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

Prokofieff - Gordienko

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde, The implication of these words Upon independent investigation might or might not imply that one or both of you has read
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 15 7:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,

      The implication of these words " Upon independent
      investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you has
      read Gordienko's book: "Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality". Have
      either of you read it, and are you prepared to make your case in support
      of Prokofieff by finding errors in either logic or scholarship in this
      book?

      warm regards,
      joel
    • Sieglunda
      Dear Joel, I don t understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It seems to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I misunderstood?
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 15 7:45 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Joel,

        I don't understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It seems
        to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I misunderstood?

        Sieglunda

        > Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,
        >
        > The implication of these words " Upon independent
        > investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you has
        > read Gordienko's book: "Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality". Have
        > either of you read it, and are you prepared to make your case in support
        > of Prokofieff by finding errors in either logic or scholarship in this
        > book?
        >
        > warm regards,
        > joel
      • Joel Wendt
        Dear Sieglunda, This is an anthroposophy list, which meant, the last time I understood what anthroposophy was, that we practiced spiritual science. Science by
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 15 3:09 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Sieglunda,

          This is an anthroposophy list, which meant, the last time I understood
          what anthroposophy was, that we practiced spiritual science.

          Science by its nature (and I am sure this is why Steiner made of his
          teaching a science) involves an interest in the truth, and this in such
          a fashion that how one arrives at that truth is an essential aspect of
          study as well.

          Gordienko writes a book which draws certain conclusions about the
          quality of Prokofieff's spiritual scientific work. This is as it should
          be - we should be able to critically examine each others work, just as
          in natural science.

          This means that in order to understand and discuss the issues involved
          intelligently, one must have read Gordienko's book and be ready to
          discuss it (debate is only one way of discussing something, not
          necessarily the best), otherwise one is blowing so much hot air.

          Have you read this book?

          warm regards,
          joel



          On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 10:45, Sieglunda wrote:
          > Dear Joel,
          >
          > I don't understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It seems
          > to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I misunderstood?
          >
          > Sieglunda
          >
          > > Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,
          > >
          > > The implication of these words " Upon independent
          > > investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you has
          > > read Gordienko's book: "Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality". Have
          > > either of you read it, and are you prepared to make your case in support
          > > of Prokofieff by finding errors in either logic or scholarship in this
          > > book?
          > >
          > > warm regards,
          > > joel
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
          > Unsubscribe:
          > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Sieglunda
          Dear Joel, I m sorry to say I find your demands and interrogations unjustified and out of place on an Anthroposophical list or on any list, other than one
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 15 4:03 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Joel,

            I'm sorry to say I find your demands and interrogations unjustified and out
            of place on an Anthroposophical list or on any list, other than one devoted
            solely to exercises in jurisprudance as it has been passed down to our
            present time via ancient Rome. I fail to see why you demand a discussion of
            this book under the guise of proving anything. It seems you feel truth
            hinges upon what you consider as a criteria derived from another's written
            opinions and your own dissimulation(s) of those opinions. I'm sorry to say
            you seem to have your priorities wrong. I prefer to think for myself in
            freedom, but I have no right to demand you follow suit nor cater to my
            wishes. Perhaps someone else may want to "discuss" this book with you.

            Sieglunda


            > Dear Sieglunda,
            >
            > This is an anthroposophy list, which meant, the last time I understood
            > what anthroposophy was, that we practiced spiritual science.
            >
            > Science by its nature (and I am sure this is why Steiner made of his
            > teaching a science) involves an interest in the truth, and this in such
            > a fashion that how one arrives at that truth is an essential aspect of
            > study as well.
            >
            > Gordienko writes a book which draws certain conclusions about the
            > quality of Prokofieff's spiritual scientific work. This is as it should
            > be - we should be able to critically examine each others work, just as
            > in natural science.
            >
            > This means that in order to understand and discuss the issues involved
            > intelligently, one must have read Gordienko's book and be ready to
            > discuss it (debate is only one way of discussing something, not
            > necessarily the best), otherwise one is blowing so much hot air.
            >
            > Have you read this book?
            >
            > warm regards,
            > joel
            >
            >
            >
            > On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 10:45, Sieglunda wrote:
            > > Dear Joel,
            > >
            > > I don't understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It
            seems
            > > to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I misunderstood?
            > >
            > > Sieglunda
            > >
            > > > Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,
            > > >
            > > > The implication of these words " Upon independent
            > > > investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you has
            > > > read Gordienko's book: "Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality". Have
            > > > either of you read it, and are you prepared to make your case in
            support
            > > > of Prokofieff by finding errors in either logic or scholarship in this
            > > > book?
            > > >
            > > > warm regards,
            > > > joel
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
            > > Unsubscribe:
            > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
            > Unsubscribe:
            > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • DRStarman2001@aol.com
            sieglunda@earthlink.net writes: Dear Joel, I don t understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It seems to me your words imply an invitation to
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 15 4:05 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              sieglunda@... writes:
              Dear Joel,
              I don't understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It seems to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I misunderstood?
              Sieglunda

              *******Sieg, for my part I did not see the post below because, based on long experience, I filter posts from Joel. I certainly have no desire to participate in any strident debate with people about the value of Steiner imitators.

              Dr. Starman

              > > Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,
              > > The implication of these words " Upon independent
              > > investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you has read Gordienko's book...
            • Joel Wendt
              Dear Shelia, I take it you haven t read the book and like other occasions (although not always) don t know what you are talking about. You do have a nice
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 16 5:44 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Shelia,

                I take it you haven't read the book and like other occasions (although
                not always) don't know what you are talking about.

