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

Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Geology, Evolution, Lemuria & Atlantis

Expand Messages
  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
    ... *******It s no hoax. It s being investigated by a small team headed by a Russian scientist, Paulina Zelitsky. Here s a more recent report of the diving
    Message 1 of 22 , Sep 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      jackfreed@... writes:
      Hello all,
      The following story about the discovery of a 6000 yr old mesoamerican
      city on the floor of the Carribean was reported last December in the
      mainstream press but I have heard absolutely nothing since. Yet if
      true it would severely test modern science's view of the growth of
      civilizations.
      Was this a hoax or is the world not interested??

      http://www.theadvocate.com/stories/052602/sci_26science002.shtml



      *******It's no hoax. It's being investigated by a small team headed by a Russian scientist, Paulina Zelitsky. Here's a more recent report of the diving expeditions:

      http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=370&category=Science

         There have been a series of reports about it, just like the Yonaguni site found off Japan, although the press of course massively ignores all of it, and the regular archaeology newslists, dominated as they are by Ahrimanic 'scientists', do also.

      -starman


      Pt. One of Dr. Pfeiffer, speaking in 1956;
      >
      >  "That there must have been a continent between Europe and America,
      even the geologists admit: that is, the most orthodox of them talk
      about a "land-bridge". If we study the plant growth and distribution,
      then we must by necessity come to the conclusion of a land-bridge.
      Nevertheless, the orthodox geologist does not like to acknowledge
      that this land bridge was a continent called "Atlantis".  As soon as
      you talk to them about Atlantis, then they throw up their hands
      immediately and say: this is humbug, this is hearsay and mysticism,
      etc., etc. While all the data of the migration of species points to
      the existence of a land bridge, they do not want to accept this. That
      there was another continent called "Lemuria" is even less acceptable
      to the orthodox geologists. So in that which I am telling you, I have
      to bypass for the sake of time all the arguments which could be
      brought forward in order to shake up even the geologists a little
      bit; I shall just proceed on the premise that the existence of
      Atlantis and Lemuria are generally accepted. They can be accepted
      especially if we look upon them in terms of animal and plant
      migrations. Whether the continents move around as such, this question
      we will withdraw for the moment. If, however, we look into the field
      of Mythology and the migrations of the races, then we will find
      plenty of information and data which will force us to accept the
      existence of Atlantis and Lemuria. The Mexican civilizations,
      inasmuch as is taught about their relics; the archeology of the
      relics, in the University of Merida for instance, have no difficulty
      whatsoever to accept Atlantis as a reality. It is just the stubborn
      intellectual minds in this country and some German and Swiss mainly,
      who refuse the idea. In Yucatan, the Atlantean overflow is so clear
      that you cannot avoid hitting upon it with every step.
      >
      >    Now I would like you to form a simple picture on this map (not
      attached). It is apparent that the Atlantean continent was in here,
      consisting of rather flat islands. No high mountains, for they were
      actually formed on earth after the submergence of Atlantis and the
      previous Lemuria, which was also rather flat...."
      >
      > *******I disagree with him there; most of Western and middle Atlan
      was flat, but the Eastern part of Atlantis had a number of huge
      soaring mountains, especially the legendary "Mount Atlas" which all
      mariners remembered seeing on first sighting the continent after
      sailing West out of the Pillars of Hercules. (This was where the name
      of the continent came from in Europe and it's still remembered in the
      many Atlas mountains in western Africa, as well as being the source
      of the Greek myth of Atlas at the Western mountain, holding up the
      sky.) Today these soaring mountains still poke up out of the
      Atlantic: we call them the Azores. When the first Europeans reached
      thee, the reddish-skinned inhabitants were utterly astounded to see
      other people, because their history said all the world had been
      destroyed in a cataclysm except themselves.
      >     And the islands of the Pacific were the tips of Lemuria's
      mountains, so it was not all flat either.
      >
      >
      > " The Rocky Mountains, Alps, etc., are rather young mountains and
      have formed only since the submergence of Atlantis. There are other
      mountains in central Asia, north Africa and North America which were
      formed with the disappearance of Lemuria. However, the Appalachian
      Mountains are much older and date back before Lemurian times, in fact
      to the earliest formation of mountains on earth. We have certain
      areas where we have leftovers of the Atlantean continent, especially
      in the plains of Portugal, a few stretches in Ireland and Wales where
      we find left-overs that were not broken off the Atlantean shelf.
      >
      > ******* He's correct that the Rocky Mountains were formed with the
      end of Atlantis, and the Andes as well (which explains why we find
      cities atop mountains where you can barely breathe now, much less
      haul enormous stones, and docks at Tiahuanaco, which is now miles
      from Lake Titicaca). The Himalayas were formed when the "sub-
      continent" we now call India broke off from Lemuria and collided with
      Asia, gelogy now knows. Why he says the Appalachians are even older
      than Lemuria, I don't know.
      >
      >
      > > >    Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
      manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling
      himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in Atlantis
      12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and India
      at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real
      thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
      Steinerbooks people published it for years. There is, however, a so-called "sequel"
      to it done by some of the inevitable loonies out in California (what
      IS it about that place, anyway?) called "An Earth Dweller's Return",
      which is phony...


    • jackstrange11
      Starman, Thanks for the link. It is indeed amazing that a 20 kilometer city of megolithic structures that may date back 15,000 years sits on the bottom of the
      Message 2 of 22 , Sep 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Starman,
        Thanks for the link. It is indeed amazing that a 20 kilometer city
        of megolithic structures that may date back 15,000 years sits on the
        bottom of the Carribean and Zelitsky struggles to raise the cash to
        send down a sub. I thought that humans had barely just crossed over
        the land bridge at this time, hunters and gathers who were thousands
        of years from developing cities. Just recently someone posted an
        article by an anthroposophist sort of apologizing for Steiner because
        Steiner had placed high mezoamerican civilization back to the time of
        Christ in his "America" lectures but now it seems that our factual
        knowledge is so limited in this area that we must be open to all of
        his suggestions.
        Part of the problem in excavating this site is that Zelitsky is under
        the auspices of the Cuban government so it must be difficult to draw
        upon American resources. You would think that the US and Cuba could
        cooperate since this information would be of great interest to both
        countries.

