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

the Betrayal of Anthroposophy

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    First Leading Thought: Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the Universe. It arises in man as
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 25, 2006
      First Leading Thought:

      "Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the
      human being to the Spiritual in the Universe. It arises in man as a
      need of the heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only
      inasmuch as it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge
      Anthroposophy, who finds in it what he himself in his own inner life
      feels impelled to seek. Hence only they can be anthroposophists who
      feel certain questions on the nature of man and the universe as an
      elemental need of life, just as one feels hunger and thirst."

      Second Leading Thought:

      "Anthroposophy communicates knowledge that is gained in a spiritual
      way. Yet it only does so because everyday life, and the science founded
      on sense-perception and intellectual activity, lead to a barrier along
      life's way - a limit where the life of the soul in man would die if it
      could go no farther. Everyday life and science do not lead to this
      limit in such a way as to compel man to stop short at it. For at the
      very frontier where the knowledge derived from sense-perception ceases,
      there is opened through the human soul itself the further outlook into
      the spiritual world."

      Third Leading Thought:

      "There are those who believe that with the limits of knowledge derived
      from sense-perception the limits of all insight are given. Yet if they
      would carefully observe how they become conscious of these limits, they
      would find in the very consciousness of the limits the faculties to
      transcend them. The fish swims up to the limits of the water; it must
      return because ite lacks the physical organs to live outside this
      element. Man reaches the limits of knowledge attainable by
      sense-perception; but he can recognize that on the way to this point
      powers of soul have arisen in him - powers whereby the soul can live in
      an an element that goes beyond the horizon of the senses."

      Nowhere in the above is the word "understanding" used, only the word
      "knowledge". Conversations with German speakers reveal that most
      would prefer to translate the term "erkenntnis" or erkennen" as "active
      cognition" rather than "knowledge", which in English seems sometimes to
      be too passive.

      Steiner's "science of knowing" is found only in the epistemologies: A
      Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, Truth and
      Science and The Philosophy of Freedom.

      In these works it is clear that "knowing", or cognition, only arises
      when the experience (percept) and thought (concept) are brought together
      in the correct way. In the absence of experience (percept), there is no
      knowledge. Reading a text does not provide the experience from which
      the concepts used in the text were originally derived, while it can
      provide "understanding".

      Self observation (introspection) of the kind encouraged by Steiner in
      the epistemologies, reveals clearly that understanding and knowledge are
      two quite distinct and different qualities of soul. In understanding I
      generate individualized mental pictures from reading, but these are not
      mental pictures derived from actual spiritual experience.

      The language used by the spiritual researcher contains, as it
      necessarily must, a further defect due to the fact that modern languages
      lack terms rooted in spiritual experience, but rather must depend upon
      the transmission of mental pictures created by language usages dependent
      upon words whose origin is in the sense-perceptable world. For
      example, all the concept-pictures in Theosophy and Occult Science use
      sense based terms. The real import of those texts is that to even think
      these pictures requires effort of will to be applied to thinking, and
      this will-effort then has a positive training effect upon the mind. It
      does not, however, offer a substitute for experience. It only prepares
      for experience.

      The hunger mentioned above in the First Leading Thought is not a hunger
      for understanding, although many in anthroposophical circles can be
      nurtured by this understanding. I mean here to distinguish between
      being nurtured and nourished, by the way. Understanding can comfort,
      but that is not the same as what it means to be nourished by direct
      experience of the Spirit. It is our hunger for reintegration, to come
      home to the Spirit, that underlies the striving for and of Anthroposophy.

      [John 3:6-8] "What's born of the flesh is flesh, and what's born of the
      breath is breath. Don't be amazed because I told you you have to be
      born again. The wind blows where it will and you hear the sound of it,
      but you don't know where it comes from or where it goes; its the same
      with everyone born of the breath."

      If we overreach in the development of the soul, by mistaking
      understanding for cognition, we wander into the realm of Lucifer. The
      mental pictures derived from reading a text, due to their self created
      and sense based nature, are a step upon the Way of Anthroposophy, which
      yet contains a great danger.

