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

Re: The man's deed

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.