8889Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Gardening/VW/focus
- Dec 1, 2004I had to throw that VW in the thread title because what I should have said was I don't know about Hitler but if the VW bug is any indication it was totally backwards...
Val,...St. Martin, St. Patrick, Boehme...I'm trying to get a feel
for what, in essence, you're saying and not go off on a toot...
Gaelman-And here I put the St Patrick in just for you. Well, and I was trying to illustrate something-guess it didn't work.
respect to knowledge and morality, I say that Anthroposophy
emphasizes the former and Catholicism the latter. I view the
opponents of the Church as primarily (merely) creatures of will and
no more. In a word, Val, I have no respect for them...but I think
I'm willing to be convinced of another view.
I'd say they both have both, both content and context, that's what I get out of the whole Sophia discussion. I think I understand what you're saying regarding emphasis though I see it more as who has the authority to hold the knowledge. Who or what is the vessel? Do you think the Church's view is it's appropriate that they hold the knowledge because people aren't morally developed enough to retain and maintain it without corruption? That Steiner was dispensing knowledge either believing or assuming that the moral forces were there or would develop? Or that he just didn't care one way or the other? This emphasis thing is, to me, the most interesting thing you've said so I'm interested.
Like I said, I wrestled with Steiner's motivation for "going public" for many years. The thing I came to understand was that the information was already available outside the Church and being abused. Steiner saw a more vast dissemination of Spiritual Truths along with a path with which to verify these truths as a remedy, as an antidote of sorts. It kind of reminds me of Stephen Hale's saying he finds you have to hook people with riveting Karmic insights. Steiner got people's attention and they wanted to know more.
Trying to distill...would you say that the only legitimate
materialization of the spiritual on earth is the human being? Does
knowledge without morality lead to something else, something not in
accord with the Incarnation?
The human being as a further materialization sounds like a clone to me so I guess I'm thinking any further materialization of given matter is illegitimate. Knowledge without morality sounds like our friend Ahriman, morality without knowledge, Lucifer. This came up recently in a conversation with JoAnn-the reality is, as I see it, True Knowledge is a Moral Imperative-they are not two different and competing things.
I remember reading of a strange criticism of Steiner some years ago.
The man (I think it was a priest) said that although the
pronouncements of Anthroposophy were true, Steiner has no right to
put them out into the world...various heavyweight thinkers have made
similar judgments about occult knowledge in general.
Steiner himself addressed this issue. You have to wonder about these thinkers who thought they were worthy to know but judged the rest of the world as what-not prepared? What was their solution, I wonder-did they go about then preparing the populus for these truths that they saw being unleashed in the world?
Is the hocus-pocus you refer to a kind of "rolling of the bones" and
such with respect to an attempt to command destiny? An attempt to
have personal efficacy irrespective of the Divine Will....out of the
Garden and into the luxuriant, chaotic jungle.
I don't know what the "rolling of the bones" refers to but it sounds like throwing the runes or some sort of divination. So yes, following our own will irrespective of the Divine Will but especially the attempt to harness Divine forces or Spiritual Beings to serve our will I consider hocus pocus.-Val
- Next post in topic >>