intent to decieve. I do not
believe she did. Secondly I think Steiner can handle it.
Far worse happens when one goes about a character
anihilation of one who may not be able to handle it on the level
of a Dr. Stiener. It is one thing to disagree but quite another
to disregardinly throw personal twisted thinkings onto her person
because she wrote a paper people consider to be false. It's funny
because the way we are handling it is the very thing that we
do not like in how she handled Steiner in the paper. We are doing
to her the exact thing she claims was so callous of Steiner to
do to Sprengle and which we roar that it was not a possible for
him to be so mean spirited. But it seems it is not above us to
be meanspirited. And I guess people think that is okay. I don't
think it is.
I have not found Catherines paper to be a
convincing picture of the incident pertaining to Sprengle and
Steiner. Would I like it not to be on Joel's site, you bet. Why?
Because I think it does not represent a true picture of those
events. To use it as a tool, to show how one finds others who
have written on the idea of Anthroposophy and its deficits, does
not do justice to the real problem facing the community of Steiner
students. And it is a slap in the face to the legacy of Dr. Steiner
for it to be continually publicized by a student of his unless
the student is convinced that this article represents the truth.
Whether Joel thinks the community needs to move forward is irrelevant
to this issue. Does the paper represent a true moment and if
so has Catherine shown her insight to be true by the facts of
the case. I don't think it does and I do not think she has.
Joel mentioned a Mr. Malcom not wanting to
have his response to Catherine be next to the article on his
site. I find that honorable. When reading a particular passage
presented by Joel and the word 'ferocious' I recognize why Tarjei
and others feel this is maligning Steiner. And I would have to
agree with them. However I do not think it was the authors intent
to malign. And I do think it irresponsible to continue the publication
of the article on Joel's site.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:45 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial
----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Andrea wrote:
Did anyone imagine what really means on
a actually occult level to scatter falsehoods and twisted pictures
about an Initiate like Steiner and, moreover, to cooperate to
their "movement" in the world (web or not)? It's a
play with fire.......
Dear Valentina, Tarjei and Joel,
It doesn't matter whether you scatter false
hoods about an Initiate any more than if you do about a regular
joe walking down the street. First of all one would have to consider
whether Catherine actually did scatter false and twisted pictures
of Steiner on purpose and with the intent to decieve. I do not
believe she did. Secondly I think Steiner can handle it.
No I think that is actually a different thing
on an "objective" level, while it can be te same on
a" subjective" one. Moreover if someone is compelled
to throw stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an
harsh private karmic matter of such an individual.. But this
is true only if he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul..
If he (she) writes about it making it public , well, it changes
everything , becoming a worldwide attack against the Inititate,
and he (she)''ll bear the consequence of this, doesn't it?
In any case the strangest of it all is the
fact that hosting such an article is not a "struggle for
truth" and a gesture of bravery but only an actual "struggle
for lies". It's enough to read 1915's lectures and compare
the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it. It' has the
same face value if a site dedicated to the studies about the
Holocaust should host an article about the "non existence"
of gas chambers and mass murders during the Third Reich!
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Andrea wrote:
Moreover if someone is compelled to throw
stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private
karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if
he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes
about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming
a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear
the consequence of this, doesn't it?
Dear Andrea,
We all bear consequences of our actions. Why
you seem to think it different for a Christian Initiate versus
the every day joe or josephine I have no idea. The author in
question seems to be on her own initiatic path just like many
on this list. One can decide to determine what the 'initiate'
means versus what is the practice of an initiate. Are we all
who dillegently endeavor to the spiritual truths initiates or
only those who have already succeeded? If one is not considered
an initiate in the process of finding the spiritual mysteries
what is the name one is considered to be? The idea that it is
okay to tear down one who is not considered a Christian Initiate
by someone elses standards opens us up to the days of the Crusades
in my mind.
There is no worldwide attack either. It actually
seems to turn into one when those defending Dr. Steiner attack
the person who wrote the article in the manner they have. I think
it far worse to Dr. Steiners legacy for his students to engage
in the kind of demonizing and 'outing' of the person in question.
Now it is said by some that the author deserves
this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such a paper
out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth mentality. And are we governed by 'well I can say
this because she said that'? If so we are in for a very long
haul and a very big surprise when we meet Christ, not to mention
the long fire that will accompany the burning off of all the
icky things we said and did in this lifetime against others.