                You do have a nice political turn of phrase, when you want to avoid an
                issue. Ever think about going into politics?

                warm regards,
                joel

                On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 19:03, Sieglunda wrote:
                > Dear Joel,
                >
                > I'm sorry to say I find your demands and interrogations unjustified and out
                > of place on an Anthroposophical list or on any list, other than one devoted
                > solely to exercises in jurisprudance as it has been passed down to our
                > present time via ancient Rome. I fail to see why you demand a discussion of
                > this book under the guise of proving anything. It seems you feel truth
                > hinges upon what you consider as a criteria derived from another's written
                > opinions and your own dissimulation(s) of those opinions. I'm sorry to say
                > you seem to have your priorities wrong. I prefer to think for myself in
                > freedom, but I have no right to demand you follow suit nor cater to my
                > wishes. Perhaps someone else may want to "discuss" this book with you.
                >
                > Sieglunda
                >
                >
                > > Dear Sieglunda,
                > >
                > > This is an anthroposophy list, which meant, the last time I understood
                > > what anthroposophy was, that we practiced spiritual science.
                > >
                > > Science by its nature (and I am sure this is why Steiner made of his
                > > teaching a science) involves an interest in the truth, and this in such
                > > a fashion that how one arrives at that truth is an essential aspect of
                > > study as well.
                > >
                > > Gordienko writes a book which draws certain conclusions about the
                > > quality of Prokofieff's spiritual scientific work. This is as it should
                > > be - we should be able to critically examine each others work, just as
                > > in natural science.
                > >
                > > This means that in order to understand and discuss the issues involved
                > > intelligently, one must have read Gordienko's book and be ready to
                > > discuss it (debate is only one way of discussing something, not
                > > necessarily the best), otherwise one is blowing so much hot air.
                > >
                > > Have you read this book?
                > >
                > > warm regards,
                > > joel
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 10:45, Sieglunda wrote:
                > > > Dear Joel,
                > > >
                > > > I don't understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It
                > seems
                > > > to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I misunderstood?
                > > >
                > > > Sieglunda
                > > >
                > > > > Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,
                > > > >
                > > > > The implication of these words " Upon independent
                > > > > investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you has
                > > > > read Gordienko's book: "Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality". Have
                > > > > either of you read it, and are you prepared to make your case in
                > support
                > > > > of Prokofieff by finding errors in either logic or scholarship in this
                > > > > book?
                > > > >
                > > > > warm regards,
                > > > > joel
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                > > > Unsubscribe:
                > > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                > > Unsubscribe:
                > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > >
                > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                > Unsubscribe:
                > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Sieglunda
                Dear Bruce , Something is wrong here with this individual and I don t know what else to do except either ignore this or bring it to your
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 16 6:36 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Bruce <RingofFire12>,

                  Something is wrong here with this individual and I don't know what else to
                  do except either ignore this or bring it to your attention. Since he posted
                  this in public to the list, I can't now ignore the insulting innuendos even
                  though he has addressed it to someone else. I really would appreciate your
                  help with whatever this is all about.

                  Thanks,

                  Sieglunda

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Joel Wendt" <hermit@...>
                  To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:44 AM
                  Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] Prokofieff - Gordienko


                  > Dear Shelia,
                  >
                  > I take it you haven't read the book and like other occasions (although
                  > not always) don't know what you are talking about.
                  >
                  > You do have a nice political turn of phrase, when you want to avoid an
                  > issue. Ever think about going into politics?
                  >
                  > warm regards,
                  > joel
                  >
                  > On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 19:03, Sieglunda wrote:
                  > > Dear Joel,
                  > >
                  > > I'm sorry to say I find your demands and interrogations unjustified and
                  out
                  > > of place on an Anthroposophical list or on any list, other than one
                  devoted
                  > > solely to exercises in jurisprudance as it has been passed down to our
                  > > present time via ancient Rome. I fail to see why you demand a discussion
                  of
                  > > this book under the guise of proving anything. It seems you feel truth
                  > > hinges upon what you consider as a criteria derived from another's
                  written
                  > > opinions and your own dissimulation(s) of those opinions. I'm sorry to
                  say
                  > > you seem to have your priorities wrong. I prefer to think for myself in
                  > > freedom, but I have no right to demand you follow suit nor cater to my
                  > > wishes. Perhaps someone else may want to "discuss" this book with you.
                  > >
                  > > Sieglunda
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > Dear Sieglunda,
                  > > >
                  > > > This is an anthroposophy list, which meant, the last time I understood
                  > > > what anthroposophy was, that we practiced spiritual science.
                  > > >
                  > > > Science by its nature (and I am sure this is why Steiner made of his
                  > > > teaching a science) involves an interest in the truth, and this in
                  such
                  > > > a fashion that how one arrives at that truth is an essential aspect of
                  > > > study as well.
                  > > >
                  > > > Gordienko writes a book which draws certain conclusions about the
                  > > > quality of Prokofieff's spiritual scientific work. This is as it
                  should
                  > > > be - we should be able to critically examine each others work, just as
                  > > > in natural science.
                  > > >
                  > > > This means that in order to understand and discuss the issues involved
                  > > > intelligently, one must have read Gordienko's book and be ready to
                  > > > discuss it (debate is only one way of discussing something, not
                  > > > necessarily the best), otherwise one is blowing so much hot air.
                  > > >
                  > > > Have you read this book?
                  > > >
                  > > > warm regards,
                  > > > joel
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 10:45, Sieglunda wrote:
                  > > > > Dear Joel,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I don't understand your challenge here. Would you please explain? It
                  > > seems
                  > > > > to me your words imply an invitation to debate, or have I
                  misunderstood?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Sieglunda
                  > > > >
                  > > > > > Dear Dr. Starman and Siglunde,
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > The implication of these words " Upon independent
                  > > > > > investigation " might or might not imply that one or both of you
                  has
                  > > > > > read Gordienko's book: "Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality".
                  Have
                  > > > > > either of you read it, and are you prepared to make your case in
                  > > support
                  > > > > > of Prokofieff by finding errors in either logic or scholarship in
                  this
                  > > > > > book?
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > warm regards,
                  > > > > > joel
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                  > > > > Unsubscribe:
                  > > > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                  > > > Unsubscribe:
                  > > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                  > > Unsubscribe:
                  > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                  > Unsubscribe:
                  > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • evlogite
                  Hi Everyone: Can we keep this discussion on a cordial level? Too often this list descends into name calling and stance-taking instead of openness and
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 16 6:46 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Everyone:

