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

RE: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    To All: I had not been a member of this e-list for the past several years, but this thread has been brought to my attention. So I am re-joining now in order
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      To All:

      I had not been a member of this e-list for the
      past several years, but this thread has been
      brought to my attention. So I am re-joining
      now in order to try to clarify some matters
      that have been brought forth in connection with
      my name.

      Some posts of mine to the Yahoo "Anthroposophy
      Tomorrow" e-list were mentioned and recommended
      here, but no detailed directions were given
      about the location of these posts in the AT
      archives. So I strongly suspect that if some
      people here did wish to read my referenced
      AT material, they would not have been able to
      find it. Here is information that should make
      it easy enough to find my posts:

      The AT archives are public; they are accessible
      on this page:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages

      If one enters the message number into the
      "Message #" box on this page, one can easily find
      the desired post in the archives. Here are the
      message numbers of my most relevant posts:
      19745
      19976
      20118

      If one reads these in sequence, I hope that
      they will be essentially self-explanatory. I
      also posted some materials taken from Joel
      Wendt's websites; here are the numbers:
      19746
      19747
      19748
      19749

      As Joel stated, two of these documents are not
      posted on his present website. I posted these
      two because they provide very relevant pieces
      to a larger puzzle, which belongs to the
      present. The picture that appears when this
      puzzle is assembled forms a coherent whole,
      albeit a bizarre one. And as Joel himself
      confirmed, the first document I took from his
      present website, i.e. the "essay (The Bodhisattva
      Question: an American perspective) was born out
      of work the proceeded from making the [same,
      basic] assumption" that obviously also
      underlies the two essays from his past
      websites. -- I hope that all this will become
      apparent to the reader who reads my AT posts
      attentively and the Wendt documents discerningly.

      -- Although I do not intend to become a regular
      participant in this e-list, and I do not intend
      to get involved in a futile debate with Mr.
      Wendt, I am willing to make an effort (within
      reasonable limits) to answer sincere questions
      that might arise concerning this overall theme.
      For any listees here who might wish for my
      response, please observe the following conditions:

      1. cc your post to me off-list at
      <robertsmason_99[at]yahoo[dot]com>. (I probably
      won't be reading all the posts here, so I might
      otherwise miss questions directed to me.)

      2. Keep the subject line the same as above.
      (So that your post to me doesn't get lost in
      the mix.)

      3. Allow at least several days, maybe even a
      week or more, for my reply. (I don't get much
      time online; I have other things to do; and I'm
      just plain slow anyway.)

      Robert Mason




      __________________________________________
      Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
      Just $16.99/mo. or less.
      dsl.yahoo.com
    • Joel Wendt
      Lets see...Robert says that he doesn t want to participate in this list, except to continue to spread his confusion about someone else s personality...very
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Lets see...Robert says that he doesn't want to participate in this list,
        except to continue to spread his confusion about someone else's
        personality...very anthroposophical, or something...

        joel

        Robert Mason wrote:

        >To All:
        >
        >I had not been a member of this e-list for the
        >past several years, but this thread has been
        >brought to my attention. So I am re-joining
        >now in order to try to clarify some matters
        >that have been brought forth in connection with
        >my name.
        >
        >Some posts of mine to the Yahoo "Anthroposophy
        >Tomorrow" e-list were mentioned and recommended
        >here, but no detailed directions were given
        >about the location of these posts in the AT
        >archives. So I strongly suspect that if some
        >people here did wish to read my referenced
        >AT material, they would not have been able to
        >find it. Here is information that should make
        >it easy enough to find my posts:
        >
        >The AT archives are public; they are accessible
        >on this page:
        >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages
        >
        >If one enters the message number into the
        >"Message #" box on this page, one can easily find
        >the desired post in the archives. Here are the
        >message numbers of my most relevant posts:
        >19745
        >19976
        >20118
        >
        >If one reads these in sequence, I hope that
        >they will be essentially self-explanatory. I
        >also posted some materials taken from Joel
        >Wendt's websites; here are the numbers:
        >19746
        >19747
        >19748
        >19749
        >
        >As Joel stated, two of these documents are not
        >posted on his present website. I posted these
        >two because they provide very relevant pieces
        >to a larger puzzle, which belongs to the
        >present. The picture that appears when this
        >puzzle is assembled forms a coherent whole,
        >albeit a bizarre one. And as Joel himself
        >confirmed, the first document I took from his
        >present website, i.e. the "essay (The Bodhisattva
        >Question: an American perspective) was born out
        >of work the proceeded from making the [same,
        >basic] assumption" that obviously also
        >underlies the two essays from his past
        >websites. -- I hope that all this will become
        >apparent to the reader who reads my AT posts
        >attentively and the Wendt documents discerningly.
        >
        >-- Although I do not intend to become a regular
        >participant in this e-list, and I do not intend
        >to get involved in a futile debate with Mr.
        >Wendt, I am willing to make an effort (within
        >reasonable limits) to answer sincere questions
        >that might arise concerning this overall theme.
        >For any listees here who might wish for my
        >response, please observe the following conditions:
        >
        >1. cc your post to me off-list at
        ><robertsmason_99[at]yahoo[dot]com>. (I probably
        >won't be reading all the posts here, so I might
        >otherwise miss questions directed to me.)
        >
        >2. Keep the subject line the same as above.
        >(So that your post to me doesn't get lost in
        >the mix.)
        >
        >3. Allow at least several days, maybe even a
        >week or more, for my reply. (I don't get much
        >time online; I have other things to do; and I'm
        >just plain slow anyway.)
        >
        >Robert Mason
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >__________________________________________
        >Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
        >Just $16.99/mo. or less.
        >dsl.yahoo.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Terence
        ... Tis an interesting phenomenon that there is all this hoopla about Joel s persona coming from Mason and Emil. Is there not a saying to the effect that he
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@y...> wrote:
          >
          > To All:
          >
          > I had not been a member of this e-list for the
          > past several years, but this thread has been
          > brought to my attention. So I am re-joining
          > now in order to try to clarify some matters
          > that have been brought forth in connection with
          > my name.