        Kenneth


        --- In anthroposophy@y..., DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
        > jackfreed@m... writes:
        > > Hello all,
        > > The following story about the discovery of a 6000 yr old
        mesoamerican
        > > city on the floor of the Carribean was reported last December in
        the
        > > mainstream press but I have heard absolutely nothing since. Yet
        if
        > > true it would severely test modern science's view of the growth
        of
        > > civilizations.
        > > Was this a hoax or is the world not interested??
        > >
        > > http://www.theadvocate.com/stories/052602/sci_26science002.shtml
        > >
        > >
        >
        > *******It's no hoax. It's being investigated by a small team headed
        by a
        > Russian scientist, Paulina Zelitsky. Here's a more recent report of
        the
        > diving expeditions:
        >
        > http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=370&category=Science
        >
        > There have been a series of reports about it, just like the
        Yonaguni site
        > found off Japan, although the press of course massively ignores all
        of it,
        > and the regular archaeology newslists, dominated as they are by
        Ahrimanic
        > 'scientists', do also.
        >
        > -starman
        >
        >
        > > Pt. One of Dr. Pfeiffer, speaking in 1956;
        > > >
        > > > "That there must have been a continent between Europe and
        America,
        > > even the geologists admit: that is, the most orthodox of them
        talk
        > > about a "land-bridge". If we study the plant growth and
        distribution,
        > > then we must by necessity come to the conclusion of a land-
        bridge.
        > > Nevertheless, the orthodox geologist does not like to acknowledge
        > > that this land bridge was a continent called "Atlantis". As soon
        as
        > > you talk to them about Atlantis, then they throw up their hands
        > > immediately and say: this is humbug, this is hearsay and
        mysticism,
        > > etc., etc. While all the data of the migration of species points
        to
        > > the existence of a land bridge, they do not want to accept this.
        That
        > > there was another continent called "Lemuria" is even less
        acceptable
        > > to the orthodox geologists. So in that which I am telling you, I
        have
        > > to bypass for the sake of time all the arguments which could be
        > > brought forward in order to shake up even the geologists a little
        > > bit; I shall just proceed on the premise that the existence of
        > > Atlantis and Lemuria are generally accepted. They can be accepted
        > > especially if we look upon them in terms of animal and plant
        > > migrations. Whether the continents move around as such, this
        question
        > > we will withdraw for the moment. If, however, we look into the
        field
        > > of Mythology and the migrations of the races, then we will find
        > > plenty of information and data which will force us to accept the
        > > existence of Atlantis and Lemuria. The Mexican civilizations,
        > > inasmuch as is taught about their relics; the archeology of the
        > > relics, in the University of Merida for instance, have no
        difficulty
        > > whatsoever to accept Atlantis as a reality. It is just the
        stubborn
        > > intellectual minds in this country and some German and Swiss
        mainly,
        > > who refuse the idea. In Yucatan, the Atlantean overflow is so
        clear
        > > that you cannot avoid hitting upon it with every step.
        > > >
        > > > Now I would like you to form a simple picture on this map
        (not
        > > attached). It is apparent that the Atlantean continent was in
        here,
        > > consisting of rather flat islands. No high mountains, for they
        were
        > > actually formed on earth after the submergence of Atlantis and
        the
        > > previous Lemuria, which was also rather flat...."
        > > >
        > > > *******I disagree with him there; most of Western and middle
        Atlan
        > > was flat, but the Eastern part of Atlantis had a number of huge
        > > soaring mountains, especially the legendary "Mount Atlas" which
        all
        > > mariners remembered seeing on first sighting the continent after
        > > sailing West out of the Pillars of Hercules. (This was where the
        name
        > > of the continent came from in Europe and it's still remembered in
        the
        > > many Atlas mountains in western Africa, as well as being the
        source
        > > of the Greek myth of Atlas at the Western mountain, holding up
        the
        > > sky.) Today these soaring mountains still poke up out of the
        > > Atlantic: we call them the Azores. When the first Europeans
        reached
        > > thee, the reddish-skinned inhabitants were utterly astounded to
        see
        > > other people, because their history said all the world had been
        > > destroyed in a cataclysm except themselves.
        > > > And the islands of the Pacific were the tips of Lemuria's
        > > mountains, so it was not all flat either.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > " The Rocky Mountains, Alps, etc., are rather young mountains
        and
        > > have formed only since the submergence of Atlantis. There are
        other
        > > mountains in central Asia, north Africa and North America which
        were
        > > formed with the disappearance of Lemuria. However, the
        Appalachian
        > > Mountains are much older and date back before Lemurian times, in
        fact
        > > to the earliest formation of mountains on earth. We have certain
        > > areas where we have leftovers of the Atlantean continent,
        especially
        > > in the plains of Portugal, a few stretches in Ireland and Wales
        where
        > > we find left-overs that were not broken off the Atlantean shelf.
        > > >
        > > > ******* He's correct that the Rocky Mountains were formed with
        the
        > > end of Atlantis, and the Andes as well (which explains why we
        find
        > > cities atop mountains where you can barely breathe now, much less
        > > haul enormous stones, and docks at Tiahuanaco, which is now miles
        > > from Lake Titicaca). The Himalayas were formed when the "sub-
        > > continent" we now call India broke off from Lemuria and collided
        with
        > > Asia, gelogy now knows. Why he says the Appalachians are even
        older
        > > than Lemuria, I don't know.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
        > > manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling
        > > himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in
        Atlantis
        > > 12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and
        India
        > > at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real
        > > thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
        > > Steinerbooks people published it for years. There is, however, a
        so-called
        > > "sequel"
        > > to it done by some of the inevitable loonies out in California
        (what
        > > IS it about that place, anyway?) called "An Earth Dweller's
        Return",
        > > which is phony...
        > >
      • SRC
        Dear Kenneth: Yes to all your comments regarding Zelitsky. However I have no idea what ... I m asking because I think I may be the person you are referring
        Message 3 of 22 , Sep 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Kenneth:

          Yes to all your comments regarding Zelitsky. However I have no idea what
          you are talking about when you say:

          --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
          > Just recently someone posted an
          > article by an anthroposophist sort of apologizing for Steiner because
          > Steiner had placed high mezoamerican civilization back to the time of
          > Christ in his "America" lectures but now it seems that our factual
          > knowledge is so limited in this area that we must be open to all of
          > his suggestions.

          I'm asking because I think I may be the person you are referring to. If
          so, you misread me completely. It's obvious to me, and I certainly made
          enough references to the fact in my article, that Mesoamerica had a high
          culture extending back into pre-CE times. One of my points was that in
          spite of the large amount of historical and archeological data now
          available to us (still hardly satisfactory, as anyone will admit, but
          still sufficient to prove or disprove many a theory), we still must be
          open to Steiner's occasionally poorly-informed sounding suggestions in GA
          171. In some of his remarks it is obvious that he was not speaking as an
          initiate, but merely as a typically-well or not-so-well-informed person of
          his time. Some of his remarks are obviously Communications From An
          Initiate. The more one studies his observations, the more clear the
          difference becomes.

          Best Regards,

          Stephen


          =====
          Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

          Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
          ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
          http://finance.yahoo.com
        • jackstrange11
          Stephen, You re quite right. I don t mean to imply that you were saying that there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not so sure that
          Message 4 of 22 , Sep 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen,
            You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying that
            there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not
            so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of GA
            171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
            sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present knowledge,
            how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be misreading
            or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and your
            essay raise the following questions in my mind.

            RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
            telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient year
            0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
            ////////////////////////////////////////////////////

            "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This name
            provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in the
            dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for the
            Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted
            by the
            Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the early
            Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C. A.D.,
            and
            16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and divides
            which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there is
            still
            no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
            civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all
            researchers in Steiner?s day."
            ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name that,
            when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
            Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
            sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec civilization?
            Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
            referring to the Aztec records. Only if there was absolutely no
            contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec culture,
            including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
            naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of the
            name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
            literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
            said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
            reading some book?

            Later you say:
            ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
            >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
            original
            >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli
            is -
            >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
            >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by the
            name of
            >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
            Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs to
            whom
            multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose temple
            the
            famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
            displayed.
            How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the
            saviour of the Christ-impulse?
            //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            ////////
            Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
            appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators thought
            that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
            Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.

