Sex
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:04 pm
Subject: sex
Was RS a prude?
I remember rummaging through some the scant
archives on the S98 list when I first joined and reading some
great threads on RS's take on sex and sexuality.
As a matter of fact, Frank asked me what my
take on sex was when I first joined that list. If I remember
right, I said that it was a fun feel-good experience that I share
with my wife, but that I didn't think that it had much of anything
to do with love.
Funny story:
I started a twelve step group meeting with
a bunch of friends that was to meet on Friday nights. For a format
we chose a topic meeting. We wrote down all kinds of wonderful
topics that we thought would be good to talk about, and put them
in a can, so that some one could choose blindly and destiny might
be fulfilled.
Well, a couple of years went by and the meeting
was a regular stop for about 15 people who always crowded into
a Friendlys restaurant afterward.
One night out of the topic can came "SEX"
and we all looked around and grinned and moaned and rolled our
eyes, until someone said: "Can't we just cheat this once
and choose a different topic." We all agreed to try again
in hope of a lighter topic, when out of the can comes "Remorse."
By now we were all big-eyed and open-mouthed
and someone said, "well we aren't going to get off easy
tonight, and both of those topics go together for me."
So there was the topic of the meeting: "Sex
and remorse."
Well, you got to remember that no one comes
to a Twelve step group because their life is just peachy. Every
one shared some deep dark sexual secrets and experiences that
revolved around the topic. The honesty was gut-wrenching to say
the least.
After the meeting, every one was quite drained
and we all just went straight home. Only one person showed up
at our familiar rendezvous and she told us the next week that
she had to eat alone.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex
In a message dated 3/20/2004 10:47:12 PM Eastern
Standard Time, mhelsher writes:
I said that it was a fun feel-good experience
that I share with my wife, but that I didn't think that it had
much of anything to do with love.
Hi Mike!
I sure hope your attitude has improved since
then!
: ) Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:32 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex
[Mike:]
Was RS a prude?
Sex and Spiritual Science
From Scaligero's autobiography
Quote (Free translation of mine)
"The Hindrancers are
able to operate inside man by the means of a highest level force
,the Sex, whose sublimation, as far as "rarefied" in
a platonic way , is unable to free herself from Lucifer's prison.
In the same time this prison is inseparable from Ahrimanic's
one, which is able to link the related feeling and thinking to
the sensible maya.
As a starting point, in order
to distinguish - inside the Eros stream-the difference between
the power of the I AM and the power of the Hindrancers, it's
possible to work by the Rosicrucian meditation about the link
between the Hierarchies and the pure streams of thinking, willing,
feeling. That's a very different technique from the one trying
to attempt to "catch" the basic erotic impulses by
the means of a willed stimulus of voluptuousness.
The ambiguity and the elusiveness
of Eros are based on the main fact that: it shows itself like
an unitary Power. The I AM tries uselessly to overcome it or
to practice the detaching from it, since he is in front of a
power that is able to involve his own strength in a not perceivable
way. That's the source of every sexual magic's fail: the basic
identification of the I with the Nature powers."
Andrea adds:
According to Steiner here we find also the
key to understand the link between every nationalistic and racist
impulse and the not-freed sexual impulses.
If you think to the wild excitement of the
crowds screaming and clapping while the Dictator (whatever "political
colour" he got) was scattering out his thunders of words
you can have a good picture about it. In TH Meyer's "Light
for the New Millennium" there is a good description from
a Steiner's letter about the "zombie" shape of German
crowds at the Eve of Darkness. " dull physical bodies, hardened
etheric bodies. empty astral bodies, "I" cut away from
their sheaths ...".
A little more Scaligero
Quote
.........".......What
can be said about a matter of such a difficult communicability?
The first step of a process which only in part comes from disciple's
own development is the following: to grasp -by the means of the
contemplation-the Hierarchies' action inside the thinking-willing-feeling
streams. He has to perceive each stream in its pure condition
and then he has to distinguish the higher unique stream of thinking-willing-feeling
from the zone in which it is trapped by the Hindancers , following
the necessity of everyday soul consciousness life.
........By the means of the
"freed imagination" it is possible to manage the instincts
power through a detachment that is, in the same time, a deeper
communion with a power that usually shows itself distorted as
desire, building the base of a totally different relation with
it
........ The RoseCross meditation,
together with some exercises of the "Esoteric School"
is able to lead the seeker to such a chance.....
....Fear, hatred, desire ,eros,
rage: they are "sign" of the overturning of the power:
it's necessary that the I AM first separates alchemically the
mixed elements in order to re-build the synthesis in a second
time.......that is the chance for the Initiate to transform evil
in good, so at the end of Occult Science Rudolf Steiner shows
the Grail-enterprise as the way of the I AM in the depth of Earth's
core."
End of the Quote
Andrea concludes.
Here we see also what is the path to carry
on the task of re-mix every "outer" element ,as race,
family, gender, blood in order to gain the actual crossing of
Michaelian Treshold of true Cosmopolitism.
Andrea
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex
I said that it was a fun feel-good experience
that I share with my wife, but that I didn't think that it had
much of anything to do with love.
Hi Mike!
I sure hope your attitude has improved
since then!
: ) Christine
Well, it's tricky. You see, as soon as I say
I know something....well, you know the thing about "thesis
and anti-thesis."
I remember hanging with some Buddhist friends
for a while, we had lengthy conversations about sex and sexuality
and one guy told me that "The act of sex itself, between
two (or more) people is intrinsically using someone."
I think what I mean by Sex not having anything
to do with Love is the old "Sex for Sex sake"....I
used to call it "Sport Fucking." The experience being
akin to the home team scoring a touch-down in the final seconds
of the game...
Now, we went over some great stuff this past
summer about high school kids entering puberty and the explosion
of the astral forces, and the channeling of sexual energy into
creative activities or sports. I was bowled over by it all and
right now can't remember much, but it all made so much sense.
Basically, a healthy balance and development of a child's thinking,
feeling, and willing will generally result in much less desire
for promiscuity in their teenage years.
One of my fellow classmates was married and
his wife was six months pregnant. He shared with us that he only
had sex with his wife to create their child, and that they were
abstinent otherwise and that his relationship was very loving
and compassionate - Weird, but I had to admire him for it.
I have to now go back and read Andrea's post
again - really deep stuff (thanks bud).
Sex and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:57 am
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
golden3000997 wrote:
Hi Mike!
I sure hope your attitude has improved
since then!
: ) Christine
Gidday Christine,
Mike is not alone here - the idea that love
has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too. Most
males in his audience will have needed little convincing I am
sure, haha. Presumably you will now be wondering whether Steiner
subsequently improved his attitude...
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:46 am
Subject: Re: sex
Raymond:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
Most males in his audience will have needed little convincing
I am sure, haha. Presumably you will now be wondering whether
Steiner subsequently improved his attitude...
Hey Raymond!
Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'.
Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not
love Raymond, or did you not know this?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Hey Raymond!
Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'.
Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not
love Raymond, or did you not know this?
Gidday Dottie,
It is not me, but Christine, who appears not
to agree with this view. Did I read you wrong, Christine? (See
your quote below)
Hi Mike!
I sure hope your attitude has improved
since then!
: ) Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: zapdingo
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: sex
Raymon wrote:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
What reminds me of these interesting words:
"I believe in love.
I believe in anything
That's gonna get me what I want."
I'm taking guesses as to the author.
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
zapdingo wrote:
Raymon wrote:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
This is news to me and I'e been studying RS
for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject
of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not.
How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?
Thanks,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Hey Raymond!
Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'.
Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not
love Raymond, or did you not know this?
Dottie
Hey Dottie,
I'm might get in trouble for this one. But
I was thinking about what you said about orgasm and how the Jewish
faith (I think) sees it different than most.
Well, I heard once that the experience of
orgasm for women is ten times what it is for men. So it makes
sense that you would be more in tune with the idea of love as
relating to sex. :^)
There might be hope for us men though. I was
thumbing through Mother Jones Mag recently and in the back they
had an ad for pills that supposedly increase the potency of a
mans orgasm :^O
I'll be sure to let you all know if I have
a clairvoyant cognitive experience during sex, as soon as I get
those wonderful pills :^) :^O
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Raymon wrote:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
Paulina wrote:
This is news to me and I'e been studying
RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject
of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not.
How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?
I have also read this by RS but don't remember
the reference. What he said was that love should not be confused
with sexuality, and that when sexuality and love blended, it
was a very coincidental happenstance - and then he said something
about a train hitting something on the track or a similar metaphor.
It would be useful if someone with better memory could look it
up and quote it.
Steiner also echoed Thomas Aquinas when he
indicated that sex was for reproduction only, and that a marriage
licence was no ticket to sexual excesses between two people.
