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

sorry folks, but have to repeat myself once again

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Steve wrote: Then how should we approach the advancement of anthroposophical knowledge without starting with Steiner said over and over in the attempt to
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve wrote:

      "Then how should we approach the advancement of anthroposophical
      knowledge without starting with "Steiner said" over and over in the
      attempt to cultivate this undeniably new knowledge?"

      First off, what we read in a Steiner text does not constitute knowledge,
      and Steiner explained this fact in many different ways. Steve keeps
      using Steiner as an authority, when this is precisely the act that
      Steiner warned against and which keeps Steiner's spirit entombed. (see
      Tomberg's Inner Development, in that every time we say "Steiner said"
      would put another nail in his ethereal coffin). This, of course, leave
      aside my usual whining about perceptless concepts and so forth.

      We can always speak from our own "experience", which is what he
      preferred, but at the same time we also can not insist to our readers or
      listeners, that even that which we have experienced has to be, to them,
      knowledge.

      Second, with regard to the matter which has been running at issue for oh
      so many many many excruciatingly repetitive posts, about Jewish denial,
      it is also a fact (which one can learn to think), that the purpose of
      the Ahrimanic Deception, which led off the Epoch of the Consciousness
      Soul, and created not only scientific materialism, but fundamentalism as
      well (including anthroposophical fundamentalism), was to bring it about
      that the human being lost any connection with the Divine. Even our
      beliefs are meant in this time to be empty of real content, arid and
      stifling.

      On this experience (the existentialist dilemma), the human being obtains
      to his first taste of real spiritual freedom. We are to have no
      knowledge of the Divine Mystery, no experience of the Divine Mystery,
      and no beliefs that have true Life.

      Then, and only then, are we free (in the Soul) to choose to go toward
      the Divine again, to seek re-integration, and to come toward the
      experience of The Prodigal Son - that is to be welcomed home to our true
      spiritual nature and existence with joy and feasting.

      In this sense of things, what Steve is calling Jewish denial to whatever
      extent true, means to be the case. They are to come toward the true
      nature of the Divine Mystery out of freedom, and this means that on no
      basis should they be forced to that weak tea remnant of faith, which
      modern Christians think of as "their beliefs", or even what Steve
      insists they should believe because Steiner said it. They need to be
      free to come to actual spiritual knowledge, out of their own forces of
      the i-AM.

      We perhaps should look upon their "denial" with joy in our hearts, for
      the freedom this grants them.

      end of sermon
      j. wendt, master of the deep basement archives of useless and dusty
      information.
    • Tarjei Straume
      I would call this sermon of yours excellent, Joel, although my critique is biased because I m in complete agreement with it. Secondly, it it is concise and
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I would call this sermon of yours excellent, Joel, although my
        critique is biased because I'm in complete agreement with it.
        Secondly, it it is concise and very easy to digest. You've explained
        precisely what I didn't quite succeed in getting across.

        Tarjei


        Joel wrote:

        >We are to have no knowledge of the Divine Mystery, no experience of
        >the Divine Mystery, and no beliefs that have true Life.
        >
        >Then, and only then, are we free (in the Soul) to choose to go
        >toward the Divine again, to seek re-integration, and to come toward
        >the experience of The Prodigal Son - that is to be welcomed home to
        >our true spiritual nature and existence with joy and feasting.
      • Steve Hale
        Joel, I do not insist that anyone believe what Steiner said, but it makes for a good start. And the lectures were meant to be the legacy left for us to work
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Joel,

          I do not insist that anyone believe what Steiner said, but it makes
          for a good start. And the lectures were meant to be the legacy left
          for us to work with in the form of schools that have yet to be
          started on the adult level, and may now be too late for this to
          happen.

          Steve

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
          <hermit@...> wrote:
          >
          > Steve wrote:
          >
          > "Then how should we approach the advancement of anthroposophical
          > knowledge without starting with "Steiner said" over and over in
          the
          > attempt to cultivate this undeniably new knowledge?"
          >
          > First off, what we read in a Steiner text does not constitute
          knowledge,
          > and Steiner explained this fact in many different ways. Steve
          keeps
          > using Steiner as an authority, when this is precisely the act that
          > Steiner warned against and which keeps Steiner's spirit entombed.
          (see
          > Tomberg's Inner Development, in that every time we say "Steiner
          said"
          > would put another nail in his ethereal coffin). This, of course,
          leave
          > aside my usual whining about perceptless concepts and so forth.
          >
          > We can always speak from our own "experience", which is what he
          > preferred, but at the same time we also can not insist to our
          readers or
          > listeners, that even that which we have experienced has to be, to
          them,
          > knowledge.
          >
          > Second, with regard to the matter which has been running at issue
          for oh
          > so many many many excruciatingly repetitive posts, about Jewish
          denial,
          > it is also a fact (which one can learn to think), that the purpose
          of
          > the Ahrimanic Deception, which led off the Epoch of the
          Consciousness
          > Soul, and created not only scientific materialism, but
          fundamentalism as
          > well (including anthroposophical fundamentalism), was to bring it
          about
          > that the human being lost any connection with the Divine. Even
          our
          > beliefs are meant in this time to be empty of real content, arid
          and
          > stifling.
          >
          > On this experience (the existentialist dilemma), the human being
          obtains
          > to his first taste of real spiritual freedom. We are to have no
          > knowledge of the Divine Mystery, no experience of the Divine
          Mystery,
          > and no beliefs that have true Life.
          >
          > Then, and only then, are we free (in the Soul) to choose to go
          toward
          > the Divine again, to seek re-integration, and to come toward the
          > experience of The Prodigal Son - that is to be welcomed home to
          our true
          > spiritual nature and existence with joy and feasting.
          >
          > In this sense of things, what Steve is calling Jewish denial to
          whatever
          > extent true, means to be the case. They are to come toward the
          true
          > nature of the Divine Mystery out of freedom, and this means that
          on no
          > basis should they be forced to that weak tea remnant of faith,
          which
          > modern Christians think of as "their beliefs", or even what Steve
          > insists they should believe because Steiner said it. They need to
          be
          > free to come to actual spiritual knowledge, out of their own
          forces of
          > the i-AM.
          >
          > We perhaps should look upon their "denial" with joy in our hearts,
          for
          > the freedom this grants them.
          >
          > end of sermon
          > j. wendt, master of the deep basement archives of useless and
          dusty
          > information.
          >
        • Mike helsher
          ... knowledge, ... keeps ... (see ... said ... leave ... readers or ... them, ... for oh ... denial, ... of ... Consciousness ... fundamentalism as ... about
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
            <hermit@...> wrote:
            >
            > Steve wrote:
            >
            > "Then how should we approach the advancement of anthroposophical
            > knowledge without starting with "Steiner said" over and over in the
            > attempt to cultivate this undeniably new knowledge?"
            >
            > First off, what we read in a Steiner text does not constitute
            knowledge,
            > and Steiner explained this fact in many different ways. Steve
            keeps
            > using Steiner as an authority, when this is precisely the act that
            > Steiner warned against and which keeps Steiner's spirit entombed.
            (see
            > Tomberg's Inner Development, in that every time we say "Steiner
            said"
            > would put another nail in his ethereal coffin). This, of course,
            leave
            > aside my usual whining about perceptless concepts and so forth.
            >
            > We can always speak from our own "experience", which is what he
            > preferred, but at the same time we also can not insist to our
            readers or
            > listeners, that even that which we have experienced has to be, to
            them,
            > knowledge.
            >
            > Second, with regard to the matter which has been running at issue
            for oh
            > so many many many excruciatingly repetitive posts, about Jewish
            denial,
            > it is also a fact (which one can learn to think), that the purpose
            of
            > the Ahrimanic Deception, which led off the Epoch of the
            Consciousness
            > Soul, and created not only scientific materialism, but
            fundamentalism as
            > well (including anthroposophical fundamentalism), was to bring it
            about
            > that the human being lost any connection with the Divine. Even our
            > beliefs are meant in this time to be empty of real content, arid
            and
            > stifling.
            >
            > On this experience (the existentialist dilemma), the human being
            obtains
            > to his first taste of real spiritual freedom. We are to have no
            > knowledge of the Divine Mystery, no experience of the Divine
            Mystery,
            > and no beliefs that have true Life.