            More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
            Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
            later, but I cannot find where he does so.
            //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            /////
            "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the time-
            periods
            involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers. Let
            us
            note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
            English
            edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the tendency
            within
            the context of our present focus: "
            "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a
            tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until
            they
            were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
            "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
            substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
            millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca entered
            the
            Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their trajectory
            of
            Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
            enjoyed
            ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty registering"

            //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            /////////////////////////////////
            I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171 Lectures
            3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
            lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant. Why is he
            substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity in
            names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
            necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think that
            RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the Mexican
            cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year 0
            cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and those
            early cultures.
            //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            ///////////////////////////////////////
            "As Dr. Koslick observes in
            his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
            between
            Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and all
            other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify
            that
            it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction
            has
            not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by
            the
            fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-removal,
            while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
            circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
            //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
            ///////////////////////////////////////////////
            Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
            refer to the records of the later Aztecs? Does stomach removal
            contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?

            I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be read
            critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
            lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
            mesoamerica.

            Kenneth








            --- In anthroposophy@y..., SRC <mozartg@y...> wrote:
            > Dear Kenneth:
            >
            > Yes to all your comments regarding Zelitsky. However I have no
            idea what
            > you are talking about when you say:
            >
            > --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@m...> wrote:
            > > Just recently someone posted an
            > > article by an anthroposophist sort of apologizing for Steiner
            because
            > > Steiner had placed high mezoamerican civilization back to the
            time of
            > > Christ in his "America" lectures but now it seems that our
            factual
            > > knowledge is so limited in this area that we must be open to all
            of
            > > his suggestions.
            >
            > I'm asking because I think I may be the person you are referring
            to. If
            > so, you misread me completely. It's obvious to me, and I certainly
            made
            > enough references to the fact in my article, that Mesoamerica had a
            high
            > culture extending back into pre-CE times. One of my points was
            that in
            > spite of the large amount of historical and archeological data now
            > available to us (still hardly satisfactory, as anyone will admit,
            but
            > still sufficient to prove or disprove many a theory), we still must
            be
            > open to Steiner's occasionally poorly-informed sounding suggestions
            in GA
            > 171. In some of his remarks it is obvious that he was not speaking
            as an
            > initiate, but merely as a typically-well or not-so-well-informed
            person of
            > his time. Some of his remarks are obviously Communications From An
            > Initiate. The more one studies his observations, the more clear the
            > difference becomes.
            >
            > Best Regards,
            >
            > Stephen
            >
            >
            > =====
            > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
            >
            > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
            > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
            >
            > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
            in practice, there is.
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
            > http://finance.yahoo.com
          • SRC
            ... Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was unclear in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost duplicate,
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Kenneth:

              --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:

              > Stephen,
              > You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying that
              > there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not
              > so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of GA
              > 171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
              > sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present knowledge,
              > how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be misreading
              > or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and your
              > essay raise the following questions in my mind.

              Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was unclear
              in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost
              duplicate, lectures of GA 171 are the only places where he makes
              substantial comments about Mesoamerica.
              One thing that makes me leery of taking Steiner as Complete Gospel on
              Mesoamerica - beyond the very limited extent of his remarks - is not what
              he does say, and the questions that surround those indications, but what
              he does _not_ say. Read Marman & Markman's The Flayed God or David
              Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica to see what vast wisdoms are contained
              in Ancestral American spiritualities. Steiner only focuses on the macabre
              and degenerate aspects, and describes nothing of the _method_ of the
              protagonist or of the positive elements in his culture which must have
              engendered or supported him. It is this more than anything else which
              causes me to look with a jaaundiced eye at what he _does_ say in these
              lectures. There is also another instance in which he refers to indigenous
              American spirituality in such terms as: <utterly decadent,
              pseudo-magical>, <decadent superstitions>, <such lore is of negligible
              importance>, <pure superstition>, <decadent>, <superstition>, <Mexican
              culture is decadent culture>, and <something extremely primitive>, and all
              in one paragraph. While all that may well be true, and accurate enough in
              terms of context, it is still another instance in which, given the
              opportunity to <find the beauty in a dead hound's gleaming tooth>, he does
              no such thing, but displays his general lack of sympathetic appreciation
              for things Mexican-American and his lack of nuanced information. I find
              this disquieting. (I can send you the reference privately if you wish; I
              don't want to feed the flames of Dugan's Steiner-hatred by giving it
              here.)
              The details of what he does say can be debated back and forth- as I do
              below in replying to you - but all that is of not much consequence, in the
              long run.

              > RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
              > telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient year
              > 0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
              > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              >
              > "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This name
              > provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in the
              > dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for the
              > Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted
              > by the
              > Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the early
              > Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C. A.D.,
              > and
              > 16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and divides
              > which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there is
              > still
              > no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
              > civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all
              > researchers in Steiner?s day."
              > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name that,
              > when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
              > Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
              > sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec civilization?
              > Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
              > referring to the Aztec records.

              Well, that's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, but as there
              is __no__ record of any Olmec/Teotihuacan language, that is strictly
              speculative. Also <Vitzliputzli> _is_ the German translation for the
              English/Spanish <Huitzilopochtli>: it's the same name in different
              languages. Since it is generally advisable not to multiply extravagent
              hypotheses unnecessarily, I opt for the latter interpretation, although it
              is presumed, from default and lack of contrary information, that Olmecs
              and Teotihuacanos did speak some form of Nahuatl.

              > Only if there was absolutely no
              > contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec culture,
              > including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
              > naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of the
              > name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
              > literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
              > said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
              > reading some book?

              One would not need to call it fraud, only a confusing conflation of
              esoteric and exoteric sources of information. Steiner does not always
              make it easy for us....
              Yes, Steiner could very well have gotten it from the Akashic, but he also
              demands that we exercise critical Thinking and do the homework of
              grounding his statements in common sense and scientific method. So, if
              you opt for a <he read the Akashic Record> interpretation, I would like to
              think that you could adduce convincing evidence that that was what he did,
              evidence either from your own parallel access to the Akasha or from
              explicit statements from Steiner that that was the case in this instance.
              I think, on the other hand, and I went to great lengths to indicate it,
              that he was, indeed, overly influenced by the pop literature of the time -
              _in his circumstantial details, not in his main thesis_. (emphasis)

              > Later you say:
              > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
              > >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
              > original
              > >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli
              > is -
              > >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
              > >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by the
              > name of
              > >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
              > Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs to
              > whom
              > multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose temple
              > the
              > famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
              > displayed.
              > How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the
              > saviour of the Christ-impulse?
              > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > ////////
              > Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
              > appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators thought
              > that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
              > Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.

              I certainly do think that there was a complete inversion/corruption of
              atributes of our initiate between 1st. C. V. and 16th C. H., and that it
              is the same name that refers to two entirely different entities, much the
              same as <Jesus> means many things to different people, for instance 1st.
              C. gnostics or 16th C. Inquisitioners - or Spanish Conquistadors!

              > More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
              > Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
              > later, but I cannot find where he does so.

