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

fun with Dick and Jane

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Some questions has come into existence regarding my doubts about Bradford and Steve H. These doubts are not really a big deal in the great scheme of
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Some questions has come into existence regarding my "doubts" about
      Bradford and Steve H. These "doubts" are not really a big deal in the
      great scheme of things, but as a final bit to this list, before I leave,
      I thought I would elaborate the problem.

      Certainly everyone has their own spiritual Path. Brad and Steve have
      theirs. Carol, not knowing much about Steiner's epistemologies (a
      defect that dominates the Anthroposophical Movement today), can't seem
      to grasp my concerns. Both Brad and Steve allege familiarity here with
      the results of introspection following the methods of natural science,
      but to the extent that Anthroposophy is also Spiritual Science, it seems
      prudent to wonder about how much "science" there is in their work that
      frequently asserts its "anthroposophical" pedigree.

      Most of what Brad and Steve write about are not matters with which I
      have a great deal of familiarity. The only times I can form a judgment
      about the quality of their work is when they wander into a territory in
      which I have been active for many years, which is mainly with regard to
      the epistemologies, and as regards a new social science, founded in the
      new thinking (goetheanism and so forth).

      So, for example, when Brad speaks with his usual surety about the
      "rotting away from within" of the Beacon of Hope, I have to wonder a) if
      he read what I wrote; and b) if he has thought much at all about the
      social organism of mankind and what transpires there.

      The problem is that the "rotting away" is the means to the Crucifixion
      which I had mentioned, and the Beacon of Hope is not the US government
      itself (not what rotted away from within), but the image beheld in the
      imaginations of ordinary human beings. All of these are phenomena that
      can be seen with an awake thinking, that knows the difference between
      thoughts which arise first in the mind to be applied to an experience
      (beliefs held close), and thoughts which arise only after the experience
      is tasted. There first creates shadows were none exist, and the latter
      let the phenomena speak their truth into the soul.

      This is not the only time Brad has displayed gross assumptions and
      misunderstandings in my field of interest, seeming to express by this
      that his thought can grasp any matter that it touches without the least
      bit of effort, or work. This being the case (his lack of knowledge of
      the underlying dynamics of social existence, coupled with his belief he
      can speak of it intimately) suggests to me that perhaps more of his work
      displays similar kinds of weaknesses, and for all its apparent
      erudition, is not to be trusted.

      With Steve, the problem is multiple, in that he speaks again with great
      surety about thinking (a subject of my own interest rooted in over 35
      years of study), and then when I resist expressing approval for his
      work, seeks to pretend he can see into my soul, and then trashes me for
      having once learned a great deal about the Arts Magic.

      Now in the new social science, it becomes clear that the social is
      organized in such a way that the individual human biography is the
      central moment of meaning. Everything in the social is created by the
      higher beings in order for this individual human biography to unfold
      what is best for that individual i-AM in this particular lifetime. This
      is itself rather remarkable, given that so much that seems terrible can
      be discovered by a superficial looking at social matters (all kinds of
      things about Asuras this and Sun Demons that), when the social itself
      (if properly thought) speaks everywhere of Christ (the real Spirit of
      the Earth Existence).

      So when Steve makes a statement, in passing, about ordinary human beings
      as ignorant, arrogant and clever, I have to wonder if he has ever
      thought about ordinary human life and why it is the way it is today.
      Does he actually see the miracle of the Thou at all, or has the work he
      believes he has done created a huge blind spot? If the work he has done
      cannot lead him to the wonder of how Christ's Love fills out our
      individual biographies, what about this work that he has done could
      possible make it valuable, beyond its meaning to him. Why should I
      believe he has mastered the inner disciplines so as to be able to speak
      of the most profound things of higher worlds with the surety that he
      expresses, when he can't see what is right in front of his face in life?

      If this thinking, which he feels is so right on, somehow has not led him
      to be able to think about the simplest things, why ever should I trust
      that its view of deep matters of spiritual worlds is anything but some
      kind of incredible fantasy.

      Every time Steve harshly judges ordinary people for not coming to
      Spiritual Science (something Brad does on occasion as well), I have to
      wonder if he/they live in the actual world at all.