            I've been very interested in the idea of the "homeless soul" for a
            while now, and the cycle of earth, water, air, and then fire that can
            help to ceate this state of being (spiritual freedom). Fire is the
            trickey part. Who the hell wants to let burn all that we think we
            know? It's kinda like spiritual bungee jumping on a feeling level. I
            used to hope that if I practiced this letting go stuff, that I might
            soon (like in a couple of weeks or so) be asked to speak at a large
            convention so as to be a guiding light of truth to all the lost
            souls. "Look at me, I'm spiritual!"

            Well, I confess to still wanting attention, and to boost my personal
            vanity on occasion, but I sure as hell have given up the idea of
            being a saint. In fact,in the last few years I think I might have
            gone overboard at times trying not to be one.

            There's allot of body and soul memories for me that still rein in the
            moment at times. And attending to the needs of daily family life,
            raising two children, can seem like a hinderance too.

            It helps me to remember the idea of motion; that life keeps on
            moving. And that death, in a physical sense, is lack of motion,
            especially in the realm of thinking. But the kind of thinking that
            seems most enlightening is that, that is guided with own intention;
            which is easy to write about but has proven to be rather difficult
            for me, in that I keep finding new and deeper layers of the onion.


            And then there's "the dark night of the soul" as some have called it.
            I wrote a poem about my experience of this called "The Sea of Love":

            My seemingly seaworthy ship of doubt
            Is but a speck of angst, churning in a sea of Love
            That can only be navigated by the innocence
            That is liken onto a child

            My compass broken, I sail by the stars of the night
            For I was told that the sun is but a burning ball of gas

            I learn to live within the angst
            Encased in a dream that seems so real
            And all that I grasp in this dream turns to stone
            I save them in the belly of my ship of doubt
            Until one day it finally sinks

            And there I am...alone
            My speck of angst turns into a black hole into which I fall
            And all that I thought that I was
            Weighs upon me
            Like the falling of the night sky onto the earth

            I struggle and try to think like a snake
            I slither in the manmade crevasse
            Of the world of the machine.
            Squeezed like a sardine
            And prodded by the pecking of hens
            Until all that remains
            Is the Horror

            It was then that a Whole Universe
            Contained In a tiny drop
            Of all that was left of the Sea of Love
            Came forth...

            From the corner of my eye


            >
            > Then, and only then, are we free (in the Soul) to choose to go
            toward
            > the Divine again, to seek re-integration, and to come toward the
            > experience of The Prodigal Son - that is to be welcomed home to our
            true
            > spiritual nature and existence with joy and feasting.

            I like to study this rembrandt painting. the father and son on the
            left are thought to have been done by him, while the rest of the
            painting was finished by others. I pay close attention to the tone
            and colors as well as the posture:

            http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rembrandt/rembrandt139.html

            >
            > In this sense of things, what Steve is calling Jewish denial to
            whatever
            > extent true, means to be the case. They are to come toward the
            true
            > nature of the Divine Mystery out of freedom, and this means that on
            no
            > basis should they be forced to that weak tea remnant of faith,
            which
            > modern Christians think of as "their beliefs", or even what Steve
            > insists they should believe because Steiner said it. They need to
            be
            > free to come to actual spiritual knowledge, out of their own forces
            of
            > the i-AM.

            I've been hammering Steve on this in hope that he might shed some
            more light on the subject in a way that makes sense to me. Very
            simply, he's concerned about it, and that's fine by me. but I still
            wonder why he has to be a such jerk about it all. Guess I'll let that
            thought burn as well.

            >
            > We perhaps should look upon their "denial" with joy in our hearts,
            for
            > the freedom this grants them.
            >
            > end of sermon
            > j. wendt, master of the deep basement archives of useless and dusty
            > information.

            Dusty yes. Useless? I think not. And I didn't get the memo on
            this "deep basement archives" dept. but I like it...:^)

            Mike


            >
          • Joel Wendt
            Where in the below, is the free moral thinking of the individual human being? What do you mean by schools? If this statement below has the meaning it seems
            Message 5 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Where in the below, is the free moral thinking of the individual human
              being? What do you mean by schools? If this statement below has the
              meaning it seems to suggest (it is unclear to me, being considerably
              abstract), then why did Steiner say his enduring legacy would be The
              Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, rather than the lecture cycles (which
              originally he didn't want recorded)?

              joel

              Steve Hale wrote:

              > Joel,
              >
              > I do not insist that anyone believe what Steiner said, but it makes
              > for a good start. And the lectures were meant to be the legacy left
              > for us to work with in the form of schools that have yet to be
              > started on the adult level, and may now be too late for this to
              > happen.
              >
              >
              > .
              >
              >
            • Joel Wendt
              there is often more truth in a poem - as you prove below, than in ten hours of lectures and Steiner quotes.... j.
              Message 6 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                there is often more truth in a poem - as you prove below, than in ten
                hours of lectures and Steiner quotes....

                j.

                Mike helsher wrote:

                > -
                > My seemingly seaworthy ship of doubt
                > Is but a speck of angst, churning in a sea of Love
                > That can only be navigated by the innocence
                > That is liken onto a child
                >
                > My compass broken, I sail by the stars of the night
                > For I was told that the sun is but a burning ball of gas
                >
                > I learn to live within the angst
                > Encased in a dream that seems so real
                > And all that I grasp in this dream turns to stone
                > I save them in the belly of my ship of doubt
                > Until one day it finally sinks
                >
                > And there I am...alone
                > My speck of angst turns into a black hole into which I fall
                > And all that I thought that I was
                > Weighs upon me
                > Like the falling of the night sky onto the earth
                >
                > I struggle and try to think like a snake
                > I slither in the manmade crevasse
                > Of the world of the machine.
                > Squeezed like a sardine
                > And prodded by the pecking of hens
                > Until all that remains
                > Is the Horror
                >
                > It was then that a Whole Universe
                > Contained In a tiny drop
                > Of all that was left of the Sea of Love
                > Came forth...
                >
                > >From the corner of my eye
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Frank Smith
                ... I ain t pickin on you, Joel, but that s not quite the case, about the lectures I mean. The lectures were recorded by stenographers almost from day one,
                Message 7 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 7/31/06, Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
                  Where in the below, is the free moral thinking of the individual human
                  being?  What do you mean by schools?  If this statement below has the
                  meaning it seems to suggest (it is unclear to me, being considerably
                  abstract), then why did Steiner say his enduring legacy would be The
                  Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, rather than the lecture cycles (which
                  originally he didn't want recorded)?

                  I ain't pickin on you, Joel, but that's not quite the case, about the lectures I mean. The lectures were recorded by stenographers almost from day one, obviously with his blessing. (In fact almost every word the guy ever said was recorded.) However, the printed lectures were only meant for members of the Free University for Spiritual Science. Marie Steiner decided after his death to make them public, at least partially because they were circulating anyway, often in debased form.   
                  Frank

                • Joel Wendt
                  Dear Frank, thanks, and there crashes another oral tradition given to me by knowledgeable anthropoops. makes me wonder if anything I was told will turn out
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Frank,

                    thanks, and there crashes another oral tradition given to me by
                    "knowledgeable" anthropoops. makes me wonder if anything I was told
                    will turn out to be true. at the very least it can't be relied upon.

                    j.

                    Frank Smith wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > On 7/31/06, *Joel Wendt* <hermit@... <mailto:hermit@...>>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > Where in the below, is the free moral thinking of the individual human
                    > being? What do you mean by schools? If this statement below has the
                    > meaning it seems to suggest (it is unclear to me, being considerably
                    > abstract), then why did Steiner say his enduring legacy would be The
                    > Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, rather than the lecture cycles
                    > (which
                    > originally he didn't want recorded)?
                    >
                    >
                    > I ain't pickin on you, Joel, but that's not quite the case, about the
                    > lectures I mean. The lectures were recorded by stenographers almost
                    > from day one, obviously with his blessing. (In fact almost every word
                    > the guy ever said was recorded.) However, the printed lectures were
                    > only meant for members of the Free University for Spiritual Science.
                    > Marie Steiner decided after his death to make them public, at least
                    > partially because they were circulating anyway, often in debased form.
                    > Frank
                    >
                    >
                  • Tarjei Straume
                    ... The info I ve picked up on this is the same that Frank mentions. The shorthand notes were intended for private circulation among those members who were not
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Joel wrote:

                      Dear Frank,

                          thanks, and there crashes another oral tradition given to me by
                      "knowledgeable" anthropoops.  makes me wonder if anything I was told
                      will turn out to be true.  at the very least it can't be relied upon.

                      The info I've picked up on this is the same that Frank mentions. The shorthand notes were intended for private circulation among those members who were not able to attend every lecture in a given "cycle", so the gaps could be filled in. And there were several problems with these shorthand notes and how they were circulated. I remember Steiner complaining about it in the beginning of a lecture, saying, we can't keep circulating the lecture notes in that fashion, it's chaotic and confusing (or something like that). And then we have Max Heindel's plagiarism, which was a most horrible abuse of the privilege to take notes.

                      Steiner felt that lectures were intended as oral communications to live audiences, and that the shorthand notes were just an aid for members of such audiences. For the purpose of publication to members, he would first read them through and edit them for print to correct errors and avoid misunderstandings. Some such lectures were edited by him, for instance "The Spiritual Guidance of Man and Humanity" (GA 15).

                      Towards the end of his life, it became clear that Steiner would never get the time to edit all the shorthand notes (no wonder, with 6000 of them!), and yet he was persuaded to allow the notes to go into print for distribution among members only. He went along with this very, very reluctantly; he did not like it at all. And this was only for the members!

                      Personally, I'm glad Marie Steiner decided to publish all of it, because it makes very good reading. But that's the way to treat it too, imho - as good reading, not as "inerrant Scripture" from a perfect god-man. If we treat it the right way - as good, entertaining, and inspiring reading along with the awareness that the lecture-books may contain many errors and other shortcomings, and that Steiner was sometimes mistaken and we don't always know when and where - then we honor Marie Steiner's decision and also put Rudolf Steiner's misgivings to rest. If we become anthro-fundies because of these shorthand reports, Steiner would have wished they had all burned with the Goethanum. Or even better - much better - that the arsonist had targeted the original manuscripts instead of the Goethanum.

                      Tarjei
                    • Mike T
                      Steiner probably didn t like it, because he probably foresaw how his communications may be used and abused on for example forums such as this, and by the many
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jul 31, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Steiner probably didn't like it, because he probably foresaw how his
                        communications may be used and abused on for example forums such as this,
                        and by the many enemies that Anthroposophy now has.!!! Yes forums such as
                        this, where little if any regard is given to the sensitive communications on
                        matters such as , oh for example, past lives. How flippantly (or is it
                        casually) we throw out such references - how clever we are to know all these
                        things, how Steiner must be rolling his eyes. Intimate communications I
                        believe should be kept just that way - between soul to soul and intimate;
                        not loud haler all all over a public forum such as AT.
                        Mike T

                        >From: Tarjei Straume <hisholiness@...>
                        >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                        >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                        >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] those shorthand reports (was: sorry
                        >folks, but have to repeat myself once again)
                        >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:11:06 +0200
                        >
                        >Joel wrote:
                        >
                        >>Dear Frank,
                        >>
                        >> thanks, and there crashes another oral tradition given to me by
                        >>"knowledgeable" anthropoops. makes me wonder if anything I was told
                        >>will turn out to be true. at the very least it can't be relied upon.
                        >
                        >The info I've picked up on this is the same that Frank mentions. The
                        >shorthand notes were intended for private circulation among those members
                        >who were not able to attend every lecture in a given "cycle", so the gaps
                        >could be filled in. And there were several problems with these shorthand
                        >notes and how they were circulated. I remember Steiner complaining about it
                        >in the beginning of a lecture, saying, we can't keep circulating the
                        >lecture notes in that fashion, it's chaotic and confusing (or something
                        >like that). And then we have Max Heindel's plagiarism, which was a most
                        >horrible abuse of the privilege to take notes.
                        >
                        >Steiner felt that lectures were intended as oral communications to live
                        >audiences, and that the shorthand notes were just an aid for members of
                        >such audiences. For the purpose of publication to members, he would first
                        >read them through and edit them for print to correct errors and avoid
                        >misunderstandings. Some such lectures were edited by him, for instance "The
                        >Spiritual Guidance of Man and Humanity" (GA 15).
                        >
                        >Towards the end of his life, it became clear that Steiner would never get
                        >the time to edit all the shorthand notes (no wonder, with 6000 of them!),
                        >and yet he was persuaded to allow the notes to go into print for
                        >distribution among members only. He went along with this very, very
                        >reluctantly; he did not like it at all. And this was only for the members!
                        >
                        >Personally, I'm glad Marie Steiner decided to publish all of it, because it
                        >makes very good reading. But that's the way to treat it too, imho - as good
                        >reading, not as "inerrant Scripture" from a perfect god-man. If we treat it
                        >the right way - as good, entertaining, and inspiring reading along with the
                        >awareness that the lecture-books may contain many errors and other
                        >shortcomings, and that Steiner was sometimes mistaken and we don't always
                        >know when and where - then we honor Marie Steiner's decision and also put
                        >Rudolf Steiner's misgivings to rest. If we become anthro-fundies because of
                        >these shorthand reports, Steiner would have wished they had all burned with
                        >the Goethanum. Or even better - much better - that the arsonist had
                        >targeted the original manuscripts instead of the Goethanum.
                        >
                        >Tarjei