              I may have not been sufficiently explicit about this; I'll have to check
              what I wrote. What I meant to say was that _insofar as he spoke as a
              typically well-informed man of his time and place_, it would be inevitable
              that he would tend to draw unwarranted inferences of similarity between
              the Aztec culture and the 1st. C. AD culture whose events he describes.
              Everyone else who lived then did, and many still do. What is more
              important, however, is that we, insofar as we wish to understand his
              meaning and intent, use what we now know about the history of Mesoamerica
              to refine the detail of what he indicated. As they stand, his sketchy
              1916 remarks are unsatifactory for developing a nuanced modern
              understanding of events in Mesoamerican culture.

              Specifically, Steiner's descriptions of the method of human sacrifice
              practiced in the devolved mysteries, and the use of the words
              <Tezcatlipoca>, <Quetzalcoatl>, these are all quite clearly Aztec-period
              practices and nomenclature, as no evidence exists, even in our own time,
              of these practices - as he describes them - or names existing in
              pre-14th C. eras. As there is all evidence in support of this, and none
              against it, it seems unreasonble to me to attempt to resolve the
              difficulties by appeal to supposed supernatural powers of Dr. Steiner if
              he himself does not invoke them. On the contrary, when he _does_ speak of
              the method of the 1st. C. white magician/shaman, he invokes his initiate
              skills three times in making reference to his <occult powers> and <occult
              means>. And, indeed, in these instances, his communication seems to shift
              into another gear altogether.
              > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > /////
              > "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the time-
              > periods
              > involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers. Let
              > us
              > note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
              > English
              > edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the tendency
              > within
              > the context of our present focus: "
              > "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a
              > tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until
              > they
              > were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
              > "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
              > substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
              > millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca entered
              > the
              > Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their trajectory
              > of
              > Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
              > enjoyed
              > ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty registering"
              >
              > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > /////////////////////////////////
              > I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171 Lectures
              > 3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
              > lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant.

              I found it relevant because it reflects a typical significant confusion in
              the minds of those who read Steiner uncritically, a confusion that arises
              because Steiner himself did not make the distinction clear.

              In the lecture of Sept. 24, Steienr says: <history tells of the fate
              suffered by numerous Europeans who went to America after the discovery of
              that continent. Many Europeans met their death at the hands of Mexican
              priest-initiates who bound them to scaffold-like structures and cut out
              their stomachs with expert skill. This is a matter of historical
              knowledge, and it was an aftermath of what I have been describing to you.>

              Now, although he does not say the word <Aztec>, it is abundantly clear
              from the context that it is the Azetc era and the Aztecs that he is
              referring to. And it is false that the stomach-excision of captured
              Spanish is matter of historical record. It may be true that
              stomach-excision was practised in the secret confines of the temples -
              after all, almost every other kind of imaginable torture was practised by
              them, so why not stomach-removal, also? - but there is no historical
              record of such. So, here, Steiner was flat wrong, and must have been
              relying on either faulty reading of the Akasha, or relying on bad pop
              journalism. Or the translator was at fault. At any rate, his statement
              is wrong as it stands.

              > Why is he
              > substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity in
              > names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
              > necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think that
              > RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the Mexican
              > cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year 0
              > cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and those
              > early cultures.

              Well, I disagree. Steiner _must_ refer to 16th C. Aztec practices
              because those were all that were known in his day. In the instance above,
              he does exactly that. And so he does, since as I have shown, his
              descriptions of Mesoamerican reeligious practices are close to
              word-for-word with those as they appear in Heckethorn and in the Spanish
              codices and records. He can't cite any practices outside of the supposed
              stomach-excision which are unique to 1st. C. era cultures, and that one is
              unique to Steiner.
              I would like to be able to develop a scenario in which stomach-excision
              could be justifiably contexted within the function and intent of the
              Olmecs' own practices, and relate it to and explain more of what is known
              about their rites or remains, say the cleaved celts, collosal heads, or
              the were-jaguar figurines. This is still a far way off.
              > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > ///////////////////////////////////////
              > "As Dr. Koslick observes in
              > his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
              > between
              > Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and all
              > other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify
              > that
              > it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction
              > has
              > not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by
              > the
              > fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-removal,
              > while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
              > circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
              > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
              > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
              > Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
              > refer to the records of the later Aztecs?

              Because his descriptions so accurately mimic what people of his day
              thought they knew about Mesoamerica as equalling the Azetcs - except for
              the Maya, who were presumed to be idyllic folk ruled by peaceful gnostic
              astrologer-contemplatives. ha.

              > Does stomach removal
              > contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?

              No, it does not, so it cannot be disproven, but that is a far way from
              being able to confidently assert that Steiner was correct. I leave it as
              a problem awaiting resolution.

              > I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be read
              > critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
              > lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
              > mesoamerica.

              My attitude is that his indications regarding Vitzliputzli (however he
              spelled his name!) are so significant that my advocacy of them shouldn't
              be spoiled by any sloppy thinking - or evidence of sloppy thinking. This
              material is not just for anthroposophists, who are justifiably inclined to
              give Dr. Steiner the benefit of the doubt, but not always to Steiner's
              ultimate benefit. People well-informed about matters Mesoamerican who
              read Steiner on this, or my article about his remarks, are going to have
              the same objections that I raise, and I don't want to get bogged down in
              supporting the unsupportable - even though I personaly may also be able to
              give him the benefit of the doubt.

              Thanks for the chance to explain myself; your questions are all very
              pertinent, and we are in agreement if we concede that answers to many
              questions are still pending, and need more research.

              In general, thank you again for your pointed questions and objections; I
              shall continue to ponder them.

              Best Regards,

              Stephen


              =====
              Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

              Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
              ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

              In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
              http://finance.yahoo.com
            • jackstrange11
              Stephen Thank-you for answering my questions and your good will. I am new to this topic and am looking forward to the continuation of your essay. -I think
              Message 6 of 22 , Sep 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen
                Thank-you for answering my questions and your good will. I am new to
                this topic and am looking forward to the continuation of your essay.

                -I think that Steiner may seem unsympathetic to mesoamerican culture
                because these lectures center on an Ahrimanic disturbance that was
                left over from Atlantis. A disturbance that is still in effect and
                which can have a negative influence on human evolution. A more
                sympathetic and comprehensive view of mesoamerica was not the task at
                hand.
                _Also, RS continually harped on the evil undercurrents that are
                indigenous to all civilizations, especially Europe. Much of
                anthroposophy concerns the illness of European culture-- utterly
                decadent churches and cultures of dead materialistic superstition.
                Recognition of evil in all of its forms and manifestations is
                necessary for spiritual growth. His content was richer when
                discussing Europe because that was his and his immediate followers'
                enviroment.