      Now it should be asked, if I myself know anything at all about the
      construction of illusory worlds of thought, for which the answer is
      yes. I too took into my soul tons of words that Steiner spoke and
      wrote, and used this vocabulary to describe the world of experience
      (layered over my experience my beliefs). But as my studies of thought
      itself deepened, it became apparent that thought has to arrive at the
      i-AM as a result of the thinking/perceiving of the experience, and not
      be brought ready made to the experience.

      This is an extremely subtle matter in our soul life. It is called
      goetheanism and is the true intermediary stage before taking up
      investigations of the purely spiritual. Thinking has to be trained
      before it attempts to cognize the spirit, otherwise it will bring to its
      experience of the spirit what it has already thought (in the case of
      Brad and Steve, the world view generated by reading). As a consequence,
      experience is not perceived, but instead is defined by the pre-thought
      concepts.

      I also know from experience that there are further stages after
      goetheanism, in which it becomes crucial to completely divorce one's
      i-AM from its collection of thoughts. The i-AM must renounce its world
      view and surrender that seemingly magnificent self-created structure.
      Dennis Klocek calls this silent practice and I call it sacrifice of
      thoughts.

      If the i-AM cannot stand objectively free of its self-created thought
      content, it is (to borrow from PoF) captured by the concept and we are
      not inwardly free. The world view possesses the ego, not the reverse.
      The inner state must be reached in which the previously thought content
      has no meaning at all, so that the gesture of thinking can now be a
      constant dying and becoming. Thought arises, and then instead of being
      grasped and added to the collection, is allowed to immediately pass
      away. Thought then becomes living, arising and fading as the wind of
      the holy spirit passes through the soul, never lingering or coagulating.

      We need to be able to live in the act of thinking itself, and not its
      product which is then placed in memory (where dead thought is often
      stored). Living in thinking, while not grasping and storing, thought
      then becomes a perpetual communion, a constant Eucharist of thought, in
      which the Host is the Holy Spirit.

      A real engagement with Steiner's epistemologies should lead to an
      understanding of the Soul as a Temple, in which the thinking activity of
      the i-AM (the moral nature of intention and attention, the will-in
      thinking) is the primary Sacramental Art.

      joel
    • holderlin66
      Joel Q.Herakleitos says: Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one who attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all. So says Herakleitos
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Joel Q.Herakleitos says:

        Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one who attains
        to understanding that wisdom is apart from all. So says Herakleitos
        Joel.

        Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all things
        are steered through all things. But Brad and Steve lunkheads!

        The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else would
        it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and
        Hekataios and Bradford and Steve by now.

        Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised scientific inquiry beyond
        all other men, and making a selection of these writings, claimed for
        his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many things and an
        imposture. As impostures are Brad and Steve as well.

        Fools when they do hear are like the deaf: Brad and Steve of them
        does the saying bear witness that they are absent when present.

        Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if like Brad and Steve they
        have souls that understand not their language.

        Steve and Brad are among many who do not take heed of such things as
        those they meet with, nor do they mark them when they are taught,
        though they think they do.

        Brad and Steve show that Knowing not how to listen they also known
        not how to speak.

        Joel says that Christ is in every heart and "if you do not expect
        the unexpected, you will not find it; for it is hard to be sought
        out and difficult."

        And the Sibyl our own Joel, with raving lips uttering things
        mirthless, unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand
        years with her/his voice, thanks to the god in her/him.

        Joel declares that "The things that can be seen, heard, and learned
        are what I prize the most.

        Bradford and Steve are constantly "bringing untrustworthy witnesses
        in support of disputed points."

        Bradford comments

        I suggest everyone write a personal note thanking Joel for his
        wonderful participation and his offerings to all of us. I suggest we
        thank Joel for lending us his time an energy and his understanding.
        You see, Joel suffers, suffers very intensely whenever he must leave
        and take on some new writing project or research that will cost him
        hours and hours away from us all. He suffers, he realizes that all
        his corrective efforts will now go to weed and without him
        everything will once more fall to pieces.

        Joel suffers from pre-post-partum depression. Poor Joel, at the
        moment when he feels he must shift his attention to other things, he
        craves to know that he has been appreciated and not mistaken for
        other fools who also use this list. Joel worries that his lost
        contributions and his time away will create an enormous gap in our
        learning. Without Joel many of us will obviously only be mouthing
        vague mumblings about Spiritual Science and without Joel's 90 years
        of Anthroposophical studies to his credit, most of us will be
        contributing nonsense without his help. It is a sad and tragic state
        that brings tears to my eyes everytime for the last thirty-seven
        times Joel has done this, and said in his Nixonian fashion, I'm
        leaving, unappreciated, and none of you know what monsters those
        others are. Joel is the compassionate fatherly figure who must for a
        time leave his flock to the harrowing of such wolves that dare call
        themselves Anthros students. For shame.

