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

Re: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.