Re: Gulags for Anthros?
Our human condition contains a mighty catch 22 scenario.
No matter how many souls slip to the side of materialsm, humankind will remain vulnerable to Spirit's incitement. And, one must not ignore that Anthroposophy is the name of the new empowered spiritual impulse which wishes to take hold of humankind.
As long as a human individual can return his attention to himself through uttering 'my', 'I', he/she is subject to be awakened to this new Christic spiritual Will.
Try if it wills, patriotism, scientific religious dogma and mischeif can never illiminate all traces of the human experience of 'I' or 'my'.
Even if chosen groups of men are successfully swallowed in humanly contrived electromagnetic 'baths', those fewer individuals at the top, who know to keep themselves in safe places, will themselves be open to Spirit's Rule, for it is through the 'I' that it streams in.
Thus, the catch 22.
And, Michael continues to fight the dragon, all the way, down here.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Stephen Hale" <sardisian01@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "carol" organicethics@ wrote:
> > "Thus, comforts become the necessary lull needed to steal those
> > morsels that serve to fill the Eighth Sphere
> > with mineral content coming from the intellect of humankind."
> > OK, so would you care to transpose that into a physic's formula, or
> > pictoral diagram. Seems to me that it would come out pretty simple.
> Actually, it gets more complex really. It seems that you want me to
> jump forward rather prematurely, maybe due to lack of patience, or dare
> I say, discipline. I'll give you a hint though: Lucifer and Ahriman
> are involved, those culprits.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert Mason
> I don't object to the mere fact that my view isI'm sorry you feel that way.-Val
> being challenged; I was inviting a discussion.
> But so far you haven't shown me anything that
> convinces me that your "challenge" is well-
> founded in this case. And now it seems to me
> that our discussion has reached an impasse, a
> dead end; you're not saying anything really
> new. So I don't see any point in my