                Kenneth

                -- In anthroposophy@y..., SRC <mozartg@y...> wrote:
                > Dear Kenneth:
                >
                > --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@m...> wrote:
                >
                > > Stephen,
                > > You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying
                that
                > > there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am
                not
                > > so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of
                GA
                > > 171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
                > > sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present
                knowledge,
                > > how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be
                misreading
                > > or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and
                your
                > > essay raise the following questions in my mind.
                >
                > Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was
                unclear
                > in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost
                > duplicate, lectures of GA 171 are the only places where he makes
                > substantial comments about Mesoamerica.
                > One thing that makes me leery of taking Steiner as Complete Gospel
                on
                > Mesoamerica - beyond the very limited extent of his remarks - is
                not what
                > he does say, and the questions that surround those indications, but
                what
                > he does _not_ say. Read Marman & Markman's The Flayed God or David
                > Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica to see what vast wisdoms are
                contained
                > in Ancestral American spiritualities. Steiner only focuses on the
                macabre
                > and degenerate aspects, and describes nothing of the _method_ of the
                > protagonist or of the positive elements in his culture which must
                have
                > engendered or supported him. It is this more than anything else
                which
                > causes me to look with a jaaundiced eye at what he _does_ say in
                these
                > lectures. There is also another instance in which he refers to
                indigenous
                > American spirituality in such terms as: <utterly decadent,
                > pseudo-magical>, <decadent superstitions>, <such lore is of
                negligible
                > importance>, <pure superstition>, <decadent>, <superstition>,
                <Mexican
                > culture is decadent culture>, and <something extremely primitive>,
                and all
                > in one paragraph. While all that may well be true, and accurate
                enough in
                > terms of context, it is still another instance in which, given the
                > opportunity to <find the beauty in a dead hound's gleaming tooth>,
                he does
                > no such thing, but displays his general lack of sympathetic
                appreciation
                > for things Mexican-American and his lack of nuanced information. I
                find
                > this disquieting. (I can send you the reference privately if you
                wish; I
                > don't want to feed the flames of Dugan's Steiner-hatred by giving it
                > here.)
                > The details of what he does say can be debated back and forth- as I
                do
                > below in replying to you - but all that is of not much consequence,
                in the
                > long run.
                >
                > > RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
                > > telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient
                year
                > > 0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
                > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                > >
                > > "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This
                name
                > > provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in
                the
                > > dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for
                the
                > > Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as
                interpreted
                > > by the
                > > Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the
                early
                > > Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C.
                A.D.,
                > > and
                > > 16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and
                divides
                > > which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there
                is
                > > still
                > > no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
                > > civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for
                all
                > > researchers in Steiner?s day."
                >
                > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                > > But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name
                that,
                > > when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
                > > Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
                > > sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec
                civilization?
                > > Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
                > > referring to the Aztec records.
                >
                > Well, that's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, but as
                there
                > is __no__ record of any Olmec/Teotihuacan language, that is strictly
                > speculative. Also <Vitzliputzli> _is_ the German translation for
                the
                > English/Spanish <Huitzilopochtli>: it's the same name in different
                > languages. Since it is generally advisable not to multiply
                extravagent
                > hypotheses unnecessarily, I opt for the latter interpretation,
                although it
                > is presumed, from default and lack of contrary information, that
                Olmecs
                > and Teotihuacanos did speak some form of Nahuatl.
                >
                > > Only if there was absolutely no
                > > contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec
                culture,
                > > including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
                > > naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of
                the
                > > name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
                > > literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
                > > said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
                > > reading some book?
                >
                > One would not need to call it fraud, only a confusing conflation of
                > esoteric and exoteric sources of information. Steiner does not
                always
                > make it easy for us....
                > Yes, Steiner could very well have gotten it from the Akashic, but
                he also
                > demands that we exercise critical Thinking and do the homework of
                > grounding his statements in common sense and scientific method.
                So, if
                > you opt for a <he read the Akashic Record> interpretation, I would
                like to
                > think that you could adduce convincing evidence that that was what
                he did,
                > evidence either from your own parallel access to the Akasha or from
                > explicit statements from Steiner that that was the case in this
                instance.
                > I think, on the other hand, and I went to great lengths to indicate
                it,
                > that he was, indeed, overly influenced by the pop literature of the
                time -
                > _in his circumstantial details, not in his main thesis_. (emphasis)
                >
                > > Later you say:
                >
                > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                > > ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
                > > >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
                > > original
                > > >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that
                Huitzilopochtli
                > > is -
                > > >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
                > > >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by
                the
                > > name of
                > > >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
                > > Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs
                to
                > > whom
                > > multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose
                temple
                > > the
                > > famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
                > > displayed.
                > > How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes
                as the
                > > saviour of the Christ-impulse?
                >
                > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                //
                > > ////////
                > > Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
                > > appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators
                thought
                > > that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
                > > Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.
                >
                > I certainly do think that there was a complete inversion/corruption
                of
                > atributes of our initiate between 1st. C. V. and 16th C. H., and
                that it
                > is the same name that refers to two entirely different entities,
                much the
                > same as <Jesus> means many things to different people, for instance
                1st.
                > C. gnostics or 16th C. Inquisitioners - or Spanish Conquistadors!
                >
                > > More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
                > > Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
                > > later, but I cannot find where he does so.
                >
                > I may have not been sufficiently explicit about this; I'll have to
                check
                > what I wrote. What I meant to say was that _insofar as he spoke as a
                > typically well-informed man of his time and place_, it would be
                inevitable
                > that he would tend to draw unwarranted inferences of similarity
                between
                > the Aztec culture and the 1st. C. AD culture whose events he
                describes.
                > Everyone else who lived then did, and many still do. What is more
                > important, however, is that we, insofar as we wish to understand his
                > meaning and intent, use what we now know about the history of
                Mesoamerica
                > to refine the detail of what he indicated. As they stand, his
                sketchy
                > 1916 remarks are unsatifactory for developing a nuanced modern