          Tis an interesting phenomenon that there is all
          this hoopla about Joel's persona coming from Mason
          and Emil. Is there not a saying to the effect that
          "he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Are
          both Mason and Emil guileless? Having never met
          these persons, I can not say; however, in the Age
          of the Consciousness Soul, I have my suspicions
          that neither Mason or Emil are beyond reproach.
          Then why the censure of Joel?

          We are taught that for every step forward we make
          in spiritual development that we take three steps
          forward in character development. My question is,
          "what kind of progress are we making when we
          continue to visit the past?" Do we not need to let
          the dead bury the dead, while the living create the
          future?

          I have never met Joel either, yet by his own
          admisssion he does not claim to be guileless or
          without sin or shame.

          Robert and Emil, are you not more than your name?
          More than your persona quirks and character
          defects? Come on man, let the sublect of Joel and
          his quirks and defects alone. Enough is enough! As
          I read what you have written on the A_T list, you
          are telling more about yourself than you are of
          Joel. Can you not see the beam in your own eye?

          Be aware! Be alive. Let the dead bury the dead.

          Have you ever attended a 12 Step meeting?

          Terence
        • Maurice McCarthy
          Bah! People! Wouldn t it be easy without them! M
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 6, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Bah! People!

            Wouldn't it be easy without them!

            M
          • Robert Mason
            ... all this hoopla about Joel s persona coming from Mason and Emil. Is there not a saying to the effect that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Are
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 6, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              To Terence, who wrote:

              >>Tis an interesting phenomenon that there is
              all this hoopla about Joel's persona coming
              from Mason and Emil. Is there not a saying to
              the effect that "he who is without sin cast the
              first stone?" Are both Mason and Emil
              guileless? Having never met these persons, I
              can not say; however, in the Age of the
              Consciousness Soul, I have my suspicions that
              neither Mason or Emil are beyond reproach. Then
              why the censure of Joel?<<

              Robert writes:

              I have already in my AT posts tried to explain
              why I wrote and posted what you call my
              "censure of Joel". (Tried, at considerable
              length and in considerable detail, especially
              in my long post to Stephen Clarke.) None of my
              explanations depend upon an assumption or
              premise that I am "guileless", or
              guiltless. You may be of the opinion that my
              explanations are somehow inadequate, but I see
              no indication here that you have read and
              seriously considered them. If you would cite
              them and tell me exactly why you (presumably)
              consider them to be inadequate, then maybe we
              could proceed from there. But now, I don't see
              any point in merely repeating essentially what
              I have already written.

              Terence wrote:

              >>We are taught that for every step forward we
              make in spiritual development that we take
              three steps forward in character development.
              My question is, "what kind of progress are we
              making when we continue to visit the past?" Do
              we not need to let the dead bury the dead,
              while the living create the future?<<

              Robert writes:

              As I already said in my previous post here,
              this matter belongs not just to the past but
              also to the present. Joel still posts on his
              website the "Perspective" essay; this brings
              the whole "Maitreya" thing right into the
              present: he is still saying it. More
              importantly, he is still "doing it"'; he is
              still acting from the same, sick mind-set --
              acting upon other people.

              Terence wrote:

              >>I have never met Joel either, yet by his own
              admisssion [sic] he does not claim to be
              guileless or without sin or shame.<<

              Robert writes:

              But he does claim (obliquely, deviously) to be
              the New World-Teacher of Anthroposophy, and
              (again) more importantly, he is acting upon
              that mad presumption.

