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

"On the 'anthroposophy and racism' hoax"

Expand Messages
  • kmlightseeker
    On the anthroposophy and racism hoax - Excerpt: The Commission states that several scientific discernments of Rudolf Steiner are discriminatory by
    Message 1 of 29 , Apr 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "On the 'anthroposophy and racism' hoax"


      - Excerpt:

      "The Commission states that several scientific discernments of Rudolf
      Steiner are discriminatory by comparing them to neo-Darwinism. Thus,
      the commission objects to Rudolf Steiner's statement that pregnant
      white women could give birth to mulatto-children, from reading a
      "Negro-novel". Implicit in the original real context of this statement
      Rudolf Steiner shows himself as being a supporter of Lamarckism, which
      in those days was popular amongst scientists. This view takes the line
      that the sense-impressions via the body (i.c. of the mother) can have
      a retroaction on the unborn child and its heredity. Biologists call
      this "reverse transcription", through which a human being as an
      individuality, can break through his heredity and blood ties, and thus
      surmounting species or the race.

      Pre-eminently, Lamarckism is the scientific argument, showing that we
      are able to break through the bonds with our race. Even Charles
      Darwin, the well-known biologist on evolution, believed that the human
      organism can transform its genes and formulated this in his hypothesis
      of pangenesis. On the contrary, since "Weismann", neo-Darwinism states
      that our genes are primary, and that in this respect, the human
      organism only is a slave to its genes.

      To accuse Rudolf Steiner of discrimination in places where he resists
      neo-Darwinism, and to criminally condemn his scientific discernments
      on physiology is incomprehensible. It is irrelevant whether or not a
      scientific discernment might turn out to be incorrect. The Commission
      although eager to claim, does not apply, contemporary Law. In several
      passages the Commission namely suggests that it is applying Dutch Law,
      but fails to do so. The Dutch Constitution as well as the Dutch
      Criminal Code prohibit retrospective conviction, but the Commission
      trespasses on this. As elsewhere, this occurs in the part where the
      Commission states that it is not allowed "to repeat the quotations now
      in the year 2000". This sounds great, and in line with societal
      standards, and seems to be a healthy form of self-criticism. In
      reality the Commission does not practice self-criticism, but
      criticizes Rudolf Steiner. Indeed, by this smart trick Criminal Law
      doesn't become "retroactive", but Steiner's text is "carried over"
      into the future Criminal Law and according to the Commission is thus
      after all covered by Criminal Law. Every jurist would be horrified by
      such a method, but indeed only a jurist can conceive of it. However it
      is a semi-juridical construction, which is foreign to Dutch Law.

      The Commission commits another incomprehensible absurdity in the
      "appendix of conclusions" (page 683) where it is admitting that not
      everything is clear. This concerns a passage of Rudolf Steiner about
      physiological processes: "degeneration" and "crumbling bones" on the
      part of the North American Indians and Malaysians. Despite the fact
      that apparently the Commission didn't understand what Rudolf Steiner
      was talking about in this case, it still qualifies these statements as
      juridical inadmissible. Could we accuse a physician of racism if in a
      contemporary book on physiology he discusses the degeneration of e.g.
      the thymes situated above the heart ? Is this medical point of view an
      insult for humanity ? Besides, it should be clear that degeneration
      also is a symptom common to white people but with them the
      degeneration mainly occurs in the nerve-system and less in the system
      of the bones. Only by a conceptual approach can this discernment be
      understood by studying Rudolf Steiner's texts intensively, and not by
      associatively judging them with indefinable and vague anti- or sympathies.

      It is however possible to associatively accuse Rudolf Steiner of
      discrimination of whites, because the Commission doesn't seem to be in
      the possession of explicit quotations which could obviously show the
      degeneration of the white race. Through its method the Commission
      insinuates in her "appendix of conclusions" that Rudolf Steiner
      advocates the superiority of the white race and simultaneously it
      tries to enfeeble this possible reproach in a completely defective
      manner. The Commission is selective because of the limitations it
      imposes on its self. It omits that according to Rudolf Steiner, the
      white race could degenerate to a shrewd animal, an "animal rationale",
      with extremely wicked qualities. Since with other races the loss of
      their humanity is not such an issue, whites are almost forced to
      develop their humanity in an "individual" way, says Steiner. Only by
      developing his/her individuality the brutalization that the white race
      brings with it, can be transformed.

      The fact that whites degenerate in a more unfavorable way than other
      races, coheres with the above mentioned Lamarckism. Since humans part
      wise build up their physical body out of sense-impressions, a white
      human being especially suffers from this, because degeneration with
      whites, above all, takes place in the nerve-sense system and not in
      the bone-system. Therefore he will tend to build up his body out of
      strongly degenerating forces. Seen as a race, whites come of worst in
      the eyes of Rudolf Steiner, but the Commission apparently did not have
      the courage to make this publicly known."

      [Source: http://www.bruisvat.nl/english/racismhoax.htm ]


      Any opinions on the article?
    • Theodor Grekenquist
      ... The argument about Rudolf Steiner was a racist, this is not only a contrived one. It is a groundless distraction from the problem with Steiner and
      Message 2 of 29 , Apr 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        kmlightseeker wrote:

        >To accuse Rudolf Steiner of discrimination in places where he
        >resists neo-Darwinism, and to criminally condemn his scientific
        >discernments on physiology is incomprehensible. It is irrelevant
        >whether or not a scientific discernment might turn out to be incorrect.

        The argument about Rudolf Steiner was a racist, this is not only a
        contrived one. It is a groundless distraction from the problem with
        Steiner and Anthroposophy. I cannot help the suspicion that people
        who make many true observations and points about this man and his
        philosophy and his claims, blow the whole thing, ruin their good
        case, when they say that the man was racist and fascist and
        anti-Semitic. What I suspect is that people who say that Steiner was
        a racist and that Anthroposophy is racist, they repeat this losing
        position because they do not have the proper conviction of reality,
        like I have.

        By conviction of reality I mean confidence in my rational and
        scientific worldpicture. When you have that conviction, you can
        easily see that Rudolf Steiner was out to lunch from he was born. It
        is evident in his autobiography. It is in my view wrong to conclude
        he was a trickster. He was instead of a trickster, a schizophrenic
        delusionist and a "spiritual" megalomaniac (similar to whoever called
        himself Jesus Christ). These schizophrenic, delusional spiritual
        megalomaniacs come in two types: The benign and sympathetic ones, and
        the malignant and destructive ones. Jesus and Buddha belong to the
        former category. Hitler and Caligula belong to the latter category.
        Rudolf Steiner also belongs to the former category, and to claim that
        he was a racist or anti-Semite or fascist is either based on
        insufficient study of the person and his irrational ramblings, or it
        is because those who say they do not believe in his fantastic
        visions, are taken in by it but they deny and suppress their
        attraction to Steiner's academically seductive madness. So they try
        to make the monster go away by resorting to racism, anti-Semitism,
        and fascism. There is nothing "occult" or intangible about such
        traits. It is like when Francis from Assissi, one of the most benign
        schizophrenics in history, put ashes on his food so it should not
        taste good. Putting racism on Steiner is like having ashes on St
        Francis' dinner plate, to take away the good taste so one is not seduced by it.

        There is no doubt in my mind that Steiner was not only benign and
        idelistic anti-racist who saw himself as a savior like Jesus. I see
        no evidence of deception in him. He believed his own wild fantasies
        since childhood. He probably had a bad and painful childhood,
        possibly with abuse that he suppressed and forgot. He never met his
        parents or siblings when he was grown up, it was too painful. The
        only thing he tells us is that he never played or had fun when a
        child, and he only began to play out his own childhood as a young
        tutor of children.

        This may explain why Steiner mixed all those childish fantasies into
        his scientific thinking. Fairy tales, poetry, and sunday school
        stories about Jesus. I do not understand why one is negative about
        Waldorf schools either, because Steiner was a kind and benevolent
        personality, and his world of fantasy is fun and good for children.
        He had a keen understanding of the science of his time and also of
        literature and philosophy. He could have been a very good scientist
        and scholar and philosopher too if he had not suffered from this
        "occult" schizophrenia. This disease may be infectious, so although I
        think there is nothing wrong having children in Waldorf, it is not
        good for all people to read Steiner's anthroposophy, especially when
        it makes them "anthros" to do so.

        I say let us look at the problem with Steiner and Anthroposophy for
        what it is: A case of schizophrenia matched with benign megalomania
        due to suppressed painful childhood experiences that made him project
        this suppressed childhood into his adult life and scientific
        thinking. It is not necessary to argue endlessly about racism and
        anti-Semitism and fascism, these are virtually non-existent and
        overshadowed by his rambling idealism about the brotherhood of man.
        The megalomaniac in him wanted to lift all of humanity out of misery
        into his own "heaven" or "spiritual world" where he could play school
        teacher for eternity. He sincerely believed in this fantasy so he was
        not a deceptive or bad person, only mad in a kind sort of way.