        Naturally Joel has always warned and glanced in a grandfatherly,
        Nixonian nod, saying, I'm leaving now....I said, I'm going, leaving,
        probably never to return this way again, a man cannot step in the
        same stream twice, the same etheric stuffiness and bull-headedness
        marked the etheric temperament of ol' Heraclitus "you can't step in
        the same stream twice". Although Heraclitus was highly respected and
        this particular approach to valid rebuilding of thought at any given
        instance, does demand a limberness, which poor Joel fears he lacks.

        Yup, there is no more absolute proof as to the nature of the etheric
        style of thinking then stubborn little etheric glitch that Joel
        manifests when he always takes a few parting shots and swipes and
        begs for sympathy by announcing his leaving, while Joel goes off on
        another bender. Self knowledge has not penetrated to Joel's etheric
        habit body, but we all know and love Joel and we always compensate
        for his complete lack of self insight. Joel is a clunky, pendantic
        and logical Anthro and just another Etheric style...sometimes not
        unlike the kinky and rough edged, Herakleitos.

        "The style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure, and, at a later
        date, got him the nickname of "the Dark."10 Now the fragments about
        the Delphic god and the Sibyl (frs. 11 and 12) seem to show that he
        was conscious of writing an oracular style, and we have to ask why
        he did so. In the first place, it was the manner of the time.11 The
        stirring events of the age, and the influence of the religious
        revival, gave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders of
        thought. Pindar and Aischylos have it too. It was also an age of
        great individualities, and these are apt to be solitary and
        disdainful. Herakleitos at least was so. If men cared to dig for the
        gold they might find it (fr. 8); if not, they must be content with
        straw (fr. 51). This seems to have been the view taken by
        Theophrastos, who said the headstrong temperament of Herakleitos
        sometimes led him into incompleteness and inconsistencies of
        statement."

        "The main reason for stopping there is to visit Ephesus, which was
        one of the prominent cities on the Mediterranean in the ancient
        world. It is also very interesting because it is one of the best
        preserved ruin sites in that part of the world. Two hundred and
        fifty thousand people once lived in Ephesus. During the April
        celebrations in honor of Artemis as many as one million people may
        have gone there. Ephesus was a popular destination in part because
        it had the Temple of Artemis, which was one of the Seven Wonders of
        the Ancient World. Heraclitus, the important Greek philosopher,
        lived in Ephesis from 540 to 480 B.C. In the years following the
        crucifixion of Christ both St. Paul and St. John lived in Ephesus
        and wrote gospel there. Many people believe that Mary, the mother of
        Christ, lived and died there.

        "Ephesus is thought to have existed as early as 2,000 B.C., and to
        have been located on the sea. Like so many other places in that part
        of the world, Ephesus was conquered by many different rulers. In its
        early history it was ruled by Ionians, Lydians, Persians, Athenians,
        and Spartans. The Macedonian general Lysimachos conquered Ephesus in
        283 B.C. By his time sediment carried toward the sea by the Kucuk
        Menderes River had accumulated rendering the direct outlet to the
        sea impassible. Also, the marshy land was now a source of mosquitoes
        that were spreading malaria. Because of these undesirable conditions
        Lysimachos moved the city of Ephesus to a nearby valley. This is the
        site of the ruins. After Lysimachos, Ephesus was ruled by Egypt and
        Syria. In 190 B.C the Romans took control and made Ephesus the
        capital of the Roman Province of Asia

        The famous Temple of Artemis was built by Croesus, King of Lydia, in
        about 550 B.C. It is also known by the Latin name Diana, and was
        very large and contained important works of art. It was rebuilt in
        356 B.C. after being burned by a madman. In 3 A.D. the Goths
        plundered both Ephesus and the Temple of Ephesus, and in 262 A.D.
        the Goths destroyed them both. The temple was never rebuilt, and
        Ephesus never recovered to its former status. Ephesus was eventually
        abandoned and remained so for many years."
      • Steve Hale
        ... the ... leave, ... Joel, the only problem that has ever existed between us is that you follow your path, and I follow mine. Thus, the problem can only be
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
          >
          > Some questions has come into existence regarding my "doubts" about
          > Bradford and Steve H. These "doubts" are not really a big deal in
          the
          > great scheme of things, but as a final bit to this list, before I
          leave,
          > I thought I would elaborate the problem.

