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

Hovering/Val

Expand Messages
  • gaelman58
    Val wrote: Yet, as I understand it, Anthroposphy is concerned with gaining insight into matter. Connecting with the spirit in matter and by doing so setting
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Val wrote: "Yet, as I understand it, Anthroposphy is concerned with
      gaining insight into matter. Connecting with the spirit in matter and
      by doing so setting it free. Spirit in matter released through the
      process of insight within a human being-maybe, maybe is the
      consecration of light that Bradford's talking about. And yeah, I get
      that spirit can be released from matter in other ways but this
      way-through the human being belongs to anthroposophy alone,
      as far as I can see. If so, I'd tend to see a polarity in a certain
      respect with the Rosicrucian path. Actually, I'd tend to see that
      anyway as a method of evolution."

      Valiant: IMO you're hovering again...just like you were doing with
      respect to "epistomology" in your exchanges with Dottie...but I'm not
      much of a "vibes" guy...so, I dunno...tho' I do know something about
      "hump children"...had two.

      IMO your hovering above the current paradigm concerning light, matter
      and life...which I don't accept because I don't think it's good
      enough...it's loaded with contradictions and paradoxes. I get from
      your posts that you're interested in science as well.

      Are you saying that the current sciences evolved from the Rosicrucian
      path whereas Anthroposophy came out of another context?....G.
    • isenhart7
      ... not ... matter ... Rosicrucian ... Dear G, Probably not splaining this very well and that means I need to sleep on it and really fully consider an answer.
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
        <gaelman58@...> wrote:

        > Valiant: IMO you're hovering again...just like you were doing with
        > respect to "epistomology" in your exchanges with Dottie...but I'm
        not
        > much of a "vibes" guy...so, I dunno...tho' I do know something about
        > "hump children"...had two.
        >
        > IMO your hovering above the current paradigm concerning light,
        matter
        > and life...which I don't accept because I don't think it's good
        > enough...it's loaded with contradictions and paradoxes. I get from
        > your posts that you're interested in science as well.
        >
        > Are you saying that the current sciences evolved from the
        Rosicrucian
        > path whereas Anthroposophy came out of another context?....G.

        Dear G,

        Probably not 'splaining this very well and that means I need to sleep
        on it and really fully consider an answer. So I'll do that but I'm
        thinking that Anthroposophy IS another context, I can say that
        because I've thought that for awhile. That's kind of my question-did
        the current sciences or the Rosicrucian path or whatever came before-
        did it evolve from or spring forth from "the wisdom of man?" Val
      • gaelman58
        ... Val: Maybe this is helpful....RS, in Staying Connected , 5th lecture, 26 May 1914, p 90, first bit of lecture...the analogy...G.
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 25, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "isenhart7"
          <isenhart7@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
          > <gaelman58@> wrote:
          >
          > > Valiant: IMO you're hovering again...just like you were doing with
          > > respect to "epistomology" in your exchanges with Dottie...but I'm
          > not
          > > much of a "vibes" guy...so, I dunno...tho' I do know something about
          > > "hump children"...had two.
          > >
          > > IMO your hovering above the current paradigm concerning light,
          > matter
          > > and life...which I don't accept because I don't think it's good
          > > enough...it's loaded with contradictions and paradoxes. I get from
          > > your posts that you're interested in science as well.
          > >
          > > Are you saying that the current sciences evolved from the
          > Rosicrucian
          > > path whereas Anthroposophy came out of another context?....G.
          >
          > Dear G,
          >
          > Probably not 'splaining this very well and that means I need to sleep
          > on it and really fully consider an answer. So I'll do that but I'm
          > thinking that Anthroposophy IS another context, I can say that
          > because I've thought that for awhile. That's kind of my question-did
          > the current sciences or the Rosicrucian path or whatever came before-
          > did it evolve from or spring forth from "the wisdom of man?" Val
          >

          Val: Maybe this is helpful....RS, in "Staying Connected", 5th
          lecture, 26 May 1914, p 90, first bit of lecture...the analogy...G.
        • isenhart7
          ... Dear Gaelman, I never was much of a chemist but I ve got what some call a real green thumb. Over Christmas break I was at a party where the hostess was
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 25, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
            <gaelman58@...> wrote:

            > Val: Maybe this is helpful....RS, in "Staying Connected", 5th
            > lecture, 26 May 1914, p 90, first bit of lecture...the analogy...G.

