Hi Christine: I have been meaning to respond to your in-depth reply, and I
do appreciate your taking the time to write it; you wrote:
> Good Morning Michael,
> A couple of points I would like to speak with you about. : )
> Michael wrote: > And then we have "A Philosophy of Freedom", which gives
> ideas like: Intuition; Moral imagination; thinking with the power of Love
> spiritual form; and my personal favorite:
> "My neighbors want to live out their >intuitions<, I mine. >If we really
> draw from the idea<, and follow no external (physical or spiritual)
> then we cannot but meet in the same striving, the same intentions. An
> misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free human
> I think that I understand this quote and that you do too, but oh, how such
> quote can be misunderstood if taken out of context apart from the whole
> process of Philosophy of Freedom that leads up to it! Only if the two
> involved have totally penetrated to the core of what Steiner means by
> could the second sentence be true. Among two or more fully concious (in
> spirit) individual such agreement would be a matter of course. Think of
two or three
> chemists in a laboratory seeking a particular formula together. If each
> is fully trained and knows exactly what chemical A and chemical B will do
> mixed together and exactly what chemical C and chemical D will do when
> together, they can probably agree on what chemical B and chemical D will
> when mixed together and act accordingly. But if a college freshman taking
> first course in chemistry were put side by side with an experienced, super
> level chemical researcher and both individual's opinions were given the
> weight, well, BOOM goes the laboratory!! Ethics, to me is a lot like
> It is a matter of actions vs reactions vs consequences. What I think is
> what is the right way to live and act has to "mix" with what my "neighbor"
> thinks is good and right. Only if we both can fully understand through a
> spiritualized, Christ filled (meaning "I" filled) conciousness what the
> reaction will be and the long term (karmic) consequences will be to us and
> else in our vicinity, so to speak, can we come to a real agreement.
> one or both of us will be thinking and acting from cultural or
> teachings or our own emotional make up. And the potential for a "blow-up"
> very high.
I agree, this is why I think Steiner makes a good case for working with and
penetrating our "charactoroligical dispositions".
> Dr. Bernard Lievegood, an Anthroposophical doctor from Holland wrote a
> marvelous book called "Toward the 21st Century - Doing the Good." It is a
> treatise on the difference between being "right" and doing "good". He says
> (I'm summarizing from memory right now) that most people equate "good" and
> "right" but in fact, they might not be the same. A person may decide to
act based on
> what he or she thinks is "right" whether according to a law or even an
> but it might not produce "good" in a given situation or for a given person
> group. What is really interesting is that he says that we really won't
> if what we do is good or not until we actually do it! We can determine
> "right" beforehand, but not totally what is "good."
Kind of like the difference between sympathy and Justice?
> Which leads me to a response to your other quote
> > Obviously I am not yet "ethically free" when it comes to my marriage.
> the process of getting there is amazing; as well as emotionally painful,
> is sometimes a consequence of truth. I forget who said that "Love is the
> of being truly alive".
> I can understand this quote, too, but prefer the passage from Madeline
> L'Engle's "A Wind at the Door." Meg, a schoolgirl is in the middle of a
> death, spiritual test along with a Cherubim named Progo (Proginoskes). Meg
> identify her school principle, Mr. Jenkins (who she detests) among two
> copies created by evil entities called Echthroi. In order for her to
> Jenkins, she has to love Mr. Jenkins.
> "Progo! Help me! How can I feel love for Mr. Jenkins?"
> Immediately he opened a large number of eyes very wide. "What a
> idea. Love isn't feeling. If it were, I wouldn't be able to love. Cherubim
> don't have feelings."
> "Idiot," Proginoskes said, anxiously rather than crossly, "Love isn't
> you feel It's what you do. I've never had a feeling in my life."...
> "Love isn't how you feel It's what you do."
Yes, I agree, but what about How you experience what you do, i.e.the pain
that enlivens our 'Life sense".
> Perhaps you could take this into consideration while you are examining
> marriage. We are taught in this culture to build all sorts of expectations
> how we "feel" love. We get married because of the powerful feelings we
> "being in love." Then often, turn around and treat each other like mortal
> enemies! And when after a time those feelings begin to fade or turn to
> we want "out" of our vows made in the heat of passion. Tremendous pain and
> discomfort sets in and most people that I have known, including myself
> twice, single now) go to a counselor really looking for a "magic love
> Some idea or concept that will bring back the lovey-dovey feelings they
> had. But nothing really changes because the two people are usually more
> committed to self-love than love of the other. Perhaps that is why
> were not always a bad thing. Since the two people involved did not expect
> have those lovey-dovey feelings, they were more committed to acting
> toward the other person. And strangely, those actions often led to
> deep feelings over time.
> Do you remember the musical "Fiddler on the Roof?" There is a wonderful
> in which the father asks the mother, "Do you love me?" He asks it over and
> over and she replies, "After 25 years of raising his children (washing his
> clothes, cooking his meals, etc.) he asks me this now???" They had an
> marriage and they never before had asked that question of themselves.
> I am not offering this idea as a "fixer". The whole question of marriage
> truly complex and involves karma, both the couple's and their children's
> many other issues. I have a wonderful Christian Community booklet on
> that I could fax to you if you want to give me a fax number off list. It
> struggle, but one that can be very worthwhile.
I like your Ideas. My wife and I have had a great experience with these
and the practice of a
technique called "open hearted listening". Kind of like "living Thinking" in
> > I recently interviewed for a job at a Waldorf school that is looking
> a 7'th grade teacher. When they asked me to give a biography, I couldn't
> crack a shit-eatin-grin on my face; I knew that I was going to tell the
> As you may know I've been on this new kick about my own vanity, so I gave
> them a good blood and guts war story. Oh the look of awe in some of those
> ladies eyes. I'm telling this story because it is a fresh experience that
> had wrestling with truth, self knowledge, and courage.
> Into self-sabotage, too, eh? Been there, done that, probably will again.
Actually, It was taken quite well. I should have mentioned that I have done
allot of speaking over the last 15 years in jails and other institutions on
recovering from an addictive lifestyle. So I have become pretty good at
telling my story.
But I can understand what I think you mean: there's a fine line between
truth and justice sometimes?
sorry for the belated reply
Truth and Love