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

New Years Day

Expand Messages
  • Br. Ron
    We lit up the fire pit again Wednesday and Share once again grabbed her camera... Check out the kisser on this guy! BR
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
       
      We lit up the fire pit again Wednesday
      and Share once again grabbed her camera...
       
      Check out the kisser on this guy!
       
       
      BR
       
       
    • Joel Wendt
      ... You might want to think about this activity a little bit more. Finding spirits in flames and smoke (and other forms of material chaos), is a form of
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:33, Br. Ron wrote:
        >
        > We lit up the fire pit again Wednesday
        > and Share once again grabbed her camera...
        >
        > Check out the kisser on this guy!
        >

        You might want to think about this activity a little bit more. Finding
        "spirits" in flames and smoke (and other forms of material chaos), is a
        form of magical evocation - the effecting cause which enables the spirit
        to manifest is our own activity of spirit, conscious or unconscious.

        Now obviously images can be found in such chaotic masses (seeing forms
        in clouds), but it gets a little more hairy if someone of spiritual
        leanings gets to looking at such forms of airy chaos trying to "see"
        manifestations. That "trying" manifests as a spiritual intention and is
        a kind of "evocation" because the normal condition of the spirit is to
        be "invisible" to the senses.

        The reason magical evocations are done according to rules is to avoid
        all manner of dangers, in particular the evocation of spirits of the
        hierarchy of the left who have this nice little tendency to want to
        appear to human beings and bring confusion and error out of the
        experience. In fact, most evocational magic today is only of spirits of
        the left, for those of the hierarchy of the right wait for us to rise up
        through meditation, rather then be available for evocation. Spirits of
        the left also routinely pretend to being higher spirits (lots of people
        think they are contacting Michael, for example).

        It may seem like a fun game with the capturing of cute pictures, but it
        also involves a bit of a walk on the real wild side if one isn't
        careful. In my years in working with disturbed adolescents, I ran into
        a couple of kids that played at magic without any supervision (the
        parents had all these books about) and ended up in real trouble.

        Of course, spirits of the right can be evoked, but usually this is not
        through the more typical magical means, of involving fire or smoke, but
        takes the form of petition and grace, where the material manifestation
        brings changes in health or circumstances, but not an appearances to the
        senses.

        But then, being a student of esoterics, you probably already know this
        and I have just spent the last paragraphs being condescending,
        partronizing or both.

        joel
      • Br. Ron
        ... Yes of course there is a relationship between the operator and that which is invoked. Are you suggesting we should fear invocation? All art is invocation.
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
              Joel sez:
           
              > You might want to think about this activity a little bit more.  Finding
              > "spirits" in flames and smoke (and other forms of material chaos), is a
              > form of magical evocation - the effecting cause which enables the spirit
              > to manifest is our own activity of spirit, conscious or unconscious.
           
           
          Yes of course there is a relationship between the operator and that
          which is invoked.  Are you suggesting we should fear invocation?
          All art is invocation.

           
              > Now obviously images can be found in such chaotic masses (seeing forms
              > in clouds), but it gets a little more hairy if someone of spiritual
              > leanings gets to looking at such forms of airy chaos trying to "see"
              > manifestations.  That "trying" manifests as a spiritual intention and is
              > a kind of "evocation" because the normal condition of the spirit is to
              > be "invisible" to the senses.
           
           
          Joel...Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to post this crap?
           
          Nobody said anything about 'trying' to do anything.
          Appreciating the inherent order in chaos has nothing to do
          with the dangerous spiritual practices that you are suggesting.
           

           
              > The reason magical evocations are done according to rules is to avoid
              > all manner of dangers, in particular the evocation of spirits of the
             
          > hierarchy of the left who have this nice little tendency to want
          to
              > appear to human beings and bring confusion and error out of the
              > experience.  In fact, most evocational magic today is only of spirits of
              > the left, for those of the hierarchy of the right wait for us to rise up
              > through meditation, rather then be available for evocation.  Spirits of
              > the left also routinely pretend to being higher spirits (lots of people
              > think they are contacting Michael, for example).
           
           
          Next you are going to tell me that the conductor of the London
          Philharmonic is a black magician because he teases forth the Muses.
           