              Terence wrote:

              >>Robert and Emil, are you not more than your
              name? More than your persona quirks and
              character defects? Come on man, let the sublect
              [sic] of Joel and his quirks and defects alone.
              Enough is enough! As I read what you have
              written on the A_T list, you are telling more
              about yourself than you are of Joel. Can you
              not see the beam in your own eye?<<

              Robert writes:

              I suppose I have beams enough, but so what?
              That doesn't mean that I can't add two plus two
              and come out somewhere between three and five.
              And it doesn't mean that I have to swallow all
              the BS that anyone might want to feed me.
              Still less does it mean that I must stand idly
              by while someone is feeding BS to other people.

              Terence wrote:

              >>Be aware! Be alive. Let the dead bury the
              dead.

              >>Have you ever attended a 12 Step meeting?<<

              Robert writes:

              I have not attended any 12-step meetings, but I
              am aware of the doctrine. I have done some
              "group work" of a less doctrinaire and more
              intensive kind. And to a large extent, my
              experiences in and around such groups have
              educated me about the kinds of tricks that some
              people (especially manipulative addicts) will
              play, about the BS they will pitch, and about
              the depths of the perversity that madness can
              reach. I have learned to ask questions and to
              be alert to evasions. I have learned:
              that talk is cheap,
              that actions speak louder than words,
              that ye shall know them by their fruits,
              and to keep my eye on the bottom line.

              -- I'm guessing that you are struggling with
              some kind of addiction and working with some
              kind of 12-step program. I hope that you are
              aware that such "meetings" have their dangers
              as well as their benefits. (Kinda like e-
              groups.) You can do some good "work" and meet
              some helpful people there, but you might also
              meet some "users", in the other sense of the
              word. Such people will try to run all sorts of
              tricky, manipulative games on you, and if you
              let them get very close to you, you will likely
              regret it bitterly. (That's a big reason why
              some "self-help" groups have the rule that the
              members may have no social relations with each
              other outside the meetings.) It does seem that
              many "users" are just that, in both senses of
              the word.

              I hope that you keep your BS meter with you
              at all times, keep it calibrated, keep good
              batteries in it, and set the alarm to LOUD.

              Robert Mason




              __________________________________________
              Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
              Just $16.99/mo. or less.
              dsl.yahoo.com
            • emil_rio
              There are two definitions for hoopla in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous or jovial commotion or excitement, and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or confuse.
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
                or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
                confuse."

                "Guile" is defined as "Insidious, treacherous cunning; deceit."

                "Hoopla" in no way defines these posts, Re: Beware of...; "Guile" is
                entirely inappropriate, by the above definition.

                My recommendation again is far less carelessness on these posts. A
                really good habit to develop would be to use the dictionary frequently.

                Inevitably, when wariness and discernment are called for (and in this
                case with good reason), someone will come back with the Bible
                quote: "...he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc.

                This is for the record: I am without guile, as is Robert M. And in
                regard to myself: no human being is without sin. Self-knowledge is
                sufficient for discernment in this case.

                What is bad about people on these lists (Maurice) are their quick,
                careless, at times even thoughtless postings.

                Time to review those 8 steps from "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds,"
                especially: think before speaking or writing. And a course in "Creative
                Writing" or "Writing" 101 is highly recommended. Or perhaps "Public
                Forum Postings" 101. The last could be approached selflessly, in the
                interests of Anthroposophy.
              • Joel Wendt
                Dear Robert, How about we do this...you and I talk, and you demonstrate that you have the courage to face me directly with your accusations, instead of just
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Robert,

                  How about we do this...you and I talk, and you demonstrate that you
                  have the courage to face me directly with your accusations, instead of
                  just coming on a list and saying to everyone else "run away from joel".
                  How about you treat me as a person, and speak directly to me.

                  At the same time, if you actually do this, don't expect me to reply
                  to long messages. Take small points and make them, and then listen to
                  my responses - actually listen to my responses and respond back.

                  There really is no point and repeating the past of huge essay-like
                  posts, as if you were trying to make an argument in front of Congress.

                  Speak to me, I'm real, I'm here, and be prepared to write about
                  facts concerning which you have direct knowledge. Conclusions and
                  claims are not only useless, they are baseless. Anyone can claim
                  anything, just as anyone can write a long shotgun essay full of many
                  assumptions and clever bits of inuendo.

                  If your really consider this a serious matter, treat it with respect.

                  In addition, lets clearly label this discussion in the subject line
                  (as I did above), so that folks who have no interest can delete it or
                  ignore it.

                  warm regards,
                  joel
                • BAle2391@aol.com
                  Dear Robert and Joel: Steiner s philosophy, Thinking itself becomes a body which draws into itself as its soul the Spirit of the Universe. It means
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Robert and Joel:
                        Steiner's philosophy, "Thinking itself becomes a body which draws into itself as its soul the Spirit of the Universe." "It means putting force, life into thinking, through thinking, within thinking." Could you share this Top down path as opposed to the old path, from the bottom up (kundalini). Help us students (neophytes, novices) with input, things that worked for you in this talking to each other. Thank you...
                                                                                    Adios,
                                                                                        Bart
                  • Terence
                    ... FYI, I read your posts on A_T. Interesting. Still am wondering why you choose to be the champion and take it upon yourself to castigate Joel unless you are
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@y...> wrote:

                      > I have already in my AT posts tried to explain
                      > why I wrote and posted what you call my
                      > "censure of Joel". (Tried, at considerable
                      > length and in considerable detail, especially
                      > in my long post to Stephen Clarke.) None of my
                      > explanations depend upon an assumption or
                      > premise that I am "guileless", or
                      > guiltless. You may be of the opinion that my
                      > explanations are somehow inadequate, but I see
                      > no indication here that you have read and
                      > seriously considered them. If you would cite
                      > them and tell me exactly why you (presumably)
                      > consider them to be inadequate, then maybe we
                      > could proceed from there. But now, I don't see
                      > any point in merely repeating essentially what
                      > I have already written.

                      FYI, I read your posts on A_T. Interesting. Still
                      am wondering why you choose to be the champion and
                      take it upon yourself to castigate Joel unless you
                      are one of those rare humans who are guileless.

                      > As I already said in my previous post here,
                      > this matter belongs not just to the past but
                      > also to the present. Joel still posts on his
                      > website the "Perspective" essay; this brings
                      > the whole "Maitreya" thing right into the
                      > present: he is still saying it. More
                      > importantly, he is still "doing it"'; he is
                      > still acting from the same, sick mind-set --
                      > acting upon other people.

                      I honor that each person has the right to express
                      themselves; however, your persistent attempts to
                      characterize Joel, or any one for that matter, as
                      having a sick mind-set, appears to be a chronic
                      problem that borders on vindictiveness.

                      > But he does claim (obliquely, deviously) to be
                      > the New World-Teacher of Anthroposophy, and
                      > (again) more importantly, he is acting upon
                      > that mad presumption.

                      So what! Suppose he is as mad as a hatter. Would
                      this not be a lesson that he has to learn either
                      during this incarnation or during excarnation?

                      What if Joel is the New World-teacher of
                      Anthroposophy? Do we not, as individuals, need to
                      inwardly accept or reject that premise for
                      ourselves? is that not our responsibility to read
                      what he wrote and then after due diligence come to
                      our own decision? Of course this is true.

                      Your argument, as I recall, centers around
                      protecting those folks who are less learned from
                      Joel, is this not so?

                      > I suppose I have beams enough, but so what?
                      > That doesn't mean that I can't add two plus two
                      > and come out somewhere between three and five.
                      > And it doesn't mean that I have to swallow all
                      > the BS that anyone might want to feed me.
                      > Still less does it mean that I must stand idly
                      > by while someone is feeding BS to other people.

                      So what? Would that not indicate that with a beam
                      in your eye that you might be unable to see clearly
                      because of the beam?

                      Of course you do not have to swallow the BS of
                      others. If you did so, then the lessons that you
                      will have to learn because of your swallowing is a
                      lesson that you will have to learn in this
                      incarnation, or in excarnation and the next
                      incarnation. Life is an LE (learning experience).
                      Learn now. Learn later. But we all will have to
                      learn the lesson.

                      Now when you get to the part of attempting to
                      interfere in the lessons that others need to learn,
                      that is a whole other matter. In my opinion, unless
                      one is guileless, guiltless and a host of other
                      words like: blameless, not to blame, without fault,
                      above reproach, above suspicion, in the clear,
                      unimpeachable, irreproachable, faultless, sinless,
                      spotless, immaculate, unsullied, uncorrupted,
                      undefiled, untainted, unblemished, untarnished,
                      impeccable. then one has the necessary qualities of
                      heart and head to intercede in the karma of others.
                      You know, someone like Christ. Are you that kind of
                      person, Robert?

                      > I have not attended any 12-step meetings, but I
                      > am aware of the doctrine. I have done some
                      > "group work" of a less doctrinaire and more
                      > intensive kind. And to a large extent, my
                      > experiences in and around such groups have
                      > educated me about the kinds of tricks that some
                      > people (especially manipulative addicts) will
                      > play, about the BS they will pitch, and about
                      > the depths of the perversity that madness can
                      > reach. I have learned to ask questions and to
                      > be alert to evasions. I have learned:
                      > that talk is cheap,
                      > that actions speak louder than words,
                      > that ye shall know them by their fruits,
                      > and to keep my eye on the bottom line.

                      Of course addicts and alcoholics in the early
                      stages of recovery are manipulative and devious. I
                      have been in recovery for 20 years and still met
                      folks with long term sobriety who have not outgrown
                      those character traits. Truth to be told, I met
                      Anthroposophist, Theosophists, Christians, Muslims,
                      Born Agains, etc, who are manipulative and devious.
                      The Shadow knows no limits and has no favorites.

                      You are writing about them, just as you write about
                      Joel...with prejudice. How is it that you see so
                      clearly? What stage of the evolutionary spiral do
                      you find yourself posited upon that qualifies you
                      to judge others?

                      You say you have learned that talk is cheap. Is not
                      writing about others also cheap? That actions speak
                      louder than words. Why so many words written about
                      Joel? By their fruits...where can we find the
                      produce of your mind that is not aimed directly at
                      the personal criticism or judgement of another?

                      What is the bottom line here? Is it about persons;
                      about persons' relationship to the Spiritual
                      hierarchy; about persons' relationship to Christ and
                      Michael; does the bottom line ultimately refer to
                      the Earth and humanities responsibility toward the
                      Earth's future incarnation as a Sun Being? What is
                      the bottom line for you Robert?

                      > -- I'm guessing that you are struggling with
                      > some kind of addiction and working with some
                      > kind of 12-step program. I hope that you are
                      > aware that such "meetings" have their dangers
                      > as well as their benefits. (Kinda like e-
                      > groups.) You can do some good "work" and meet
                      > some helpful people there, but you might also
                      > meet some "users", in the other sense of the
                      > word. Such people will try to run all sorts of
                      > tricky, manipulative games on you, and if you
                      > let them get very close to you, you will likely
                      > regret it bitterly. (That's a big reason why
                      > some "self-help" groups have the rule that the
                      > members may have no social relations with each
                      > other outside the meetings.) It does seem that
                      > many "users" are just that, in both senses of
                      > the word.

                      I have been clean and sober from mood-altering
                      chemicals of a solid, liquid or gaseous form for 20
                      years. For 18 years I have help countless hundreds
                      of people move towards becoming physically vital, emotionally
                      stable and mentally clear about who they are and
                      their relationship to the Greater Whole. I
                      completed the Saturn cycle two years ago.

                      Hell, Robert, the world is filled with users! So
                      what else is new that you can broadcast?

                      There is a pattern unfolding in your writing. I
                      wonder if you are aware of it?

                      > I hope that you keep your BS meter with you
                      > at all times, keep it calibrated, keep good
                      > batteries in it, and set the alarm to LOUD.

                      My BS meter is finely tuned and calibrated. That is
                      why I asked you why you continue to take Joel to
                      task as the alarm is sounded forth after reading
                      your homily about Joel.

                      Duh!

                      Terence
                    • Terence
                      ... Read the post again Emil and note the word I used was guileless. Guileless: innocent and without deception. Taken in that context, I asked the question.
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        > There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
                        > or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
                        > confuse."
                        >
                        > "Guile" is defined as "Insidious, treacherous cunning; deceit."
                        >
                        > "Hoopla" in no way defines these posts, Re: Beware of...; "Guile" is
                        > entirely inappropriate, by the above definition.

                        Read the post again Emil and note the word I used
                        was "guileless." Guileless: innocent and without
                        deception. Taken in that context, I asked the
                        question. "Are both Mason and Emil guileless?"
                        Are you without deception, Emil when you write
                        against Joel? You are antipathetic are you not?
                        It appears that you have an axe to grind! That
                        you have guile: cunning, craftiness, craft,
                        artfulness, art, artifice, wiliness, slyness,
                        deviousness; wiles, ploys, schemes, stratagems,
                        maneuvers, tricks, subterfuges, ruses; deception,
                        deceit, duplicity, underhandedness,
                        double-dealing, and trickery all about your post to
                        this board.

                        As to hoopla: excitement surrounding an event or
                        situation, esp. when considered to be unnecessary
                        fuss. As I witness the antagonistic tone of your email,
                        I see an unneccessary fuss being made about Joel.

                        > My recommendation again is far less carelessness on these posts. A
                        > really good habit to develop would be to use the dictionary frequently.

                        Perhaps this is some advice that you need to follow?

                        > Inevitably, when wariness and discernment are called for (and in this
                        > case with good reason), someone will come back with the Bible
                        > quote: "...he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc.

                        I couldn't tell you where this quote is located in the Bible.
                        As a statement, does it not carry meaning that needs to be
                        more closly examined? Why throw dirt in another man's face?
                        What is in it for you? What do you gain?

                        > This is for the record: I am without guile, as is Robert M. And in
                        > regard to myself: no human being is without sin. Self-knowledge is
                        > sufficient for discernment in this case.