Thomas Aquinas wrote under the subject title "On Fornication"
that every emission of semen that is not an endeavor to cause
pregnancy, is a sin against nature. (I don't remember seeing
a comparable reference by Aquinas to the female orgasm however,
but in the PoF, Steiner says that the woman trades the pleasure
of sexual intercourse with the pain of childbirth.)
So Steiner was indeed "a prude"
in at least two of his incarnations.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
I wrote:
So Steiner was indeed "a prude"
in at least two of his incarnations.
Another remark by RS comes to mind for which
I don't remember the reference. He once said that Anthroposophy
could never become a popular movement for the very reason that
it rests upon the acknowledgement that all existence arises from
suffering. At the moment, it looks like Anthroposophy can become
a popular movement, but in that case, most of it will be watered-down,
feel-good-Anthroposophy. Reincarnation becomes a hedonistic joyride
in and out of bodies and so on. Playboy-Steiner. The acquisition
of spiritual knowledge becomes a pleasurable hobby like golf.
Anthroposophical celebrities will sit on talk shows and chat
Steiner for the masses. The question is how moch meat will be
left on the bones of Anthroposophia when the media culture has
consumed her.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: gjpalo
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:23 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
[Paulina:]
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
zapdingo wrote:
Raymon wrote:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
This is news to me and I'e been studying
RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject
of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not.
How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?
Perhaps this is what was meant. It is from
the lecture cycle, Earthly and Cosmic Man, May 14, 1912:
For many of you will certainly
know that just in our present materialistic times this concept
(love) is shoved into something else and distorted, in that the
materialism in our time forcibly places the concept of love as
close as possible to the concept of sexuality, with which it
has absolutely nothing to do. This is a point where our present
spiritual culture not only departs from reason, but even departs
from anything that is in some way still allowable for healthy
thinking. Here, through its materialism, the development in our
time not ony comes into the unreasonable and non-logical, but
into the scandalous, when what one can call love is so closely
joined up with what may be described with the concept of sexuality.
The fact that, under certain circumstances, in addition to the
love between man and woman, sexuality can enter in -- this fact
does not itself give a justifiable foundation for bringing both
these concepts as close together as possible: the comprehensiveness
of love and empathy, and the total specificness of sexuality.
Logically, this is just as intelligent as, for example, putting
the concepts of "the locomotive" and "being run
over" side by side as two concepts that belong together,
in the same way as love and sexuality today, just because occasionally
locomotives do run over people. This, though, does not stem from
some form of scientific preconception, but rather from the non-sensible
and even partially unwholesome way of thinking of our time.
I would add that C.S. Lewis also distinguished
between erotic love and sexuality in a similar way. The "being
in love" kind of love is, which he called eros, is, phenomenologically
observed, very different in character from sexual passion, which
he called Venus.
Gerry Palo
Hello
buddy!
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Dottie:
Hey Raymond!
Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'.
Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not
love Raymond, or did you not know this?
Dottie
Mike:
I'm might get in trouble for this one.
But I was thinking about what you said about orgasm and how the
Jewish faith (I think) sees it different than most.
Hey Mike,
No it wasn't you. It was the way Raymond worded
his point that had me thinking it was something indecent in reference
to Dr. Steiner. And it was this that I was responding to.
What came to me one day a few years back while
I was sitting eating pizza, go figure, that people were treating
the 'feeling' of the orgasm as if it was love itself. And it
came through the twinkling lights at Christmas time and the thought
concurred with the brilliant lights surrounding me.
I like what the Jewish faith brings in regards
to this sexual holiness. It is allowing me to get it straight
within my self. I remember Bruno A. speaking on this in regards
to his personal relationship and I remember it not making sense
to me then. But now with having been celibate for many years
I realize where this is taking me. It's taking me to a higher
idea for when or if in this lifetime I find my self or allow
my self in an intimate relationship with another. And I like
this thought.
Maybe the Jewish people take it too far with
how Bradford was explaining a story the other day with the hole
sheet thing. It seems one would have to curb ones desire from
within versus from without. Putting a sheet there seems like
cheating in a sense to me and would seem to go back to the olden
days when men went outside their marriages for a little fun.
I get what is trying to be accomplished by its kind of like what
Jesus said in the way of 'if you think it in your heart you have
already gone astray from your higher self'. I think the word
'sin' is so overrated and completely misunderstood hence the
need for my own personal interpretation with the above thought
on Jesus words.
I don't think there is anything wrong with
having lots of fun with sex and so forth. However I do see that
just like our spiritual understandings are growing so might this
sexual aspect of whom we are as well.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
... It was the way Raymond worded his point that had me thinking
it was something indecent in reference to Dr. Steiner. And it
was this that I was responding to.
Gidday Dottie,
I meant nothing indecent, but was merely pointing
out what I believe is RS' support for Mike's point of view. I'll
check on the source - it may indeed be the same as the passage
posted by Gerry.
Popularly, where infidelity is involved, it
is held that men tend to separate sex and love, whereas women
see them as inextricably linked. What interested me was that
the apparent difference in view between Mike and Christine seemed
to illustrate this split in opinion between the sexes.
Had Steiner been female, perhaps he would
have expressed himself differently, do you think?
Oh, and reversing the word order as you suggested
- 'sex has nothing to do with love' vs 'love has nothing to do
with sex' ... to me these both have the same meaning, so I'm
not sure of your point.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Hi Gerry,
Not sure if you've been around this list for long, but Welcome
anyway.
I've always appreciated your posts to the Waldorf list.
Thanks for finding this quote, it really brought it home for
me.
All the best
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:51 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume <elfuncle@chello.no>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Raymon wrote:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
Paulina wrote:
This is news to me and I'e been studying
RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject
of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not.
How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?
I have also read this by RS but don't remember
the reference.
My 2cc.
The "Sex" topic hides the deepest
misteries of Mankind. Steiner did not give an analyis of this
topic. . He told something about it, here and there, mostly on
the lecture cycle GA 253, about Sex , The Spiritual Teacher and
the GAS (Goesches' events).
He told also that at that moment in time there
was not possible to say more. (He said the same also about the
so called "Jewish question"). Fifty years after Scaligero
choosed the task to say this "more" from a Spiritual
standpoint.
In his "Trulogy" (I posted some
sketches about it a while ago) he tried to take a step ahead
either towards Left Handed Sexual magic or Right Handed Platonic
Love. He did so due to his personal experience about it. He underlined
that the core of sex matters is not about the fact to make or
to make not sex. He underlined that the core is in rooted the
link between the "act" and the inner , inmaginative
life of the human subject performing the act itself.. Who is
in the path of freeing the thinking-imaginative life from the
brain got, in the same time, the chance of a totally new relation
with the life of sex in order to drive this life back to the
Cosmic Love realm, aka the Sophianic realm, from where this life
of sex did originate. He found also the link between the sex
and the Cosmic Love matters with the Grail saga that, in itself,
is based on triadic Soul's gesture (each one of the Three Heroes
Parsifal,Galahad and Feirfiz is the representative of a force
of the Soul -Thinking-Willing-Feeling).
The Grail saga began to overcome both the
usual sex-generation love and the Platonic chastity too and got
at its kernel the True Imaginative experience able to help us
to begin the bridge's crossing towards the "take up"
of the sex streams inside the Cosmic Love ones. Needles to say
that here we are in front of the deepest Man's Misteries with
links, for instance, with another giant issue aka the Etherization
of Blood and The Etheric Christ Advent..........
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: bryan miller
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:20 am
Subject: Re: sex
Ahem...Allow me to briefly interrupt the serious
talk again to present the answer to my quizz below. Due to the
lack of interest, I embbedded the correct option(s) among a few
wrong ones, just for fun (my own, of course).
Who said that and where:
1) Anna Nicole Smith, in her wedding ceremony
2) Dorothy Parker, in her poem "Lonesome"
3) Peter Staudenmaier, in his unpublished autobiography "Monogamy
Sucks and so do I"
4) Lloyd Cole, in his song "Forest Fire"
5) Everybody including myself, after a few beers too many.
Bryan
"I believe in love.
I believe in anything
That's gonna get me what I want."
I'm taking guesses as to the author.
Bryan
Beer
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
I like what the Jewish faith brings in
regards to this sexual holiness. It is allowing me to get it
straight within my self. I remember Bruno A. speaking on this
in regards to his personal relationship and I remember it not
making sense to me then. But now with having been celibate for
many years I realize where this is taking me. It's taking me
to a higher idea for when or if in this lifetime I find my self
or allow my self in an intimate relationship with another. And
I like this thought.
To all posting on this issue of sex being
seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption
about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone
comment your Hasidic rabbi made. There is an entire range of
perspective on sex among Jews, just as among Gentiles or any
other group. In Luranic Kabbalah, for instance, there are six
paths to divine knowledge andone of these six paths is known
as the sexual path of the Bull.
