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

Re: The man's deed

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , May 2, 2006
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 22 , May 2, 2006
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 22 , May 2, 2006
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 22 , May 2, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 22 , May 2, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 22 , May 2, 2006
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 22 , May 3, 2006
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 22 , May 3, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 22 , May 3, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 22 , May 4, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 22 , May 4, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 22 , May 4, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 22 , May 4, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 22 , May 5, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 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.