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

Re: upside-down 3folding

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... his head up his ass, as it were?
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To Tom, who wrote:

      >>Are you implying that Valentin Tomberg has
      his head up his ass, as it were?<<

      Robert writes:

      I'll try to reply only to your serious remarks
      and leave your jokes aside. Trouble is, I have
      such a hard time telling the difference.
      Sometimes I wonder whether you even know the
      difference . . . you and Tarjei.

      Tom wrote:

      >>. . . . I used the 3-fold man and social
      order as a way of showing that on a SOUL level,
      Bradford and Joel and everyone else is equal. .
      . .<<

      Robert writes:

      Once again, I'm not sure how serious you are
      about this. It looks kinda like a joke, but I
      get the feeling that you are not altogether
      joking. But I bypassed it the last time, and
      I'll bypass it again. Let me try to explain a
      little about myself and how I approach these e-
      lists. (This may be redundant for some of you,
      but I guess it's unavoidable.)

      I have a hard time keeping up with these e-
      lists. I subscribe to three of them, and I
      have my private email. I don't get much time
      online, and there are other things I want to do
      when I do get online. I don't even read all
      the posts; I'm doing well just to scan the
      blurbs and read the posts that look
      interesting. And I'm just plain slow anyway.
      I'm a slow typist; I'm a slow thinker; I have a
      hard time concentrating and getting things
      done. (A lifelong problem; probably ADD, but
      never formally diagnosed.)

      I used to feel as though it were my job to
      straighten every twisted thought in this world,
      and especially in these e-lists. But I just
      can't do that; I'm not up to the job. It's
      sometimes painful to walk past mangled thoughts
      lying twitching in the gutter, but I have to
      practice *triage*: I try to engage in e-
      discussions only if something fairly important
      seems to be at stake and only if there seems to
      be some realistic hope of getting something
      useful done. Probably I'm not up to that job
      either . . . but ya do what ya can with what ya
      got.

      Tom wrote:

      >>. . . . The anomaly was never resolved
      because Norman kept insisting on the fact that
      Freedom in the Cultural Sphere demanded that
      the Head rule here. Otherwise you would have
      Marxism, in quite the opposite sense you meant.
      And if you recall, the motto of the French
      revolution, which we drew on then as well, was
      also used by Steiner.

      >>Liberte--------- Freedom ---------Thinking---
      - Cultural Sphere
      Egalite----------Equality-----------Feeling----
      --Rights Sphere
      Fraternite-------Brotherhood------Willing------
      --Economic Sphere<<

      Robert writes:

      I see no anomaly here. Culture (Steiner
      actually said *Geist*, spirit, didn't he?) and
      thinking are "head" (death forces) for the
      individual organism, and only the individual
      can be free. But culture is "belly" (life
      forces) for the social organism. The
      individual human organism and the social
      organism are not the same.

      Tom wrote:

      >>I piped up something to the effect that it
      was like the problem we have explaining the
      Phantom Body to anyone: that the Physical Body
      in its essence as Phantom is really this Warmth
      Body from Old Saturn, while we normally think
      of it as the Mineral Body we see today.<<

      Robert writes:

      I tried, but I really don't see the analogy.

      Tom wrote:

      >>There's also an inversion when you run the 4
      elements with the 4 bodies. And I think it has
      to do with the opposite directions of
      involution and evolution. I remember going
      round and round with Arthur M. Young (1905-
      1995)in his Theory of Process about whether the
      etheric body correlated with water or with air,
      and vice versa for the astral body. But then
      both Arthur and I ganged up on Rupert
      Sheldrake, who insisted his "morphogenetic
      field" idea was of the astral while Arthur
      maintained it was etheric, according to
      Steiner. We never resolved it, but Arthur felt
      it did have to do with the opposite directions
      of involution and evolution.<<

      Robert writes:

      I don't see this analogy either. Are you
      saying that the human organism is evolving and
      the social organism involuting? (Well,
      *involving* doesn't seem quite right either.)
      Or is it the other way 'round? I don't see the
      relevance.

      Tom wrote:

      >>Also, I recall that back at Norman's, we also
      discussed the 3-sub-folds of each fold, giving
      3 x 3 = 9. For example, within the Economic
      Sphere, you 3-fold into Head-Heart-Limbs for
      the associations, where the Heads would direct
      and manage while the hearts would "broadcast"
      and "network" and the Limbs would do the heavy
      lifting.<<

      Robert writes:

      You mean producers, distributors, and
      consumers? -- Yes, the social organism is
      really 9folded; I can go along with that.
      Exploring this idea can deepen our
      understanding. But first we need to get the
      basic 3folding right side up.

      Tom wrote:

      >>Anyway, I'm glad you brought it up, as it
      shows once again that we really can't
      systematize Steiner, no matter how hard we
      try.<<

      Robert writes:

      Yes . . . the tree looks different from
      different angles; there are the famous 12
      world-views, and all that. Sure, there's
      plenty I don't understand about the Steiner-
      saids, but we can at least try to think clearly
      about what Steiner said when what he said was
      clear enough. And in this case it was clear,
      and it makes sense when one thinks about it.
      If trying to gain clarity is what you would
      call *systematization*, I plead guilty -- but
      guiltily not guilty enough.