                    Can we keep this discussion on a cordial level? Too often this
                    list descends into name calling and stance-taking instead of
                    openness and willingness to learn. If this is anthroposophy,
                    then shouldn't we try to break out of the sandpit of our stiff and
                    habit-formed thoughts and remain open to the Other?

                    I don't have a problem when people disagree, Joel-- but when
                    the conversation leads to a place where individuals no longer
                    want to engage each other because of past mudslinging and
                    self-righteousness, I find that sad. If we're going to discuss
                    topics under the umbrella of anthroposophy, then let's rise to the
                    occasion. Otherwise, let's start a new forum called, gossip,
                    inuendo, self righteousness, and egotism (although it might
                    exist already :> )

                    I, for one, am interested in the Prokofieff book by Gordienko. I
                    haven't read, much less seen a copy-- and would find it a great
                    benefit if someone would give a synopsis of its main points.
                    Going a little further, I would similarly like to see the Tomberg
                    book by Prokofieff discussed and also the topic of why it's so
                    difficult for new work to be accepted into the body of
                    Anthroposophy and why there have always been factionalism. Is
                    it merely the inability of certain streams to work together? Does
                    it play itself out downstream in forums such as this? Is it worth
                    reconciling? What is the ultimate prize that we all hold dear?

                    Let's recognize that we all come from certain points of view, that
                    can be simultaneously correct or incorrect, and learn from each
                    other. Otherwise this is a waste of time.

                    evlogite


                    --- In anthroposophy@y..., Joel Wendt <hermit@t...> wrote:
                    > Dear Shelia,
                    >
                    > I take it you haven't read the book and like other occasions
                    (although
                    > not always) don't know what you are talking about.
                    >
                    > You do have a nice political turn of phrase, when you want to
                    avoid an
                    > issue. Ever think about going into politics?
                    >
                  • g8740@aol.com
                    Hi, I am new to this list - but not new to anthroposophy. Whenever people strive for higher knowledge and understanding, there are always the troublemakers. I
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 16 7:11 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi,
                      I am new to this list - but not new to anthroposophy. Whenever people strive for higher knowledge and understanding, there are always the troublemakers. I know as I have lived in anthroposophic communities for twelve years and in the end could not take it anymore. It was always called "a clash of EGO'S"
                      One thing is often missing with anthroposophy, and that is humour.
                      Greetings
                      Gerhard
                    • Joel Wendt
                      ... No problem, I ve been looking for a discussion of the actual book (rather than various kinds of gossip , as you say), for quite a while. G s [Gordienko s]
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 16 8:03 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 09:46, evlogite wrote:

                        >
                        > I, for one, am interested in the Prokofieff book by Gordienko. I
                        > haven't read, much less seen a copy-- and would find it a great
                        > benefit if someone would give a synopsis of its main points.
                        > Going a little further, I would similarly like to see the Tomberg
                        > book by Prokofieff discussed and also the topic of why it's so
                        > difficult for new work to be accepted into the body of
                        > Anthroposophy and why there have always been factionalism. Is
                        > it merely the inability of certain streams to work together? Does
                        > it play itself out downstream in forums such as this? Is it worth
                        > reconciling? What is the ultimate prize that we all hold dear?

                        No problem, I've been looking for a discussion of the actual book
                        (rather than various kinds of "gossip", as you say), for quite a while.

                        G's [Gordienko's] thesis is pretty straight forward. She begins by
                        reminding us that anthroposophy is meant to be a science, and that means
                        critical review of work ought to be welcomed and be the standard. That
                        critical review is not welcomed or the standard is one of her points,
                        for she feels that SOP [Sergi O. Prokofieff] would not have the status
                        he has if his work had been thought about with clarity in the beginning
                        of its being offered.

                        One of the things that she does is carefully quote SOP over and over
                        again [from a variety of his writings] as to how he seems to see and
                        state his version of the "evolution of consciousness". She then
                        contrasts this with Steiner's elaboration of the same theme. She shows
                        through this process that SOP either eliminates completely (or radically
                        down plays it) the stage we are presently in (Consciousness Soul) and
                        substitutes the Spirit Self (the next stage). He does this both
                        explicitly and in terms of how he uses various restatements of what
                        these terms mean.