              > It may seem like a fun game with the capturing of cute pictures, but it
              > also involves a bit of a walk on the real wild side if one isn't
              > careful. 
           
           
          I'll tell you what a "walking on the wild side" is...and that is denying
          the protective function of the etheric body, like you do.
          Now THAT is dangerous! (Much more so than acknowledging and
          dancing with our benign invisible friends)
           
          Of course everything is dangerous if approached with impure intent. 
          But that doesn't mean we should fear baseball just because some
          Bozos choose to use baseball bats as clubs.
           
           
              > Of course, spirits of the right can be evoked, but usually this is not
              > through the more typical magical means, of involving fire or smoke, but
              > takes the form of petition and grace, where the material manifestation
             
          > brings changes in health or circumstances, but not an appearances to
          the
              > senses.
           
           
          Man how grey! Are we now to forbid the children from seeing
          smiley faces on the daisies for fear of inciting the Elementals.
           
          Surely you should try drama, Joel. Perhaps as Oliver Twist's
          schoolmaster
           

           
              > But then, being a student of esoterics, you probably already know this
              > and I have just spent the last paragraphs being condescending,
              > partronizing or both.

           
          Yes! Finally this week, thou hast proffered something half way believable.
           
           
           
          BR
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
          BR 
        • Joel Wendt
          Dear Br. Ron, I realize you don t want to get it, mostly since I said it, but let me have another go, and maybe I can make my point. You don t see an invisible
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Br. Ron,

            I realize you don't want to get it, mostly since I said it, but let me
            have another go, and maybe I can make my point.

            You don't see an invisible being with the physical eye without an
            evocation. If you tell a child they can do this, you are misleading
            them. Nor can you capture such a "creature" in a photograph, even if it
            is manifesting in the physical, which is not their element.

            You can see an elemental being if your consciousness enters into that
            aspect of your own soul that is the "home" of this being. A salamander,
            that is a fire elemental is a "will" being, the fire element (as in the
            Ideas of the Ancients) being the "will" of cosmic beings. For example,
            when Steiner develops the idea of the Saturn incarnation of the Earth,
            this is a fire-body extending out to the orbit of Saturn that comes into
            being as a result of the will activity (sacrifices) of the Thrones.

            Now children may well see elemental beings, not because they manifest
            in the physical, but because they are still incarnating and haven't
            fully separated from their pre-birth existence which they need to do in
            order to develop the consciousness soul (why they are incarnated in this
            age). The adolescents I came to know all had arrested incarnational
            developmental problems, being encouraged to a far too early development
            of atavistic soul forces. This is basically Prokofieff's problem - he
            doesn't finish incarnating, taking up Steiner's teachings while still an
            adolescent. This is probably why he is so attractive to some, since he
            is not really with us on the Earth in his soul.

            Some people think it is fun to introduce their children to spiritual
            ideas for which they are really not ready. Starman claims to be a
            Waldorf teacher, so perhaps he can comment here (he doesn't read my
            posts so probably won't even see it), and certainly they teach of gnomes
            and such in kindergarten, when the children are still not incarnated
            fully, but all that slowly passes away and the teaching is ultimately
            not about making children into psychics and magicians, but into fully
            modern human beings, able to be a part of the world in which they are to
            live.

            In the consciousness soul age, children need to grow into human beings
            free to determine their own spiritual understanding, and not be raised
            into esoterics or anthroposophy as some kind of religion.

            Yes, it is fun to see forms in clouds and fire and other chaotic
            systems, but all I am sharing with you is that it also contains dangers
            if young minds start to believe that what they see is real. There is a
            reason Steiner never taught about magic, except in the most indirect
            ways. Unless one is karmically needing to confront such work, it
            doesn't belong to this Age.

            And, certainly we as mature anthroposophists need to not let ourselves
            think we are having psychic experiences, when we are not. As Steiner
            pointed out, the spiritual world is, in its first impressions if one is
            not prepared in the right way, even more illusory than the material
            world. Tomberg's Meditations speaks of the nearest spiritual spheres as
            the Realm of the False Holy Spirit, for there the opponents wait for the
            unprepared to wander in with their vain ideas of psychic powers.

