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

48490Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anthroposophy and its opponents (was: Anthroposophical Guidelines - 1)

Expand Messages
  • Michael Gorbachev
    Nov 3, 2011

      Targei you write that a nemisis called der Studi 

      "....keeps repeating over and over that they are simply averse to learning and reading and understanding, they hate academics and scholars, and especially hate history."

      I have known many Anthroposophists that are academics - I have also known many that never progress to much in anything; they read a book or two and then sit on their laurels. I must say that the level of intellectual prowess that I observe amongst some of the contributors on here is simply excellent. The serious Anthroposophist in my view is not one of those that garners acclamation for himself/herself, by ad-infinitum (spel) quoting Steiner, no the serious Anthroposophist is one that enjoys learning and reading and understanding, all manner of intellectual pursuits and then sets about to digest and regurgitate in a new form and in a new understanding that which he has been learning and reading and understanding about.

      Perhaps der Studi is a little tunnel vision on his approach to Anthroposophy; for my understanding, Anthroposophy is not a label or a badge of belonging to some group with pre-mandated rules and inclinations (like the Church of Scientology), but can be anyone in an interest in esoteric knowledge, which sure beats materialistic drone style thinking.

      From: elfuncle <elfuncle@...>
      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, 4 November 2011, 13:12
      Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anthroposophy and its opponents (was: Anthroposophical Guidelines - 1)

      It goes to show that although anthroposophy is founded on the power of thought, on disciplined, scientific thinking arising from the Enlightenment, something more than mere thinking alone is required for the pursuit of "anthroposophically oriented spiritual science" (which is the precise term). There has to be a desire and a determination to seek out deeper truths and riddles of existence. Thinking alone will only lead to an accumulation of facts and theories in a dry intellectual way.

      It looks like the very presence of such a desire, rooted in the life of feeling and will as well as thought,  provokes certain people known to us as Sugar Cherubs. It may be subconscious envy or some other kind of knee-jerk hostility so strong that these people embark upon lifelong missions against the source of their vexation. That's why it's interesting to note how der Staudi has apparently forgotten all about his vocation as historian. He has been active in Sugarland for a decade, and so far he has produced absolutely no knowledge, insight, opinion or take with regard to any historical topic whatsoever -- with the sole exception of the history of anthroposophy, which seems to be a consuming obsession for him, at the detriment of his academic obligations, perhaps because his mission to link anthroposophy once and for all to racism, anti-Semitism, and Nazism is a frustrating quest. And it doesn't matter how many holocaust-denying Adorable Darlings he manages to pull out of his hat and display for the world to see, he still can't accomplish his mission.

      Fanatics are characterized by their failure to convince themselves of their own truth, which is why they need to persuade others, which they hope will affirm their own tenets. So in utter frustration, der Staudi devotes a lot of his propaganda to make his targets, whom he calls esotericists, occultists, anthroposophists and so on, as ridiculous, laughable, and contemptible. (He doesn't call them immoral because he has said emphatically that morals or ethics is totally irrelevant to his analysis and research. Ethics simply does not interest him.) Although he portrays "esotericists" as stupid, he is reluctant to call them unintelligent, so instead he keeps repeating over and over that they are simply averse to learning and reading and understanding, they hate academics and scholars, and they especially hate history.


      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
      > 1. Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge which would guide the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the cosmos. It manifests as a necessity of the heart and feeling. It must find its justification in being able to satisfy this need. Only those who find in anthroposophy what they seek in this respect can appreciate it. Therefore only those who feel certain questions about the nature of man and the world as basic necessities of life, like hunger and thirst, can be anthroposophists.

    • Show all 3 messages in this topic