                        Parallel to this she examines SOP's biography, from his own words, and
                        shows how he began his spiritual development (in his late teens) before
                        he had finished incarnating (we do this about age 21), with the
                        consequence that he didn't really have an authentic experience of the "I
                        am" in his own life, which is why he fails to see the centrality of the
                        development of the "I am" during the stage of the evolution of
                        consciousness we call the Consciousness Soul Age.

                        She also quotes him extensively, where he describes his own spiritual
                        experience and it is clear that this experience is not the result of the
                        development of "living thinking", but rather something more in line with
                        a kind of "deep mystical feeling".

                        From this we can get the picture that SOP is basically a Russian mystic,
                        who developed his clairvoyance (if it could be called that) during that
                        period of life when one is full of rich and deep feelings, skipping over
                        then the disciplining of the thinking out of the forces of a fully
                        incarnated "I am". Recall that his first publication was at about age
                        26 (Rudolf Steiner and the New Mysteries, if my recollection serves me),
                        a phase of life in which no one in our time should be trying on the
                        mantle of an initiate (Marie Steiner criticized Tomberg for taking on
                        this mantle at age 33, insisting that RS showed the correct way by
                        waiting until he was 42).

                        As to SOP's book on Tomberg, The Case of Valentin Tomberg, I found it
                        quite interesting when I was reading Gordienko's book that my reaction
                        to SOP's anti-Tomberg screed was precisely in line with G's
                        conclusions. Basically what I said to friends, at that time - some 4
                        years ago, in response to the Tomberg book was that SOP clearly had no
                        experience of the Consciousness Soul, and had written the book entirely
                        out of the Intellectual Soul and to the Intellectual Soul. If one
                        understands, experientially, the Consciousness Soul, then one does not
                        proceed by the form of argument, much like an academic (our universities
                        being the present day debris of the intellectual soul). The
                        Consciousness Soul convinces itself of what the truth is out of its own
                        thinking, and any appeal to authority is contrary to this impulse. So
                        when we write to the Consciousness Soul we offer anecdotes of our own
                        experience and facts in the form of pictures, leaving the reader to
                        his/her free choice as to how to incorporate what has been offered.

                        This is not to say we do not "reason". There is a difference between:
                        1) making an argument, such that a plus b equals c, and therefore the
                        reader should agree, our argument being the final word (how SOP
                        approaches his Tomberg book); and, 2) arranging facts in such a natural
                        order that they lead to something that just as naturally follows, if the
                        facts are correct. In the latter case we show the reader something of
                        the logical path we ourselves have followed, inviting them to
                        participate in the journey.

                        Gordienko's book not only has this quality, and it is also a spiritual
                        experience (a most remarkable personality wrote this book). In writing
                        this book Gordienko takes us on a journey of initiation, because the
                        questions she puts to SOP's work, we also apply to ourselves. We find
                        ourselves reading this book and thinking: Could my world view withstand
                        this careful and complete level of examination?

                        Let me expand upon this a bit. Gordienko was a brilliant Russian
                        scientist, as well as anthroposophist. She had one of those minds that
                        shines light whenever it thinks. So, in her book she just isn't writing
                        a polemic against SOP, as much as showing how we need to think (in terms
                        of questions asked and internal logic required) about any world view,
                        any set of elaborate and related concepts. Moreover, she doesn't use
                        her own world view as the contrasting measure to SOP's, but Steiner's,
                        with which she is very familiar (and which of course we are also well
                        acquainted). When we read this text then, we live in this light and
                        cannot but help to shine it upon our own thinking. It is really a
                        remarkable and quite educational experience.

                        warm regards,
                        joel
                      • Paul Newton
                        Dear friends, If Gordienko s central critique of Prokofieff is that he is, as it were, bypassing the full development of the Consciousness Soul, we could
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 16 11:41 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear friends,
                           
                          If Gordienko's central critique of Prokofieff is that he is, as it were, bypassing the full development of the Consciousness Soul, we could hardly expect that she would endorse Valentin Tomberg! 
                           
                          I came to identify my spiritual striving with Anthroposophy in large part through my encounter with the written work of Sergei Prokofieff (specifically "The Occult Significance of Forgiveness" and "Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of the New Mysteries"), and I have continued over the years to feel strongly aligned with him. So I am interested that this conversation - I hope it can be a conversation - should start up just as I join this mailing list...
                           
                          I haven't read Gordienko's book, though I would like to. As I read the flyer for it my feeling was not an angry, defensive one (and I am very wary of too readily describing people as instruments of dark powers), but rather that she may have something to say that could be healthy for the further development of anthroposophy in the world (of which Sergei Prokofieff is surely such an important part). Just an initial feeling, but one that remains on reading Joel's brief synopsis (something to do with the working together of the Aristotelian and Platonic streams? I consider Prokofieff's whole approach to anthroposophy to be clearly Platonic).
                           
                          A few questions/comments:
                           
                          1/ Sergei Prokofieff clearly had extraordinary gifts to be able to write "R.S. and the Founding of the New Mysteries" in his mid-twenties, but Joel suggests that that equated with "trying on the mantle of an initiate". I think that that is unfounded: does Gordienko say this?
                          2/ When was Gordienko's book first published?
                          3/ What, if any, were her personal links to Prokofieff?
                          4/ Has Prokofieff responded to the arguments set out in her book?
                          5/ What are the implications of Gordienko's book?
                           