On this path, according to Jewish mystical
tradition it is possible in sexual union to draw higher spiritual
energies into the act throught "santifying context of the
Sabbath and proper understanding of the and involves the mystery
of the kiss. The Bull path is the reconciliation of two opposites,
power and love.
See;
-Song of Songs (1;20)
-Sha'ar ha-Kelalim (Capter 2)
-Milton's "Paradise Lost (Raphael's answer to Adam on the
union of soul with soul)
-Spenser's "The Faerie Queene
It's no wonder that so many people today do
not know how love and sex can be mutal and or related. We have
removed the fig leaf from the genitals and put it over our faces
and made fucking a recreational activity.
At any rate, I hardy think it worth while
to quote Steiner in this regard, or Aquinas or Augustine! LOL!
Good grief, guys! That is is like quoting the pope about sexual
union. Get a grip. Just be honest and say,"I cannot speak
to this issue of love and sex being one as having never had the
experience of such a spirtual merging", but, don't say it
doesn't exist because you have not know it. Some have. :-)
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
At 17:42 25.03.2004, Paulina wrote:
To all posting on this issue of sex being
seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption
about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone
comment your Hasidic rabbi made. There is an entire range of
perspective on sex among Jews, just as among Gentiles or any
other group. In Luranic Kabbalah, for instance, there are six
paths to divine knowledge andone of these six paths is known
as the sexual path of the Bull.
On this path, according to Jewish mystical
tradition it is possible in sexual union to draw higher spiritual
energies into the act throught "santifying context of the
Sabbath and proper understanding of the and involves the mystery
of the kiss. The Bull path is the reconciliation of two opposites,
power and love.
In this context, it should be noted that according
to RS, it was Yahve who created sexual love, i.e. he introduced
love into the reproductive act. From the way I have understood
it, however, this particular regency of Yahve ended around the
middle of the 20th century and is becoming hijacked by ahrimanic
and asuric Beings. This also has to do with atavistic wisdom
ending around the middle of the 20th century, plus the future
prospect of reproducing directly through the Creative Word, the
Logos, through the larynx.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
sex/Repro
Technology
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie
zold
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: sex
Paulina:
To all posting on this issue of sex being
seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption
about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone
comment your Hasidic rabbi made.
Hey Paulina,
What I am trying to get at is the idea that
chasing the orgasm is not love. The Rabbi raised a question within
me as to how it can be a 'holy' union versus a lust union. How
in this moment does one keep gracethought in mind. I guess for
me I like this idea for myself where it doesn't become about
just the 'feeling' and more about the perfect union that serves
something in both partners. Just like my thoughts go deeper towards
questions of the universe I like that in this moment I am contemplating
how to rise to a higher level within me towards this act. Kim
and I had a short conversation about the 'twins' meeting and
it seems the thought comes that once they have worked out all
the lust aspects is when they can truly meet as one in a sense.
And that even maybe they don't meet until this has been worked
out. And I think this makes it even the more beautiful for some
reason. It is hitting me as something special with a great understanding
of something deeper at work. Or it can be that when in a relationship
one can turn the tide in a sense towards this point. I like that
idea as well.
Paulina:
On this path, according to Jewish mystical
tradition it is possible in sexual union to draw higher spiritual
energies into the act throught "santifying context of the
Sabbath and proper understanding of the and involves the mystery
of the kiss. The Bull path is the reconciliation of two opposites,
power and love.
Yes, it seems there is quite a bit of this
and then again it seems that much of it is corrupted in a way
that befell the Temple Virgins.
Paulina:
See;
-Song of Songs (1;20)
-Sha'ar ha-Kelalim (Capter 2)
-Milton's "Paradise Lost (Raphael's answer to Adam on the
union of soul with soul)
-Spenser's "The Faerie Queene
I guess I think of it as being corrupted now
and having been for a long while. Don't know specificallyi about
the Bull path you speak of and can only imagine thatwithin the
Jewish tradition it is still something they can lead others in
as far as a higher understanding. I can recall reading in a controversial
book by Ravenscroft about such sexual acts and so forth. Even
though much can be disputed in that particular book I believe
many of those things continue to be used to find a way to 'spiritual'
experiences. And then the Queen comes in and kicks everyones
ass. It's almost as if She seduces as one is willing to be seduced
and then WHAM! ones experiences can be seen through the art or
whatever one happens to be beholden to through their everyday
lives. I've seen it happen with a few local artists and musicians.
I call her Lucy.
Paulina:
Just be honest and say,"I cannot speak
to this issue of love and sex being one as having never had the
experience of such a spirtual merging", but, don't say it
doesn't exist because you have not know it. Some have. :-)
Glad to see you feeling better:)))))
Dottie
Sex,
Cupid, Krishna and Naughtiness
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Tarjei Straume wrote:
In this context, it should be noted that
according to RS, it was Yahve who created sexual love, i.e. he
introduced love into the reproductive act. From the way I have
understood it, however, this particular regency of Yahve ended
around the middle of the 20th century and is becoming hijacked
by ahrimanic and asuric Beings. This also has to do with atavistic
wisdom ending around the middle of the 20th century, plus the
future prospect of reproducing directly through the Creative
Word, the Logos, through the larynx.
Not "in this context", Tarjei.
As long as there are males and females, i.e.,
two sexes walking around it hardly relevant to talk about reproducing
through the larynx, and is it this kind of thing that make the
Dianas and Dans think we are all new age loonies.
We are still in a time period where the cosmic
sexual model for the division and reuniting of cosmic energies
termed masculine and feminine continue to be the driving force
of creation.
There are rungs on the ladder of ascent, if
you want to say they are passe, have at it, but you are missing
the point about what a man and woman were meant to offer one
another. The path of the Bull is the rung on the ladder that
leads to the path of the Lion (the heart), Luranically speaking.
"The emotion of love
is regarded by the Germans as a virtue, as a divine emanation,
as something mystic...it is profound and has something of illuminism
about it."
-Stendal
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
AMEN SISTER - HALLELUJAH JESUS!!!
Hey guys - don't you know that ALL sex is
between the ears? The rest is just friction.
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: danifyou
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Rép. : Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
----Message original -----
De : Tarjei Straume
Raymon wrote:
Mike is not alone here - the idea that
love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.
Paulina wrote:
This is news to me and I'e been studying
RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject
of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not.
How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?
I have also read this by RS but don't remember
the reference. What he said was that love should not be confused
with sexuality, and that when sexuality and love blended, it
was a very coincidental happenstance - and then he said something
about a train hitting something on the track or a similar metaphor.
It would be useful if someone with better memory could look it
up and quote it.
Steiner also echoed Thomas Aquinas when
he indicated that sex was for reproduction only, and that a marriage
licence was no ticket to sexual excesses between two people.
Thomas Aquinas wrote under the subject title "On Fornication"
that every emission of semen that is not an endeavor to cause
pregnancy, is a sin against nature. (I don't remember seeing
a comparable reference by Aquinas to the female orgasm however,
but in the PoF, Steiner says that the woman trades the pleasure
of sexual intercourse with the pain of childbirth.)
So Steiner was indeed "a prude"
in at least two of his incarnations.
And where does that come from ya think? Reminescence
Hebrew Mission Abrahamic "Thou shall not waste thy seed"!
Danny
...................................................................................................................................
From: DByron
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Paulina wrote:
At any rate, I hardy think it worth while
to quote Steiner in this regard, or Aquinas or Augustine! LOL!
Good grief, guys! That is is like quoting the pope about sexual
union. Get a grip. Just be honest and say,"I cannot speak
to this issue of love and sex being one as having never had the
experience of such a spirtual merging", but, don't say it
doesn't exist because you have not know it. Some have. :-)
I have to admit my main reaction to the guys'
posts was the depressing thought that apparently in my next incarnation
I am doomed to forget everything I now know about this subject.
Still laughing,
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:19 pm
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Paulina:
To all posting on this issue of sex being
seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption
about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone
comment your Hasidic rabbi made.
Hey Paulina,
What I am trying to get at is the idea
that chasing the orgasm is not love.
Totally in agreement with you, Dottie.
The Rabbi raised a question within me as
to how it can be a 'holy' union versus a lust union. How in this
moment does one keep gracethought in mind. I guess for me I like
this idea for myself where it doesn't become about just the 'feeling'
and more about the perfect union that serves something in both
partners.
And here I think that Steiner gives remarkable
clues about what can and should work between a man and a woman
in terms of their differing strengths and gifts. The male must
be archetypcally strong to be sexually competent and the female
provided the archtypally beautiful (beauty as in the eyes of
the beholder), and her faith in him is the bestowing gift whereby
he retains his strength to face the world, be it war or the corporate
world. Ask your Rabbi about the kiss that transpires between
Abba and Imma, for it is here that understanding of the six Sefirot
have their origin.
I guess I think of it as being corrupted
now and having been for a long while.
Again, I agree with you, totally. Fucking
around will do that. It's no wonder that the islamic extremists
look at the west and see us as decadent devils. Unfortunately,
their undestanding of women and what can and should transpire
between a man and woman is just s messed up. Two sides of a bankrupt
coin, heads or tails, so to speak.
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:42 am
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Paulina wrote:
This is news to me and I'e been studying
RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject
of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not.
How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?
Gidday Paulina,
Sorry for the slow reply – I was not
ignoring you. The full quote with references is given at the
end of this post.
Yes, in the social climate of that time Steiner
was hardly able to lift the lid on this sort of thing.
In the quote, he says that it (the throwing
together of sex and love) is `the worst expression of materialism',
and that this is something the spiritual science of the future
must counter. While spiritual science has not achieved much in
this respect, the secular world is managing to bring it forth
quite well. As for us, we have Frank haha. But seriously, he
is likely on the right track. For a development of the theme
shows that morality, too, has nothing to do with sex. Any sexual
behavior in itself is not, then, to be considered immoral. Steiner,
it seems, was after all no prude.
I have in mind an analysis along anthroposophical
lines, which discusses the reasoning behind the stern attitudes
of the old Judeo-Christian culture towards sex. And that while
correct for that era, it is now out of place in today's world.
(Analogous to Steiner's `Mission of Alcohol' type statements
which hold that alcohol usage was right and proper at one time,
but today should be considered harmful.) So today, in moralizing
about sex, one is playing into Lucifer's hands, for it is an
unfree, mechanized, knee- jerk morality.
If this sort of thing interests you, email
me offline and I'll find the discussion (it's on the web someplace)
and send it to you. It's too candid to post here.
Another apposite quote, from GA 147 `Secrets
of the Threshold' (Lecture II) Aug 25, 1913, Munich, runs as
follows:
`... Lucifer wants to make
physical love similar to spiritual love. Then he can root it
out of the physical or sense-world and lead it over into a special
kingdom of his own…'
OK here's the original quote you asked for
It's in `Love, Marriage, Sex in the light of Spiritual Science'
by Rev R Lewis, a compilation in three volumes I think, published
in the early 90's, and is from GA 143 `Experiences of the Supersensible:
the Paths of the Soul to Christ' / `Ancient Wisdom and the Heralding
of the Christ Impulse' May 8, 1912, Cologne.
"In relation to compassion
and love, I could even speak of a program - if I were to speak
in a primitive fashion - that spiritual science must fulfil in
the future. Materialism today - which has never before happened
on the earth - has even arrived at a scandalous science in this
field. The worst thing that is accomplished today is the throwing
together of love and sexuality. That is the worst expression
of materialism, the most devilish thing in the present time.
The things that are being
accomplished in this field will eventually have to be very carefully
peeled away, layer by layer. Sexuality and love have absolutely
nothing to do with each other!
Sexuality is something which
has nothing at all to do with pure, innocent, original love.
Science has brought all this into the realm of the scandalous,
in that it has brought about a whole literature which is concerned
with bringing both these things which have absolutely nothing
to do with each other, into connection with each other."
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:38 am
Subject: Re: sex
Raymond: [quoting
RS:]
The things that are being
accomplished in this field will eventually have to be very carefully
peeled away, layer by layer. Sexuality and love have absolutely
nothing to do with each other!
Sexuality is something
which has nothing at all to do with pure, innocent, original
love. Science has brought all this into the realm of the scandalous,
in that it has brought about a whole literature which is concerned
with bringing both these things which have absolutely nothing
to do with each other, into connection with each other."
For me when I read your post on this subject
you stated that love and sex did not have anything do with one
another according to Dr. Steiner. And this in my eyes was speaking
to a subject vetted earlier here in the year: sadomasochism.
BUT actually what Dr. Steiner stated as can be seen above is
that sexUALITY and love have absolutely nothing to do with each
other. Which I agree with although it does seem we use this sexuality
to try and gain love as mostly this is what we see all around
us in the world and are actually inundated with it. And this
was my point of chasing the orgasm.
Paulina spoke on the point of the man being
manly in a sense and it truly is this that leads the woman in
my understanding. And the men are specifically being pointed,
through media and whathaveyou, in the direction that completely
corrupts the beautiful aspect of that physical union of two people.
And the woman wanting 'love' go along for the ride. And then
most likely it becomes what they want as well. My own personal
experience is that it was fun but something was always nagging
me in the back of my mind that something something wasn't right.
Not that it was bad or whathave you rather I would be left questioning
my self later about what was missing in a sense. Just like in
my spiritual studies, something asks me to think above or past
a thing and so it was with the sexual union.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
raymon_ford wrote:
Gidday Paulina,
Sorry for the slow reply – I was not
ignoring you. The full quote with references is given at the
end of this post.
No problem.
Yes, in the social climate of that time
Steiner was hardly able to lift the lid on this sort of thing.
I remain firm in my position that Steiner,
nor Aquinas are men able to address what transpires, potentially
and or metaphsyically in sex when love is part of the equation
that brings down spritiual forces into the physical anymore than
could the current pope. The last pope, who was murdered by the
current curia, was far more able to speak to this issue and grasped
the point of what I had hoped to make because he witnessed what
transpired via such love and was himself a product of it, as
well as carrying the Christ within. But, Steiner is hardly the
man to have asked about the mystery of love and sex. Just look
at the marriage he made early on. Weight the evidence. I don't
believe that union was anything but as platonic as was the second
marriage on of necessity to establish a boundary between Steiner
and the esoteric groupies crawling out of the woodwork. Friendship
was the basis of the first and a merging of mutal aestheticism
the second.
In the quote, he says that it (the throwing
together of sex and love) is `the worst expression of materialism',
and that this is something the spiritual science of the future
must counter. While spiritual science has not achieved much in
this respect, the secular world is managing to bring it forth
quite well. As for us, we have Frank haha. But seriously, he
is likely on the right track. For a development of the theme
shows that morality, too, has nothing to do with sex. Any sexual
behavior in itself is not, then, to be considered immoral. Steiner,
it seems, was after all no prude.
If anything is to gleaned correctly from Steiner
it is that we all are to make our own decisions about matters
of morality and bear the consequences of those decisions. That
is what is to occur at this point of our evolution toward Freedom.
I have in mind an analysis along anthroposophical
lines, which discusses the reasoning behind the stern attitudes
of the old Judeo-Christian culture towards sex. And that while
correct for that era,
YEH GADS! Do you hear what you are saying?
YOU desire to analysis this issue along anthroposophical lines
and then make a determination about what is correct for this
era? Hello!
OK here's the original quote you asked
for It's in `Love, Marriage, Sex in the light of Spiritual Science'
by Rev R Lewis, a compilation in three volumes I think, published
in the early 90's, and is from GA 143 `Experiences of the Supersensible:
the Paths of the Soul to Christ' / `Ancient Wisdom and the Heralding
of the Christ Impulse' May 8, 1912, Cologne.
That is Lewis, not Steiner. I have about as
much regard for Rev. Lewis as I do PS, so thanks anyway. I've
seen them, discarded them. Not only shouls Clueless Lewis have
his ass kicked for his publishing of his silly little opining
on sex, drugs, alcohol and cyanide to generate revenue, but,
the individuals in the American Society who provided him with
the names and addresses of members should be ashamed for their
part in this solicitation for individual profit.
"In relation to compassion
and love, I could even speak of a program - if I were to speak
in a primitive fashion - that spiritual science must fulfil in
the future.
Sounds like you are well on your way to a
mission of becoming another anthopoop guru, and aren't we in
need of another one of those!
It's really too bad anthroposophists fail
to "get it' that the task of the time is to work on redeeming
one's individual astral forces rather than pontificating on how
eveyone else should be eating, drinking, loving, intercoursing
in speech, friendship and intimate relationships.
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:13 am
Subject: Re: sex
dottie zold wrote:
Paulina spoke on the point of the man being
manly in a sense and it truly is this that leads the woman in
my understanding. And the men are specifically being pointed,
through media and whathaveyou, in the direction that completely
corrupts the beautiful aspect of that physical union of two people.
And the woman wanting 'love' go along for the ride.
Brave Hearts;
I disagreed with Paulina when she first offered
this and I further disagree with the failure we have in looking
at the changing role of males and females. Ideally the fallen
Man was Man and woman was woman had held sway for some time.
It is very clear that the I AM experiences in Men and Women are
emerging as stronger dominating types, stronger inward experiences
overthrow the theory that Men are the dominating steering force
and women must, would and should follow the leaders. I find the
whole idea repulsive that we could even take on such a retro
theory. My reasons:
Firstly, it has to do with Patriarchal historical
revisionism and Adamic and Fallen types that had shifted from
Atlantean Matriarchal, Maternal Motherly Singers, who had woven
matter sheaths and spun them out of their wills. After Atlantis,
it slowly shifted to Patriarchal, and Paternalistic Seed Carriers,
as an OT, revised, revisionist history thread.