                > understanding of events in Mesoamerican culture.
                >
                > Specifically, Steiner's descriptions of the method of human
                sacrifice
                > practiced in the devolved mysteries, and the use of the words
                > <Tezcatlipoca>, <Quetzalcoatl>, these are all quite clearly Aztec-
                period
                > practices and nomenclature, as no evidence exists, even in our own
                time,
                > of these practices - as he describes them - or names existing
                in
                > pre-14th C. eras. As there is all evidence in support of this, and
                none
                > against it, it seems unreasonble to me to attempt to resolve the
                > difficulties by appeal to supposed supernatural powers of Dr.
                Steiner if
                > he himself does not invoke them. On the contrary, when he _does_
                speak of
                > the method of the 1st. C. white magician/shaman, he invokes his
                initiate
                > skills three times in making reference to his <occult powers> and
                <occult
                > means>. And, indeed, in these instances, his communication seems
                to shift
                > into another gear altogether.
                >
                > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                //
                > > /////
                > > "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the
                time-
                > > periods
                > > involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers.
                Let
                > > us
                > > note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
                > > English
                > > edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the
                tendency
                > > within
                > > the context of our present focus: "
                > > "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to
                reach a
                > > tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico,
                until
                > > they
                > > were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
                > > "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
                > > substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
                > > millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca
                entered
                > > the
                > > Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their
                trajectory
                > > of
                > > Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
                > > enjoyed
                > > ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty
                registering"
                > >
                >
                > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                //
                > > /////////////////////////////////
                > > I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171
                Lectures
                > > 3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
                > > lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant.
                >
                > I found it relevant because it reflects a typical significant
                confusion in
                > the minds of those who read Steiner uncritically, a confusion that
                arises
                > because Steiner himself did not make the distinction clear.
                >
                > In the lecture of Sept. 24, Steienr says: <history tells of the fate
                > suffered by numerous Europeans who went to America after the
                discovery of
                > that continent. Many Europeans met their death at the hands of
                Mexican
                > priest-initiates who bound them to scaffold-like structures and cut
                out
                > their stomachs with expert skill. This is a matter of historical
                > knowledge, and it was an aftermath of what I have been describing
                to you.>
                >
                > Now, although he does not say the word <Aztec>, it is abundantly
                clear
                > from the context that it is the Azetc era and the Aztecs that he is
                > referring to. And it is false that the stomach-excision of captured
                > Spanish is matter of historical record. It may be true that
                > stomach-excision was practised in the secret confines of the
                temples -
                > after all, almost every other kind of imaginable torture was
                practised by
                > them, so why not stomach-removal, also? - but there is no historical
                > record of such. So, here, Steiner was flat wrong, and must have
                been
                > relying on either faulty reading of the Akasha, or relying on bad
                pop
                > journalism. Or the translator was at fault. At any rate, his
                statement
                > is wrong as it stands.
                >
                > > Why is he
                > > substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity
                in
                > > names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
                > > necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think
                that
                > > RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the
                Mexican
                > > cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year
                0
                > > cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and
                those
                > > early cultures.
                >
                > Well, I disagree. Steiner _must_ refer to 16th C. Aztec practices
                > because those were all that were known in his day. In the instance
                above,
                > he does exactly that. And so he does, since as I have shown, his
                > descriptions of Mesoamerican reeligious practices are close to
                > word-for-word with those as they appear in Heckethorn and in the
                Spanish
                > codices and records. He can't cite any practices outside of the
                supposed
                > stomach-excision which are unique to 1st. C. era cultures, and that
                one is
                > unique to Steiner.
                > I would like to be able to develop a scenario in which stomach-
                excision
                > could be justifiably contexted within the function and intent of the
                > Olmecs' own practices, and relate it to and explain more of what is
                known
                > about their rites or remains, say the cleaved celts, collosal
                heads, or
                > the were-jaguar figurines. This is still a far way off.
                >
                > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                //
                > > ///////////////////////////////////////
                > > "As Dr. Koslick observes in
                > > his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
                > > between
                > > Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and
                all
                > > other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which
                testify
                > > that
                > > it was the heart that was the object of excision. This
                contradiction
                > > has
                > > not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated
                by
                > > the
                > > fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-
                removal,
                > > while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
                > > circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
                >
                > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                //
                > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                > > Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
                > > refer to the records of the later Aztecs?
                >
                > Because his descriptions so accurately mimic what people of his day
                > thought they knew about Mesoamerica as equalling the Azetcs -
                except for
                > the Maya, who were presumed to be idyllic folk ruled by peaceful
                gnostic
                > astrologer-contemplatives. ha.
                >
                > > Does stomach removal
                > > contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?
                >
                > No, it does not, so it cannot be disproven, but that is a far way
                from
                > being able to confidently assert that Steiner was correct. I leave
                it as
                > a problem awaiting resolution.
                >
                > > I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be
                read
                > > critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
                > > lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
                > > mesoamerica.
                >
                > My attitude is that his indications regarding Vitzliputzli (however
                he
                > spelled his name!) are so significant that my advocacy of them
                shouldn't
                > be spoiled by any sloppy thinking - or evidence of sloppy
                thinking. This
                > material is not just for anthroposophists, who are justifiably
                inclined to
                > give Dr. Steiner the benefit of the doubt, but not always to
                Steiner's
                > ultimate benefit. People well-informed about matters Mesoamerican
                who
                > read Steiner on this, or my article about his remarks, are going to
                have
                > the same objections that I raise, and I don't want to get bogged
                down in
                > supporting the unsupportable - even though I personaly may also be
                able to
                > give him the benefit of the doubt.
                >
                > Thanks for the chance to explain myself; your questions are all very
                > pertinent, and we are in agreement if we concede that answers to
                many
                > questions are still pending, and need more research.
                >
                > In general, thank you again for your pointed questions and
                objections; I
                > shall continue to ponder them.
                >
                > Best Regards,
                >
                > Stephen
                >
                >
                > =====
                > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                >
                > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                >
                > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
                in practice, there is.
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do You Yahoo!?
                > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                > http://finance.yahoo.com
              • Bill N
                Stephen, Would you send me that reference. Thank you. Bill ... From: SRC To: Sent: Tuesday, September 03,
                Message 7 of 22 , Sep 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Stephen,

