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

Re: [anthroposophy] anti-anthroposophy of the dogmatists

Expand Messages
  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
    rlloyd@direcpc.com writes: ... ******I can imagine anyone hearing Steiner s original thinking and saying, Gee, I ve been reading for 30 years and I ve ever
    Message 1 of 63 , Nov 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      rlloyd@... writes:

           (Steven ejaculates)  

          > I agree with you on this; it is a most perplexing situation.  Nowhere and
          > at no time in my 30+ years in anthroposophy - and in any of my other
          > spiritual associations during that time - have I encountered such peculiar
          > opinions as Starman voices here on this list.


      Listen and learn, my dogmatic friend.


      ******I can imagine anyone hearing Steiner's original thinking and saying, Gee, I've been reading for 30 years and I've ever heard anything of this sort so it can't be true. Ever hear of something called the 6 preparatory exercises? One is called Openness. To new things.


          > I have gone to some trouble to check Starman's credentials, as given on

          > his website.  As far as I can tell at this point, it seems to check out. 

          > most of the people on this list. So he can certainly speak as an
          > anthroposophist....
       
      What the hell does THAT mean? Next you will be telling us that
      Christed Jesus is not to be believed because he wasn't a certified
      member of the Pharisees.


      *******It just shows the mentality, Ron. I got one 'friendly' post from this guy, seeking info about me in order to try to discredit me personally. Then he went back into showing his true self. Pretty repugnant. Fortunately, I'd already seen his tirades against other people. Appointing themselves arbiters of what everyone else will be allowed to think is natural to some: they just do it habitually. Freedom of expression is out of the question to them. They're the type that makes the Society unbearable, but fortunately they leave it quickly because everyone won't follow them.
          Steiner was right about this prohibition of freedom in thinking emanating mainly from the US.  I know others will see through them quickly so they don't need attention. My opposition is only aroused when they pretend to be using anthroposophy to back up their intolerant opinions. I want to make clear these are not anthroposophists.
         Obviously some people have some big lack in their lives and want to fill it by writing venomous poision pen letters on the internet when they keep losing the debate of ideas.

          > Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to enjoy the diversity and anticipate learning
          > something from someone with a well-informed alternate point of view.

      Yeah, sure...uh huh...right on, right on.

         > But the whole problem with Starman derives from his adversarial attitude -
         > an attitude which is not necessary, an adoption of which prevents  __from
         > the outset__  any resolution of the difficult matters often under
         > discussion.

      "Dis is it 'Lizebeth...I'm comin home honey"  (Fred Sanford grabs his heart
      in utter incredulity as Steven adversarially decries Starman's adversarial attitude)
       


      ******Yes, I'm sure it's amusing to readers that these angry folks ascribe 'adversarial' attitudes only to their opponents.
        Matt. 7:3-5


          > This, to a very large extent, is a high-class group of people.......

      "Yes, quite," he says patting (not wiping) the bouillabaisse from his goatee.

      *****Why do I suspect 'high-class' means 'agreeing with me'?


          > Starman and sidekick Ron are right on one thing.......

      Steven,....... I was under the impression that Starman was MY sidekick?  
      (elbow, elbow, jab, jab :-)


      ******Well, who's got top billing?

           Ron and I don't agree on a lot of things. We just both agree on opposition to the lock-step regimentation of thinking perpetuated by this attempt to pervert anthroposophy.

           Anthroposophy means free creative thinking about the world and life. It can't be regimented.

         To anyone new to it, these things where people have a political bias and then try to use Steiner to back up their prejudices have nothing to do with anthroposophy.
      -starman
      http://www.DrStarman.net
    • Maurice McCarthy
      Final version as submitted - with the wrong date - is appended below. Apologies to Daniel Bernard. I know I have failed him in not making the text more
      Message 63 of 63 , Dec 12, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Final version as submitted - with the wrong date - is appended below.
        Apologies to Daniel Bernard. I know I have failed him in not making the text
        more understandable. The implications contained are not yet fully clear to
        me and so the words cannot but be misty.

