Closet Manicheanism

From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 10:35 am
Subject: Closet Manicheanism

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt wrote:

But then, I don't believe you care about the truth or knowledge, but rather are in love with your own opinions more.

But that's just my belief, its not knowledge (at least I don't think so, it could be true by accident. But certainly, since it is only my belief, how can I be held responsible for its effect?). Then of course there is the hypocrisy latent in this view which you take, given that the same loose relationship to knowledge and the truth could (which you justify as okay for yourself) be claimed by Dan Dugan and Peter S as regards their "beliefs". So how can you insist they speak the truth and from knowledge, but you aren't held to the same standard?

AS near as I can tell, everything in the above paragraph is, on your part, complete invention. What you don't like in existence, and seems the most horrible, has been by you characterized as coming from the Asuras. Yet, clearly you have no knowledge of this - you do not see the supersensible relationships, but only attribute toward that which you have antipathy, the direst characterizations.

I don't see this as any different from the thinking by which fundamentalist Christians believe that New Age impulses come from Satan. You demonize what you don't like, borrowing spiritual scientific vocabulary to support your biases.

Such thinking is not based upon anthroposophy.

Bradford comments;

Joel I respect your compassionate and thoughtful insights. You very often, for me, find deeper kernels than anybody I know. I would jump to the assumption, probably in error, that anybody who hands you undigested quotes from Steiner is part of the problem. But here is what puzzles me.

First and formost the lack of Discerning ability to carry a thought in a positive direction. Is this an Old Man's gripe?

Second is the fact that both Tarjei and you have earned some stripes in both attempting to call Anthros out of their blind slumber. Both of you are in a window where "your time has come". Anarchists and rebels before it was popular to be rebels can now speak with maturity.

So I ask myself Joel, aside from the fact that we do not give loyality out like cracker jacks...people earn our respect, do you have no sense of Loyalty to a brother or a sister who has stood the test of time manifesting the very type of courage that you had fostered long before it was popular?

I am always glad that you offer inner stucture, etheric stability, and I know from where I speak about etheric stability. Etheric stablity out of the Theory of Knowledge has had a refining effect on your soul. The 12 Step program and concrete thinking with your efforts and compassion have brought on some very fine, rich maturity and ripeness in you. It shines through.

But because we offer different angles on the Michael School and because our ability might be to find the rich threads of research that we can identify with each others works, doesn't allow us the leisure to indulge in the tendency to fall back on jealousy, bickering and the usual immaturity that reveals subjective mood swings and not objective observation. This always troubles me.

If it were a woman I would say it was that time of the month, and cut you some slack... My wife and I have had to come to an agreement of self knowledge. Such a brilliant and wonderful woman can, unconsciously suddenly turn ugly, not that I don't deserve it, but there is a border of subjective self knowledge that alerts each of us that something is not in order with a kind of bitchiness, undeserved.

We still meet that and god knows we do deserve what we get and it does cause us to reflect and raises subjective conflicts. However what is the point of rubbing each other the wrong way on a list and a place where I hold you in utmost respect? Bad Hair day, okay, I'll have my bad hair days and please tell me when I am having a bad hair day. But not because someone who works with their heart and soul on Michael School issues has a different, radically different take than my own. I relish different takes that at least make the effort to rise to insight.

I know it is temporary, but it almost smells like jealousy and envy or some little pesty untransformed soul chunk that I fail to track sometimes. It certainly is apparent to me that Tarjei and you have done massive and rich service and continue to strive to serve the great work of Dr. Steiner.

The third thing: Closet Manicheanism:

Now if this has to do with the immense guilt, darkness and failure that we all share and that arises in the lost years, before the 12 step program and when anybody mentions, darkness...it calls forth, that these little midgets, us, don't know what darkness, addiction and eating away of the soul really is....and only someone of your long suffering does...It amounts to an untracked aspect of soul guilt and sorrow that has very little, yet everything to do with not wanting to have Asuras eat our dust.

Let me walk a little deeper here into just the type of richness that is very difficult to express. Some of us have had complex, immense suffering and survived massive splintering dysfuntion. Some have even come out of addiction, some of us, never wanted it but never shunned or ran away or ran towards the disillusionment of the junkie. Some of us could have plunged deeper, but it wasn't for cowardice that we did not. It was because of the Amazing Grace of Spiritual Science that revealed all that we suspected were the heights and depths of the human spirit. Spiritual Science allowed us to take stock of our own lives...even better if a 12 step program and The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity brought much needed refreshment to our weary soul journey.

All of this and not requiring Steiner to prove that he has suffered as much as we have, that his words are true, that thinking and soul experience can give humanity their dignity, and this can be done objectively. The problem as I see it, is that some souls don't trust anyone who doesn't have EXPERIENCE meaning their subjective EXPERIENCE of suffering. Therefore they can be discounted. This, if it were true would be a complete distortion of the facts of Spiritual Science, Waldorf Educaton and life itself.

However - in favor of that perception - I will argue that we have needed these Wars this nuclear age, the catastrophe of suffering and human beastliness to truly give us heart soul and courage to weigh what is and what is not. It is we ourselves who call down tragedy upon tragedy upon our heads and without rich soul experience and climbing back from the brink of nightmare or HORROR, we would just be simpering little sentimental goody goodies without the soul insight or strength to see our own demons and realize it is us...it is in us.. we are that! Which is why, I suspect, you always seem to want to put certain people to the test - deny their credibility. I may understand the motives but I may not agree with your targets sometimes.

With due Respect and admiration
Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Dear Bradford,

One of the things that 12 Step work teaches is that it is the double that encourages us to cut others slack. We start with brutal self honesty, and then create a community in which that same questioning attitude is fostered for all. We then live in a rich soup of insistence on not giving into the lies to the self - lies which in anthro-speak we know as caused by the double, and in the twelve steps as an aspect of "our disease".

Read again Gordienko's introduction to her book: Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality, where she covers all the relevant points from out of the "scientific" spirit of the age, such as: Criticism among spiritual scientists is essential. During which she quotes the Good Doctor (RS), as follows: "An incorrect result of research in the spiritual world is a living being. It is there; it must be resisted, it must first be eradicated." (22.10.1915, GA 254)

I am in the process of a long conversation with another American over the state of being of the anthroposophical society and movement, in which I have advocated to him the essential need, before any other act, of facing the shadow within ourselves, and facing it as that has been allowed to manifest in our associations. We believe an entirely too convenient and false history of our work and our movement, including never considering that Steiner could make any errors.