          Joel, the only problem that has ever existed between us is that you
          follow your path, and I follow mine. Thus, the problem can only be
          egoistic, which affords further proof that the Asuras are spirits
          who have the power now to enter the individualized ego
          consciousness, and thus become the prime influence behind these
          silly and rather non-existent 'problems'.

          I will say, though, that I have a strong sense that it is you that
          needs approval and understanding, and when you don't get it readily,
          you leave. My interest in what you perceive as "trashing you" has
          nothing to do with approval, but rather was the result of an
          exercise in introspective research wherein the "double complex" was
          discerned in its functional being and purpose for existing in the
          service of the human psychophysical system. I also wanted to point
          out that occult magic is a dangerous practice, with consequences
          that stir the double into conscious awareness, and is to be avoided.

          I would like to say more later, if you're still around. We aren't
          that far off, and never have been.

          Regards,

          Steve
        • Steve Hale
          ... wrote: ... Joel, when I contemplate your own quaternary designations for thinking, in terms of: Thinking About, Thinking With, Thinking Within, and
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 25, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale" <sardisian01@...>
            wrote:
            <snip>
            > I would like to say more later, if you're still around. We aren't
            > that far off, and never have been.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            > Steve

            Joel, when I contemplate your own quaternary designations for thinking,
            in terms of: Thinking About, Thinking With, Thinking Within, and
            Thinking As, it gives me great joy; joy because we have corresponded
            and corroborated each other's own investigative research. I wrote an
            extended treatise on this subject of fourfold thinking as the result of
            an opportunity I had to participate in a forum concerning the work and
            accomplishments of the Russian clairvoyant G.I. Gurdjieff, and his
            philosophical pupil P.D. Ouspensky. It sought to bring their results,
            coming out of the Russian Folk Soul, toward an integration with the
            results of Rudolf Steiner's clairvoyant researches. As such, it is
            entitled: Quaternium Organum, in honor of both Steiner and Ouspensky.

            One of the aspects it attempts to bring to light is enhanced quite
            significantly with your fourfold representation of thinking. So, I am
            going to use it to give an added dimension to what is in this treatise,
            in order to clarify the thinking path and process. Thus:

            Thinking About = Deduction = Above-Below = Astral Body = 1st POV

            Thinking With = Induction = Left-Right = Etheric Body = 2nd POV

            Thinking Within = Reduction = Before-Behind = Physical Body = 3rd POV

            Thinking As = Adduction = Spherical = Ego = 4th POV

            This is the stuff that made up "Quaternium Organum", which also delves
            into the content of the knowledge of the seers Gurdjieff and Steiner,
            and the work of the thinker in attempting to understand and express it.

            Steve
          • Valerie Walsh
            Let s see...fall, winter, spring...that s quite awhile-anything could happen-all five of my computers could break or something, something, I don t know what
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 26, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Let's see...fall, winter, spring...that's quite awhile-anything could happen-all
              five of my computers could break or something, something, I don't know what
              but it's possible, very possible, that I won't be here if and when you come
              back. So it seems to me that I should say something at this juncture like
              goodbye, so long, sianara, serape, serape, something, but as usual I don't
              know what that would be...

              But I do know that I, for one, will miss you, if for no other reason, than Dick has
              always been one of my favorite characters.-Val
            • Steve Hale
              ... wrote: ... POV ... So, to sum up, the four POV s represent perspectives that have arisen in the course of time since the sun first entered the sign
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 26, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale" <sardisian01@...>
                wrote:
                <snip>
                > Thinking About = Deduction = Above-Below = Astral Body = 1st POV
                >
                > Thinking With = Induction = Left-Right = Etheric Body = 2nd POV
                >
                > Thinking Within = Reduction = Before-Behind = Physical Body = 3rd
                POV
                >
                > Thinking As = Adduction = Spherical = Ego = 4th POV

                So, to sum up, the four POV's represent perspectives that have
                arisen in the course of time since the sun first entered the sign of
                Aries at the vernal equinox in 747 BC. Thus, the first great
                indication that something important is taking place is the fact that
                the sun enters the sign of the Ram in order to prove that the
                sacrifice of the two-horned ram back in Abraham's time meant
                something for the future. And so we can delineate the forming of
                these perspectives as actual movements having arithmetic, geometric,
                dimensional and directional values, all arising out of point-based
                origins. The goal is always to move from perspective, and its
                decreasingly clairvoyant perception, to the so-called "reality" of
                an outer, external world wherein mankind finally comes to perceive
                his/her own point-based true reality as Ego.