      Tom wrote:

      >>Something baffles me here. . . . (etc., etc.)

      >>Do you think peace might reign if we never
      discussed anything by any of these Russians?<<

      Robert writes:

      I guess this is 99% joke? But for the 1%
      seriousness, I have a serious question.

      You brought in the maternally Russkie Tomberg
      and his allegedly "incisive anthroposophical
      insights". And you have made other gestures in
      that direction since your return. I'm already
      running the risk of starting a Tomberg thread
      with G-man, but this is more of a Tom question
      than a Tomberg question.

      In the dreaded year 1998 you wrote an open
      letter to Joan Almon. Here is a lengthy
      excerpt for the benefit of the onlookers:

      ***********************************************
      I myself was deeply enmeshed in the esoteric
      Christian Hermetic Tombergian cult from 1980 to
      about 1989. When I lived in Spring Valley in
      1980, I got to know Bud & Nina Remensperger,
      who were then churning out Tomberg's articles
      and lectures in English from a press in their
      garage --- which they called "Candeur
      Manuscripts." Having been born and raised
      devout Irish Catholic in NYC, and then coming
      to anthroposophy at age 28, I was very
      intrigued by a man who was an anthroposophist
      first and then became a Catholic at age 42.

      But it has really only been in the last 6
      months that I have personally come to terms
      with the insidious retrograde cult nature of
      the movement that has sprung up around Tomberg
      and his esoteric Christian legacy. Your
      citation of that Prokofieff quote on page 29
      exposes most tersely the nature of this evil
      cult and why it is so damaging to the growth of
      anthroposophy today. Allow me to reproduce it
      here since this letter to you, Joan, is going
      to appear on the Steiner98 List and there are
      even some Society members who have not yet
      received the issue.
      _______________________________________________
      "Some of the anthroposophists close to Tomberg
      felt he was living with delusions even while he
      was active in the Society, and his indications
      about his own previous incarnations and those
      of others do raise serious concerns. In any
      case he [Tomberg] came --- rightly or wrongly -
      -- to a certain conclusion that seems to me to
      explain many of his actions. [Sergei ]
      Prokofieff quotes Tomberg as having said to his
      friend Lubensky in the early 1940's: 'The
      impulse of the Consciousness Soul has failed; a
      direct path must be found from the Intellectual
      Soul to the WE-Soul (Spirit Self) [Manas]'" . .
      . . Thank you so very much, Joan, because
      exists to celebrate the spiritual and physical
      reality of the Consciousness Soul Age as it
      properly unfolds so beautifully and
      instinctively from us Americans who were born
      since the middle of this 20th Century. (See
      Lecture 6 of 6 in "Challenge of the Times.")
      (NOTE: But woe betide any of these Americans
      who dare to bypass the Consciousness Soul Age
      and whose karma it is to trip and fall down
      headlong into the treacherous snake pit, sewer
      and cesspool of Steiner98, a definite esoteric
      mudhole that exists to detain and restrain such
      irresponsible people from their drunken
      Ahrimanic rush to Philadelphia.) And as if that
      statement wasn't enough for me to celebrate, I
      then read the article by Florian Sydow and
      these sentences jumped out at me from page 7.
      (Again, Joan, please forgive me for quoting
      your own Newsletter back at you, but this
      letter is also for my audience here on S98 ---
      many of whom are not Society members at all) He
      [Florian Sydow] is discussing the 3rd round of
      the 666 year cycle in 1998 and how Ahriman
      stands in the service of this Sorath Sun-demon,
      the 2-horned Beast of the Book of Revelation:
      (my emphases in ALL CAPS)
      _______________________________________________
      "Ahriman stands in the service of this Anti-
      Christ being. The latest strategy that we can
      see unfolding from this powerful alliance is to
      forcefully introduce a PRE-MATURE 'SPIRIT SELF'
      [MANAS] AGE without allowing for the maturing
      of the human ego and individual human freedom."
      "... According to Steiner's reckoning, this
      'Spirit-Self' Age is not meant to BEGIN [I
      repeat: BEGIN!] until the MIDDLE of the FOURTH
      MILLENNIUM A.D. [i.e. 4400 A.D. = End of Kali
      Yuga in 1900 + 2500 years to the appearance of
      Maitreya Buddha!] ". . . in light of the warp
      speed acceleration that Ahriman is bringing
      about, and the FALSE VERSION OF 'SPIRIT SELF'
      THAT IS BEING IMPOSED PREMATURELY, it will
      become all the more important to cultivate the
      pre-figuration of this future stage presently
      embodied in anthroposophy."
      _______________________________________________
      I could probably formulate a very accurate
      mission statement for my Steiner98 List out of
      the above thoughts.
      ***********************************************

      Robert continues:

      I get the creepy feeling that you have fallen,
      or are falling, back into that "evil cult".
      I'm wondering what happened to you; did you get
      mugged by Joel Wendt in some dark alley of
      cyberspace, or what?

      I'm serious.

      Robert Mason




      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.