      This danger is that we can begin to believe that we can manipulate these
      self created and sense based mental pictures, to combine and recombine
      them or otherwise engage in associative thinking. It is not uncommon
      to be in a study group, where people will try to do this and might speak
      as follows: "I imagine that what this might mean in these circumstances
      is...". Here they are simply just associating one mental picture with
      other mental pictures, and acting as if this inner process provides
      knowledge.

      Anyone who really has begun to experience the Wind (the presence of
      Fullness and the fullness of Presence) in the life of thought, will
      "know" that being touched by the Spirit in this way comes not because I
      am full of self-created sense-perceptable mental pictures, but rather
      because I have renounced them. Blessed are the "poor" in Spirit, for
      theirs is the kingdom of heaven (the experience of the Wind in the soul
      arises because I am empty of mental pictures, not because I am full of
      them).

      When we are full of this associative and fancifully imagined knowledge,
      we are not on the Path of Anthroposophy. Yet, no one should be
      surprised by the existence of this approach, since with the failure of
      the leading personalities in the Society and Movement to master the
      epistemologies, this has led inevitably to a great confusion about what
      Anthroposophy is as a path of cognition. People can't talk about what
      they don't know, and since all they really possess is a vast corpus of
      mental pictures derived from the reading of text, we everywhere live in
      "Steiner said" (which is now further degenerating into "Prokofieff said").

      So when Steve Hale and Bradford appear to consciously reject knowledge
      for understanding, this can only be seen as one thing: the Betrayal of
      Anthroposophy. Perhaps they did not mean to do this. I look forward to
      their responses.

      I think "understanding" is wonderful. It is a great help, but if we
      believe we have arrived at the goal of the Way of Anthroposophy, by
      developing mere understanding, and further, if we advocate that this
      mere understanding is the highest fruit of the practice of Spiritual
      Science, then we have betrayed our Teacher and the Teaching as well.

      Some last words from our Teacher, published in the latest News for Members.

      "If you really want to serve the spiritual world in an anthroposophical
      sense, you must never speak or answer because you feel inwardly swelled
      with knowledge, filled with knowledge. Instead, you need a feeling of
      insufficiency, a falling short, of poverty in the face of what has to be
      accomplished"

      "There might come a time when anthroposophy would have to separate from
      the Anthroposophical Society"

      "When I am no longer here there will be an intellectualization of the
      Anthroposophical Society. This is a great danger, for it means the
      stagnation of the whole movement."


      joel
    • holderlin66
      Danger Will Robinson, Danger! Joel Wendt wrote: If we overreach in the development of the soul, by mistaking understanding for cognition, we wander into the
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 25, 2006
        Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

        Joel Wendt wrote:

        "If we overreach in the development of the soul, by mistaking
        understanding for cognition, we wander into the realm of Lucifer. The
        mental pictures derived from reading a text, due to their self created
        and sense based nature, are a step upon the Way of Anthroposophy, which
        yet contains a great danger.

        "This danger is that we can begin to believe that we can manipulate
        these self created and sense based mental pictures, to combine and
        recombine them or otherwise engage in associative thinking."

        Bradford advises Joel to come down off the flag pole;

        Ya know, none of us can do much Anthro Learning without some Lucifer
        moving in our thoughts and creativity. Lucifer is far less of a
        problem presently. Lucifer as has been stated makes for watching the
        play of instincts at the local pub, which for the naive realist, our
        human life around us seems and appears to be fairly real, with real
        pulse bearing children and adults, pets and plants and stones before
        us. Yet we can agree with Steiner, Kees Zoeteman, Wachsmuth and
        Bondarev that stone, plant, animal and human had fallen in macro field
        waves, until the first upsurge, uptick, uplift at Golgotha, lit a very
        mighty Promethian spark in spirit-man and the tent-pole, the ridge
        pole was raised.

