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

Re: Gulags for Anthros?

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... don t think that basic Anthroposophy will furnish someone with the necessary tools to be able first experience, then discern the motivational forces
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To Carol, who wrote:

      >>. . . . from personal experience, I really
      don't think that basic Anthroposophy will
      furnish someone with the necessary tools to
      be able first experience, then discern the
      motivational forces working behind adversaries
      to the movement. I think that 'spiritual
      organs of perception' first need to be
      developed, then put to 'application' in various
      real life situations. This takes time. It
      goes from the simple to the more complex.. (I
      noticed that Robert cited something close to
      the most complex scenario at one point.)
      Also, a multitude of conditions of a person's
      individual life come into play in determining
      how much life education will be had.<<

      Robert writes:

      Carol, I'm 59 years old, and, while I haven't
      quite had a "normal" life, I have had some
      experience with people -- and maybe I've
      learned a thing or two about them, sometimes
      the hard way. All too often people will BS
      you, run games on you, take advantage of you if
      you let them. They do this because they are
      not very honest, because they are not very
      aware of what they or doing, or, probably more
      often, some combination of the two. In my
      younger days I tried to take people at their
      word, not to be "judgmental", not to be
      prejudiced by my feelings about them, and so
      on. But over the years I have learned,
      sometimes bitterly, that my "gut feelings", my
      "take" on what people are doing with me, is
      often, maybe even usually, more accurate than
      the way they present themselves and their
      actions outwardly. Now I still don't like to
      be suspicious, and I try to give people the
      benefit of the doubt unless they show me that
      they don't deserve it -- but when I get a
      creepy feeling about someone, when their words
      and their actions don't seem to be in harmony,
      I don't dismiss my misgivings as a "prejudice";
      I try to listen to my intuition (lower-case
      *i*), step cautiously, ask questions, compare
      words with deeds, and try to exercise
      *discernment*. Life-in-general teaches you
      discernment, whether or not you are consciously
      on a "spiritual path", whether or not you are
      an Anthroposophical student. You either learn
      some discernment, or you get chewed up.

      We have been taught the primary criterion of
      discernment about people: by their fruits
      shall ye know them. And folk-wisdom gives us
      the dictum: actions speak louder than words.
      -- And *speak* is the right word; the pattern of
      people's actions, their deeds, their "fruits",
      is a kind of language, a script that can be
      "read". And this language of "fruits" is more
      real than mere "talk"; again, folk-wisdom has
      it right: talk is cheap. If you want to know
      what people are *really* about, don't listen to
      their words so much as you "listen" to, "read,
      their deeds. This doesn't mean to dismiss
      their words without making a real effort to
      understand them, but when words and deeds are
      in conflict, deeds are the trumps.

      As I've told you before, I'm usually about as
      clairvoyant as a sack of potatoes, but this
      doesn't mean that I can't use a little logic
      and common sense. And even "gut feelings" can
      be a kind of inchoate spiritual perception, if
      one has some clarity and awareness about
      oneself and the creepy-crawlies in the dark
      corners of one's basement. And actually I have
      had a sort of symbolic visualization (not a
      capital-*I* Imagination) about the WC. You can
      read about it here in my farewell message to
      them:
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24095>

      And I do think that some knowledge of the
      basics of Anthroposophy is helpful, probably
      necessary, in understanding the forces (i.e.
      beings) that move people in relation to
      Anthroposophy. When trying to read the
      meanings of particular situations, one needs to
      put these particulars within the "big picture"
      of cosmic development and the spiritual warfare
      that is part of that development. And my
      "take" on the WC isn't just my opinion; as you
      can see from the Steiner-said in my last post
      to Val, my take is in harmony with Steiner's
      discernment about the opponents of Anthroposophy
      in his day.

      Carol wrote:

      >>I'm normally careful in my treatment of women
      actively parenting . . . .<<

      Robert writes:

      I don't think that my input to this thread has
      been conditioned by considerations about sex,
      certainly not about parenthood. As I've said
      before, my participation in e-groups is limited
      by many factors. In this thread I've said much
      less then I might have said; partly due to
      those other factors, but also because I'm
      trying to tread softly and give people the
      benefit of the doubt. But I suppose that I am
      still plain-spoken enough to rub some people
      the wrong way. And I suppose that's pretty
      much inevitable: I'm still the way I am, far
      from perfect. Anyway, it's just about impossible
      to say much of anything worth saying without
      offending someone.

      Robert M




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
      http://sims.yahoo.com/
    • isenhart7
      ... I m sorry you feel that way.-Val
      Message 68 of 68 , Aug 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
        <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:

        > I don't object to the mere fact that my view is
        > 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
        > continuing.

        I'm sorry you feel that way.-Val
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.