            This age is not about developing visionary powers, but about unfolding
            individual moral authority through learning to know the good and the
            true with the own thinking activity (remember Steiner fans, what the
            good doctor said about three steps in the moral for each step on the
            path to initiation). We incarnate in this most material of ages for
            just this purpose - we need the rigid structure, and all its
            difficulties, to find our own "I am" as the ground of moral activity
            This accomplishment then becomes an eternal aspect of the "I am" that
            can be carried forward into the next incarnations. All the rest, all
            the intellectual concepts of esoterics and spiritual this and that, is
            superfluous. As Stephen Clarke and I agreed, its all about character,
            which is of course what one finds so admirable and powerful in regard to
            native American spirituality. First you get character, then you study
            the "knowledge" in the mysteries (not the other way around, which so
            many members of the steinerism movement seem to be tripping on).

            Yea, I know, I am getting carried away, but it is so much fun (and you
            think I don't have fun - you just don't see me poking you in your
            soul-ribs).

            Of course, to you Br. Ron, not being well acquainted with
            anthroposophy, this will all seem unimportant.

            condescendingly yours,
            joel

            On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 16:57, Br. Ron wrote:
            > Joel sez:
            >
            > > You might want to think about this activity a little bit more. Finding
            > > "spirits" in flames and smoke (and other forms of material chaos), is a
            > > form of magical evocation - the effecting cause which enables the spirit
            > > to manifest is our own activity of spirit, conscious or unconscious.
            >
            >
            > Yes of course there is a relationship between the operator and that
            > which is invoked. Are you suggesting we should fear invocation?
            > All art is invocation.
            >
            >
            > > Now obviously images can be found in such chaotic masses (seeing forms
            > > in clouds), but it gets a little more hairy if someone of spiritual
            > > leanings gets to looking at such forms of airy chaos trying to "see"
            > > manifestations. That "trying" manifests as a spiritual intention and is
            > > a kind of "evocation" because the normal condition of the spirit is to
            > > be "invisible" to the senses.
            >
            >
            > Joel...Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to post this crap?
            >
            > Nobody said anything about 'trying' to do anything.
            > Appreciating the inherent order in chaos has nothing to do
            > with the dangerous spiritual practices that you are suggesting.
            >
            >
            >
            > > The reason magical evocations are done according to rules is to avoid
            > > all manner of dangers, in particular the evocation of spirits of the
            > > hierarchy of the left who have this nice little tendency to want to
            > > appear to human beings and bring confusion and error out of the
            > > experience. In fact, most evocational magic today is only of spirits of
            > > the left, for those of the hierarchy of the right wait for us to rise up
            > > through meditation, rather then be available for evocation. Spirits of
            > > the left also routinely pretend to being higher spirits (lots of people
            > > think they are contacting Michael, for example).
            >
            >
            > Next you are going to tell me that the conductor of the London
            > Philharmonic is a black magician because he teases forth the Muses.
            >
            >
            > > It may seem like a fun game with the capturing of cute pictures, but it
            > > also involves a bit of a walk on the real wild side if one isn't
            > > careful.
            >
            >
            > I'll tell you what a "walking on the wild side" is...and that is denying
            > the protective function of the etheric body, like you do.
            > Now THAT is dangerous! (Much more so than acknowledging and
            > dancing with our benign invisible friends)
            >
            > Of course everything is dangerous if approached with impure intent.
            > But that doesn't mean we should fear baseball just because some
            > Bozos choose to use baseball bats as clubs.
            >
            >
            > > Of course, spirits of the right can be evoked, but usually this is not
            > > through the more typical magical means, of involving fire or smoke, but
            > > takes the form of petition and grace, where the material manifestation
            > > brings changes in health or circumstances, but not an appearances to the
            > > senses.
            >
            >
            > Man how grey! Are we now to forbid the children from seeing
            > smiley faces on the daisies for fear of inciting the Elementals.
            >
            > Surely you should try drama, Joel. Perhaps as Oliver Twist's
            > schoolmaster?
            >
            >
            >
            > > But then, being a student of esoterics, you probably already know this
            > > and I have just spent the last paragraphs being condescending,
            > > partronizing or both.
            >
            >
            > Yes! Finally this week, thou hast proffered something half way believable.
            >
            >
            >
            > BR
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > BR
            >
          • Br. Ron
            ... Shoot. I m listening ... This is false. For generations my family has seen them everywhere. My six year old son called them Trillits. He s now thirty six
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
               
                  > Dear Br. Ron,
               
                  > I realize you don't want to get it, mostly since I said it, but let me
                  > have another go, and maybe I can make my point.
               