At the NT, and particularly at the historical
landing of the Michael School, of the famed subject matter of
1888 that P.S. is talking about, the shift to a new Balance of
Male and Female with a new I AM - remodelled Soul structure -
AnthroSophic Soul structure - strongly comes upwards to meet
new conditions of the I AM. This offsets the weight in the scale
of Men on one side or the weight in the scale of women on the
other side, but achieves a kind of karmic and incarnational signature
and balance.
Male Egotism and their entire Patriarchal
B.S. (and here we could go into various regions where this Patriarchal
dogma is clung to and these would be retardations projected out
through dogmatic fundamentalism in various religious codes. All
False.) could be high lighted by the failed historical insights
of both Peter Staudenmaier, hardly worth mentioning, and even
less on point, Diana.
Male and Female models that understand the
changing reality of the roles of Males and Females also reveal
changes in history that snoops like P.S. can't cope with because
the scope of history and time does not reveal these changes to
their faulty intelligence. Spiritualized Intellect is lacking
and failed concepts of current history, where mighty changes
have been muffled over by Ahrimanic/Hitler and 1933-1945 cultural
incursions, shocks and reversals that continue to dupe and delude
with superfical theories of antisemitism right to 2001. Therefore
we can blame both Diana and Peter Staudenmaier for how we goose
stepped back to the failures of the 20th century racism as we
entered the 21 st century under George Bush's failed Fundamentalism.
You share it, you think it, you eat it.
Philosemitic or antisemitic constructs and
how contemplation through Blavatsky revealed parts of the historical
timing of a revolutionary contemplation shift is targeted for
deception by Peter Staudenmaier. Here the entire scheme of ancient
human development could begin to be explored on the Foundations
of the I AM, going all the way back to Saturn Evolution. And
weaving a tale through Lemuria and Atlantis, records this intense
historical shift of balance of Sexes and vision of Races from
Matriarchy to Patriarchy to BALANCE.
It is remarkable that Peter S. wishes to entertain
something as invisible as Atlantean theory only to find himself
tangled in denying Atlantis as a mirage and Lemuria as a mirage,
but opening the can of worms that False Racist ideas stem from
entire false paradigms of (woo-woo) false occult history. Which
Peter Staudenmaier denies because he gets dialectally lost in.
The set up is very interesting. There is no way for Peter Staundenmaier
to embrace advanced occult history, because he denies that such
a history exists. There is no history of the I AM.. therefore
any shift from Matriarchal to Patriarchal paradigms and back
to balance is based on a figment in Bradford's overheated brain.
"It is believed the Ubaidian
civilization is the beginning of the Sumerian culture. The Ubaid
built mound temples, adding to their height over time. The mounds
are likely to protect their shrines during the frequent floods.
The Ubaid worshiped the spirit-god Ea (Enki) and the Great God
Anu. The Ubaid are known for the saying do not offer the food
and drink of death but the bread of life and the water of life.
The food and drink of death offers immortality. This is the basis
for Garden of Eden myth. This is likely a localized belief not
shared in other cultures.
"About this time the
Sumarian Culture began a shift from Feminine spirit-god symbols
to Masculine spirit-god symbols leading to a fundamental schism
of beliefs and values. The Sumarian culture eventually developed
a distorted paternalistic view of their environment. Women became
second class citizens, no longer being created in the image of
God.
The ancients believed the
image of God requires both male and female characteristics. The
World was basically matriarchal because women were revered for
their ability to create and sustain life. Not superior or equal
but complementary like Mother Earth and Father Sun.
"Many still hold the
belief that when the earth was viewed as a mother, things were
more peaceful. The Sumarians to justify their perversion created
a second account of creation stating that woman is born of man.
Woman, they believed tempted man from God and are therefore intrinsically
evil. Women would become second class citizens and eventually
regarded as chattel.
"These destructive paternalistic
beliefs are incorporated into the three major Sumarian religions,
Semitic-Judaism, Judo-Christianity and Semitic-Islam. Some believe
Indo-European tribes spread paternalism because of their belief
in an aggressive sky god who is male and human male leaders were
given the powers of god . They believe with this change came
slavery, war and walled cities."
Bradford concludes;
So the discussion is certainly not Orgasm.
This prefered dwelling on Sentient Soul and adolescent perks
gives nothing to the mature contemplation we need to understand
how in the Chymical Wedding Rosenkreuz saw Venus Naked. This
has everything to do with the Endocrine system that is Pituitary
and Pineal based. You get to the Pineal and Pituitary and at
least you get somewhere, at least you arrive at the Shores of
the Michael School. Here Paulina has always been correct. Vertical
and Horizontal love meets at the crossroads of the human heart.
Today we are in a state of balance of Female
and Male because of the level of distortion in the devlelopment
of Etheric and Astral conditions carried into the bodies we incarnate
in. None of us are perfect. Failed distortions of the Anima and
Animus and rich realities of Feminine side Males and Masculine
side Females mix and mingle in entirely new historical patterns.
Distortions are everywhere. Distortions are interesting study
examples. Peter is a distortion.
The shift of historical paradigms from Matriarchal
and Patriarchal to Balance was how the Romantics kicked off a
whole new chapter in the history of Racism and the Sexes. Today
man is not always from mars and women are not always from venus.
Beauty and the Imagination of the duel concepts of Male and Female,
reveal what we have discussed about Venus Naked and the founding
of Rome by Aeneas.
And something for Diana and Peter:
Since Zarathustra can't be understood try
something different;
"12/03/2003 Entry:
"Nasty Little Virginthustra"
Ben Shapiro perfectly sums
up why I'm sick of the largely non-Jewish philosemitic backbone
of the Republican Party (even though he is, himself, Jewish):
defending Ann Coulter from those mean, bad librul Jews, he stakes
out the rather untenable position that Judaic identity is premised
on (and virtually solely on) unerring support for Israel.
In Ben's world, you aren't
crispety crunchety chocolatey Jewy if you don't "act Jewish".
Apparently, Joe Lieberman, an intensely religious man, is only
"semi-observant" (I guess because he doesn't agree
with Ben). Other Democrats, who are either Jewish or have Jewish
connections, are trusted by the Jewish community at large...but
those aren't "real" Jews. They don't believe "real"
Jewish things - although apparently the only real Jewish value
Ben can put forth is not being a Democrat.
There's a reason why the left's
version of "identity politics" works and the right's
version doesn't. The left generally bases their ethnic/racial
ideals and policies on actual attitudes within a community. The
reason so many black people vote for Democrats isn't because
we're so cowed by the Democratic machines that we just don't
know about Republicanism, but that, instead, the promise of a
Democratic platform is actually what's in tune with what's most
important to us. In much the same way, the Jewish community isn't
being led around by the Clintonian Pied Piper, blindly supporting
Democrats because we say "shalom" every so often. Unless,
of course, you're like Ben and think that American Jews in the
main are too stupid and too un-Jewish to understand what's really
good for them.
That Ben does this, and that
the rest of the Republican Party is full of the same hate-filled,
psuedo-philosemitic slackwits is well-known by all the minority
groups that they try to dictate "proper" identity to
- and it's losing them the nominal inroads they were making.
Whoever the Democratic nominee is needs to harp on this as an
overall theme on the Republican plan for America - they don't
want to serve you, they want to be in charge of you.
Much like the ongoing specter
of political correctness, the right has taken a fringe left problem,
and become exactly what they were railing against."
http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00002211.htm
sex
/ and a Date...
Sex and the Failures of Science
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:32 am
Subject: Re: sex
Bradford wrote:
Ideally the fallen Man was Man and woman
was woman had held sway for some time. It is very clear that
the I AM experiences in Men and Women are emerging as stronger
dominating types, stronger inward experiences overthrow the theory
that Men are the dominating steering force and women must, would
and should follow the leaders. I find the whole idea repulsive
that we could even take on such a retro theory. My reasons:
Dear Bradford,
I believe the whole point even unto before
the fall was the fact that there are indeed two different energies
that hold within them what we refer to as the masculine and feminine
principles. They are distinct in their oneness in my understanding.
They both serve their purposes. It may be the Haaretz and the
Hashayim concept if I am recalling the words correctly.
I recall at one point in my life I thought
that men and women were not different that the only difference
was their sex. I have since realized the beauty that stands as
the feminine and the masculine principles that live within me
and without. I so dig the male role and the female role in the
physical universe. I love the idea of the twin becoming One and
what brought it to that exact moment most exhilerating in its
understanding.
I do not see it that women have to follow
any leader but to negate the differences that make up the whole
seems a bit askew. We are not the same. We do indeed have different
rolls. And no that does not mean women roll over and play dead.
The woman must match her man in my understanding. It's an eye
for an eye but not in the killing but in the loving and the creating.
