Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy] Re: In Praise of Liberals

Expand Messages
  • Br. Ron
    (Bradford) But as I have burbled and gabbled on other themes, certainly I would be kneeling with my bent neck on the block before you today if the Neocons and
    Message 1 of 37 , Jun 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      But as I have burbled and gabbled on other themes, certainly I would
      be kneeling with my bent neck on the block before you today if the
      Neocons and the actual Democracy and reality of the mission of Iraq
      was worth the cost of over 10,000 Iraqi's (not to mention all the
      poison we gave Saddam to cyanide his people) but the over 800 and
      counting American dead and the over 5000 Americans with limbs or
      faces blown off.

      War is hell. So is crucifixion. Nothing good (like Freedom) has ever
      been gained without sacrifice. This is perhaps the main pathology
      of your perverted philosophy of appeasement.
      To liberals NOTHING is sacred enough to be worth sacrifice. 

      By now sir, to understand even when a feeble idiot like Senator
      Byrd speaks truth, you would be able to detect it. But you didn't,
      you're stubborn and your reflect the worst of lack of ability to see
      humanity where humanity appears.

      Stubborn?...Stubborn?....The fact that I think you are full
      of traitorous crap on this issue is not stubbornness. It's a
      pristine perspective.

      Why I know for certain and why you don't is the issue.
      Why don't YOU know for certain as I do? ....
      .....I place Spiritual Science as my guide to see into reality.

      Bradford, Teilhard de Chardin rightly stated,
      "Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God."
      The tone of your posts the past 2 years has not reflected
      this joy...only a persistent, knee jerk, anti-American,
      anti-democratic tirade.

      When your colorful creativity returns on a trusty white steed
      of humor and loyalty to the national egregore that nurtured you for all
      these years, THEN I might consider your brand of "Spiritual Science."

      Until then, I am quite at peace in my "stubbornness."

      That is why I am certain. I am certain because I don't take the
      cowardly way out and put some fundie nonsense in front of my eyes so
      I can't see myself.

      You have and you DO take the cowardly way out.
      You wouldn't stop a rape in progress because you would
      find it distasteful to involve yourself in such 'violence'.

      Shame on such effete, poisonous pacifism.

      We are in the minority and it takes much more courage
      than bashing the French and calling for us to look at the whole lot
      of Islam as some crud who failed Christianity 101.

      No..it is much better to "bash Bush."
      In this convoluted perspective, EVERYTHING is America's
      (and traditional Christianity's) fault.
      It makes me want to

      Stubborn?...Yes, perhaps. ......I have other unsavory traits, too.

      But disloyalty is most certainly not one of them.

      Br. Ron
    • holderlin66
      holderlin wrote: Because to track among the 6 billion souls, specific signatures of certain souls and track them through Time and come up with facts of the
      Message 37 of 37 , Jun 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        holderlin wrote:

        "Because to track among the 6 billion souls, specific signatures of
        certain souls and track them through Time and come up with facts of
        the Karma lectures is to understand the Ego Tracking, instinct, Soul
        Mate and I AM recognition capacity latent in our higher development.
        Part of our I AM development and it's twelvefold sense system, is the
        capacity for Ego Tracking or Sense of Ego. Just think on that. Well
        first, try to research the twelvefold sense system. Sense of Word,
        Idea, Ego...that is if you wish to be a student of the Michael


        "Thus we arrive at the sense of tone: perhaps it would be better to
        call it the sense of speech or the sense of word. It is simply
        nonsense to think that perception of words is the same as perception
        of sounds. The two are as distinct and different from one another as
        are taste and sight. To be sure, sounds open the inner world of
        objects to our perception, but these sounds must become much more
        inward before they can become meaningful words. Therefore it is a
        step into a deeper intimacy with the world when we proceed from
        perceiving sounds through the sense of hearing to perceiving meaning
        through the sense of the word.