        Theodor Grekenquist
        http://www.skeptic.com/
      • Mike T
        Oh Theodor Grekenquist, It amazes me when I read rubbish such as you have written. Those who always attempt to pull Steiner down look empty and ridiculous in
        Message 3 of 29 , Apr 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh Theodor Grekenquist,
          It amazes me when I read rubbish such as you have written. Those who always
          attempt to pull Steiner down look empty and ridiculous in their small naive
          little worlds in comparison to the magnificient splendid far reaching all
          encompassing legacy that was left to mankind by Steiner. Until one has
          accomplished anything near to what Steiner has, one should really keep one's
          silly mouth from rattling out such stupid thoughts. Name just one 20th
          Century scholar who has achieved anything close to as much as Steiner - then
          when one cannot, one may just, maybe see how ridiculous the assertions made
          by you below appear.

          And even in John the Baptisits days, they beheaded him for bearing witness.
          Mike T

          >From: Theodor Grekenquist <grekenquist@...>
          >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "On the 'anthroposophy and racism'
          >hoax"
          >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:14:54 +0200
          >
          >snip>
          >I say let us look at the problem with Steiner and Anthroposophy for
          >what it is: A case of schizophrenia matched with benign megalomania
          >due to suppressed painful childhood experiences that made him project
          >this suppressed childhood into his adult life and scientific
          >thinking. It is not necessary to argue endlessly about racism and
          >anti-Semitism and fascism, these are virtually non-existent and
          >overshadowed by his rambling idealism about the brotherhood of man.
          >The megalomaniac in him wanted to lift all of humanity out of misery
          >into his own "heaven" or "spiritual world" where he could play school
          >teacher for eternity. He sincerely believed in this fantasy so he was
          >not a deceptive or bad person, only mad in a kind sort of way.
          >
          >
          >Theodor Grekenquist
          >http://www.skeptic.com/
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          15,000 Velocity Points Velocity NAB Credit Card
          http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DNAT030%2E23080%2E0%26clk%3D1%26creativeID%3D34301&_t=754983092&_r=emailtagline&_m=EXT
        • grekenquist
          ... who always ... small naive ... reaching all ... has ... keep one s ... Dear Mike T, I am terribly sorry that you think I have attempted to pull Steiner
          Message 4 of 29 , Apr 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike T"
            <leosun_75@...> wrote:
            >
            > Oh Theodor Grekenquist,
            > It amazes me when I read rubbish such as you have written. Those
            who always
            > attempt to pull Steiner down look empty and ridiculous in their
            small naive
            > little worlds in comparison to the magnificient splendid far
            reaching all
            > encompassing legacy that was left to mankind by Steiner. Until one
            has
            > accomplished anything near to what Steiner has, one should really
            keep one's
            > silly mouth from rattling out such stupid thoughts.

            Dear Mike T,

            I am terribly sorry that you think I have attempted to pull Steiner
            down by writing rubbish. It was not my intention. As I pointed out
            in my latest post, I admire Rudolf Steiner just like I admire John
            Nash. They both accomplished remarkable things in spite of their
            schizophrenia, and Steiner's accomplishment in avoiding a Nash-like
            collision between illusion and reality through a lifetime is
            astounding.

            > Name just one 20th
            > Century scholar who has achieved anything close to as much as
            Steiner

            Carl Jung, John Nash, and Albert Schweitzer perhaps?

            > - then
            > when one cannot, one may just, maybe see how ridiculous the
            assertions made
            > by you below appear.

            Would you consider granting me the courtesy of revealing what
            specific rational arguments you have for reaching such a conclusion,
            that my assertions are ridiculous?

            > And even in John the Baptisits days, they beheaded him for bearing
            witness.

            Excuse me, but who has been talking about beheading anyone for
            exercising free speech? That is what "bearing witness" is about, is
            it not? Free speech?

            Kind regards,

            Theodor
            http://www.skeptic.com/
          • elfuncle
            Hi Theodeor, Interesting post. Unique angle. You seem to suggest that schizophrenic madness has characterized very many prominent people through history, and
            Message 5 of 29 , Apr 30, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Theodeor,

              Interesting post. Unique angle. You seem to suggest that
              schizophrenic madness has characterized very many prominent people
              through history, and that spirituality or religiousness is some sort
              of mental disease.

              What you bring up in this way is very much on-topic here, because it
              is reminiscent of the conversation between Steiner and Rittlemeyer
              mentioned on the entry page of Anthroposophy Tomorrow, where Steiner
              is quoted as saying:

              "People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my earlier
              work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it."

              By his earlier works, he obviously meant not only his scholarly and
              literary works of the 18th century, but his major basic book, "The
              Philosophy of Freedom," which sums up his epistemology. I understand
              that you have an issue with this epistemology, that you also would
              characterize this as some sort of madness, part and parcel of the
              schizophrenic condition??

              Apart from that, here is something you wrote that really caught my
              attention:

              > (.........) they do not have the proper conviction of reality,
              > like I have.
              >
              > By conviction of reality I mean confidence in my rational and
              > scientific worldpicture.

              You seem to place a great deal of weight on this conviction of
              yours, which looks more like a religious crutch, although "anti-
              religious crutch" is a more appropriate term. What I am getting at
              is that you phrase this in such a way that your need for emotional
              security through a philosophical conviction appears to be more
              important to you than the objective, scientific truth based upon
              pure and cold thinking that you profess to embrace.

              > He was instead of a trickster, a schizophrenic
              > delusionist and a "spiritual" megalomaniac (similar to whoever
              called
              > himself Jesus Christ).

              So Jesus Christ was also a (benign?) schizophrenic megalomaniac; am
              I reading you right?

              Cheers,

              Tarjei
              http://uncletaz.com/
            • Mike T
              You say you have been here for two years. Now you would have been witness many a time refuting the type of statements you have made here in your post; so now
              Message 6 of 29 , Apr 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                You say you have been here for two years. Now you would have been witness
                many a time refuting the type of statements you have made here in your post;
                so now what motive have you all of a sudden to begin the whole denigration
                of Steiner again? And attempting to relate in some way John Nash to a Seiner
                is just such a denigration. Albert Sweitzer and Jung ofcourse were admirers
                / students of Steiners work. They would be the first to bow gracefully
                before a Steiner and admit of his abilities that far succeeded their own.
                But you, you are no friend to Steiner and I would say rather beneath
                contempt. Your methodolgy is well known - a wolf in sheeps clothing.

                One name you did not put on your scholars list is your own. Yet you see your
                self fit to judge when you do not come close to having the credentials to do
                so.

                You are beneath contempt.
                Mike T


                >From: "grekenquist" <grekenquist@...>
                >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "On the 'anthroposophy and racism'
                >hoax"
                >Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 02:07:56 -0000
                >
                >--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike T"
                ><leosun_75@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Oh Theodor Grekenquist,
                > > It amazes me when I read rubbish such as you have written. Those
                >who always
                > > attempt to pull Steiner down look empty and ridiculous in their
                >small naive
                > > little worlds in comparison to the magnificient splendid far
                >reaching all
                > > encompassing legacy that was left to mankind by Steiner. Until one
                >has
                > > accomplished anything near to what Steiner has, one should really
                >keep one's
                > > silly mouth from rattling out such stupid thoughts.
                >
                >Dear Mike T,
                >
                >I am terribly sorry that you think I have attempted to pull Steiner
                >down by writing rubbish. It was not my intention. As I pointed out
                >in my latest post, I admire Rudolf Steiner just like I admire John
                >Nash. They both accomplished remarkable things in spite of their
                >schizophrenia, and Steiner's accomplishment in avoiding a Nash-like
                >collision between illusion and reality through a lifetime is
                >astounding.
                >
                > > Name just one 20th
                > > Century scholar who has achieved anything close to as much as
                >Steiner
                >
                >Carl Jung, John Nash, and Albert Schweitzer perhaps?
                >
                > > - then
                > > when one cannot, one may just, maybe see how ridiculous the
                >assertions made
                > > by you below appear.
                >
                >Would you consider granting me the courtesy of revealing what
                >specific rational arguments you have for reaching such a conclusion,
                >that my assertions are ridiculous?
                >
                > > And even in John the Baptisits days, they beheaded him for bearing
                >witness.
                >
                >Excuse me, but who has been talking about beheading anyone for
                >exercising free speech? That is what "bearing witness" is about, is
                >it not? Free speech?
                >
                >Kind regards,
                >
                >Theodor
                >http://www.skeptic.com/
                >
                >
                >
                >

                _________________________________________________________________
                1000s of Sexy Singles online now at Lavalife - Click here
                http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D22031&_t=751140432&_m=EXT
              • Terence
                ... Yikes! I am curious Theodor, what qualifies you to state the above about Steiner. Are you a psycho-therapist, a Jungian Analyst? How are you able to grok
                Message 7 of 29 , May 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
                  <grekenquist@...> wrote:

                  > I say let us look at the problem with Steiner and Anthroposophy for
                  > what it is: A case of schizophrenia matched with benign megalomania
                  > due to suppressed painful childhood experiences that made him project
                  > this suppressed childhood into his adult life and scientific
                  > thinking. It is not necessary to argue endlessly about racism and
                  > anti-Semitism and fascism, these are virtually non-existent and
                  > overshadowed by his rambling idealism about the brotherhood of man.
                  > The megalomaniac in him wanted to lift all of humanity out of misery
                  > into his own "heaven" or "spiritual world" where he could play school
                  > teacher for eternity. He sincerely believed in this fantasy so he was
                  > not a deceptive or bad person, only mad in a kind sort of way.