        Listen Joel, If we say, "Mysterious Stranger", "Faust", "The Fisherman
        and his soul", if we say, "Mr. Smith and Mr. Anderson in the "Matrix"
        if we say, a replication of the experiences of the higher guardian of
        the threshold, in some aspects of "Lord of the Rings"... we ain't just
        throwing together an arbitrary cake for you to dance your usual jig
        on. You can call foul all you want but it isn't exactly my habit to
        link arbitrary fibbity-Jibbit or not have it lock into solid
        percept/concept fields. We can say, "Big Love" and King Lear and her
        three daughters, and the soul forces of Maria, PHilia - Astrid - Luna
        or the three vampire babes who spin off of Dracula, or the Macbeth
        witches...we ain't confused in our sense depicting, interconnected
        clarity. Most of it, and I admit, not all of it, supports cultural and
        Spiritual Science research.

        If we say Michael Jackson is a [Representative of the Archetype] of
        having Luciferic forces dominating in him unchecked.
        If we say, Ann Coulter - Rush Limbaugh - Karl Rove all are
        [Representatives of the Archetype] of having highly torqued dual
        forces of Lucifer and Ahriman running in a high pitched whine in their
        souls.. These appear to be what they are: Understanding the Symptoms
        to be able to understand the disease. Anthroposophical cultural
        Diagnostics.

        Then, then you raise such a hullabalooo about Understanding events and
        retreat to higher ground, that none of us can dare mix what appears
        before us as all sorts of comedy and tragedy and define these psycho-
        spiritual realities without your permission. Your old pathological tic
        raises its unique head again. It is an illusion and no proof can be
        ascertained that Christ built on a logical system within the human
        being and unfolded the Spirit Man on Earth. This is an urban legend.
        It is highly Luciferic to think such things actually happened and if
        you talk this stuff to anybody they all walk away or their noses start
        to bleed or they get a brain hemmorage like you . It is highly
        Luciferic to compare the nature of Julian the Apostate to Herzaloyde
        and Herzaloyde, after all that, loaning her etheric forces to young
        Mani. These are highly Luciferic, unproven, unacceptable research
        points for us to make.

        In Joel's world noone has any right to step outside of Theory of
        Knowledge or POF and if they happen to have stepped off the
        reservation all future theory must be approved by Joel or someone in
        the standing where knowledge, intuition and insight bump against
        baloney...for I haven't seen any map yet that tells me, 'X' you are
        here, and ' X ' here is the Threshold of the Spiritual World. I do not
        deny nor am I ashamed that Lucifer is working within the Anthro
        society, I just prefer to have Michael School Understanding be able to
        read the illusive events around us with a little more common sense and
        clarity as if we were Anthros in the School of Michael.

        But every once in while your stubborn pathology bursts clean wide open
        and you begin to have fits, not unlike fits that I have. But I have
        them and truly, some of them ain't so pretty...so IMO, suddenly
        Stephen Hale and I are on your radar screen for Treason, Betrayal, and
        falling away from Joel's system of initiation and putting nails in the
        coffin of Rudolf Steiner.

        Alright, if it ain't jealousy, fear, anxiety attacks, what suddenly
        possesses you to run through the house screaming treason, betrayal,
        mutiny, crud ball thinking, sloppy erkenntnis...shouldn't it rather be
        Stephen and Bradford are driving you nuts, insane, hurting your
        delicate thinking tissues? Make them stop! OH please Mommy make them
        stop!

        I'll give ya the fact that vulnerability, complete lack of power to
        correct what I see or understand, is humbling. Nothing in my power can
        change the direction of certain things. That doesn't mean that I can't
        observe them as learning experiences which allows me to cut my teeth
        on the schooling presented for OUR TIME. I am using my schooling to
        think my way through certain complex issues. Granted, you would feel
        better if I would just shut-up and do my Ruckshau and become a real
        Initiate instead of this Luciferic acrobat and you hold that I would
        be much better off in serving Anthro intent by behaving like you. I am
        behaving like you. You have a large, large listing of Joel research
        and some of it is rather great. Well thank-you Joel and there
        certainly is more than a grain of truth in the fact that I look up to
        anybody who thinks and has taken up a Michael Schooling and I even
        look up to you.

        Nor do I ever consider that my feeble efforts are any wheres close to
        some of the great spirits I have already known. As John the Baptist
        says, couldn't even tie their shoes, latch their sandals, walk a
        second in their boots, or hold my feeble candle to their mighty
        flares. I am a mere Mid-summer lightening bug, who glimmers, very
        close to the Raven grounds.

        I hope that helps now take your medication like a good boy.
      • Steve Hale
        ... knowledge, ... failure of ... the ... what ... what ... corpus of ... live in ... said ). ... knowledge ... Betrayal of ... forward to ... I once told you
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 25, 2006
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
          <hermit@...> wrote:
          > When we are full of this associative and fancifully imagined
          knowledge,
          > we are not on the Path of Anthroposophy. Yet, no one should be
          > surprised by the existence of this approach, since with the
          failure of
          > the leading personalities in the Society and Movement to master
          the
          > epistemologies, this has led inevitably to a great confusion about
          what
          > Anthroposophy is as a path of cognition. People can't talk about
          what
          > they don't know, and since all they really possess is a vast
          corpus of
          > mental pictures derived from the reading of text, we everywhere
          live in
          > "Steiner said" (which is now further degenerating into "Prokofieff
          said").
          >
          > So when Steve Hale and Bradford appear to consciously reject
          knowledge
          > for understanding, this can only be seen as one thing: the
          Betrayal of
          > Anthroposophy. Perhaps they did not mean to do this. I look
          forward to
          > their responses.

          I once told you that my approach was to conceptualize in the dark;
          meaning no mental pictures for image-building at all. And that is
          what stands behind efforts of sense-free thinking conducted for 20
          years now. So, for example, when a spiritual experience occurs that
          has no knowledge or understanding other than that it took place, and
          has a reason and a purpose that must be striven for in order to
          achieve its comprehension (knowedge + understanding), then knowledge
          acquisition becomes the trail of self-discovery. Spiritual-
          scientific study has progressively brought forth this knowledge and
          recognition of the Etheric Christ, based on a combination of
          anthroposophy and independent efforts of sense-free thinking that
          was conducted for fourteen years until revealed in a stroke of light
          in April, 1994.

          Now, you practice a methodology called: Exact Sensorial Phantasy.
          Please describe for me how your method avoids the construction of
          mental pictures and images, which then become a part of your
          cultivated experiences?

          Steve
        • eltrigal78
          ... Doesn t hold too much water, Joel. I assume you are refering to a Bradford post in which he supported my contention that understanding soul would be the
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 25, 2006
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Nowhere in the above is the word "understanding" used, only the word
            > "knowledge". Conversations with German speakers reveal that most
            > would prefer to translate the term "erkenntnis" or erkennen" as "active
            > cognition" rather than "knowledge", which in English seems sometimes to
            > be too passive.

            Doesn't hold too much water, Joel. I assume you are refering to a
            Bradford post in which he supported my contention that "understanding
            soul" would be the correct than "intellectual soul". But even if you
            weren't referring to that, I rave on. Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
            which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
            should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
            understanding (sic) of what it means.
            Also, if you use "active cognition" in English you aren't translating
            but interpreting (which is sometimes appropriate, but not in this case
            imo). "Erkenntis" is usually used in philosophy to denote cognition,
            true, ("active" is interpretation, although I admit that the "er"
            prefix does perhaps give a sense of activity to the root "Kenntnis".
            On the other hand, "Knowledge", starting as it does with "kn" is
            obviously of Germanic origin and is therefore the appropriate
            translation, especially when the phrase used is "path" of knowledge,
            which is active in itself. Sorry ;-) to split hairs.
            >
            Frank
          • Joel Wendt
            Frank, you can split hairs all you want, have a split hair day or a split ends day or a bad hair day. Always good to get the German straight or at least
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 26, 2006
              Frank, you can split hairs all you want, have a split hair day or a
              split ends day or a bad hair day. Always good to get the German
              straight or at least better.