One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the false view that being "spiritual", means being nice - being polite. In the 12 Steps, we can have (and need to have) someone called our "sponsor". Were this person to be "nice" to us, we'd both soon be lost. Everything is about detecting bullshit as soon as it surfaces, and before it can cause harm. Here on this list the b.s. flies fast and furious, just like most anthroposophical groups and branches I have been in over the years, and many internet discussion lists as well.

Everyone is so nice and polite, and this encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific research that was independent of the authority of others.

Now this, in itself, is more easily correctable than might otherwise seem, for it really is a matter of nuance. We begin with ourselves, and place before our own moral imagination the question of whether an opinion is the truth, or just a belief. We then make clear to ourselves (brutal self honesty) that we lack knowledge, and are only combining the work of various "authorities" in building up the picture (the mental image - see The Philosophy of Freedom) we are inwardly beholding. We let ourselves recognize that this mental representation is not knowledge, and that we cannot morally (using our moral imagination) justify it to others as knowledge.

We have a good instinct for this, when we use such terms as "this is my view", "this is my belief", or "I think" where "think" in this instance really means to say "believe". But to do this comfortably and with a certain self trust, practical experience with the epistemological works is necessary. Steiner started his life's work there, and we dishonor his legacy by skipping over that step, and yet insist on calling ourselves anthroposophists.

You, Bradford, make a long post below in which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.

As I suggested above, there is a lot on this list which suffers similar confusions regarding what we know and what we believe we know on the basis of Steiner's "authority". I go after Tarjei precisely because of the fact that he has the strength to take it, and stick to his guns. At the same time, I am no longer willing to tolerate the pretense that to practice spiritual science can be done by reading lectures and books, without basing one's present in the moment thinking on the inner work demanded by the epistemological books on which Steiner founded his life's efforts.

I do this out of love for Steiner, which love fills and motivates much that I do in the present. Everything that I have done in this life, that has been grounded in the truth, flows directly from the training I have received from him concerning the question of knowledge. The best way I can be grateful to his legacy then seems to me to be to hold up in front of everyone, as did Gordienko, that for anthroposophy to be a "science" has to mean certain things.

When anthroposophy is allowed to degenerate into a system of beliefs about which one allows one's self to indulge in fantasy concerning what is true, and a false and illusory dependence upon the writings and lectures of Steiner, then spiritual science no longer lives in the world, but rather only its Egregore: Steinerism.

It is Steinerism that the WC folks met in Waldorf, and they have every possible justified reason to hate it. Steinerism is evil, and it comes from us when we live in beliefs instead of knowledge, and have no clue as to the difference in our own soul life.

Should we want to appreciate this, we need only look to Dan D. and Peter S., for they commit the same evil gesture as the perfect mirror of what they have seen. They too live in beliefs, have no authentic interest in the truth, and following that excess of passion (which the double encourages to cover up the soul's own valid doubts about our beliefs) they attack what they don't like (if it is different from my beliefs it must be wrong and evil).

I don't see any difference between what they do, and what Tarjei did in ascribing Asuric causality to all manner of social evil that he "perceived", but had no true knowledge regarding. The inner gesture is the same, and while common to our Age (and is related to what Steiner spoke of when he suggested we would come dangerously close at this time to the War of All Against All), this gesture is rooted in the double, and is the basis for materialism. We don't overcome materialism by substituting another theory (in our case a spiritual one), but only by the redemption of the "act" of thinking, through bringing the will into it. Or as Ben-Aharon points out in his remarkable: The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth Century, by brining the will into thinking, and thinking into the will.

We can never conquer evil in the world, except as it lives in ourselves. I can only root out Steinerism from my own soul, where I had come to know it quite intimately. At the same time, having meet this shadow in myself, and come to know its many forms of manifestation, this enables me to speak of it in places where it might help others who are willing to face this darkness in themselves.

So I speak of it here, and challenge it here, on this discussion list which places before us a remarkable ideal: Anthroposophy Tomorrow.

warm regards,
joel

...................................................................................................................................

From: b m <bryanmiller>
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Now this is a post worth keeping and re-reading. That's Anthroposophy as I understand it. I'm not a good Bible-quoter but I'm reminded of what Jesus said, something about him bringing the sword to this world, putting son against father. In other words, fierce struggle, not some kind of bland fake harmony. There's too much glovewearing in the spiritual community. As if talking nice had anything to do with being spiritual, as Joel so well put it. It's a tough fight out there, friends. It takes guts and strenght and yes, we dig in the dirt to get to the truth, that's what being in this world is about. If we were supposed to be floating with the angels in some fluffly cloud talking nicely 'bout the best airy heavenly-underwear available or some other metaphysical mysteries, we wouldn't be here now, would we.
Bryan

Joel Wendt wrote:

Dear Bradford,

One of the things that 12 Step work teaches is that it is the double that encourages us to cut others slack.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

At 19:08 08.01.2004, Joel wrote:

One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the false view that being "spiritual", means being nice - being polite.

To be consistent here, it's a good idea to keep in mind that telling Asuric horror stories ain't nice and not necessarily polite either :)

Everyone is so nice and polite, and this encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific research that was independent of the authority of others.

By the same token, nobody is capable of knowing or saying anything at all about the Spanish Civil War then, unless he was there in person or can read about it in the Akasha. If one is stuck with the "authority" of George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway and others, one should shut up about it and know nothing and venture no opinion? Bull.

Steiner started his life's work there, and we dishonor his legacy by skipping over that step, and yet insist on calling ourselves anthroposophists.

There's a thread about that particular piece of semantic from the WC list anno 1999 carried into breaindead absurdity, republished by Uncle Taz: "Who is an Anthroposophist?" -

Some people claim that only AS members have the right to call themselves anthroposophists. You come up with another set of rules in this regard. Frankly, not many of us give a damn. We decide ourselves what to call ourselves and we decide upon our own set of rules and conditions to do so. With a title like "Outlaw Anthroposophy," you should be able to appreciate that better than most. If you can be a self-defined outlaw apop, so can everybody else.

You, Bradford, make a long post below in which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.

That statement presupposes that you can enlighten us about the topic at hand and correct our errors. Please tell us all about the Asuras then.

Should we want to appreciate this, we need only look to Dan D. and Peter S., for they commit the same evil gesture as the perfect mirror of what they have seen. They too live in beliefs, have no authentic interest in the truth, and following that excess of passion (which the double encourages to cover up the soul's own valid doubts about our beliefs) they attack what they don't like (if it is different from my beliefs it must be wrong and evil).

