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

2007 1964

Expand Messages
  • eurythmy
    2007-02-13 Dear all, Is there cause for celebrating the hundred years of the encyclical and Syllabus of 1864 and 1907? While there is still a lot of off shoots
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      2007-02-13

      Dear all,

      Is there cause for celebrating the hundred years of the encyclical and Syllabus of 1864 and 1907?

      While there is still a lot of off shoots of this way of thinking after 1964, one could see that it did not stop the emergence of a different way of radical thinking in the mid 60 all over the world.

      Could it be that a similar thing is going to happen to ‘celebrate the end of 33x3 cycle of that 1907 Roman oath?

      Kind Regards,

      Franky

       

       

      "Spiritual science does not need any organization similar to that of the old churches, for it appeals to each single individual; and each single individual, out of his own inner conscience, through his own healthy understanding, can substantiate the results of spiritual-scientifi c investigation, and can in this sense become a follower of spiritual science. It puts forward something which makes a direct appeal to every single individuality just in this search for truth. It is the true fulfillment of what men were seeking in the time now past, in the last third of the Nineteenth Century ­ true freedom ­ freedom in their conception of the world, in their research and even in their opinions. That is just the task of spiritual science- to provide for the genuine justifiable claims made by the conscience of modern humanity. Hence for spiritual science there are no such things as closed dogmas, only unrestricted research which does not draw back in fear at the frontiers either of the spiritual world or of the world of nature, but which makes use of those human powers of cognition which have first to be drawn from the depths of human feeling, just as it also uses those powers which come to us through ordinary heredity and ordinary education.

      "This basic tendency of spiritual science is very naturally a thorn in the flesh to those who are forced to teach in accordance with a fixed, dogmatic, circumscribed aim. And that brings us to a fact of considerable concern to spiritual science, and one of the illuminating circumstances making possible the present untrue fight against us today; that brings us to something which is only the result of what began in 1864 with the Encyclical and Syllabus of that time; that brings us to the fact that the whole of the Catholic clergy and especially the teaching clergy, by the Encyclical of the 8th September, 1907: “Pascendi Dominici gregis,” which makes such a deep incision into modern life, were made to swear the so-called oath against modernism. This oath consists in this ­ that every Catholic priest or theologian who teaches either from the pulpit or from the rostrum is obliged to accept the view that no knowledge of any kind can contradict what has been laid down as doctrine by the Roman Church. That means that in every Catholic priest who teaches or preaches we have to do with a person who has sworn an oath that every truth that can ever take root in humanity must agree with what is given validity as truth by Rome. It was a powerful movement which, at the time this Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici gregis” appeared, swept over the Catholic clergy’ for the whole civilized world, even the clergy, had in a sense been influenced by that mood which I have described as characteristic of the last third of the Nineteenth Century."

    • Tarjei Straume
      Hi Franky, Some of your posts look intriguing, but I find them very difficult to follow and even more so to comment upon, because I don t know anything about
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Franky,

        Some of your posts look intriguing, but I find them very difficult to
        follow and even more so to comment upon, because I don't know
        anything about numerology or advanced mathematics matched with
        occultism. There may be many other subscribers who are also pretty
        much in the dark about a lot of this. Is it possible for you to
        provide some kind of introduction to this topic for lay people and
        beginners and amateur matematicians, or some explanations of your numbers?

        Cheers,

        Tarjei

        Franky, you wrote:

        >2007-02-13
        >
        >Dear all,
        >
        >Is there cause for celebrating the hundred years of the encyclical
        >and Syllabus of 1864 and 1907?
        >
        >While there is still a lot of off shoots of this way of thinking
        >after 1964, one could see that it did not stop the emergence of a
        >different way of radical thinking in the mid 60 all over the world.
        >
        >Could it be that a similar thing is going to happen to 'celebrate
        >the end of 33x3 cycle of that 1907 Roman oath?
        >
        >Kind Regards,
        >
        >Franky
      • eurythmy
        2007-02-14 Dear Tarjei ... From: Tarjei Straume To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          2007-02-14

          Dear Tarjei

          ----- Original Message -----

          From: Tarjei Straume

          To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com

          Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:16 PM

          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] 2007 1964

          Hi Franky,
          Some of your posts look intriguing, but I find them very difficult to
          follow and even more so to comment upon, because I don't know
          anything about numerology or advanced mathematics matched with
          occultism. There may be many other subscribers who are also pretty
          much in the dark about a lot of this. Is it possible for you to
          provide some kind of introduction to this topic for lay people and
          beginners and amateur matematicians, or some explanations of your numbers?
          Cheers,
          Tarjei

           

          Nothing more than traditional habit of celebrating 100 years of something.

          The count 3 generations  per century is sometime taken as a rule of the thumb, for example in French literature, and there has been some anthroposophists who see the importance of the 33 year rhythm in biography, institution  life, history.

          Jean-Marie Le Pen, French right politician, who called the concentration camps a ‘detail of history’, due to the amount of pages it occupies in the vast literature on WWII, is very keen to use anniversary of historical dates to re-inforce his message, the newspaper Le Monde commented on it.

           

          Some of the high calibre shots, let me take Rudolf Steiner the 7 year life cycle, and its links with the different hierarchies in Karma lectures.

          Its use for pedagogy, in which he noticed the first 1/3 of the first seven years etc for liberation of etheric body from the head, then fuller liberation from the rhythm bodily system at the 2nd 1/3, and a full liberation and metamorphosis as a birth at age 7. It is as easy to observe as to look at a eurythmy performance, no big advance stage of perception needed for that. Similar things for adolescence, reforming of the jaw in class 9 or 10 etc.

           

           

          Numbers as just another way to look at words, word-ether, chemical-ether, number-ether, are only different expression for the same thing for any fish that swim in water, the element related to it, in which our brain floats etc. In poetry numbers play a great role and with their brothers rhythms alleviate the materialistic, abstract dead weight of words. I find them friendly folks. They love repetition, a prelude to wisdom or comical effect, chiasm, mirror effect etc. They translate into picture, all algebra have a geometrical representation, yet they are freer than words from the nitty-gritty, by nature they are nearer to thinking than words that are used to represent mundane percepts.

           

          For your remark on numerology, if it is adding figures of a number, like 29 is 11 is 2 [2+9=11 and 1+1=2] I never understood the value of it and never tried to do for more than 10 polite minutes. If it is something else, let me know.

           

          For advance maths, see Nick Thomas on counter space, I have no clue if his work is peer reviewed, and if it is intrinsically coherent, least of all relevant to what he talks about. In maths I am average, did not like statistics and matrix, but enjoyed the existence of numbers which multiplied by themselves, squared, gives a negative number, they got a lovely name for their fate: imaginary numbers. The root of +4 is 2, of +9 is 3 what is the root of -16? They can work neatly beside normal numbers though in equations and geometry, like a vector geometry.

           

          So nothing funny in my number, and if you tongue does not get stuckt in your cheek, there should be nothing to stop you commenting.

          Kind Regards,

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