              j.

              eltrigal78 wrote:

              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow%40yahoogroups.com>, Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > Nowhere in the above is the word "understanding" used, only the word
              > > "knowledge". Conversations with German speakers reveal that most
              > > would prefer to translate the term "erkenntnis" or erkennen" as "active
              > > cognition" rather than "knowledge", which in English seems sometimes to
              > > be too passive.
              >
              > Doesn't hold too much water, Joel. I assume you are refering to a
              > Bradford post in which he supported my contention that "understanding
              > soul" would be the correct than "intellectual soul". But even if you
              > weren't referring to that, I rave on. Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
              > which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
              > should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
              > understanding (sic) of what it means.
              > Also, if you use "active cognition" in English you aren't translating
              > but interpreting (which is sometimes appropriate, but not in this case
              > imo). "Erkenntis" is usually used in philosophy to denote cognition,
              > true, ("active" is interpretation, although I admit that the "er"
              > prefix does perhaps give a sense of activity to the root "Kenntnis".
              > On the other hand, "Knowledge", starting as it does with "kn" is
              > obviously of Germanic origin and is therefore the appropriate
              > translation, especially when the phrase used is "path" of knowledge,
              > which is active in itself. Sorry ;-) to split hairs.
              > >
              > Frank
              >
              >
            • Guenter Kreidl
              ... , Joel Wendt
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
                ----------
                >From: "eltrigal78" <ftsster@...>
                >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: the Betrayal of Anthroposophy
                >Date: Mon, Jun 26, 2006, 2:08 AM
                >

                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow%40yahoogroups.com> , Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
                > wrote:
                >>
                >> Nowhere in the above is the word "understanding" used, only the word
                >> "knowledge". Conversations with German speakers reveal that most
                >> would prefer to translate the term "erkenntnis" or erkennen" as "active
                >> cognition" rather than "knowledge", which in English seems sometimes to
                >> be too passive.
                >
                > Doesn't hold too much water, Joel. I assume you are refering to a
                > Bradford post in which he supported my contention that "understanding
                > soul" would be the correct than "intellectual soul". But even if you
                > weren't referring to that, I rave on. Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
                > which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
                > should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
                > understanding (sic) of what it means.
                > Also, if you use "active cognition" in English you aren't translating
                > but interpreting (which is sometimes appropriate, but not in this case
                > imo). "Erkenntis" is usually used in philosophy to denote cognition,
                > true, ("active" is interpretation, although I admit that the "er"
                > prefix does perhaps give a sense of activity to the root "Kenntnis".
                > On the other hand, "Knowledge", starting as it does with "kn" is
                > obviously of Germanic origin and is therefore the appropriate
                > translation, especially when the phrase used is "path" of knowledge,
                > which is active in itself. Sorry ;-) to split hairs.
                >>
                > Frank
                >
                >
              • Guenter Kreidl
                Oops, my email went off before I could say what I wanted to ... hit the wrong key, I suppose. and issued some kind of command ... I m new here and wanted to
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
                  Oops, my email went off before I could say what I wanted to ... hit the
                  wrong key, I suppose. and issued some kind of command ...

                  I'm new here and wanted to have a look first, what's going on here, but I
                  found something which is defenitely a wrong quote from German and so ...

                  > Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
                  > which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
                  > should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
                  > understanding (sic) of what it means.

                  Steiner NEVER used "Verständnisseele", he always used "Verstandesseele" or
                  sometimes "Verstandes- und Gemütsseele", so "understanding soul" is
                  definitely a wrong translation.

                  Don't ask me for a better one, I'm German :-)

                  Guenter
                • Frank Smith
                  ... Frank -- Frank Thomas Smith http://SouthernCrossReview.org On 6/29/06, Guenter Kreidl wrote: Oops, my email went off before I
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
                    On 6/29/06, Guenter Kreidl <gkreidl@...> wrote:
                    Oops, my email went off before I could say what I wanted to ... hit the
                    wrong key, I suppose. and issued some kind of command ...