                          Paul Newton,
                          Wisconsin, USA
                           
                           
                           
                             
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
                          Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:26 PM
                          To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: R: [anthroposophy] Back on track
                           
                          Dear List.
                          having read Gordienko's book about Prokofieff I find  that- from a formal
                          standpoint-   Joel's review about it -  is correct. .
                          I have also to remark a further issue,-since Joel did say nothing about it-
                          and precisely the fact that Gordienko is- in the same time- critical ALSO
                          of Tomberg's work and personality.
                          So you have not to think that the Russian writer - who died few months
                          after having write the book about SOP- was a kind of Tomberg's supporter.
                          The above reflections have obviously nothing to do with the inner merit of
                          the book itself, that's a different issue about which every listmate of
                          "good will" , if interested in it, will be able to grasp his own one's
                          opinion.
                          Andrea



                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
                          To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:03 PM
                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] Back on track


                          > On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 09:46, evlogite wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          > > I, for one, am interested in the Prokofieff book by Gordienko. I
                          > > haven't  read, much less seen a copy-- and would find it a great
                          > > benefit if someone would give a synopsis of its main points.
                          > > Going a little further, I would similarly like to see the Tomberg
                          > > book by Prokofieff discussed and also the topic of why it's so
                          > > difficult for new work to be accepted into the body of
                          > > Anthroposophy and why there have always been factionalism.  Is
                          > > it merely the inability of certain streams to work together?  Does
                          > > it play itself out downstream in forums such as this?  Is it worth
                          > > reconciling?  What is the ultimate prize that we all hold dear?
                          >
                          > No problem, I've been looking for a discussion of the actual book
                          > (rather than various kinds of "gossip", as you say), for quite a while.
                          >
                          > G's [Gordienko's] thesis is pretty straight forward.  She begins by
                          > reminding us that anthroposophy is meant to be a science, and that means
                          > critical review of work ought to be welcomed and be the standard. That
                          > critical review is not welcomed or the standard is one of her points,
                          > for she feels that SOP [Sergi O. Prokofieff] would not have the status
                          > he has if his work had been thought about with clarity in the beginning
                          > of its being offered.
                          >
                          > One of the things that she does is carefully quote SOP over and over
                          > again [from a variety of his writings] as to how he seems to see and
                          > state his version of the "evolution of consciousness".  She then
                          > contrasts this with Steiner's elaboration of the same theme.  She shows
                          > through this process that SOP either eliminates completely (or radically
                          > down plays it) the stage we are presently in (Consciousness Soul) and
                          > substitutes the Spirit Self (the next stage).  He does this both
                          > explicitly and in terms of how he uses various restatements of what
                          > these terms mean.
                          >
                          > Parallel to this she examines SOP's biography, from his own words, and
                          > shows how he began his spiritual development (in his late teens) before
                          > he had finished incarnating (we do this about age 21), with the
                          > consequence that he didn't really have an authentic experience of the "I
                          > am" in his own life, which is why he fails to see the centrality of the
                          > development of the "I am" during the stage of the evolution of
                          > consciousness we call the Consciousness Soul Age.
                          >
                          > She also quotes him extensively, where he describes his own spiritual
                          > experience and it is clear that this experience is not the result of the
                          > development of "living thinking", but rather something more in line with
                          > a kind of "deep mystical feeling".
                          >
                          > From this we can get the picture that SOP is basically a Russian mystic,
                          > who developed his clairvoyance (if it could be called that) during that
                          > period of life when one is full of rich and deep feelings, skipping over
                          > then the disciplining of the thinking out of the forces of a fully
                          > incarnated "I am".  Recall that his first publication was at about age
                          > 26 (Rudolf Steiner and the New Mysteries, if my recollection serves me),
                          > a phase of life in which no one in our time should be trying on the
                          > mantle of an initiate (Marie Steiner criticized Tomberg for taking on
                          > this mantle at age 33, insisting that RS showed the correct way by
                          > waiting until he was 42).
                          >
                          > As to SOP's book on Tomberg, The Case of Valentin Tomberg, I found it
                          > quite interesting when I was reading Gordienko's book that my reaction
                          > to SOP's anti-Tomberg screed was precisely in line with G's
                          > conclusions.  Basically what I said to friends, at that time - some 4
                          > years ago, in response to the Tomberg book was that SOP clearly had no
                          > experience of the Consciousness Soul, and had written the book entirely
                          > out of the Intellectual Soul and to the Intellectual Soul.  If one
                          > understands, experientially, the Consciousness Soul, then one does not
                          > proceed by the form of argument, much like an academic (our universities
                          > being the present day debris of the intellectual soul).  The
                          > Consciousness Soul convinces itself of what the truth is out of its own
                          > thinking, and any appeal to authority is contrary to this impulse.  So
                          > when we write to the Consciousness Soul we offer anecdotes of our own
                          > experience and facts in the form of pictures, leaving the reader to
                          > his/her free choice as to how to incorporate what has been offered.
                          >
                          > This is not to say we do not "reason".  There is a difference between:
                          > 1) making an argument, such that a plus b equals c, and therefore the
                          > reader should agree, our argument being the final word (how SOP
                          > approaches his Tomberg book); and, 2) arranging facts in such a natural
                          > order that they lead to something that just as naturally follows, if the
                          > facts are correct.  In the latter case we show the reader something of
                          > the logical path we ourselves have followed, inviting them to
                          > participate in the journey.
                          >
                          > Gordienko's book not only has this quality, and it is also a spiritual
                          > experience (a most remarkable personality wrote this book).  In writing
                          > this book Gordienko takes us on a journey of initiation, because the
                          > questions she puts to SOP's work, we also apply to ourselves.  We find
                          > ourselves reading this book and thinking: Could my world view withstand
                          > this careful and complete level of examination?
                          >
                          > Let me expand upon this a bit.  Gordienko was a brilliant Russian
                          > scientist, as well as anthroposophist.  She had one of those minds that
                          > shines light whenever it thinks.  So, in her book she just isn't writing
                          > a polemic against SOP, as much as showing how we need to think (in terms
                          > of questions asked and internal logic required) about any world view,
                          > any set of elaborate and related concepts.  Moreover, she doesn't use
                          > her own world view as the contrasting measure to SOP's, but Steiner's,
                          > with which she is very familiar (and which of course we are also well
                          > acquainted).  When we read this text then, we live in this light and
                          > cannot but help to shine it upon our own thinking.  It is really a
                          > remarkable and quite educational experience.
                          >
                          > warm regards,
                          > joel
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                          > Unsubscribe:
                          > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >



                          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                          Save on REALTOR Fees
                          http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/wpWolB/TM
                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                          Unsubscribe:
                          anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com


                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                          Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
                        • Joel Wendt
                          ... I ll make a stab at these questions, and hopefully any others who have read the book will contribute. #1 The question would be whether this book (RSFNM)
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 16 1:05 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Paul writes:

                            > A few questions/comments:
                            >
                            > 1/ Sergei Prokofieff clearly had extraordinary gifts to be able to write "R.S.
                            > and the Founding of the New Mysteries" in his mid-twenties, but Joel suggests
                            > that that equated with "trying on the mantle of an initiate". I think that that
                            > is unfounded: does Gordienko say this?
                            > 2/ When was Gordienko's book first published?
                            > 3/ What, if any, were her personal links to Prokofieff?
                            > 4/ Has Prokofieff responded to the arguments set out in her book?
                            > 5/ What are the implications of Gordienko's book?
                            >

                            I'll make a stab at these questions, and hopefully any others who have
                            read the book will contribute.

                            #1 The question would be whether this book (RSFNM) contains any
                            statements intended to represent original spiritual research or
                            experience. I am not that familiar with the book, but my recollection
                            of G's book is that SOP does in fact add material not initially provided
                            by Steiner. To report such material, to me at any rate, would be to
                            represent one's self as a spiritual researcher - aka an initiate. Does
                            anyone know of any such material being in RSFNM.

                            #2 My understanding is that it was originally written in German and
                            published in 1998.

                            #3 I have heard that both she and SOP were students of the Russian First
                            Class reader, Bodenev (I don't recall the spelling), and that this
                            person was later drummed out of the society for anti-semitism (while
                            some people say he was not anti-semitic). Further gossip since the book
                            came out was that G and SOP were lovers, and he broke it off and so she
                            wrote the book in a fit of whatever.

                            #4 Again gossip - supposedly SOP told Nick Thomas (English Society
                            General Secretary) that G had recanted in front of ten witnesses. Those
                            who heard this gossip tried to get SOP to say what witnesses and got no
                            response. I have yet to hear of SOP actually making a considered
                            response.

                            #5 The implications to me are multiple. SOP is alleging as spiritual
                            facts, matters that are not true, and that the ship of the Society is
                            now under the sway of some other impulse than what Steiner hoped for.

                            To me, however, it is not the truth or not of G's book that is crucial
                            to the Society. What is being offered by Providence is a crisis, just
                            like those we have in our individual biographies. This crisis is a gift
                            and the important thing is how we respond. Do we choose sides based
                            upon some feelings of liking or disliking SOP (or G) as a person, or do
                            we consider the facts, read the book, and make a judgment based upon
                            real inner work and striving to know the truth. A lot of people so far
                            seem to be falling into the first category, which I find not a good sign
                            for the future of the Society.

                            warm regards,
                            joel
                          • rene verheyen
                            hi Gerhard, and in the end could not take it anymore. It was always called a clash of EGO S Can you specify what you could not taken anymore ? Met
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 16 2:57 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              hi Gerhard,
                               
                               
                              "and in the end could not take it anymore. It was always called "a clash of EGO'S"
                              Can you specify what you could not taken anymore ?
                               

                               Met vriendelijke groeten
                              rene.verheyen@...

                            • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                              ... *******Not always, fortunately. Some even put on puppet shows.
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 16 3:06 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated Tue, 16 Jul 2002 9:11:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, g8740 writes:

                                > Hi,
                                > I am new to this list - but not new to anthroposophy. Whenever people strive for higher knowledge and understanding, there are always the troublemakers. I know as I have lived in anthroposophic communities for twelve years and in the end could not take it anymore. It was always called "a clash of EGO'S"
                                > One thing is often missing with anthroposophy, and that is
                                > humour.
                                > Greetings
                                > Gerhard

                                *******Not always, fortunately. Some even put on puppet shows.
                              • fireofthe12
                                Dear Sheila, ... else to ... Thank you for bringing a little humour to the list- as requested. I suspect Joel is a little upset that you haven t read the late
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 16 6:14 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Sheila,
                                  > Something is wrong here with this individual and I don't know what
                                  else to
                                  > do except either ignore this or bring it to your attention.