        And yet, when I perceive a mere word I am still not so intimately
        connected with the object, with the external thing, as I am
        connected with it when I perceive the thoughts behind the words. At
        this stage, most people cease to make any distinctions. But there is
        a distinction between merely perceiving words and actually
        perceiving the thoughts behind the words. After all, you still can
        perceive words when a phonograph — or writing, for that matter — has
        separated them from their thinker. But a sense that goes deeper than
        the usual word sense must come into play before I can come into a
        living relationship with the being that is forming the words, before
        I can enter through the words and transpose myself directly into the
        being that is doing the thinking and forming the concepts. That
        further step calls for the sense I would like to call the sense of

        And there is another sense that gives an even more intimate sense of
        the outer world than the sense of thought. It is the sense that
        enables you to feel another being as yourself and that makes it
        possible to be aware of yourself while at one with another being.
        That is what happens if one turns one's thinking, one's living
        thinking, towards the being of another. Through living thinking one
        can behold the I of this being: the sense of the I .

        You see, it really is necessary to distinguish between the ego
        sense, which makes you aware of the I of another person, and the
        awareness of yourself. The difference is not just that in one case
        you are aware of your own I and, in the other, of someone else's
        I . The two perceptions come from different sources. The seeds of
        our ability to distinguish one another were sown on Old Saturn. The
        beginnings of this sense were implanted in us then. The basis of
        your being able to perceive another person as an I was established
        on Old Saturn. But it was not until the Earth stage of evolution
        that you obtained your own I ; so the ego sense is not to be
        identified with the I that ensouls you from within. The two must
        be strictly distinguished from one another. When we speak of the ego
        sense, we are referring to the ability of one person to be aware of
        the I of another.

        "...The other senses about which we have been speaking are not
        recognised by our externally-orientated, material science. And so I
        ask you to carefully distinguish the ability to be aware of another
        I from the ability you could call the consciousness of self. With
        respect to this distinction, my deep love of material science forces
        me to make an observation, for a deep love of material science also
        enables one to see what is going on: today's material science is
        afflicted with stupidity. It turns stupid when it tries to describe
        what happens when someone uses his ego sense.

        Our material science would have us believe that when one person
        meets another he unconsciously deduces from the other's gestures,
        facial expressions, and the like, that there is another I present —
        that the awareness of another I is really a subconscious deduction.
        This is utter nonsense! In truth, when we meet someone and perceive
        their I we perceive it just as directly as we perceive a colour.
        It really is thick-headed to believe that the presence of another
        I is deduced from bodily perceptions, for this obscures the truth
        that humans have a special, higher sense for perceiving the I of

        The I of another is perceived directly by the ego sense, just as
        brightness and darkness and colours are perceived through the eyes.
        It is a particular sense that relates us to another I . This is
        something that has to be experienced. Just as a colour affects me
        directly through my eyes, so another person's I affects me
        directly through my ego sense. At the appropriate time we will
        discuss the sense organ for the ego sense in the same way that we
        could discuss the sense organs of seeing, of sight. With sight it is
        simply easier to refer to material manifestations than it is in the
        case of the ego sense, but each sense has its own particular organ."

        Bradford comments;

        Here on the internet, is is exactly this sense of word, of thought
        and of I Am intuition that allows us to discern the tone of voice
        and thought of those we truly admire and hear with our hearts. This
        is very important for internet identity. The unique thought
        constructs of Harvey, Joksu, Maurice, Kevin Dann, Juan,
        Lightsearcher, Jan and Danny and so many, must be felt, heard in
        ones mind's eye and at that point we begin to feel the I AM or Ego,
        but we have no face or gesture to put to it. No outer photo to match
        up with our inner perception of the people we understand and hear
        with our hearts. This is a very, very important piece of the puzzle
        of learning and respecting. It is understanding that navigation on
        the internet is interesting if you can understand and hold in your
        heart various shades of discernment. This, by the way, begins to
        improve your ability to track karmically by the nature of thought
        and word, and heart navigation.

        Those who struggle with Anthro models of education must learn to see
        clearly what they are seeing. Word-Thought or Idea-Ego Sense are
        exacting parts of the twelvefold sense system study. But how do you
        know if you can understand some of the concepts Steiner throws out
        there? Sight, Taste, Sound, Touch, smell are Pentagonally solid 6th
        grade observations, but moving into the exact fields of higher
        observation allows one to feel the higher twelvefold sense system as
        closer to observation than you might think.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.