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

Re: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.


      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 2 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        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 3 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

          From time to time I'll come back and contribute some posts to this
        • Terence
          ... So mote it be! Terence
          Message 4 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!

          • 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 5 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

              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

              warm regards,
            • 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 6 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
                < ... >


                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

                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

                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
                ... 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 7 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@c...> wrote:


                  > 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

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

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