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

Re: The man's deed

Expand Messages
  • Steve Hale
    Anyone reading Steiner s autobiography can finding nothing even remotely indicative of his being a benign megolomaniac with schizophrenic tendencies; thus a
    Message 1 of 22 , May 1 11:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Anyone reading Steiner's autobiography can finding nothing even
      remotely indicative of his being a benign megolomaniac with
      schizophrenic tendencies; thus a madman. The book plods along,
      giving all the little and significant details of his growth and
      development up to 1907.

      And, considering that he didn't start writing it until a little more
      than a year before his death, it is quite a remarkable achievment of
      a life remembered; almost from birth. It also demonstrates that he
      was a caring person who found deep meaning in the very smallest of
      things. Now, whether he had a painful childhood wherein his
      suppressed memories translated themselves into his keen style of
      cognition that would form the basis of the science of the spirit,
      remains untold, unless it has been told in other places. This
      theory is what interests me greatly.

      One remembrance from Steiner's autobiography that stands out in my
      memory, and may possibly give some indication of pain and
      alienation, and its effects, concerns the fact that Steiner's father
      had a niece who died at a young age, maybe thirteen, and Steiner
      remembers that something went out of his father when this occurred;
      that a loss of attention and affection toward him occurred because
      of this tragedy of the death of the niece. And my sense has always
      been that Steiner resented this withdrawal of his father, which was
      like a death of sorts in itself.

      Steve

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
      <gaelman58@...> wrote:
      >
      > Friends: Let no one underestimate Theodor. He is rational,
      > intelligent and clear-minded. Any open minded critic after reading
      > his posts would be forced to re-evaluate their dopey unsubstantial
      > accusations directed against Steiner with respect to racism,
      > anti-Semitism, and the rest of it. He simply sees Steiner in a
      much
      > broader context as a result of his reading.
    • Steve Hale
      ... wrote: ... very ... is ... respect ... about ... it. ... Yes, and if those epistemological works are sound then it follows that the
      Message 2 of 22 , May 1 11:58 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
        <gaelman58@...> wrote:
        <snip>
        > And the earlier works, mes amis, outline his epistomology...the
        very
        > first of the sciences....the science that precedes all others...the
        > science of cognition.
        >
        > Grant that Theodor is a man of good will who, like the rest of us,
        is
        > primarily interested in the truth...so where do we begin with
        respect
        > to ascertaining that?...we begin with ourselves and our thinking
        about
        > ourselves...we begin with cogniton and the basis for our faith in
        it.
        > The modern materialistic view of reality has, in fact, been
        > undermined. Steiner did that. It's there....in the
        > epistomology....regards, Gaelman

        Yes, and if those epistemological works are sound then it follows
        that the findings of the science of the spirit are equally sound;
        just not perceived directly. But the science of the spirit can be
        reasoned out, and that's the important thing. Steiner gave the
        catalyst for this type of reasoning. And taken to its intended
        conclusion, in terms of will and effort, it works to verify its
        contents to the reasoning faculty itself.

        Steve
      • Terence
        ... Rational clear-minded intelligence tends to hamper the exploration of Soul-Spirit ala Steiner as one needs must move beyond this dimension of mind,
        Message 3 of 22 , May 1 1:09 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58" <gaelman58@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Friends: Let no one underestimate Theodor. He is rational,
          > intelligent and clear-minded. Any open minded critic after reading
          > his posts would be forced to re-evaluate their dopey unsubstantial
          > accusations directed against Steiner with respect to racism,
          > anti-Semitism, and the rest of it. He simply sees Steiner in a much
          > broader context as a result of his reading.

          Rational clear-minded intelligence tends to hamper
          the exploration of Soul-Spirit ala Steiner as one
          needs must move beyond this dimension of mind,
          wouldn't you agree Gaelman? Now as to a broader
          context me thinks not! In esotericism, we are
          instructed to begin our mentation at the level of
          Universals then to Generalities, then to
          Particulars leaving the specific to the individual
          to discover for themselves. It is a macrocosmic
          process that leads to the microcosm. This is the
          BROAD view, as I see it. In my view, it appears
          that Theodor presents as having a handle on the
          specifics of Steiner. Now I ask myself how can one
          human know so much about another human, when in
          reality the vast majority of advanced humanity are,
          in my opinion, at the stage of learning about
          themselves in relationship to the greater whole and
          correlating the micro of themselves with the macro
          and vice versa. Did I say Consciousness Soul Epoch?
          Speaking personally, I am always suspect of the
          veracity of a person who presents as knowing so
          much of another. In recovery we say that the
          greatest task we have is learning to stay inside
          our own skin and making *I* statements.

          > And said context is not so easy to refute, is it? It is the paradigm
          > of the modern educated person and the more hard-minded here know what
          > they're up against. Let no one prove Theodor's point with irrational
          > antagonism solely because he says things about Steiner that any number
          > of intelligent people might.

          I can neither refute nor support what Theodor
          states as I have no basis to do so either from
          personal experience, meditative/contemplative
          experience, or psycho-spiritual experience. All I
          can do is to question how he is able to make such
          statements. You know Gaelman, any one can say
          whatever they choose to say about Steiner. In
          freedom, Theodor has such a right as does anyone
          else; however, can he support his statements with
          historical fact or offer to this list how he knows
          these things. If he canot then he is a fool and I
          will not waste anymore time on him.

          > It was pointed out that Steiner did, in fact, allude to the very real
          > possibility that some would indeed consider him mad...an apparently
          > reasonable conclusion for some...but then :)....ah, but then :)...he
          > indicated that they would have to account for his "earlier works".

          In my opinion, many of us on this list are mad for
          positioning ourselves with Anthroposophy, at least
          from the perspective of the majority of dedicated
          esoteric students let alone the other types of
          people I meet on an everyday basis. I have
          introduced many esoteric type folks to
          Anthroposophy...nada! I am in accord with number
          one statement in Leading Thoughts. So mote it be! I
          am mad, too!

          > And the earlier works, mes amis, outline his epistomology...the very
          > first of the sciences....the science that precedes all others...the
          > science of cognition.

          Here, there is something afoot! The epistemology. I
          love this characterization: Epistemology is the
          investigation of what distinguishes justified
          belief from opinion.

          > Grant that Theodor is a man of good will who, like the rest of us, is
          > primarily interested in the truth...so where do we begin with respect
          > to ascertaining that?...we begin with ourselves and our thinking about
          > ourselves...we begin with cogniton and the basis for our faith in it.
          > The modern materialistic view of reality has, in fact, been
          > undermined. Steiner did that. It's there....in the
          > epistomology....regards, Gaelman

          Bravisimo! We begin with ourselves and our thinking
          about ourselves. Other than challenging Theodor
          about how he arrived at his psychological
          perspective of Steiner, we let the man sink or swim
          of his own accord and graciously move on to the
          next topic presented to the List.

          Terence
        • holderlin66
          Steve Hale wrote: Anyone reading Steiner s autobiography can finding nothing even remotely indicative of his being a benign megolomaniac with schizophrenic
          Message 4 of 22 , May 1 5:45 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Steve Hale wrote:

            "Anyone reading Steiner's autobiography can finding nothing even
            remotely indicative of his being a benign megolomaniac with
            schizophrenic tendencies; thus a madman."

            Bradford snickers;

            Grekenquist almost sounds like gerken to me. Pickle Puss. I can't
            really claim that a Thedor of any sort lingers behind this hoax of a
            handle IMO. But Carl Jung, John Nash and Albert Schweitzer, and odes
            to sweet and easy humanists who don't dare acknowledge, like Goethe
            that the entire Fifth Epoch is colored by how the double and shadow
            pivot on Saul/Paul's schizophrenic 180, is cowardly escapism for
            those who are afraid of the depth of Initation Science.

            But measuring Steiner is the biggest problem of bad a education. Bad
            education stands before wisdom, brotherhood and humanity like a
            spoiled arrogant pauper measuring themselves and the world in self
            inflated myopic vision. Not to be able to measure greatness in the
            distance of time, but also unable to measure your own qualities in
            the light of psychology and initation science, unable to measure
            each human who comes before you and measure the truth and content of
            a child's soul reveals the entire dullness, denial, retardation, and
            deliberate shameful sloth of the intellectual soul. Again it is
            shrink, shrink, shrink yourselves to the size of your own childish
            shirt. Shrink wrap intelligence so Michael and the gods are mere
            aberrations and chemical distortions to fit the failures in faulty
            sciences.

            grekenquist wrote:

            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.

            Carl Jung, John Nash, and Albert Schweitzer perhaps?

            Bradford comments:

            Dialectical materialism enters the ether body and begins to dry it
            up. But something else happens, a mimic begins to grow, a shadow
            distorter, a shape shifter in the proper definition of the term. We
            do not observe the growth of this shape shifter shadow because it is
            so intimately tied to us and because too few people Test Dr. Steiner
            but rather prefer to have his diagnosis buried.

            Steve Hale has often brought that the point each person arrives at,
            is a point where the etheric body, having shrunk from the past to
            the present, fits the outline of the physical brain. As the human I
            takes up higher education, the etheric body, linked to the Sun
            Being, the Age of Light's Etheric Christ Being, begins to expand the
            etheric horizons. But the psychological facts of the haunting of
            Initation Science as realities of culture, will endure.

            Because as the Etheric outline begins to expand, humanity will be
            pressed to consider whole new delicate experiences. The struggle is
            to suppress, compress, contain, distract, deny, distort and promote
            the natural reality of a growing, growing, and living shadow
            instincts in the will and Intellectual Soul that will eventually, if
            not modified, start controlling the instincts of the physical human,
            instead of the I AM monitoring the expansion, the instincts begin to
            flow downward and become part of the severed body of the Earth.
            Substance that will be infested with beings, who refuse to integrate
            through our shared human thought process, the expansion of the
            etheric with a renewed education of the I AM. Science and psychology
            are stuck in matter and so are the brains of human beings.

            The etheric substance in the human being, rather than becoming
            saturated with etheric compassion wrought by the tears we privately
            shed, the joy we experience in seeing the light in childrens eyes...
            A literal shrinking and invoking a 'shadow' being into the etheric
            body in place of the saturating, lucid etheric substance of the
            Risen Christos takes place. I'm afraid, as mad as this sounds, it is
            concrete fact. This is the John Nash syndrome only Steiner had super
            healthy cognitive common sense, given the entire Kingdom that is not
            of this world, that has to be strictly denied and blocked as sub-
            threshold experiences.

            R.S. clinical diagnosis:

            "The Mephistophelean nature is strengthened by all the prejudices and
            limitations of materialism, and a future can already be perceived
            when everyone will be born with a second being by his side, a being
            who whispers to him of the foolishness of those who speak of the
            reality of the spiritual world. Man will, of course, disavow the
            riddle of Mephistopheles, just as he disavows that of the Sphinx;
            nevertheless he will chain a second being to his heels. Accompanied
            by this second being, he will feel the urge to think materialistic
            thoughts, to think, not through his own being, but through the
            second being who is his companion.

            "In an ether-body that has been parched by materialism,
            Mephistopheles will be able to dwell. Understanding what this
            implies, we shall realize that it is our duty to educate children in
            the future - be it by way of Eurythmy or the development of a
            spiritual-scientific outlook - in such a way that they will be
            competent to understand the spiritual world. The ether-body must be
            quickened in order that the human being may be able to take his
            rightful stand, fully cognizant of the nature of the being who
            stands at his side. If he does not understand the nature of this
            second being, he will be spellbound by him, fettered to him."

            Bradford concludes;

            John Nash had a very bad case of this dried out parching of the
            etheric as an actual historical fact. He was stuck in the education
            that promotes the current physics mirage of a universe dominated by
            math abstraction, lies and distortions and his double was dragging
            Nash into this future world, only Nash was more conscious than
            Pickle Puss. Spiritual Science vs Dialectical Materialism is a real
            issue and has gotten more severe, wide spread. When you ask us to
            Test if Steiner's theories are correct, you have no idea what is in
            the future of I AM cognition, having only been schooled yourselves
            in failed Dialectical Materialism.

            We test Dr. Steiner every hour we live. Mr. or Mrs. Pickle, inflated
            hot air, blow up doll, would like a form of dialectical materialism
            to spread so that our children continue learning 'politically
            correct' lies and are unable to think to enter the zone of a Goethe,
            but again, the haunted events will not cease. Both Mr. Smith and Mr.
            Anderson in the Matrix are the same division as Faust and Mephisto
            or Frodo and Gollum.

            Please note post # 9300 from AT list for further reference to
            schizophrenia and the Fifth Epoch.

            In dialectical materialism you are severed from your own soul-heart
            region, even though anyone can still perform unconsciously the basic
            left over goodness in their human instincts. However this will not
            last. People clinging to dialectical materialism are clinging to a
            sinking ship.

            John Nash and a "Beautiful Mind" is a living case in point of
            everything Steiner indicated in the above diagnosis. This Shadow has
            grown in you to such a degree, Mr. or Mrs. Pickled cucumber dick
            that it sits directly next to you and waits, spider like, to play,
            THE DIALECTICAL GAME of drying up your own etheric residue of
            greatness. This is a grave, grave danger when all of humanity has
            lost sight of the very thing that slowly crystallized and finally,
            slowly, devoured and imprisoned the last portion of pip-squeaking
            human dignity, into its slimy egregorical embrace.
          • holderlin66
            Inured to moral horror by half a century of outrages committed by the National Security complex, the establishment, along with the media and vast swathes of
            Message 5 of 22 , May 1 10:10 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              "Inured to moral horror by half a century of outrages committed by
              the "National Security" complex, the establishment, along with the
              media and vast swathes of the population, can no longer discern the
              poison in the air they breathe. It just seems normal."

              http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/floyd2.html

              "Imagine growing up in a family where every day, father raped
              daughter, mother tortured son, brother abused brother, sister stole
              from sister and the whole family murdered neighbors, friends and
              passing strangers. Imagine the underlying assumptions about life
              that you would adopt without question in such an atmosphere, how
              normal the most hideous depravity would seem. If some outsider
              chanced to ask you about your family's latest activities, you would
              spew out perversions as calmly and unthinkingly as a man giving
              directions to the post office.

              "This state of unwitting confession to monstrous crime has been the
              default mode of the U.S. establishment for many years now.
              Government officials routinely detail policies that in a healthy
              atmosphere would shake the nation to its core, stand out like a
              gaping wound, a rank betrayal of every hope, ideal and sacrifice of
              generations past. Yet in the degraded sensibility of these times,
              such confessions go unnoticed, their evil unrecognized – or even
              lauded as savvy ploys or noble endeavors. Inured to moral horror by
              half a century of outrages committed by the "National Security"
              complex, the establishment, along with the media and vast swathes of
              the population, can no longer discern the poison in the air they
              breathe. It just seems normal.

              "But this depravity passes without comment, without recognition.
              It's just normal, you see. It's the way we were raised."

              holderlin wrote:

              "...the Age of Light's Etheric Christ Being, begins to expand the
              etheric horizons. But the psychological facts of the haunting of
              Initation Science as realities of culture, will endure.

              Because as the Etheric outline begins to expand, humanity will be
              pressed to consider whole new delicate experiences. The struggle is
              to suppress, compress, contain, distract, deny, distort and promote
              the natural reality of a growing, growing, and living shadow
              instincts in the will and Intellectual Soul that will eventually, if
              not modified, start controlling the instincts of the physical human,
              instead of the I AM monitoring the expansion, the instincts begin to
              flow downward and become part of the severed body of the Earth.
              Substance that will be infested with beings, who refuse to integrate
              through our shared human thought process, the expansion of the
              etheric with a renewed education of the I AM. Science and psychology
              are stuck in matter and so are the brains of human beings.

              "... This is the John Nash syndrome only Steiner had super
              healthy cognitive common sense, given the entire Kingdom that is not
              of this world, that has to be strictly denied and blocked as sub-
              threshold experiences.

              R.S. clinical diagnosis:

              "The Mephistophelean nature is strengthened by all the prejudices and
              limitations of materialism, and a future can already be perceived
              when everyone will be born with a second being by his side, a being
              who whispers to him of the foolishness of those who speak of the
              reality of the spiritual world. Man will, of course, disavow the
              riddle of Mephistopheles, just as he disavows that of the Sphinx;
              nevertheless he will chain a second being to his heels. Accompanied
              by this second being, he will feel the urge to think materialistic
              thoughts, to think, not through his own being, but through the
              second being who is his companion.

              "In an ether-body that has been parched by materialism,
              Mephistopheles will be able to dwell. Understanding what this
              implies, we shall realize that it is our duty to educate children in
              the future - be it by way of Eurythmy or the development of a
              spiritual-scientific outlook - in such a way that they will be
              competent to understand the spiritual world. The ether-body must be
              quickened in order that the human being may be able to take his
              rightful stand, fully cognizant of the nature of the being who
              stands at his side. If he does not understand the nature of this
              second being, he will be spellbound by him, fettered to him."
            • Theodor Grekenquist
              ... I do not think that everyone who has read Steiner s autobiography would agree with that assessment. ... My impression is that Steiner s suppressed,
              Message 6 of 22 , May 2 12:51 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Steve, you wrote:

                >Anyone reading Steiner's autobiography can finding nothing even
                >remotely indicative of his being a benign megolomaniac with
                >schizophrenic tendencies; thus a madman.

                I do not think that everyone who has read Steiner's autobiography
                would agree with that assessment.

                >And, considering that he didn't start writing it until a little more
                >than a year before his death, it is quite a remarkable achievment of
                >a life remembered; almost from birth. It also demonstrates that he
                >was a caring person who found deep meaning in the very smallest of
                >things. Now, whether he had a painful childhood wherein his
                >suppressed memories translated themselves into his keen style of
                >cognition that would form the basis of the science of the spirit,
                >remains untold, unless it has been told in other places. This
                >theory is what interests me greatly.

                My impression is that Steiner's suppressed, traumatic childhood
                experiences were only one of several contributing factors to his
                pathological mental condition. Chemical imbalances in his brain was
                another, probably electrical overcharge in one of those lobes (I do
                not remember the Latin terminology).

                >One remembrance from Steiner's autobiography that stands out in my
                >memory, and may possibly give some indication of pain and
                >alienation, and its effects, concerns the fact that Steiner's father
                >had a niece who died at a young age, maybe thirteen, and Steiner
                >remembers that something went out of his father when this occurred;
                >that a loss of attention and affection toward him occurred because
                >of this tragedy of the death of the niece. And my sense has always
                >been that Steiner resented this withdrawal of his father, which was
                >like a death of sorts in itself.

                Problematic relationships with parents and siblings seem like a
                common denominator among schizophrenic megalomaniacs. Jesus Christ is
                a case study de luxe. He said you should hate your mother and father
                for the Kindgom of God. Jesus looked after his mother, but he turned
                his back on his father and siblings at a young age and never saw them
                again. Steiner shows the same dysfunctional pattern. He did not even
                bother to invite his mother to his display of miracles like his predecessor.


                Theodor Grekenquist
                http://www.skeptic.com/
              • Theodor Grekenquist
                ... All I can say to this is that on the internet, anyone can be anybody, which makes it counterproductive to challenge exchanges of academic credentials. AQnd
                Message 7 of 22 , May 2 1:33 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello holderlin66, you wrote:

                  >Grekenquist almost sounds like gerken to me. Pickle Puss. I can't
                  >really claim that a Thedor of any sort lingers behind this hoax of a
                  >handle IMO.

                  All I can say to this is that on the internet, anyone can be anybody,
                  which makes it counterproductive to challenge exchanges of academic
                  credentials. AQnd this place has already been called a carnival or
                  masquerade or something.

                  >But Carl Jung, John Nash and Albert Schweitzer, and odes to sweet
                  >and easy humanists who don't dare acknowledge, like Goethe that the
                  >entire Fifth Epoch is colored by how the double and shadow pivot on
                  >Saul/Paul's schizophrenic 180, is cowardly escapism for those who
                  >are afraid of the depth of Initation Science.

                  I have a problem with that last part. There are probably some
                  superstitious people out there who are afraid of "Initiation
                  Science". I am not one of those people. I am not afraid of Christian
                  Science, Initiation Science, or any other contrived pseudo-science
                  that is supposed to spook non-believers. I have the impression that
                  anthros on this list understand that, and this must be why they want
                  to intimidate me with wolfish barks and growls and howls and sneers.
                  Mike T called me a wolf or a werewolf looking like a sheep. And I am
                  wondering if it is my sheepish look that makes me a targeted prey for
                  the fiercest anthro-wolves around here. No wonder critics are afraid
                  to come to this list, they must be petrified of all this sneering and
                  growling from canine anthro-warriors. I said to Mike T that I had no
                  intention of devouring anyone, but that does not seem to go both
                  ways. These anthro-wolves are trying to take bites out of me. I have
                  also heard rumors about furry anthro-pirates. They say Steiner was
                  not a Social Darwinist, and I do not think so either, but this looks
                  like a Darwinian anthro-jungle where only the strongest and the
                  fittest survive and where critics are eaten alive on sight (or smell).

                  >But measuring Steiner is the biggest problem of bad a education. Bad
                  >education stands before wisdom, brotherhood and humanity like a
                  >spoiled arrogant pauper measuring themselves and the world in self
                  >inflated myopic vision.

                  Who is a spoiled arrogant pauper with bad education?

                  >Dialectical materialism enters the ether body and begins to dry it
                  >up. But something else happens, a mimic begins to grow, a shadow
                  >distorter, a shape shifter in the proper definition of the term. We
                  >do not observe the growth of this shape shifter shadow because it is
                  >so intimately tied to us and because too few people Test Dr. Steiner
                  >but rather prefer to have his diagnosis buried.

                  Dear mister Holderin, I have no intention of fleeing from my
                  diagnosis if this is offered by a qualified doctor of my choosing.
                  And I do not mind going to an anthro-doctor. Steiner obviously had a
                  keen understanding of medicine, which he succeeded in extending. I
                  support, endorse, and recommend anthroposophical medicine. But if I
                  should have met Dr. Steiner himself, I would have proposed an
                  exchange of diagnoses. I could pay for his diagnosis of me with mine of him.


                  Theodor Grekenquist
                  http://www.skeptic.com/
                • elfuncle
                  ... was ... do ... I think you re completely off the wall here, also with Steiner s childhood, which seems to have been a happy one except that he felt lonely
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 2 8:03 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Theodor wrote:

                    > My impression is that Steiner's suppressed, traumatic childhood
                    > experiences were only one of several contributing factors to his
                    > pathological mental condition. Chemical imbalances in his brain
                    was
                    > another, probably electrical overcharge in one of those lobes (I
                    do
                    > not remember the Latin terminology).

                    I think you're completely off the wall here, also with Steiner's
                    childhood, which seems to have been a happy one except that he felt
                    lonely sometimes because of his exceptional higher stages of
                    consciousness.

                    It is interesting that you should mention his brain like this,
                    though. Rudolf Steiner once said that initiates are sometimes able
                    to mold the convolutions of their own brains. I do not have the
                    reference; perhaps someone can help me with it. I would not be
                    surprised if Steiner had actually influenced his own brain in this
                    manner.

                    Tarjei
                  • Terence
                    ... Unable to support your thought with Steiner reference, however, I can say that everytime we meditate, have sex, play sports we alter our brain chemistry,
                    Message 9 of 22 , May 2 9:12 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <reefer@...> wrote:

                      > It is interesting that you should mention his brain like this,
                      > though. Rudolf Steiner once said that initiates are sometimes able
                      > to mold the convolutions of their own brains. I do not have the
                      > reference; perhaps someone can help me with it. I would not be
                      > surprised if Steiner had actually influenced his own brain in this
                      > manner.
                      >
                      > Tarjei

                      Unable to support your thought with Steiner
                      reference, however, I can say that everytime we
                      meditate, have sex, play sports we alter our brain
                      chemistry, which over time may alter the
                      physiology of the brain's structure.

                      Terence
                    • holderlin66
                      Bradford previously brought The ZeitGeist arrow and the Double who occupies the personality of President GWB and the Lodge model, the Lodge personality that
                      Message 10 of 22 , May 2 12:20 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bradford previously brought

                        " The ZeitGeist arrow
                        and the Double who occupies the personality of President GWB and the
                        Lodge model, the Lodge personality that Ariel Sharon and Dick Cheney
                        have borrowed from the Ahrimanic lodges are real profiles. Profiles
                        generally wasted on most Anthros. When Christ walked the Earth and
                        Caiaphas had him crucified, Caiaphas etheric Lodge model was
                        preservered in the cuboard of Ahrimanic forces and imprinted
                        strongly by the intensity of the Sun forces of the Christ Being
                        himself.."

                        Bradford comments:

                        The U.S. has currently a replicated model of a running
                        dysfunctional 'double' in GWB, our current President of the mostly
                        Ahrimanic West. His replication, his immense dull, uninspired
                        Ahrimanically tenured position follows the trend and model of the
                        superfical frat boy, drunk, business and MBA failure, who has based
                        his entire 1/8th farthling of cunning on deceptions and lies sold to
                        the western hemisphere in the trillions, trillions of dollars, in
                        dead bodies and tortured horrors. This is the Presidential Model of
                        the West that reeks of Schizophrenia, egregores and corrupt Lodge
                        manipulation from the darkest cores, aggressively killing out all
                        knowledge of the Etheric Christ event.

                        But all of the weak willed and psychologically numb humans have
                        enjoyed, for so many, many years, the photo ops of politicos
                        dressing up in their tidy suits and playing adults, when in reality
                        they are a hive and lair of brooding, breeding Ahrimanic doubles,
                        all salivating and preparing the way, straightening the way for the
                        coming of the ICE MAN. Schizophrenia should be so easy a diagnosis,
                        but Schizophrenia is not what these issues are about. Cleverly
                        wiggling Steiner into such a schizophrenic corner is attempting to
                        wring discussion on this list and control the issues to see if
                        perhaps there are one or two Anthros with a spine. It hardly merits
                        a challenge, but for the uncognitive slugs, accusing Steiner of
                        terminal hallucinatory schizophrenia is at least as significant as
                        understanding Saul and Paul from a schizophrenic stand point.

                        I have brought very clearly, previously on this list, that once the
                        incarnation of this shadow force within the human magnetic field
                        gets a hold of human instincts and incarnates deep enough to fix the
                        ahrimanic double, with ahrimanic etheric body, ahrimanic astral
                        body, ahrimanic I AM, within the human sphere and within history,
                        than the Black Lodges will really have something to crow about. And
                        because Anthros remain such a weak useless bunch, the enormous time
                        span that Christ gave humanity before Ahriman settles his
                        incarnation, was solid lead time, wasted and crushed by both World
                        Wars and the Bastard Age of Light....that Anthros have hardly even
                        yawned out of their cognitive stupor to correct the historical
                        nonsense that has superimposed and blurred our vision so that
                        Anthros can't even navigate themselves to how the historical Etheric
                        Christ Event was blocked. Rather they have just fallen into step
                        with history as the lie...and let their children drink the Kool-Aid
                        and not one sits at their table correcting this baloney.

                        Presently what we see as the rise of the rich 1% of humanity, the
                        Enron and Haliburton, Cheney and Sharon graduates clawing their way
                        for a whiff of Ahrimanic futures....dominates the media, the talk
                        shows, the murdering and torturing machine that rips, from the
                        tortured, future glimpses of the coming of Ahriman, that only the
                        dead, can reveal under torture...and electronically stolen
                        elections....all of these models of how the U.S. is dominated by the
                        double, are led by the nose by a John Nash like Shadow growin in
                        each of us. Whether ?Thedor? gives it permission to grow or not has
                        nothing to do with Theodor's shrunken materialistic diagnosis.
                        Education which we toss our child into promotes the same pattern of
                        behavior and thinking, promotes the fact that when Spiritual Science
                        gets so close to the system that it can see it clearly, a wonderful
                        new twisted whack job tries to bring STeiner and Initiation Science
                        down to the level of chemical distortions and cheap psychological
                        parlor games...

                        How do the forces of the Luciferic and Ahrimanic doubles hidden in
                        the instincts of humanity play their part? Oil Sheikh's are not your
                        Ahrimanic corporate ravenous wolves. Oil Sheikh's are embedded and
                        sunk into hazy Luciferic forces. So thick are they sunk into
                        traditions that have long ago lost all content, that it amounts to
                        luxurious decadence, and stage prop, movie set, Paradise, that to
                        the simple minded, would appear to be the Luciferic answer to the
                        age old question of 72 virgins, promised in a luciferic haze and
                        presented in gawdy gold and glitz silly story book Arab
                        ornamentation. Offered to primitive, uneducated dolts who are kept
                        in a sentient soul coma waiting for the unveiling of some naked
                        dancing navels, brings the Lodge forces of Luciferic illusion in the
                        middle east to a set of retarded, 19 year old astral weeds, and
                        combines it with the mighty stage sets and gambling mecca that Las
                        Vegas was designed for in the West. Both Arab oil and the Mob
                        Lucifieric Kingdom of Vegas...are the Lodge cores that feed the mass
                        insanity from the Luciferic side of the equation. That at least is
                        the part that is visible. But it is the invisible forces of the
                        Black Lodges of both Lucifer and Ahriman that are intensely working
                        behind the scenes.

                        In the West, from the Ahrimanic side, Cheney's double, Sharon, in
                        his mummified Lodge etheric model, captured just off the threshold
                        of death and held captive to be used as needed, and the U.S.
                        authorization of arbitrary torture, for the reason that by having
                        torture as in the Templars of old were tortured, future clairvoyant
                        visions, Ahrimanic futures, can be ripped from the dead. Black lodge
                        initiates preparing for Ahriman's incarnation in the west can use
                        the information stolen from the tortured to rob, steer and totally
                        guide the gutless, witless, utterly stupid human beings exactly the
                        way the want to.

                        On the Christic side, you have anyone who stands for Spiritual
                        Science which reduces the living numbers, not including the Dead, to
                        probably under a million people who really stand up for The AGE OF
                        LIGHT. While 80% of the Anthro's happily take the nuclear Bastard
                        false age of light against the Etheric Light of the Christ event of
                        1933, so that their children learn that it is the nuclear Bastard,
                        Age of Light that won, and Anthros happily and contentedly sit on
                        the fact that they don't get how the Etheric Christ can compete with
                        the stupendous mushroom cloud offered by Ahrimanic forces in the
                        West. They still ponder how can this be? Anthro's in the general
                        malaise are cowards and uncognitive, uninterested in anything but
                        using Anthro relationships as a new form of mild religious social
                        club instead of a fully operative life line and Science of cognitive
                        events in the current Zeit Geist.

                        holderlin wrote:

                        ".... the entire Fifth Epoch is colored by how the double and shadow
                        pivot on Saul/Paul's schizophrenic 180, is cowardly escapism for
                        those who are afraid of the depth of Initation Science.

                        "... I'm afraid, as mad as this sounds, it is
                        concrete fact. This is the John Nash syndrome only Steiner had
                        super healthy cognitive common sense, given the entire Kingdom that
                        is not of this world, that has to be strictly denied and blocked as
                        sub-threshold experiences.

                        R.S. clinical diagnosis:

                        "The Mephistophelean nature is strengthened by all the prejudices
                        and limitations of materialism, and a future can already be perceived
                        when everyone will be born with a second being by his side, a being
                        who whispers to him of the foolishness of those who speak of the
                        reality of the spiritual world. Man will, of course, disavow the
                        riddle of Mephistopheles, just as he disavows that of the Sphinx;
                        nevertheless he will chain a second being to his heels. Accompanied
                        by this second being, he will feel the urge to think materialistic
                        thoughts, to think, not through his own being, but through the
                        second being who is his companion.

                        "In an ether-body that has been parched by materialism,
                        Mephistopheles will be able to dwell. Understanding what this
                        implies, we shall realize that it is our duty to educate children in
                        the future - be it by way of Eurythmy or the development of a
                        spiritual-scientific outlook - in such a way that they will be
                        competent to understand the spiritual world. The ether-body must be
                        quickened in order that the human being may be able to take his
                        rightful stand, fully cognizant of the nature of the being who
                        stands at his side. If he does not understand the nature of this
                        second being, he will be spellbound by him, fettered to him."

                        Please note post # 9300 from AT list for further reference to
                        schizophrenia and the Fifth Epoch.

                        John Nash and a "Beautiful Mind" is a living case in point of
                        everything Steiner indicated in the above diagnosis.
                      • Steve Hale
                        ... I am very interested in where you see indications of the pain and trauma that could have produced such effects. I am presenting notes that Steiner wrote
                        Message 11 of 22 , May 2 1:07 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
                          <grekenquist@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hello Steve, you wrote:
                          >
                          > >Anyone reading Steiner's autobiography can finding nothing even
                          > >remotely indicative of his being a benign megolomaniac with
                          > >schizophrenic tendencies; thus a madman.
                          >
                          > I do not think that everyone who has read Steiner's autobiography
                          > would agree with that assessment.

                          I am very interested in where you see indications of the pain and
                          trauma that could have produced such effects. I am presenting notes
                          that Steiner wrote about himself that appear to show a very linear
                          progression of thought and normal striving.

                          > >And, considering that he didn't start writing it until a little
                          more
                          > >than a year before his death, it is quite a remarkable achievment
                          of
                          > >a life remembered; almost from birth. It also demonstrates that
                          he
                          > >was a caring person who found deep meaning in the very smallest
                          of
                          > >things. Now, whether he had a painful childhood wherein his
                          > >suppressed memories translated themselves into his keen style of
                          > >cognition that would form the basis of the science of the spirit,
                          > >remains untold, unless it has been told in other places. This
                          > >theory is what interests me greatly.
                          >
                          > My impression is that Steiner's suppressed, traumatic childhood
                          > experiences were only one of several contributing factors to his
                          > pathological mental condition. Chemical imbalances in his brain
                          was
                          > another, probably electrical overcharge in one of those lobes (I
                          do
                          > not remember the Latin terminology).

                          Steiner writes early on about breaking his cups and saucers after he
                          used them, and how his mother learned to quickly snatch them away to
                          avoid this. And how his father took him out of school when a
                          teacher was being unfair, and instructed his son himself in the rail
                          station. Steiner remembers his interest in watching the ink dry on
                          dusted letter paper and why the letters had varying drying times.
                          He would test them and smudge the paper with ink marks. His father
                          eventually came to believe that this great curiosity for physics and
                          mechanics would make his son into a railway engineer. So, I'm
                          trying to find the trauma and the suppressed pain. As I've
                          mentioned before, Steiner starts his autobiography with the
                          remembrance that he was born in the wrong time and the wrong place.
                          And that would mean to the wrong parents and the wrong place and
                          time in the world. Thus, he was before his time, and this could
                          create tremendous hardship.
                          >
                          > >One remembrance from Steiner's autobiography that stands out in
                          my
                          > >memory, and may possibly give some indication of pain and
                          > >alienation, and its effects, concerns the fact that Steiner's
                          father
                          > >had a niece who died at a young age, maybe thirteen, and Steiner
                          > >remembers that something went out of his father when this
                          occurred;
                          > >that a loss of attention and affection toward him occurred
                          because
                          > >of this tragedy of the death of the niece. And my sense has
                          always
                          > >been that Steiner resented this withdrawal of his father, which
                          was
                          > >like a death of sorts in itself.
                          >
                          > Problematic relationships with parents and siblings seem like a
                          > common denominator among schizophrenic megalomaniacs. Jesus Christ
                          is
                          > a case study de luxe. He said you should hate your mother and
                          father
                          > for the Kindgom of God. Jesus looked after his mother, but he
                          turned
                          > his back on his father and siblings at a young age and never saw
                          them
                          > again. Steiner shows the same dysfunctional pattern. He did not
                          even
                          > bother to invite his mother to his display of miracles like his
                          predecessor.

                          Problematic relationships are commonplace, and if you're familiar
                          with family systems theory, dysfunctional families have been the
                          mainstay in life since the end of World War II. It took someone
                          like John Bradshaw and his research on family relationships back in
                          1989 to bring out what people have been openly discussing ever
                          since. But I would question that it is a common denominator for
                          schizophrenia or megalomania. We know that when Steiner's father
                          retired from the railroad that they immediately moved back to Horn.
                          But, since Steiner's autobiography is stated to be a spiritual
                          biography of his developmental path, and not a personal one, how is
                          it possible to discern that he ignored his mother for the rest of
                          her life? He was a busy man to be sure, but where does it say he
                          alienated himself from his mother, father and siblings?

                          Steve
                        • gaelman58
                          ... ... reading ... unsubstantial ... much ... paradigm ... what ... irrational ... number ... real ... apparently ... then :)...he ... works .
                          Message 12 of 22 , May 2 4:15 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Terence"
                            <lionheart@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
                            <gaelman58@>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Friends: Let no one underestimate Theodor. He is rational,
                            > > intelligent and clear-minded. Any open minded critic after
                            reading
                            > > his posts would be forced to re-evaluate their dopey
                            unsubstantial
                            > > accusations directed against Steiner with respect to racism,
                            > > anti-Semitism, and the rest of it. He simply sees Steiner in a
                            much
                            > > broader context as a result of his reading.
                            >
                            > Rational clear-minded intelligence tends to hamper
                            > the exploration of Soul-Spirit ala Steiner as one
                            > needs must move beyond this dimension of mind,
                            > wouldn't you agree Gaelman? Now as to a broader
                            > context me thinks not! In esotericism, we are
                            > instructed to begin our mentation at the level of
                            > Universals then to Generalities, then to
                            > Particulars leaving the specific to the individual
                            > to discover for themselves. It is a macrocosmic
                            > process that leads to the microcosm. This is the
                            > BROAD view, as I see it. In my view, it appears
                            > that Theodor presents as having a handle on the
                            > specifics of Steiner. Now I ask myself how can one
                            > human know so much about another human, when in
                            > reality the vast majority of advanced humanity are,
                            > in my opinion, at the stage of learning about
                            > themselves in relationship to the greater whole and
                            > correlating the micro of themselves with the macro
                            > and vice versa. Did I say Consciousness Soul Epoch?
                            > Speaking personally, I am always suspect of the
                            > veracity of a person who presents as knowing so
                            > much of another. In recovery we say that the
                            > greatest task we have is learning to stay inside
                            > our own skin and making *I* statements.
                            >
                            > > And said context is not so easy to refute, is it? It is the
                            paradigm
                            > > of the modern educated person and the more hard-minded here know
                            what
                            > > they're up against. Let no one prove Theodor's point with
                            irrational
                            > > antagonism solely because he says things about Steiner that any
                            number
                            > > of intelligent people might.
                            >
                            > I can neither refute nor support what Theodor
                            > states as I have no basis to do so either from
                            > personal experience, meditative/contemplative
                            > experience, or psycho-spiritual experience. All I
                            > can do is to question how he is able to make such
                            > statements. You know Gaelman, any one can say
                            > whatever they choose to say about Steiner. In
                            > freedom, Theodor has such a right as does anyone
                            > else; however, can he support his statements with
                            > historical fact or offer to this list how he knows
                            > these things. If he canot then he is a fool and I
                            > will not waste anymore time on him.
                            >
                            > > It was pointed out that Steiner did, in fact, allude to the very
                            real
                            > > possibility that some would indeed consider him mad...an
                            apparently
                            > > reasonable conclusion for some...but then :)....ah, but
                            then :)...he
                            > > indicated that they would have to account for his "earlier
                            works".
                            >
                            > In my opinion, many of us on this list are mad for
                            > positioning ourselves with Anthroposophy, at least
                            > from the perspective of the majority of dedicated
                            > esoteric students let alone the other types of
                            > people I meet on an everyday basis. I have
                            > introduced many esoteric type folks to
                            > Anthroposophy...nada! I am in accord with number
                            > one statement in Leading Thoughts. So mote it be! I
                            > am mad, too!
                            >
                            > > And the earlier works, mes amis, outline his epistomology...the
                            very
                            > > first of the sciences....the science that precedes all
                            others...the
                            > > science of cognition.
                            >
                            > Here, there is something afoot! The epistemology. I
                            > love this characterization: Epistemology is the
                            > investigation of what distinguishes justified
                            > belief from opinion.
                            >
                            > > Grant that Theodor is a man of good will who, like the rest of
                            us, is
                            > > primarily interested in the truth...so where do we begin with
                            respect
                            > > to ascertaining that?...we begin with ourselves and our thinking
                            about
                            > > ourselves...we begin with cogniton and the basis for our faith
                            in it.
                            > > The modern materialistic view of reality has, in fact, been
                            > > undermined. Steiner did that. It's there....in the
                            > > epistomology....regards, Gaelman
                            >
                            > Bravisimo! We begin with ourselves and our thinking
                            > about ourselves. Other than challenging Theodor
                            > about how he arrived at his psychological
                            > perspective of Steiner, we let the man sink or swim
                            > of his own accord and graciously move on to the
                            > next topic presented to the List.
                            >
                            > Terence


                            > Terence wrote: "You know Gaelman, any one can say
                            whatever they choose to say about Steiner. In
                            freedom, Theodor has such a right as does anyone
                            else; however, can he support his statements with
                            historical fact or offer to this list how he knows
                            these things. If he canot then he is a fool and I
                            will not waste anymore time on him."

                            Terence: I would ask you to show a little forbearance with regard
                            to the "wasting of your time". Why? Well, you write well and add
                            to the quality of the list. What is happening with Theodor is the
                            very thing that Steiner predicted would arise as an impediment to
                            Spiritual science in our time. An intelligent, well-read modern
                            person who accepts the very powerful current scientific paradigm is
                            no slouch who can be dismissed out of hand. It's always been my
                            suspicion (just a suspicion, mind you) that the Waldorf Critics were
                            acting out of a personal point of view as the result of some bad
                            experience they had with WE. I don't think that's the case with
                            Theodor...and I don't think he's being deliberately offensive when
                            he "psychoanalyzes" Steiner and inadvertently offends those who hold
                            the man dear.

                            You are quite right with your "Oh yes? Well, Theodor, how is it
                            that you KNOW that to be demonstratively true". The the rest of us
                            can then see the man's thinking...or what he thinks will pass for
                            thinking"...sooner or later (we hope) we can mosey over toward a
                            consideration of cognition...you know, the considerations that one
                            has to think meditatively about...and it's there that the
                            current, "scientic" view of reality is vulnerable...by the way,
                            Terence, with regard to that I hold no brief and do not make the
                            claim that I think better than anyone here...so, as one student to
                            another...best regards, Gaelman
                          • Steve Hale
                            Somebody pointed out the other day that I intended to offer a forum two years ago called Spiritual Science Today . And that I did so in private conversations
                            Message 13 of 22 , May 2 7:01 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Somebody pointed out the other day that I intended to offer a forum
                              two years ago called "Spiritual Science Today". And that I did so
                              in private conversations to members of this forum back in January of
                              2004. Well, I remember doing so, and then I got caught up in this
                              forum and decided to present it here, folded into the contezt and
                              content of Anthroposophy_Tomorrow. It seemed the right thing; now
                              that I look back on it. I loved the dynamism and the points of
                              view, as I do now.

                              Steve

                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
                              <gaelman58@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Terence"
                              > <lionheart@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
                              > <gaelman58@>
                              > > wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Friends: Let no one underestimate Theodor. He is rational,
                              > > > intelligent and clear-minded. Any open minded critic after
                              > reading
                              > > > his posts would be forced to re-evaluate their dopey
                              > unsubstantial
                              > > > accusations directed against Steiner with respect to racism,
                              > > > anti-Semitism, and the rest of it. He simply sees Steiner in
                              a
                              > much
                              > > > broader context as a result of his reading.
                              > >
                              > > Rational clear-minded intelligence tends to hamper
                              > > the exploration of Soul-Spirit ala Steiner as one
                              > > needs must move beyond this dimension of mind,
                              > > wouldn't you agree Gaelman? Now as to a broader
                              > > context me thinks not! In esotericism, we are
                              > > instructed to begin our mentation at the level of
                              > > Universals then to Generalities, then to
                              > > Particulars leaving the specific to the individual
                              > > to discover for themselves. It is a macrocosmic
                              > > process that leads to the microcosm. This is the
                              > > BROAD view, as I see it. In my view, it appears
                              > > that Theodor presents as having a handle on the
                              > > specifics of Steiner. Now I ask myself how can one
                              > > human know so much about another human, when in
                              > > reality the vast majority of advanced humanity are,
                              > > in my opinion, at the stage of learning about
                              > > themselves in relationship to the greater whole and
                              > > correlating the micro of themselves with the macro
                              > > and vice versa. Did I say Consciousness Soul Epoch?
                              > > Speaking personally, I am always suspect of the
                              > > veracity of a person who presents as knowing so
                              > > much of another. In recovery we say that the
                              > > greatest task we have is learning to stay inside
                              > > our own skin and making *I* statements.
                              > >
                              > > > And said context is not so easy to refute, is it? It is the
                              > paradigm
                              > > > of the modern educated person and the more hard-minded here
                              know
                              > what
                              > > > they're up against. Let no one prove Theodor's point with
                              > irrational
                              > > > antagonism solely because he says things about Steiner that
                              any
                              > number
                              > > > of intelligent people might.
                              > >
                              > > I can neither refute nor support what Theodor
                              > > states as I have no basis to do so either from
                              > > personal experience, meditative/contemplative
                              > > experience, or psycho-spiritual experience. All I
                              > > can do is to question how he is able to make such
                              > > statements. You know Gaelman, any one can say
                              > > whatever they choose to say about Steiner. In
                              > > freedom, Theodor has such a right as does anyone
                              > > else; however, can he support his statements with
                              > > historical fact or offer to this list how he knows
                              > > these things. If he canot then he is a fool and I
                              > > will not waste anymore time on him.
                              > >
                              > > > It was pointed out that Steiner did, in fact, allude to the
                              very
                              > real
                              > > > possibility that some would indeed consider him mad...an
                              > apparently
                              > > > reasonable conclusion for some...but then :)....ah, but
                              > then :)...he
                              > > > indicated that they would have to account for his "earlier
                              > works".
                              > >
                              > > In my opinion, many of us on this list are mad for
                              > > positioning ourselves with Anthroposophy, at least
                              > > from the perspective of the majority of dedicated
                              > > esoteric students let alone the other types of
                              > > people I meet on an everyday basis. I have
                              > > introduced many esoteric type folks to
                              > > Anthroposophy...nada! I am in accord with number
                              > > one statement in Leading Thoughts. So mote it be! I
                              > > am mad, too!
                              > >
                              > > > And the earlier works, mes amis, outline his
                              epistomology...the
                              > very
                              > > > first of the sciences....the science that precedes all
                              > others...the
                              > > > science of cognition.
                              > >
                              > > Here, there is something afoot! The epistemology. I
                              > > love this characterization: Epistemology is the
                              > > investigation of what distinguishes justified
                              > > belief from opinion.
                              > >
                              > > > Grant that Theodor is a man of good will who, like the rest of
                              > us, is
                              > > > primarily interested in the truth...so where do we begin with
                              > respect
                              > > > to ascertaining that?...we begin with ourselves and our
                              thinking
                              > about
                              > > > ourselves...we begin with cogniton and the basis for our faith
                              > in it.
                              > > > The modern materialistic view of reality has, in fact, been
                              > > > undermined. Steiner did that. It's there....in the
                              > > > epistomology....regards, Gaelman
                              > >
                              > > Bravisimo! We begin with ourselves and our thinking
                              > > about ourselves. Other than challenging Theodor
                              > > about how he arrived at his psychological
                              > > perspective of Steiner, we let the man sink or swim
                              > > of his own accord and graciously move on to the
                              > > next topic presented to the List.
                              > >
                              > > Terence
                              >
                              >
                              > > Terence wrote: "You know Gaelman, any one can say
                              > whatever they choose to say about Steiner. In
                              > freedom, Theodor has such a right as does anyone
                              > else; however, can he support his statements with
                              > historical fact or offer to this list how he knows
                              > these things. If he canot then he is a fool and I
                              > will not waste anymore time on him."
                              >
                              > Terence: I would ask you to show a little forbearance with regard
                              > to the "wasting of your time". Why? Well, you write well and
                              add
                              > to the quality of the list. What is happening with Theodor is the
                              > very thing that Steiner predicted would arise as an impediment to
                              > Spiritual science in our time. An intelligent, well-read modern
                              > person who accepts the very powerful current scientific paradigm
                              is
                              > no slouch who can be dismissed out of hand. It's always been my
                              > suspicion (just a suspicion, mind you) that the Waldorf Critics
                              were
                              > acting out of a personal point of view as the result of some bad
                              > experience they had with WE. I don't think that's the case with
                              > Theodor...and I don't think he's being deliberately offensive when
                              > he "psychoanalyzes" Steiner and inadvertently offends those who
                              hold
                              > the man dear.
                              >
                              > You are quite right with your "Oh yes? Well, Theodor, how is it
                              > that you KNOW that to be demonstratively true". The the rest of
                              us
                              > can then see the man's thinking...or what he thinks will pass for
                              > thinking"...sooner or later (we hope) we can mosey over toward a
                              > consideration of cognition...you know, the considerations that one
                              > has to think meditatively about...and it's there that the
                              > current, "scientic" view of reality is vulnerable...by the way,
                              > Terence, with regard to that I hold no brief and do not make the
                              > claim that I think better than anyone here...so, as one student to
                              > another...best regards, Gaelman
                              >
                            • Theodor Grekenquist
                              ... It is very difficult to determine what those unpleasant childhhood experiences were. There is not a trace of them in his autobiography because they were
                              Message 14 of 22 , May 3 8:21 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello Steve, you wrote:

                                >I am very interested in where you see indications of the pain and
                                >trauma that could have produced such effects.

                                It is very difficult to determine what those unpleasant childhhood
                                experiences were. There is not a trace of them in his autobiography
                                because they were suppressed and forgotten. Steiner says himself that
                                such things *should* be forgotten. He calls them slime at the bottom
                                of the soul. I have a reference to this: See the fifth lecture in
                                "The Karma of Vocation" (GA 172), Dornach, November 13, 1916:

                                " But what people are now trying to find on the bottom of the soul's
                                life is really some sort of soulless sediment. A theologian recently
                                called it somewhat coarsely - 'the bestial slime at the bottom of the soul.' "

                                Rudolf Steiner suppressed all the bestial slime at the bottom of his
                                soul because he thought it should be suppressed. He suppressed his
                                animal nature because he wanted to be some sort of god-man like Jesus
                                Christ. And this suppression resulted in those firecrackers in his
                                neurological makeup and the electrical overcharge in his brain that I
                                mentioned in an earlier post, the firecrackers that went off when he
                                was 40 and sent him into fantasyland like a space cadet.

                                >I am presenting notes that Steiner wrote about himself that appear
                                >to show a very linear progression of thought and normal striving.

                                Comparing notes is a good idea. It is what lists like this one are all about.

                                I understand Steiner's diagnosis as a trauma-induced schizophrenic
                                because I have experienced something related to this. When I was a
                                teenager, I was diagnosed with 25 different personalities. After
                                that, I have gone to therapy and treated others too, and for a long
                                time I have not been in danger of changing personalities at work,
                                because I sense them coming hours in advance and sometimes days in
                                advance, especially if I have been drinking alcohol. At present, my
                                number of active personalities is reduced to a handful.

                                One thing that has helped me is my conviction of scientific reality.
                                It keeps me grounded and helps control my multiple personalities.
                                Reading about Steiner's monism in "Philosophy of Freedom" was a great
                                help, but it did not help him as he thought it would. Monism means
                                that reality is what one can see and hear and touch, but Steiner
                                dismisses this as "naive realism" and that is how he gets lost. He
                                tried to cure himself with monism, but instead he came up with a wild
                                notion of epistemology to justify his own schizophrenic confusion of
                                fantasy and reality.


                                Theodor Grekenquist
                                http://www.skeptic.com/
                              • Steve Hale
                                I had a co-worker about a year ago who confided to me early on that he was both bipolar and suffered from attention deficit disorder. He also smoked and drank
                                Message 15 of 22 , May 3 11:09 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I had a co-worker about a year ago who confided to me early on that
                                  he was both bipolar and suffered from attention deficit disorder.
                                  He also smoked and drank strong coffee, so he literally bounced off
                                  the walls. He was keenly intelligent with strong reverence for
                                  mathematics and science especially. He entrusted to me the fact
                                  that he needed a grounded experience of the material world as his
                                  sole reality. He never dreamed. When I attempted to introduce
                                  basic principles of spiritual science and its logical ground he
                                  would get visibly agitated, as if he was losing his bearings. I had
                                  to change the subject, and eventually gave up this idea, which made
                                  him comfortable again. It was just one of those things. He was
                                  completely convinced that there could be no underlying reality
                                  invisible to his senses and logic, and the very idea was very
                                  upsetting.

                                  Steve

                                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
                                  <grekenquist@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hello Steve, you wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >I am very interested in where you see indications of the pain and
                                  > >trauma that could have produced such effects.
                                  >
                                  > It is very difficult to determine what those unpleasant childhhood
                                  > experiences were. There is not a trace of them in his
                                  autobiography
                                  > because they were suppressed and forgotten. Steiner says himself
                                  that
                                  > such things *should* be forgotten. He calls them slime at the
                                  bottom
                                  > of the soul. I have a reference to this: See the fifth lecture in
                                  > "The Karma of Vocation" (GA 172), Dornach, November 13, 1916:
                                  >
                                  > " But what people are now trying to find on the bottom of the
                                  soul's
                                  > life is really some sort of soulless sediment. A theologian
                                  recently
                                  > called it somewhat coarsely - 'the bestial slime at the bottom of
                                  the soul.' "
                                  >
                                  > Rudolf Steiner suppressed all the bestial slime at the bottom of
                                  his
                                  > soul because he thought it should be suppressed. He suppressed his
                                  > animal nature because he wanted to be some sort of god-man like
                                  Jesus
                                  > Christ. And this suppression resulted in those firecrackers in his
                                  > neurological makeup and the electrical overcharge in his brain
                                  that I
                                  > mentioned in an earlier post, the firecrackers that went off when
                                  he
                                  > was 40 and sent him into fantasyland like a space cadet.
                                  >
                                  > >I am presenting notes that Steiner wrote about himself that
                                  appear
                                  > >to show a very linear progression of thought and normal striving.
                                  >
                                  > Comparing notes is a good idea. It is what lists like this one are
                                  all about.
                                  >
                                  > I understand Steiner's diagnosis as a trauma-induced schizophrenic
                                  > because I have experienced something related to this. When I was a
                                  > teenager, I was diagnosed with 25 different personalities. After
                                  > that, I have gone to therapy and treated others too, and for a
                                  long
                                  > time I have not been in danger of changing personalities at work,
                                  > because I sense them coming hours in advance and sometimes days in
                                  > advance, especially if I have been drinking alcohol. At present,
                                  my
                                  > number of active personalities is reduced to a handful.
                                  >
                                  > One thing that has helped me is my conviction of scientific
                                  reality.
                                  > It keeps me grounded and helps control my multiple personalities.
                                  > Reading about Steiner's monism in "Philosophy of Freedom" was a
                                  great
                                  > help, but it did not help him as he thought it would. Monism means
                                  > that reality is what one can see and hear and touch, but Steiner
                                  > dismisses this as "naive realism" and that is how he gets lost. He
                                  > tried to cure himself with monism, but instead he came up with a
                                  wild
                                  > notion of epistemology to justify his own schizophrenic confusion
                                  of
                                  > fantasy and reality.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Theodor Grekenquist
                                  > http://www.skeptic.com/
                                  >
                                • winters_diana
                                  ... Diana in amused amazement: Gaelman, this is a suspicion you have? Have you ever read the critics list? A wide variety of such experiences are detailed in
                                  Message 16 of 22 , May 3 1:33 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    gaelman wrote:

                                    >It's always been my suspicion (just a suspicion, mind you) that the
                                    >Waldorf Critics were acting out of a personal point of view as the
                                    >result of some bad experience they had with WE.

                                    Diana in amused amazement: Gaelman, this is a "suspicion" you have?
                                    Have you ever read the critics list? A wide variety of such
                                    experiences are detailed in the critics list archives, which go back
                                    about 10 years. Yes: most critics are people who had bad experiences
                                    with the Waldorf schools, or to be clearer, whose CHILDREN had bad
                                    experiences (and parents tend to take that hard, especially when the
                                    moon was promised, or the Next Epoch etc).

                                    Hello!! What did you think the point was?

                                    btw, gaelman, I've finally looked at your book, at least the tidbits
                                    one can find at the site you directed us to. It looks quite
                                    interesting, though I don't go for historical fiction myself,
                                    usually.

                                    Diana
                                  • Tarjei Straume
                                    ... You seem to have misunderstood Rudolf Steiner s epistemology as a whole, and I don t think you ve grasped the definitions of his terms. I wrote a few
                                    Message 17 of 22 , May 4 11:14 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Theodor wrote:

                                      Reading about Steiner's monism in "Philosophy of Freedom" was a great help, but it did not help him as he thought it would. Monism means that reality is what one can see and hear and touch, but Steiner dismisses this as "naive realism" and that is how he gets lost. He tried to cure himself with monism, but instead he came up with a wild notion of epistemology to justify his own schizophrenic confusion of fantasy and reality.

                                      You seem to have misunderstood Rudolf Steiner's epistemology as a whole, and I don't think you've grasped the definitions of his terms. I wrote a few articles about this topic a decade ago, and here is an excerpt going to the heart of this particular matter:

                                        http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

                                      ************************************************************************
                                      The Philosophy of Freedom aims to demonstrate that monism is an absolute presupposition for perfect, unencumbered spiritual freedom. If we shall be capable of liberating ourselves completely from all coercion and authority, internal and external, physical and metaphysical, we cannot remain in a dualistic world that hides ghosts we can never approach. We must call on monism's help to tear down those limitations that the dominant dualistic culture has enforced upon human cognition like some kind of occult permanent boundary.

                                      In this way, monism wishes to enable the development of unencumbered free will as well as the cognition that the potential of human empiricism is unlimited. The Philosophy of Freedom has as its goal, therefore, to define the presuppositions for free action.

                                      In order to develop the "free spirit," Steiner argued that one would have to liberate onself from inner and outer tyranny alike. In the tenth chapter, Freedom - Philosophy and Monism, Steiner defines the difference between "naïve realism" and "metaphysical realism." Naïve realism is bound by sensory authorities:

                                      "The naïve man, who acknowledges as real only what he can see with his eyes and grasp with his hands, requires for his moral life, also, a basis for action that shall be perceptible to the senses. He requires someone or something to impart the basis for his action to him in a way that his senses can understand. He is ready to allow this basis for action to be dictated to him as commandments by any man whom he considers wiser or more powerful than himself, or whom he acknowledges for some other reason to be a power over him. In this way there arise, as moral principles, the authority of family, state, society, church and God, as previously described. A man who is very narrow minded still puts his faith in some one person; the more advanced man allows his moral conduct to be dictated by a majority (state, society). It is always on perceptible powers that he builds. The man who awakens at last to the conviction that basically these powers are human beings as weak as himself, seeks guidance from a higher power, from a Divine Being, whom he endows, however, with sense perceptible features. He conceives this Being as communicating to him the conceptual content of his moral life, again in a perceptible way - whether it be, for example, that God appears in the burning bush, or that He moves about among men in manifest human shape, and that their ears can hear Him telling them what to do and what not to do."
                                      - Die Philosophie der Freiheit 1894, GA #4: kap. 10: Freiheitsphilosophie und Monismus.

                                      Perhaps it may seem a little odd that Steiner puts so much emphasis on such things as hands, eyes, ears, etc. in relation to inner images. In the course of his years, he often spoke about the necessity of developing "sensefree thinking," i.e. a more flexible kind of mental activity that is less dependent upon the grey braincells. (It ought to be taken note here of the fact that Anthroposophy views the brain as a sense organ, so that thoughts are perceived by the brain just like sounds are perceived by the ear.) Many of his utterances appear absurd when they are approached with a thinking that is spellbound by the physical brain because they aim to give the listener inner pictures that do not reflect anything sensory, and thereby contribute to the development of sensefree thinking.

                                      The metaphysical realist does not think any more sensefree than the naïve realist is doing. He only projects physical concepts to a metphysical plane:

                                      "The highest stage of development of naïve realism in the sphere of morality is that where the moral commandment (moral idea) is separated from every being other than oneself and is thought of, hypothetically, as being an absolute power in one's own inner life. What man first took to be the external voice of God, he now takes as an independent power within him, and speaks of this inner voice in such a way as to identify it with conscience.

                                      "But in doing this he has already gone beyond the stage of naïve consciousness into the sphere where the moral laws have become independently existing standards. There they are no longer carried by real bearers, but have become metaphysical entities existing in their own right. They are analogous to the invisible "visible forces" of metaphysical realism, which does not seek reality through the part of it that man has in his thinking, but hypothetically adds it on to actual experience. These extra-human moral standards always occur as accompanying features of metaphysical realism. For metaphysical realism is bound to seek the origin of morality in the sphere of extra-human reality."
                                      Ibid.

                                      Steiner argued that dialectical materialism made freedom impossible because it enslaved thinking in a mechanical universe. He continues:

                                      "If the hypothetically assumed entity is conceived as in itself unthinking, acting according to purely mechanical laws, as materialism would have it, then it must also produce out of itself, by purely mechanical necessity, the human individual with all his characteristic features. The consciousness of freedom can then be nothing more than an illusion. For though I consider myself the author of my action, it is the matter of which I am composed and the movements going on in it that are working in me. I believe myself free; but in fact all my actions are nothing but the result of the material processes which underlie my physical and mental organization. It is said that we have the feeling of freedom only because we do not know the motives compelling us."
                                      Ibid.

                                      After that, Steiner confronts spiritualistic dualism. Today, this variety is better known as religious fundamentalism:

                                      "Whereas the materialistic dualist makes man an automaton whose actions are only the result of a purely mechanical system, the spiritualistic dualist (that is, one who sees the Absolute, the Being-in-itself, as something spiritual in which man has no share in his conscious experience) makes him a slave to the will of the Absolute. As in materialism, so also in one-sided spiritualism, in fact in any kind of metaphysical realism inferring but not experiencing something extra-human as the true reality, freedom is out of the question.

                                      Metaphysical as well as naïve realism, consistently followed out, must deny freedom for one and the same reason: they both see man as doing no more than putting into effect, or carrying out, principles forced upon him by necessity. Naive realism destroys freedom by subjecting man to the authority of a perceptible being or of one conceived on the analogy of a perceptible being, or eventually to the authority of the abstract inner voice which it interprets as 'conscience'; the metaphysician, who merely infers the extra-human reality, cannot acknowledge freedom because he sees man as being determined, mechanically or morally, by a 'Being-in-itself'."
                                      Ibid.

                                      The core in Rudolf Steiner's monism is the sovereign independence of the single individual in thinking as well as in doing. The human being itself and nothing else is the determining factor with regard to moral behavior:

                                      "The moral laws which the metaphysician who works by mere inference must regard as issuing from a higher power, are, for the adherent of monism, thoughts of men; for him the moral world order is neither the imprint of a purely mechanical natural order, nor that of an extra-human world order, but through and through the free creation of men. It is not the will of some being outside him in the world that man has to carry out, but his own; he puts into effect his own resolves and intentions, not those of another being. Monism does not see, behind man's actions, the purposes of a supreme directorate, foreign to him and determining him according to its will, but rather sees that men, in so far as they realize their intuitive ideas, pursue only their own human ends. Moreover, each individual pursues his own particular ends. For the world of ideas comes to expression, not in a community of men, but only in human individuals. What appears as the common goal of a whole group of people is only the result of the separate acts of will of its individual members, and in fact, usually of a few outstanding ones who, as their authorities, are followed by the others. Each one of us has it in him to be a free spirit, just as every rose bud has in it a rose."
                                      Ibid.

                                      Charles Darwin's theory of evolution holds a central position in Rudolf Steiner's philosophy. For him, the moral development of the soul was the most important aspect of evolution, and for this reson, he was confident that human beings would develop their free spirits through the experiences of life.

                                      Steiner writes on:

                                      "Monism knows that Nature does not send man forth from her arms ready made as a free spirit, but that she leads him up to a certain stage from which he continues to develop still as an unfree being until he comes to the point where he finds his own self.

                                      Monism is quite clear that a being acting under physical or moral compulsion cannot be a truly moral being. It regards the phases of automatic behavior (following natural urges and instincts) and of obedient behavior (following moral standards) as necessary preparatory stages of morality, but it also sees that both these transitory stages can be overcome by the free spirit. Monism frees the truly moral world conception both from the mundane fetters of naïve moral maxims and from the transcendental moral maxims of the speculative metaphysician. Monism can no more eliminate the former from the world than it can eliminate percepts; it rejects the latter because it seeks all the principles for the elucidation of the world phenomena within that world, and none outside it."
                                      Ibid.

                                      ************************************************************************

                                      Cheers,

                                      Tarjei
                                    • Theodor Grekenquist
                                      ... No underlying reality, invisible or invisible, logical or illogical, is upsetting to me in the slightest. If something is illogical and invisible and
                                      Message 18 of 22 , May 4 11:27 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hello Steve, you wrote:

                                        >I had a co-worker about a year ago who confided to me early on that
                                        >he was both bipolar and suffered from attention deficit disorder. He
                                        >also smoked and drank strong coffee, so he literally bounced off the
                                        >walls. He was keenly intelligent with strong reverence for
                                        >mathematics and science especially. He entrusted to me the fact
                                        >that he needed a grounded experience of the material world as his
                                        >sole reality. He never dreamed. When I attempted to introduce
                                        >basic principles of spiritual science and its logical ground he
                                        >would get visibly agitated, as if he was losing his bearings. I had
                                        >to change the subject, and eventually gave up this idea, which made
                                        >him comfortable again. It was just one of those things. He was
                                        >completely convinced that there could be no underlying reality
                                        >invisible to his senses and logic, and the very idea was very upsetting.

                                        No underlying reality, invisible or invisible, logical or illogical,
                                        is upsetting to me in the slightest. If something is illogical and
                                        invisible and inaudible and so on, it is also unthinkable to me and
                                        therefore not real. I have never been spooked by anyone's non-entities.

                                        My multiple personalities are not related to fear, but they do result
                                        in occasional temporary perplexity, bewilderment, until I find my
                                        bearings again. They just happen.


                                        Theodor Grekenquist
                                        http://www.skeptic.com/
                                      • Terence
                                        ... wrote: SNIP ... I am curious which one of the multiples of personalities you have expressing through you *just happened* to write about
                                        Message 19 of 22 , May 4 1:04 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
                                          <grekenquist@...> wrote:

                                          SNIP

                                          > My multiple personalities are not related to fear, but they do result
                                          > in occasional temporary perplexity, bewilderment, until I find my
                                          > bearings again. They just happen.

                                          I am curious which one of the multiples of
                                          personalities you have expressing through you *just
                                          happened* to write about the psychological state of
                                          Steiner?

                                          Bewildered,

                                          Terence
                                        • Mike T
                                          Theodor, Would you be so good as to explain some of these multiple personalities you appear to have. Is it anything like the movie where the girl had seven
                                          Message 20 of 22 , May 4 5:32 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Theodor,
                                            Would you be so good as to explain some of these multiple personalities you
                                            appear to have. Is it anything like the movie where the girl had seven
                                            personalities fighting to get out? Have you ever sought treatment for you
                                            'condition'?
                                            Mike T


                                            >From: Theodor Grekenquist <grekenquist@...>
                                            >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                            >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                            >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The man's deed
                                            >Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 20:27:18 +0200
                                            >
                                            >Hello Steve, you wrote:
                                            >
                                            > >I had a co-worker about a year ago who confided to me early on that
                                            > >he was both bipolar and suffered from attention deficit disorder. He
                                            > >also smoked and drank strong coffee, so he literally bounced off the
                                            > >walls. He was keenly intelligent with strong reverence for
                                            > >mathematics and science especially. He entrusted to me the fact
                                            > >that he needed a grounded experience of the material world as his
                                            > >sole reality. He never dreamed. When I attempted to introduce
                                            > >basic principles of spiritual science and its logical ground he
                                            > >would get visibly agitated, as if he was losing his bearings. I had
                                            > >to change the subject, and eventually gave up this idea, which made
                                            > >him comfortable again. It was just one of those things. He was
                                            > >completely convinced that there could be no underlying reality
                                            > >invisible to his senses and logic, and the very idea was very upsetting.
                                            >
                                            >No underlying reality, invisible or invisible, logical or illogical,
                                            >is upsetting to me in the slightest. If something is illogical and
                                            >invisible and inaudible and so on, it is also unthinkable to me and
                                            >therefore not real. I have never been spooked by anyone's non-entities.
                                            >
                                            >My multiple personalities are not related to fear, but they do result
                                            >in occasional temporary perplexity, bewilderment, until I find my
                                            >bearings again. They just happen.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >Theodor Grekenquist
                                            >http://www.skeptic.com/
                                            >

                                            _________________________________________________________________
                                            realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property
                                            http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au
                                          • Judy Baumbauer
                                            Mike T schrieb: Theodor, Would you be so good as to explain some of these multiple personalities you appear to have. Is it anything
                                            Message 21 of 22 , May 5 7:32 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Mike T <leosun_75@...> schrieb:
                                              Theodor,
                                              Would you be so good as to explain some of these multiple personalities you
                                              appear to have. Is it anything like the movie where the girl had seven
                                              personalities fighting to get out?
                                               
                                              All About Eve, with Paul Newman's wife.
                                              Judy
                                               


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

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