                  Yikes!

                  I am curious Theodor, what qualifies you to state
                  the above about Steiner. Are you a
                  psycho-therapist, a Jungian Analyst? How are you
                  able to grok this? Or do you have an axe to grind?

                  Perhaps many of us are shizophrenic as in the Greek
                  skhizein ‘to split’ + phrÄ"n ‘mind,’ especially if
                  we have developed some capacity for either
                  Imagination, Inspiration and/or Intuition Our mind
                  would then be *split*. Huzzah!

                  I also wonder how many of us have unresolved family
                  of origin issues that remain suppressed. Be that as
                  it may, I am curious then as to how you are able to
                  ascertain the etiology of these unresolved issues
                  and how they lead to benign megalomania in Steiner.
                  My impression of megalomania is one of power or
                  dominion over others. How do you characterize the
                  word? Please cite historical examples of Steiner's
                  alleged penchant for megalomania. Nothing that I
                  read by folks who knew the man, like Rittlemeyer,
                  remotely suggest even a discreet and mild form of
                  megalomania (if such a psychological state is even
                  possible).

                  You seem to present to the list as one who is
                  attempting to be benign, yet at the same time
                  hypercritical towards Steiner. What is your
                  esoteric background? How did you get in touch with
                  Steiner's writings? How old are you, i.e. what
                  cycle of time are you currently experiencing?

                  Terence
                • Mike helsher
                  ... incorrect. ... was ... Well Theodore, I think I can muster up some empathy for your rather benign attitude toward Her Doctor. If Nieve realism floats
                  Message 8 of 29 , May 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
                    <grekenquist@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > kmlightseeker wrote:
                    >
                    > >To accuse Rudolf Steiner of discrimination in places where he
                    > >resists neo-Darwinism, and to criminally condemn his scientific
                    > >discernments on physiology is incomprehensible. It is irrelevant
                    > >whether or not a scientific discernment might turn out to be
                    incorrect.
                    >
                    > The argument about Rudolf Steiner was a racist, this is not only a
                    > contrived one. It is a groundless distraction from the problem with
                    > Steiner and Anthroposophy. I cannot help the suspicion that people
                    > who make many true observations and points about this man and his
                    > philosophy and his claims, blow the whole thing, ruin their good
                    > case, when they say that the man was racist and fascist and
                    > anti-Semitic. What I suspect is that people who say that Steiner
                    was
                    > a racist and that Anthroposophy is racist, they repeat this losing
                    > position because they do not have the proper conviction of reality,
                    > like I have.

                    Well Theodore, I think I can muster up some empathy for your
                    rather "benign" attitude toward Her Doctor. If Nieve realism floats
                    your boat right now then thats' fine by me. Water finds it's own
                    level, and it sounds to me that in your rather materialistic
                    conviction, you are at least able to see some truth about the
                    redundancy of the Steiner/Racist slander being blurtted out by a few
                    ideologically bent intellectually or emotionally disturbed
                    individuals.

                    I think your spot-on about Rudolf Steiners Moral aptitude, even if
                    you think he's a mad man.

                    Mike
                  • Theodor Grekenquist
                    ... It is true that I am not a friend of Steiner. I am not the friend of any other historical figure either. But I am shocked to learn that this puts me in
                    Message 9 of 29 , May 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Mike T, you wrote:

                      >But you, you are no friend to Steiner and I would say rather beneath
                      >contempt.

                      It is true that I am not a friend of Steiner. I am not the friend of
                      any other historical figure either. But I am shocked to learn that
                      this puts me in contempt. My conduct has not been disorderly, your honor.

                      >Your methodolgy is well known - a wolf in sheeps clothing.

                      I am not trying to devour you, Mike, or anyone else. I do not
                      understand why you see me as some - werewolf?

                      >One name you did not put on your scholars list is your own.

                      I suggest we drop this thing about scholars. It leads to all kinds of
                      strange arguments in a public forum.

                      >Yet you see your self fit to judge when you do not come close to
                      >having the credentials to do so.

                      I have not judged anyone, Mike, but you just put me in contempt of court.

                      >You are beneath contempt.

                      What is my punishment? Imprisonment, a fine, or a whipping?


                      Theodor Grekenquist
                      http://www.skeptic.com/
                    • Theodor Grekenquist
                      ... I mentioned in an earlier post that I am not trying to be benign, but I think that Steiner was a benign person. Theodor Grekenquist http://www.skeptic.com/
                      Message 10 of 29 , May 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Mike H, you wrote:

                        >Well Theodore, I think I can muster up some empathy for your rather
                        >"benign" attitude toward Her Doctor.

                        I mentioned in an earlier post that I am not trying to be benign, but
                        I think that Steiner was a benign person.


                        Theodor Grekenquist
                        http://www.skeptic.com/
                      • elfuncle
                        ... Theodor s critique of the Doctor doesn t look very benign to me. He regards Steiner s extraordinary faculties, that were acquired with tremendous labor and
                        Message 11 of 29 , May 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mike H wrote to Theodor:

                          > Well Theodore, I think I can muster up some empathy for your
                          > rather "benign" attitude toward Her Doctor.

                          Theodor's critique of the Doctor doesn't look very benign to me. He
                          regards Steiner's extraordinary faculties, that were acquired with
                          tremendous labor and intense struggle, as a mental illness, a
                          pathology.

                          There is, however, something very important for us to learn from this,
                          I think. Theodor discards all attacks against Steiner's personal moral
                          character and gets right to the very heart of the *real* objection
                          against anthroposophy, an objection that has been widespread from the
                          beginning but rarely voiced because one tends to be too respectful and
                          considerate to say these things. It is the position held by all those
                          who cling to the materialistic superstition based upon natural science
                          alone. Religions and philosophies in general do not threaten this
                          position because they are based upon blind faith and abstract
                          speculations, but spirituality grounded in true scientific
                          understanding arising from a waterproof epistemology fit for future
                          centuries can make some people nervous if they are not 100 per cent
                          convinced of their own materialistic world view. This is why I find it
                          so interesting that Theodor emphasizes his conviction, that he is
                          totally persuaded by the materialistic option. If he had not had this
                          conviction, he would not have dared to study anthroposophy at all, or
                          read anthroposophical email forums, without buying into those attacks
                          against Steiner's ethics.

                          Those who attack Steiner's personal character use racism and similar
                          smears as excuses to dismiss his Weltanhschauung. By construing
                          anthroposophy as something immoral and reprehensible, the lure of the
                          epistemology itself is reduced and rendered harmless. I believe
                          Theodor mentioned something like this in one of his posts.

                          Cheers,

                          Tarjei
                        • Terence
                          ... SNIP ... What we do not know is that Theodor read any of Steiner s books. The only mention of Steiner s books is that while as an counselor in a rehab he
                          Message 12 of 29 , May 2, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <reefer@...> wrote:

                            SNIP

                            >If he had not had this conviction, he would not
                            >have dared to study anthroposophy at all, or read
                            >anthroposophical email forums, without buying into
                            >those attacks against Steiner's ethics.

                            What we do not know is that Theodor read any of
                            Steiner's books. The only mention of Steiner's
                            books is that while as an counselor in a rehab he
                            saw a client reading Steiner. Theodor remains dumb
                            as to what he has read of Steiner.

                            To put together a comprehensive view of Steiner by
                            only reading email forums is a stretch, in my view.

                            Terence

                            PS: For what it is worth, I took the day off from
                            astrosophical practice so I have time to tickle the
                            keys. I forgot how much time this takes.
                          • Mike helsher
                            ... this, ... moral ... the ... and ... those ... science ... it ... this ... or ... attacks ... similar ... the ... Thanks Tarjei for the clarification. I
                            Message 13 of 29 , May 2, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                              <reefer@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Mike H wrote to Theodor:
                              >
                              > > Well Theodore, I think I can muster up some empathy for your
                              > > rather "benign" attitude toward Her Doctor.
                              >
                              > Theodor's critique of the Doctor doesn't look very benign to me. He
                              > regards Steiner's extraordinary faculties, that were acquired with
                              > tremendous labor and intense struggle, as a mental illness, a
                              > pathology.
                              >
                              > There is, however, something very important for us to learn from
                              this,
                              > I think. Theodor discards all attacks against Steiner's personal
                              moral
                              > character and gets right to the very heart of the *real* objection
                              > against anthroposophy, an objection that has been widespread from
                              the
                              > beginning but rarely voiced because one tends to be too respectful
                              and
                              > considerate to say these things. It is the position held by all
                              those
                              > who cling to the materialistic superstition based upon natural
                              science
                              > alone. Religions and philosophies in general do not threaten this
                              > position because they are based upon blind faith and abstract
                              > speculations, but spirituality grounded in true scientific
                              > understanding arising from a waterproof epistemology fit for future
                              > centuries can make some people nervous if they are not 100 per cent
                              > convinced of their own materialistic world view. This is why I find
                              it
                              > so interesting that Theodor emphasizes his conviction, that he is
                              > totally persuaded by the materialistic option. If he had not had
                              this
                              > conviction, he would not have dared to study anthroposophy at all,
                              or
                              > read anthroposophical email forums, without buying into those
                              attacks
                              > against Steiner's ethics.
                              >
                              > Those who attack Steiner's personal character use racism and
                              similar
                              > smears as excuses to dismiss his Weltanhschauung. By construing
                              > anthroposophy as something immoral and reprehensible, the lure of
                              the
                              > epistemology itself is reduced and rendered harmless. I believe
                              > Theodor mentioned something like this in one of his posts.
                              >
                              > Cheers,
                              >
                              > Tarjei
                              >


                              Thanks Tarjei for the clarification. I often just blurt out stuff on
                              this list in between family duties.