                We achieve our individual ego at the point of the furthest extension
                away from the doughnut of God involvement, in order to strive in
                efforts of pure free individual activity in the re-involvement under
                our own guidance. The Hierarchies are still there, behind the
                scene, but self-reference becomes the guiding principle with
                Michael's decree from the 9th century. Circumlocution is formed as
                a circumferential wall, much like the one that Gilgamesh built to
                protect the people of Uruk, who he led.

                The four perspectives actually lead from reality to illusion, and
                then back to reality; which forms the basis of modern exact
                clairvoyance. So, the scope of fourfold thinking represents a
                clairvoyance that befits the earth evolution.

                So, there you have it, and see you later gator, even as you're
                already gone.

                Steve
              • organicethics@sympatico.ca
                You guys are so cute. You all bear magnificent imprints of your past lives which clothe you all in distinct manners of approaching and beholding that which
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 28, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  You guys are so cute. You all bear magnificent imprints of your past lives which clothe you all in distinct manners of approaching and beholding that which lay before you, externaly and internaly. At least, you are all collected under a great umbrella... I think that's what's important because this should allow each and everyone to express your-our selves "in a fuller sense", than would be permitted in general, otherwise.

                  And, I don't know if it's true, but I strongly suspect that behind 'the pens' and living within the authors is healthy pro active spiritual activity.

                  And that may be the only judgement that actually bears lasting truth.

                  I'll probably respond more when my computer's back. Carol.


