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

Re: Gulags for Anthros?

Expand Messages
  • carol
    Robert wrote: And I do think that some knowledge of the basics of Anthroposophy is helpful, probably necessary, in understanding the forces (i.e.beings) that
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Robert wrote:

      "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."

      Robert, there also exists the following point. That, it's one thing to be able to assimilate these thought images as 'being conceavably real', it's another thing having enough mastery over one's soul forces, to be able to deal clearly and directly with the manifestation of these, with the necessary few steps going backwards, when and where they show their 'powers' in real life situations. There's alot of 'time space' in between these two steps. There's alot of soul solidifying having to take place- and I imagine you have an idea of what that entails.

      Thus- one of the benefits naturally more easily accessible to members of the older generation- when the forces of procreation have subsided.

      I had the feeling that you were tapping onto something of an outer shell, with Val. I experienced it more as one intimately connected to her condition of maternity, one which she could not release herself from, even if she wanted to. Though maybe, she intuitively knows not to.

      Perhaps, the inner workings of Evil, the quality of the conceptual configurations which you possess and which Steiner did, even further, should not be taking hold of Val's soul for the moment. She may be developing certain soul 'things/rapports' with and amongst her children and others, which, when time proves ripe enough, she will freely release them into the world. (It's just a living concept, you can take how you like...)

      ...All while she literally familiarizes herself with the presence of Evil on the intimate level at her own rythm. Notice, she's probably been reading Bradford's stuff, I wouldn't think that she's been avoiding the issue.

      C.

      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.