                              What you write above is exactly where my thoughts were focused, I
                              just didn't put any hard thinking into it at the time. Theodor"s
                              perspective doesn't seem to be aimed to "harm" a scary and
                              uncomfortable epistemology that could potentially uproot dogmatically
                              orientated dualistic simplicity. He seems comfortable and confident
                              in his materialistic convictions, and openly states what they are,
                              and that his conclusions about Steiner being schizo are direct result
                              of his personal conviction. I think that "attitude" to be
                              somewhat "benign" in comparison to a hidden agenda that seeks to
                              damage and destroy Steiner, and all that he brought to the world,
                              through passive aggressive intellectually pin-headed propaganda smear
                              tactics that associate him with the third Reich and the holocaust.

                              For me there seems to be a kind of overarching "Moral candor" in the
                              air with Theodor's meanderings. I don't mind much if people think
                              that Steiner was loony; I still wonder about that myself. And, the
                              most influential people throughout history were always thought to me
                              crazy in some way, by a majority of people. I think Theodor has
                              inadvertently stumbled across Rudolf Steiner's true Motive and
                              intent, which is anything but dangerous unless twisted by a different
                              individual with different motives and intent.

                              And that's what Steiner so often pointed at in both his philosophical
                              writings, and his anthroposophical writings: He challenges us to look
                              at our individual Motives, and intent.

                              A rational believer that leaves Steiner's Moral stature intact is
                              fine by me. I would simply disagree with his diagnosis of Steiner
                              being schizo, that's all. Mainly because I had a father that was
                              diagnosed with that, and from what I can tell from his writings
                              anyway, there is no way that Steiner compares to the schizo that
                              raised me.

                              Oh shit, now I'm musing: "the apple doesn't fall far from the
                              tree"...:^O

                              Mike
                            • Terence
                              ... SNIP ... Oi vai iz mir!! T
                              Message 14 of 29 , May 2, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher" <mhelsher@...> wrote:>

                                SNIP

                                > Oh shit, now I'm musing: "the apple doesn't fall far from the
                                > tree"...:^O

                                Oi vai iz mir!!

                                T
                              • winters_diana
                                Tarjei; ... I think this is a mistaken analysis because I know too many of the dreaded critics whom it doesn t fit. I, for instance, am definitely not 100
                                Message 15 of 29 , May 3, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Tarjei;
                                  >There is, however, something very important for us to learn from
                                  >this, I think. Theodor discards all attacks against Steiner's
                                  >personal moral character and gets right to the very heart of the
                                  >*real* objection against anthroposophy, an objection that has been
                                  >widespread from the beginning but rarely voiced because one tends to
                                  >be too respectful and considerate to say these things. It is the
                                  >position held by all those who cling to the materialistic
                                  >superstition based upon natural science alone. Religions and
                                  >philosophies in general do not threaten this position because they
                                  >are based upon blind faith and abstract speculations, but
                                  >spirituality grounded in true scientific understanding arising from
                                  >a waterproof epistemology fit for future centuries can make some
                                  >people nervous if they are not 100 per cent convinced of their own
                                  >materialistic world view.

                                  >This is why I find it so interesting that Theodor emphasizes his
                                  >conviction, that he is totally persuaded by the materialistic
                                  >option. If he had not had this conviction, he would not have dared
                                  >to study anthroposophy at all, or read anthroposophical email
                                  >forums, without buying into those attacks against Steiner's ethics.

                                  I think this is a mistaken analysis because I know too many of the
                                  dreaded "critics" whom it doesn't fit. I, for instance, am definitely
                                  not "100 percent convinced" of a materialistic world view, and am not
                                  afraid of particular forms of spirituality, and yet I don't fit your
                                  analysis of Theodor's profile, either, since I think it's obvious
                                  certain of Rudolf Steiner's views were racist. Too many other critics
                                  don't fit this either. Most critics of Steiner or anthroposophy hold
                                  spiritual views of one sort or another, whether it's a mainstream
                                  religious affiliation or various other forms of New Age this and
                                  that. They just didn't agree with anthroposophy and resented having
                                  it imposed on their family.

                                  >Those who attack Steiner's personal character use racism and similar
                                  >smears as excuses to dismiss his Weltanhschauung.

                                  No, the two aren't connected. Actually, critics try to stay off
                                  Steiner's "personal character." I would say Theodor comes closer to
                                  personal character than most critics do. It's probably irrelevant
                                  whether Steiner was mentally ill, used various consciousness-altering
                                  substances, had repressed childhood traumas, or was a misunderstood
                                  creative genius, or a complete charlatan. I think the doctrines, and
                                  the institutions based on them today, are what are worth looking at.

                                  >By construing anthroposophy as something immoral and reprehensible,
                                  >the lure of the epistemology itself is reduced and rendered
                                  >harmless.

                                  Not for me. The doctrines continue to be very interesting to me.

                                  Diana
                                • kmlightseeker
                                  Hi Theodor, ... I think there is a lot of interpetation involved, as is there is much speculation on received knowledge. The objections regarding Steiner s
                                  Message 16 of 29 , May 4, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Theodor,


                                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
                                    <grekenquist@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > kmlightseeker wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >To accuse Rudolf Steiner of discrimination in places where he
                                    > >resists neo-Darwinism, and to criminally condemn his scientific
                                    > >discernments on physiology is incomprehensible. It is irrelevant
                                    > >whether or not a scientific discernment might turn out to be incorrect.
                                    >
                                    > The argument about Rudolf Steiner was a racist, this is not only a
                                    > contrived one. It is a groundless distraction from the problem with
                                    > Steiner and Anthroposophy. I cannot help the suspicion that people
                                    > who make many true observations and points about this man and his
                                    > philosophy and his claims, blow the whole thing, ruin their good
                                    > case, when they say that the man was racist and fascist and
                                    > anti-Semitic. What I suspect is that people who say that Steiner was
                                    > a racist and that Anthroposophy is racist, they repeat this losing
                                    > position because they do not have the proper conviction of reality,
                                    > like I have.


                                    I think there is a lot of interpetation involved, as is there is much
                                    speculation on received knowledge. The objections regarding Steiner's
                                    claims are variously concerned with politics, science, history and so
                                    on, so I don't see there being a singular or major focus on racism,
                                    although it may be a dominant theme in criticism of Steiner. However,
                                    perhaps I would agree with you by saying that I feel there is an
                                    ideological element or commitment underlying convictions about reality
                                    which can distort thinking or development of ideas or perception.


                                    >
                                    > By conviction of reality I mean confidence in my rational and
                                    > scientific worldpicture. When you have that conviction, you can
                                    > easily see that Rudolf Steiner was out to lunch from he was born. It
                                    > is evident in his autobiography. It is in my view wrong to conclude
                                    > he was a trickster. He was instead of a trickster, a schizophrenic
                                    > delusionist and a "spiritual" megalomaniac (similar to whoever called
                                    > himself Jesus Christ). These schizophrenic, delusional spiritual
                                    > megalomaniacs come in two types: The benign and sympathetic ones, and
                                    > the malignant and destructive ones. Jesus and Buddha belong to the
                                    > former category. Hitler and Caligula belong to the latter category.
                                    > Rudolf Steiner also belongs to the former category, and to claim that
                                    > he was a racist or anti-Semite or fascist is either based on
                                    > insufficient study of the person and his irrational ramblings, or it
                                    > is because those who say they do not believe in his fantastic
                                    > visions, are taken in by it but they deny and suppress their
                                    > attraction to Steiner's academically seductive madness. So they try
                                    > to make the monster go away by resorting to racism, anti-Semitism,
                                    > and fascism. There is nothing "occult" or intangible about such
                                    > traits. It is like when Francis from Assissi, one of the most benign
                                    > schizophrenics in history, put ashes on his food so it should not
                                    > taste good. Putting racism on Steiner is like having ashes on St
                                    > Francis' dinner plate, to take away the good taste so one is not
                                    seduced by it.


