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

R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Bryan's Quote of the Day

Expand Messages
  • VALENTINA BRUNETTI
    The most puzzling and disturbing matter in this topic about people like Stronzenmaier (pardon Studenmaier), Dugan and their brainwashed companions is the
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
       The most puzzling and disturbing matter in this topic about people like Stronzenmaier (pardon Studenmaier), Dugan and their brainwashed companions is the following.
      If they  gained the "awareness" that Steiner is a pompous charlatan and Anthrop. is a whole ball of shit why are they wasting their "preciuos" time with this matter ? Have not they got something better to do  or  are not they able to see themselves like the prisoners of some obscure compulsive complex of "love and hate"?
      For myself:in my twenties I studied in deep Esotericism of "traditionalist gesture" like the one of Guènon and Evola and, at last, I judged it to be, as a whole, a kind of crap.
        Well, I cannot imagine myself, now, strugglin' on some "Evola list" in order to "demonstrate" he is a "pompous charlatan" and so on, doesn't it ? 
      Andrea the Italian 
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: b m
      Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 7:58 PM
      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Bryan's Quote of the Day

      "When I read Peter S., I hear an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the
      right to give commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having
      power and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick again, make
      your devotees feel and think that they are free."

      Bryan, Feb. 02, 2004





      Tarjei Straume <anthrouncle@...> wrote:

      "When I read Rudolf Steiner, I hear an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the
      right to give commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having
      power and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick again, make
      your devotees feel and think that they are free."

      - Sharon, Sep 08, 2001




      Tarjei
      http://uncletaz.com/




      Yahoo! Groups Links


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

      Yahoo! Groups Links

    • Tarjei Straume
      ... Those people have been asked that quastion many times, also by me, and they always respond by explaining the need for their crusade to continue. Otherwise,
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
        At 10:25 03.02.2004, Andrea the Italian wrote:

        > The most puzzling and disturbing matter in this topic about people like
        > Stronzenmaier (pardon Studenmaier), Dugan and their brainwashed
        > companions is the following.
        >If they gained the "awareness" that Steiner is a pompous charlatan and
        >Anthrop. is a whole ball of shit why are they wasting their "preciuos"
        >time with this matter ? Have not they got something better to do or are
        >not they able to see themselves like the prisoners of some obscure
        >compulsive complex of "love and hate"?

        Those people have been asked that quastion many times, also by me, and they
        always respond by explaining the need for their crusade to continue.
        Otherwise, society would be duped and seduced by deceptive and creepy
        anthropops, and the children of unsuspecting parents who have not been
        warned by PLANS will be abused and their minds poisoned and their future
        ruined. This is why they also have a closed list called "Waldorf Survivors"
        consisting of people who have *suffered* at the hands of Waldorf teachers
        and administrators. They exchange Waldorf horror stories and give each
        other comfort and encouragement. Waldorf/Anthroposophy/Steiner, which is a
        racist cult, is the enemy and the perpetrator of evil, and it is PLANS'
        mission to rescue humanity from this moloch.


        Tarjei
        http://uncletaz.com/
      • b m
        Peter S. has a talent with words, but he is less of an asset to the critics than they seem to realise. For a group which uses as one of their main arguments
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004

           

          Peter S. has a talent with words, but he is less of an asset to the critics than they seem to realise. For a group which uses as one of their main arguments the allegation that Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are "weird", having the anarchist crusader among them takes a big chunk off their credibility.  The man is as weird as they come. 

          As to what keeps him and the other fellows there tightly embraced to Anthroposophy despite their apparent loathing of it, here goes my theory: It is a deep, unconscious and very revealing fascination with it;  it is as if they are in love with Anthroposophy. Sadly, they can't have it, because they can't  "get it". They are unable to understand it, to penetrate its mysteries.  Therefore they feel rejected. Unable to perform in a love level, they turn to the other face of love, which is hate  - in a romantic realm such as this is, the true opposite of love would be indifference.  And like the fox, they mumble the grapes were green after all and they don't want them. And by the way nobody else should have them because they are dangerous  - enter the green jealousy monster. It is their alleged dislike of Antroposophy that provides  them with an excuse to stay close to it -thus illustrating my point that they do love it.