        In writing RP2 I spent some days considering Joksu's Monads I post on 30th
        Nov:

        "This First Secret can be called Father. And what will the manifestation be
        like? The best possible, "Ideal Living Picture" of the coming evolution,
        "First" Universal Cosmic Christ! This Cosmic Christ is then "reflected" or
        "echoed" in the various Solar Logoses; it is like the great "I AM"
        resounding and creating itself "across the universe". .... etc

        This was in relation to <4> paragraph 2, below "In the beginning
        willingness, the possibility of all knowledge and all content, is alone with
        itself in its own comprehensive substance from which to make the world.
        Putting forth its own ceaseless willingness many willingnesses are created."
        I ended up removing the phrase "became his own son" from <6> so as not to
        confuse the non-manifesting Father with willingness itself. Since
        willingness is manifest then it is Christ and Christ is the creator rather
        than the Father who retains his place as the unmoved mover.

        Having sent the presentation I then turned to read the Celestial
        Hierarchies. (It was not an act of arrogance not to read them first but
        because reading and thinking have become rather different things for me,
        requiring different kinds of effort, and the three times I tried to read I
        could not bear it. So I decided to write first and then compare. Reading
        still occurs in the fore-brain whereas thinking, though still in the head,
        is no longer so specifically located but there is an accompanying sensation
        over both parietal lobes equally. Hence the question about the brain and the
        sky.) How disappointed I was. There was nothing like the content I had
        expected. The penny dropped immediately. Dionysius was a man living in the
        age when human consciousness had not yet evolved to intelligence but was
        still striving for it. Intellect was Spirit for him whereas for us
        spirituality is of the nature of the will.

        The relegation of Truth to the second hierarchy reveals this most clearly.
        This was for me the most significant discovery of the writing. Though I had
        seen RS write similar things here I rediscovered it for myself, realised a
        significant fact.

        Best Wishes to All
        Maurice



        KARL JASPERS FORUM
        TA63 (Leslie)

        Commentary xx

        REHEATED PORRIDGE
        Part 2: Cosmology
        by Maurice McCarthy
        20th December 2003, posted


        This is a continuation of 55-C79 placed here because of its content which is
        pertinent to Prof. Leslie's recent book (1) and his long term interest in
        cosmology and cosmogenesis (2). I have tried to deliver this article as a
        stand-alone submission. Though I do not expect it to be acceptable to either
        party, in itself it bridges the evident gap between Prof. Müller and Prof.
        Leslie's views as discussed in the commentaries to this TA.

        <1>
        0-D is the proposition that the origin of knowledge is an undefined content
        confronted by an indefinable activity. Consideration of this stand-off leads
        to the law of explanation, that the content can only be understandable if it
        is inherently structured by the act, i.e.

        c + a => k iff c = f(a) .......... E

        ("an action 'a' upon a content 'c' yields explanation ('k' for knowledge)
        if, and only if, the content is a function of the act." 55-C79) and this
        implies that if there is a world then 'a', the act of knowledge, is the
        world creator. Strictly speaking all language or symbol or art form used to
        characterise 'c' and 'a' is erroneous - but we must use words to
        communicate. 'c' is best described as a meaningless and therefore
        qualitatively homogenised manifold when compared to the distinguished
        manifold which we have in everyday perception. 'a' is more difficult as we
        cannot rightly yet distinguish thinking and perceiving, the only two ways in
        which we know anything. "Act of knowledge" is too abstract, it gives nothing
        to hold onto, and "Active mind" now has a too-differentiated a meaning or
        has manifold implications but in "willingness to understand" we have a vague
        but singular term and this singularity is necessary because there are no
        reasons why it should be a one or more than one, except that by E it must
        exist without relation to any other because it precedes 'c'. It is the
        hyper-singular and hyper-manifold, the One of Parmenides combined with the
        Flow of Heraclitus in an unchanging movement of its own willingness, and it
        is that which structures one and many into definite beings. So far as it is
        possible to justify the branding or characterisation of that which is
        inherently beyond all then this is attempted next.

        <2>
        In the case of human knowledge the equation E becomes subjectively qualified
        or 'a' must reduce itself to distinctively human

        c + a.h => k iff c = f(a.h) ..... H

        Human consciousness is a reductive phenomenon, in an anti-materialist sense
        of those words. Human reality, however its independence is constituted, is
        therefore always in correspondence to human consciousness. The same remark
        would apply to any being's reality. This, then, is a justification of the
        term "willingness to understand", or simply "willingness" as I shall call
        it, as a label for the act of knowledge - because our world content analyses
        to an undifferentiated, meaningless manifold then the corresponding activity
        is willingness. This willingness is so accepting that it imposes no
        preconceived values before understanding.