                  Would you send me that reference. Thank you.

                  Bill
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "SRC" <mozartg@...>
                  To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:02 AM
                  Subject: [anthroposophy] Steiner in GA 171


                  > Dear Kenneth:
                  >
                  > --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Stephen,
                  > > You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying that
                  > > there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not
                  > > so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of GA
                  > > 171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
                  > > sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present knowledge,
                  > > how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be misreading
                  > > or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and your
                  > > essay raise the following questions in my mind.
                  >
                  > Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was unclear
                  > in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost
                  > duplicate, lectures of GA 171 are the only places where he makes
                  > substantial comments about Mesoamerica.
                  > One thing that makes me leery of taking Steiner as Complete Gospel on
                  > Mesoamerica - beyond the very limited extent of his remarks - is not what
                  > he does say, and the questions that surround those indications, but what
                  > he does _not_ say. Read Marman & Markman's The Flayed God or David
                  > Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica to see what vast wisdoms are contained
                  > in Ancestral American spiritualities. Steiner only focuses on the macabre
                  > and degenerate aspects, and describes nothing of the _method_ of the
                  > protagonist or of the positive elements in his culture which must have
                  > engendered or supported him. It is this more than anything else which
                  > causes me to look with a jaaundiced eye at what he _does_ say in these
                  > lectures. There is also another instance in which he refers to indigenous
                  > American spirituality in such terms as: <utterly decadent,
                  > pseudo-magical>, <decadent superstitions>, <such lore is of negligible
                  > importance>, <pure superstition>, <decadent>, <superstition>, <Mexican
                  > culture is decadent culture>, and <something extremely primitive>, and all
                  > in one paragraph. While all that may well be true, and accurate enough in
                  > terms of context, it is still another instance in which, given the
                  > opportunity to <find the beauty in a dead hound's gleaming tooth>, he does
                  > no such thing, but displays his general lack of sympathetic appreciation
                  > for things Mexican-American and his lack of nuanced information. I find
                  > this disquieting. (I can send you the reference privately if you wish; I
                  > don't want to feed the flames of Dugan's Steiner-hatred by giving it
                  > here.)
                  > The details of what he does say can be debated back and forth- as I do
                  > below in replying to you - but all that is of not much consequence, in the
                  > long run.
                  >
                  > > RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
                  > > telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient year
                  > > 0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
                  > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > >
                  > > "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This name
                  > > provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in the
                  > > dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for the
                  > > Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted
                  > > by the
                  > > Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the early
                  > > Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C. A.D.,
                  > > and
                  > > 16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and divides
                  > > which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there is
                  > > still
                  > > no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
                  > > civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all
                  > > researchers in Steiner?s day."
                  > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name that,
                  > > when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
                  > > Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
                  > > sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec civilization?
                  > > Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
                  > > referring to the Aztec records.
                  >
                  > Well, that's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, but as there
                  > is __no__ record of any Olmec/Teotihuacan language, that is strictly
                  > speculative. Also <Vitzliputzli> _is_ the German translation for the
                  > English/Spanish <Huitzilopochtli>: it's the same name in different
                  > languages. Since it is generally advisable not to multiply extravagent
                  > hypotheses unnecessarily, I opt for the latter interpretation, although it
                  > is presumed, from default and lack of contrary information, that Olmecs
                  > and Teotihuacanos did speak some form of Nahuatl.
                  >
                  > > Only if there was absolutely no
                  > > contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec culture,
                  > > including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
                  > > naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of the
                  > > name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
                  > > literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
                  > > said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
                  > > reading some book?
                  >
                  > One would not need to call it fraud, only a confusing conflation of
                  > esoteric and exoteric sources of information. Steiner does not always
                  > make it easy for us....
                  > Yes, Steiner could very well have gotten it from the Akashic, but he also
                  > demands that we exercise critical Thinking and do the homework of
                  > grounding his statements in common sense and scientific method. So, if
                  > you opt for a <he read the Akashic Record> interpretation, I would like to
                  > think that you could adduce convincing evidence that that was what he did,
                  > evidence either from your own parallel access to the Akasha or from
                  > explicit statements from Steiner that that was the case in this instance.
                  > I think, on the other hand, and I went to great lengths to indicate it,
                  > that he was, indeed, overly influenced by the pop literature of the time -
                  > _in his circumstantial details, not in his main thesis_. (emphasis)
                  >
                  > > Later you say:
                  > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
                  > > >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
                  > > original
                  > > >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli
                  > > is -
                  > > >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
                  > > >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by the
                  > > name of
                  > > >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
                  > > Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs to
                  > > whom
                  > > multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose temple
                  > > the
                  > > famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
                  > > displayed.
                  > > How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the
                  > > saviour of the Christ-impulse?
                  > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > ////////
                  > > Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
                  > > appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators thought
                  > > that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
                  > > Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.
                  >
                  > I certainly do think that there was a complete inversion/corruption of
                  > atributes of our initiate between 1st. C. V. and 16th C. H., and that it
                  > is the same name that refers to two entirely different entities, much the
                  > same as <Jesus> means many things to different people, for instance 1st.
                  > C. gnostics or 16th C. Inquisitioners - or Spanish Conquistadors!
                  >
                  > > More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
                  > > Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
                  > > later, but I cannot find where he does so.
                  >
                  > I may have not been sufficiently explicit about this; I'll have to check
                  > what I wrote. What I meant to say was that _insofar as he spoke as a
                  > typically well-informed man of his time and place_, it would be inevitable
                  > that he would tend to draw unwarranted inferences of similarity between
                  > the Aztec culture and the 1st. C. AD culture whose events he describes.
                  > Everyone else who lived then did, and many still do. What is more
                  > important, however, is that we, insofar as we wish to understand his
                  > meaning and intent, use what we now know about the history of Mesoamerica
                  > to refine the detail of what he indicated. As they stand, his sketchy
                  > 1916 remarks are unsatifactory for developing a nuanced modern
                  > understanding of events in Mesoamerican culture.
                  >
                  > Specifically, Steiner's descriptions of the method of human sacrifice
                  > practiced in the devolved mysteries, and the use of the words
                  > <Tezcatlipoca>, <Quetzalcoatl>, these are all quite clearly Aztec-period
                  > practices and nomenclature, as no evidence exists, even in our own time,
                  > of these practices - as he describes them - or names existing in
                  > pre-14th C. eras. As there is all evidence in support of this, and none
                  > against it, it seems unreasonble to me to attempt to resolve the
                  > difficulties by appeal to supposed supernatural powers of Dr. Steiner if
                  > he himself does not invoke them. On the contrary, when he _does_ speak of
                  > the method of the 1st. C. white magician/shaman, he invokes his initiate
                  > skills three times in making reference to his <occult powers> and <occult
                  > means>. And, indeed, in these instances, his communication seems to shift
                  > into another gear altogether.
                  > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > /////
                  > > "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the time-
                  > > periods
                  > > involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers. Let
                  > > us
                  > > note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
                  > > English
                  > > edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the tendency
                  > > within
                  > > the context of our present focus: "
                  > > "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a
                  > > tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until
                  > > they
                  > > were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
                  > > "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
                  > > substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
                  > > millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca entered
                  > > the
                  > > Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their trajectory
                  > > of
                  > > Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
                  > > enjoyed
                  > > ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty registering"
                  > >
                  > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > /////////////////////////////////
                  > > I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171 Lectures
                  > > 3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
                  > > lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant.
                  >
                  > I found it relevant because it reflects a typical significant confusion in
                  > the minds of those who read Steiner uncritically, a confusion that arises
                  > because Steiner himself did not make the distinction clear.
                  >
                  > In the lecture of Sept. 24, Steienr says: <history tells of the fate
                  > suffered by numerous Europeans who went to America after the discovery of
                  > that continent. Many Europeans met their death at the hands of Mexican
                  > priest-initiates who bound them to scaffold-like structures and cut out
                  > their stomachs with expert skill. This is a matter of historical
                  > knowledge, and it was an aftermath of what I have been describing to you.>
                  >
                  > Now, although he does not say the word <Aztec>, it is abundantly clear
                  > from the context that it is the Azetc era and the Aztecs that he is
                  > referring to. And it is false that the stomach-excision of captured
                  > Spanish is matter of historical record. It may be true that
                  > stomach-excision was practised in the secret confines of the temples -
                  > after all, almost every other kind of imaginable torture was practised by
                  > them, so why not stomach-removal, also? - but there is no historical
                  > record of such. So, here, Steiner was flat wrong, and must have been
                  > relying on either faulty reading of the Akasha, or relying on bad pop
                  > journalism. Or the translator was at fault. At any rate, his statement
                  > is wrong as it stands.
                  >
                  > > Why is he
                  > > substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity in
                  > > names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
                  > > necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think that
                  > > RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the Mexican
                  > > cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year 0
                  > > cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and those
                  > > early cultures.
                  >
                  > Well, I disagree. Steiner _must_ refer to 16th C. Aztec practices
                  > because those were all that were known in his day. In the instance above,
                  > he does exactly that. And so he does, since as I have shown, his
                  > descriptions of Mesoamerican reeligious practices are close to
                  > word-for-word with those as they appear in Heckethorn and in the Spanish
                  > codices and records. He can't cite any practices outside of the supposed
                  > stomach-excision which are unique to 1st. C. era cultures, and that one is
                  > unique to Steiner.
                  > I would like to be able to develop a scenario in which stomach-excision
                  > could be justifiably contexted within the function and intent of the
                  > Olmecs' own practices, and relate it to and explain more of what is known
                  > about their rites or remains, say the cleaved celts, collosal heads, or
                  > the were-jaguar figurines. This is still a far way off.
                  > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > ///////////////////////////////////////
                  > > "As Dr. Koslick observes in
                  > > his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
                  > > between
                  > > Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and all
                  > > other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify
                  > > that
                  > > it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction
                  > > has
                  > > not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by
                  > > the
                  > > fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-removal,
                  > > while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
                  > > circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
                  > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                  > > Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
                  > > refer to the records of the later Aztecs?
                  >
                  > Because his descriptions so accurately mimic what people of his day
                  > thought they knew about Mesoamerica as equalling the Azetcs - except for
                  > the Maya, who were presumed to be idyllic folk ruled by peaceful gnostic
                  > astrologer-contemplatives. ha.
                  >
                  > > Does stomach removal
                  > > contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?
                  >
                  > No, it does not, so it cannot be disproven, but that is a far way from
                  > being able to confidently assert that Steiner was correct. I leave it as
                  > a problem awaiting resolution.
                  >
                  > > I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be read
                  > > critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
                  > > lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
                  > > mesoamerica.
                  >
                  > My attitude is that his indications regarding Vitzliputzli (however he
                  > spelled his name!) are so significant that my advocacy of them shouldn't
                  > be spoiled by any sloppy thinking - or evidence of sloppy thinking. This
                  > material is not just for anthroposophists, who are justifiably inclined to
                  > give Dr. Steiner the benefit of the doubt, but not always to Steiner's
                  > ultimate benefit. People well-informed about matters Mesoamerican who
                  > read Steiner on this, or my article about his remarks, are going to have
                  > the same objections that I raise, and I don't want to get bogged down in
                  > supporting the unsupportable - even though I personaly may also be able to
                  > give him the benefit of the doubt.
                  >
                  > Thanks for the chance to explain myself; your questions are all very
                  > pertinent, and we are in agreement if we concede that answers to many
                  > questions are still pending, and need more research.
                  >
                  > In general, thank you again for your pointed questions and objections; I
                  > shall continue to ponder them.
                  >
                  > Best Regards,
                  >
                  > Stephen
                  >
                  >
                  > =====
                  > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                  >
                  > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                  > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                  >
                  > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
                  practice, there is.
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                  > http://finance.yahoo.com
                  >
                  >
                  > 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/
                  >
                  >


                  ---
                  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                  Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
                • SRC
                  ... And thank you for your replies and good will. Critical (not negative, just closely examined) review of Steiner s work is something conspicuous by its
                  Message 8 of 22 , Sep 4, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Ken:

                    --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                    > Stephen
                    > Thank-you for answering my questions and your good will. I am new to
                    > this topic and am looking forward to the continuation of your essay.

                    And thank you for your replies and good will. Critical (not negative,
                    just closely examined) review of Steiner's work is something conspicuous
                    by its absence in AP circles, IMO. And look in the bibliographies of
                    books by AP (my abbreviation for anthroposophical) authors: almost without
                    exception, all the references are to other AP writers, most of whom parrot
                    Steiner. Sure looks like a cult to an impartial outsider....

                    > -I think that Steiner may seem unsympathetic to mesoamerican culture
                    > because these lectures center on an Ahrimanic disturbance that was
                    > left over from Atlantis. A disturbance that is still in effect and
                    > which can have a negative influence on human evolution. A more
                    > sympathetic and comprehensive view of mesoamerica was not the task at
                    > hand.

                    Yes, I think that explains it. Still, his limited remarks can give a
                    false impression to the unthinking reader. Our problem, not his.

                    > _Also, RS continually harped on the evil undercurrents that are
                    > indigenous to all civilizations, especially Europe. Much of
                    > anthroposophy concerns the illness of European culture-- utterly
                    > decadent churches and cultures of dead materialistic superstition.
                    > Recognition of evil in all of its forms and manifestations is
                    > necessary for spiritual growth. His content was richer when
                    > discussing Europe because that was his and his immediate followers'
                    > enviroment.

                    I agree with this, also. Still, a deep rut has been dug that obstructs
                    access to positive aspects of American spiritual life for one who wants to
                    go further with Steiner's method...just see what has - or hasn't been
                    written about America in AP circles over the last 75 years.

                    Sorry my replies are so short, I had a lightening strike on my building
                    last evening, and things are still not up to speed...

                    Stephen


                    =====
                    Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                    Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                    ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                    http://finance.yahoo.com
                  • SRC
                    ... I ve been mulling over our exchanges and it seems that there are a couple (at least!) of levels of conversation going on. One is the nuts and bolts of
                    Message 9 of 22 , Sep 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Kenneth and Bill:

                      --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                      > Stephen
                      > Thank-you for answering my questions....
                      >
                      > -I think that Steiner may seem....

                      I've been mulling over our exchanges and it seems that there are a couple
                      (at least!) of levels of conversation going on. One is the nuts and bolts
                      of what Steiner did or did not say in GA 171; what he meant by what was
                      transcribed of his lectures, etc., etc., etc. We may have talked that one
                      out for the time being, since there's not all that much to work with
                      anyway, certainly not enough to draw firm and obvious conclusions. Still,
                      familiarity with the material is essential if one wants to maintain any
                      kind of viable opinion....

                      The other level is how de _we_ talk abaout Steiner. I mean, it is
                      different if, on the one hand, we talk about him and what he said to other
                      anthroposophists of good will, or even to credulous and naive
                      anthroposophists who may tend to an attitude of belief, and, on the other
                      hand, to reasonable and intelligent people of no particular persuasion who
                      may not have even heard of Dr. Steiner.
                      In the first instance, saying that Steiner knew what he knew because he
                      was clairvoyant frequently answers all questions and silences all
                      objections. While this may not be fair, either to Steiner or to the
                      questioner, the possibility of its employment may frequently contribute to
                      the rather sterile tone of many an anthroposophical discussion. Not here,
                      thank god.

                      With those who do not already <believe> in Steiner, this kind of attitude
                      or rejoinder not only doesn't work, it will cause the one who uses it to
                      immediately loose all credibility. And rightly so, because Steiner
                      himself insisted over and over again that regardless of the privileged
                      nature of the <sources> of his communications, their substance should
                      stand on their own two feet and find their confimation in the
                      rough-and-tumble world of normal discourse, evidence, and common sense.
                      What I have tried to do in this (first part, only!) of my essay is to deal
                      with Steiner's statements as if they were made by anyone else, and to try
                      and understand their possible meanings and implications not only in
                      relation to other statements of Steiner's, but also in relation to the
                      general fund of information that human enterprise has generated about
                      their ssubject matter.
                      Other people have done this in other areas, but, to my knowledge, no one
                      has tried to attempt this with what significant and mind-blowing remarks
                      Steiner has made about Mesoamerica. I hope this is not true, and that my
                      submissions here might stimulate someone to tell me who has previously
                      tried to plow this furrow. In the meantime, since <Assumption Is The
                      Mother Of All F*ckup> I have tried to be as rigourous as possible in
                      examing Steiner's statements themselves before going on to draw
                      conclusions from them. For those that simply take what Steiner says at
                      face value, case closed, that may seem unecessary and even anti-Steiner,
                      but if Rudolf Steiner's work is to enter the mainstream of modern
                      cultivated discourse and escape the cultic ghetto into which his followers
                      have unwittingly consigned him, his authority must proceed from, not
                      preceed, his statements.

                      So that's my attitude in dealing with his GA 171 material like I do.

                      Best Regards,

                      Stephen

                      =====
                      Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                      Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                      ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                      http://finance.yahoo.com
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.