                                    Like others have said in this and related recent threads I have doubts
                                    about Steiner being schizophrenic, but at the same time I cannot rule
                                    out the idea or possibility. We cannot do more than speculate about
                                    the possibility of mental illness in Steiner, indicating parellels (as
                                    if have in this thread) between expected disease symptoms and
                                    characterisitics and the aspects of Steiner we have received in books.
                                    This is not the same thing as a face to face diagnosis, I would think.

                                    I would agree that people are to some degree seduced by Steiner's
                                    thought, and feel antagonised when within themselves disillusionment
                                    sets in about his teachings. Possibly this could lead to large efforts
                                    to suppress a former influence or teacher/guru.


                                    >
                                    > There is no doubt in my mind that Steiner was not only benign and
                                    > idelistic anti-racist who saw himself as a savior like Jesus. I see
                                    > no evidence of deception in him. He believed his own wild fantasies
                                    > since childhood. He probably had a bad and painful childhood,
                                    > possibly with abuse that he suppressed and forgot. He never met his
                                    > parents or siblings when he was grown up, it was too painful. The
                                    > only thing he tells us is that he never played or had fun when a
                                    > child, and he only began to play out his own childhood as a young
                                    > tutor of children.

                                    Well, with respect you could not know for sure whether he was
                                    experiencing fantasies or not. You were not there, and you were not
                                    him. It should be remembered that the age of modern science is only
                                    300 years old compared to 3000/4000 plus years of civilization,
                                    philosophy and religion/spirituality. The assumption that
                                    materialistic science has final unequivicol authority on what is
                                    reality and what is not is a flimsy one in my view. So, the sciences
                                    of neurology, psychiatry and allied disciplines can make some claims,
                                    but these are based on *beliefs* about reality, based on a mechanistic
                                    foundation. Therefore, claims about Steiner's emotional and mental
                                    state, made as they are after the fact and in line with certain ideas
                                    about reality and not others, are shown to be somewhat less convincing
                                    and helpful in understanding Steiner's thinking.


                                    >
                                    > This may explain why Steiner mixed all those childish fantasies into
                                    > his scientific thinking. Fairy tales, poetry, and sunday school
                                    > stories about Jesus. I do not understand why one is negative about
                                    > Waldorf schools either, because Steiner was a kind and benevolent
                                    > personality, and his world of fantasy is fun and good for children.
                                    > He had a keen understanding of the science of his time and also of
                                    > literature and philosophy. He could have been a very good scientist
                                    > and scholar and philosopher too if he had not suffered from this
                                    > "occult" schizophrenia. This disease may be infectious, so although I
                                    > think there is nothing wrong having children in Waldorf, it is not
                                    > good for all people to read Steiner's anthroposophy, especially when
                                    > it makes them "anthros" to do so.


                                    There is always the risk of a cultic following developing in such
                                    situations. As far as the occult is concerned, it has a very long
                                    tradition and history and with many varied manifestations and ideas -
                                    it is not the exclusive providence of shysters or otherwise mistaken
                                    people.


                                    >
                                    > I say let us look at the problem with Steiner and Anthroposophy for
                                    > what it is: A case of schizophrenia matched with benign megalomania
                                    > due to suppressed painful childhood experiences that made him project
                                    > this suppressed childhood into his adult life and scientific
                                    > thinking. It is not necessary to argue endlessly about racism and
                                    > anti-Semitism and fascism, these are virtually non-existent and
                                    > overshadowed by his rambling idealism about the brotherhood of man.
                                    > The megalomaniac in him wanted to lift all of humanity out of misery
                                    > into his own "heaven" or "spiritual world" where he could play school
                                    > teacher for eternity. He sincerely believed in this fantasy so he was
                                    > not a deceptive or bad person, only mad in a kind sort of way.


                                    You have no independently observed and verified evidence that it was a
                                    fantasy. You've utilised the tools of biography and history to make
                                    scientific judgements, which can only be speculations and with the
                                    possibility of inaccuracy and gaps in knowledge. But I agree he was
                                    determined to make the world take a different course based on his
                                    ideas, and that he was very much a huminatarian.


                                    Regards,

                                    Keith


                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Theodor Grekenquist
                                    > http://www.skeptic.com/
                                    >
                                  • Theodor Grekenquist
                                    ... This seems to be one of the reasons why there is much irrational hostility here against science-based reality check. Atheism is the default position of
                                    Message 17 of 29 , May 4, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Keith wrote:

                                      > perhaps I would agree with you by saying that I feel there is an
                                      > ideological element or commitment underlying convictions about
                                      > reality which can distort thinking or development of ideas or perception.

                                      This seems to be one of the reasons why there is much irrational
                                      hostility here against science-based reality check. Atheism is the
                                      default position of science, but when this is pointed out,
                                      fundamentalist philo-anthros come out of the woods with their "how
                                      dare you " attitudes, and some of them go into hyperdefensive
                                      interrogation mode.

                                      >Like others have said in this and related recent threads I have
                                      >doubts about Steiner being schizophrenic, but at the same time I
                                      >cannot rule out the idea or possibility. We cannot do more than
                                      >speculate about the possibility of mental illness in Steiner,
                                      >indicating parellels (as if have in this thread) between expected
                                      >disease symptoms and characterisitics and the aspects of Steiner we
                                      >have received in books. This is not the same thing as a face to face
                                      >diagnosis, I would think.
                                      >
                                      >I would agree that people are to some degree seduced by Steiner's
                                      >thought, and feel antagonised when within themselves disillusionment
                                      >sets in about his teachings.

                                      That condition is not indicative of schizophrenia. Adherents of
                                      religions display the same syndrome. They believe, have faith, in a
                                      theology or notional system, which leaves room for doubt and
                                      uncertainty like anything else we might believe in, and when their
                                      object of faith is challenged, this gives rise to doubt and fear of
                                      faith-loss resulting in antagonism and hostility.

                                      I have observed other symptoms among certain candidates here on
                                      Anthroposophy Tomorrow, however, that indicate semi-advanced stages
                                      of philo-anthroposophical schizophrenia. I will refrain from
                                      mentioning names, but it should be pointed out that the pathological
                                      element consists of failing to distinguish between belief and
                                      knowledge, and that the condition may be classified as semi-advanced
                                      when the the afflicted individual in question is using his or her
                                      fantasy as an encyclopedia for history, astro-physics, biology,
                                      geology and so on and mixes this with a home-spun mythology. They put
                                      the second world war before the first one and insert the landing of
                                      space ships in between, chanting, "Beam Me Onboard, Doctor!" and then
                                      they write their own firecracking apocalypses and Doomsday scenarios
                                      and look down on real scientific achievers with contempt for being
                                      "materialistic" and having "shrunken etheric bodies" the size of peas.

                                      >Possibly this could lead to large efforts to suppress a former
                                      >influence or teacher/guru.

                                      They're certainly making large efforts to suppress all kinds of
                                      things, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are some gurus too in
                                      what Steiner called "the slime at the bottom of the soul."

                                      >Well, with respect you could not know for sure whether he was
                                      >experiencing fantasies or not. You were not there, and you were not him.

                                      Ah my friend, when we weren't there ourselves, we must proceed
                                      accurately and scientifically to find our answers, and is a lot to go
                                      on. Steiner's sexual silence, Marie's oedipus complex, Ita's strange
                                      dreams, their early Lucifer Cult that is still haunting the slime at
                                      the bottom of philo-anthroposophical fundamentalist souls on this
                                      list who are chanting for the Doctor to beam them onboard.

                                      >It should be remembered that the age of modern science is only 300
                                      >years old compared to 3000/4000 plus years of civilization,
                                      >philosophy and religion/spirituality.

                                      Exactly. That is why it takes time to root out all such religious and
                                      spiritual superstition so we can put an end to wars and terrorism and
                                      crime, they all happen because of religion and spiritism.

                                      >The assumption that materialistic science has final unequivicol
                                      >authority on what is reality and what is not is a flimsy one in my view.

                                      It is not a question of authority, only of what is true. And we all
                                      know that the world began with the Big Bang and that biological life
                                      started with a primeval chemical soup, that there is no life without
                                      biological cells and when you're deaqd, you're dead. Finito, end of
                                      story. Nothing wrong with that, it's how it should be. And those who
                                      want something more can turn to the sciences of the future like
                                      bionics, cryonics, and space travel.

                                      >So, the sciences of neurology, psychiatry and allied disciplines can
                                      >make some claims, but these are based on *beliefs* about reality,
                                      >based on a mechanistic foundation.

                                      These sciences are based on physical reality reality that can be
                                      seen, heard and touched and observed via instruments. It has nothing
                                      whatsoever to do with fantasy or belief or mythology.

                                      >Therefore, claims about Steiner's emotional and mental state, made
                                      >as they are after the fact and in line with certain ideas about
                                      >reality and not others, are shown to be somewhat less convincing and
                                      >helpful in understanding Steiner's thinking.

                                      Of course these studies are inconclusive, but Steiner's detalied
                                      psychoanalysis and diagnosis will be published someday.

                                      >As far as the occult is concerned, it has a very long tradition and
                                      >history and with many varied manifestations and ideas - it is not
                                      >the exclusive providence of shysters or otherwise mistaken people.

