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

R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Quoting Steiner was Re: Chapter 7 AnthroposophicalMovement

Expand Messages
  • yogidahl2000
    Dear Joel! What You re saying here is very interesting and informative Still,there s a problem,I think: Within a closed Circle of Anthroposophists I could
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 29, 2004
      Dear Joel!
      What You're saying here is very interesting and informative
      Still,there's a problem,I think: Within a "closed" Circle of
      Anthroposophists I could gladly subscribe to all 4 Standards of the
      Late Irina Gordienko (You seem to like her,I prefer her sister)

      This group of Ours here is a different matter in my view,because
      here we have anthropops,others are not anthropops,some of us hardly
      know if or when we're anthropops or not – and then some folks are
      wrestling with the very question: What is Anthroposophy??
      To me it seems impossible to reach a Mutual Agreement,given the
      Situation – That would meet with your advanced Aspirations
      So I think You're being too Idealistic

      Then,something else,if you'll allow me,Joel,to say this: You seem to
      be very much in love with TRANSPARENCY – which is just FINE and
      Okay –yet,strictly speaking,transparency belongs to the Angelic
      Realm,it's not for us Humans,not yet – I believe that we need a
      certain amount of Opacity,otherwise we shall ruin and undermine the
      whole necessary,evolutionary process of further Individualization –
      In a certain sense the Son must kill the Father (Freud would know
      about that)- if not,the Son will remain just a human atom,nameless
      and without character – In other words,Lucifer is still needed in
      the Cosmic "Economy" – Even if we have Christ
      (though,I know,many people will disagree with me,here)

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
      <hermit@t...> wrote:
      > Dear Flemming,
      > This all (to me) comes down to something rather simple. Is
      > anthroposophy a "science"? If it is then, as Gordienko elaborated
      > her book on Prokofieff, we have questions of standards before
      which all
      > our statements are to be tested.
      > If there are to be "standards", then those can be
      discussed. If no
      > standards, then that can be discussed, but what we are doing then
      > a science.
      > Gordienko put forward four standards (qualitative measures),
      as I read
      > her, and to which I agree fully to three. 1)practical knowledge
      of the
      > epistemologies (how we know); 2) practical knowledge of Goetheanism
      > (organic thinking); and 3) sufficient experience of the
      > Soul to be able to speak out of it consciously. (all of these
      amount to
      > a new condition of thinking having been developed)
      > Her fourth standard was Rudolf Steiner's own works. This
      gets a little
      > dicey, because then we get to the assumption of perfection, and I
      > not want a "science" to make too many assumptions.
      > At the same time, it seems that if someone, such as
      Prokofieff, is
      > offering new research, then Gordienko is right in wanting to test
      > research not only against the first three criteria, but also
      > Steiner. She spends the greater part of her book doing the latter
      > monumental effort by the way), and finds SOP failing on many
      levels to
      > be offering material consistent with Steiner.
      > As I expressed to Dottie recently, in the controversy over
      > (Gordienko's) work, many things where said, and one of the more
      > interesting (that I forgot to mention to Dottie) was that many
      > felt no need to read Gordienko, and were glad of any lame
      > to just ignore her. How strange...after a century of reading
      > so many would rather just have their beliefs, and never consider
      > they might need to occasionally read and study a contrary view.
      > As a consequence, like a consummate politician, Prokofieff
      let others
      > do the attacking, never answered any of the legitimate questions,
      > just pretended there wasn't a book out there that showed him to be
      > emperor (pseudo-initiate) without any clothes.
      > After a century of the Society's failures, this one
      (Prokofieff) is the
      > capstone. Ben-Aharon has suggested that Archangel Michael is now
      > "plan B", see: http://www.antroposofi.org/benaharon0204.htm To
      me, the
      > weirdest thing is that people don't seem to know enough history and
      > human nature to realize that failures on this level are
      expectable. We
      > have to fall down a lot, and will continue to do so until the pain
      > us choose to be sufficiently conscious.
      > warm regards,
      > joel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.