                  >
                  > From: "holderlin66" <holderlin66@...>
                  > Date: 2006/10/24 Tue PM 04:17:44 EST
                  > To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: fun with Dick /Jane and Heraclitusb
                  >
                  > Joel Q.Herakleitos says:
                  >
                  > Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one who attains
                  > to understanding that wisdom is apart from all. So says Herakleitos
                  > Joel.
                  >
                  > Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all things
                  > are steered through all things. But Brad and Steve lunkheads!
                  >
                  > The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else would
                  > it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and
                  > Hekataios and Bradford and Steve by now.
                  >
                  > Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised scientific inquiry beyond
                  > all other men, and making a selection of these writings, claimed for
                  > his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many things and an
                  > imposture. As impostures are Brad and Steve as well.
                  >
                  > Fools when they do hear are like the deaf: Brad and Steve of them
                  > does the saying bear witness that they are absent when present.
                  >
                  > Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if like Brad and Steve they
                  > have souls that understand not their language.
                  >
                  > Steve and Brad are among many who do not take heed of such things as
                  > those they meet with, nor do they mark them when they are taught,
                  > though they think they do.
                  >
                  > Brad and Steve show that Knowing not how to listen they also known
                  > not how to speak.
                  >
                  > Joel says that Christ is in every heart and "if you do not expect
                  > the unexpected, you will not find it; for it is hard to be sought
                  > out and difficult."
                  >
                  > And the Sibyl our own Joel, with raving lips uttering things
                  > mirthless, unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand
                  > years with her/his voice, thanks to the god in her/him.
                  >
                  > Joel declares that "The things that can be seen, heard, and learned
                  > are what I prize the most.
                  >
                  > Bradford and Steve are constantly "bringing untrustworthy witnesses
                  > in support of disputed points."
                  >
                  > Bradford comments
                  >
                  > I suggest everyone write a personal note thanking Joel for his
                  > wonderful participation and his offerings to all of us. I suggest we
                  > thank Joel for lending us his time an energy and his understanding.
                  > You see, Joel suffers, suffers very intensely whenever he must leave
                  > and take on some new writing project or research that will cost him
                  > hours and hours away from us all. He suffers, he realizes that all
                  > his corrective efforts will now go to weed and without him
                  > everything will once more fall to pieces.
                  >
                  > Joel suffers from pre-post-partum depression. Poor Joel, at the
                  > moment when he feels he must shift his attention to other things, he
                  > craves to know that he has been appreciated and not mistaken for
                  > other fools who also use this list. Joel worries that his lost
                  > contributions and his time away will create an enormous gap in our
                  > learning. Without Joel many of us will obviously only be mouthing
                  > vague mumblings about Spiritual Science and without Joel's 90 years
                  > of Anthroposophical studies to his credit, most of us will be
                  > contributing nonsense without his help. It is a sad and tragic state
                  > that brings tears to my eyes everytime for the last thirty-seven
                  > times Joel has done this, and said in his Nixonian fashion, I'm
                  > leaving, unappreciated, and none of you know what monsters those
                  > others are. Joel is the compassionate fatherly figure who must for a
                  > time leave his flock to the harrowing of such wolves that dare call
                  > themselves Anthros students. For shame.
                  >
                  > Naturally Joel has always warned and glanced in a grandfatherly,
                  > Nixonian nod, saying, I'm leaving now....I said, I'm going, leaving,
                  > probably never to return this way again, a man cannot step in the
                  > same stream twice, the same etheric stuffiness and bull-headedness
                  > marked the etheric temperament of ol' Heraclitus "you can't step in
                  > the same stream twice". Although Heraclitus was highly respected and
                  > this particular approach to valid rebuilding of thought at any given
                  > instance, does demand a limberness, which poor Joel fears he lacks.
                  >
                  > Yup, there is no more absolute proof as to the nature of the etheric
                  > style of thinking then stubborn little etheric glitch that Joel
                  > manifests when he always takes a few parting shots and swipes and
                  > begs for sympathy by announcing his leaving, while Joel goes off on
                  > another bender. Self knowledge has not penetrated to Joel's etheric
                  > habit body, but we all know and love Joel and we always compensate
                  > for his complete lack of self insight. Joel is a clunky, pendantic
                  > and logical Anthro and just another Etheric style...sometimes not
                  > unlike the kinky and rough edged, Herakleitos.
                  >
                  > "The style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure, and, at a later
                  > date, got him the nickname of "the Dark."10 Now the fragments about
                  > the Delphic god and the Sibyl (frs. 11 and 12) seem to show that he
                  > was conscious of writing an oracular style, and we have to ask why
                  > he did so. In the first place, it was the manner of the time.11 The
                  > stirring events of the age, and the influence of the religious
                  > revival, gave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders of
                  > thought. Pindar and Aischylos have it too. It was also an age of
                  > great individualities, and these are apt to be solitary and
                  > disdainful. Herakleitos at least was so. If men cared to dig for the
                  > gold they might find it (fr. 8); if not, they must be content with
                  > straw (fr. 51). This seems to have been the view taken by
                  > Theophrastos, who said the headstrong temperament of Herakleitos
                  > sometimes led him into incompleteness and inconsistencies of
                  > statement."
                  >
                  > "The main reason for stopping there is to visit Ephesus, which was
                  > one of the prominent cities on the Mediterranean in the ancient
                  > world. It is also very interesting because it is one of the best
                  > preserved ruin sites in that part of the world. Two hundred and
                  > fifty thousand people once lived in Ephesus. During the April
                  > celebrations in honor of Artemis as many as one million people may
                  > have gone there. Ephesus was a popular destination in part because
                  > it had the Temple of Artemis, which was one of the Seven Wonders of
                  > the Ancient World. Heraclitus, the important Greek philosopher,
                  > lived in Ephesis from 540 to 480 B.C. In the years following the
                  > crucifixion of Christ both St. Paul and St. John lived in Ephesus
                  > and wrote gospel there. Many people believe that Mary, the mother of
                  > Christ, lived and died there.
                  >
                  > "Ephesus is thought to have existed as early as 2,000 B.C., and to
                  > have been located on the sea. Like so many other places in that part
                  > of the world, Ephesus was conquered by many different rulers. In its
                  > early history it was ruled by Ionians, Lydians, Persians, Athenians,
                  > and Spartans. The Macedonian general Lysimachos conquered Ephesus in
                  > 283 B.C. By his time sediment carried toward the sea by the Kucuk
                  > Menderes River had accumulated rendering the direct outlet to the
                  > sea impassible. Also, the marshy land was now a source of mosquitoes
                  > that were spreading malaria. Because of these undesirable conditions
                  > Lysimachos moved the city of Ephesus to a nearby valley. This is the
                  > site of the ruins. After Lysimachos, Ephesus was ruled by Egypt and
                  > Syria. In 190 B.C the Romans took control and made Ephesus the
                  > capital of the Roman Province of Asia
                  >
                  > The famous Temple of Artemis was built by Croesus, King of Lydia, in
                  > about 550 B.C. It is also known by the Latin name Diana, and was
                  > very large and contained important works of art. It was rebuilt in
                  > 356 B.C. after being burned by a madman. In 3 A.D. the Goths
                  > plundered both Ephesus and the Temple of Ephesus, and in 262 A.D.
                  > the Goths destroyed them both. The temple was never rebuilt, and
                  > Ephesus never recovered to its former status. Ephesus was eventually
                  > abandoned and remained so for many years."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Steve Hale
                  ... are helping What if it could be shown that Krsna was a deification of the Christ Being fourteen hundred years before the actual incarnation of the Physical
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 28, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Krsna <blue_star_in@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > and then we go back to where we started
                    >
                    > Krsna moves the mountain and we all put our sticks there to show we
                    are helping