I don't see any difference between what they do, and what Tarjei did in ascribing Asuric causality to all manner of social evil that he "perceived", but had no true knowledge regarding.

No wonder they're having a field day with your posts on the WC list when you write so much bull. Drawing conclusions based upon information provided through Steiner's lectures does not make anyone a Dan Dugan of PLANS. And your claim that your "love of Steiner" - whose personal moral character you drag into the gutter by publishing "Work on What has Been Spoiled", which is a piece of dirty gossip - makes it so hard for you to accept that people discuss and have opinions about the content of Steiner's lectures, does not hold water.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Dear Tarjei,

I've placed a couple of comments below in [brackets].

warm regards,
joel

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 16:35, Tarjei Straume wrote:

At 19:08 08.01.2004, Joel wrote:

One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the false view that being "spiritual", means being nice - being polite.

To be consistent here, it's a good idea to keep in mind that telling Asuric horror stories ain't nice and not necessarily polite either :)

Everyone is so nice and polite, and this encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific research that was independent of the authority of others.

By the same token, nobody is capable of knowing or saying anything at all about the Spanish Civil War then, unless he was there in person or can read about it in the Akasha. If one is stuck with the "authority" of George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway and others, one should shut up about it and know nothing and venture no opinion? Bull.

[Not by the same token, that is if you read the whole message. The problem is to be able to distinguish between what we know, and what we believe and to write with that in mind, making clear to the reader we know this distinction in ourselves, and are not claiming to know more than we do.]

Steiner started his life's work there, and we dishonor his legacy by skipping over that step, and yet insist on calling ourselves anthroposophists.

There's a thread about that particular piece of semantic from the WC list anno 1999 carried into breaindead absurdity, republished by Uncle Taz: "Who is an Anthroposophist?" -

Some people claim that only AS members have the right to call themselves anthroposophists. You come up with another set of rules in this regard. Frankly, not many of us give a damn. We decide ourselves what to call ourselves and we decide upon our own set of rules and conditions to do so. With a title like "Outlaw Anthroposophy," you should be able to appreciate that better than most. If you can be a self-defined outlaw apop, so can everybody else.

[Well people can call themselves jackasses, but it doesn't make them so. Same with anthroposophist. If anyone can call themselves an anthroposophist, then the name has no meaning whatsoever. The question would be what does Steiner suggest an anthroposophist is, that is if we wish to honor any meaning he made have given to the term. The First Leading Thought is: "Anthroposophy is a path of cognition from the spiritual in man to the Spiritual in the Universe."

Some times instead of "cognition" erkennen has been translated as "knowledge" but the German speakers I have met suggest that the term is less noun and more verb - referring to an activity, not a thing.

This means that to Steiner anthroposophy is something that we do. This doing means a gesture in movement from our own spirit, our I, to the I of the Universe (Christ?).

If cognition is a good rendering of erkennen, then we have to do with thinking, which is certainly what Steiner seems to have suggested by his epistemological works. This being the case than someone is an anthroposophist, following Steiner's meaning of the term, who practices those disciplines connected to thinking that lead from the individual I-am to the Cosmic I-AM.

This thinking is described by others such as Kuhlewind, Ben-Aharon and the Italian Massimo Scaligero, in great detail.

These thinking disciplines are not just any old kind of thinking, but are rather carefully elaborated in the epistemological works, and if one understands them in practice, than the difference between Anthroposophy and Steinerism is clear.]

You, Bradford, make a long post below in which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.

That statement presupposes that you can enlighten us about the topic at hand and correct our errors. Please tell us all about the Asuras then.

[No it doesn't presuppose any such thing. It says quite clearly that I don't believe you know what you are talking about in that regard. So far all you have said in response to my questions is to proclaim that opinions are valid in this field of discourse. I disagree.]

Should we want to appreciate this, we need only look to Dan D. and Peter S., for they commit the same evil gesture as the perfect mirror of what they have seen. They too live in beliefs, have no authentic interest in the truth, and following that excess of passion (which the double encourages to cover up the soul's own valid doubts about our beliefs) they attack what they don't like (if it is different from my beliefs it must be wrong and evil).

I don't see any difference between what they do, and what Tarjei did in ascribing Asuric causality to all manner of social evil that he "perceived", but had no true knowledge regarding.

No wonder they're having a field day with your posts on the WC list when you write so much bull. Drawing conclusions based upon information provided through Steiner's lectures does not make anyone a Dan Dugan of PLANS. And your claim that your "love of Steiner" - whose personal moral character you drag into the gutter by publishing "Work on What has Been Spoiled", which is a piece of dirty gossip - makes it so hard for you to accept that people discuss and have opinions about the content of Steiner's lectures, does not hold water.

[Well, I can understand your distress. You have yet to provide a justification, in terms of Steiner's epistemological works, for proclaiming that what we read in Steiner represents "knowledge" in the sense those works describe. As to Catherine's work that is on my website, what does that have to do with anything, other then being a lame shot on your part trying to distract the conversation from the real subject under discussion - namely: do we as anthroposophists have to actually know anything, or can we just be content with beliefs. I mean Tarjei - "dirty gossip" - is that the best you can do with regard to something written by someone who is not here to respond. Sounds even more like the WC list.]

[Continued in another thread]

...................................................................................................................................

From: Steinerhead
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:50:22 EST
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

In a message dated 1/8/04 6:14:26 PM Joel writes:

One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the false view that being "spiritual", means being nice - being polite. In the 12 Steps, we can have (and need to have) someone called our "sponsor". Were this person to be "nice" to us, we'd both soon be lost. Everything is about detecting bullshit as soon as it surfaces, and before it can cause harm. Here on this list the b.s. flies fast and furious, just like most anthroposophical groups and branches I have been in over the years, and many internet discussion lists as well.

Dearest brother Joel,

My old Sponsor of ten+ years used to always tell me that, "there's a wrench for every nut in the world." He was good at not letting me believe in my own bullshit, but he was also, at times, very kind and polite. I understand the need for rigorous self-honesty, but having sponsored a few different people, I realize the importance of meeting them where their at, which is always slightly different for each person. "Some are sicker that others." This reminds me of something in the POF (can't remember exactly so please correct me...but do it nicely please) about how a truly Moral act is subject to the individual circumstances surrounding it.

I realize that you said you give Tarjei shit cause "he can handle it, and will stick to his guns," But what about those of us who are enlivened by the idea of pondering ancient mysteries, and bringing ideas to the surface, that might help us make better sense of our place in the world? How do you know that some of us have no knowledge about these things?

I heard a speaker recently who was very involved in a hard-core sponsorship family that practiced brutal honesty, and what they called "tuff-Love." This might have been well and good for most, but it was to much for one of them, and he wound up blowing his brains out. He was not using when he did this, and had been clean for many years.

I'm not sure about the difference between bullshit and the putting forth of ideas that seem to make sense. All the words that Steiner used to describe the Spiritual world, were metaphorical references used to help make better sense of his ideas. These ideas supposedly came to him by direct cognitive experience of this "Spiritual world" that supposedly exists beyond our physical senses. Now, until I can fine-tune my clairvoyant abilities, and read the Akasha as Steiner supposedly did, I'll need to settle for the ideas the bubble up from time to time, and throw them out there in a freespeach forum and see if they hold together.

I wasn't "making nice" to Tarjei as much as I was making nice to the fact that I learned something from his notion about these Asuras bad guys. A newer stronger version of an older idea came to boil within me and it rang true in my heart. And then you come along and crashed the party, and now I've got more living ideas bubbling up that need rendering...

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Truth and Love

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:34 am
Subject: Re: Closet Manicheanism/The Hunger

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt wrote:

You, Bradford, make a long post below in which you do everything but consider that what Tarjei wrote regarding the Asuras in his post was empty of knowledge or reality.

Dear Joel;

That certainly was a fine post you crafted in response. I guess, knowing how you hate to go unanswered, it requires 'fair and balanced' response to what I didn't raise and had put so much of the burden of proof onto your wide shoulders. Grampa?

Proof requires that we enter into exactly what you brought up so wisely Joel, the inner effort to determine if the fragments and shed cast off of the Imprinted lower ego in this the lower world we inhabit, will be used to rip fragments of identity of the body off the I Am. Tarjei did not cover it, as far as I could see he dropped the usual mother of all bombs in the middle of the list and watched us scramble and scatter for cover.

Joel it was your intuition and accurate piercing of the problem that opened the gates to what merely stands there as some sensational blabbering that Steiner uttered after having one too many Starbucks with triples shots.

Did anyone go there? WEll not only has Joel gone into Media investigation but he as also gone into research on Man and Animal. So taking up the profound links of what is left as shedded antlers, the animal kingdom doesn't have the specific identity markers that are imprinted by the I AM in its descent into incarnation. You know why that is of course! It is because each I AM is an entire species that leaves its corpse trail, DNA, "Gattica" skin markings, sperm code in rape victims, fingerprints, Iris identity, voice idenity and heat signature, as a cast off product of the gods.

This heat signature is used in Military for missile tracking. Occultly the signature of the astral body, the etheric body and Tarjei minor indication about those souls who are inhabited by beings that are serial killers, should not be given a premature death penalty. Why? Because the Life Force should expend itself within the shell of the body that has been inhabited. Life term and let the life force run out of gas on its own with the genii still corked in the bottle.

If we send the soul over prematurely, cyanide wise, (which is food for the very beings we do not wish to encourage - Remember that the blood of Alien in the Alien films was Acid ). So we do not want to let these decaying shells cook and become vehicles and festering astral shells that any black magician or any lab researcher seeking to enhance viral weapons can tap.

Is this too hard to understand? This is the missing factors of Science and where do the Asuras play a part in such an idea that Steiner presented after his fifth latte? Well it is in the by-products of the cast off ego that were explored not only with the Nazi concentration camp experiments but with the entire J.E. Hoover and Hitler, Ahrimanic fall out. In America Mr. Hoover started externally tracking the I AM with fingerprints.

Do we wish to think about these things? Well I do, but as I said Joel, you supplied the richest critical observation which opened the window and knocked it off its sensational footstool. Do we wish to understand the Death penalty and how hundreds of human beings are sitting on death row, when their DNA would show that they shouldn't have been executed in the first place.

Which brings me to the Angel of Death and the Angel of the Death Penalty, George Bush. There are many bad souls in the universe. Saddam was one. One that we encouraged to gas thousands of souls and supplied the weapons to do so. George gained his whole cowboy stance in the idea that arbitrary death penalty, thoughtless, unpenetrated sentient soul bull shit, feeds beings on the otherside of the threshold. The death penalty is not wrong because it is an error to kill humans and sit sentimentally as if we aren't macho enough. It is rather that we are in a very important phase of seeing into biological weapons, occult weapons and using them with Ahriman's usual blinders to shoot ourselves in the foot.

This is the 'Carapace' mystery. So, if we stand in an instant replay of Atlantis, we see that cloning, mixing beast and human, animal and plant codes, we come into the fragmention of "The Finished or Accomplished Work of the Gods". Ahrimanic forces are assisting our ride toward the Asuric fragmentation of the I AM. They want the cast off ownership of the "Finished Work of the Gods" for themselves.

We have made to wear, form fitting etheric bodies. We have ready to wear form fitting, specifc astral bodies. These are not interchangable parts and pieces. But Baconian science and Ahriman with Darwinian foundations hasn't a clue about herds of animals that aren't imprinted with I AM identity. Look at us trying to trace specific beef and turning the animal kingdom and us into cannibals. Cannabalising the I AM, the etheric, the astral and making distorted copies of Dollies or Geeps is not the same as pulling down fragments of the I AM, grave robbing in the Stephen King sense of the word, and cannabalizing creation itself.

That which was made out of the Stars...ARe we getting this people? That which is made specifically for your I AM and with all due respect, shuttles us from our I AM in the spiritual world to a specific tone, and devachan NAME and identity in the physical world is a unique, one owner vehicle. But the gods have left the building, like Elvis. The Gods except those that have truly concerned themselves with keeping the little Earth Incarnation system open for Humanity, have left the building like Elvis.

It just us and matter and beings who are scrambling over the cast off portions of the I AM, the I AM etheric, the I AM astral that are starving for dinner and do not wish to fall any lower in the chain of being and will use every means to eat what has fallen off the Masters Table. Our military budget pays for ways to feed them. Are we insane? Don't answer that, after all you do want to sleep well tonight don't you. Well take comfort, there is nothing you can do but go ahead with the sincerity of your path.

Now this concept of the Dogs eating what falls off the Masters table applies all the way up to black magic in military and super virus experimentation to assault the immune system of humanity. Lab rats with white coats are diligently working for cannabalizing, linking and bridging the gulf to a world of deadly, consuming Asura beings. Their rank is rather Sorathian. Astral passions are real tasty food and I bet, you can bet they are very hungry critters.

