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

Henry T. Laurency

Expand Messages
  • seeekerofthetruuuuth
    Hi to all folks! Here s a little bit of me. Through my parents long-lived interest on it, I ve started to study anthroposophy at about 14 years old, so
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi to all folks!

      Here's a little bit of me. Through my parents' long-lived interest on
      it, I've started to study anthroposophy at about 14 years old, so
      meaning that I've been interested in it for four years (my parents
      have been involved in anthroposophical world for about 20 years).

      I'm pretty involved in anthroposophical world of my country already
      and won't totally stop it even if what I've now found is valid
      criticism towards anthroposophy, something, that I've for very, very
      long time been watching out for.

      I searched this forum through, and haven't found anywhere else any
      defense from anthroposophical world towards the criticism offered by
      this anonymous author, who regards himself as a hylozooic or platonic
      initiate.

      So here's what I'm talking about: http://www.laurency.com/KVe/kr6.pdf
      The whole book is found here (The Knowledge of Reality):
      http://www.laurency.com/index.html

      You need an Acrobat Reader to read it. I can paste the text over here
      if wished.

      I would be very interested in the thoughts of the genuine walkers of
      the anthroposophical path about this mind-staggering writing. It seems
      strongly so that there's either this Henry or Steiner who doesn't have
      all the screws fixed up right. My fear, I have to confess right now,
      is that neither of them have it all in there.

      Thank you in advance for any and all constructive answers!
    • Mike T
      Seeker of the truth, Keep seeking - in about 20 years you ll realise what sort of twaddle this pseudo intellectual Laurency is. Mike T ...
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Seeker of the truth,

        Keep seeking - in about 20 years you'll realise what sort of twaddle this
        pseudo intellectual Laurency is.

        Mike T

        >From: "seeekerofthetruuuuth" <seeekerofthetruuuuth@...>
        >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Henry T. Laurency
        >Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:21:14 -0000
        >
        >Hi to all folks!
        >
        >Here's a little bit of me. Through my parents' long-lived interest on
        >it, I've started to study anthroposophy at about 14 years old, so
        >meaning that I've been interested in it for four years (my parents
        >have been involved in anthroposophical world for about 20 years).
        >
        >I'm pretty involved in anthroposophical world of my country already
        >and won't totally stop it even if what I've now found is valid
        >criticism towards anthroposophy, something, that I've for very, very
        >long time been watching out for.
        >
        >I searched this forum through, and haven't found anywhere else any
        >defense from anthroposophical world towards the criticism offered by
        >this anonymous author, who regards himself as a hylozooic or platonic
        >initiate.
        >
        >So here's what I'm talking about: http://www.laurency.com/KVe/kr6.pdf
        >The whole book is found here (The Knowledge of Reality):
        >http://www.laurency.com/index.html
        >
        >You need an Acrobat Reader to read it. I can paste the text over here
        >if wished.
        >
        >I would be very interested in the thoughts of the genuine walkers of
        >the anthroposophical path about this mind-staggering writing. It seems
        >strongly so that there's either this Henry or Steiner who doesn't have
        >all the screws fixed up right. My fear, I have to confess right now,
        >is that neither of them have it all in there.
        >
        >Thank you in advance for any and all constructive answers!
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads!
        http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
      • seeekerofthetruuuuth
        ... this ... OK, let s put it that way, thanks for all the answers, even the non-constructive. You know that s exactly why I ve come here to ask this, to not
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike T"
          <leosun_75@h...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Seeker of the truth,
          >
          > Keep seeking - in about 20 years you'll realise what sort of twaddle
          this
          > pseudo intellectual Laurency is.
          >
          > Mike T
          >
          > >From: "seeekerofthetruuuuth" <seeekerofthetruuuuth@y...>
          > >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          > >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          > >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Henry T. Laurency
          > >Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:21:14 -0000
          > >
          > >Hi to all folks!
          > >
          > >Here's a little bit of me. Through my parents' long-lived interest on
          > >it, I've started to study anthroposophy at about 14 years old, so
          > >meaning that I've been interested in it for four years (my parents
          > >have been involved in anthroposophical world for about 20 years).
          > >
          > >I'm pretty involved in anthroposophical world of my country already
          > >and won't totally stop it even if what I've now found is valid
          > >criticism towards anthroposophy, something, that I've for very, very
          > >long time been watching out for.
          > >
          > >I searched this forum through, and haven't found anywhere else any
          > >defense from anthroposophical world towards the criticism offered by
          > >this anonymous author, who regards himself as a hylozooic or platonic
          > >initiate.
          > >
          > >So here's what I'm talking about: http://www.laurency.com/KVe/kr6.pdf
          > >The whole book is found here (The Knowledge of Reality):
          > >http://www.laurency.com/index.html
          > >
          > >You need an Acrobat Reader to read it. I can paste the text over here
          > >if wished.
          > >
          > >I would be very interested in the thoughts of the genuine walkers of
          > >the anthroposophical path about this mind-staggering writing. It seems
          > >strongly so that there's either this Henry or Steiner who doesn't have
          > >all the screws fixed up right. My fear, I have to confess right now,
          > >is that neither of them have it all in there.
          > >
          > >Thank you in advance for any and all constructive answers!
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >

          OK, let's put it that way, thanks for all the answers, even the
          non-constructive. You know that's exactly why I've come here to ask
          this, to not waste that 20 years!!! You know you are against
          development by criticizing as bluntly as that. I know it'll even be
          better to use that twenty years to know his madness and then show it
          to others interested in him so that they don't need to use that time.
          So, is there anyone who has already used that time? I greatly
          appreciate everythiing. Thanks for you Mike T.
        • dottie zold
          Hey Friend, I will get a chance to check out what you have offered up for thought later on in the day. Can you give me some basic background on this Henry T.
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Friend,

            I will get a chance to check out what you have offered
            up for thought later on in the day. Can you give me
            some basic background on this Henry T. Laurency. For
            example what are his studies and so forth and his
            background if you know? Are there other works that
            might shed a little light on where his point of
            departure is? Also, where is he from?

            All good things,
            Dottie




            __________________________________
            Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
            http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
          • dottie zold
            So, what I am finding right off the bat, with just a real quickl look through in the first 10 is that this gentlemen is just talking and putting onto Rudolf
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              So, what I am finding right off the bat, with just a
              real quickl look through in the first 10 is that this
              gentlemen is just talking and putting onto Rudolf
              Steiner what the thinks his process is. And just from
              this preliminary look through, one who has studied
              Rudolf Steiner can see that this gentlment doesn't
              know his subject very well nor does he seem to have
              an appreciation for how the seeker seeks or the
              brilliance of the man. He says that Rudolf Steinre is
              brilliant and so forth but then he gives him
              dillitanish habits that would speak to the opposite.

              I don't think I would say that the man would be off
              his rocker in any case just that he shows no real
              understanding of the deeper processes of thinking.
              There is a slight pettyness to the way there is an
              aknowledgement of Rudolf Steiner's thinking and then
              the tearing down of it. And to me the word 'mystic'
              does not really apply to Rudolf Steiner. In affect
              this gentlmen's work seems a bit shallow.

              My early thoughts,
              Dottie



              > > Seeker of the truth,
              > >
              > > Keep seeking - in about 20 years you'll realise
              > what sort of twaddle
              > this
              > > pseudo intellectual Laurency is.
              > >
              > > Mike T
              > >
              > > >From: "seeekerofthetruuuuth"
              > <seeekerofthetruuuuth@y...>
              > > >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
              > > >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
              > > >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Henry T.
              > Laurency
              > > >Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:21:14 -0000
              > > >
              > > >Hi to all folks!
              > > >
              > > >Here's a little bit of me. Through my parents'
              > long-lived interest on
              > > >it, I've started to study anthroposophy at about
              > 14 years old, so
              > > >meaning that I've been interested in it for four
              > years (my parents
              > > >have been involved in anthroposophical world for
              > about 20 years).
              > > >
              > > >I'm pretty involved in anthroposophical world of
              > my country already
              > > >and won't totally stop it even if what I've now
              > found is valid
              > > >criticism towards anthroposophy, something, that
              > I've for very, very
              > > >long time been watching out for.
              > > >
              > > >I searched this forum through, and haven't found
              > anywhere else any
              > > >defense from anthroposophical world towards the
              > criticism offered by
              > > >this anonymous author, who regards himself as a
              > hylozooic or platonic
              > > >initiate.
              > > >
              > > >So here's what I'm talking about:
              > http://www.laurency.com/KVe/kr6.pdf
              > > >The whole book is found here (The Knowledge of
              > Reality):
              > > >http://www.laurency.com/index.html
              > > >
              > > >You need an Acrobat Reader to read it. I can
              > paste the text over here
              > > >if wished.
              > > >
              > > >I would be very interested in the thoughts of the
              > genuine walkers of
              > > >the anthroposophical path about this
              > mind-staggering writing. It seems
              > > >strongly so that there's either this Henry or
              > Steiner who doesn't have
              > > >all the screws fixed up right. My fear, I have to
              > confess right now,
              > > >is that neither of them have it all in there.
              > > >
              > > >Thank you in advance for any and all constructive
              > answers!
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              > OK, let's put it that way, thanks for all the
              > answers, even the
              > non-constructive. You know that's exactly why I've
              > come here to ask
              > this, to not waste that 20 years!!! You know you are
              > against
              > development by criticizing as bluntly as that. I
              > know it'll even be
              > better to use that twenty years to know his madness
              > and then show it
              > to others interested in him so that they don't need
              > to use that time.
              > So, is there anyone who has already used that time?
              > I greatly
              > appreciate everythiing. Thanks for you Mike T.
              >
              >
              >
              >




              __________________________________________
              Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
              Just $16.99/mo. or less.
              dsl.yahoo.com
            • dottie zold
              So, what I am finding right off the bat, with just a real quickl look through in the first 10 is that this gentlemen is just talking and putting onto Rudolf
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                So, what I am finding right off the bat, with just a
                real quickl look through in the first 10 is that this
                gentlemen is just talking and putting onto Rudolf
                Steiner what the thinks his process is. And just from
                this preliminary look through, one who has studied
                Rudolf Steiner can see that this gentlment doesn't
                know his subject very well nor does he seem to have
                an appreciation for how the seeker seeks or the
                brilliance of the man. He says that Rudolf Steinre is
                brilliant and so forth but then he gives him
                dillitanish habits that would speak to the opposite.

                I don't think I would say that the man would be off
                his rocker in any case just that he shows no real
                understanding of the deeper processes of thinking.
                There is a slight pettyness to the way there is an
                aknowledgement of Rudolf Steiner's thinking and then
                the tearing down of it. And to me the word 'mystic'
                does not really apply to Rudolf Steiner. In affect
                this gentlmen's work seems a bit shallow.

                My early thoughts,
                Dottie

                I shall add on a few as I have had a chance to read a
                little further but I will say I think whoever this
                gentlemen is he has really little objective knowledge
                and a whole lot of subjective opinions. And although
                he says he is not a theosophist I find that very hard
                to believe with the outright vehemenous he attacks
                Rudolf Steiner. He has quite a few untruths in there
                regarding Rudolf Steinre's words on Mdm. Blavatski.
                Rudolf Steiner actually held her work in high esteem
                and often said so. He also stated that due to her
                highly interesting personality and the innability to
                completely keep it in control she was wont to get
                herself mixed up with some of the knowledge.

                I find it hard to continue reading as it is so mixed
                up with innuendos and half truths that it bothers me
                to read it. It's kinda like you eat something really
                sour and your face feels to pucker:) yeah, that's what
                it feels like. I have to read it with one eye open it
                is that off.

                I think the thinker who would read such a work though
                would consider how this man relates his story. Its
                almost in a gossipy nature that really doesn't befit
                an intellectual or a esoterist as he claims to be. It
                doesn't pass the smell test even in the first 20 or so
                points he makes.

                So, my thoughts are if you take that in hand and
                consider the way it is being shared and if you can
                track to see if what he says is true than you can find
                the truth of the matter yourself. Its a matter of
                doing the homework and following the references, to
                see if they are truth or onesided. It can be a lot of
                work but if you want to know if it is true or not than
                it is a good place to start. His work almost reminds
                me of the little lady I met up in Big Bear at the I AM
                Shop. She looked exactly like a Mdme. Blavatski and I
                asked her if she knew of Rudolf STeiner's work. She
                frowned and said 'oh yeah, he is a black magician'.
                And I made a comment like 'oh, hmmm, I guess I don't
                see it that way' or something like that. Rudolf
                Steiner's leaving the Theosophy group had nothing to
                do with Mdme Blatvaski and everything to do with
                Bessant.

                My thoughts,
                Dottie





                __________________________________________
                Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
                Just $16.99/mo. or less.
                dsl.yahoo.com
              • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                ... Hi Dottie, amd thank you for your interest, just as it was in the summer when I dropped by over here. I am very perplexed about this, and there s no way my
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
                  <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Hey Friend,
                  >
                  > I will get a chance to check out what you have offered
                  > up for thought later on in the day.

                  Hi Dottie,

                  amd thank you for your interest, just as it was in the summer when I
                  dropped by over here. I am very perplexed about this, and there's no
                  way my mother would have the interest to take up the time to study it,
                  and I don't see my father too often. Only one of my brothers could get
                  interested to delve into this.


                  > Can you give me
                  > some basic background on this Henry T. Laurency. For
                  > example what are his studies and so forth and his
                  > background if you know?

                  Well, he was an anonymous writer so not alot can be said. The only
                  thing I know that is made public of him is that he's from Sweden.

                  > Are there other works that
                  > might shed a little light on where his point of
                  > departure is? Also, where is he from?
                  >
                  > All good things,
                  > Dottie

                  Everything important can be found from this website:
                  http://www.laurency.com/

                  Hope there'll be some light shed in all of this.
                • dottie zold
                  ... Hey Friend, I checked out his site and I find it interesting that on one hand he is saying that hey you all got to know that there is more than you can
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Seeker:
                    > Everything important can be found from this website:
                    > http://www.laurency.com/
                    >
                    > Hope there'll be some light shed in all of this.

                    Hey Friend,

                    I checked out his site and I find it interesting that on one hand he
                    is saying that 'hey you all got to know that there is more than you
                    can see' and then on the other hand he seems to be saying 'if you say
                    you can see it, you are probably wrong', fe, Sweedenborg.

                    The difference between he and Rudolf Steiner, just for a little start,
                    is that Rudolf Steiner has methods by where one can work to know the
                    knowledge and not just speak of it. I found Laurency site to just be
                    speaking about it with no thoughts about how one actually comes to
                    attain a knowledge. His thoughts that we are always shifting and so
                    forth would be correct and the age old 'the more I know the more I
                    know not' can readily apply in many cases. There is always so much
                    more to know than the original mystery that meets the eye. Its an
                    excavation is how I see it.

                    So, it seems to me he debunks Rudolf Steiner just because truly the
                    author doesn't know if what Rudolf Steiner has to say is truth or not
                    and he has already made a decision, or so it appears to me, that
                    Rudolf Steiner can't really know a thing anyway because it is always
                    changing. From Rudolf Steiner's perspective there are things that are,
                    and there are also more things to learn of them. But we can know them
                    and not just from the books.

                    How's school going? And I think it is great that you are asking
                    questions and so forth. To want to know the opposite of what you've
                    been told is a good sign:0 or at least so I think. And you being in
                    Mathmatics and all are pretty much dealing with absolutes right? So a
                    little fighting for further knowledge is highly encouraged from my
                    litle space in Hollywood:)

                    Happy New Year to you friend,
                    Dottie

                    p.s. Do you bang pots and pans where you are? :)
                  • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                    ... OK. ... In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on talking about methods to higher consciousness. ... Laurency just thought that Steiner s way is
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
                      <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Seeker:
                      > > Everything important can be found from this website:
                      > > http://www.laurency.com/
                      > >
                      > > Hope there'll be some light shed in all of this.
                      >
                      > Hey Friend,
                      >
                      > I checked out his site and I find it interesting that on one hand he
                      > is saying that 'hey you all got to know that there is more than you
                      > can see' and then on the other hand he seems to be saying 'if you say
                      > you can see it, you are probably wrong', fe, Sweedenborg.

                      OK.

                      > The difference between he and Rudolf Steiner, just for a little start,
                      > is that Rudolf Steiner has methods by where one can work to know the
                      > knowledge and not just speak of it. I found Laurency site to just be
                      > speaking about it with no thoughts about how one actually comes to
                      > attain a knowledge. His thoughts that we are always shifting and so
                      > forth would be correct and the age old 'the more I know the more I
                      > know not' can readily apply in many cases. There is always so much
                      > more to know than the original mystery that meets the eye. Its an
                      > excavation is how I see it.

                      In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on talking about methods to
                      higher consciousness.

                      > So, it seems to me he debunks Rudolf Steiner just because truly the
                      > author doesn't know if what Rudolf Steiner has to say is truth or not
                      > and he has already made a decision, or so it appears to me, that
                      > Rudolf Steiner can't really know a thing anyway because it is always
                      > changing.

                      Laurency just thought that Steiner's way is misleading. He did
                      certainly not think everything is always changing.

                      From Rudolf Steiner's perspective there are things that are,
                      > and there are also more things to learn of them. But we can know them
                      > and not just from the books.

                      With that I would think Henry would agree.

                      > How's school going? And I think it is great that you are asking
                      > questions and so forth. To want to know the opposite of what you've
                      > been told is a good sign:0 or at least so I think. And you being in
                      > Mathmatics and all are pretty much dealing with absolutes right? So a
                      > little fighting for further knowledge is highly encouraged from my
                      > litle space in Hollywood:)
                      >
                      > Happy New Year to you friend,
                      > Dottie
                      >
                      > p.s. Do you bang pots and pans where you are? :)
                      >

                      Thank you, my school's going pretty well. Hmmm, do we bang pots and
                      pans? Well, I used to do that often as a child when I was doing the
                      dishes. :)

                      Thanks for your sincere interest and have a good New Year,

                      Mir
                    • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                      A writing conserning his way of meditation: http://www.laurency.com/L1e/kl1_1.pdf It s the first cahpter of Knowledge of Life One.
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        A writing conserning his way of meditation:
                        http://www.laurency.com/L1e/kl1_1.pdf

                        It's the first cahpter of Knowledge of Life One.
                      • dottie zold
                        ... I ve just read your link. I don t really see him as talking methods in the way that Rudolf Steiner does as far as exercises. I see him talking. It feels
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Seeker:
                          > In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on
                          > talking about methods to
                          > higher consciousness.

                          I've just read your link. I don't really see him as
                          talking methods in the way that Rudolf Steiner does as
                          far as exercises. I see him talking. It feels like he
                          has some thoughts on it and there okay but I don't see
                          a method just talking about a method.

                          Seeker:
                          > Laurency just thought that Steiner's way is
                          > misleading. He did
                          > certainly not think everything is always changing.

                          My impression of his work is that on one hand he says
                          we have to think deeper and on the other hand faults
                          Steiner because he came to a definitive view point on
                          some of those insights. I get he thinks everything is
                          always changing.

                          Seeker:
                          > Thank you, my school's going pretty well. Hmmm, do
                          > we bang pots and
                          > pans? Well, I used to do that often as a child when
                          > I was doing the
                          > dishes. :)

                          No banging of pots and pans for the new year out on
                          the front porch? What the heck do y'all do for fun on
                          New Years Eve? Whew.

                          I just finished reading the link you offered up on his
                          method. I can see that one might get a thing from him
                          and I don't have anything really against what he says.
                          Some of it feels off and some of it feels on and some
                          of it is a little funky. I read it to the end and it
                          didn't feel like it led me anywhere.

                          And then I tried to read the other one again regarding
                          his issues with Rudolf Steiner. There's just too many
                          wrong points in there to give this work any
                          credibility. Too many wrong points about Theosophy and
                          about Rudolf Steiner's thoughts on it and so forth. It
                          really feels like a hearsay type of paper. But I am
                          thinking that maybe Frank, if he has time, can give
                          some finer points as to the difference in the thinking
                          and so forth, or maybe Val can. She's really good at
                          that. They both would be much better. So, might I
                          suggest, in case this hasn't caught their attention to
                          put their name in LIGHTS in the subject line:)))

                          All good things to you,
                          Dottie

                          p.s. If you like the idea of thinking about thinking
                          and so forth you might like to read Rudolf Steiner's
                          Philosophy of Freedom. Its a hard one to get through
                          but if my angel loving friends can do it than I
                          imagine with your solid mind it might not be so bad.
                          Maybe your Mom has it on the bookshelf. Its definitely
                          not the easiest of his reads and in fact I find it the
                          hardest for my mind but for your mathematics college
                          bound mind it should be a good one.