                    What if it could be shown that Krsna was a deification of the Christ
                    Being fourteen hundred years before the actual incarnation of the
                    Physical Christ in Jesus? And that is why the Hindu religion cannot
                    fathom a Sun Spirit (Vishva Karman)?

                    Steve
                  • Steve Hale
                    ... behind the pens and living within the authors is healthy pro active spiritual activity. Indeed, this would be true. In fact, it might have alot to do
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 28, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, <organicethics@...> wrote:
                      > And, I don't know if it's true, but I strongly suspect that
                      behind 'the pens' and living within the authors is healthy pro active
                      spiritual activity.

                      Indeed, this would be true. In fact, it might have alot to do with
                      bearing a female etheric body within this male persona. This could
                      account for the need to be descriptive of spiritual experience, which
                      the male etheric body finds less useful.

                      Steve
                    • carol
                      May you not forget the male ego experience and it s force of Will which needs to apprehend and break down that which is manifest in it s environment,
                      Message 10 of 11 , Oct 29, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        May you not forget the male ego experience and it's force of Will
                        which needs to apprehend and break down that which is manifest in
                        it's environment, including, taking charge of situations and
                        persons. And perhaps the inner need to impose and ensure an
                        enduring physical signature even at the risk of neglecting more
                        pressing (spiritual?) considerations.

                        Just for fun, but there are men who have been extremely eloquent
                        when treating spiritual matters. For example, I just read an
                        introductory study of etheric forces, written in 1931 by Paul
                        Coroze. He is a prime example, though his delicate approach may have
                        something to do with 'the slightly less materialistic times' in
                        which he lived.

                        Carol


                        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale" <sardisian01@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, <organicethics@> wrote:
                        > > And, I don't know if it's true, but I strongly suspect that
                        > behind 'the pens' and living within the authors is healthy pro
                        active
                        > spiritual activity.
                        >
                        > Indeed, this would be true. In fact, it might have alot to do
                        with
                        > bearing a female etheric body within this male persona. This
                        could
                        > account for the need to be descriptive of spiritual experience,
                        which
                        > the male etheric body finds less useful.
                        >
                        > Steve
                        >
                      • Steve Hale
                        ... Yes, it s called being a householder, which can sometimes even lead to an improved condition of the house. ... have ... Maybe he had a male etheric body,
                        Message 11 of 11 , Oct 29, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > May you not forget the male ego experience and it's force of Will
                          > which needs to apprehend and break down that which is manifest in
                          > it's environment, including, taking charge of situations and
                          > persons. And perhaps the inner need to impose and ensure an
                          > enduring physical signature even at the risk of neglecting more
                          > pressing (spiritual?) considerations.

                          Yes, it's called being a householder, which can sometimes even lead
                          to an improved condition of the house.
                          >
                          > Just for fun, but there are men who have been extremely eloquent
                          > when treating spiritual matters. For example, I just read an
                          > introductory study of etheric forces, written in 1931 by Paul
                          > Coroze. He is a prime example, though his delicate approach may
                          have
                          > something to do with 'the slightly less materialistic times' in
                          > which he lived.
                          >
                          > Carol

                          Maybe he had a male etheric body, which allowed for a more visual
                          expression to his writing. It couldn't be due to less materialism
                          in 1931, as the Etheric Christ still had yet to reappear, and the
                          last vestiges of the old iron age were still in force.

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