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

Re: Dispelling the Rumors around IG's Book

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Hale
    ... What strikes me most is Willy Lochmann s open and patient heart in being so willing to attempt to give all he can on this matter. This is the tolerance
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 10, 2007
      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
      <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      > Tom,
      > I just glanced through your draft translation.
      > A couple of quick notes:
      > Down at the bottom you forgot the hyphen in
      > the lochmann-verlag URL.
      > The "nomenklatura" in the USSR was roughly
      > the equivalent of the "inner party" in *1984*.
      > I hope that this will be the beginning of a
      > long and fruitful collaboration between you
      > and WL. There's a lot on his site that
      > should be available to English readers. . . .
      > and then there's Bondy's 967 page book on
      > *PoF* . . . and when you get through with
      > that, there are his four volumes on Goethean
      > methodology . . . and so on and on.
      > Robert M

      What strikes me most is Willy Lochmann's open and patient heart in
      being so willing to attempt to give all he can on this matter. This
      is the tolerance that one can see in a soul who is dedicated to
      Rudolf Steiner; who so very definitely had this very same quality.
      In fact, I'd be willing to say that Mr. Lochmann just might know the
      name and author of the book that Prokofieff read back in 1979/1980
      that made him physically ill. And if he does, he might even have
      the graciousness to tell *me*. In fact, I'll bet on it. And if he
      does Robert, do you want me to tell you, or just keep it to myself?

      You know, I think people here are interested in the deal with this
      book on Prokofieff vs. Steiner. The reason is because it really
      made not one ounce of difference concerning Proky's rise to
      prominence. So why was it written in the first place? Obviously,
      to curtail such a thing. But it did not. But I ask: Why not?

      Now, if in fact Gennady Bondarev was an instrumental agent in the
      writing of this book of Gordienko's, then why not put his name on
      the book? It would have clearly had the effect of letting people
      know that a recognized scholar of the work of Rudolf Steiner was
      taking issue with what Prokofieff was bringing forth. Yet, a young
      and unknown Russian scientist takes the full load upon herself for
      writing a book that compares Rudolf Steiner's work and context to
      the relatively recent work of Sergei Prokofieff.

      And it is this ploy that makes no sense to me, whatsoever. And, as
      far as can be seen, the translation into English so far only
      confuses matters even more. Obviously though, alot was riding on
      the success of this book, and it failed to achieve the desired
      result. I personally think it should have been a clarion call to
      those monitoring Prokofieff's efforts, as a wake-up call that he was
      clearly promoting something other than the pure advancement of

      Please remember that Rudolf Steiner gave a lecture course (GA200),
      that contains a specific passage concerning such an effort, coming
      out of the west, in which it was possible to exploit the russian
      influence toward a negative luciferic output; one that could be
      judged to be of a rather mystical and regressive order. And Proky's
      most definitely voluminous output can be found here.

      For me, the author's foreward to: Sergei Prokofieff: Myth and
      Reality, says quite a bit about the maturity that it took to write
      that book. No 33 year old woman could have written those very
      mature words that denote a soul who has struggled to attain the
      wisdom that those words clearly denote. No way; absolutely not
      possible. And I speak from personal experience here.

      The foreward emphasizes the anthroposophical path of cognition,
      which very few of us here who are interested in anthroposophy have a
      clue about. It also mentions very early in its exposition about
      Herbert Wimbauer's book: The Case For Prokofieff, written in 1995.
      And how he was able to see this "mystical theosophical influence" as
      a negative trend toward Steiner. And then, in the very next
      paragraph, it is said quite plainly, that Prokofieff is a product of
      the west. And that this book wants to show that Prokofieff is
      purely a product of a western influence, who is then subjected back
      into Russia only after succumbing to this western influence.

      Pretty interesting isn't it? And I'll close by reiterating that
      Rudolf Steiner talked about it in GA200, "The New Spirituality and
      the Christ Experience of the Twentieth Century." And if we look at
      all that Sergei Prokofieff has written since 1997 we could have a
      sequel of enormous proportion, culminating with the very
      first "Living Being of Anthroposophia Conference" held in Los
      Angeles, California in late July of 2006. That was where everyone
      concluded by walking the figure-eight and pausing to worship "The

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