                    I'm new here and wanted to have a look first, what's going on here, but I
                    found something which is defenitely a wrong quote from German and so ...

                    > Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
                    > which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
                    > should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
                    > understanding (sic) of what it means.

                    Steiner NEVER used "Verständnisseele", he always used "Verstandesseele" or
                    sometimes "Verstandes- und Gemütsseele", so "understanding soul" is
                    definitely a wrong translation.

                    Don't ask me for a better one, I'm German :-)

                    Guenter

                    I dig you Guenter, and will always defer to a German native speaker when the meaning of the original German is concerned. You're right of course about "Verstandesseele" and I don't know why I confused it with Verständnis..." (just not paying attention, I guess, and not bothering to check). However, now that you've come on board with the correction, I still must ask you why you say that "understanding soul" is definitely a wrong translation. My problem, I assume, is that I don't see much difference between "...andes" and "...ändnis". In any case, would you agree that "understanding" is better than "intellectual", which carries the baggage of intellectualism? Also, do you think that "rational soul" would be better? Another question: As you write above, Steiner used "Verstandes-und (oder?) Gemütseele". Isn't Gemüt quite different from Verstand? (I can't help but associate it with "gemütlich".) I think it was Lievegoed who said somewhere that "Gemütseele" could refer to, fe, a kindergarten teacher who passes to the consciousness soul without passing through the "Verstand" stage. In other words, they are not quasi-synonymous. Thanks for your input.

                    Frank


                    --
                    Frank Thomas Smith
                    http://SouthernCrossReview.org
                  • dottie zold
                    Dear Guenter, I ve found the term understanding soul recently in one of Rudolf Steiner s lectures describing what would usually be Intellectual Soul . Does
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
                      Dear Guenter,

                      I've found the term 'understanding soul' recently in
                      one of Rudolf Steiner's lectures describing what would
                      usually be 'Intellectual Soul'. Does this mean it
                      would be a wrong translation as well? And if I can
                      recall, I shall have to check for it again, the way it
                      was expressed it really made for a much deeper
                      understanding of 'intellectual soul' in relations to
                      what was being said.

                      Thanks,
                      Dottie

                      --- Guenter Kreidl <gkreidl@...> wrote:

                      > Oops, my email went off before I could say what I
                      > wanted to ... hit the
                      > wrong key, I suppose. and issued some kind of
                      > command ...
                      >
                      > I'm new here and wanted to have a look first, what's
                      > going on here, but I
                      > found something which is defenitely a wrong quote
                      > from German and so ...
                      >
                      > > Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
                      > > which is literally "understanding soul", no way
                      > around that. So why
                      > > should it be translated differently if it's not
                      > necessary to do so for
                      > > understanding (sic) of what it means.
                      >
                      > Steiner NEVER used "Verständnisseele", he always
                      > used "Verstandesseele" or
                      > sometimes "Verstandes- und Gemütsseele", so
                      > "understanding soul" is
                      > definitely a wrong translation.
                      >
                      > Don't ask me for a better one, I'm German :-)
                      >
                      > Guenter
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • jmn36210
                      Frank, you wrote: Isn t Gemüt quite different from Verstand? Theosophy [GA9]: The mere sentient soul, therefore, differs from the evolved higher member of
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 30, 2006

                        Frank, you wrote: "Isn't Gemüt quite different from Verstand? "

                        Theosophy [GA9]:

                        "The mere sentient soul, therefore, differs from the evolved higher member of the soul that brings thinking into its service. This soul that is served by thought will be termed the intellectual soul. It could also be called the mind soul."

                        And now the original German text:

                         

                        "Die bloße Empfindungsseele ist daher verschieden von dem entwickelten höheren Seelengliede, welches das Denken in seinen Dienst stellt. Als Verstandesseele sei diese vom Denken bediente Seele bezeichnet. Man könnte sie auch die Gemütsseele oder das Gemüt nennen."

                         

                        Interestingly enough, R.S. isn't very forthcoming about "die Gemütsseele" and "das Gemüt"...

                         

                         

                        Frank: "In any case, would you agree that "understanding" is better than "intellectual", which carries the baggage of intellectualism? "

                         

                        Although I'm a French native speaker, I would agree for the following reason:

                         

                        "Only after the Greco-Roman epoch does scientific thinking appear. Intellectual thinking develops for the first time about the sixteenth century. This explains the great progress in the sciences, which exclude all emotion from the activity of thought. " [GA130 - 4th November 1911]

                         

                        In other words, intellectual thinking is by no means being stuck in the *Intellectual/Understanding Soul Age* or 4th cultural epoch; intellectual thinking is living in the present Consciousness Soul Age.

                         

                        And "the greatest mystery of our time" - from a [true] anthroposophical perspective - is intimately and essentially related to this fact.

                         

                        Jean-Marc [FMJ]

                         

                         


                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Smith" <ftsster@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > On 6/29/06, Guenter Kreidl gkreidl@... wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Oops, my email went off before I could say what I wanted to ... hit the
                        > > wrong key, I suppose. and issued some kind of command ...
                        > >
                        > > I'm new here and wanted to have a look first, what's going on here, but I
                        > > found something which is defenitely a wrong quote from German and so ...
                        > >
                        > > > Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
                        > > > which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
                        > > > should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
                        > > > understanding (sic) of what it means.
                        > >
                        > > Steiner NEVER used "Verständnisseele", he always used "Verstandesseele" or
                        > > sometimes "Verstandes- und Gemütsseele", so "understanding soul" is
                        > > definitely a wrong translation.
                        > >
                        > > Don't ask me for a better one, I'm German :-)
                        > >
                        > > Guenter
                        > >
                        > > I dig you Guenter, and will always defer to a German native speaker when
                        > > the meaning of the original German is concerned. You're right of course
                        > > about "Verstandesseele" and I don't know why I confused it with
                        > > Verständnis..." (just not paying attention, I guess, and not bothering to
                        > > check). However, now that you've come on board with the correction, I still
                        > > must ask you why you say that "understanding soul" is definitely a wrong
                        > > translation. My problem, I assume, is that I don't see much difference
                        > > between "...andes" and "...ändnis". In any case, would you agree that
                        > > "understanding" is better than "intellectual", which carries the baggage of
                        > > intellectualism? Also, do you think that "rational soul" would be better?
                        > > Another question: As you write above, Steiner used "Verstandes-und (oder?)
                        > > Gemütseele". Isn't Gemüt quite different from Verstand? (I can't help but
                        > > associate it with "gemütlich".) I think it was Lievegoed who said somewhere
                        > > that "Gemütseele" could refer to, fe, a kindergarten teacher who passes to
                        > > the consciousness soul without passing through the "Verstand" stage. In
                        > > other words, they are not quasi-synonymous. Thanks for your input.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Frank
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > Frank Thomas Smith
                        > http://SouthernCrossReview.org
                        >

                      • Steve Hale
                        ... wrote: ... the ... anthroposophical ... Yes, it most certainly is, and I didn t want to let this one slip through the crack without
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 1, 2006
                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210"
                          <jmnguyen@...> wrote:
                          <snip>
                          > In other words, intellectual thinking is by no means being stuck in
                          the
                          > *Intellectual/Understanding Soul Age* or 4th cultural epoch;
                          > intellectual thinking is living in the present Consciousness Soul Age.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > And "the greatest mystery of our time" - from a [true]
                          anthroposophical
                          > perspective - is intimately and essentially related to this fact.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Jean-Marc [FMJ]

                          Yes, it most certainly is, and I didn't want to let this one slip
                          through the crack without due recognition of these words above: The
                          Greatest Mystery of Our Time. Our time contains a great mystery,
                          doesn't it? Oh, no! The greatest, I meant.

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