Sexually we attempt to devour each other, but in the passions, pathologies and carried karmic gruemsomeness, a Jeffery Dahlmer and others are waiting in the wings to feed off of ----- here I must break off, because it is rather ugly...but let me just say that Snuff films and various appetites that are now cultivated are desperatly seeking food.

Do we have the ethical strength to have a U.N.; A death penalty policy; A cloning and biological warfare policy; that follows the high road? We do not! We do not! We do not! Why, because we fail to think through with depth of vision just what Joel and Tarjei brought up. It has been brought up many times and usually the best we can do is go.. OOOOOH MY 666-1332-1998...OHHHH scary. Stephen King is a better guide and watcher on the Threshold than we as members of the Michael School.

If copies of the Astral, Etheric and Atma body of the Christ being can be reserved for humanity, what other beings and methods will be used to get fallen copies that feed the hordes of beings that crave what humans have been given freely. Grace-The Fall-The Freedom and the Christ Being. Why in hell do we call it the Central Intelligence Agency...well friends there are hundreds of these well paid thoughtless idiots running around. The problem with Stephen King's "The Stand" is that these beings don't want humanity to be wiped out..they need us as food. These Beings would be happy to have us in Matrix tubes, dreaming of how wonderful sentimental and good we were.

So, I question what Tarjei brought and I question that the type of safeguards that should be shouted from the roof tops in the Michael School is just so much pablum for sensationalism. So if it could come to serious discussion and we walked into how the I AM sits as a Living Signature of unique revelation in the system of mineral, plant, animal and human and we were mature enough, by the Gandalf school of Barlog, turning our hair white... we would stop this flag waving stupidity and this massive military budget and this idiotic push to outer space. Will we? Well folks, its because of the limp dick of the Michael School and our petty picking on Stephen King that we fail to see anything.

I hate catastrophe. I hate the very idea of what humnaity did in the concentration camps. I hate to see a child abused, misdireted and robbed of their intelligence and their innocence. Unless we punch right back effectively...as this TIME requires, the whole mystery of what 1998 means will just take our little sentimental sweetness and serve it up... Cook Book lesson - "How to Serve Man"... run, it is a recipe book not a book on how to best do the right thing by Man. Run for it.

So, Joel, I think Tarjei merely made us look at how stupid and immature we are. Because, as Steiner has so wonderfully indicated, we are on the Brink of the very best that the Christ Being can offer and the very worst that humanity can do to itself.

Death penalty;
Cannabalizing Mad Cow;
Cannabalizing creation;
"The Finished Work of the Gods";
"The final solution"

And if we bring to extinction all manner of animal beings on the planet, what becomes of their orbiting capacities, their orbiting group soul contributions..do we absorb these extinct species back into super capacities created from labs.. Do new super instincts and super animal intelligence become rerouted into our cheering and immoral culture? Will the SuperMan, severed from the Gods appeal to us more than the humble loving penetration of child, matter and nature that Christ offers us to rebuild our shattered souls? Get Gandalfian here, or at least stay away from the sharks until we learn how to swim..and at this rate, it may be a long tragic learning curve.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:57 pm
Subject: Re: Closet Manicheanism

Joel wrote:

Everyone is so nice and polite, and this encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific research that was independent of the authority of others.

Dottie:

I just can not stand arrogance like this anylonger without commenting. Each person has a different task to accomplish here. When one reveals how one knows such a thing from a spiritual experience it is shot to hell. When one tries to use the physical sense of such a mystery as the Magdalene/Lazarus one is shot to hell by the likes of what you have written here.

I not only have a clue I have the mystery. And to push it further to say how I have it just makes no sense as it would be ridiculed to all hell. Visions and meditation seem to go only so far and because one can not express it in physical intelligent terms seems to be a reason to disregard it. Too bad one does not go in and search the spiritual worlds to see if what was discussed is an actual reality before declaring this work of mine as to being one without a clue.

Too bad, your loss,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Dear Mike,

What you write below is very important. Obviously I painted an extra stark picture, but as a friend has said to me, in this Age of Michael, we need both sword and shield. Along the same lines, my favorite Buddhist teacher wrote a book called: Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.

We are raised materialists - its almost in our bones and our blood. Becoming "spiritual" often carries with it the ideas of materialism in all kinds of ways we wouldn't expect. We seek to be spiritual, but bring materialistic thinking even to our spiritual striving.

One way we do this is to engage in thinking activity which is not spiritual in nature, but rather only substitutes a spiritual theory of the universe for a material one. Instead of believing in the Big Bang and Evolution, we believe in the Prior Incarnations of the Earth and the teachings of Revelations.

In both cases we don't know, we only believe. The purpose of the consciousness soul age is to go beyond beliefs, to experience - to add to faith, knowledge.

Yes, it is fun to spin ideas about cosmic evolution and who the heck was Lazarus, but we would do well not to assume that we are being "spiritual" because our theorizing is based upon Steiner's teaching. It is even worse, in its effect on the soul, if we take Steiner's teachings, which are only at best a map, and mistake them for the territory.

What happens is that when we spin fun ideas about the spiritual, we end up playing with maps, and sometimes end up arguing about whose map is best, meanwhile forgetting that there is an actual territory. Further this territory is not out there some place, but right inside us, right in front of us.

If you can give me a concrete example of how answering the question of who was Lazarus/John, or speculating on the nature of the Asuras, actually helps someone with the moral dilemmas of life (for each step forward in spiritual development, one must take three steps in moral practice - RS), then I'd find it easier to support such speculation. If you can convince me that playing with imaginary maps is "anthroposophy", then I'd be glad to encourage this activity.

I don't think you can do this. I could tolerate it more (this playing with maps) if it was balanced with a real discussion of practice, and a sharing of what is being learned in the journey the ancients called: Know Thyself! I could tolerate it more if this playing with maps was joined to discussion and sharing about how it helps a particular person become more conscious of their own inwardness. I would love to see such balance on this list.

Do I seem harsh to you? Good, I intend to be harsh. Too much is at stake. It is a duty I choose under the principles and experiences defined and pointed toward in The Philosophy of Freedom. I owe it to Rudolf Steiner, and my being liked or not liked for saying these things is irrelevant.

warm regards,
joel

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 23:50, Steinerhead wrote:

In a message dated 1/8/04 6:14:26 PM Joel writes:

One of our false beliefs, and which Gordienko addresses in her introduction, concerns what I would call the false view that being "spiritual", means being nice - being polite. In the 12 Steps, we can have (and need to have) someone called our "sponsor". Were this person to be "nice" to us, we'd both soon be lost. Everything is about detecting bullshit as soon as it surfaces, and before it can cause harm. Here on this list the b.s. flies fast and furious, just like most anthroposophical groups and branches I have been in over the years, and many internet discussion lists as well.

Dearest brother Joel,

My old Sponsor of ten+ years used to always tell me that, "there's a wrench for every nut in the world." He was good at not letting me believe in my own bullshit, but he was also, at times, very kind and polite. I understand the need for rigorous self-honesty, but having sponsored a few different people, I realize the importance of meeting them where their at, which is always slightly different for each person. "Some are sicker that others." This reminds me of something in the POF (can't remember exactly so please correct me...but do it nicely please) about how a truly Moral act is subject to the individual circumstances surrounding it.

I realize that you said you give Tarjei shit cause "he can handle it, and will stick to his guns," But what about those of us who are enlivened by the idea of pondering ancient mysteries, and bringing ideas to the surface, that might help us make better sense of our place in the world? How do you know that some of us have no knowledge about these things?

I heard a speaker recently who was very involved in a hard-core sponsorship family that practiced brutal honesty, and what they called "tuff-Love." This might have been well and good for most, but it was to much for one of them, and he wound up blowing his brains out. He was not using when he did this, and had been clean for many years.

I'm not sure about the difference between bullshit and the putting forth of ideas that seem to make sense. All the words that Steiner used to describe the Spiritual world, were metaphorical references used to help make better sense of his ideas. These ideas supposedly came to him by direct cognitive experience of this "Spiritual world" that supposedly exists beyond our physical senses. Now, until I can fine-tune my clairvoyant abilities, and read the Akasha as Steiner supposedly did, I'll need to settle for the ideas the bubble up from time to time, and throw them out there in a freespeach forum and see if they hold together.

I wasn't "making nice" to Tarjei as much as I was making nice to the fact that I learned something from his notion about these Asuras bad guys. A newer stronger version of an older idea came to boil within me and it rang true in my heart. And then you come along and crashed the party, and now I've got more living ideas bubbling up that need rendering...

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Truth and Love

Mike

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

At 00:27 11.01.2004, Joel wrote:

If you can give me a concrete example of how answering the question of who was Lazarus/John, or speculating on the nature of the Asuras, actually helps someone with the moral dilemmas of life (for each step forward in spiritual development, one must take three steps in moral practice - RS), then I'd find it easier to support such speculation. If you can convince me that playing with imaginary maps is "anthroposophy", then I'd be glad to encourage this activity.

Do you believe that publishing articles smearing and insulting Rudolf Steiner's personal character helps your three steps forward in moral practice? While doing this, you're questioning the morality of others on this list because they like to discuss Rudolf Steiner's lectures, demonology and the nature of evil and the authorship of the Gospels! This you consider morally questionable!

I call that hypocrisy, Joel. You're hurling bricks from a glasshouse.

Do I seem harsh to you? Good, I intend to be harsh.

Very well. I intend to be frank.

Too much is at stake. It is a duty I choose under the principles and experiences defined and pointed toward in The Philosophy of Freedom. I owe it to Rudolf Steiner, and my being liked or not liked for saying these things is irrelevant.

What you owe to Rudolf Steiner is an apology.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Closet Manicheanism

GO DOTTIE!!!!!!

(YEAH!!! GO EOWYN!!! GO SOPHIE!! GO JEANNE D'ARC!!!)

Keep thinking, Keep feeling, Keep working, Keep swimming, swimming, swimming.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Dear Tarjei,

I have made some comments below in [brackets].

warm regards,
joel

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 18:29, Tarjei Straume wrote:

At 00:27 11.01.2004, Joel wrote:

If you can give me a concrete example of how answering the question of who was Lazarus/John, or speculating on the nature of the Asuras, actually helps someone with the moral dilemmas of life (for each step forward in spiritual development, one must take three steps in moral practice - RS), then I'd find it easier to support such speculation. If you can convince me that playing with imaginary maps is "anthroposophy", then I'd be glad to encourage this activity.

Do you believe that publishing articles smearing and insulting Rudolf Steiner's personal character helps your three steps forward in moral practice?

[let's examine the logic of your comments regarding my placing on my website Catherine's article. First, you distort her clear meanings (and in fact in some instances lie about it), and in effect invent what you think it says (smearing and insulting Steiner's personal character), without actually quoting anything from the article. Second, you suggest that because I have posted this article, whose meaning you have invented, this means that something is wrong with me. Now this is exactly how Peter S. behaves on the WC List. He invents the meaning of Steiner's writings (claiming it is racist), and then condemns by association those who support Steiner's works.]

While doing this, you're questioning the morality of others on this list because they like to discuss Rudolf Steiner's lectures, demonology and the nature of evil and the authorship of the Gospels! This you consider morally questionable!

[Please quote where I "questioned" the morality of others on this list.]

I call that hypocrisy, Joel. You're hurling bricks from a glasshouse.

Do I seem harsh to you? Good, I intend to be harsh.

Very well. I intend to be frank.

Too much is at stake. It is a duty I choose under the principles and experiences defined and pointed toward in The Philosophy of Freedom. I owe it to Rudolf Steiner, and my being liked or not liked for saying these things is irrelevant.

What you owe to Rudolf Steiner is an apology.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/


--
Joel Wendt

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:43 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Dear Joel,

I find your definition of an Anthroposophist likened to that of the Christians who claim sole true understanding of Jesus' intent.

In reading your posts I am quite shocked at how abrasive you become when you claim to just be 'giving the facts mam'. You do yourself a disservice as well as others. If you look to emmulate Steiners work and make it your own, you wouldn't dare treat peoples understandings in the manner you have. This is not Christ like and it has nothing to do with respect rather it has to do with the teachers crede. And it seems to me you may lack the ability to understand or even care the journey others take.

Your claim, whether you are aware of it or not, that you have the true definition of Steiners work, does a great disservice to those studying and applying themselves to the Anthroposophical Stream.

I do not find your work to be in comparison to Catherines because although she may propose us to rise to questions, and I do not like talking about her when she is not on list, you seem to think you know the answers. And that is fine if you do, but your mannerisims and way of bringing them forth show a different story. Now, I have been appreciating your words when suddenly this ugly devouring persona comes up and looks to denigrate others through your own intellectual learnings. I can see your point on many things yet the devouring guy comes up and just leaves you standing alone. And it will time and time again. And that may be fine with you but one day it will not be fine.