And it is very very powerful. Most of my personal relationships
with the men in my life is along this line without the sexual
aspect. And it is clear that this is not my gig at this point
in time so it has been worked out in my friendships. And it is
Rilke who also helped me through his little book called Letters
to a Young Poet that allowed me to realize this growing towards
one another process.
We are different and so shall we remain even
unto the uniting in my humble opinion.
Love to you,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
At 00:56 26.03.2004, Paulina wrote:
As long as there are males and females,
i.e., two sexes walking around it hardly relevant to talk about
reproducing through the larynx, and is it this kind of thing
that make the Dianas and Dans think we are all new age loonies.
We are still in a time period where the
cosmic sexual model for the division and reuniting of cosmic
energies termed masculine and feminine continue to be the driving
force of creation.
I am not going to argue with you about that,
but I'll mention something else that RS pointed out - in connection
with the Freemasons: The apron represents the overcoming of sensuality,
so that men and women will learn to work side by side as equals
without sensuality getting in the way. He also said that the
overcoming of sensuality is a major task for our age. I don't
have the references to this, but perhaps someone else has, or
maybe I'll stumble across the texts later.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
At 00:56 26.03.2004, Paulina wrote:
As long as there are males and females,
i.e., two sexes walking around it hardly relevant to talk about
reproducing through the larynx, and is it this kind of thing
that make the Dianas and Dans think we are all new age loonies.
We are still in a time period where the
cosmic sexual model for the division and reuniting of cosmic
energies termed masculine and feminine continue to be the driving
force of creation.
Tarjei:
I am not going to argue with you about
that, but I'll mention something else that RS pointed out - in
connection with the Freemasons: The apron represents the overcoming
of sensuality, so that men and women will learn to work side
by side as equals without sensuality getting in the way. He also
said that the overcoming of sensuality is a major task for our
age. I don't have the references to this, but perhaps someone
else has, or maybe I'll stumble across the texts later.
If I knew I was getting involved with a bunch
of sex maniacs I'd have thought twice before coming to this party.
Shocked,
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: sex
dottie zold wrote:
The woman must match her man in my understanding.
It's an eye for an eye but not in the killing but in the loving
and the creating. And it is very very powerful. Most of my personal
relationships with the men in my life is along this line without
the sexual aspect.
Love to you as well;
TAMMY WYNETTE
Stand By Your Man
(Tammy Wynette/Billy Sherrill)
Sometimes its hard to be a
woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doing things that you don't understand
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
But if you love him you'll
forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him
Cause after all he's just a man
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Bradford comments;
Dysfunctional relationships abound and this
is not the exception, this is the rule. Distortion of the etheric
and astral forces as the Soul stands today is like watching the
Sopranos where the women, who are dysfunctional snakes enable
their men to be, malicious unethical killers is hardly different
than Jeff Foxworthy's noble attempts to defuse the locked in
dysfunctions in fundamentalism and pockets of ignorance in America.
Or the Mormons carry this distorted religious, OT mind set around
with them.
Enablers of dysfunction or enablers to abuse,
sitting back and allowing fathers to abuse or molest daughters,
or mothers abusing doing their Jon Benet fantasies with their
little dress up Barbie and Ken children, or the current look
at Bush Fundamentalism and marriage and Biblical fundie dogmas,
against gays and lesbians is off time and reflects retardation.
This retardation of thinking has not been
studied enough. Where the history, in relation to when the I
AM and etheric and astral forces, began to emerge from the Female
container or the Male container and WHY, these changes arise
should be safely contemplated without stigma. It is the WHY these
changes arise that seems to promote Retardation of Thinking and
enables the weak minded to scurry back to suppressing these very
unique social, physical and sexual issues. They are unique issues
because there is not a developed concept of etheric and astral
body vehicles that have been studied enough to show the developed
or the undeveloped. It is clear no matter what race none of us
are equal in inner distribution or balance. Yet this discrepency
is very easy to see if it is there or if it is not there. The
rest is developing a clear history of changes in the whole scope
of Pre-I AM development, Matriarchy-Patriarchy and new phases
of imbalance and adjustment explored and understood by society
and the the individuals and their intimate questions.
Fundamentalism in the Arab community, in particular
how they view their women is bizarre. Old Adamic. Hasidic lunacy
is also, bearing a retarded social force. And the problem is
that we carry these damaging attitudes and create a social ripple
effect. Hilary Clinton was not manifesting this sweet home body
stigma. Martha Stewart was targetted and in America uppitty women
are targetted still if they gain power in this Man's hallucination
of a world. I don't even want to think about Laura Bush.
Learning to see through beauty and Romanticism
that women and men are wonderful erotic and mighty archetypes
are studies in new ground. Rosie O'Donnell's performance in "Beautiful
Girls" reveals the failure of men to See Beauty, to recognize
profound Beauty of Soul because of their entrapment in false
boobs. Rosie's speech in the film, in the supermarket, is classic.
The film "Dangerous Beauty" is one
of the most profound studies of the strength of women in a man's
world I've seen.
"In 1583 Venice, women
were regarded as little more than possessions. Education and
willfulness were negative traits, reserved only for those who
plied their bodies for money. Marriage had nothing to do with
love -- it was a contract made based exclusively on considerations
of wealth and position. If a girl's family didn't have money,
she had no hope of marrying an "important" man, no
matter how deeply the two loved each other. In a situation like
that, if she wanted him, her only hope was to become his mistress.
And, if she was truly ambitious and skilled, she could become
a courtesan, a mistress to dozens of men, all willing to pay
for her services.
Such are the circumstances
of Veronica Franco (Catherine McCormack), who is desperately
smitten with Marco Vernier (Rufus Sewell) -- and he with her.
But the difference in their social position makes a legal relationship
impossible. When Marco, not wanting to lead Veronica on, informs
her of this harsh truth, she is devastated, and chooses to follow
the advice of her mother (Jacqueline Bisset) and become a courtesan.
Soon, with her rare mix of beauty, intelligence, and wit, she
is the most prized prostitute in Venice, desired by everyone
from the local bishop to the King of France. But, during the
age of the Spanish Inquisition, power gained through "sinful"
means can be a tenuous thing.
Against the backdrop of Veronica
and Marco's tumultuous relationship, director Marshall Herskovitz
explores the injustices visited upon women at a time when they
were universally viewed as inferior to men. The obedient wives
are presented as timid, uncertain creatures who dream of a better
lot for their daughters while secretly envying Veronica's freedom.
For her part, although Veronica uses every weapon at her disposal
to hold her own in power struggles with men, she would give all
that she has away for a life with Marco."
Bradford concludes;
Now my wife can take apart and put together
Harley's. I have been a playwright and director for most of my
life until I discovered the wonder of nurturing and teaching.
My wife is analytic logic and I am synthetic logic. My wife has
a higher capacity of spiritual empathy that is astonishing and
our marriage vows were done on the premise of "Mutual Sanctuary".
That I did not seek a relationship where my dysfunctions could
be baby sat by a woman. Nor did I want to baby sit hers. Rather
that I can be most myself with her she isn't seeking to change
me into a nicer and better bradford. That she can be most herself
with me and I don't wish to change her into a nicer better Tara.
The observation of our doubles is integrated and balanced within
our discussions and we disagree on mostly minor issues. But spiritual
Ethics is very important along with healthy eroticism.
However I had to go through an entire process
of discovering the nature of Beauty and observing, not merely
the joy of the opposite sex, but what makes the I AM of the other
so beautiful. What various capacities and qualities exist in
the I AM of another, aside from the fact that Women are beautiful
to look at and understand from my perspective; and Men are beautiful
and predictable creatures to some women.
It is interesting to make a DEAL BREAKER list
of must have's in a relationship. Mine included not only sexual
skills but thought, heart and insight skills. It took me about
21 years to figure out what I wanted having dated an extensive
number of women. And to be happy or comfortable with who I was.
I could smell dysfunction miles away and that was not part of
my DEAL BREAKER list, no matter how externally beautiful or successful
they might be. Deal Breakers would be twisted dysfunctions, pettiness,
nagging, none of those things, as well as severe mood swings
that needed drugs, booze or sex to fix, would be creative sustainers
for a strong relationship.
Deal Breakers..it is odd when I have heard
from others when they honestly attempt to list their Deal Breakers
in the opposite sex. Sometimes it is equal or better salary.
Sometimes it is car type. It is interesting to allow someone
to outline their Deal Breakers.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: sex
BRADFORD:
This retardation of thinking has not been studied enough. .
It's Friday night Brad and you are so in trouble
if this is referring to me. K'
d
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:21 am
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Paulina wrote:
I remain firm in my position that Steiner,
nor Aquinas are men able to address what transpires, potentially
and or metaphsyically in sex when love is part of the equation
that brings down spritiual forces into the physical anymore than
could the current pope...