               
              Shoot. I'm listening

               
                  > You don't see an invisible being with the physical eye without an
                  > evocation. 
               
               
              This is false. For generations my family has seen them everywhere.
              My six year old son called them 'Trillits.' He's now thirty six and
              crazier 'n a pet coon...but we won't hold that against him
              (just kidding Bryan)
               
               
                  > If you tell a child they can do this, you are misleading
                  > them. 
               
               
              Wrong again. We are misleading them by telling them they
              CAN'T see them. In our dreary disbelief, we have removed all
              wonder from our children. That's why I have made it a point to
              make this knowledge available to all 5 of my kids and all 10
              of my grandkids and I don't have a loser in the whole carload.
               
              My 7 year old granddaughter and I even go on 'fairy hunts'
              often.
               
               
                  > Nor can you capture such a "creature" in a photograph, even if it
                  > is manifesting in the physical, which is not their element.
               
               
              Who made that rule?...Who ever did, you can tell them I told you it
              was OK to break it.
               
               
                  > You can see an elemental being if your consciousness enters into that
                  > aspect of your own soul that is the "home" of this being. 
               
               
              Agreed
               
               
                  > A salamander, that is a fire elemental is a "will" being, the fire
                  > element (as in the Ideas of the Ancients) being the "will" of cosmic
                  > beings. 
               
               
              Agreed
               
               
                  > For example, when Steiner develops the idea of the Saturn
                  > incarnation of the Earth, this is a fire-body extending out to
                  > the orbit of Saturn that comes into being as a result of the
                  > will activity (sacrifices) of the Thrones.
               
               
              Perhaps...I have yet to confirm or deny this through my own sources.
               
                  > Now children may well see elemental beings, not because they
                  > manifest in the physical, but because they are still incarnating and haven't
                  > fully separated from their pre-birth existence which they need to do in
                  > order to develop the consciousness soul (why they are incarnated in this
                  > age).  The adolescents I came to know all had arrested incarnational
                  > developmental problems, being encouraged to a far too early development
                  > of atavistic soul forces. This is basically Prokofieff's problem - he
                  > doesn't finish incarnating, taking up Steiner's teachings while still an
                  > adolescent.  This is probably why he is so attractive to some, since he
                  > is not really with us on the Earth in his soul.
               
               
              Yes, this is basic Waldorf fare. Yet, I finally had to take my kids
              out of Waldorf education because they were being unreasonably
              sheltered from the realities of 20th century life. No TVs...
              no computers, no fun, etc.
               
              When I interacted with the school, I noticed many of the kids
              seemed to show their own versions of arrested development
              which I frankly found disturbing.. 
               
              Having said that, I do agree there is something to be said for
              your point about forcing the veils to stay open or promoting
              premature awakening. Such undertakings are deadly if urged
              or without the resident virtues of joy, wonder, beauty and a
              wholesome faith in God (a necessity which many Waldorf schools
              fail miserably in adequately providing)
               
               

                  > Some people think it is fun to introduce their children to spiritual
                  > ideas for which they are really not ready. 
               
               
              Some, on the other hand, err gravely in denying those obvious
              magical realities. Fear does more damage to children than wonder
              ever thought of doing.
               
              It never ceases to amaze me how little faith people have in their own
              children and their natural spiritual processes.
               
              We usually need to become more like them, rather than the other way
              around.
               
               
                  > Starman claims to be a Waldorf teacher, so perhaps he can
                  > comment here (he doesn't read my posts so probably won't
                  > even see it), and certainly they teach of gnomes
                  > and such in kindergarten, when the children are still not incarnated
                  > fully, but all that slowly passes away and the teaching is ultimately
                  > not about making children into psychics and magicians, but into fully
                  > modern human beings, able to be a part of the world in which they are to
                  > live.
               
               
              Well this is as it should be. Of course.

               
                  > In the consciousness soul age, children need to grow into human beings
                  > free to determine their own spiritual understanding, and not be raised
                  > into esoterics or anthroposophy as some kind of religion.
               
               
              Yes..kids should be allowed to be kids.
               
               
                 > Yes, it is fun to see forms in clouds and fire and other chaotic
                  > systems, but all I am sharing with you is that it also contains dangers
                  > if young minds start to believe that what they see is real. 
               
               
              Only if they are taught to fear them. Besides they ARE real...
              You wouldn't want to lie to them about the elemental kingdoms.
              Kids just need to feel safe. We can leave the rest up to The Process
               
               
                  > There is a reason Steiner never taught about magic, except
                  > in the most indirect ways.  Unless one is karmically needing
                  > to confront such work, it doesn't belong to this Age.
               
               
              Ritual magic perhaps...but WONDER belongs in any age.

               
                  > And, certainly we as mature anthroposophists need to not let ourselves
                  > think we are having psychic experiences, when we are not.  As Steiner
                  > pointed out, the spiritual world is, in its first impressions if one is
                  > not prepared in the right way, even more illusory than the material
                  > world.  Tomberg's Meditations speaks of the nearest spiritual spheres as
                  > the Realm of the False Holy Spirit, for there the opponents wait for the
                  > unprepared to wander in with their vain ideas of psychic powers.
               
               
              Man it gets wearisome having to wade through your incessant
              references to other peoples insights. Don't you have any of your
              own? Steiner was a man just like you and you have access to the
              same Source of Wisdom he had...even more pertinent sources 
              because they deal with NOW, not with the memes of 100 years ago.
               

                  > This age is not about developing visionary powers, but about unfolding
                  > individual moral authority through learning to know the good and the
                  > true with the own thinking activity
               
               
              Now this I agree with. Moral stability is more important
              than second sight.  It is possible to have both, however.
               
               
                  > (remember Steiner fans, what the
                  > good doctor said about three steps in the moral for each step on the
                  > path to initiation). 
               
               
              Lord have mercy!...Here we go again!
               
               
                  > We incarnate in this most material of ages for
                  > just this purpose - we need the rigid structure, and all its
                  > difficulties, to find our own "I am" as the ground of moral activity
                  > This accomplishment then becomes an eternal aspect of the "I am" that
                  > can be carried forward into the next incarnations.  All the rest, all
                  > the intellectual concepts of esoterics and spiritual this and that, is
                  > superfluous. 
               
               
              Right on. Is this from you?...or are you cutting and pasting again?
               
               
                  >As Stephen Clarke and I agreed, its all about character,
                  > which is of course what one finds so admirable and powerful in regard to
                  > native American spirituality.  First you get character, then you study
                  > the "knowledge" in the mysteries (not the other way around, which so
                  > many members of the steinerism movement seem to be tripping on).
               
               
              Again, no argument here.
               
                  > Yea, I know, I am getting carried away, but it is so much fun (and you
                  > think I don't have fun - you just don't see me poking you in your
                  > soul-ribs)
               
               
              Hey you are having phun? FANTASTIC.
              I should send you my picture of the laughing Jesus!
               
               
                  > Of course, to you Br. Ron, not being well acquainted with
                  > anthroposophy, this will all seem unimportant.
               
               
              Whew you sure went to a lot of trouble to write to someone
              you have already assumed is not able to receive it. 
              Go figger. (Must be one of them campaign thingies.   :-)  

                 
                  > condescendingly yours,
                  > joel

               
              Well at least you admit it. (aside) "Hey Diogenes...
              I finally found him...an honest man!...Now THIS is the kinda
              guy we need for president!"
               
               
               
               
              BR
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            • Joel Wendt
              Br. Ron, Well, I still think children do not see invisible beings with the physical eye, but rather with the eye of the heart. Perhaps the distinction is lost
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Br. Ron,

                Well, I still think children do not see invisible beings with the
                physical eye, but rather with the eye of the heart. Perhaps the
                distinction is lost on you.

                As to quoting others, is that what really bothers you?

                I quote Steiner for those who are familiar with his work, which is
                something that one reads in order to be an anthroposophist. Other
                people read what we write to each other, not just you and I, and I quote
                for them.