                                      Occult means that people think they know what they only believe.
                                      Occultists are therefore schizophrenic.


                                      Theodor Grekenquist
                                      http://www.skeptic.com/
                                    • Joel Wendt
                                      ... These are the myths of scientism, for which there is no empirical evidence. Here is demonstrated how thinking, which knows not its own origins in the
                                      Message 18 of 29 , May 5, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Theodor Grekenquist wrote:

                                        >
                                        > It is not a question of authority, only of what is true. And we all
                                        > know that the world began with the Big Bang and that biological life
                                        > started with a primeval chemical soup, that there is no life without
                                        > biological cells and when you're deaqd, you're dead. Finito, end of
                                        > story. Nothing wrong with that, it's how it should be. And those who
                                        > want something more can turn to the sciences of the future like
                                        > bionics, cryonics, and space travel.
                                        >
                                        These are the myths of scientism, for which there is no empirical
                                        evidence. Here is demonstrated how thinking, which knows not its own
                                        origins in the depths of the mind (the soul/spirit inner nexus), can
                                        lead to great confusion. The scientist uses a tool (his/her mind),
                                        toward which she/he does not apply the processes of empirical
                                        investigation - careful observation and clear logical thinking. With
                                        this ill-used tool, the results can only be theories (fancies)
                                        disconnected from reality, for by leaving an investigation of the mind
                                        out of the picture, the scientist only develops knowledge of half the
                                        problem.

                                        Yes, the sense world needs to be investigated - rigorously. But the
                                        tool used in the investigation must itself be just as rigorously
                                        investigated. Otherwise it just puts out egregious bullshit of the kind
                                        next quoted:

                                        "I have observed other symptoms among certain candidates here on
                                        Anthroposophy Tomorrow, however, that indicate semi-advanced stages
                                        of philo-anthroposophical schizophrenia. I will refrain from
                                        mentioning names, but it should be pointed out that the pathological
                                        element consists of failing to distinguish between belief and
                                        knowledge, and that the condition may be classified as semi-advanced
                                        when the the afflicted individual in question is using his or her
                                        fantasy as an encyclopedia for history, astro-physics, biology,
                                        geology and so on and mixes this with a home-spun mythology. They put
                                        the second world war before the first one and insert the landing of
                                        space ships in between, chanting, "Beam Me Onboard, Doctor!" and then
                                        they write their own firecracking apocalypses and Doomsday scenarios
                                        and look down on real scientific achievers with contempt for being
                                        "materialistic" and having "shrunken etheric bodies" the size of peas."

                                        As someone with 18 years in the field of mental health, it is clear that
                                        the author of these words is as ignorant of his own mind as he is of the
                                        mind of anyone else.

                                        warm regards,
                                        joel
                                      • grekenquist
                                        ... clear that ... of the ... If you say things like that to your patients, I am glad I m not one of them. My own therapists have always been very
                                        Message 19 of 29 , May 5, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
                                          <hermit@...> wrote:

                                          > As someone with 18 years in the field of mental health, it is
                                          clear that
                                          > the author of these words is as ignorant of his own mind as he is
                                          of the
                                          > mind of anyone else.

                                          If you say things like that to your patients, I am glad I'm not one
                                          of them. My own therapists have always been very understanding,
                                          respectful, and humble, but perhaps anthroposophical therapy is
                                          supposed to be arrogant and condescending because the Doctor said so.

                                          > warm regards,
                                          > joel

                                          I love you too, Joel, although your fellow anthroposophists think
                                          that I am a cold, unloving and unfeeling robot with an "etheric
                                          body" shrunk to the size of a pea. When the ignorance you accuse me
                                          of is added to that, I guess my value as a human being is below that
                                          old facility dung I have been reading about here.

                                          Theodor Grekenquist
                                          http://www.skeptic.com/
                                        • Joel Wendt
                                          Dear Theodor, I can only respond to what you write. You put a lot of at odds ideas in a single sentence, including disparaging remarks about anthroposophists
                                          Message 20 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Theodor,

                                            I can only respond to what you write. You put a lot of at odds
                                            ideas in a single sentence, including disparaging remarks about
                                            anthroposophists and Steiner. You create the picture others have of you
                                            here.

                                            Like most anthroposophists (and Steiner), we too are human beings,
                                            flawed and real. But when you make your own remarks describing Steiner
                                            as schizophrenic, and anthroposophists as believers in myths, then why
                                            are you surprised when what you put out comes back to you.

                                            What goes around comes around, does it not?

                                            You also make big assumptions. You assume I have patients to whom I
                                            speak and say things like I said to you. But you don't actually know
                                            what it means when I say I have 18 years experience in mental health.
                                            Let me give you a clue there.

                                            You seem to conflate schizophrenia and multiple personality
                                            disorder, two very distinct psychological states or "diseases".
                                            Schizophrenia is clearly is dysfunction at the level of brain chemistry
                                            (often resulting in hearing voices), while MPD, once a popular
                                            diagnosis, has fallen into disrepute, and many now see it as a variation
                                            on one or more character disorders (as well as a trap into which many
                                            therapists, who only have master degrees in social work, have fallen).

                                            The field of psychiatry and psychology, below the level of PhD, is
                                            filled with many people who have no business treating other people.
                                            MPD, along with the once assumed idea that every young woman with any of
                                            the various eating disorders has been abused but repressed the memory,
                                            seems to be more an invention of the poorly trained therapist then a
                                            real condition of the mind.

                                            Because the nature of mental therapies can lead to confusion about
                                            objectivity, and the role of the therapist as a helper and support, it
                                            has come about that the truth of the patient's mental state often slides
                                            away. Poorly trained therapists will believe almost anything the
                                            patient says (trying to be supportive), while the patients, especially
                                            those with character disorders, will invent almost any symptom in order
                                            to gain their secondary goals.

                                            Even PhD therapists have difficulty here. I once saw a PhD doctor
                                            accept as a patient a street whore who was (as usual) also a heroin
                                            addict, and within a week the doctor had discovered she had 23
                                            personalities. Of course, for this addict, she now had an official
                                            excuse to refuse to confront her addiction, because it wasn't her fault
                                            anymore, it was the fault of one of her "alternate personalities".

                                            A secondary goal for someone with a character disorder is not
                                            treatment or cure, but rather some other objective or pay off, which the
                                            patient with the character disorder seeks. They become, in a very real
                                            sense, co-dependent with the therapist, who feeds their need for seeing
                                            themselves as "ill", while all the while the real goal is to have
                                            something they can use to portray themselves as a victim and use that
                                            victim-hood position in order to manipulate their environment.

                                            You try to talk the talk, but give no evidence in this field of
                                            being able to walk the walk, either as a patient or as someone in a
                                            position to diagnose others.

                                            Maybe you should leave this list and concentrate on your theraputic
                                            needs. Someone serious about their treatment, and their own mental
                                            health, will have no problem understanding this.

                                            warm regards,
                                            joel

                                            grekenquist wrote:

                                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
                                            > <hermit@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > As someone with 18 years in the field of mental health, it is
                                            > clear that
                                            > > the author of these words is as ignorant of his own mind as he is
                                            > of the
                                            > > mind of anyone else.
                                            >
                                            > If you say things like that to your patients, I am glad I'm not one
                                            > of them. My own therapists have always been very understanding,
                                            > respectful, and humble, but perhaps anthroposophical therapy is
                                            > supposed to be arrogant and condescending because the Doctor said so.
                                            >
                                            > > warm regards,
                                            > > joel
                                            >
                                            > I love you too, Joel, although your fellow anthroposophists think
                                            > that I am a cold, unloving and unfeeling robot with an "etheric
                                            > body" shrunk to the size of a pea. When the ignorance you accuse me
                                            > of is added to that, I guess my value as a human being is below that
                                            > old facility dung I have been reading about here.
                                            >
                                            > Theodor Grekenquist
                                            > http://www.skeptic.com/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > SPONSORED LINKS
                                            > Rudolf steiner
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Rudolf+steiner&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=9246Q4QXtW6SFeXTDT1GeA>
                                            > Anthroposophy
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Anthroposophy&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=Kk1-kMaUm8bzwbM_C9IvzA>
                                            > Occult
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Occult&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=q6JE59rw8iL8N54E2ackMw>
                                            >
                                            > Straight from the heart
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Straight+from+the+heart&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=FjO6ZXXC4c65BvtAAurXQg>
                                            > Beyond belief
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Beyond+belief&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=ioca_VAk_Ci1OFYl6zSyIg>
                                            > Occult book
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Occult+book&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Anthroposophy&w3=Occult&w4=Straight+from+the+heart&w5=Beyond+belief&w6=Occult+book&c=6&s=116&.sig=9CpAR6_REh7JRMW9QrhI3w>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                            >
                                            > * Visit your group "anthroposophy_tomorrow
                                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow>" on the web.
                                            >
                                            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                            > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                            >
                                            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                            > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            >
                                          • Judy Baumbauer
                                            Dear Joel, What you write is very interesting. Do you ever come to Germany? I d love to have my husband meet you. He s a eurythmist who has (or thinks he has)
                                            Message 21 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear Joel,
                                              What you write is very interesting. Do you ever come to Germany? I'd love to have my husband meet you. He's a eurythmist who has (or thinks he has) MPD.
                                              Warm regards,
                                              Judy

                                              Joel Wendt <hermit@...> schrieb:
                                              Dear Theodor,

                                              I can only respond to what you write. You put a lot of at odds
                                              ideas in a single sentence, including disparaging remarks about
                                              anthroposophists and Steiner. You create the picture others have of you
                                              here.