                        Now from my limited perspective, me thinks that a
                        person who is without guile or guileless would
                        think twice about disparaging another person
                        whilst hiding behind the key board in
                        cyber-space. Should not the comments that you
                        made re Joel be made to his face, rather than
                        through this medium of exchange where every one
                        reads what you write about another person? What
                        would happen if you took Joel to task like a
                        mensch and posted directly to him offline?
                        Mensch: a person of integrity and honor.

                        > What is bad about people on these lists (Maurice) are their quick,
                        > careless, at times even thoughtless postings.

                        My gawd man, it is amazing how you write about yourself!
                        Tis an interesting phenomenon. A pattern is being revealed. Can you see it?

                        > Time to review those 8 steps from "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds,"
                        > especially: think before speaking or writing. And a course in "Creative
                        > Writing" or "Writing" 101 is highly recommended. Or perhaps "Public
                        > Forum Postings" 101. The last could be approached selflessly, in the
                        > interests of Anthroposophy.

                        Dear me! When you take Joel to task in a public
                        forum whose purpose is to explore Anthroposophy,
                        pray tell me how what you post is serving the
                        interests of Anthropsophy? Your posts appear to
                        me to be more of the caliber of self-serving judgementalism.

                        Curious to me that you do not address me by name in this post.
                        Am I a non-person in your eyes, too? A mensch will look me in the
                        eye and talk to me directly to my face and look me straight in the eye
                        (in this case it would be off-line).

                        For the record, my Christian name is Terence. Address me by this
                        name if you want me to continue this argument. Argument: an exchange
                        of diverging or opposite views; a reason or set of reasons given with
                        the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

                        Terence

                        ---
                        Ahriman always seeks to reduce the threefold
                        element within Man to a dyad and to remove the
                        mediating heart element, rendering the human
                        organism one merely of intelligence and will.
                        -- Steiner
                      • Stephen
                        All, I am new to Anthroposophy and have been enjoying the posts. It is only natural that someone new, like me, might attempt to contact someone on the list who
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          All,
                          I am new to Anthroposophy and have been enjoying the posts. It is only
                          natural that someone new, like me, might attempt to contact someone on
                          the list who appears knowledgeable for advice. I have been involved in a
                          few other lists and meet both good and bad people, so I have some
                          experience. If you look at Steiner's writings alone, it is a daunting
                          task to decide where to start. A few weeks back, I was reading the posts
                          of Joel and was somewhat impressed. He had me pretty convinced to start
                          with epistemology, and the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. I contacted
                          him privately and told him I enjoyed his posts, he ignored that. I went
                          to his website and starting reading ... there was knowledge and there
                          was something else, something that was beginning to bother me. Then
                          Emil's post and warning came out. I appreciate that. If someone has been
                          around and has a history with all of this, and wants to lend some
                          advice, then I think that is great. It is up to me how to take it.
                          Hopefully that is the end of it. But then people like Terrence and some
                          others feel the need to defend someone they don't even know, and attack
                          those who have tried to warn new people like me, in my opinion they show
                          themselves very badly this way, as it has made matters so much worse.
                          Then Maurice posts a short comment, and I was disappointed as up to that
                          point Maurice seemed to be very knowledgeable.
                          Emil and Robert, thank you very much for the warning, I don't feel
                          anything negative from it. I only feel like you were truly trying to
                          help. I have worked with other people in the past who I at first thought
                          seemed knowledgeable, only to waste time and be led down dead end paths.
                          Joel, I don't know what to think. Please keep posting of your knowledge
                          and do whatever it is you are trying to do on this list.
                          Terrence, I don't know what to say to you, but something seems very wrong.
                          Maurice, I will try to expect less from you and take what you have to
                          offer.
                          For what it is worth, I started with Theosophy, Steiner has a gift for
                          explaining these things - body, soul, spirit - I have never heard these
                          terms presented the way he uses them.
                          - Stephen
                        • emil_rio
                          Terence: elists are a means of key-board cyberspace communications, and there s really no getting around that. Suggesting that I m hiding behind a
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 8, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Terence: elists are a means of "key-board" "cyberspace" communications,
                            and there's really no getting around that. Suggesting that I'm "hiding
                            behind a keyboard" is ridiculous.

                            Now, my posts of warning in regard to the problems of AP's, especially
                            beginners, getting seriously sidetracked by Joel Wendt, (and the mix-up
                            of AP with "Tomberg"), especially if they come to or search for answers
                            in the literature of Anthroposophy through the computer, stands. It's
                            an objective warning and it's for the sake of others; it has nothing to
                            do with myself, and it's not personal. Actually more telling than
                            Robert Mason's posts on Joel Wendt, are Joel Wendt's answers.

                            Arguing or even a discussion with yourself, in light of your "attack,"
                            unfortunately based in obvious emotionalism - which is not appropriate
                            on the computer under any circumstances - will not resolve anything.
                            You'll likely get cleverer and cleverer, more and more insulting, with
                            continued semantic twisting, etc etc and keep pulling up cards from
                            your sleeve... I invariably lose at these games. (They constitute a
                            large measure of overall elist communications, too.)

                            It is admirable that you take up for your friend, Joel Wendt.

                            I really must stop posting regularly on this elist, because I have a
                            lot of work to do, and these posts can drain energy that I can't spare.

                            So go ahead and have the last word, Terence; you can call me every
                            nasty name in the book of nasty names, you can even threaten me
                            physically. (However, 63-year-old women can be surprisingly formidable
                            when physically threatened...) It really doesn't matter.

                            My posts stand; I do not take them back or regret them. And may they
                            help beginners - along the difficult path of Anthroposophy - to be very
                            discerning.

                            From time to time I'll come back and contribute some posts to this
                            elist.
                          • Terence
                            ... So mote it be! Terence
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 8, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:

                              > My posts stand; I do not take them back or regret them. And may they
                              > help beginners - along the difficult path of Anthroposophy - to be very
                              > discerning.

                              So mote it be!

                              Terence
                            • Joel Wendt
                              Dear List-mates, Leaving aside that Emil and Robert don t want to stand behind what they write here, lets confront a lingering question implied somewhat in
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear List-mates,

                                Leaving aside that Emil and Robert don't want to stand behind what they
                                write here, lets confront a lingering question implied somewhat in
                                Robert's last post, where he admits he doesn't know much and then goes
                                on to create his own form of the general confusion in the
                                Anthroposophical Movement...

                                First, please lets be honest about the last 100 years of
                                anthroposophical activity...people are going to have gotten a lot of
                                stuff just wrong. Not because they didn't try, but because we are
                                human, and make errors, and once Steiner died the best corrective for
                                our errors changed his field of operations. If you wanted Steiner's
                                help, it wasn't going to be found in his books, but in the inner forum
                                of ones own soul, but people went to his books - to the past of dead
                                thought and not to the living thought available to our own thinking
                                activity...

                                Robert seems to confuse the path of PoF with Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
                                as if these were the same thing, which they are not. Don't have to
                                believe me, by the way, you can read Lowndes' Enliveninig the Chakra of
                                the Heart, wherein in the last two chapters the difference between these
                                two paths and the significance of this difference is carefully introduced...

                                Now we are starting a second hundred years of anthroposophical activity
                                (this is quite significant, because Christ works Century to Century in
                                33 year rhythms (see Ben-Aharon's The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth
                                Century). Our condition as a spiritual movement is fraught with
                                dangers. The cumulative failures of the 20th Century must be faced (if
                                we don't, it becomes the same flaw that undoes a student of esotericism
                                who refuses to look honestly at his own past).

                                The archetype of these failures lives in the work of S.O. Prokofieff,
                                who is a very nice man, very sincere, hard working, and something of an
                                intellectual genius without a doubt. He is the perfect example of what
                                happens if people don't make a connection to Steiner's early works on
                                spiriual freedom, moral imagination and picture thinking. Let me lay
                                out the general shape of the basic flaw that permiates almost all of
                                anthroposophical work, including Prokofieff and even Robert's efforts on
                                Ahriman ( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1105/ahriman.htm ).

                                Rudolf Steiner's lectures are not much more than highly accurate maps of
                                spiritual realities. Anyone who has had real spiritual experiences on
                                the anthroposophical path knows this to be the case. The actual
                                territory is so far outside what words can convey that it becomes
                                obvious that the lectures produce a serious temptation to the soul.

                                Steiner himself, in Occult Science an Outline, does not speak even of
                                that book as providing knowledge to the reader, but only
                                "understanding". This is so for most of what Steiner wrote and lectured
                                about - our "understanding" is enriched, and this has positive
                                consequences for the soul AS LONG AS we don't mistake "understanding"
                                for "knowledge".

                                Yet, this is precisely how the anthroposophical movement has come to
                                treat the "understanding" that Steiner has given us, and we have then
                                (by this fatal weakness) made of his work in our souls not anthroposophy
                                but Steinerism. People who are believers in Steinerism, and haven't
                                then followed the Path of Cognition laid out in the epistemologies, then
                                don't "know" their own souls well enough to realize that this huge
                                content of Steiner-thought they have consumed has become a kind of prison.

                                The clue that this is the case is the enormous frequency of the phrase:
                                "Steiner said".

                                Thinking, which is seeking freedom, will want more to form its own
                                conclusions about matters and will resist letting live in the soul too
                                much Steiner-thought.

                                The real arena of spiritual activity is within us. The true battle is
                                fought there, not in the outer world of the senses.