And not to mention what we will have to accomodate for in our
ongoing soul path. Defending a person is one thing but tearing
down another person to do it is a whole completely different
story.
Andrea
In any case the strangest of it all is
the fact that hosting such an article is not a "struggle
for truth" and a gesture of bravery but only an actual "struggle
for lies".
Dottie
Well I think it begins with a struggle for
truth. Bravery is the action it takes to counter that which is
held by the mindset of the same group. However at some point,
when truly questioning the validity of the article, one has to
take in all considerations of the character and other doings
of said person, in this case Dr. Steiner.
At some point it would seem to me that to
continue to publish this article on ones website, such as Joel
has, becomes questionable. And the reason being is I do not find
the article to be a true account. Now, maybe Joel thinks it is.
But it seems to me it is rather a point of his to make in a sense.
And I think that particular position, if true, sucks.
I wonder if Joel would even consider taking
it off the site due to the fact the point of the author can not
be ascertained to be a true rendering. But alas it is hard to
course correct on a thing we are determined shows a certain thing
we are trying to make a point in. And then again we have so much
water under the bridge I don't know if one can surmount the monstrocity
of the ego to do such a thing we have held so dear to our cause.
And then why would one want to?
Andrea
It's enough to read 1915's lectures and
compare the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it. It'
has the same face value if a site dedicated to the studies about
the Holocaust should host an article about the "non existence"
of gas chambers and mass murders during the Third Reich!
Dottie
A bit of a stretch Andrea. I realize people
feel very close to Dr. Steiner and his teachings. I am one of
them. I am also one who believes she is in contact with Dr. Steiner
and his teachings in the spiritual worlds and have been much
ridiculed for it. But so what? Does this give us the right to
harm others through our words in his defence? I think not.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Dottie wrote:
Now it is said by some that the author
deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such
a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth mentality. And are we governed by 'well I
can say this because she said that'? If so we are in for a very
long haul and a very big surprise when we meet Christ, not to
mention the long fire that will accompany the burning off of
all the icky things we said and did in this lifetime against
others. And not to mention what we will have to accomodate for
in our ongoing soul path. Defending a person is one thing but
tearing down another person to do it is a whole completely different
story.
A quote from Albert Steffen may prove illuminating:
"Even if we have to condemn
someone's deeds", says Rudolf Steiner, "we should not
criticize the person himself, but love him. Whether we really
love him will be shown in our moments of meditation."
Albert Steffen. "Meetings with Rudolf
Steiner." Verlag Für Schöne Wissenschaften, Dornach,
1961. Page 131.
Translated by Reginald Ernest Raab, Erna McArthur
and Virginia Brett
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:12 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Andrea wrote:
Moreover if someone is compelled to throw
stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private
karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if
he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes
about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming
a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear
the consequence of this, doesn't it?
Dear Andrea,
We all bear consequences of our actions.
Why you seem to think it different for a Christian Initiate versus
the every day joe or josephine I have no idea.
I'll try to explain.
If you spread lies about someone else there
is a double effect. The first concern your own personale karma,
Here it lies the difference if you are concious or not about
what you're carrying on. The more conscious you are the worse
the consequences will be. Here there is no matter about the "whom"
you're lying about and I agree with you.
The second effect is about the lie in itself
and it is the creation of a demonic spiritual being able to gain
access in others' brain and soul. The bigger the importance of
the matter (of the "object" of the lie, in this case
RS) the bigger is also the objective consequence of the gesture.(
Needless to say: RS's Spiritual being has absolutely no "damage"
in it all!)
So the spiritual effect is a purely objective
fact. (See for instance the lecture about "Christ and Human
Soul" in which RS explains the double nature of the sin)
Consider it like a difference of charge or power, just to talk
in a "physics' way".
The author in question seems to be on her
own initiatic path just like many on this list
No it seems to me that the "author"
got nothing of "initiatic" but only a freudian-like
background mixed with a personal,- too -personal knowledge of
some anthroposophic insight.
The idea that it is okay to tear down one
who is not considered a Christian Initiate
Hey, who said that???
by someone elses standards opens us up
to the days of the Crusades in my mind.
There is no worldwide attack either.
Huh, the web is a "worldwide" mean
or not ?
It actually seems to turn into one when
those defending Dr. Steiner attack the person who wrote the article
in the manner they have. I think it far worse to Dr. Steiners
legacy for his students to engage in the kind of demonizing and
'outing' of the person in question.
There's no "demonizing" at all.
There is only a sum of lies and falsehoods, The "demonic"
is in it only.
Now it is said by some that the author
deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such
a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth mentality.
No, I think that an "anthroguy"
has the duty to defend Spiritual contents, Don't try to put it
in a twisted way!
And are we governed by 'well I can say
this because she said that'? If so we are in for a very long
haul and a very big surprise when we meet Christ, not to mention
the long fire that will accompany the burning off of all the
icky things we said and did in this lifetime against others.
And not to mention what we will have to accomodate for in our
ongoing soul path. Defending a person is one thing but tearing
down another person to do it is a whole completely different
story.
Tearing down??????
Well, ok let' anyone on the web cast stones
on Spiritual Science and keep ourselves silent since we are "pious
christians" used to turn the other cheek!!
Excuse me I'm not an Hare Krishna or a S.Vincenzo's
Lady.
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:54 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding
rabid denial
Andrea wrote:
The second effect is about the lie in itself
and it is the creation of a demonic spiritual being able to gain
access in others' brain and soul.
Dear Andrea,
A demonic spiritual being gaining access to
others brain and soul almost seems like it takes away from a
persons accountability for the actions. 'Oh the demon did it',
or oh the devil made me do it' does not work for me. I am the
one accountable for my actions and would not have it any other
way. I realize there are unthinking and slavish/lethargic energies
that demons and so forth can enter but I'd be hardpressed to
think this is one of them.
My experience of the author in question is
not one who would declare 'oh the devil made me do it' kind of
gal. She may or may not course correct her positions and decide
whether or not what was involved when writing this particular
piece but I can hardly see her saying the 'devil made me do it'.
Nor does that seem realistic to me.
Andrea
The bigger the importance of the matter
(of the "object" of the lie, in this case RS) the bigger
is also the objective consequence of the gesture.
Dottie
I think it would be more important and bigger
consequences if the person stating it was a Dr. Steiner verus
the author, although she may well disagree with me on this. And
then again the author would have had to have the intent to lie
and malign. She did not in my view.
Dottie
The author in question seems to be on her
own initiatic path just like many on this list
Andrea
No it seems to me that the "author"
got nothing of "initiatic" but only a freudian-like
background mixed with a personal,- too -personal knowledge of
some anthroposophic insight.
Dottie
Well you are wrong on that account. One paper
does not make a life time Andrea. I was lucky to have been part
of an amazing group of people on line at one point and the author
is an amazing writer and thinker, and has a great grasp of the
inner workings of the spirit world. We can disagree with her
on the paper, but that doesn't make you or anyone else right
about the things you say regarding her personal person.
Dottie
The idea that it is okay to tear down one
who is not considered a Christian Initiate
Andrea
Hey, who said that???
Dottie
From the way I see the fight regarding this
subject it seems to me that it is okay to tear the author down
but not a Christian Initiate. That is what I get by your comments
about there is hell to pay for tearing down a Christian Iniate.
So, I ask, well what happens when one tears down another in defense
of the Christian Initiate?
Dottie
by someone elses standards opens us up
to the days of the Crusades in my mind.
There is no worldwide attack either.
Andrea
Huh, the web is a "worldwide"
mean or not ?
Dottie
I do not see this as a world wide attack,
nor a world wide web attack. I see it as a person writing a paper
that others disagreed with. The author is not out there peddling
her wears to the first buyer. She wrote a paper and that is that.
The only people keeping it alive are the ones who are defending
this. And then again Joel on his website. But I don't think that
is a world wide attack either. I think it is out of proportion
the way it was being handled earlier.
Dottie
It actually seems to turn into one when
those defending Dr. Steiner attack the person who wrote the article
in the manner they have. I think it far worse to Dr. Steiners
legacy for his students to engage in the kind of demonizing and
'outing' of the person in question.
Andrea
There's no "demonizing" at all.
There is only a sum of lies and falsehoods, The "demonic"
is in it only.
Dottie
I disagree with you. And I am talking about
the way she has been attacked personally versus debating the
article. And it has been ugly. We may not like what she said
or how she potrayed Dr. Steiner but to go about defending him
we excortiated her. And I personally think this goes against
his work in How to Know Higher Worlds and its exercizes. It reminds
me of a picture in the paper of the Buddhas chasing other Buddhas
of a different sect down the street with sticks. It was hilarious
for about a millesecond. And then the hipocritical nature of
man sets in on a thinking person and suddenly it is not so funny
anymore.
