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

23812Re: Celebrating Rudolf Steiner's Death Day

Expand Messages
  • Mike helsher
    Apr 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "tmasthenes13"
      <TomBuoyed@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mike Helser wrote:
      >
      > > If RS was right, and sex and Love are indeed mutually exclusive,
      > then
      > > maybe that's why he left us a corps to feed on. My X Buddhist
      > buddies
      > > were always be meditating of death and rotting corpses to quell
      > their
      > > sexual desires. Perhaps if we weren't all buzzing and crawling
      > around
      > > this corps, we'd all be out sport-fucking like crazey..:-O
      > >
      > > fascinating!
      > ------------------------------
      >
      > Yo Mike!
      >
      > Thanks for appreciating my metaphors. I always loved the upgrade
      that
      > Marshall McLuhan gave to the statement made 2 centuries ago by the
      > great Limey poet Robert Browning:
      >
      > "Man's reach must exceed his grasp, or else, what's a heaven for?"
      >
      > Mercurial oracle Marshy Mac Luhan changed that to:
      >
      > "Man's reach must exceed his grasp, or else what's a metaphor?"
      >
      > Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
      >
      > Anyway, I must first give you a short lesson in speaking the
      dialect
      > of Classical Anthroposophese. You expressed yourself in the rather
      > coarse vernacular, using the term "sport-fucking."
      >
      > The f-word in Classical Anthroposophese is not 4 letters, but 8, to
      > wit: "fructify." So, in future anthro-social gatherings, be they 3-
      > fold or not, or whether here online or in an actual study group,
      you
      > might try impressing your comrades by saying: "sport-
      fructification"
      > or "sport-fructifying" or even the most formal expression of
      > all: "undergoing a process, as it were, of sport-fructification."

      Hey Tom, thanks for yur indepth reply, i've been meaning to get back
      to this but I've had to do the mister Mom thing this weekend, as my
      wonderful wifey is away visiting. so in a way i'm strapping on my
      own "big hooters". Still don't have much time, but I didn't wanna let
      it drift away.

      Ok, so it should also be the "Enkidu fructificationathon"...:)

      (interesting about the Gilgamesh story to me, is the rather involuted
      idea of sexuality, as represented by the high priestess (Enkidu"s
      lover)as compared to the standards of today)


      >
      > I am fascinated, in a very Spock-like way (and I could be subtly
      > referring here to Benjy's sister Marjorie), with your correlation
      > between meditating on corpses and quelling those rather insistent
      > desires of a fructifactory nature. I assume you may be referring to
      > the Hindu vow of "brahmacharya," which is not just sexual celibacy,
      > but refraining from eating meat and other coarse sensual stuff. But
      > all that seems to be such a "guy thing" and also pretty atavistic.

      Well we we're vegetarians also. there were also seperate community
      houses for men and women. I think now that it was all about some kind
      of redemption, Metabavna (as is the main theme of buddhism). twas a
      good stepping stone for me to help rethink my catholic/bevis and
      butthead upbringing.

      Gheesh, the "guy thing" reminds me of a phase I went through with the
      Robert Bly "Iron John" story...Which brings me to think of a song I
      heard once on the doctor demento show about sailors at sea (sung in a
      round similar to row row row yur boat) "men men men men...men men men
      men...so throw your rubbers overboard there's nobody here but ....men
      men men men...."

