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

28563RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those shorthand reports (was: sorry folks, but have to repeat myself once again)

Expand Messages
  • Mike T
    Jul 31, 2006
      Steiner probably didn't like it, because he probably foresaw how his
      communications may be used and abused on for example forums such as this,
      and by the many enemies that Anthroposophy now has.!!! Yes forums such as
      this, where little if any regard is given to the sensitive communications on
      matters such as , oh for example, past lives. How flippantly (or is it
      casually) we throw out such references - how clever we are to know all these
      things, how Steiner must be rolling his eyes. Intimate communications I
      believe should be kept just that way - between soul to soul and intimate;
      not loud haler all all over a public forum such as AT.
      Mike T

      >From: Tarjei Straume <hisholiness@...>
      >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those shorthand reports (was: sorry
      >folks, but have to repeat myself once again)
      >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:11:06 +0200
      >Joel wrote:
      >>Dear Frank,
      >> thanks, and there crashes another oral tradition given to me by
      >>"knowledgeable" anthropoops. makes me wonder if anything I was told
      >>will turn out to be true. at the very least it can't be relied upon.
      >The info I've picked up on this is the same that Frank mentions. The
      >shorthand notes were intended for private circulation among those members
      >who were not able to attend every lecture in a given "cycle", so the gaps
      >could be filled in. And there were several problems with these shorthand
      >notes and how they were circulated. I remember Steiner complaining about it
      >in the beginning of a lecture, saying, we can't keep circulating the
      >lecture notes in that fashion, it's chaotic and confusing (or something
      >like that). And then we have Max Heindel's plagiarism, which was a most
      >horrible abuse of the privilege to take notes.
      >Steiner felt that lectures were intended as oral communications to live
      >audiences, and that the shorthand notes were just an aid for members of
      >such audiences. For the purpose of publication to members, he would first
      >read them through and edit them for print to correct errors and avoid
      >misunderstandings. Some such lectures were edited by him, for instance "The
      >Spiritual Guidance of Man and Humanity" (GA 15).
      >Towards the end of his life, it became clear that Steiner would never get
      >the time to edit all the shorthand notes (no wonder, with 6000 of them!),
      >and yet he was persuaded to allow the notes to go into print for
      >distribution among members only. He went along with this very, very
      >reluctantly; he did not like it at all. And this was only for the members!
      >Personally, I'm glad Marie Steiner decided to publish all of it, because it
      >makes very good reading. But that's the way to treat it too, imho - as good
      >reading, not as "inerrant Scripture" from a perfect god-man. If we treat it
      >the right way - as good, entertaining, and inspiring reading along with the
      >awareness that the lecture-books may contain many errors and other
      >shortcomings, and that Steiner was sometimes mistaken and we don't always
      >know when and where - then we honor Marie Steiner's decision and also put
      >Rudolf Steiner's misgivings to rest. If we become anthro-fundies because of
      >these shorthand reports, Steiner would have wished they had all burned with
      >the Goethanum. Or even better - much better - that the arsonist had
      >targeted the original manuscripts instead of the Goethanum.

      Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic