RE: [anthroposophy] esoteric speculations??-"eyecue's" test-Re:Query:Abel killing Abel
- Dear whomever,
All you have offered is conclusions and judgments, not facts or even
Anyone can make conclusions and judgments, and complain and whine. You
remain anonymous, which enables you not to take responsibility for
anything you say.
You've demonstrated nothing, nor shown any ability to converse about
the subjects of which you speak.
You don't have to like me, which clearly you don't. But if you believe
antipathetically driven thinking produces a thought content worth paying
much attention to, you are sadly mistaken.
It is even clearer now, with this latest empty message, why you hide.
You are afraid to own what you believe. If your words were attached to
you in an open way, you would choke on them. Only in denial of their
relationship to your own personality, and under the cover of the
pretense that these words can have meaning independent of their speaker,
can you pass them off as having value.
Your dislike for me eats you up, and warps any sense you might have
once had of what is truth and courage. You clearly have been with me on
other lists, for your remarks reveal matters not explicit here. But you
cannot stand behind them, can you. Only in the most impersonal way can
you be their author.
What is saddest yet, is how important a teacher you could be to me, if
what was being said, was said from one person to another person, with
respect by each for the Christ Impulse latent in the other's thinking.
How can I honor or trust or validate the words of one who cannot
themselves take responsibility for their existence?
Perhaps you need to stop obsessing with your memories, and join the
Present. I am not the creature you have imagined.
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 19:43, eyecueco@... wrote:
> Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
> >On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 14:56, eyecueco@... wrote:
> >> Look, your double, and my double, and all the doubles of the normal individual
> >> are all a very different issue than what goes on with the psychoic killer!
> >> Period.
> >> Erroneous assumption as well as error in your judgment (humm,
> >> time for some work on that double, eh?)
> >> I've been studying Steiner
> >> and related anthoposophic authors consistently for over thirty years.
> >> I'm also a long time society member.
> >> And you _think_ that what RS has to say about the Guardian of the
> >> Threshold is relevant to the mind of the psychotic killer?
> Dear faux person eyecueco,
> > One of the problems on this list has been the
> > presence of individuals who for reasons of their own
> > decline to give their own name.
> Not faux person, and the above is not my problem.
> I am not in violation of the list guidelines.
> > There is a lot of pronouncing of what is or is not
> > anthroposophical, or spiritual, or correct political
> > thinking from these individuals, but no real effort on
> > their part to engage other list members as "persons".
> What you are saying has nothing to do with an issue
> of names, handles, titles.
> > It is as if these folks want to hide who they
> > are, but at the same time
> > insist they possess a superior anthroposophical
> >"knowledge" from which
> > to judge others.
> It is "voice" and, or "tone" that conveys such misguided
> conceits, not the name of an individual; you must just
> be demonstrating that you read these posts with preconceived
> notions based on WHO is sending them?
> > This is not always the case, but nevertheless has
> > far too frequently been the case.
> > You, for example, had a number of interesting
> > comments to say about some dialog between me and
> > Starman (another faux person) - comments that
> > were essentially critical and basically seemed to
> > know nothing of the history of the many years of
> > conversations between myself and the Dr. (?).
> I, eyecue, commented on observable behavior and stated objectively
> the fact that you violated net etiquette,
> cross-posted another person's words without permission, attempting
> to force someone who does not wish to dialogue with you to read what
> you have written, and worse, said that you did not care about what they wished
> > You also threw in some comments on my political
> > activity, again in a very judgmental fashion, but
> > without really engaging the real nature of my work,
> > or my background or even pretending to honor the
> > reality of the years of work and life background that
> > lies behind it.
> My point in stating what I did about you running for president was fair
> and objective in regard to the obviously total and complete lack of reality
> behind such a decision on your part. Running for president means one's
> life background is
> open to total scrutiny.
> I said I felt sad for you because inquiry by just about anyone about
> your "life background" would quickly reveal that you are is not what
> is considered to be presidential material. I'm not trying to be unkind
> here, I'm just being quite candid about the reality of the matter. It
> is not what one thinks, writes, or debates that is relevant, but, their
> track record. As you consider yourself a observer of social issues and
> the political scene in this country how is it that you would have such a
> blind eye to to the bottom line reality of what it takes to run for office,
> any office? Just imagine a journalistic piece about what such a background
> check would say regarding your "life background", educational records,
> length of employment, credit, ownership, etc.
> > [Fortunately I am not dependent upon such
> > superficial judgments as regards my political work,
> > which is greatly appreciated here in NH (and
> > elsewhere), by other people who are actually working
> > in the field of responsible citizenship (life time
> > anthroposophists, serious activists, professional
> > scholars and knowledgeable and involved businessmen]
> My evaluation is not at all superficial if I am to take
> your own words as factual, and if your work in NH has
> been found to be so greatly appreciated and your political
> work relevant to the people there why
> then are you once again planning to move, this time
> to NM? I don't care in the lease, I'm just pointing
> out that based on your own posts your "life background",
> as shared, in no way qualifies you to be considered seriously
> as running for most offices, especially that
> of President. If that offends you then, again, I can only point
> out to you that your reality level does not appear to be aligned
> with what is considered among voters, N.H., and elsewhere to be
> cut from presidential cloth. I do not believe that I am being unfair
> or unkind in this matter. I'm just saying how it is in the real world
> of politics. When an individual decides to run for any office that
> person has to take a hard look in the mirror and reflect on the steps
> he or she has taken that added up manifests the sum total of their
> track record, and he or she is going to be asked to answer to that
> record with the public.