Dottie
Now it is said by some that the author
deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such
a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and
a tooth for a tooth mentality.
Andrea
No, I think that an "anthroguy"
has the duty to defend Spiritual contents, Don't try to put it
in a twisted way!
Dear Andrea,
My intent is not to put it in a twisted way.
I think the Anthro guy, not a cave man, gets to defend Steiner.
I think however it is really important how he goes about it if
he is going to honor the inner work of Dr. Steiner and wants
to take it on as his own. I think we make Steiner look bad if
we attack verus defend his work. We do not accentuate the positive
of his works nor ours by dragging in all her personal psyche
and how we interpret it in a negative way. Just state the facts.
The paper she wrote does not add up to the facts of the case.
They are her own intuitions and she has not proved her case by
a mile regarding Sprengel and Steiner.
Dottie
Defending a person is one thing but tearing
down another person to do it is a whole completely different
story.
Andrea
Tearing down??????
Well, ok let' anyone on the web cast stones
on Spiritual Science and keep ourselves silent since we are "pious
christians" used to turn the other cheek!!
Dottie
Well I am Christian and I have no problem
turning the other cheek and I do it all the time. No harm in
it at all believe me. And that is what Christ said 'I tell you
give your other cheek as well, and not only seven times but seventy
times seven'.
But that doesn't mean one does not get to
defend Steiner. But we do get to defend him in a Michaelic way.
And my Michaelic understanding is not one of eye for an eye and
tooth for a tooth, rather it is one of enlightment. His sword
is one of enlightment not of death. And if we hold true that
words are like bullets, which is a phrase Dr. Steiner coined
it seems, we would have to be aware of what we are creating for
our own souls as well as the one we are impugning. And I am well
aware of the fact that I fall far from the Glory of God but that
doesn't mean I can't keep trying to be more Christ like.
Andrea
Excuse me I'm not an Hare Krishna or a
S.Vincenzo's Lady.
Dottie
What is a S.Vincenzos Lady? I come from the
prostitute lineage my self it seems. I have been marked in a
way. And that is one who harkens unto Christ as far as I can
tell. And I am not a Hare Krishna maybe:) I am not sure of exactly
what one considers a Hare Krisha to be. But I love Krishna.
My whole point in all of this Andrea is that
there is a higher way to defend Steiner than I have seen on this
particular subject. Just because I advocate, if that is what
I am doing, a higher way does not mean I do not think one should
not defend Dr. Steiners work. I think his work is way worthy
of defending. But I think it is important how we do it.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:46 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Am I unkind if I tell you that I have enough
of it and this is becoming a discussion leading nowhere ? Again
and again: I invite the listmates, if they are interested, to
read and compare. Igot my impressions about it you got yours.
So I'm not interested any more in Mc Coun's trials bye bye and
amen.
A.
Post scriptum:
S Vincenzo's Ladies were gentlehearted old
women used to help poor and droputs in Italy in the past centuries
(S:Vincenzo de'Paoli was their guru) but in itself this remark
of mine was an ironical one, a kind of translation of an Italian
"slang". The same is about "Hare Krishna"
yellow-orange dressed guys wandering in the town with an everlasting
smile fixed on their faces. (Krishna Himself has nothing to do
with those guys).
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:49 am
Subject: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
OOPS, Dottie,
I forgot to add " the cave dweller"
to my signature!!
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:48 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding
rabid denial
Andrea wrote:
Am I unkind if I tell you that I have enough
of it and this is becoming a discussion leading nowhere ?
Hi Andrea,
No I do not think it unkind. And that is cool
about dropping it.
Andrea:
A.
Post scriptum:
S Vincenzo's Ladies were gentlehearted
old women used to help poor and droputs in Italy in the past
centuries (S:Vincenzo de'Paoli was their guru) but in itself
this remark of mine was an ironical one, a kind of translation
of an Italian "slang".
Dottie
Well, ironically I am one of them if that
is what they are. Although the gentlehearted of myself might
be disputed.
Happy Venerdi,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:52 am
Subject: Re: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding
rabid denial
Andrea wrote:
OOPS, Dottie,
I forgot to add " the cave dweller"
to my signature!!
ANDREA I am so sorry for that:))))))))))))
when I read it after I had sent it I just about fell off my chair.