                                              Like most anthroposophists (and Steiner), we too are human beings,
                                              flawed and real. But when you make your own remarks describing Steiner
                                              as schizophrenic, and anthroposophists as believers in myths, then why
                                              are you surprised when what you put out comes back to you.

                                              What goes around comes around, does it not?

                                              You also make big assumptions. You assume I have patients to whom I
                                              speak and say things like I said to you. But you don't actually know
                                              what it means when I say I have 18 years experience in mental health.
                                              Let me give you a clue there.

                                              You seem to conflate schizophrenia and multiple personality
                                              disorder, two very distinct psychological states or "diseases".
                                              Schizophrenia is clearly is dysfunction at the level of brain chemistry
                                              (often resulting in hearing voices), while MPD, once a popular
                                              diagnosis, has fallen into disrepute, and many now see it as a variation
                                              on one or more character disorders (as well as a trap into which many
                                              therapists, who only have master degrees in social work, have fallen).

                                              The field of psychiatry and psychology, below the level of PhD, is
                                              filled with many people who have no business treating other people.
                                              MPD, along with the once assumed idea that every young woman with any of
                                              the various eating disorders has been abused but repressed the memory,
                                              seems to be more an invention of the poorly trained therapist then a
                                              real condition of the mind.

                                              Because the nature of mental therapies can lead to confusion about
                                              objectivity, and the role of the therapist as a helper and support, it
                                              has come about that the truth of the patient's mental state often slides
                                              away. Poorly trained therapists will believe almost anything the
                                              patient says (trying to be supportive), while the patients, especially
                                              those with character disorders, will invent almost any symptom in order
                                              to gain their secondary goals.

                                              Even PhD therapists have difficulty here. I once saw a PhD doctor
                                              accept as a patient a street whore who was (as usual) also a heroin
                                              addict, and within a week the doctor had discovered she had 23
                                              personalities. Of course, for this addict, she now had an official
                                              excuse to refuse to confront her addiction, because it wasn't her fault
                                              anymore, it was the fault of one of her "alternate personalities".

                                              A secondary goal for someone with a character disorder is not
                                              treatment or cure, but rather some other objective or pay off, which the
                                              patient with the character disorder seeks. They become, in a very real
                                              sense, co-dependent with the therapist, who feeds their need for seeing
                                              themselves as "ill", while all the while the real goal is to have
                                              something they can use to portray themselves as a victim and use that
                                              victim-hood position in order to manipulate their environment.

                                              You try to talk the talk, but give no evidence in this field of
                                              being able to walk the walk, either as a patient or as someone in a
                                              position to diagnose others.

                                              Maybe you should leave this list and concentrate on your theraputic
                                              needs. Someone serious about their treatment, and their own mental
                                              health, will have no problem understanding this.

                                              warm regards,
                                              joel

                                              grekenquist wrote:

                                              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
                                              > wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > As someone with 18 years in the field of mental health, it is
                                              > clear that
                                              > > the author of these words is as ignorant of his own mind as he is
                                              > of the
                                              > > mind of anyone else.
                                              >
                                              > If you say things like that to your patients, I am glad I'm not one
                                              > of them. My own therapists have always been very understanding,
                                              > respectful, and humble, but perhaps anthroposophical therapy is
                                              > supposed to be arrogant and condescending because the Doctor said so.
                                              >
                                              > > warm regards,
                                              > > joel
                                              >
                                              > I love you too, Joel, although your fellow anthroposophists think
                                              > that I am a cold, unloving and unfeeling robot with an "etheric
                                              > body" shrunk to the size of a pea. When the ignorance you accuse me
                                              > of is added to that, I guess my value as a human being is below that
                                              > old facility dung I have been reading about here.
                                              >
                                              > Theodor Grekenquist
                                              > http://www.skeptic.com/
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > SPONSORED LINKS
                                              > Rudolf steiner
                                              >
                                              > Anthroposophy
                                              >
                                              > Occult
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Straight from the heart
                                              >
                                              > Beyond belief
                                              >
                                              > Occult book
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                              >
                                              > * Visit your group "anthroposophy_tomorrow
                                              > " on the web.
                                              >
                                              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                              > Service .
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              >



                                              ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                                              Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
                                              http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/I3dslB/TM
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                                              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/

                                              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                                              Yahoo! Mail - Sie denken an Ihre Sicherheit? Das tun wir auch .

                                            • Joel Wendt
                                              ... Dear Judy, I don t travel well (age 65 and much overweight), so Germany is not on the radar. Was there once over 40 years ago, while in the Air Force (met
                                              Message 22 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Judy Baumbauer wrote:

                                                > Dear Joel,
                                                > What you write is very interesting. Do you ever come to Germany? I'd
                                                > love to have my husband meet you. He's a eurythmist who has (or thinks
                                                > he has) MPD.
                                                > Warm regards,
                                                > Judy
                                                >

                                                Dear Judy,

                                                I don't travel well (age 65 and much overweight), so Germany is not
                                                on the radar. Was there once over 40 years ago, while in the Air Force
                                                (met an interesting woman in Berlin, got drunk in a beer hall in Munich,
                                                and gambled in Garmisch).

                                                We do have an inner life that is rich in variation of mood and train
                                                of thought. Between our i-AM, the double-complex, and the variety of
                                                life experience that confronts us daily (and often much too rapidly for
                                                serious reflection), our soul produces many ways of wise being in
                                                response. Walt Whitman wrote somewhere in Leaves of Grass something on
                                                the order of: "If I contradict myself, it is because I am multitudes".

                                                In my own investigations of inner life, as well as many years
                                                intimate contact with so-called "emotionally disturbed" folks, it seems
                                                clear to me that MPD is a term we get from our culture that doesn't
                                                adequately connect to our real inner nature. Perhaps your husband needs
                                                to read Kuhlewind's "From Normal to Healthy", which contains practical
                                                spiritual guidance for how to meet the seeming chaos of our inner life
                                                and find its true nature.

                                                Anyone here know this book well?

                                                warm regards,
                                                joel
                                              • Mike helsher
                                                ... I d love to have my husband meet you. He s a eurythmist who has (or thinks he has) MPD. ... Hello there Judy, Oh the disorders made to order these days!
                                                Message 23 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Judy Baumbauer
                                                  <judy.baumbauer@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Dear Joel,
                                                  > What you write is very interesting. Do you ever come to Germany?
                                                  I'd love to have my husband meet you. He's a eurythmist who has (or
                                                  thinks he has) MPD.
                                                  > Warm regards,


                                                  Hello there Judy,

                                                  Oh the disorders made to order these days!

                                                  You remind me of someone? They used to call me "Moody Mike" remember?

                                                  Mike
                                                • Judy Baumbauer
                                                  Mike helsher schrieb: --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Judy Baumbauer ... I d love to have my husband meet you. He s a
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Mike helsher <mhelsher@...> schrieb:
                                                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Judy Baumbauer
                                                    wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Dear Joel,
                                                    > What you write is very interesting. Do you ever come to Germany?
                                                    I'd love to have my husband meet you. He's a eurythmist who has (or
                                                    thinks he has) MPD.
                                                    > Warm regards,


                                                    Hello there Judy,

                                                    Oh the disorders made to order these days!

                                                    You remind me of someone? They used to call me "Moody Mike" remember?

                                                    Mike
                                                    J: No.

                                                    Judy




                                                    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                                                    Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
                                                    http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/I3dslB/TM
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/

                                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                    anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






                                                    Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
                                                    Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!

                                                  • Theodor Grekenquist
                                                    ... So far, schi8zophrenia and myths have not come back to me. I will explain the relationship between Steiner s illusions and his followers myths below. ...
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hello Joel, you wrote:

                                                      >But when you make your own remarks describing Steiner as
                                                      >schizophrenic, and anthroposophists as believers in myths, then why
                                                      >are you surprised when what you put out comes back to you.

                                                      So far, schi8zophrenia and myths have not come back to me. I will
                                                      explain the relationship between Steiner's illusions and his
                                                      followers' myths below.

                                                      >You also make big assumptions. You assume I have patients to whom I
                                                      >speak and say things like I said to you.

                                                      Yes, I thought it might be part of your technique. Bury them first,
                                                      crush their egos, and then rebuild them afterwards. The bootcamp approach.

                                                      >But you don't actually know what it means when I say I have 18 years
                                                      >experience in mental health.

                                                      Wow.

                                                      >You seem to conflate schizophrenia and multiple personality
                                                      >disorder, two very distinct psychological states or "diseases".

                                                      Steiner suffered from the former, like John Nash. I have had my share
                                                      of problems with the latter, and I still do.

                                                      John Nash was pursued by an imaginary room mate from Princeton, his
                                                      little niece, and a G-man and his Pentagon staff. If Nash had held
                                                      lectures about these characters being real but only visible to
                                                      "clairvoyants" like himself, his students would have been believers in myth.

                                                      Rudolf Steiner was not followed around by two men and a little girl,
                                                      but instead by astral and etheric bodies, Lucifer and Ahriman and
                                                      ghosts and nature spirits. But instead of facing his illusions for
                                                      what they were, he sought to make them real by concocting a home-spun
                                                      epistemology. It looks as if he started this project at a young age
                                                      to cure himself, or to recognize his illusions the way John Nash did,
                                                      but in the process he did not succeed in writing off his
                                                      hallucinations, so he came to claim that "monism" should include
                                                      dreams and visions because they were "empirical".

                                                      >The field of psychiatry and psychology, below the level of PhD, is
                                                      >filled with many people who have no business treating other people.

                                                      The man who treated me in India, dr. Masaro Delitsu from Tokyo, had
                                                      his PhD, but he told me that he knew of much better therapists than
                                                      himself who did not have a university education. They were Zen
                                                      Buddhists, and you of all people should recognize this, because they
                                                      were considered "initiates" in the old days.

                                                      Personally, I am an atheist, but if I should turn to a religion, it
                                                      would have to be Buddhism, which is not theistic.

                                                      >Poorly trained therapists will believe almost anything the patient
                                                      >says (trying to be supportive), while the patients, especially those
                                                      >with character disorders, will invent almost any symptom in order to
                                                      >gain their secondary goals.

                                                      Fortunately, dr. Delitsu was a very experienced and shrewd therapist
                                                      who did not take any bullshit from me. He didn't really have to,
                                                      because I am not much of a bullshitter, but I was evasive at first
                                                      because I did not trust him.

                                                      >Even PhD therapists have difficulty here. I once saw a PhD doctor
                                                      >accept as a patient a street whore who was (as usual) also a heroin
                                                      >addict, and within a week the doctor had discovered she had 23
                                                      >personalities. Of course, for this addict, she now had an official
                                                      >excuse to refuse to confront her addiction, because it wasn't her
                                                      >fault anymore, it was the fault of one of her "alternate personalities".

                                                      I am not like that today. I take full responsibility for what my
                                                      personalities are doing. One of these personalities I call Billy, but
                                                      he has no name because he tends to adopt the characteristics of
                                                      people I meet, also online. I have apologized privately to another
                                                      list member for Billy's recent behavior.

                                                      I feel for that prostitute you mention who suffered from heavy drug
                                                      addiction in addition to struggling with as many personalities as I
                                                      first hade before I was treated. That is a very big burden to carry
                                                      around all at once. I have not swuffered from drug addiction, but I
                                                      have enjoyed the privilege of counselling such people. And the most
                                                      effective Zen-techniques to snap such people out of their misery are
                                                      things I learned from dr. Delitsu. Things may get dramatic sometimes,
                                                      and it happens that arms or legs are broken in the process, but if
                                                      it's done expertly, you may save up to eight or nine months of
                                                      laborious treatment time that way. Zen is like a shock, and it should
                                                      be felt like an electric charge, hurling you across the room and into
                                                      a brick wall if necessary.

                                                      >A secondary goal for someone with a character disorder is not
                                                      >treatment or cure, but rather some other objective or pay off, which
                                                      >the patient with the character disorder seeks. They become, in a
                                                      >very real sense, co-dependent with the therapist, who feeds their
                                                      >need for seeing themselves as "ill", while all the while the real
                                                      >goal is to have something they can use to portray themselves as a
                                                      >victim and use that victim-hood position in order to manipulate
                                                      >their environment.

                                                      That was a secondary effect of dr. Delitsu's "out to lunch"
                                                      treatment. It prevented me from becoming dependent on him and
                                                      manipulate his goodwill, and I have successfully applied the same
                                                      techique with some of my drug patients.

                                                      >You try to talk the talk, but give no evidence in this field of
                                                      >being able to walk the walk, either as a patient or as someone in a
                                                      >position to diagnose others.

                                                      I do not wish to treat anyone here for pathologies or disorders, and
                                                      I am not here for therapy either.

                                                      >Maybe you should leave this list and concentrate on your theraputic needs.

                                                      I have been subscribing to this list for two years, for the most part
                                                      lurking until very recently, and dr. Delitsu believes that it is good
                                                      for my further education as a counsellor to study anthroposophical
                                                      problems in this way. If you want to voice your opinion to him, I
                                                      should be able to get you guys in touch. That may be a good idea,
                                                      because I believe dr. Delitsu may be able to help you too, Joel, with
                                                      your own problems.

                                                      Best wishes,

                                                      Theodor Grekenquist
                                                      http://www.skeptic.com/
                                                    • Judy Baumbauer
                                                      Theodor Grekenquist schrieb: Ted (may I call you that?) Do you think Dr. Delitsu could treat my husband. He has 3 extra
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Theodor Grekenquist <grekenquist@...> schrieb:
                                                        Ted (may I call you that?) Do you think Dr. Delitsu could treat my husband. He has 3 extra personalities - Max, Moritz and Albert. If Dr. Delitsu doesn't come to Germany, I might be able to convince my husband to go to India, as long as he doesn't have to do yoga. He tried it once and it almost killed Max.
                                                         
                                                        Warm regards,
                                                        Judy

                                                        I have been subscribing to this list for two years, for the most part
                                                        lurking until very recently, and dr. Delitsu believes that it is good
                                                        for my further education as a counsellor to study anthroposophical
                                                        problems in this way. If you want to voice your opinion to him, I
                                                        should be able to get you guys in touch. That may be a good idea,
                                                        because I believe dr. Delitsu may be able to help you too, Joel, with
                                                        your own problems.

                                                         


                                                        Keine Lust auf Tippen? Rufen Sie Ihre Freunde einfach an.
                                                        Yahoo! Messenger. Jetzt installieren .

                                                      • Mike T
                                                        Ya gotta be kiddin me HA! Mike T ... _________________________________________________________________ New year, new job – there s more than 100,00 jobs at
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , May 6, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Ya gotta be kiddin me HA!
                                                          Mike T


                                                          >From: Judy Baumbauer <judy.baumbauer@...>
                                                          >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                                          >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                                          >Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "On the 'anthroposophy and
                                                          >racism' hoax"
                                                          >Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 02:49:44 +0200 (CEST)
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >Theodor Grekenquist <grekenquist@...> schrieb: Ted (may I call you
                                                          >that?) Do you think Dr. Delitsu could treat my husband. He has 3 extra
                                                          >personalities - Max, Moritz and Albert. If Dr. Delitsu doesn't come to
                                                          >Germany, I might be able to convince my husband to go to India, as long as
                                                          >he doesn't have to do yoga. He tried it once and it almost killed Max.
                                                          >
                                                          > Warm regards,
                                                          > Judy
                                                          >
                                                          >I have been subscribing to this list for two years, for the most part
                                                          >lurking until very recently, and dr. Delitsu believes that it is good
                                                          >for my further education as a counsellor to study anthroposophical
                                                          >problems in this way. If you want to voice your opinion to him, I
                                                          >should be able to get you guys in touch. That may be a good idea,
                                                          >because I believe dr. Delitsu may be able to help you too, Joel, with
                                                          >your own problems.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >---------------------------------
                                                          >Keine Lust auf Tippen? Rufen Sie Ihre Freunde einfach an.
                                                          > Yahoo! Messenger. Jetzt installieren .

                                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                                          New year, new job � there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
                                                          http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT
                                                        • Judy Baumbauer
                                                          Mike T schrieb: Ya gotta be kiddin me HA! Mike T I wasn t talking to you, Mr. Mike T. Knowitall. Judy ... Telefonieren Sie ohne
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Mike T <leosun_75@...> schrieb:
                                                            Ya gotta be kiddin me HA!
                                                            Mike T

                                                            I wasn't talking to you, Mr. Mike T. Knowitall.
                                                            Judy


                                                            Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren Freunden von PC zu PC!
                                                            Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!

                                                          • dottie zold
                                                            OOoooh I smell the blood of a....well, a greekmum:) ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , May 7, 2006
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              OOoooh I smell the blood of a....well, a greekmum:)

                                                              --- Judy Baumbauer <judy.baumbauer@...> wrote:

                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > Mike T <leosun_75@...> schrieb: Ya gotta
                                                              > be kiddin me HA!
                                                              > Mike T
                                                              >
                                                              > I wasn't talking to you, Mr. Mike T. Knowitall.
                                                              > Judy
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > ---------------------------------
                                                              > Telefonieren Sie ohne weitere Kosten mit Ihren
                                                              > Freunden von PC zu PC!
                                                              > Jetzt Yahoo! Messenger installieren!


                                                              __________________________________________________
                                                              Do You Yahoo!?
                                                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.