Re: Thanks, John-Re: [anthroposophy] "Language Rules"-Thoughtlessness
- Dear John,
If I read your post below in reply to my post, I come to feel that we are
the proverbial "ships passing in the night,". We use words with each other,
but to what avail? Where are they going? Where do we meet?
> > Or do you have evidence to the contrary on howYou replied:
> > he looked in Jerusalem? Do you?
>No, but does Arendt say he was a transformed person, with different looks,I will not reply to this, because i don't see the point. "Ships passing in
>in Jerusalem? No, she says the opposite. She judged his earlier behavior by
>how he looked there.
>No, I am not interested if what he said about George Bush is a typical
>If you are really interested in this subject, I can tell you how to find
>Sikh's books on reading a person's looks, and you will see, I think, that
>one can tell a great deal from photographs.
example. Now, you can call this "close-minded" and i have no interest in
defending whether I am close-minded. Based on what you said about Bush, I
see no reason to read anything of the Sikh.
If you tell me something else he said, I might become interested.
>Good for these authors! I also sometimes laugh, not so much at the idea of
>One thing I do know is that that there are great many books about Hitler
>the Nazis which take a very materialistic view of the nature of evil. Some
>of them are very Freudian. The authors of most of them would laugh at the
>idea of Lucifer and Ahriman.
L. and A., but at how many anthropops like to call on L and A! Whew! L. and
A. are popular with anthropops! (Laughing) (A laughing ship in the night!)
>What would Arendt have said at the time sheYou are concerned with whether the book is materialistic. Sorry, I cannot
>wrote the book? Your explanation of the book makes it sound very
help you here. I am not interested in this label when discussing EICHMANN IN
JERUSALEM. I don't see any value in such a label in this case. Sometimes
labels get in the way--labels like "materialistic", "Ahrimanic" and the
like. The point for me is whether what Arendt is saying has relevance to our
lives, and if so, in what way.
Maybe you can tell me why the label of "materialism" matters in this case
(in *this* case, the case of Eichmann and the view of evil that Arendt puts
forth). I would appreciate that. Maybe then we would no longer be 'ships
passing in the night.'
>You are ignoring and belaboring the obvious in more ways than one, Elaine.Finally, we agree. Yes, it is personal to say to someone that he or she
>One of those ways is to say that you don't why I say that you are taking
>this personally. But it is personal to tell someone that they need
>psychiatric help. If you are NOT taking this personally, why are you
>into that sort of comment?
needs psychiatric help (although what i said is that you might need "serious
help" and never used the word psychiatric, though that may be a possible
source of serious help). It is difficult for me to type this without
laughing...(!!!). Part of me likes to tease you, John. But there is another
part that is serious, of course. And I do apologize for the personal comment
that you might need "serious help."
How do i know what you need? So, forgive me. I was out of line.
>Are you by any chance a Leo, Elaine?
>You may not be surprised to hear that I am a Libra.
What does that mean? (I'm excited! You might just give me a personal
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com