          As it was mentioned here, they may very well come back as Anthroposophers in another life.  This being the case, there's no reason for the  WC'eers to despair. There's still hope. They may be able to make love to Anthroposophy one day, although in this existence they obviously lack the necessary equipment.

          Bryan

          VALENTINA BRUNETTI <okcgbr@...> wrote:

           The most puzzling and disturbing matter in this topic about people like Stronzenmaier (pardon Studenmaier), Dugan and their brainwashed companions is the following.
          If they  gained the "awareness" that Steiner is a pompous charlatan and Anthrop. is a whole ball of shit why are they wasting their "preciuos" time with this matter ? Have not they got something better to do  or  are not they able to see themselves like the prisoners of some obscure compulsive complex of "love and hate"?
          For myself:in my twenties I studied in deep Esotericism of "traditionalist gesture" like the one of Gu�non and Evola and, at last, I judged it to be, as a whole, a kind of crap.
            Well, I cannot imagine myself, now, strugglin' on some "Evola list" in order to "demonstrate" he is a "pompous charlatan" and so on, doesn't it ? 
          Andrea the Italian 
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: b m
          Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 7:58 PM
          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Bryan's Quote of the Day

          "When I read Peter S., I hear an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the
          right to give commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having
          power and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick again, make
          your devotees feel and think that they are free."

          Bryan, Feb. 02, 2004





          Tarjei Straume <anthrouncle@...> wrote:

          "When I read Rudolf Steiner, I hear an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the
          right to give commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having
          power and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick again, make
          your devotees feel and think that they are free."

          - Sharon, Sep 08, 2001




          Tarjei
          http://uncletaz.com/




          Yahoo! Groups Links


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

          Yahoo! Groups Links




          Yahoo! Groups Links


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

        • Joel Wendt
          Dear Andrea, There is an additional way that this can be viewed. In my opinion we do a disservice to ourselves not to include this view. Within the individual
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
            Dear Andrea,

            There is an additional way that this can be viewed. In my opinion we
            do a disservice to ourselves not to include this view.

            Within the individual biographies of many individuals of the modern
            age, materialism still plays a role it is meant to play. Such
            individuals need the materialistic outlook because they have yet to have
            those experiences from which they will learn the necessary freedom from
            a previously dominate traditional religious view.

            Materialism in this sense performs a necessary service in the
            development of the "I-am". In order to be free to choose the spirit, we
            need first to be free of our traditional and karmic links to the spirit.

            When the paradigms of materialism (in whatever form, whether natural
            science, or secular humanism etc.) encounter the paradigms of the new
            mysteries, the resulting conflict creates social problems of no small
            significance. This is part of what we experience in the coming into
            existence of PLANS - that is a collusion of paradigms, with each
            paradigm having a valid significance in each individual biography.

            The views of Dan, and Peter S. and Sharon (for example), in the general
            sense of their partaking of the general paradigm of materialism, are
            necessary to their biographies. In a like way, the manifestation of the
            shadow elements of the soul life (their doubles) are also a necessary
            part of their biographies.

            We experience these excesses (their paradigms and shadow impulses) in
            different ways. Mostly we "defend" because we experience their efforts
            as "attacks". We forget to live inside their biographies, we forget to
            walk in their shoes, and assume because we don't like what they say that
            they are "wrong" and we are "right".

            My view would be that our assumptions of their flaws and our
            correctness results from a failure on our part to understand the
            practice of anthroposophy.

            Failing to be appropriately empathic, we then fall into "argument"
            taking what is essentially an intellectual soul response to what is
            basically a consciousness soul dilemma. We seek to convince them of
            their intellectual errors, and seek to bring them into conformance with
            our more correct views.