            Dear Gaelman,

            I never was much of a chemist but I've got what some call a real "green
            thumb." Over Christmas break I was at a party where the hostess was
            explaining her plant's watering system-she had something like a
            themometer in each potted plane that would indicate when water was
            needed and the exact ounces required. This is when I thought I'd seen
            it all-but then Pete came up with the pass the trash concept-so you
            just never know.

            The question here is, "Is Anthroposophy a continuation of
            Rosicrucinism." Well, I could also ask if the latest domestic
            horticultural technology was a continuation, an outgrowth of gardening?
            Well, yes and no. There is an essential departure here, I think,
            besides more obviously the new method itself.

            Anyway, if you're not much of a vibes guy how do you water your plants?-
            Val
          • isenhart7
            Dear Gaelman, My friend has water, or should I say H2O gauges, in her potted plants not her potted planes. Sigh... So, alchemy-the Roscicrucians-don t actually
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 26, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Gaelman,

              My friend has water, or should I say H2O gauges, in her potted plants
              not her potted planes. Sigh...

              So, alchemy-the Roscicrucians-don't actually know that much about
              them-so maybe I'm just mis-informed but I thought that they worked
              with the four elements, the earth, the fire, the air, the water and
              were in search of the elusive fifth element. They were working for
              something-an essential substance that could either transmute base
              metals into gold or illume nature. So let's take the physical metal
              thing since yeah I'm the material girl and all. The substance had to
              be isolated and then applied to the base metals in order to transmute
              them, no? Today I can prep a biodynamic compost pile and release
              spirit from matter too but in both cases of then and now something is
              applied to matter in order to transform it.

              Okay, so there was also a spiritual side of alchemy but, again if I
              understand it correctly, the task here was to illuminate or enlighten
              not to release spirit from matter. So I've always seen anthroposophy
              as fundamentally different in that it's work is to release spirit
              from matter through a spiritual (consciousness) process. And that's a
              big deal, IMO. Why, because cosmic intelligence isn't so cosmic
              anymore-it's come down to the earth and the only way it's going to
              become cosmic again is if human beings can re-cognize it and offer it
              back to the spiritual world. So that makes Anthroposophy and
              Anthroposophia within it not just a microcosm of the macrocosm for
              illustrative or instructional purposes but an actual bridge back to
              cosmic intelligence. Like Steven Hale's time knot (which I'd still
              love to see) we are moving back-building the bridge back to our
              origins.

              Well, this sounds like we are building a stairway to heaven or
              another tower of babel. Of course, the tower of babel was built while
              man was still descending into the material world, and you know what
              they say-timing is everything. And yet, I personally find our
              language, our understanding of one another, pretty confounded. And
              that's why I think figuring out how to speak to one another and how
              to listen and how to translate accurately and really communicate with
              one another is so important.