Gidday Paulina,
Your comparison with the pope is apt - both
he and RS are regarded by many of their followers as infallible
haha. I have no issue with your paragraph otherwise. It was certainly
a great loss for the last pope to have died when he did.
If anything is to gleaned correctly from
Steiner it is that we all are to make our own decisions about
matters of morality and bear the consequences of those decisions.
That is what is to occur at this point of our evolution toward
Freedom...
Quite so.
YEH GADS! Do you hear what you are saying?
YOU desire to analysis this issue along anthroposophical lines
and then make a determination about what is correct for this
era? Hello!
I was relating someone else's analysis in
the belief you would find it useful. There is little enough on
this topic, sensitive as it is, out there.
That is Lewis, not Steiner. I have about
as much regard for Rev. Lewis as I do PS, so thanks anyway...
The quote was pure Steiner, not Lewis - Lewis
was merely the compiler. Another similar quote, from a lecture
a few days later, and I assume unconnected with any Lewis compilation,
was posted here on Mar 25 by Gerry.
"In relation to compassion
and love, I could even speak of a program - if I were to speak
in a primitive fashion - that spiritual science must fulfil in
the future.
Sounds like you are well on your way to
a mission of becoming another anthopoop guru, and aren't we in
need of another one of those!
No, the 'program ... that spiritual science
must fulfil in the future...' etc - everything there at the end
of my post - was Steiner's words, not mine. You asked for the
reference, I gave it.
It's really too bad anthroposophists fail
to "get it' that the task of the time is to work on redeeming
one's individual astral forces rather than pontificating on how
eveyone else should be eating, drinking, loving, intercoursing
in speech, friendship and intimate relationships.
Ah yes. On another list a writer stated in
a post to me that anthroposophists are the 'shouldiest' people
he had met. He called it 'bullshould'. I found that quite funny.
I am not knocking you Paulina - that was well said, and should
(oops - I used the 'S' word haha) be said more often.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: sex
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
holderlin66 wrote:
dottie zold wrote:
Paulina spoke on the point of the man being
manly in a sense and it truly is this that leads the woman in
my understanding. And the men are specifically being pointed,
through media and whathaveyou, in the direction that completely
corrupts the beautiful aspect of that physical union of two people.
And the woman wanting 'love' go along for the ride.
Brave Hearts;
I disagreed with Paulina when she first
offered this and I further disagree with the failure we have
in looking at the changing role of males and females.
That is interesting to hear, Brad, given that
the minister who married you, and who is your friend has, from
all outward appeareances, most exactly the kind of man-woman
relationship about which I was trying to convey the good gods
willed and hoped for us as solace, consolation, strength on this
sad and lonely sojurn through incarnations as we struggle to
regain unification with our divine origin. I think that I have
just failed to communicate what I was trying to say and can't
really do better today. Just think about B and D and their successful
and mutual long term relationship for more understanding of what
I was hoping to convey about what can and should go on in a relationship
to promotes the advancement of the human race.
I do not believe anthroposophy has any special
answers when it comes to sex. Tarjei's reply about the masonic
apron is off the mark. The apron is a symbol of purity of thought,
deed, and action in all departments of one's life. Sex is not
impure when love is involved on the part of both partners and
the mystery of the KISS, as understood in the Kabbalah is part
of the equation. I was not talking about the scales of balance
in the power play between the sexes. Not at all my point. Ridiculous.
I was trying to talk about the differeing,
but complimentary aspects that are carried down into the physical
incarnation, and the nurturing - physical nurturing - orgasm
or no orgasm that transpires in a loving intimacy.
It is just ridiculous to talk about how we
are supposed to be overcoming our phsyical need for love and
affection in the same way as we are supposed to overcome materalistic
obession. As long we are in a physical body the need for physical
conctact, touching, caressing, nurturing is absolutely essential
for positive health and development. This is as essential a need
as food water and is present from birth to death.
At any rate, I am of the opinion that this
thread was started here by someone ( using an alias) intending
to snooker the anthropops and that the joke is on us.
What has been said on this thread has just been lame.
Men.
Shaking my head,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Harvey Bornfield
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Dear Infatuated ones!
Why not consider Love and Sexuality in the
widest historical and cultural context as possible, in an attempt
to explore the mystery of the relationship between the two realms
of experience, which can be polar opposites in some contexts,
and congruent in others.
The relationship between these two subjects
becomes extremely narrowly-focused if we are hunting for Steiner
or for that matter any externally-evidenced iron-clad authority
to suffocate the exercise of our freedom to courageously self-evidence
intuitions in this area. For it would do us all good to come
to the shock that we are a hundred years downstream of Steiner,
and 70 downstream of the manifestation of the Etheric Christ,
the debut of the Son-of-Man within the experiential theater of
heart thought, and Truth to tell, Truth to dwell, one can only
imagine that it would be repulsive to Steiner himself if he eavesdropped
upon us, only to find us seeking counsel in the husks and inventory
of his written words when one could bravely fathom within a vibrant
consciousness soul perspective that the real issue is the creation
of a means to hold a dialogue between these two spheres of activity,
and through such intercourse#@$!!! : ), to examine the prospects
of their cross-influence. Cigarette Anyone?
Earlyfire is surprised that those who by rejoicing
to regard Mary Magdelena as the disciple whom Christ kisses on
the mouth, affirm a more honest paradigm of a healthy relationship
between the Greek Eros and Agape than the creepy crawly attitude
of black-batman costumed priests of the Roman Catholic faith
and the church they rode in on, which bears little resemblence
to health, nonetheless continue to remain under the hypnotic
house- and soul-arrest of its sexually-filthy attitudes, rather
than rushing into more enlightened high ground such as Byzantine
(Greek, Russian Orthodox gesture of world and spirit wedded in
their priests).
And it is an irony, and one which might be
considered an interesting and unsuspected fallout of the 868
A.D. Disaster which offed the spirit as an indwelling lifeline
to God, that sexual union, because of its access to intimacy,
least stereotypeable, holy intimacy, an equally individualizable
experience, was tacitly by such rejection of individuality as
a new paradigm, exiled as shameful, and so the notion of sexual
touch banished from the palette of honorable learning experience,
its meaning, robbed of ecstasy, compressed to the Vatican catacombs
of mere furtive fly-by-night biological function. Then you look
around, and know at once why you suspect that there are many
men and woman who live to this day, intent on equating life in
that fallen abyss, that blind bat-cave, as a prerequisite to
the path to the ascent to human wholeness.
Our bottom line, and one which we have come
to unaided by voice of outer counsel, by the middle man, even
great middle men, whom the Christ-within is destined to replace
as spokesman, is that sex is a magnifying glass, morally neutral,
and expands causing to blossom or thrive (or blister and fester)
motives at whatever level of purity, expectations they be -,
hot desire, coagulated craving obsession, or desireless cool
wonder, or unpossessed angelic silence, or archangelic spike
of awe, any spin's innuendo or moral intent which be focused
through its broad powerful lens; and finally, that it is in the
exploration of what and how we to bring to acts of love-making,
whether raw or consecrated that which champions the perfection
of sexual energies, making of them deeds that reaching over the
Threshold to within earshot of the hierarchies and so become
for them worthy spiritual food, that we acquire a voice through
which we, in the not-too-distant future of the coming sixth-root
race, will verily! speak forth man. Pursuing this, we can all
find profitable things to say one to another, friend to friend,
lover to lover, stranger to stranger, and most mysterious and
unsuspected conversation of all these, man to God-within.
Regarding this adventure, another interesting
point arises:
A person summoned to engage Michaelic endeavor, especially if
involved in Manichean-level self-transformative work, would probably
be, or so it seems to us, and you will have to play jury to our
imaginations most exodus-like, most post-Egyptian, most post-group-soul
in focus, that an individual would probably be interested in
this age of first-hand self-evidencing, in almost avoiding altogether
what seems to us a lunacy of attempting to define "for all
time" this chimerical and elastic relationship between Love
and Sex, which can range on the astral experiential level from
noble to sordid, manifesting elevating moral stature of Tantric
practice on one hand, or the cultural accomplishment of the Geisha
Girl, or again gutter_down into the twisted or moral repugnance
and squalor of a morally vacuous Red Light District.
And so it seems to us that context of whatever
the judgment we source, would probably enjoy a refreshing spin
of effervescence if it were imbued with a courageous viewpoint,
one which speaks of, and takes into account temporary windows
of relevance to judgments, giving judgments a 'shelf-life which
is not forced to suffer the lunacy of imagining that ideas or
relationships of ideas may be "defined once and for all",
either by a Noble Doctor, (which would draw fire and disputation
by his detractors who, vastly immature spiritually, would imagine
that one could actually piggyback one's vain ambitions to nobility
upon the broken back of another's reputation, and that none would
be the wiser.). And so remind ourselves again that any authority
which resides outside acts of self-evidencing we are challenged
to intuit through the bravely emerging consciousness soul's emerging
"third'eye", our crystal ball within, one of the REAL,
unpostponable cognitive-sphere tasks for serious spiritual aspirants
in this post Kali-Yuga age, is a tad disingenuous for the age
of living in the responsibilities of connection to An Etheric
Christ.