            This mostly results from a failure within the anthroposophical movement
            to appreciate the social implications of the Philosophy of Freedom. In
            the Philosophy we are taught concerning the creation of mental
            representations, which if we really penetrate to what this means
            socially will show us that every individual today lives within such
            mental representations (whose meaning and significance is wholly linked
            to the karma of their biography). We are meant to live within this
            darkness (the mental representations), cut off from the spirit, until
            such time that we ourselves choose to find our particular way forward.

            Dan, Peter S. and Sharon (to continue the example) have those mental
            representations that belong to their biographies, and we really have no
            basis (in terms of the Good) to demand their inner life be any different
            than it is. Each has their path to freedom, and it is not ours to
            insist they walk any other way than the way that they walk.

            This does leave us with a dilemma, for we also know clearly the harm
            being done by the excesses of their shadows. What this comes down to in
            the end, is not so much pointing out what we believe to be the truth in
            contradistinction to what we see as the confusion of PLANS, but rather
            how to treat those whose biography results in such views and actions
            that are harmful to what we have come to love.

            In the long run, it is my view that anthroposophists, who wish to lead
            people away from the errors we observe in PLANS, will do better by
            making the following distinction. There is a considerable difference
            between Dan, Peter S. and Sharon as human beings (including what
            manifests as their shadow nature), and what manifests in their
            biographies as mental representations with which we do not agree.

            If we dehumanize them in any way, we do them a disservice as human
            beings, and fail ourselves. Dan's rule against ad hominem arguments
            (personal attacks) is valid in this sense.

            As to "arguing" with their views, we may well do a disservice there as
            well, if we assume malicious intent. All of us have character flaws,
            and if we as anthroposophists are going to approach the situation from a
            "spiritual" moral view, then imagining we know the moral intentions of
            another human begin, based upon the fact that they disagree with our
            mental representations, just won't work. Difference does not mean moral
            wrongness.

            If we believe ourselves purer in our intuitions of concepts, and then
            judge their mental representations as moral failings, we also miss the
            social meaning of the Philosophy.

            Consider the various introductions to different editions of Steiner's
            Occult Science. Again and again he describes how he expects most who
            read that book to find flaws with it. He has understood that we live in
            a time of conflicting (individualized) mental representations, and he
            does not expect but a few to be ready yet to understand what he has
            offered. Can we do less?

            Yes, horrible words are written about what we love. Does that justify
            us using horrible words back, describing others in dehumanizing ways?
            Is that an aspect of the practice of anthroposophy?

            warm regards,
            joel


            On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 02:25, VALENTINA BRUNETTI wrote:
            > The most puzzling and disturbing matter in this topic about people
            > like Stronzenmaier (pardon Studenmaier), Dugan and their brainwashed
            > companions is the following.
            > If they gained the "awareness" that Steiner is a pompous charlatan
            > and Anthrop. is a whole ball of shit why are they wasting their
            > "preciuos" time with this matter ? Have not they got something better
            > to do or are not they able to see themselves like the prisoners of
            > some obscure compulsive complex of "love and hate"?
            > For myself:in my twenties I studied in deep Esotericism of
            > "traditionalist gesture" like the one of Guènon and Evola and, at
            > last, I judged it to be, as a whole, a kind of crap.
            > Well, I cannot imagine myself, now, strugglin' on some "Evola list"
            > in order to "demonstrate" he is a "pompous charlatan" and so on,
            > doesn't it ?
            > Andrea the Italian
            *
          • Tarjei Straume
            ... Joel, what demands have been made on the innter lives of DD, PS or Sharon, and by whom? And who has insisted on what to curtail anyone s path to freedom?
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 4, 2004
              At 05:30 04.02.2004, Joel wrote:

              >Dan, Peter S. and Sharon (to continue the example) have those mental
              >representations that belong to their biographies, and we really have no
              >basis (in terms of the Good) to demand their inner life be any different
              >than it is. Each has their path to freedom, and it is not ours to insist
              >they walk any other way than the way that they walk.

              Joel, what demands have been made on the innter lives of DD, PS or Sharon,
              and by whom? And who has insisted on what to curtail anyone's path to freedom?


              Tarjei
              http://uncletaz.com/
            • Gisele
              Joel Wendt wrote: (80,000 leagues of snip) ... Consider the various introductions to different editions of Steiner s Occult Science. Again and again he
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 4, 2004


                Joel Wendt  wrote:

                 (80,000 leagues of snip)

                ...  Consider the various introductions to different editions of Steiner's
                Occult Science.  Again and again he describes how he expects most who
                read that book to find flaws with it.  He has understood that we live in
                a time of conflicting (individualized) mental representations, and he
                does not expect but a few to be ready yet to understand what he has
                offered.  Can we do less?

                ~~~~This depends on whether we consider ourselves his PEERS or not....

                      Yes, horrible words are written about what we love. Does that justify
                us using horrible words back, describing others in dehumanizing ways?
                Is that an aspect of the practice of anthroposophy?

                ~~~~sniff, sniff, sob, sob, did you hear that you horrible horrible sharks out there? Stop that racket right now! Mike! Stop pulling monkey faces at Peter! Andrea! Wipe off those obscene words from the blackboard! Taz! I'll shove that f***** POF up **** **se if you don't  mind your language! And you Bryan, apologise immediately to Dan or I give you a Saturday detention cleaning up the wc at the WC ok? Silence! Order!!!!



                BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
              • Tarjei Straume
                ... When an Asura bites you in the ass (in the shape of a rat in one of those outdoor johns in the country, at night during a thunder storm), he has to take an
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 4, 2004
                  At 01:56 05.02.2004, Gisele wrote:

                  >~~~~sniff, sniff, sob, sob, did you hear that you horrible horrible sharks
                  >out there? Stop that racket right now! Mike! Stop pulling monkey faces at
                  >Peter! Andrea! Wipe off those obscene words from the blackboard! Taz! I'll
                  >shove that f***** POF up **** **se if you don't mind your language! And
                  >you Bryan, apologise immediately to Dan or I give you a Saturday detention
                  >cleaning up the wc at the WC ok? Silence! Order!!!!

                  When an Asura bites you in the ass (in the shape of a rat in one of those
                  outdoor johns in the country, at night during a thunder storm), he has to
                  take an extra big chunk to make sure he gets a fragment of your ego. By the
                  same token, if the PLANS-WC cult is going to take a bite outta Waldorf
                  crime, it has to bite excessively hard and deep into the very heart of
                  Anthroposophia to taste the meat..

                  Joel may be thinking about suggesting a Michaelic sort of approach to the
                  Waldorf Critics. Let's shower them with compassion, with love and flowers.
                  Yes, let's love them. Like the hippies did with the police in San
                  Fransisco, 1967, Summer of Love. Father, forgive them, they know not what
                  they do. We won't call them gremlins and vampires and hyenas any more, but
                  children of God and sweethearts and cream cheeses and cherry pies and
                  flowers. (I have my doubs about pulling this off, but it's worth a suggestion.)

                  Cheers,


                  Tarjei
                  http://uncletaz.com/
                • Mike Helsher
                  Gisele writes: ~~~~sniff, sniff, sob, sob, did you hear that you horrible horrible sharks out there? Stop that racket right now! Mike! Stop pulling monkey
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 5, 2004
                    Gisele writes:
                    ~~~~sniff, sniff, sob, sob, did you hear that you horrible horrible sharks out there? Stop that racket right now! Mike! Stop pulling monkey faces at Peter!
                     
                    Mike:
                     
                    No. Not untill he stops making those evil looking Ariman faces at me... 
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.