Re: Schizophrenic megalomania
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Theodor Grekenquist
> Until now, I have always been convinced that I have the same right,And so you do have the right to express your views
> 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 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 hasPerhaps that is true..anyone can present as being
> real credentials for anything they say. People with real credentials
> either don't participate in these lists or only participate very seldom.
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 thatYes! There have been many of the above mentioned
> religious founders, cult leaders, gurus, emprerors, conquerors, and
> many charismatic celebrities have had their share of megalomania, and
> Rudolf Steiner was no exception.
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 likeOh dear! Theodor, direct me to any written books or
> 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.
lectures where Steiner made such claims. Can you do
> Rittelmeyer was mesmerized by him, which is understandable. Steiner'sNo doubt! I would challenge the use of the word
> alluring fantasies matched with his seductive charisma was
> irresistible to many people.
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 amSee there you go again. You use words like
> 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.
'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 ofI, too, am an addictions counselor and have been
> my patients was reading Steiner.
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.So you write to this list about Steiner and present
> In spite of this, I have answered some of your questions out of
> courtesy, and perhaps I am attempting to be benign that way :)
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?
- --- 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.