                As to having original thoughts, how would you know?

                As to the ethereal, well you again demonstrate ignorance of how
                anthroposophists come to understand it, which is okay, but remember, I'm
                into harsh words here when you misrepresent the views of spiritual
                science, or think you can speak about such work from clear and
                unmistakable know-nothingism.

                from the ivory tower,
                joel

                On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 04:37, Br. Ron wrote:
                >
                > > Dear Br. Ron,
                >
                > > I realize you don't want to get it, mostly since I said it, but let me
                > > have another go, and maybe I can make my point.
                >
                >
                > Shoot. I'm listening
                >
                >
                > > You don't see an invisible being with the physical eye without an
                > > evocation.
                >
                >
                > This is false. For generations my family has seen them everywhere.
                > My six year old son called them 'Trillits.' He's now thirty six and
                > crazier 'n a pet coon...but we won't hold that against him
                > (just kidding Bryan)
              • Br. Ron
                ... Huh?...bothered?...What me worry? I m just pinchin yer pee pee, Buddy.. ... Joel...it s OK. Jusssst relax...I m not out to hurt you. I just want to
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                      > Well, I still think children do not see invisible beings with the
                      > physical eye, but rather with the eye of the heart.  Perhaps the
                      > distinction is lost on you.
                   
                      > As to quoting others, is that what really bothers you?
                   
                   
                  Huh?...bothered?...What me worry?
                  I'm just pinchin' yer pee pee, Buddy..
                   

                      > I quote Steiner for those who are familiar with his work, which is
                      > something that one reads in order to be an anthroposophist.  Other
                      > people read what we write to each other, not just you and I, and I quote
                      > for them.
                   
                      > As to having original thoughts, how would you know?
                   
                      > As to the ethereal, well you again demonstrate ignorance of how
                      > anthroposophists come to understand it, which is okay, but remember, I'm
                      > into harsh words here when you misrepresent the views of spiritual
                      > science, or think you can speak about such work from clear and
                      > unmistakable know-nothingism.
                      >
                      > from the ivory tower,

                      > joel
                   
                  Joel...it's OK. Jusssst relax...I'm not out to hurt you. I just want to
                  untangle you from your intellectual barb wire fence.......easy boy,
                  easy...
                   
                  OK, quick...somebody get the saddle!
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                  BR

                • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                  [Unable to display image] Hey Ron--- Did you ever see this one, from Sept. 11th 2001? Osama s Master. Dr. Starman http://www.DrStarman.net
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Hey Ron---
                    Did you ever see this one, from Sept. 11th 2001?

                    Osama's Master.

                    Dr. Starman
                    http://www.DrStarman.net
                  • Br. Ron
                    Wow Starman...I have never seen that one. Amazing! Osama s master indeed. There is so much to see when the eye is attuned. Thank you BR ... From:
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 4, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      Wow Starman...I have never seen that one.
                       
                      Amazing! 
                       
                      "Osama's master" indeed.
                       
                      There is so much to see when the eye is attuned.
                       
                       
                      Thank you
                       
                      BR
                       
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----


                      Hey Ron---
                      Did you ever see this one, from Sept. 11th 2001?

                      Osama's Master.
                       
                       
                       

                      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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    • sncherr <sncherry@comcast.net>
                      I have on good authority that Osama s Master is the evocation of the deva of Photoshop. Normally, this information is imparted only to initiates, but I was
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I have on good authority that 'Osama's Master' is the evocation of the
                        deva of Photoshop. Normally, this information is imparted only to
                        initiates, but I was given special dispensation to share this
                        knowledge due to the leaden treatment of greycale.

                        somberly,

                        Sarah



                        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Br. Ron" <rlloyd@d...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Wow Starman...I have never seen that one.
                        >
                        > Amazing!
                        >
                        > "Osama's master" indeed.
                        >
                        > There is so much to see when the eye is attuned.
                        >
                        >
                        > Thank you
                        >
                        > BR
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: DRStarman2001@a...
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Hey Ron---
                        > Did you ever see this one, from Sept. 11th 2001?
                        >
                        > Osama's Master.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Dr. Starman
                        > http://www.DrStarman.net
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • Br. Ron
                        Well sheesh! Pop MY bubble why doncha? :-) BR ... From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 6:27 AM
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Well sheesh! Pop MY bubble why doncha?  :-)
                           
                           
                          BR
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <sncherry@...>
                          Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 6:27 AM
                          Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: New Years Day

                          > I have on good authority that 'Osama's Master' is the evocation of the
                          > deva of Photoshop. Normally, this information is imparted only
                          to
                          > initiates, but I was given special dispensation to share this
                          >
                          knowledge due to the leaden treatment of greycale.
                          >
                          >
                          somberly,
                          >
                          > Sarah
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In
                          anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Br. Ron" <rlloyd@d...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Wow Starman...I have never seen that one.
                          > >
                          > > Amazing! 
                          > >
                          > > "Osama's master" indeed.
                          > >
                          > > There is so much to see when the eye is attuned.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Thank you
                          > >
                          > > BR
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >   ----- Original Message -----
                          > >   From:
                          size=2>DRStarman2001@a...
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >   Hey Ron---
                          > >   Did you ever see this one, from Sept. 11th 2001?
                          > >
                          > >   Osama's Master.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >   Dr. Starman
                          > >  
                          size=2>http://www.DrStarman.net
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >        
                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          > >              
                          ADVERTISEMENT
                          > >             
                          > >       
                          > >       
                          > >
                          > >  
                          href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                          > >   Unsubscribe:
                          > >  
                          anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
                          > >   List owner: 
                          href="mailto:anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com">anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >   Your use of
                          Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          face=Arial size=2>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                          > Unsubscribe:
                          >
                          href="mailto:anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
                          > List owner: 
                          href="mailto:anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com">anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 
                          >  
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
                          subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                          ... *******I don t think that s correct; I believe that s an AP photo, and their photographers are fired if there s the slightest hint of tampering with pics.
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            sncherry@... writes:
                            I have on good authority that 'Osama's Master' is the evocation of the
                            deva of Photoshop. Normally, this information is imparted only to
                            initiates, but I was given special dispensation to share this
                            knowledge due to the leaden treatment of greycale.
                            somberly,
                            Sarah

                            *******I don't think that's correct; I believe that's an AP photo, and their photographers are fired if there's the slightest hint of tampering with pics. That photo was released within a day or two of the bombing, and the photog is still employed by them. You may have it confused with some other one.  
                               Of course, the epidemic of 'debunking' everything goes on full-time across the internet, as evidenced by the many debunking remarks trying to tear down anthroposophy here, so it's natural that anything one can mention has been allegedly 'debunked' somewhere or other!
                               There were actually several photos with "fire faces" I saw immediately afterwards.

                            Dr. Starman




                            --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Br. Ron" <rlloyd@d...> wrote:
                            >
                            >Wow Starman...I have never seen that one.
                            >
                            http://www.DrStarman.net
                          • Pacbay
                            Sarah, I thought this came directly off the Associated Press or new media in general just the day of . I don t think it had circulation on the net for
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 4, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Sarah,
                               
                              I thought this came directly off the Associated Press or new media in general just the day of . I don't think it had circulation on the net for modification but I may be in error.
                               
                              JLA
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 6:27 AM
                              Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: New Years Day

                              I have on good authority that 'Osama's Master' is the evocation of the
                              deva of Photoshop. Normally, this information is imparted only to
                              initiates, but I was given special dispensation to share this
                              knowledge due to the leaden treatment of greycale.

                              somberly,

                              Sarah



                              --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Br. Ron" <rlloyd@d...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Wow Starman...I have never seen that one.
                              >
                              > Amazing! 
                              >
                              > "Osama's master" indeed.
                              >
                              > There is so much to see when the eye is attuned.
                              >
                              >
                              > Thank you
                              >
                              > BR
                              >
                              >
                              >   ----- Original Message -----
                              >   From: DRStarman2001@a...
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >   Hey Ron---
                              >   Did you ever see this one, from Sept. 11th 2001?
                              >
                              >   Osama's Master.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >   Dr. Starman
                              >   http://www.DrStarman.net
                              >
                              >
                              >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              >               ADVERTISEMENT
                              >             
                              >       
                              >       
                              >
                              >   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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                              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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.