11192Re: [anthroposophy] Beware of...
- Dec 25, 2005Dear List-mates,
Please note the nature of this post carefully.
If offers conclusions in the nature of heavy commentary on a personality.
It offers no evidence for these conclusions, other than someone elses
similar approach (conclusions about a personality).
It does not speak to anything offered, and discuss the validity of that
which is offered - that is the content I presented is not argued
against, it is my person that is trashed. And the logic of this is that
if we can trash the person (without evidence), therefore the offered
content may be drawn into question.
It is most similar in nature to Macarthyism, so, for example, because I
refer to Tomberg (since, again as an unsupported conclusion something
unmentioned is wrong with Tomberg), so by association it must also be
wrong with Wendt.
Neither the author of this message, or Robert Mason, have given any
evidence in offered content of their own that they understand
Anthroposophy, Steiner's reasons for devoting the first half of his life
to the problem of freedom and thinking, the nature of the Consciousness
Soul or any other matter of serious import for those who would follow
where Steiner has led.
They are entirely free to offer contrary content of course, but since
they have none, and since they live in an unredeemed antipathetic
reaction to what I write (they find it contrary to their own weak tea
understanding of Anthroposophy), they are forced to attack me personally
in order to maintain their own vision as the correct one. It is, in its
way, not dissimilar to that which emerges in Religions as
fundamentalism, which fundamentalism is really only a vain, dogmatic and
rigid belief in something, without the grace of living Faith.
Where I write something that conflicts with this dogmatic belief, the
only recourse then seems to be to attack the personality, precisely
because the dogmatic belief is itself known to be indefensible.
Further, the author of this wants to fly by this list, empty his trash
basket in all our faces, and then retreat without offering to stand by
what has been written.
If you think there is anything moral or logical in such an approach,
then by all means pay no attention to me whatsoever.
I apologise to the list that I seem to have acquired these parasites on
my work, and if they continue to bring their trash to the list, I will,
if the list wishes it, depart rather then turn the list into a
discussion of my personality instead of a list where we strive to
understand what Steiner sought to reveal to us.
Emil and Robert are free, of course, to discuss Anthroposophy here, but
not my personality, or for that matter, Tomberg's. Study and discuss
the work, please, and leave the rest of the garbage outside in the alley
where it belongs.
By the way, Robert Mason has nevered analysed or considered my writings,
only my personality, and since he has never met me, or really had a
conversation with me, his knowledge of my personality is entirely made
up. He could, if he were to spend his energy on my work, instead of
trying to psychoanalyse me from a great foggy distance, probably come up
with something that had some meaning. The statement below, implying
that Robert spend years of study of my work, is patently false. He
attacks my personality, because he is not up to a decent or logical
criticism of my work.
>>From what I understand of Joel Wendt, he is not a good general guide
>for Anthroposophy, especially those who have come to Anthroposophy
>fairly recently. He answers questions with other questions; he
>condescendingly turns the inquirer away from the hierarchy of angels,
>the Time Spirit, etc. towards pure epistemology, which should be
>studied for preparatory training of the intellect, but is not
>necessarily for everyone without qualification at the beginning. Joel
>Wendt should not be advising - beginners especially - anyone on their
>individual paths of anthroposophical or spiritual discovery. He is
>influenced by Tomberg, which will be sure to bring in unending
>convolutions and twistings on the path of inquiry, like a Tarot card
>deck with several cards missing and consequently without full or
>adequate answers to anything, ever. Much of his thinking is
>unfortunately distorted, as in a hall of mirrors, broken mirrors, and
>will consequently tend to distort the student's thinking similarly.
>Here he is at Christmas writing about egrogores, addicts, doubles,
>alcoholics, Tomberg, etc. and advises others to take up his book "The
>Way of the Fool." If you go without hesitation down the path he
>points out, that's just what you will be. On the other hand, he is
>not without benefit for certain kinds of thinkers, similar to
>himself, or with similar experiences. They will likely come in
>singing his praises.
>Joel would make a good dramatist, the type of drama where the central
>character, standing off in a doorway down a dark alley, wears a mask
>and speaks in bequiling, elusive half-truths; he urges you to step
>off of the path and enter into his parlor. At the end of the evening,
>having spent some intellectual energy in this parlor, everyone goes
>home baffled, and for several weeks thereafter they lose a lot of
>time on the numerous twisted byways that resulted from the drama
>experience, before finally finding their proper paths again. That's
>Joel's special drama.
>Robert Mason did a lengthy analysis, from years of study, of Joel
>Wendt and his writings on the "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" e-list, that
>anyone considering following the advice of Joel Wendt should research
>carefully and read. Although you may not agree with Robert Mason's
>conclusions, or might consider them harsh, it is best to be aware of
>them and to read them. They are a clear warning.
>If you seriously follow someone who has distortions, then you will
>take on those same distortions in your soul. That's why Joel is not
>good for beginners. Those already secure on their path could possibly
>benefit from his points of view.
>Now, I am not willing to engage my energies with any argumentative
>responses to this post; if Joel speaks to anyone in a special way,
>that's fine, there are similarities. Accepted.
>Please just take this post as a warning.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>