                                  Thank you for bringing a little humour to the list- as
                                  requested.

                                  I suspect Joel is a little upset that you haven't read the late Miss
                                  Gordienko's book; or at least held it in your hands.... or as Lewis
                                  Carroll put it:

                                  "Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the
                                  twentieth time that day.
                                  "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterwards."
                                  "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the
                                  sentence first!"
                                  "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
                                  "I won't!" said Alice.
                                  "Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
                                  Nobody moved.
                                  "Who cares for you?" said Alice (she had grown to her full size by
                                  this time). "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

                                  As to further discussion on authors and books, I suggest listmembers
                                  will be handicapped in expressing their views if they haven't
                                  actually read the aforesaid.

                                  Remember also, that it is a requirement of the sixfold path that we
                                  be open to new ideas, new possibilties.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Bruce
                                • Sieglunda
                                  HAAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!!!!!!! Bruce, this is hilarious!!! Thank goodness I wrote to you! Of course you re so very right about Alice s exchange here - it s part of
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 16 7:52 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    HAAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!!!!!!! Bruce, this is hilarious!!! Thank goodness I wrote
                                    to you! Of course you're so very right about Alice's exchange here - it's
                                    part of Carroll's genius, I think. But I'll give you a couple of good ones
                                    in return by admitting I have read Gordienko's book and even though most
                                    gals in OZ are called Sheilas, my name is really Margaret!!!!!!!!!
                                    :))))))))))))) I know - I know - dull as dish water, so therefore Sieglunda
                                    as a nom de plume...well, at least I can say it's my pen name even though
                                    Wagner's strains aren't wafting along on the breeze ad infinitum!

                                    How right you are to be open to new experiences, ideas, places, things, and
                                    on and on. You're so right openness is part of the Path, but even if it
                                    wasn't, think how dull the whole world as well as people everywhere would be
                                    without it!

                                    Thanks - Gracias - Danke - Merci,

                                    Sieglunda/Margaret


                                    Dear Sheila,
                                    > Something is wrong here with this individual and I don't know what
                                    else to
                                    > do except either ignore this or bring it to your attention.

                                    Thank you for bringing a little humour to the list- as
                                    requested.

                                    I suspect Joel is a little upset that you haven't read the late Miss
                                    Gordienko's book; or at least held it in your hands.... or as Lewis
                                    Carroll put it:

                                    "Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the
                                    twentieth time that day.
                                    "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."
                                    "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the
                                    sentence first!"
                                    "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
                                    "I won't!" said Alice.
                                    "Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
                                    Nobody moved.
                                    "Who cares for you?" said Alice (she had grown to her full size by
                                    this time). "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

                                    As to further discussion on authors and books, I suggest listmembers
                                    will be handicapped in expressing their views if they haven't
                                    actually read the aforesaid.

                                    Remember also, that it is a requirement of the sixfold path that we
                                    be open to new ideas, new possibilties.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Bruce
                                  • g8740@aol.com
                                    dear Rene, Jeff answered your question to the point: I took have been with AP groups and other communities and have run into similar problems. And sometimes I
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 17 2:02 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      dear Rene,
                                      Jeff answered your question to the point:
                                      I took have been with AP groups and other communities and have run into similar problems. And sometimes I was the problem! (too many questions and searching for clarity and just the answers "I" wanted).  I believe the problem of egoism comes up with any spiritual group but is worst when information and knowledge is emphasized over social values and community ideals. When there is a great body of knowledge to learn, the precocious ones take the lead and can alienate the rest.  The only way to tackle this is "head on"- that is with good psychological foundation work and interactive peer counseling.

                                      It is fine to understanding the nature of the soul and cosmic cycles but is may be far better to know the pitfalls of arrogance, intellectual dominance, personality traits, self esteem issues, and the general mix of spiritual yeast that rises to the surface and must be dealt with. This is why in many non metaphysical  spiritual groups spend  a great deal of time in dealing with the psychology of spiritual development and the pitfalls of the egoism.

                                      jeff

                                      My answer to him: Thank you Jeff. You really answered the question I was asked by Rene Verheyen: why I could not stand living with these people anymore. Ego development is a fine thing but often turns into egotism and what I call spiritual arrogance, e.g. I am further advanced than you so shut up....

                                      That is why I could not take it anymore. The biggest egotists thought themselves the most spiritual advanced people and behaved according whilst the real spiritual advanced people often just left for other fields.

                                      Greetings
                                      Gerhard
                                      G8740@...
                                      have a nice day
                                    • Carol
                                      I hardly remember well, but I think that the material that SOP added to initiate nw mysteries was worked out intellectualy, via deduction and induction; I
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jul 17 11:14 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I hardly remember well, but I think that the material that
                                        SOP added to "initiate nw mysteries" was worked out
                                        intellectualy, via deduction and induction; I don't remember
                                        it coming across as if he was using spiritual vision to write
                                        the book. My impression is that he was trying to follow
                                        Steiners advice and use clear thinking to support and add to
                                        spiritual knowledge...

                                        SOP is fine, but his book against tomberge is embarrasing-
                                        not that it shouldnt have been written or that Tomb shouldnt
                                        be criticised, but SOP comes across as childlike in his
                                        attack...