It was not marked for you or anyone else it was just an expression
I use at times.
I wish you could hear my laughter, got a belly
full,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:54 am
Subject: R: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding
rabid denial
Growl, gnarf, grunt,
oh well I hear it!
Have a nice weekend
Ad majora
Andrea the Italian
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: R: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding
rabid denial
Andrea turning green wrote:
Growl, gnarf, grunt,
oh well I hear it!
Have a nice weekend
Ad majora
Andrea! That is so not funny.:))) I do not
laugh like that. I have a very pretty laugh almost gigglish like...not
And a good weekend to you as well,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Andrea
It's enough to read 1915's lectures and
compare the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it. It'
has the same face value if a site dedicated to the studies about
the Holocaust should host an article about the "non existence"
of gas chambers and mass murders during the Third Reich!
Dottie
A bit of a stretch Andrea. I realize people
feel very close to Dr. Steiner and his teachings. I am one of
them. I am also one who believes she is in contact with Dr. Steiner
and his teachings in the spiritual worlds and have been much
ridiculed for it. But so what? Does this give us the right to
harm others through our words in his defence? I think not.
Sincerely,
Dottie
Dear Dottie,
What do you mean when you say that you believe
Catherine to be in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings
in the spiriutal world?
If she were in contact with Steiner across
the threshold or even her higher self ) seems like there would
have been a correspondence, a dialog of enlightment - private
enlightment on Catherine's personal difficulties/views on matters
of 'Alice, the esoteric groupie' - rather than her needing to
write a slanderous article.
Sincerely,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:18 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Dottie
A bit of a stretch Andrea. I realize people
feel very close to Dr. Steiner and his teachings. I am one of
them. I am also one who believes she is in contact with Dr. Steiner
and his teachings in the spiritual worlds and have been much
ridiculed for it. But so what? Does this give us the right to
harm others through our words in his defence? I think not.
Sincerely,
Dottie
[Paulina:]
Dear Dottie,
What do you mean when you say that you
believe Catherine to be in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings
in the spiriutal world?
Dear Paulina,
If you follow my terrible sentence structure
you will see that I am consistant in saying 'I am one of them
and I am also one who believes she (meaning me) is in contact
with Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds. So, here
I am referring to myself and not Catherine.
Paulina
If she were in contact with Steiner across
the threshold or even her higher self ) seems like there would
have been a correspondence, a dialog of enlightment - private
enlightment on Catherine's personal difficulties/views on matters
of 'Alice, the esoteric groupie' - rather than her needing to
write a slanderous article.
Dottie
Alas, you have misunderstood my sentence which
we are well aware is not hard to do. And this is not the place
to be discussing Catherines PRIVATE difficulties or PRIVATE celebrations
according to the world of Paulina or Dottie or anyone else for
that matter in my opinion.
Her private things are her own. And now we
know she may have let a few cats out of the bag regarding her
own personal life and maybe she wished she hadn't. I know I was
way green and googoo eyed when joining the list you were once
apart of, and boy there are things I wish I hadn't said, but
you know what, one learns as one goes along and one should not
have to have these things, said to a specific group of people
one trusted, shouted on line to others who were not there.
My thoughts,
Dottie
p.s. And I am way not interested in speaking
with you regarding my own personal enlightment regarding Dr.
Steiner. I am well aware of what you think and do not wish to
revist this subject with you. Not that you are all to interested
unless you are feeling rather feisty today. And lets hope it
isn't so, or at least that I can rise above any response I might
wish later I had not said.
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:56 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Dear Paulina,
If you follow my terrible sentence structure
you will see that I am consistant in saying 'I am one of them
and I am also one who believes she (meaning me) is in contact
with Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds. So, here
I am referring to myself and not Catherine.
Paulina
If she were in contact with Steiner across
the threshold or even her higher self ) seems like there would
have been a correspondence, a dialog of enlightment - private
enlightment on Catherine's personal difficulties/views on matters
of 'Alice, the esoteric groupie' - rather than her needing to
write a slanderous article.
Dottie
Alas, you have misunderstood my sentence
which we are well aware is not hard to do. And this is not the
place to be discussing Catherines PRIVATE difficulties or PRIVATE
celebrations according to the world of Paulina or Dottie or anyone
else for that matter in my opinion.