        <3>
        If the content confronting human willingness is a reality then

        c = reality = f(a.h) = truth and percept

        This states the correspondence theory of truth. Truth is a consciously
        created structure or function, whereas percepts are unconsciously structured
        by us (according to the subjectivity of our nature) so that they, at first,
        present themselves to our minds as simply given. Without this division
        knowledge, as we experience it, could not occur. The conscious human act of
        knowing reality is to re-create its inherent truth thereby restoring the
        wholeness of reality, that which our subjectivity tore into two pieces by
        the act of perception. Perception does not yield reality on its own. What
        distinguishes different perceptual activities is what they eliminate from
        willingness. Human consciousness, the state of our possessing knowledge, is
        necessarily a dual phenomenon.

        Another profound implication of H is that it is impossible to know that to
        which we are not genuinely related so that there may be percepts to which
        there is no explanation. (This is a reversal of my previous opinion.) On the
        other hand knowledge is illimitable because every new percept or concept
        adds to it.

        <4>
        The task of this submission to the forum is begin from 'a', from
        willingness, and allow it to lead us it to 'a.h' or human intelligence as we
        would recognise it in our everyday lives. We have a known beginning in the
        analytic necessity of willingness and a 'known' ending in everyday
        experience, a spatio-temporal world filled with perceptual content.

        In the beginning willingness, the possibility of all knowledge and all
        content, is alone with itself in its own comprehensive substance from which
        to make the world. Putting forth its own ceaseless willingness many
        willingnesses are created. Each is distinguished and has the others for
        content. Unlike the original content of E, or H for humanity, these contents
        are auto-relational and are so because in the very core of each, in their
        utmost being, is the willingness to accept content. Each knows the others so
        immediately and so completely their knowledge is absolute, so that the only
        word to describe it is "love". In their absolute knowledge thinking and
        perceiving have not separated but instead there is conperceptuality or
        intuition. They just know immediately and fully. Their relation is of
        absolute harmony. Yet in this divine realm all relations are necessarily
        beings and beings are all conscious relationals simply because it is the
        realm of conperceptuality. Therefore harmony is the second class of
        existence. The relation between love and harmony objectifies their ground as
        the class of beings which is will. The seat of god is the product of love
        and harmony.

        <5>
        With breath-taking drama we are plunged into the Celestial Hierarchies of
        Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (3). As if by magic a religio-philosophic
        speculation of a kind unpopular in the scientific community for centuries is
        thrust upon us. Yet either these beings exist as the preconditions of human
        intelligence or else humanity can never know ultimate answers (0-D as the
        root of *all* knowledge has failed) and we must retreat into pragmatism for
        ever more. Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?

        On the other hand this orthogonal development, since it descends to
        perceptible spatio-temporal experience or reality, should (and does,
        eventually) end up by leading to observable and measurable predictions. Some
        may be observable this century. If this did not happen then it fails to meet
        the standards we are accustomed to in our finest knowledge and therefore it
        should be rightly dismissed as fantastic and idle.

        <6>
        To call willingness the creator is one sense an error. Time has not yet come
        into being. It is better to use Plotinus's word "emanator". Nor does the
        emanator know anything. It is almost an insult to think that the emanator
        needs to know anything. If their were something foreign or mysterious in any
        way to the emanator it would be, in a sense, its equal. Hyper-ignorant and
        beyond knowledge willingness emanates beings whose very existence is
        absolute knowledge of each other in their most essential ground, which is
        willingness itself. There is one condition which would allow the emanator to
        become a knower - namely if it descended itself, became its own one-begotten
        and in this manner joined each of the ranks of being in turn in order to
        know their condition through their own experiences.

        Notice here that, by H, since there is no human consciousness, not even
        anything resembling it, then it is utterly impossible for us to know whether
        or not these beings have had a temporal development such as we have. If they
        did have one then it has no relation whatever to our own experience and it
        is in theory, in principle, only possible for us to know that which conforms
        to H.

