Re: A Moral Reckoning
- You are not consistent with this 'behaviour' on this list, nor on
I do not beleive that you represent 1 single individual.
I feel that you represent ulterior motives.
Were you genuinely striving for Anthroposophical understanding, you
would both selflessly welcome the creative efforts of others strong
members on this list, and you wouldn't continuously negate their
attempts at simply being 'present', spiritualy creative and sociable.
You put forth an excessive domineering presence on this list, and I
beleive this is a wicked conscious act.
And, I KNOW that I am not alone in my observation. C.
--- In email@example.com, "Stephen Hale" <sardisian01@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carol" organicethics@
> > S: "So were your two children the product of an experiment? Or just
> > accidents, or what? Mine were the product of a life-bonding
> > committment, and maybe that's what I'm not understanding about you."
> > No Asureus in my analytic interplay involving this statement. It
> > plain and simple to me. You defined your choice to be a FATHER
> > your procreative activity within a lawful marriage- and then ASSUMED
> > that since my MOTHERHOOD occured outside of the confines marriage,
> > it must essentially be devoid of the multiplicity of upreaching
> > of LIFE.
> > An accident, an experiment. This is Luciferic, with an Ahrimanic
> > to it. Materialistic, plain and simple, with it being quite out of
> > with living reality.
> > How is it that you can presume such a disjointed reflection of my
> > condition of motherhood? Is it because you, yourself find yourself
> > 'locked' within a disjointed personal experience vis a vis reality?
> > materialism perhaps? And then further on, you feel a given 'right'
> > project it onto me?
> > Carol.
> You really really get things wrong, and probably because we're
> touching on intimate matters. My interest, believe me, was genuine.
> As a counselor I *have* to have an interest in other people, so I
> make a point of trying to be sincere. In person this trait of mine
> comes across in a way that I think you would find impressive. I have
> earned respect wherever I go, and the reason is that I have earned
> it. This is a living fact in the material world. The etheric world
> is another matter, and I believe that we should hold to the quite
> phenomenal fact that you and I cannot, for some reason, seem to have
> a positive and harmonious discourse without friction of some kind. I
> have recognized this with respect for two years now. The reason is
> because I am an anthroposophist who has a life and a style and an
> environment and a karma and conditions that differ from yours. But
> not that much; which is why, it seems, we stay connected.
> It's all good, as someone says frequently. And she and I got into it
> much like you and I. I respect her too. Believe me, the respect is
> there for you, Carol. Lots of it.
> To me then, it comes down to this extraordinary environment in which
> we speak to each other. It is one that is fine indeed, but also
> harbors the burden of the asuras that now infects the human ego. We
> will need to make this a very serious topic of interest from now on
> because that is where we experience our personal crossroads with
> others. As one who advocates psychosophy you can expect that this
> would be my area of emphasis.
> This realm in which we speak to each other, sight unseen, is owed
> entirely to the Etheric Christ; and it forms a measure of the
> redemptive activities for which the Christ first came down to earth.
> Thus, we try to see, hear, and relate to each other in this realm,
> which has been fortified through the sacrifice of Christ dying a
> human death; a god who went through human death in order to be raised
> so that "we all might believe". And it is true.
> Two thousand years later, we talk here in this place over spiritual
> matters that have been brought forth through the most remarkable
> person yet seen in the 20th century. And he is hardly known to
> anyone in the world, except us; that is, those who have received the
> initiatory impulse for spiritual science as a karmic gift, and deed.
> For we are very much deeded with the furthering of this great work,
> which is OURS to continue in the manner first given in stumbling
> steps, just as an infant makes those early attempts to stand upright
> with that amazing 'grip of willful authority'. You felt it, and so
> did I.
> You felt it, and so did I. Can we agree on that too?
--- In email@example.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:
> I still find that `psychic life` development implies engaging the forces
> of the inner soul towards astral/devachanic inner
> perception/clairvoyance. A condition of sleep implies astral
> The second stream, requires an extroverted application. Experience is
> drawn outward- to face the world, all things manifest, to witness form
> and then further on, the `geometric` principal of astral determination
> . To view the workings of the living world is first and foremost to
> witness etheric forces furnishing mobility and multiplicity of form.
> Pride suggests a meeting with the outside manifest world. The pupil had
> at first, to disregard his inner `astral' experience in order
> to more solidly greet the manifest world- which is why I associated the
> body/etheric to this latter type of initiation.
> I see that there are different ways of looking at it- or would it be
> more correct to say- there`s a paradox to this.
In this [second] kind of initiation the disciple's soul was drawn out of his inner being, whereby he could participate in the events of the cosmos and raise himself to the soul-spiritual essence permeating the universe. His experience differed markedly from ordinary contemplation of nature because he felt he lived within the very soul of the universe. In not a bad but a good sense, he was beside himself. He was, though one hesitates to use this word because it has taken on an unpleasant connotation, in ecstasy. Upon achieving this union with the cosmos he could say to himself that through living in the universe and through experiencing its most intimate soul-spiritual forces, he had come to realize that everywhere the final goal of the cosmos is the creation of man. Did man not exist, the whole creation could not fulfill its end, because he was the meaning of the cosmos.
Carol, it is not possible to remove the Etheric Body from the physical body without death occurring immediately. Therefore, for this reason alone the second type of ancient mystery stream concerns the Astral Body. Consider all that the lecture: The Work of the Angels in Man's Astral Body gives as a point of further reference for what now takes place in the state of dreamless sleep. Dream sleep involves the etheric body and its close union with the physical body.
During sleeping we interact with the spiritual worlds when the astral-ego organization leaves the etheric-physical organization and engages its spiritual communion in the astral and higher devachanic realms. The ego, as such in our present development, is a silent witness to the work of the astral body in receiving the impressions of the angelic hierarchies, which are then carried down into the etheric body. Dreaming is an etheric activity conducted in middle devachan by the astral body, in which our past lives are traveled through and mixed in with the recent physical body experiences of the present life. Chaos is the general order of the dream experience, which is countered by the objectively ordered pictures of the waking conscious (relative) experience. Waking up from a dream is felt entirely in the etheric body as a present-moment experience of consciousness. As soon as the outer world is detected this consciousness sinks down into the subconscious and the dream is forgotten in favor of relative waking consciousness.
Practice can allow one to develop the ability to remain within the present-moment consciousness when first awakening as a meditative exercise. Spiritual science cultivates this desire to remain within the fold of the waking dream experience wherein many truths of independently investigated subjects are intuited and further inspired into imaginative content.
But as soon as the eyes and ears turn to the sense world, a buffer is created between the environment and the previously felt inner domain, and that which had just been on the surface sinks down into the famed "subconsciousness" of Freud.