      >
      > But the truth is, I could actually more easily imagine my own
      > parents "undergoing, as it were, a process of mutual fructifcation"
      > than I ever could imagine Rudolf Steiner playing "hide the pickle"
      > with any woman, be it Marie the Dour, or even Lovely Ita, Ita babe,
      > (sing it: ". . . where would I be without you? Give us a wink and
      > make me think of you. . . . Lovely Ita, Ita-babe!).
      >
      > (I was once exiled from a study group in Tennessee when an old S98
      > post of mine surfaced where I had speculated on the idea that the
      > real love of Rudy's life was not Marie, but Ita! Sigh! Ah, so much
      > for neo-Platonic romanticism. )
      >
      > So here we have this unsettling, disquieting possibility that the
      > entire corpus (not corpse now) of anthroposophy, the entire
      > Gesamtausgabe, could have been founded on the repression of Rudolf
      > Steiner's fructificatorial urges. But wait, there is a new sexual
      > revolution going on and Rudolf Steiner may someday be canonized as
      > the patron saint of this very "brahmacharyan" movement called
      > ASEXUALITY. Check out this website for info
      > http://www.asexuality.org/info.htm
      >
      > After all, since the asexuals have a T-shirt now, then they have to
      > be an official and bona fide social movement, right? Now check out
      > their Yahoo group, which you can read without subscribing as you
      can
      > with A_T
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/havenforthehumanamoeba/messages
      >
      > As of today they have 589 members, as compared to 232 on A_T.
      >
      > Oh and their slogan on the T-shirt reads:
      >
      > ASEXUALITY: NOT JUST FOR AMOEBAS ANYMORE!
      >
      > But now back to repression. Years ago, in the heyday of Steiner98,
      > the erudite techno-scholar William Irwin Thompson happened to fall
      > down the rabbit hole of S98. I had accused him then of calling
      > Steiner queer. While dusting himself off, Billy, aka, WIT, related
      > to us that it was not he, but rather the New Age historian Rick
      > Tarnas, who had actually made the remark that he thought Rudolf
      > Steiner was a "repressed homosexual."
      >
      > Now, when the angels let me, I will pontificate on the spiritual-
      > scientific principles of homosexuality. But they involve the rather
      > complicated cross-pollination, as it were, (even cross-dressing? )
      > No, better say, cross-weaving, as it were, of the male and female
      > etheric-physical sheathes analogous to the way vision works through
      > the optic chiasma. Interestingly enough, the phenomenon, as far as
      I
      > can surmise --- with a straight face and a flaccid "lower larynx,"
      as
      > it were --- is neither genetic nor karmic in origin. However, if
      you
      > would like to observe Goetheanistically, the phenomena of gayness
      and
      > lesbianhood, do go out and see the movie Transamerica, where
      Felicity
      > Huffman won the best Actress Oscar for portraying a pre-operative
      > transsexual man becoming a woman.
      >
      > (For if you can catch such a person, before he, makes the,
      > er, "final cut," as it were, then much may be clarified in the
      > seer's (or is it sneer's?") inner spiritual perception of the
      inter-
      > twining astral-etheric-physical mysteries of the male and female. I
      > blush as I report this, but I must say, in all candor, that my
      > Goetheanistic observations --- seeing in thinking and thinking in
      > seeing --- of pre-op trannies, (known more colorfully as "chicks
      with
      > dicks") were simultaneously the most titillating and penetrating
      > clairsentient experiences of the entire course of my post-pubescent
      > life!)
      >
      > Anyway, this whole Transamerica phenomenon, so mainstream out here
      in
      > the City of Angels, has inspired me to ask the most profound
      > questions of spiritual science I have come up with to date:
      >
      > Does size matter in counterspace?

      Good question...:) I might matter more(if it matters at all) when
      some science geek invents machine to measure thought....:-O

      All of the above is quite interesting. long time ago I sponsored a
      kid that was gay and he told me that his dad had sex with his
      brother, and then his brother slept in the same room as him and they
      developed a sexual relationship. I thought I was supposed to help him
      with his drug addiction till he asked me..."do you think I'm gay?" I
      gave him the best answer that I could at the time..."i don't know."

      As to RS..."did he, or did he not, that is the question".

      The whole world came slamming down on me one day, when i realized the
      immense and intrinsic responsibility that RS was pointing to with the
      idea of intuiting moral imagination...I hit my knees and tears hit
      the side walk and I found my self very much in tune with a scene in
      the Wayne's world movie where Wayne and Garth are bowing to Alice
      copper whining "were not worthy."

      I've just opened up a pinhole to the view of mount Olympus, and in
      that light the idea of sex seems kinda stupid. So I would guess that
      if RS was indeed viewing in 3d surround sound, that he may indeed
      have been celibate.


      But what about this Idea of Eros??


      gotta go back to work


      Mike
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic