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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Notes from Philosophy and Research Chair: Gordienko Myth

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Dear Jean-Marc, You weren t there, but if you want to take my words and dissect them, thinking this will give you some kind of greater insight into what
    Message 1 of 79 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jean-Marc,

      You weren't there, but if you want to take my words and dissect
      them, thinking this will give you some kind of greater insight into what
      actually happened between the two of us, then go ahead. Your comments
      to the contrary, my experience remains my experience, and I left out a
      great many details from the conversation. Given your mistrust of my
      ability to perceive and relate, not much point in any further dialog on
      this matter, is there?

      Previously on this list Dottie was all over me insisting that I had
      not had this conversation, until it turned out that the conversation she
      thought she saw was not the one I reported upon. Nonetheless, when
      someone disagrees with the personality worship of many anthros, all
      kinds of sparks will fly in an effort to trash the person who doesn't
      buy into the worship. As Prokofieff confessed, none of us are perfect.
      It was not only a true statement in response, but in the context,
      contained a kind of sadness for our shared human tragedy, an inner
      gesture common to the Russian Soul.

      We did form a connection, I subsequently e-mailed him and we hoped
      that the future would grace us with a chance for even deeper conversation.

      Prokofieff is really only an archetype for something so common in
      anthro circles that no one appreciates how this activity steals the
      scientific ground right from under Anthroposophy. His errors are no
      worse or no greater than ours, but at the same time the worship of his
      work and his personality, with its co-dependent unfree thinking, needs
      to be strongly opposed.

      warm regards,
      joel

      jmnguyen wrote:

      > Dear Joel,
      >
      > You wrote:
      >
      > "I basically brought to his attention that I had read the Gordienko
      > book and wanted to know what he thought about it. Eventually he asked
      > me what were my issues, what stood behind my questions, and I reported
      > to him that I had read his Tomberg book and concluded that its author
      > did not know the epistemologies, goetheanism or the consciousness
      > soul, matters also pointed out by Gordienko. His reply was not to
      > deny these statements, but only to offer this "excuse"(?): "Well, none
      > of us are perfect."
      >
      > Well, it's not quite what you wrote in the first place:"...and
      > Prokofieff confessed to me that neither could he, exactly as Gordienko
      > asserted."
      > Are you really sure S.P. confessed *anything* to you?
      > I mean if you call me a dumb-ass, and I don't deny your statements:
      > from a purely logical standpoint, it would be a preposterous and much
      > too hasty conclusion to think that I necessarily share your opinion,
      > you know...For instance, if I was dumbstruck to meet a dumbness
      > significantly greater than my own: as a spiritual gourmet, I
      > might relish this fortunate and unexpected encounter to such an extent
      > that I might even indulge myself by humbly - and slyly - confessing:
      > "well, none of us are perfect"...
      > Hey, who knows: maybe S.P. offered this "excuse" having *you* in
      > mind?...:-)
      > He did sense how you were sneaking up on him using the Gordienko book
      > as (coarse) camouflage, didn't he?
      > By the way, is Tomberg your...er...*hero*? If so, do you think it is
      > conceivable that your (spiritual) attachment to Tomberg might somewhat
      > influence you in your (perhaps impure?...) perception of S.P.?
      >
      > You wrote:
      >
      > "Our conversation was not antagonistic, in spite of its themes, and
      > while he was a bit guarded in the beginning (naturally considering
      > where we started) it ended quite warmly."
      >
      > *Warmly* doesn't mean a thing nowadays. It all depends on where the
      > warmth is coming from and what it is leading to --- because nowadays,
      > Judas is kissing and hugging all over the place :-) The subsequent
      > events are the revealing human factor.
      >
      > You previously wrote:
      >
      > "Actually it does show that Prokofieff has no understanding of PoF,
      > because if he did he would be able to speak concerning PoF without
      > placing any of its elements in some kind of elaborate Steiner-speak
      > language (Michael this and Michael that). PoF stands on its own, and
      > its meaning is far outside what Prokofieff is quoted as saying here."
      >
      > Well, I would certainly feel compelled to speak of PoF using some kind
      > of (Christ this and Christ that...) language. And if some wise guy
      > thought this meant that I had no understanding of PoF, I'd probably
      > burst out laughing (inwardly at least). Outwardly, I don't know
      > - maybe I'd confess: "well, none of us are perfect"...
      >
      > You wrote:
      >
      > "If you read people who actually know PoF in practical fashion, such
      > as Barfield, Kuhlewind, Ben-Aharon, Gordienko, myself and others, you
      > will find that the essence of the book can be placed entirely outside
      > the results of Steiner's spiritual research, and fully within the
      > problems of knowledge well understood within the philosophic
      > disciplines of 19th Century Central Europe."
      >
      > This is a half-truth, and as such, it's very dangerous.
      > The other half-truth is that the essence of the book can be placed
      > entirely inside the results of Steiner's spiritual research - and way
      > beyond the problems of knowledge of mere philosophy.
      > The fact is that up to now Philosophy really couldn't care less about
      > this work (PoF).
      >
      > You wrote:
      >
      > "Prokofieff's thoughts on the relationship between the book and
      > Michael are fanciful inventions , for Prokofieff is not clairvoyant,
      > is not doing spiritual research, and most of what he says arises
      > because he has so filled his soul with what he has read of Steiner,
      > that at best (at best!) he is a theologian of Steinerism, but not an
      > anthroposophist."
      >
      > I think it was you, Joel, who said:" The key to learning to create the
      > true images of the world is love."
      > Hey, maybe you've got something there!
      >
      > Jean-Marc [FMJ]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > *From:* Joel Wendt <mailto:hermit@...>
      > *To:* anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
      > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:32 AM
      > *Subject:* Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Notes from Philosophy and
      > Research Chair: Gordienko Myth
      >
      > As part of a 20 minute conversation I had with Prokofieff at the 2005
      > Ann Arbor conference, begun at my initiative, we spoke of a number of
      > things. I basically brought to his attention that I had read the
      > Gordienko book and wanted to know what he thought about it.
      > Eventually
      > he asked me what were my issues, what stood behind my questions,
      > and I
      > reported to him that I had read his Tomberg book and concluded
      > that its
      > author did not know the epistemologies, goetheanism or the
      > consciousness
      > soul, matters also pointed out by Gordienko. His reply was not to
      > deny
      > these statements, but only to offer this "excuse"(?): "Well, none
      > of us
      > are perfect."
      >
      > Our conversation was not antagonistic, in spite of its themes, and
      > while
      > he was a bit guarded in the beginning (naturally considering where we
      > started) it ended quite warmly. He is, of course, not alone
      > within the
      > Society in the sense of not knowing the epistemologies,
      > goetheanism or
      > the consciousness soul (themes intimately related to each other).
      >
      > j.
      >
      > <snip>
      >
      >
      >
      > SPONSORED LINKS
      > Rudolf steiner
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Rudolf+steiner&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Rudolf+steiner+college&w3=Anthroposophy&w4=Occult&w5=Straight+from+the+heart&w6=Beyond+belief&c=6&s=127&.sig=I6jFZGBQtpEDCFoQ6AUnqg>
      > Rudolf steiner college
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Rudolf+steiner+college&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Rudolf+steiner+college&w3=Anthroposophy&w4=Occult&w5=Straight+from+the+heart&w6=Beyond+belief&c=6&s=127&.sig=vjF_-azFOKDe2XygcD9B5w>
      > Anthroposophy
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Anthroposophy&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Rudolf+steiner+college&w3=Anthroposophy&w4=Occult&w5=Straight+from+the+heart&w6=Beyond+belief&c=6&s=127&.sig=aQuC5sO6EVfnu2Q-jg6qkw>
      >
      > Occult
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Occult&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Rudolf+steiner+college&w3=Anthroposophy&w4=Occult&w5=Straight+from+the+heart&w6=Beyond+belief&c=6&s=127&.sig=5r4PcHQe-dNjxYuIzIvCqg>
      > Straight from the heart
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Straight+from+the+heart&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Rudolf+steiner+college&w3=Anthroposophy&w4=Occult&w5=Straight+from+the+heart&w6=Beyond+belief&c=6&s=127&.sig=Xt54DE3J36bWWbGDhbpeiA>
      > Beyond belief
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Beyond+belief&w1=Rudolf+steiner&w2=Rudolf+steiner+college&w3=Anthroposophy&w4=Occult&w5=Straight+from+the+heart&w6=Beyond+belief&c=6&s=127&.sig=i-Z394k8-Giz2FrLwrtKQw>
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > * Visit your group "anthroposophy_tomorrow
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow>" on the web.
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
    • Mike T
      Hi Dottie, So what is the nature of soul? How do you understand your soul in relation to your I (lower and higher). When one askes what is the nature of
      Message 79 of 79 , Jun 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Dottie,
        So what is the nature of soul? How do you understand your soul in relation
        to your 'I' (lower and higher). When one askes what is the nature of soul,
        we ask where it began, how it has developed (the stages in the education of
        the human being) what happens to it when it is fully transformed? So a soul
        which is worked on by our higher member, transforms (to spirit self) and
        when fully transformed, how does it relate to the lower members of the human
        being. We know that for the heirarchies above us, there lowest members are
        to be found in the human higher members. So if a human transforms all of his
        lowest members, as Christ showed us the Son of Man (i.e. no more physical,
        etheric, astral) but spirit self, life spirit and spirit man, what then is
        the lowest member, and is the human then not on a higher level than the
        current human stage?

        What is your current soul life experience? Will your soul continue with you
        when you cross the threshold? or only part of it? or none of it? Do you need
        a soul in the spiritual world? When you cross the threshold, how will it be
        with the soul, what will you know of it there; is it the I that will
        traverse the heavens or the I and the soul? When we sleep we take the soul
        with us, why do we do this? Do we identify more with our soul than our I? If
        so, how can we tell, or how can we change this? or do we want to change
        this?

        When we gain an understanding of our theosophy, will we have a better
        understanding of the mysteries and the questions you have posed? The complex
        of what is the Nathan Soul, did not Prokofieff write entire chapters on
        this? To understand the Nathan Soul, do you think it would not be good to
        study this material? How does one do that on the net? The net is very
        limitied don't you think, for human to human interaction.? Isn't all one
        gets on here just dry ibones so to speak? Where is the feeling realm of the
        soul on here?

        Not sure if this is what you had in mind Dottie?
        Cheers,
        Mike T



        snip


        >Dottie:
        >"What about the Nathan Soul in relations to the I of
        >Jesus and the Divinity Christ? Are we calling the I of
        >Jesus, the Zarathustra soul, the I that is incarnating
        >over and over and if so where does this leave the
        >Nathan Soul?
        >
        >Now if the Nathan Soul lived in the one we call Jesus
        >and then is united with the Zarathustra soul and then
        >it leaves when the Christ descends do we still have
        >the Nathan Soul with the Christ Being? And if we have
        >the Nathan Soul with the Christ Being, which I am
        >thinking along this way, we have an imprint onto a
        >Virgin Soul of the Christ Being, that has now become
        >not only creaturely but also heavenly in a new sense?
        >Do we have a completely new human being in that set
        >up?"
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        New year, new job � there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
        http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.