              Now all that being said it chaps my hide this notion that
              anthroposophy is the culmination of other spiritual streams-that they
              all flow into anthroposophy. Maybe some day but that day has not
              arrived and I feel that a part of the communication problem for
              anthroposophists is a certain arrogance. The head is not the
              culmination of the human being nor can an organism whether it be an
              individual or all of humanity survive with just a head-the head does
              not incorporate the heart and the limbs. And besides a head, just a
              head, and only a head, by itself would necessitate a headless
              horseman. You asked-Val
            • gaelman58
              ... Well me gal, I confess to not quite understanding the point you ve made above...which is not at all the same as disagreeing or saying you don t know what
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "isenhart7"
                <isenhart7@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear Gaelman,
                >
                > My friend has water, or should I say H2O gauges, in her potted plants
                > not her potted planes. Sigh...
                >
                > So, alchemy-the Roscicrucians-don't actually know that much about
                > them-so maybe I'm just mis-informed but I thought that they worked
                > with the four elements, the earth, the fire, the air, the water and
                > were in search of the elusive fifth element. They were working for
                > something-an essential substance that could either transmute base
                > metals into gold or illume nature. So let's take the physical metal
                > thing since yeah I'm the material girl and all. The substance had to
                > be isolated and then applied to the base metals in order to transmute
                > them, no? Today I can prep a biodynamic compost pile and release
                > spirit from matter too but in both cases of then and now something is
                > applied to matter in order to transform it.
                >
                > Okay, so there was also a spiritual side of alchemy but, again if I
                > understand it correctly, the task here was to illuminate or enlighten
                > not to release spirit from matter. So I've always seen anthroposophy
                > as fundamentally different in that it's work is to release spirit
                > from matter through a spiritual (consciousness) process. And that's a
                > big deal, IMO. Why, because cosmic intelligence isn't so cosmic
                > anymore-it's come down to the earth and the only way it's going to
                > become cosmic again is if human beings can re-cognize it and offer it
                > back to the spiritual world. So that makes Anthroposophy and
                > Anthroposophia within it not just a microcosm of the macrocosm for
                > illustrative or instructional purposes but an actual bridge back to
                > cosmic intelligence. Like Steven Hale's time knot (which I'd still
                > love to see) we are moving back-building the bridge back to our
                > origins.
                >
                > Well, this sounds like we are building a stairway to heaven or
                > another tower of babel. Of course, the tower of babel was built while
                > man was still descending into the material world, and you know what
                > they say-timing is everything. And yet, I personally find our
                > language, our understanding of one another, pretty confounded. And
                > that's why I think figuring out how to speak to one another and how
                > to listen and how to translate accurately and really communicate with
                > one another is so important.
                >
                > Now all that being said it chaps my hide this notion that
                > anthroposophy is the culmination of other spiritual streams-that they
                > all flow into anthroposophy. Maybe some day but that day has not
                > arrived and I feel that a part of the communication problem for
                > anthroposophists is a certain arrogance. The head is not the
                > culmination of the human being nor can an organism whether it be an
                > individual or all of humanity survive with just a head-the head does
                > not incorporate the heart and the limbs. And besides a head, just a
                > head, and only a head, by itself would necessitate a headless
                > horseman. You asked-Val
                >

                Well me gal, I confess to not quite understanding the point you've
                made above...which is not at all the same as disagreeing or saying you
                don't know what you're taking about...I'm remembering a Peter Falk
                line to a young Japanese woman in "Husbands", "You're
                inscrutable"...so maybe I don't "scrute" well.

                On the otherhand, I always harbor the hope that we can have a good,
                knock-down, drag out...dialogue. We can always rely on our
                irreconcilable differences to sweeten things...but to do that,
                someone's going to say something definitive...or answer a pointed
                question without doing the spanish two-step :)....regards, Gaelman
              • isenhart7
                ... you ve ... saying you ... Falk ... good, ... pointed ... Gaelman Okay, I ll bite though I really think you should be talking to Dottie if it s the knock
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 27, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
                  "gaelman58" <gaelman58@...> wrote:

                  > Well me gal, I confess to not quite understanding the point
                  you've
                  > made above...which is not at all the same as disagreeing or
                  saying you
                  > don't know what you're taking about...I'm remembering a Peter
                  Falk
                  > line to a young Japanese woman in "Husbands", "You're
                  > inscrutable"...so maybe I don't "scrute" well.
                  >
                  > On the otherhand, I always harbor the hope that we can have a
                  good,
                  > knock-down, drag out...dialogue. We can always rely on our
                  > irreconcilable differences to sweeten things...but to do that,
                  > someone's going to say something definitive...or answer a
                  pointed
                  > question without doing the spanish two-step :)....regards,
                  Gaelman


                  Okay, I'll bite though I really think you should be talking to Dottie if
                  it's the knock down drag out you want. You asked:

                  Are you saying that the current sciences evolved from the
                  Rosicrucian path whereas Anthroposophy came out of another
                  context?

                  So yep, I'd say that and here's why-here's the qualifyer-not that
                  there are seperate contexts-no I'm not thinking fe of a physical
                  context and a spiritual context-like the natural sciences arose
                  from a physical context and SS arose from a spiritual context. I'd
                  say THE context changed significantly and that SS arose out of
                  therefore a different context. Ha-Val
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.