> > Later you had more commentary in another message,
> > but little substance - that is you talked about my work
> > and criticized it in vague generalities, but never .
> > addressed any specific item, essay, or offered
> > any work of your own that would suggest you have
> > studied any of these matters.
> Your tomes hold no weight with me, and in fact, some work has
> even been attacks on individuals I hold in high regard. I was open
> and fair-minded about you, without any opinion about you when
> first you came on the scene. My loss of respect came about as a
> result of how you have interacted with others. More than once
> I've seen you set aside concern for "the other" because you "did
> not care", felt you knew better and that your opinion was superior
> to "the other" and therefore your actions were justified. I've witnessed
> far worse than your disrespect for Starman on line. I've seen you
> impact the real lives of others, violating boundaries you had nogoing
> close to, much less crossing.
> > It is fairly easy to sit on the sidelines, hiding
> > behind a faux name,
> and complain that the other guy
> > doesn't know what he is talking about, or that his (or
> > her) list behavior doesn't meet the proper
> > anthroposophical standards (in your judgment), but the
> > thing is you wouldn't get away with that in any forum
> > of face to face conversation.
> I'm not hiding behind a "faux" name. There is nothing" faux" about it.
> It's part pf my lie record and I have no need to prove anything to you.
> You cannot match mine in terms of standards held by society about what
> in a person's track record indicates stability, responsibility and dependability
> in areas of education, long term consistent employment, payment of taxes,
> credit rating, lenght of residency, etc., and I know I woould never qualify to
> run for president.
> > So instead of finding wrong and declaiming your
> > superior anthroposophical understanding, why don't you
> > come out of the closet, and be a real down to earth
> > person, offer who you are, and show us what
> > you've done in life that reveals your capacity to
> > assert what is or is not anthroposophical or goethean,
> > or in tune with the Spiritual America,
> > or responsible citizen activity.
> Ahhh, but, "finding wrong" is not the point, nor have I claimed superior
> anthroposophic understanding. I have only expressed personal
> disappointment about what I've run into with thinking such as your
> own that is based not so much on anthroposophy as your own thinking
> about your thinking, or at least that is what you have said.
> As for responsible citizen activity, put a sock in it.
> I started working eight hour days when I was only 13. It took me many
> long years to earn my first degree because I worked full time during the day
> and went to school nights and weekends.
> > It is easy to complain and act superior, and much
> > harder to offer your reality for others to experience.
> > Of what are you afraid?
> I have offered my rality to a bigger audience than this list. I need
> to prove nothing to you, so don't be delusional. I'm not afraid of you,
> I just have my boundaries set. I don't need to _preem_ on these lists.
> I risked putting put mine out there where it gets counted - and sales.
> > Who are you?
> > How old are you?
> > Do you have children?
> > What is your profession?
> > You seem to live in the San Francisco Bay Area - have
> > we met?
> > Have you written material that is available on the
> > Internet that you are willing to share?
> > What do you hope for the future of anthroposophy?
> > What are your favorite anthroposophical authors?
> > What do you hope for the future of this Nation and its
> > People? What about the World? What do you think is
> > the future for anthroposophy and what do you think it
> > can offer the world in these seemingly difficult times?
> > What is the nature of your personal experience of
> > the lesser Guardian
> >(the doubles)? What do you know about psychosis? (you
> > seem to have some definite ideas about psychotic
> > killers) Have you studied politics? Are you a member
> > of a party? What do you think should be the
> > citizenship responsibilities of someone who is an
> > anthroposophist?
> > Do you vote? If so, who did you vote for in the
> > 2000 election? If Bush, would you vote for him again?
> > What do you think about the Patriot Act? About
> > Ashcroft's leadership as Attorney General?
> > How would you define Goetheanism? Do you practice
> > it? Can you describe how it works in the language of
> > either the Philosophy of Freedom, or Theory of
> > Knowledge?
> I have willingly responded to your post to clarify my position
> about your lack of net etiquette and disrespect in crossposting,
> and further clarifying my view about your lack of reality in running
> for president (which you have now done twice in the pat few years;
> did you not learn something from the first time around?), but, the
> rest of
> your post is just a further demonstration of your arrogant thinking,
> and actually, in my book just plain rude. Why you think, even for a
> nanosecond, that you are entitled to query me about anything off
> subject on a discussion list is laughable.
> All you need to know about me is that I have a looooooong
> memory; like an elephant.
> McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
> Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
> Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!
> List owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/