Dottie,
I was not discussing Catherine's private affairs,
but, rather her perspective, that cannot be seperated from what
she wrote. Perhaps you need to read read my sentence. It is not
a matter of discussing personal matters, it is a matter of perspective
and understanding that we write what we are. Had Catherine not
had personal difficulties about how she saw the matter that transpired
between AS & RS she would not have written the article.
No one is able to separate who they are, or
what they are,of what they subcribe to from what they write,
unless they are intentionally trying to manipulate.
Her private things are her own. And now
we know she may have let a few cats out of the bag regarding
her own personal life and maybe she wished she hadn't. I know
I was way green and googoo eyed when joining the list you were
once apart of, and boy there are things I wish I hadn't said,
but you know what, one learns as one goes along and one should
not have to have these things, said to a specific group of people
one trusted, shouted on line to others who were not there.
Not the point. In fact, I rather think you
are the one close to betraying some private matters here.
My thoughts,
Dottie
p.s. And I am way not interested in speaking
with you regarding my own personal enlightment regarding Dr.
Steiner. I am well aware of what you think and do not wish to
revist this subject with you. Not that you are all to interested
unless you are feeling rather feisty today. And lets hope it
isn't so, or at least that I can rise above any response I might
wish later I had not said.
If you aren't interested in speaking to the
matter why are you posting on it on a public list? Such a claim
means you have crossed the threshold in full consciousness and
are in touch with him. Well, I am certainly interested in hearing
you say you are in touch with Steiner in higher worlds.
I'm not feeling feisty. I'm asking for clarification.
That is a pretty significant claim, Dottie.
Up to you if you do, or don't answer.
Am on my way out anyway; have to put my dog-child
to sleep today.
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Am on my way out anyway; have to put my
dog-child to sleep today.
Paulina
I'm very sorry. I had put my dog-child to
sleep not to long ago too.
Love and light
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Paulina wrote:
If you aren't interested in speaking to
the matter why are you posting on it on a public list?
Dear Paulina,
I used my example as a person who feels very
close to Dr. Steiner and that this does not give me or anyone
else who feels close to Dr. Steiner free reign to trash another
person. Just because we love what he shared and who he is does
not allow us to tear another down to protect him in the manner
I witnessed on line.
Paulina
Such a claim means you have crossed the
threshold in full consciousness and are in touch with him.
Dottie
Actually it does not have to mean that exactly
Paulina. There is no one way the spirit connections work or meet.
I have not crossed the threshold in full consciousness, in this
life time, yet. I found the Holy Grail of my self and practice
making it available in my daily life and meditations. I do feel
very guided by him and definetly have felt his presence in my
presence. I do think it would be better if he was in contact
with those who are able to express themselves better than I.
And I am sure he is but still...my life would be easier.
Paulina
Up to you if you do, or don't answer.
Dottie
Dear Paulina, you and I have walked down this
path before and have made a mess of things, an ugly mess. I am
not interested in doing it again.
Paulilna
Am on my way out anyway; have to put my
dog-child to sleep today.
Dottie
As always Paulina you are in my prayers and
my thanksgivings and I am sure everyone elses. I wish you much
peace of mind and heart today and always.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Gisele
Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:43 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid
denial
Paulina wrote:
Am on my way out anyway; have to put my
dog-child to sleep today.
~~~~I am sorry to hear that Paulina.
Gisele
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:02 am
Subject: attacking a Christian initiate
At 18:45 12.02.2004, Andrea wrote:
Moreover if someone is compelled to throw
stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private
karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if
he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes
about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming
a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear
the consequence of this, doesn't it?
In any case the strangest of it all is
the fact that hosting such an article is not a "struggle
for truth" and a gesture of bravery but only an actual "struggle
for lies". It's enough to read 1915's lectures and compare
the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it.
My thoughts on this:
I think is one matter to attack and smear
a Christian initiate when you stand upon the plaform of atheism
or orthodox Christianity or any other regular worldview that
collides with esotericism and occultism. You have an innocent
ignorance of sorts. But if you do this on the basis of occult
studies by dabbling in forces that your "I AM" is not
strong enough to control, you get involved in deep deceptions
and false paths on an entirely different level. I believe that's
what happened to the aforementioned Christina Stoddard who wrote
a couple of books in the 1930's under the pseudonym "Inquire
Within." I have promised I will quote an entire chapter
about RS from "Trail of the Serpent" (1936). Everything
takes time, just be patient.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