                                        Carol
                                        --- Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
                                        > Paul writes:
                                        >
                                        > > A few questions/comments:
                                        > >
                                        > > 1/ Sergei Prokofieff clearly had extraordinary gifts to
                                        > be able to write "R.S.
                                        > > and the Founding of the New Mysteries" in his
                                        > mid-twenties, but Joel suggests
                                        > > that that equated with "trying on the mantle of an
                                        > initiate". I think that that
                                        > > is unfounded: does Gordienko say this?
                                        > > 2/ When was Gordienko's book first published?
                                        > > 3/ What, if any, were her personal links to Prokofieff?
                                        > > 4/ Has Prokofieff responded to the arguments set out in
                                        > her book?
                                        > > 5/ What are the implications of Gordienko's book?
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > I'll make a stab at these questions, and hopefully any
                                        > others who have
                                        > read the book will contribute.
                                        >
                                        > #1 The question would be whether this book (RSFNM) contains
                                        > any
                                        > statements intended to represent original spiritual
                                        > research or
                                        > experience. I am not that familiar with the book, but my
                                        > recollection
                                        > of G's book is that SOP does in fact add material not
                                        > initially provided
                                        > by Steiner. To report such material, to me at any rate,
                                        > would be to
                                        > represent one's self as a spiritual researcher - aka an
                                        > initiate. Does
                                        > anyone know of any such material being in RSFNM.
                                        >
                                        > #2 My understanding is that it was originally written in
                                        > German and
                                        > published in 1998.
                                        >
                                        > #3 I have heard that both she and SOP were students of the
                                        > Russian First
                                        > Class reader, Bodenev (I don't recall the spelling), and
                                        > that this
                                        > person was later drummed out of the society for
                                        > anti-semitism (while
                                        > some people say he was not anti-semitic). Further gossip
                                        > since the book
                                        > came out was that G and SOP were lovers, and he broke it
                                        > off and so she
                                        > wrote the book in a fit of whatever.
                                        >
                                        > #4 Again gossip - supposedly SOP told Nick Thomas (English
                                        > Society
                                        > General Secretary) that G had recanted in front of ten
                                        > witnesses. Those
                                        > who heard this gossip tried to get SOP to say what
                                        > witnesses and got no
                                        > response. I have yet to hear of SOP actually making a
                                        > considered
                                        > response.
                                        >
                                        > #5 The implications to me are multiple. SOP is alleging as
                                        > spiritual
                                        > facts, matters that are not true, and that the ship of the
                                        > Society is
                                        > now under the sway of some other impulse than what Steiner
                                        > hoped for.
                                        >
                                        > To me, however, it is not the truth or not of G's book that
                                        > is crucial
                                        > to the Society. What is being offered by Providence is a
                                        > crisis, just
                                        > like those we have in our individual biographies. This
                                        > crisis is a gift
                                        > and the important thing is how we respond. Do we choose
                                        > sides based
                                        > upon some feelings of liking or disliking SOP (or G) as a
                                        > person, or do
                                        > we consider the facts, read the book, and make a judgment
                                        > based upon
                                        > real inner work and striving to know the truth. A lot of
                                        > people so far
                                        > seem to be falling into the first category, which I find
                                        > not a good sign
                                        > for the future of the Society.
                                        >
                                        > warm regards,
                                        > joel
                                        >
                                        >


                                        __________________________________________________
                                        Do You Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
                                        http://autos.yahoo.com
                                      • holderlin66
                                        ... Carol wrote; I hardly remember well, but I think that the material that ... Bradford writes; Good point. What I was thinking was the connection between
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Jul 17 11:38 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy@y..., Carol <softabyss@y...> wrote:

                                          Carol wrote;

                                          I hardly remember well, but I think that the material that
                                          > SOP added to "initiate nw mysteries" was worked out
                                          > intellectualy, via deduction and induction;

                                          Bradford writes;

                                          Good point. What I was thinking was the connection between Sentient
                                          Soul and Spirit Self as far as Joel's Russian is concerned. Yet a
                                          kind of recapitualtion of Intellectual Technique served as a kind of
                                          mirror... I am constantly astonished, constantly, constantly
                                          astonished at how little original intuition connected to Spiritual
                                          Science, builds up commentary about current cultural insights. Steve
                                          Talbott tackles more Michael Thinking his thumb then most of us here.

                                          He looks directly into the A.I. world and challenges those Ahrimanic
                                          philosophic systems of WIRED magazine. Is he also in our School? It
                                          is an objective fact that the Michael School of humanity was a vast,
                                          vast event and certainly not limited to the dogmatic narrow
                                          mindedness of the on going Anthro Society. Such wide ranging wonder
                                          from hundreds of others in the world, who have never heard of
                                          Spiritual Science, need to be affirmed and cultivated against the
                                          constant onslaught of Hawkings and Educational ideals that have no
                                          grasp over etheric, astral or ego developments, at all..

                                          So yes, we have a Russian Soul who may have prematurely developed his
                                          highly colored Intellectual soul with an overlay of premature Spirit
                                          Self, and we detect it. Great and fine work! We are still in the
                                          Consciousness Soul and we still have to develop Cognition free of
                                          constraints and club memberships. In fact it should be taken as a
                                          medal of honor that the society doesn't want some of us as members
                                          and doesn't recognize us. You know Grouch Marx...

                                          I Am development must be free of constraints to be able to act in
                                          freedom and not from spiritual party politics. Anthros never have
                                          grasped the full creative force of such Spiritual potential having
                                          been schooled by Anthroposophy and surfacing as intuition and
                                          thinking in the free soul. Free Souls see it and grasp it and so
                                          should we.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.