I also have the question in my life if I am to share what I sense in others or if I am to keep it to myself. And on further reflection I can see as to why that particular biography reacts in a certain way and then I have a better understanding not only of my self but also of the other person. Whereas you just do not seem to know when to stop and what is right and wrong in regards to your personal conclusions on others thoughts. YOu seem to think, and I know that sometimes it is right, that one can tell by how one writes or speaks, denotes their spiritual understandings but you are not wholly correct. And in there is your missing link it seems to me.

Now, I write this because it was quite shocking to see to the extent you are willing to harm others yet declare it to be truth. Which then leads me to know you do not in fact know the truth or you would not have demonstrated yourself in the manner you have against your brothers and sisters with total lack of understanding.

It is funny to see one act as if something a person says has not touched inwardly when in fact one can see it has by the reaction of said person. Lots of wounding going on for no reason other than to show our true selves so that we might get to the bottom of what is needed for our lives. It just seems like you Joel only recognize what you percieve as others truths and only see yours in a light manner as if you have already handled that. It's not handled.

Love,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Closet Manicheanism

Dear Dottie,

I've made some comments below in [brackets].

warm regards,
joel

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 23:57, dottie zold wrote:

Joel wrote:

Everyone is so nice and polite, and this encourages us to believe that we are being anthroposophical simply by discussing who Mary M. was, or Lazarus or John, as if any of us had a real clue, based upon original spiritual scientific research that was independent of the authority of others.

Dottie:

I just can not stand arrogance like this anylonger without commenting. Each person has a different task to accomplish here.

[I agree.]

When one reveals how one knows such a thing from a spiritual experience it is shot to hell.

[This may be true in your mind, but it certainly was not in Steiner's practice, nor in those who have published since with similar depth (Tomberg, Ben-Aharon, Kuhlewind etc.). All of these spoke deeply of method, for it was our common method that makes what we do "science".

I am not disputing your experience, which is no doubt quite wonderful, but I would betray Steiner's legacy to let it be called spiritual scientific work.

When one tries to use the physical sense of such a mystery as the Magdalene/Lazarus one is shot to hell by the likes of what you have written here.

[I'm sorry Dottie, but I don't understand this.]

I not only have a clue I have the mystery.

[You might very well have the mystery, but Steiner's effort was that we all become able to have the same mystery, by finding a shared method.]

And to push it further to say how I have it just makes no sense as it would be ridiculed to all hell. Visions and meditation seem to go only so far and because one can not express it in physical intelligent terms seems to be a reason to disregard it. Too bad one does not go in and search the spiritual worlds to see if what was discussed is an actual reality before declaring this work of mine as to being one without a clue.

[Please reread what I wrote, for the term "clue" was followed by the following: "based upon original spiritual scientific research..." This problem is precisely the matter under discussion in Gordienko's book, and the failure to hold ourselves to "standards" of research methods is what has eaten the scientific heart out of the anthroposophical movement and made it vulnerable to the vague mystical leanings of Prokofieff.

For all your reading of Steiner, have you read "True and False Paths in Spiritual Investigation"?]

Too bad, your loss,
Dottie


--
Joel Wendt

...................................................................................................................................

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:44 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Dear Dottie,

okay, lets assume that you are right and I am wrong as regards what anthroposophy is about, and what Steiner intended for it.

in that case please answer the following questions, quoting Steiner, since it is Steiner who we are "interpreting".

What is spiritual science?

How is spiritual science practiced?

What evidence is there that this practice stands behind what people generally post to this list?

warm regards,
joel

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:43, dottie zold wrote:

Dear Joel,

I find your definition of an Anthroposophist likened to that of the Christians who claim sole true understanding of Jesus' intent.

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

Joel wrote:

okay, lets assume that you are right and I am wrong as regards what anthroposophy is about, and what Steiner intended for it.

Dear Joel,

Please lets not assume I am right about anything nor you wrong. You have so many hard working years in anthroposophy and your mind and ability to convey your learning is amazing. From when I first met you until now I sense even more great gifts being offered than ever before. And, then, there is this other part of you that seems to think, or at least it seems so to me, that you know better than all the rest. It is a devouring energy of sorts is how I experience it.

I get the way you challenge people to think. I get what you have attained for yourself through this Steiner process. But it seems you leave no room for others to grow into a thing. It's either black or it is white and there is no in between regarding their personal process of being an anthroposophist.

My way seems to have been different than yours to start out with. My brain, I truly do believe, is not hardwired like yours and many of those that study Dr. Steiner. I am more like, in my thoughts, those unlearned men who he had a great respect/love for, that others could not understand. I am a simple person looking for Christ in my life and in others. I am looking to allow Christ to live through me as well as the angels. I give myself up to that.

I started out with ArchAngel Michael his mission and ours. Took me years to get that book and by the end I knew and felt Michael in my life. I had actually felt it before which is what made me pick up the book in the first place: I was so shocked that there was actually an Angel named Michael.

You state in the other post to me that I seem to have had nice experiences regarding Michael and all. They were not nice they were absolutely terrifying. I was studying Dr. STeiners Guidence of Essoterica when these things started to make themselves known to me. The only thing that calmed me was the idea as put forth by Dr. STeiner that 'these things happen always around us, it is just now that we can see them'. I brought these things down before me and looked at them and contemplated how a thing of this nature can be known to me and then my quest to help make them palatable to others whom I loved.

I studied that particular book and did those particular meditations and daily and monthly excercizes for many hours a day for years, as my soul intent was to know Christ on a different level: I felt pulled to know Christ in the spirit.

'In the purest outpoured light
shimmers the godhead of the world
In the purest love towards all that is
outpours the godhead of my soul
I rest within the godhead of the world
there shall I find myself
in the godhead of the world.'

And suddenly after hours upon hours of daily meditations a white cloud parted before my eyes and all was made clear. EXCEPT that I pulled myself out of it because I did not know what was going to be shown and I had not built my courage up to see that, whatever it was. And many other things happened as well. There are just certain experiences that makes one aware of others who have crossed a certain line so to speak.

So, my path has taken me from seven years old and accepting Christ to Dr.Steiner confirming for me all the questions I had regarding the Bible. Christ is all there is for me and that is who I seek. Steiners book allowed me to find my moral high ground tied to the spiritual worlds. Through his exercises I found the spiritual world and my self. He, through his work, allows me to strive for congition in a way that seems not natural to my brain. I have said it before and I will say it again 'I am unrecognizable to my self'. I strive for the way to think in the manner that you, Harvey, Catherine, Tarjei, Bradford and Paulina do. These ongoing discussions are so absolutely painful to me but I know I am to continue to find a way to rise my brain.