                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
                        http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
                      • Steve Hale
                        ... human ... (which ... Joel, Have you ever read the chapter entitled: The Character of Occult Science, from the book, Outline of Occult Science ? It
                        Message 11 of 22 , Aug 1 5:20 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > Where in the below, is the free moral thinking of the individual
                          human
                          > being? What do you mean by schools? If this statement below has the
                          > meaning it seems to suggest (it is unclear to me, being considerably
                          > abstract), then why did Steiner say his enduring legacy would be The
                          > Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, rather than the lecture cycles
                          (which
                          > originally he didn't want recorded)?
                          >
                          > joel

                          Joel,

                          Have you ever read the chapter entitled: The Character of Occult
                          Science, from the book, "Outline of Occult Science"? It concerns the
                          free will and choice involved in taking up the effort to acquire
                          supersensible knowledge, which few do; except those drawn by their own
                          soul disposition to do so. And these make up the fraternity of the
                          anthroposophical movement. Steiner was counting on the fact that some
                          would hear, in the longing for something that most people would either
                          ignore, deride, or actively oppose. And he outlines it in this chapter
                          quite cogently.

                          Steve
                        • Guenter
                          Frank, that s wrong. The decision to make the the printed lectures public was met by Rudolf Steiner himself, when he saw, that they were availabale to anyone
                          Message 12 of 22 , Aug 2 12:46 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Frank,

                            that's wrong. The decision to make the the printed lectures public was
                            met by Rudolf Steiner himself, when he saw, that they were availabale
                            to anyone anyway. They got a kind of preamable, stating that

                            1. they were printed for students of the Free University ...

                            2. they may contain errors (which they do!)

                            3. the content can only be understood by people who know the written
                            works and is only discussed with such.

                            many of the early lectures (1900 - 1906 approximately) are not
                            reproduced from reliable stenograms, but from notes taken by different
                            members.

                            and there is another, even more important aspect of the lectures: most
                            of them were addressed to a certain kind of people, who were once
                            described by Steiner himself as "mehr schlichte Gemüter" (more simple
                            minded). When he started to talk about logic & thinking, for example,
                            they complained that they could not understand anything. This slowly
                            changed after WW I when more young people from the universities
                            entered the society. So most of the lectures must be considered as
                            "popular anthroposophy", not as "Spiritual Science".

                            Guenter


                            >
                            > I ain't pickin on you, Joel, but that's not quite the case, about the
                            > lectures I mean. The lectures were recorded by stenographers almost
                            from day
                            > one, obviously with his blessing. (In fact almost every word the guy
                            ever
                            > said was recorded.) However, the printed lectures were only meant for
                            > members of the Free University for Spiritual Science. Marie Steiner
                            decided
                            > after his death to make them public, at least partially because they
                            were
                            > circulating anyway, often in debased form.
                            > Frank
                            >
                          • Frank Smith
                            ... Guenter, Right, my error. Although I think another reson was that he didn t want to A.S. to be regarded as some kind of secret society. 1. they were
                            Message 13 of 22 , Aug 2 5:39 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 8/2/06, Guenter <gkreidl@...> wrote:
                              Frank,

                              that's wrong. The decision to make the the printed lectures public was
                              met by Rudolf Steiner himself, when he saw, that they were availabale
                              to anyone anyway. They got a kind of preamable, stating that

                              Guenter,
                              Right, my error. Although I think another reson was that he didn't want to A.S. to be regarded as some kind of secret society. 

                              1. they were printed for students of the Free University ...

                               For "members" of the Free University.... (gotcha)

                              2. they may contain errors (which they do!)


                              3. the content can only be understood by people who know the written
                              works and is only discussed with such.

                              Actually,  "...the leadership of the University reserves the right to  deny in advance the validity of any judgement of these publications which are not based on the same training from they they have been derived..."

                              Btw, did you ever reply to my query as to why you think that "understanding soul" (instead of "intellectual soul") is wrong for "Verstandesseele"?  I'm very interested in this because I don't want to make errors in future translations by insisting on  "understanding". Thanks.
                              Frank
                              many of the early lectures (1900 - 1906 approximately) are not
                              reproduced from reliable stenograms, but from notes taken by different
                              members.

                              and there is another, even more important aspect of the lectures: most
                              of them were addressed to a certain kind of people, who were once
                              described by Steiner himself as "mehr schlichte Gemüter" (more simple
                              minded). When he started to talk about logic & thinking, for example,
                              they complained that they could not understand anything. This slowly
                              changed after WW I when more young people from the universities
                              entered the society. So most of the lectures must be considered as
                              "popular anthroposophy", not as "Spiritual Science".

                              Guenter


                              >
                              > I ain't pickin on you, Joel, but that's not quite the case, about the
                              > lectures I mean. The lectures were recorded by stenographers almost
                              from day
                              > one, obviously with his blessing. (In fact almost every word the guy
                              ever
                              > said was recorded.) However, the printed lectures were only meant for
                              > members of the Free University for Spiritual Science. Marie Steiner
                              decided
                              > after his death to make them public, at least partially because they
                              were
                              > circulating anyway, often in debased form.
                              > Frank
                              >



                            • Joel Wendt
                              So, Steve, in answers to my questions to you, you respond by quoting the anthroposophical bible (occult science) at me. how is this not anthroposophical
                              Message 14 of 22 , Aug 2 1:50 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                So, Steve, in answers to my questions to you, you respond by quoting the
                                anthroposophical bible (occult science) at me.

                                how is this not anthroposophical fundamentalism? for all your special
                                being touched by the divine stuff, don't you have anything to say for
                                yourself?

                                joel

                                Steve Hale wrote:

                                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow%40yahoogroups.com>, Joel Wendt
                                > <hermit@...>
                                > wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Where in the below, is the free moral thinking of the individual
                                > human
                                > > being? What do you mean by schools? If this statement below has the
                                > > meaning it seems to suggest (it is unclear to me, being considerably
                                > > abstract), then why did Steiner say his enduring legacy would be The
                                > > Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, rather than the lecture cycles
                                > (which
                                > > originally he didn't want recorded)?
                                > >
                                > > joel
                                >
                                > Joel,
                                >
                                > Have you ever read the chapter entitled: The Character of Occult
                                > Science, from the book, "Outline of Occult Science"? It concerns the
                                > free will and choice involved in taking up the effort to acquire
                                > supersensible knowledge, which few do; except those drawn by their own
                                > soul disposition to do so. And these make up the fraternity of the
                                > anthroposophical movement. Steiner was counting on the fact that some
                                > would hear, in the longing for something that most people would either
                                > ignore, deride, or actively oppose. And he outlines it in this chapter
                                > quite cogently.
                                >
                                > Steve
                                >
                                >
                              • Steve Hale
                                ... the ... special ... Yes, Joel. The starting point begins where the work of an initiate is made available to the neophyte; and also the aspirant. I refer
                                Message 15 of 22 , Aug 2 4:27 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > So, Steve, in answers to my questions to you, you respond by quoting
                                  the
                                  > anthroposophical bible (occult science) at me.
                                  >
                                  > how is this not anthroposophical fundamentalism? for all your
                                  special
                                  > being touched by the divine stuff, don't you have anything to say for
                                  > yourself?
                                  >
                                  > joel
                                  >

                                  Yes, Joel. The starting point begins where the work of an initiate is
                                  made available to the neophyte; and also the aspirant. I refer to this
                                  chapter in OOS because it states it plainly. When PoF and KOHW are
                                  championed without the very important middle ground reserved for
                                  content of new knowledge, it becomes an issue of concern.

                                  If anthro fundamentalism is equatable with "Steiner says", and mere
                                  readings which have nothing to offer beyond the further expansion of
                                  the intellectual soul, as well as the belief that Steiner made mistakes
                                  in his research, but we don't know where, and the lectures contain a
                                  plethora of errors, which we cannot discern, then the only recourse for
                                  these seeming insurmountable problems would be a very thorough study of
                                  the book: Occult Science - An Outline. And thereby, we can gain our
                                  bearings.

                                  It was his magnum opus, in terms of content of supersensible knowledge,
                                  and served to make the lecture courses into the further elaborations
                                  that are no less than the transcendental humanities of an unseeing and
                                  unknowing world of pure potential in the advancement of conscience.

                                  Steve
                                • Steve Hale
                                  ... the ... special ... Well Joel, let s read Rudolf Steiner s last preface to this book together. - Steve Fifteen years having now elapsed since the first
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Aug 2 5:45 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > So, Steve, in answers to my questions to you, you respond by quoting
                                    the
                                    > anthroposophical bible (occult science) at me.
                                    >
                                    > how is this not anthroposophical fundamentalism? for all your
                                    special
                                    > being touched by the divine stuff, don't you have anything to say for
                                    > yourself?
                                    >
                                    > joel
                                    >

                                    Well Joel, let's read Rudolf Steiner's last preface to this book
                                    together. - Steve


                                    Fifteen years having now elapsed since the first publication of this
                                    book, it may be suitable for me to say something more about the
                                    spiritual circumstances and my own state of mind when it originated. It
                                    had been my intention that its main content should form part of a new
                                    and enlarged version of my Theosophy, published several years before.
                                    But this did not prove possible. At the time when Theosophy was written
                                    the subject-matter of the present volume could not be brought into an
                                    equally finished form. In my Imaginative perceptions I beheld the
                                    spiritual life and being of individual Man and was able to describe
                                    this clearly. The facts of cosmic evolution were not present to me to
                                    the same extent. I was indeed aware of them in many details, but the
                                    picture as a whole was lacking.


                                    I therefore resolved to make no appreciable change in the main content
                                    of the earlier volume. In the new edition as in the first, the book
                                    Theosophy should describe the essential features of the life of
                                    individual Man, as I had seen it in the spirit. Meanwhile I would
                                    quietly be working at a new and independent publication, Occult
                                    Science — An Outline.


                                    My feeling at that time was that the contents of this book must be
                                    presented in scientific thought-forms — that is, in forms of thought
                                    akin to those of Natural Science, duly developed and adapted to the
                                    description of what is spiritual. How strongly I felt this "scientific"
                                    obligation in all that I wrote at that time in the field of spiritual
                                    knowledge, will be evident from the Preface to the First Edition
                                    (1909), here reproduced. But the world of the spirit as revealed to
                                    spiritual sight can only partly be described in thought-forms of this
                                    kind. What is revealed cannot be fully contained in mere forms of
                                    thought. This will be known to anyone who has had experience of such
                                    revelation. Adapted as they are to the exposition of what is seen by
                                    the outer senses, the thoughts of our every-day consciousness are
                                    inadequate, fully to expound what is seen and experienced in the
                                    spirit. The latter can only be conveyed in picture-form, that is, in
                                    Imaginations, through which Inspirations speak, which in their turn
                                    proceed from spiritual reality of Being, experienced in Intuition.
                                    (Concerning "Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition," the necessary
                                    explanations will be found both in the present volume and in my book
                                    Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment.)


                                    Today, however, one who sets out to tell of the spiritual world in
                                    Imaginations cannot rest content with such pictorial descriptions. He
                                    would be foisting on to the civilization of our time the outcome of a
                                    state of consciousness quite unrelated to existing forms of knowledge.
                                    It is to the normal consequences of the present age that he must bring
                                    home the truths which can indeed only be discovered by a higher
                                    consciousness of the present age that he must bring home the truths
                                    which can indeed only be discovered by a higher consciousness — one
                                    that sees into the spiritual world. The subject-matter of his
                                    exposition, namely the realities of the world of spirit, will then be
                                    case into forms of thought which the prevailing consciousness of our
                                    time — scientifically thoughtful and wide-awake, though unable yet to
                                    see into the spiritual world — can understand.


                                    An inability to understand will at most be due to hindrances that are
                                    self-imposed. The reader may have fixed in his mind some definition of
                                    the inherent limitations of human knowledge, due to a mistaken
                                    generalization of the limits of Natural Science. Spiritual cognition is
                                    a delicate and tender process in the human soul, and this is true not
                                    only of the actual "seeing" in the spirit, but of the active
                                    understanding with which the normal "non-seeing" consciousness of our
                                    time can come to meet the results of seership. People with half-formed
                                    notions who allege auto-suggestion in this regard have little idea of
                                    the real depth and intimacy of such understanding. For the scientific
                                    understanding of the physical world there may be truth or error in our
                                    theories and concepts. For the spiritual world, it is no longer a
                                    merely theoretic issue; it is a matter of living experience. When a
                                    man's judgment is tinged however slightly by the dogmatic assertion
                                    that the ordinary (not yet clairvoyant) consciousness — through its
                                    inherent limitations — cannot really understand what is experienced by
                                    the seer, this mistaken judgment becomes a cloud of darkness in his
                                    feeling-life and does in fact obscure his understanding.


                                    To an open mind however, though not yet "seeing" in the spirit, what is
                                    experienced by the seer is comprehensible to a very full extent, if
                                    once the seer has cast it into forms of thought. It is no less
                                    intelligible than is a finished work of art to the non-artist. Nor is
                                    this understanding confined to the realm of aesthetic feeling as in the
                                    latter instance; it lives in full clarity of thought, even as in the
                                    scientific understanding of Nature.


                                    To make such understanding possible, however, the seer must have
                                    contrived to express what he has seen, in genuine forms of thought,
                                    without thereby depriving it of its "Imaginative" character.


                                    Such were my reflections while working at the subject-matter of my
                                    Occult Science, and, with these premises in mind, by 1909 I felt able
                                    to achieve a book, bringing the outcome of my spiritual researches, up
                                    to a point into adequate forms of thought — a book moreover which
                                    should be intelligible to any thoughtful reader who did not himself
                                    impose unnecessary hindrances to understanding.


                                    While saying this retrospectively today I must however admit that in
                                    the year 1909 the publication of this book appeared to me a venture of
                                    some temerity. For I was only too well aware that the professional
                                    scientists above all, and the vast number of others who in their
                                    judgment follow the "scientific" authority, would be incapable of the
                                    necessary openness of mind. Yet I was equally aware that at the very
                                    time when the prevailing consciousness of mankind was farthest remote
                                    from the world of spirit, communications from that world would be
                                    answering to an urgent need. I counted on there also being many people
                                    feeling so weighted down by the prevailing estrangement from the living
                                    spirit that with sincere longing they would welcome true communications
                                    from the spiritual world. This expectation was amply confirmed during
                                    the years that followed. The books Theosophy and Occult Science have
                                    been widely read, though they count not a little on the reader's good
                                    will. For it must be admitted, they are not written in an easy style. I
                                    purposely refrained from writing a "popular" account, so-called. I
                                    wrote in such a way as to make it necessary to exert one's thinking
                                    while entering into the content of these books. In so doing, I gave
                                    them a specific character. The very reading of them is an initial step
                                    in spiritual training, inasmuch as the necessary effort of quiet
                                    thought and contemplation strengthens the powers of the soul, making
                                    them capable of drawing nearer to the spiritual world.


                                    Misunderstandings were soon evoked by the chosen title, Occult Science.
                                    A would-be science, people said, cannot in the nature of the case
                                    be "occult" or "secret." Surely a rather thoughtless objection, for no
                                    man will deliberately publish what he desires to be secretive about or
                                    to keep obscure. The entire book is evidence that far from being
                                    claimed as a special "secret," what is here presented is to be made
                                    accessible to human understanding like any other science. Speaking
                                    of "Natural Science" we mean the science of Nature. "Occult Science" is
                                    the science of what takes its course in realms which are "occult"
                                    inasmuch as they are discerned, not in external Nature — Nature as seen
                                    by the outer senses — but in directions to which the soul of man
                                    becomes attentive when he turns his inner life towards the spirit. It
                                    is "Occult Science" as against "Natural Science."


                                    Of my clairvoyant researches into the world of spirit it has often been
                                    alleged that they are a re-hash, howsoever modified, of ideas about the
                                    spiritual world which have prevailed from time to time, above all in
                                    earlier epochs of human history. In the course of my reading I was said
                                    to have absorbed these things into the sub-conscious mind and then
                                    reproduced them in the fond belief that they were the outcome of my own
                                    independent seership. Gnostic doctrines, oriental fables, and wisdom-
                                    teachings were alleged to be the real source of my descriptions. But
                                    these surmises too were the outcome of no very deeply penetrating
                                    thought. My knowledge of the spiritual — of this I am fully conscious —
                                    springs from my own spiritual vision. At every stage — both in the
                                    details and in synthesis and broad review — I have subjected myself to
                                    stringent tests, making sure that wide-awake control accompanies each
                                    further step in spiritual vision and research. Just as a mathematician
                                    proceeds from thought to thought — where the unconscious mind, auto-
                                    suggestion and the like can play no part at all — so must the
                                    consciousness of the seer move on from one objective Imagination to
                                    another. Nothing affects the soul in this process save the objective
                                    spiritual content, experienced in full awareness.


                                    It is by healthy inner experience that one knows a
                                    spiritual "Imagination" to be no mere subjective picture but the
                                    expression of a spiritual reality in picture-form. Just as in sensory
                                    perception anyone sound in mind and body can discriminate between mere
                                    fancies and the perception of real facts, so a like power of
                                    discernment can be attained by spiritual means.


                                    So then I had before me the results of conscious spiritual vision. They
                                    were things "seen," living in my consciousness, to begin with, without
                                    any names. To communicate them, some terminology was needed, and it was
                                    only then — so as to put into words what had been wordless to begin
                                    with — that I looked for suitable expressions in the traditional
                                    literature. These too I used quite freely. In the way I apply them,
                                    scarcely one of them coincides exactly with its connotation in the
                                    source from which I took it. Only after the spiritual content was known
                                    to me from my own researches did I thus look for the way to express it.
                                    As to whatever I might formerly have read — with the clear
                                    consciousness and control above referred-to, I was able to eliminate
                                    such things completely while engaged on supersensible research.


                                    But the critics then found echoes of traditional ideas in the terms I
                                    used. Paying little heed to the real trend and content of my
                                    descriptions, they focused their attention on the words. If I spoke
                                    of "lotus flowers," in the human astral body, they took it as proof
                                    that I was reproducing Indian doctrines in which this term occurs. Nay,
                                    the term "astral body" itself only showed that I had been dipping into
                                    medieval writings. And if I used the terms Angeloi, Archangeloi and so
                                    on, I was merely reviving the ideas of Christian Gnosticism. Time and
                                    again I found myself confronted with comments of this kind.


                                    I take the present opportunity of mentioning this too. Occult Science —
                                    an Outline, now to be published in a new edition, is after all an
                                    epitome of anthroposophical Spiritual Science as a whole, and is pre-
                                    eminently exposed to the same kinds of misunderstanding.


                                    Since the Imaginations described in this book first grew into a total
                                    picture in my mind and spirit, I have unceasingly developed the
                                    researches of conscious seership into the being of individual Man, the
                                    history of Mankind, the nature and evolution of the Cosmos. The outline
                                    as presented fifteen years ago has in no way been shaken. Inserted in
                                    its proper place and context, everything that I have since been able to
                                    adduce becomes a further elaboration of the original picture.


                                    Rudolf Steiner

                                    Goetheanum, Dornach,
                                    Switzerland
                                    10 January, 1925
                                  • Joel Wendt
                                    Let us review this thread... First Steve wrote: Then how should we approach the advancement of anthroposophical knowledge without starting with Steiner said
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Aug 2 7:06 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Let us review this thread...

                                      First Steve wrote: "Then how should we approach the advancement of
                                      anthroposophical
                                      knowledge without starting with "Steiner said" over and over in the
                                      attempt to cultivate this undeniably new knowledge?"

                                      point one...
                                      To which I replied with a lot of stuff about something read not being
                                      knowledge, and basically questioning the basis for relying on Steiner as
                                      an authority, something Steiner asked us many times not to do. [We
                                      should also keep in mind prior posts of mine, suggesting that a
                                      distinction needs to be made between knowledge and understanding,
                                      wherein to which Steve replied he'd rather have understanding.]

                                      So to my remarks about knowledge and using Steiner as an authority,
                                      Steve then replied: "I do not insist that anyone believe what Steiner
                                      said, but it makes for a good start. And the lectures were meant to be
                                      the legacy left for us to work with in the form of schools that have yet
                                      to be started on the adult level, and may now be too late for this to
                                      happen."

                                      So I then asked him what he (Steve) meant by legacy and schools and the
                                      rest, and once more got a reference to "Steiner said" (Steve wrote):
                                      "Have you ever read the chapter entitled: The Character of Occult
                                      Science, from the book, "Outline of Occult Science"?"

                                      Then I asked, as noted below, how this answered any of my questions, and
                                      then later get the whole Chapter and verse of Steiner from Occult Science.

                                      So, in defense of the significance of relying on authority, which
                                      Steiner asked us not to do (see point one above), we rely on the
                                      authority of Steiner in his preface from Occult Science wherein he makes
                                      a couple of references to understanding and comprehension as the effect
                                      of OS, but not to knowledge, the subject of all his epistemological works.

                                      Is your brain spinning in circles yet? If someone can find some logic
                                      in this whole thread, please let me know.

                                      joel

                                      Steve Hale wrote:

                                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                      > <mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow%40yahoogroups.com>, Joel Wendt
                                      > <hermit@...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > So, Steve, in answers to my questions to you, you respond by quoting
                                      > the
                                      > > anthroposophical bible (occult science) at me.
                                      > >
                                      > > how is this not anthroposophical fundamentalism? for all your
                                      > special
                                      > > being touched by the divine stuff, don't you have anything to say for
                                      > > yourself?
                                      > >
                                      > > joel
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > Well Joel, let's read Rudolf Steiner's last preface to this book
                                      > together. - Steve
                                      >
                                      > <snip> long quote of Steiner
                                      >
                                      > .
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Steve Hale
                                      Joel said: Is your brain spinning in circles yet? If someone can find some logic in this whole thread, please let me know. No, because you purposely fuck it
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Aug 2 7:44 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Joel said:
                                        "Is your brain spinning in circles yet? If someone can find some
                                        logic in this whole thread, please let me know."

                                        No, because you purposely fuck it up! I kindly asked you to read
                                        the first chapter of the book, which is freely available on the RS e-
                                        lib archive. Then, in your inimitable fashion, you go ahead and
                                        fuck up the very fact that you didn't even read it. And so, in
                                        anticipation of this fact, I offered something more for your
                                        consideration, relative to a book that you obviously have not, nor
                                        will ever read.

                                        Well, here's the fact in a nutshell: The conceptual uptake of new
                                        knowledge has consequences on the astral body that form the basis
                                        for the further exercises found in KOHW. And furthermore, if these
                                        exercises from KOHW are undertaken in advance of this conceptual
                                        uptake, it's no good.

                                        Steve
                                      • Mike helsher
                                        ... e- ... Well Joel, there you have it. If you add this response to those that you ve already posted, I think that you ll have enough evidence to make a
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Aug 2 9:25 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale"
                                          <sardisian01@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Joel said:
                                          > "Is your brain spinning in circles yet? If someone can find some
                                          > logic in this whole thread, please let me know."
                                          >
                                          > No, because you purposely fuck it up! I kindly asked you to read
                                          > the first chapter of the book, which is freely available on the RS
                                          e-
                                          > lib archive. Then, in your inimitable fashion, you go ahead and
                                          > fuck up the very fact that you didn't even read it. And so, in
                                          > anticipation of this fact, I offered something more for your
                                          > consideration, relative to a book that you obviously have not, nor
                                          > will ever read.
                                          >
                                          > Well, here's the fact in a nutshell: The conceptual uptake of new
                                          > knowledge has consequences on the astral body that form the basis
                                          > for the further exercises found in KOHW. And furthermore, if these
                                          > exercises from KOHW are undertaken in advance of this conceptual
                                          > uptake, it's no good.
                                          >
                                          > Steve
                                          >

                                          Well Joel, there you have it. If you add this response to those that
                                          you've already posted, I think that you'll have enough evidence to
                                          make a "Logical" conclusion, with a little help from your friends.
                                          With your many years experience in the mental health field, combined
                                          with a few of the diognosis' that Tarjei has already put forth, and
                                          my expert experience in "Basementology", we should be able to
                                          contrive some logical conclusion to all this.

                                          More will be revealed

                                          Mike
                                        • Joel Wendt
                                          Dear Steve, We are still spinning round and round about whether you can state this material as fact, on the basis that Steiner said it, that is on authority.
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Aug 3 7:53 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Steve,

                                            We are still spinning round and round about whether you can state
                                            this material as fact, on the basis that Steiner said it, that is on
                                            authority. That was the original question, and remains the question,
                                            however many times you quote Steiner.

                                            A truth is not to be asserted to be true, because Steiner said it
                                            was true. We can, and should when we are able, say: I tested this that
                                            Steiner said, and was able to verify to myself that it is so. Or we can
                                            argue logically, such as by starting with a definition (for example)
                                            that knowledge is the union of percept and concept (experience and
                                            thought), and if all we have is concept (that is thought without
                                            experience, then we can't have knowledge. At the same time we can have
                                            understanding, which we can also define as a mental picture created from
                                            reading something given to us by an expert in the field.

                                            This process of understanding is "explained" (made understandable)
                                            to us in the material you quoted from Occult Science (which I've read
                                            many times by the way).

                                            A biologist, who buys into the latest version of natural selection,
                                            understands the world via that paradigm. We, as students of
                                            Anthroposophical Spiritual Science, can understand the world via that
                                            paradigm. This understanding, yes, can be an aid in futher development,
                                            but not because Steiner says it. Rather, because we experience this aid
                                            for ourselves. We take in this understanding, and it helps us further
                                            our own development, which development is something entirely different
                                            from this understanding itself.

                                            The ladder I stand on to paint my house, is not the action which
                                            enable me to paint my house.

                                            The mental pictures I stand on, while I pursue coming to knowledge
                                            of my own spiritual activity as a thinker, are not the Imaginations I
                                            perceive once I have developed my own ability to paint with thought my
                                            pictures of spiritual reality. Once I do this, I have no need for the
                                            ladder any more at all, and in point of fact, if I rely too much on the
                                            ladder, I am in danger of never developing my own ability to fly.

                                            Step off the ladder Steve...and use your own wings.

                                            "In the beginning, various kinds of thoughts will arise when we are
                                            trying to be silent during prayer and meditation. Notice them, but do
                                            not worry about them. They are pictures of your own soul and spirit
                                            being reflected there for your appreciation and consideration. After
                                            time you will discover that you can control what appears here in ways
                                            that will surprise you. Wings (limbs) of inner will-on-fire (spirit)
                                            are being born in the soul.

                                            "Remember, we are spiritual children trying out our adult wings. Christ
                                            has promised: we can learn to fly (the Kingdom of Heaven is within you)."

                                            from my book: "the Way of the Fool"
                                            http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/twotf.html

                                            joel

                                            Steve Hale wrote:

                                            > Joel said:
                                            > "Is your brain spinning in circles yet? If someone can find some
                                            > logic in this whole thread, please let me know."
                                            >
                                            > No, because you purposely fuck it up! I kindly asked you to read
                                            > the first chapter of the book, which is freely available on the RS e-
                                            > lib archive. Then, in your inimitable fashion, you go ahead and
                                            > fuck up the very fact that you didn't even read it. And so, in
                                            > anticipation of this fact, I offered something more for your
                                            > consideration, relative to a book that you obviously have not, nor
                                            > will ever read.
                                            >
                                            > Well, here's the fact in a nutshell: The conceptual uptake of new
                                            > knowledge has consequences on the astral body that form the basis
                                            > for the further exercises found in KOHW. And furthermore, if these
                                            > exercises from KOHW are undertaken in advance of this conceptual
                                            > uptake, it's no good.
                                            >
                                            > Steve
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • Steve Hale
                                            ... state ... on ... question, ... What I am simply trying to say is that a conceptual intake of this knowledge is what is required to begin with. It must be
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Aug 3 3:50 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
                                              <hermit@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Dear Steve,
                                              >
                                              > We are still spinning round and round about whether you can
                                              state
                                              > this material as fact, on the basis that Steiner said it, that is
                                              on
                                              > authority. That was the original question, and remains the
                                              question,
                                              > however many times you quote Steiner.

                                              What I am simply trying to say is that a conceptual intake of this
                                              knowledge is what is required to begin with. It must be read; taken
                                              in as "mere thoughts", which is the initial experience for the
                                              reader who begins to study the content of supersensible knowledge.
                                              This begins the process that then leads to the path wherein the so-
                                              called "understanding" leads to self knowledge. Here is the primary
                                              excerpt from this first chapter of "Outline of Occult Science" that
                                              convinced me of the worthiness and validity of making this path my
                                              true vocation in life - Steve

                                              "...it is true in principle that the reader will find in the
                                              expositions of Occult Science a description of experiences of soul
                                              which, if he follows them, can lead him towards the supersensible
                                              realities. In practice, however, this is an ultimate ideal. The
                                              reader must first receive as simple communication a wealth of
                                              supersensible discoveries which he cannot yet experience for
                                              himself. It cannot be done otherwise, and will be so in this book.
                                              The author will be describing what he believes himself to know about
                                              the being of man, including what man undergoes in birth and death
                                              and in the body-free condition in the spiritual world; also about
                                              the evolution of the Earth and of mankind. It might then seem as
                                              though he were putting forward all these alleged items of knowledge
                                              as dogmas, which the reader was being asked to accept on the
                                              writer's authority. But it is not so. For in reality, whatever can
                                              be known of the supersensible world, lives — as a living content of
                                              soul — in the spiritual investigator who expounds it, and as the
                                              reader finds his way into this living content it kindles in his soul
                                              the impulses leading towards the supersensible realities in
                                              question. The way we live in reading the descriptions of Spiritual
                                              Science is quite different from what it is when reading
                                              communications about sense-perceptible events. We simply read about
                                              the latter; but when we read communications of supersensible
                                              realities in the right way, we ourselves are entering into a stream
                                              of spiritual life and being. In receiving the results of research,
                                              we are receiving at the same time our own inner path towards these
                                              results. True, to begin with, the reader will often fail to notice
                                              that this is so. For he is far too apt to conceive the entry into
                                              the spiritual world on the analogy of sensory experience. Therefore
                                              what he experiences o this world in reading of it will seem to him
                                              like "mere thoughts" and nothing more. Yet in the true receiving of
                                              it even in the form of thoughts, man is already within the spiritual
                                              world; it only remains for him to become aware that he has been
                                              experiencing in all reality what he imagined himself to be receiving
                                              as the mere communication of thoughts.

                                              The true character of the experience will be made fully clear to him
                                              when he proceeds to carry out in practice what is described in the
                                              later portions of this book, namely the "path" leading to
                                              supersensible knowledge. It might easily be imagined that the
                                              reverse was the right order — the pathway should first be described.
                                              But it is not so. One who, without first turning his attention to
                                              some of the essential facts of the supersensible world, merely
                                              does "exercises" with the idea of gaining entrance there, will find
                                              in it a vague and confusing chaos. Man finds his way into the world —
                                              to begin with, as it were, naively — by learning to understand its
                                              essential features. Then he can gain a clear idea of how — leaving
                                              this "naïve" stage behind him — he will himself attain, in full
                                              consciousness, to the experiences which have been related to him.
                                              Anyone who really enters into Occult Science will become convinced
                                              that this and this alone is the reliable way to supersensible
                                              knowledge. As to the opinion that information about the
                                              supersensible world might influence the reader by way
                                              of "suggestion" or mere dogma, he will perceive that this is quite
                                              unfounded. The contents of supersensible knowledge are experienced
                                              in a form of inner life which excludes anything in the nature of
                                              suggestion and leaves no other possibility than to impart the
                                              knowledge to one's fellow-man in the same way as any other kind of
                                              truth would be imparted, appealing only to his wide-awake and
                                              thoughtful judgment. And if, to begin with, the one who hears or
                                              reads the description does not notice how he himself is living in
                                              the spiritual world, the reason lies not in any passive or
                                              thoughtless receiving of the information, but in the delicate and
                                              unwonted nature of the experience.

                                              Therefore by studying the communications given in the first part of
                                              this book, one is enabled in the first place to share in the
                                              knowledge of the supersensible world; thereafter, by the practical
                                              application of the procedures indicated in the second part, one can
                                              gain independent knowledge in that world.

                                              A scientific man, entering into the spirit of this book, will find
                                              no essential contradiction between his form of science, built as it
                                              is upon the facts of the sense-perceptible world, and the way the
                                              supersensible world is here investigated. Every scientist makes use
                                              of instruments and methods. He prepares his instruments by working
                                              upon the things which "Nature" gives him. The supersensible form of
                                              knowing also makes use of an instrument, only that here the
                                              instrument is Man himself. This instrument too must first be
                                              prepared — prepared for the purposes of a higher kind of research.
                                              The faculties and forces with which the human instrument has been
                                              endowed by "Nature" without man's active cooperation must be
                                              transformed into higher ones. Thus can man make of himself the
                                              instrument of research — research into the supersensible world."

                                              Excerpted from "The Character of Occult Science", Chapter One of the
                                              book, Occult Science - An Outline.
                                            • Tarjei Straume
                                              Spock: Fascinating. Dr. McCoy (suspicious): Fascinating, Spock? Spock: Affirmative, doctor. Dr. McCoy (irritated): What is so fascinating to that cold
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Aug 3 4:28 PM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Spock: Fascinating.

                                                Dr. McCoy (suspicious): Fascinating, Spock?

                                                Spock: Affirmative, doctor.

                                                Dr. McCoy (irritated): What is so fascinating to that cold intellect
                                                of yours this time, Spock?

                                                Spock: I am endeavoring, doctor, to discover the reason why this
                                                hot-headed, emotional fanatic responds to a request to speak for
                                                himself without quoting Steiner, to simply excerpting him instead,
                                                apparently under the illusion that there is a vital difference between the two.

                                                Dr. McCoy (thoughtful): You are right, Spock, that is strange. We
                                                red-blooded humans are prone to certain pathologies that you
                                                green-blooded Vulcan-monsters are immune to.

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