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

Re: Schizophrenic megalomania

Expand Messages
  • Terence
    ... And so you do have the right to express your views and I would not deny you that right. However, your statements about Steiner are rather extreme, and the
    Message 1 of 80 , May 2, 2006
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Theodor Grekenquist
      <grekenquist@...> wrote:

      > 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.

      And so you do have the right to express your views
      and I would not deny you that right. However, your
      statements about Steiner are rather extreme, and
      the way you express them comes off, at least to me,
      that you are a KNOWER. So I ask you again what
      qualifies you to express such KNOWLEDGE. Or, are
      your expressions about Steiner merely your opinion.
      In recovery we say that opinions are like *ssholes,
      every one has one.

      > 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.

      Perhaps that is true..anyone can present as being
      whoever and whatever they want to be as anyone can
      hide behind the keyboard and allow their fantasies
      to run wild. As to people who have real
      credentials: there are some very learned people on
      this list and they are active participants. Be that
      as it may, tell me Theodor why you are hedging
      here? Your answers are nothing like what you are
      emailing to this list about Steiner. One learns
      very early in this internet world to look for
      incongruities as there are many fools presenting
      themselves through the use of words as being
      something that they are not.

      > I have no axe to grind with anhroposophists or with Rudolf Steiner.

      That is interesting!

      Consider this, Theodor, there are many folks on
      this list who dearly love what Steiner has given
      the world in books and in stenographed lectures,
      the Waldorf pedagogy, biodynamics, etc.. I am one
      of them, but I am not as zealous as some here are.
      Now you come along and stir a hornets nest with
      your stick. Is it any wonder that you are being
      *stung*? In spite of what you say, "I have no axe
      to grind," it does certainly appear that you do, at
      least to me. I see this in an incongruity!

      > Your definition is close and simple enough. It is obvious that
      > religious founders, cult leaders, gurus, emprerors, conquerors, and
      > many charismatic celebrities have had their share of megalomania, and
      > Rudolf Steiner was no exception.

      Yes! There have been many of the above mentioned
      folk who have been historically characterized as
      megalomanics. I must be missing something though as
      I fail to see what that has to do with Steiner. Why
      was he no exception? Address this question with
      historical references or other such evidence other
      than your opinion. Can you do that?

      > He 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.

      Oh dear! Theodor, direct me to any written books or
      lectures where Steiner made such claims. Can you do

      > Rittelmeyer was mesmerized by him, which is understandable. Steiner's
      > alluring fantasies matched with his seductive charisma was
      > irresistible to many people.

      No doubt! I would challenge the use of the word
      fantasies, unless you are using the word the way
      Steiner does, i.e. Imaginations.

      > This is a misunderstanding. I am not attempting to be benign. I am
      > 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.

      See there you go again. You use words like
      'pathological condition,' chemical imbalance,' and
      'suppressed childhood traumas' as if you KNOW. If
      you do KNOW such things, then please share with us
      historical support for these KNOWINGS. Can you do
      that? Or are these the expression of your right to
      say what you want to say through the medium of the
      internet. If you KNOW, then you will be able to
      document and support them. My sense is that you are
      blowing smoke into the wasp's nest.

      > I do not have any "esoteric background".

      Ah! Now this is curious to me. You express your
      right to talk about one of the most esteemed
      personages in the milieu of Esoteria, yet you do
      not have any such background or interest in
      esoteria. Hmm! The more I read your responses to
      this list, the more incongruities I see.

      > I was working as a drug rehab counsellor twenty years ago, and one of
      > my patients was reading Steiner.

      I, too, am an addictions counselor and have been
      for 20 years. We have something in common. Are you
      also in recovery from alcohol or drug addiction?

      So, have you read any of Steiner's books or

      > 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 :)

      So you write to this list about Steiner and present
      as a KNOWER and then expect not to be questioned.
      My response to your writings are not hostile
      interrogations, although in reading some of the
      other list-mates responses, I can see why you used
      the word 'hostile.' :) I do appreciate your
      courtesy towards me. It is important for me to KNOW
      what age group a person is in as that tells me a
      great deal about a person's life experiences.
      Theodor, what you wrote to this list is troublesome
      to me as I dearly love Anthroposophy as through
      Steiner's writings and lectures, I have been
      brought to the threshold of understanding the Being
      known as Christ. My life, I am 65, has been
      oriented toward attaining knowledge of God, Buddha,
      Krishna and Christ from an esoteric perspective. I
      found out what I needed to know about Buddha and
      Krishna, but Christ always remained a mystery to me
      until I read Steiner. God remains a mystery. I did
      not come to anthroposophy with any substance in
      christianity. I came to anthroposophy rather
      through the backdoor of years of study in
      esotericism and cosmology. The greatest reward that
      I received from anthroposophy is two-fold: 1. a
      cogent, heart-felt relationship with Christ and 2.
      a profound appreciation of epistemology as found in
      Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom.

      So, Theodor, let me ask you two more questions,
      okay? What kind of relationship do you have with
      Christ, and have you read Philosophy of Freedom?

    • Steve Hale
      ... out the ... just ... Simone, 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
      Message 80 of 80 , May 31, 2006
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedim"
        <simonedim@...> wrote:
        > Dear All,
        > It was good to take a look at the messages this evening and find
        out the
        > subject of mercury intoxication brought up; what would be the
        > 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...
        > guessing.


        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.

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