                                At the beginning of this new century no one should be surprised that
                                within the anthroposophical movement itself a struggle is arising,
                                between that which has actually followed Steiner's Path of Cognition,
                                and those who couldn't quite get it, but now want to justify their own
                                understandable weaknesses by attacking the truth.

                                The clue here is the weaknesses of their approach. Emil and Robert
                                can't actually stand here in this forum and speak to what they don't
                                know. At best they can seek to tar and feather that which would make
                                them face what hasn't been made into knowledge in their own souls, but
                                which they would rather protect at whatever cost to others.

                                There are consequences to our actions. As seekers of the spirit, the
                                most significant actions in this regard are inwardly in the soul, not
                                outwardly in the social world. We can only seek the spirit within, via
                                the activity of the own spirit in the own soul. There lies the "narrow
                                gate", and the endless quoting of Steiner can only obscure and make more
                                difficult this essential work.

                                So far (in the last century), the anthroposophical movement has been
                                immature. Now it is time for it to grow up, a process certain to be
                                painful.

                                warm regards,
                                joel
                              • Terence
                                In the not too distant past, I happened upon an interesting old chap by the name of Stanley Messenger, an octogenarian who has a special perspective to share.
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In the not too distant past, I happened upon an
                                  interesting old chap by the name of Stanley
                                  Messenger, an octogenarian who has a special
                                  perspective to share. I would encourage a visit to
                                  his site. Copy and past everything between the
                                  < ... >

                                  <http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/messenger/sm-lucifer.html>

                                  I would call particular attention to : *Claim Two.
                                  Here's another even more frequently heard
                                  statement. "Oh! I can't read The Philosophy of
                                  Freedom. That's far beyond me. I need to experience
                                  spirit in action in the world."*

                                  I am especailly fond of what Stanley writes near
                                  the end of his letter; *... Well, in the first place
                                  no-one approaching initiate knowledge for the first
                                  time will be denied human as well as super-sensible
                                  help and support, though, in the absence of the
                                  Society, it is more likely to be through the loving
                                  recognition of individuals than through formal
                                  study-groups with official auspices. But there is
                                  something more. We have a School of Spiritual
                                  Science. It was set up under the old dispensation,
                                  and it has remained incomplete. Anthroposophy
                                  didn't transform the mind-set of the pre-millennial
                                  western world, though it had a profound hidden
                                  effect upon it. Have you thought, as a member of
                                  that school, that it might be possible, in drawing
                                  a line under it, to graduate from that school?
                                  Perhaps no-one would get first-class honours. But
                                  have you thought that Rudolf Steiner, who with Ita
                                  Wegman, is now intensely occupied with his next
                                  world task, and longs to be released from the
                                  tragic karma of anthroposophy, might, if asked,
                                  happily give pass degrees to those who ask, and
                                  release both himself and the rest of us from what
                                  may otherwise become an esoteric blind-alley? There
                                  is so much love in the New World. We could all go
                                  on and join them*

                                  If we continue to quote Steiner and use
                                  Steinerism's rather than think for ourselves and
                                  express oursleves as best as we can, as Joel
                                  mentions in his recent post, are we not parts of a
                                  binding agent for the future of the soul-spirit of
                                  RS and the next phase of his work? And are we not
                                  also binding ourselves to the past history of
                                  Anthroposophy?

                                  Having read the parts, pieces and parcels of
                                  Spiritual Science extensively for years I am
                                  intimatley aware of the necessity to comprehend the
                                  significant difference between understanding and
                                  knowledge.

                                  May Stanley's message be of assistance to help you
                                  become unfettered from the yoke of understanding
                                  anthroposophy....especially if you are a Beginner.
                                  May as well start off on the right foot, eh?

                                  Terence
                                • Terence
                                  ... SNIP ... Do not lose any sleep over this Stephen. Mind your own business, as what I wrote doesn t include you. Keep on reading, asking questions,
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@c...> wrote:

                                    SNIP

                                    > Terrence, I don't know what to say to you, but something seems very wrong.

                                    Do not lose any sleep over this Stephen. Mind your
                                    own business, as what I wrote doesn't include you.

                                    Keep on reading, asking questions, meditating, pray
                                    and by all means stay inside your skin and look at
                                    you and your relationship with people you are in
                                    relationship with, and with the burgeoning relationship
                                    you are having with your soul. Anthroposophy is not
                                    about persons. We all have our shadow or
                                    doppleganger to contend with until we meet the
                                    Lower Guardian of the Threshold. When you get to
                                    that place in your soul-spirit growth you will
                                    recognize the truth that Anthroposophy is not about
                                    persons.

                                    Out of curiosity, if you willingto answer, what is
                                    Anthropsophy about to you?

                                    Terence
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.