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

Hausen article - Ressurection Power review

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Clarke
    ... Miller of the News For Members. As I feel this is a gift from Michael, and is how I experience this debate here on line and in the Society, I wanted to
    Message 1 of 89 , Dec 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
      <dottie_z@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Friends, this is the opening article, translated by Douglas
      Miller of the News For Members. As I feel this is a gift from Michael,
      and is how I experience this debate here on line and in the Society, I
      wanted to offer this beautifully thoughtful response by Ursula Hausen
      of Germany. It is written in 1998.
      >  
      >
      > The Resurrection Power of Anthroposophy

      SRC: Comments: According to my reading of this article, Hausen
      appeals to Steiner's basically monistic philosophy to support her
      contention that, since the Christmas Conference and considering
      Steiner's statements about it, the Anthroposophical Movement and the
      Anthroposophical Society are one and the same, and therefore,if one is
      aligned with the Movement, one has no choice but to pledge allegience
      to the Society, no matter what its outer condition or fate may seem to be.

      Its a well-put together article, and I totally agree with and
      support her emphasis on Steiner's monism, but I disagree with her
      conclusion. For one, the union of Movement (Michael School) and
      Society (human institution) was Rudolf Steiner's _intention_, and it
      is in some doubt as to whether it was successfully accomplished - see
      Dottie's own quotes from Steiner and Prokofieff on this. Secondly, the
      cause for the apparent lack of good fruit from this initiative may
      come from the possibility that Steiner's initiative, while courageous
      and a testimony to his commitment, was of a last-ditch "It is a good
      day to die" variety. In line with this thought is the fact that one of
      the main reasons for Steiner's split from the Theosophical Society was
      Besant's similar impulse to unite it's esoteric and bureaucratic
      functions. This was roundly condemned by Steiner as a violation of
      esoteric law.
      This is a dilemma which, to my knowledge, has never been directly
      admitted, confronted, or answered.
      In short, the conflation of esoteric and exoteric on the basis of
      monism is quite a leap. Altho everything is, at heart, all One, that
      does not mean that everything is the same! Steiner was constantly
      drawing distinctions of various sorts about all kinds of things. A
      complete identity between the supersensible sources of inspiration for
      his work and the collection of human individuals assembled to help
      manifest it is surely not what Rudolf Steiner had in mind, and, if he
      did, there are ground for considering that it may have been a mistake,
      or if so, seen in the best possible light as an existential act on his
      part that no one else was bound by -unless they choose to. To think
      that Steiner could have committed his students (not "followers",
      please!) to an occult slavery in an unconscious group initiation - or
      even with full consent - goes counter to everything that he stood for.

      Aristotle and Aquinas each, with the virtue of 20/20 hindsight,
      occasionally subscribed to silly, stupid, and seriously wrong
      statements and actions. Is Steiner to be immune from the inevitable
      human tendency to make mistakes? That is too much of a burden to
      place upon anyone's shoulders.

      There are more serious issues involved in all this which cannot
      be pursued if they are framed in such a way. Altho presented in a
      manner which lends credence to the author's position, it boils down to
      the choice of "Believe or be cast out." Such, in sum, is cult
      mentality. If Hausen was to make a serious case for her position, she
      would be cognizant of the objections which are inevitable - some of
      which I offer herein - and answer them. She does not, for she is
      committed to an ideological position, not the search for the truth in
      it. Logically, philosophically, and anthroposophically, Hausen does
      not make her case.
    • val2160
      ... Smith ... want ... income. ... University ... about ... It wasn t the first study of this kind that I found-just the most recent. Here s another article:
      Message 89 of 89 , Dec 18, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
        <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
        > wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas
        Smith"
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > I regret to inform you both that you're TOO OLD for me.
        > >
        > > http://www.physorg.com/news147615590.html
        > > <http://www.physorg.com/news147615590.html#>
        > > Myth about 'dirty old men' supported by science Middle-aged men
        want
        > > younger women, often touting their intelligence and their high
        income.
        > > This is shown in research at Gothenburg University and Oxford
        University
        > > that studied 400 lonely hearts ads to see how men and women choose
        > > partners.
        > > <http://physorg.tradepub.com/?pt=cat&page=_INTL>
        > Research
        > > in the theory of evolution includes a number of accepted theories
        about
        > > how men and women choose their partners.
        >
        > They had to spend good money to research that?

        It wasn't the first study of this kind that I found-just the most
        recent. Here's another article:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3304\
        960/Men-have-evolved-to-choose-young-wives.html


        A team from Vienna University studied more than 11,600 Swedish men and
        women, aged 45-55, and their partners and found that relationships in
        which the man was six years older than the woman produced the most
        children - an average of 2.2.

        Women placed more emphasis on resources and status - leading them
        typically to choose older men.

        Martin Fieder, who led the team and whose research was published online
        by the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, said: "These findings may
        account for the phenomenon that men typically prefer and mate with women
        younger than themselves, whereas women usually desire and mate with men
        older than themselves.

        "We conclude that the age preference for the partner increases
        individual fitness of both men and women and may thus be an
        evolutionarily acquired trait."

        When the team examined those who had changed partners after the birth of
        their first child they found men ended up with women younger than their
        first choice, while women chose men who were younger than their first
        partner but still a little older than themselves.

        Mr Fieder said: "These findings support the reported age preferences of
        ageing men for increasingly younger women as well as of women for a
        partner just a little older than themselves.

        "We attribute the shift to a younger partner to a potential compensation
        for the fertility loss caused by the individuals' increasing age."
        >Cheese, I'd a telled em
        > fer nutting.

        Sorry to be the one to break it to you but your sample size would be too
        small.-Val
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.