But how to cherish the thought of coming to
regard the future history we author on the floorboards of the
21st century stage in a way which honors the notion of a "shelf-life
of ideas", again, of windows of relevance in which what
is said of the relationship between sex and love can be enclosed,
or seen as valid. Lest one forget that just as Steiner himself
remarks that evil is good out of synch with the needs of a particular
epoch, what he didn't tell us, has to be courageously, Michaelically
birthed from intuitions in the here and now, is that the relevance
of discussing the relationship of sex with love, or sex 'vs.'
love, or love, small "L" vs. Love large "L",
is something we need to discover and perfect, rather than judge.
It is not the absence of sex which guarantees
the ascendency of love as a prime Christic Directive in this
age where spiritual aspiration seems favored by the hierarchies
to triumph over the claustrophobic myopia of campaigns of material
ambition, but rather the Presence'ng of Love within the sexual
act which perfects, which "Sublimes" sex.
And now a brief digression, an intermission:
Alchemy, that is to say, what we can fairly consider for the
purposes of discussion to be equatable, phenomenologically equatable
to Mystical or Archetypal or Platonic Chemistry, or as a peasant
would rejoice to say, just plain Chemistry, "capital C"
Alchemy has more esoteric dimensions for the word Sublimate than
physical or Ahrimanic, or fallen chemistry. But those terms are
bridgable one to another, just as the gates to the worlds are
open one to another "if one has but the will knows but a
few of the secrets" (a phrase kidnapped, stolen, and slightly,
if appropriately morphed from the preface to Marian Zimmer Bradley's
the Mists of Avalon!)
In physical, or 'scorpion chemistry', sublimation
is the "ability" of a substance to transform from solid
to vapor state without going through the liquid phase. In Alchemy,
or 'Eagle-Chemistry', a more celestial, wide-angle interpretation
might be offered as the ability to transform, i.e., to catharse
from raw (astral) feelings and gross (etheric) attitudes (Brad:
Chela, Venus labor) a "Second-Innocence". On the Vulcan
level, transforming death, transmuting the paralyzed, enchanted
elements itself, no less than the achievement of the Gogotha
Deed, we see the alchemical workings of Aqua-Regia in the dissolution
of all rudeness (as a peasant would say), and witness even a
more piercing and ultimate initiation, which is the Shakespearean
making rich and strange, (the verb=>) the 'Full_Fathom_Fiving'
of all base and self-absorbed and blind sub-altruistic intent,
the complete ennobling of matter into something rich and strange.
This was the true invitation of the Golden Sun Christ who 2000
years ago prepares the Earth for dissolving in the Venus World,
back into the sun, when the hearts of men can on food no less
than sunlight dine, and who role-models it for the first time,
defining a new race which is identified as the "Son of Man!
So put this Nag Champa in your hashish pipes
and smoke it, and remember that in more spiritually intelligent
cultures than ours, the Hindu, Sex is the perfection of the Dragon
energy, the Kundalini, and the name given to the Initiate is
"Nag" or Serpent, and that in the Orient, there ever
exists a spiritual orientation which seems much less dualistic,
much less redneck, much less kneejerk in compulsive homage to
the tyranny of the Either/Or, no such evidence of a jaded, troubled,
western war called Love ".vs." Sex. You will find "Nag"
mentioned and discussed in Blavatsky's brief and sublime book
"The Voice of the Silence"
Thus, not through resort to the controversy
of pros and cons, which is most speculative, the fool's exercise
of the raising up and the debunking of heros and reputations,
but in this age of actually engaging, embracing, thrilling, redeeming
the Dragon, we embark upon the lifelong quest to transforming
the nature of sex through love. It is well to remember that What
Michael does with a sword, Orpheus can do with a harp.
Once again, smoke rises braiding like two
intertwining serpents from off staff of Hermes, from the remote
Oracle of Delphi. Perfume to infatuate, anyone?
Our intermission's now ended. Then let our
surf wash up on your shores, speaking well of the sea which sires
it.
Warm Regards,
Harvey
"Music is the one incorporeal
entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends
mankind, but mankind cannot comprehend."
Ludwig van Beethoven
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Your comparison with the pope is apt -
both he and RS are regarded by many of their followers as infallible
haha.
Get a life will you Raymond.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
Hi Paulina, You wrote:
<snip>
It's really too bad anthroposophists fail
to "get it' that the task of the time is to work on redeeming
one's individual astral forces rather than pontificating on how
eveyone else should be eating, drinking, loving, intercoursing
in speech, friendship and intimate relationships.
Paulina
Mike:
I really liked that one, thanks.
I was tempted to be my ridicules self and
play into the sex thing with statements about what is "sexist"
or "sexism" and what is not, with lots of semantic
drivel. Thought about pitting the guys against the gals and really
kicking up some dust. And then you go and drop this bomb on me
and all the air came out of my whoopee-cushion.
Though I like to read and write lots of anthro
babble, I think that to really get it I have had to spend
some time doing the psycho-babble thing. Spent many years and
$ with different therapists. Did a few "searching and moral
inventories." Did a year of couples counseling with my wife,
before we got married, all in which the topic of sex came
up and was mulled over. I'm so sick of doing family tree's, but
the reality of my instruction or education in the realm of my
own sexuality had to be dealt with.
My first learning's about sex and sexuality
came from my dad's secret stash of Playboy Mags. I was absolutely
clueless and here were these pictures that sent weird feelings
through my body.
My parents were clueless too. Both came from
hardened Catholic families out of the 50's (here in the US; Ahh
the Eisenhower years). To top it off my Dad was given up for
adoption when he was six years old. He lived with his grandmother
and was sent to a Catholic school, in the days when the Nuns
would whack the kids, and the stigma of being a "Bastard
child" was hard to shake. My mom's dad was a raging alcoholic.
So ... Ignorance and arrogance abound.
Anyway, did just about all the stupid stuff
that I said that I would never do, and some things I didn't know
that I could do.
But there was always this underlying guilt,
from all the hush hush paranoia that I inherited.
I've never seen anyone come out of a promiscuous
lifestyle with anything that I saw as a redeeming human attribute
for my self. Oh it makes for great fun and bragging rights, and
maybe a temporary feeling of being liberated from sexual oppression,
but all that shit tends to fade after a while.
On a different note:
My wife and I have struggled with sexual issues
recently that I thought I had all figured out and stored in my
Jungian/Freudian brain folder. But low and behold there is another
level. Thus I think that is one of the reasons that I started
this thread, because I still have allot to learn.
And I better hurry up! cause my daughter is
11 going on seventeen and she's talking about boys !!!! :^O
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: sex
Harvey Bornfield
And so remind ourselves again that any
authority which resides outside acts of self-evidencing we are
challenged to intuit through the bravely emerging consciousness
soul's emerging "third'eye", our crystal ball within,
one of the REAL, unpostponable cognitive-sphere tasks for serious
spiritual aspirants in this post Kali-Yuga age, is a tad disingenuous
for the age of living in the responsibilities of connection to
An Etheric Christ.
But how to cherish the thought of coming
to regard the future history we author on the floorboards of
the 21st century stage in a way which honors the notion of a
"shelf-life of ideas", again, of windows of relevance
in which what is said of the relationship between sex and love
can be enclosed, or seen as valid. Lest one forget that just
as Steiner himself remarks that evil is good out of synch with
the needs of a particular epoch, what he didn't tell us, has
to be courageously, Michaelically birthed from intuitions in
the here and now, is that the relevance of discussing the relationship
of sex with love, or sex 'vs.' love, or love, small "L"
vs. Love large "L", is something we need to discover
and perfect, rather than judge.
It is not the absence of sex which guarantees
the ascendency of love as a prime Christic Directive in this
age where spiritual aspiration seems favored by the hierarchies
to triumph over the claustrophobic myopia of campaigns of material
ambition, but rather the Presence'ng of Love within the sexual
act which perfects, which "Sublimes" sex.
Bradford wonders;
Intercourse is reading, thinking, understanding,
empathy exchange of heart over fluids, seeing Concepts and Percepts
in nature and in another human I, as well as the mighty vote
from Goethe that Speech together, is of higher value than fools
gold. This may amount to Sublime Sex. Certainly Christine touched
the hem of the Angelhood potential in the human being. But what
does H.L.Mencken think? As suddenly his thoughts on the subject
are here to see, do they differ, fall short, or soar above what
the School of Spiritual Science can grasp on the lofty subject?
In Defense of Women
by H. L. Mencken
has an entire research document devoted to
this subject. What line or level of thinking does Mencken maintain?
http://www.io.com/gibb