        <7>
        The divine classes are the great constants of the universe. The fates, the
        lords of karma who ensure reharmonisation of discordance. The beings below
        them are "contained" by their nature so that these lower but sublime beings
        are a condition upon the existence of the divine something like the lower
        orders of nature are conditions upon our own being. Living in a material
        world demands that we accomodate ourselves to it, so too the divine ranks
        accomodate what is not quite of their own nature as the graded intensity of
        the chain of being descends toward the human.

        Just as there was no necessity for the first emanations to occur so too
        there is no necessity for the divine hierarchies to emanate further. They
        can emanate because their essence is that of the original willingness. It is
        by the same grace that they do so. The expression or emanation of absolute
        knowledge is wisdom. The beings of wisdom form the next class of being. The
        great difference at these sublime levels is that harmony is lost.

        Harmony cracks into reciprocation so that relation begins to separate from
        being. This constitutes the origin of truth in the sense we are familiar
        with. Truth actually is the relation between the beings of wisdom, hence
        their name. Equally the origins of perception, as distinct from conception
        are here. In this sublime separation of matter and form it is possible for
        design and intelligence to begin to appear too. Intelligence, "choosing
        between", of beings or realisation of their relations is akin to design, the
        projection of relation into a matter. The image of the emanator as a whole
        (headed by willingness, with a heart of love and a life of harmony in a body
        or seat of divine will) is beyond any need of design but has the grace to
        allow all things to live in its warmth. For their function of dominating
        design the beings of wisdom are called the celestial house-masters.

        <8>
        Wisdom has been placed into the cosmos, into the order of what is, and the
        reciprocation between its beings subtends all alteration and change as such.
        The beings of movement form the next rank of existence. With movement time
        is in its first conception. As these beings strive to greater truth and
        harmony they form a condition upon the divine classes who cannot bear
        disharmony in what *is* only through they themselves. Law and necessity
        equally make their appearance. The beings of movement constitute the good,
        the striving for truth, and also here are the roots evil as disharmony
        deepens. Evil is not evil to the divine but only to us. Evil is disharmony
        from a lower, more subjective point of view - one which does not see that
        the emanator gave rise to both what is called good and what is called evil.
        This lower view has no grip on divine harmony.

        As disharmony increases the relations between beings become more and more
        tenuous until they become related only by their separation, which means by
        space itself. Wisdom combined with time gives rise to space in the same
        movement as it grants full independence to beings. This is reality or
        thinghood and its independence is the power of form. The irreducibility of
        all perceptual form and the measurability forms comes back to these beings
        prior to any emanation of matter. The beings of form are the realisation of
        the beautiful and the ugly.

        <9>
        Having reached spatio-temporal reality filled with perception and
        independent, objective being we can easily see human-like being in the
        "space", or better the counterspace, between here and now. The cosmos does
        not call for explanation but, rather, the willingness to explain calls
        forth the cosmos. Thus objective reality proceeds from the subjective and
        not vice versa. We just got things the wrong way around.

        We have not reached humanity as such but only the first beginnings of
        humanity and there is still a huge gap to descend to matter and coordinate
        to temporal development. At this point I elect to break off because it is a
        suitable occasion to produce a systematic presentation of the forms of
        perception.


        REFERENCES

        (1) Infinite Minds by John Leslie, OUP 2001. For an introductory preamble
        see
        www.oup.co.uk/academic/humanities/philosophy/viewpoint/leslie/

        (2) Leslie, John, "Cosmology and Theology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
        Philosophy (Fall 1998 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Summer 2003
        Edition has a dynamic content so this is the permanent archive:
        http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall1998/entries/cosmology-theology/

        (3) There is an English translation of the Celestial Hierarchies in the
        archive of Arthur Versluis's electronic journal "Esoterica" at:
        www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/CelestialHierarchy.html

        -----------------------------------------------

        Maurice McCarthy
        e-mail <maurice.mccarthy@...>

        ****************************************************************************

        This e-mail message may contain privileged/confidential information.
        It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the indicated
        addressee (or responsible for delivery to such a person)
        you shall neither read nor retain this message, copy or distribute it to
        anyone, or use this e-mail for any other purpose. In such cases, please
        destroy the message immediately and notify the sender by return e-mail.

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