                          __________________________________________
                          Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
                          Just $16.99/mo. or less.
                          dsl.yahoo.com
                        • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                          ... I would think that what Laurency had in mind is that Steiner did come to a definitive point of view in some of the higher sheaths of reality, and b/c of
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 31, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
                            <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Seeker:
                            > > In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on
                            > > talking about methods to
                            > > higher consciousness.
                            >
                            > I've just read your link. I don't really see him as
                            > talking methods in the way that Rudolf Steiner does as
                            > far as exercises. I see him talking. It feels like he
                            > has some thoughts on it and there okay but I don't see
                            > a method just talking about a method.
                            >
                            > Seeker:
                            > > Laurency just thought that Steiner's way is
                            > > misleading. He did
                            > > certainly not think everything is always changing.
                            >
                            > My impression of his work is that on one hand he says
                            > we have to think deeper and on the other hand faults
                            > Steiner because he came to a definitive view point on
                            > some of those insights. I get he thinks everything is
                            > always changing.

                            I would think that what Laurency had in mind is that Steiner did come
                            to a definitive point of view in some of the higher sheaths of
                            reality, and b/c of this he does give credit, but where he came to the
                            Akasha Chronicle(, as an example, at least) is something where he
                            could not see objective reality, but a subjective one.

                            > Seeker:
                            > > Thank you, my school's going pretty well. Hmmm, do
                            > > we bang pots and
                            > > pans? Well, I used to do that often as a child when
                            > > I was doing the
                            > > dishes. :)
                            >
                            > No banging of pots and pans for the new year out on
                            > the front porch? What the heck do y'all do for fun on
                            > New Years Eve? Whew.

                            Umm, I don't know how you say it in English; go down a slope with a
                            sled? That's atleast as fun as your pot bangings! :D

                            > I just finished reading the link you offered up on his
                            > method. I can see that one might get a thing from him
                            > and I don't have anything really against what he says.
                            > Some of it feels off and some of it feels on and some
                            > of it is a little funky. I read it to the end and it
                            > didn't feel like it led me anywhere.

                            Thanks for your opinion. I've only read it through without closer
                            orientation.

                            > And then I tried to read the other one again regarding
                            > his issues with Rudolf Steiner. There's just too many
                            > wrong points in there to give this work any
                            > credibility. Too many wrong points about Theosophy and
                            > about Rudolf Steiner's thoughts on it and so forth. It
                            > really feels like a hearsay type of paper. But I am
                            > thinking that maybe Frank, if he has time, can give
                            > some finer points as to the difference in the thinking
                            > and so forth, or maybe Val can. She's really good at
                            > that. They both would be much better. So, might I
                            > suggest, in case this hasn't caught their attention to
                            > put their name in LIGHTS in the subject line:)))

                            Ugh, sorry, I'm a total newbie here, so I don't know what you're
                            talking about wuth the lights. Could yoou light me in this please? :)

                            > All good things to you,
                            > Dottie
                            >
                            > p.s. If you like the idea of thinking about thinking
                            > and so forth you might like to read Rudolf Steiner's
                            > Philosophy of Freedom. Its a hard one to get through
                            > but if my angel loving friends can do it than I
                            > imagine with your solid mind it might not be so bad.
                            > Maybe your Mom has it on the bookshelf. Its definitely
                            > not the easiest of his reads and in fact I find it the
                            > hardest for my mind but for your mathematics college
                            > bound mind it should be a good one.

                            Yes, you're right that it isn't too bad for me. I've read some first
                            chapters a couple of months ago. I will have to read it at some point.

                            mir
                          • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                            Thanks for the replies on this topic. I ll be researching on this Laurency and his relation to anthroposophy more deeply in the months to come, and if I get
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 2, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks for the replies on this topic. I'll be researching on this
                              Laurency and his relation to anthroposophy more deeply in the months
                              to come, and if I get anything definite and interesting out of it,
                              I'll be posting it over here. More questions might come, but for now,
                              all of my answers have been answered over here and in another place,
                              thanks for all. My father might also research on this.

                              Happy New Year for All!!!

                              Mir
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.