In here is my quest with these students of Steiner. I am so much more comfortable with Jacob Bohme. I get him so easy. I know this work so easy and so well.

So, for me to hear you say this is the only way one can truly be called an anthroposophist feels really really wrong. And not just for me but for the many others that you claim the same. And I get what you are saying regarding 'seeing' others thinkings and knowing what might be missing for them in the learning and so forth however the way you handle it shows what you are missing and I do not know if you are aware of it or not.

And I also have to apologize in the manner I sent my two emails to you. I was feeling a little gnarly and wished I had waited to send it in better thoughts. I have not read what you have written below as I am in Philly on vacation with my family and I am not sure I can handle any more confrontation at this point. If I do not find it to be pushing me to far in my head I will respond if not I will respond when I get back from Philly.

Joel

in that case please answer the following questions, quoting Steiner, since it is Steiner who we are "interpreting".

Dottie

Okay, I can do this.

First of all why would you like me to quote Steiner versus what lives within me from his teachings? I shall answer how I percieve within me Steiners teachings for me. That which lives within me.

Joel

What is spiritual science?

Dottie

Spiritual science is the study of the spirit using verifiable ways of knowing, something that can be traced by certain exercises that will bear that which anyone can find depending on the talent of ones spirit in that particular lifetime. There are certain practices/methods that attain enlightment. And the fruits of this labor are clear to those who reverantly apply these methods to ones life.

Joel

How is spiritual science practiced?

Dottie

Well, I practice it by the methods laid out in How To Know Higher Worlds and also by Essoteric Guidance. I observe all that is around me and I question the beginningness of the thing appearing before me. I contemplate all that surrounds me as in nature, humans and that which is unseen but felt by me. I sink myself into that which I lead myself and am sometimes that which I am led to. I sense into the spirit of the words spoken by the person before me. I try to work from the seat of the heartmind which seems to think within me. I sense my self outside my self and realize that I am walking the body and recognize others walking their bodies as well. I see Christ and want to know how it is that I see him. I see Magdalene and want to know how it is that I see her. Nature seems to fold/bend/shipshape itself around meanings and answers to the questions I ask and I look to see how that is. I work every minute of the day on my self in order to be Christ like in my nature. To be one with Christ is what I work towards through the exersizes that have opened a whole world before my heart. To contemplate the alchemist from an inner level as a soul experience.

Joel

What evidence is there that this practice stands behind what people generally post to this list?

Dottie

Well Joel I don't think that is fair. We are all at different levels of attainment. Harvey and Catherine are the closest to what I understand is produced out of this work. One can see it in their writings that they have gone to a place and their ongoing changes bear further growth since when I had first met them. And yet they both appear to hold different poles within the same spiritual teachings. Harvey seems more in touch with Grace than Catherine yet Catherine has a fine point finger that shows light on how such a thing can be achieved as does Harvey. But I sensed Grace making her way closer to Catherine towards the end of that magnificant Ark journey.

I see quite a few here that have their thinking linked with Steiner and you as well in the sense that it is intellectually vibrant. I sense the true striving to know a thing. I just go to know love more than I love intellect although I do strive hard to understand in a similar manner as you all do. Then I wonder if you strive to know love as well as I do. Is one more important or do they go hand in hand at some point?

Steiners work bears itself out within the person so studying it with a reverant heart. The idea that one can not enter into a deeper relationship with the spirit world, if he still holds the ability to hurt others on purpose, or carelessly has always been at the forefront of how I live my life since reading Steiner. I have failed miserably at times but that is the goalpost while I walk further on the path towards Christ.

I am wondering Joel, if you see the part of you that doesn't work? I see that part of my self very clearly and again it is extremely painful. Truly. Can the heart and the intellect meld into one that we take into consideration that which befalls our fellow man? Or am I the most important aspect of our fellow man?

Steiner knew more than all the rest but he loved us to ourselves. If anyone could have claimed a moral high ground or act in a pompass manner there is none better than he. He is the most in my mind. He revealed Christs words in a way that allows us all to attain a Christ like nature. There is goading and then there is loving ones fellow man to himself, hence ourselves. There is showing man not how much I know rather how much he knows that saves the day.

If I want to know more I am aware it is available to me. As of yet I am still not ready within me to experience the spiritual worlds as a full true reality, naked so to speak. It can be in this lifetime if I so allow it and it has nothing to do with my outer intellect. It has to do with my inner intellect.

Love,
Dottie

p.s. It occurs to me that you and others might think I am totally clueless when it comes to Steiner. And that is okay. I shall keep doing what I do and when I am no longer afraid and have built the courage to move further I will and it will be because of Dr. STeiners amazing gift to humanity of which I am deeply grateful.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Closet Manicheanism

At 17:06 12.01.2004, Joel had a little temper tantrum:

let's examine the logic of your comments regarding my placing on my website Catherine's article. First, you distort her clear meanings (and in fact in some instances lie about it), and in effect invent what you think it says (smearing and insulting Steiner's personal character), without actually quoting anything from the article. Second, you suggest that because I have posted this article, whose meaning you have invented, this means that something is wrong with me. Now this is exactly how Peter S. behaves on the WC List. He invents the meaning of Steiner's writings (claiming it is racist), and then condemns by association those who support Steiner's works.

As Star Trek's Spock would say: Fascinating.

First off, I did quote Catherine's article to illustrate my point, but in all this excitement with so many flame wars, I've forgotten whether it was before or after you posted this message, so I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. If I quoted her before you shot this bullet, it could blow your argument clean off. Do you feel lucky, Punk?

Secondly, I have not suggested that something is wrong with you. That doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you, but I have never offered to diagnose your condition, whatever it may be. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with you; I have no idea.

Thirdly, I don't think it matters much that you put me and Peter Staudenmaier in the same box, because he puts me and you in the same box. In other words, it's you and Peter S who play by the same rules, not me and him.

Fourthly, it's no invention of mine, and no lie, that Catherine MacCoun is smearing and insulting Steiner's personal character with her article. Cruel sado-masochism does not make Steiner human; it makes him sub-human and suggests that he practiced some kind of sexual magic. I don't know if you've been into Aleister Crowley trying out any of that stuff, but isn't Franz Bardon's magic something similar?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

January/February 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind