Re: Schizophrenic megalomania
- Hello Terence, you wrote:
>I am curious Theodor, what qualifies you to state the above about Steiner.Until now, I have always been convinced that I have the same right,
privilege, and qualifications to express my views about Rudolf
Steiner, Julius Caesar, Charlie Chaplin, or whoever the case may be
like anyone else, and that I would not need to apply for a licence to do so.
>Are you a psycho-therapist, a Jungian Analyst?It is the essence of the whole internet game that no one ever has
real credentials for anything they say. People with real credentials
either don't participate in these lists or only participate very seldom.
>How are you able to grok this? Or do you have an axe to grind?I have no axe to grind with anhroposophists or with Rudolf Steiner.
>My impression of megalomania is one of power or dominion overYour definition is close and simple enough. It is obvious that
>others. How do you characterize the word?
religious founders, cult leaders, gurus, emprerors, conquerors, and
many charismatic celebrities have had their share of megalomania, and
Rudolf Steiner was no exception.
>Please cite historical examples of Steiner's alleged penchant forHe claimed to open the heavens for the masses and lead them like
Moses into the Promised New Age Land. He claimed prophethood, walking
and talking with the gods. Those gods, and all the etheric and astral
bodies were just like those three illusory characters in John Nash's
life: His Princeton room mate, the little girl, and the G-man. They
kept following Nash around, just like gods and etheric bodies kept
following Steiner around.
>Nothing that I read by folks who knew the man, like Rittlemeyer,Rittelmeyer was mesmerized by him, which is understandable. Steiner's
>remotely suggest even a discreet and mild form of megalomania (if
>such a psychological state is even possible).
alluring fantasies matched with his seductive charisma was
irresistible to many people.
>You seem to present to the list as one who is attempting to beThis is a misunderstanding. I am not attempting to be benign. I am
>benign, yet at the same time hypercritical towards Steiner.
saying I think Steiner was a benign person, which made his
pathological condition harmless to society, even to those who try to
emulate him because they do not share his chemical imbalances and
suppressed childhood traumas.
>What is your esoteric background?I do not have any "esoteric background".
>How did you get in touch with Steiner's writings?I was working as a drug rehab counsellor twenty years ago, and one of
my patients was reading Steiner.
>How old are you, i.e. what cycle of time are you currently experiencing?I do not give interviews online or succumb to hostile interrogations.
In spite of this, I have answered some of your questions out of
courtesy, and perhaps I am attempting to be benign that way :)
- --- In email@example.com, "simonedim"
> Dear All,
> It was good to take a look at the messages this evening and find
> subject of mercury intoxication brought up; what would be thejust
> anthroposophists' view on the autism epidemic? I'd love to hear
> Bradford comments on this (hopefully he'll read this message!) ...
> maybe, it would fit better in Stephen Hale's fields of interest...
I must be on a roll tonight, but I've been thinking about this post
ever since you wrote it, and it surely expresses an evil that is
just about as bad as it could get; killing the soul in children.
And all based on the premise that mercury is a needed preservative
in vaccines. What the hell sense does that make? Well, that's why
they had the conference off the coast of Georgia back about six
years ago to discuss their strategy.