Re: Hausen article - Ressurection Power review
- --- In email@example.com, "Stephen Clarke"
my 3 cents on what you write below. Steiner's claiming that the
anthroposophical movement and society are now one was because there
were many people who considered themselves part of the movement but
wanted nothing to do with the Society - fe the "Free Anthroposophical
Society". This because the Society was pretty much disfunctional and
run by old farts. So Steiner means ok, but I'm taking over the Society
and it will be different from now on. Your "believe or be cast out" -
well, in a way yes. *However* - and here we return again to the
Constitution question. If 2 Societies were meant to exist side by
side, as I and I think you and many others believe, then the
Anthoposophical Society "as such" (im engeren Sinn) was for the
members, leaving them free with appropriate statutes ("which are not
statutes") and which contained, as it were, the Free School for
Spiritual Science and which in turn included the Esoteric School. And
the "General Anthroposophical Society" is the legal entity which was
to concentrate on the mundane, legal, ownership affairs. By the end of
1925, the only Society to remain was the GAS. That the
Anthroposophical movement and the Society are one has not happened. We
don't even have to look at the expulsions, splits, and resignations of
the past. I know now more anthroposophists who are not members than
who are. If the 2 Societies had continued to exist, thing *might* have
> > The Resurrection Power of Anthroposophyto be.
> 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
> 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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Frank Thomas Smith"
> --- In email@example.com, "val2160" wdenval@
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Frank Thomas
> > wrote:want
> > >
> > > > 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
> > younger women, often touting their intelligence and their highincome.
> > This is shown in research at Gothenburg University and OxfordUniversity
> > that studied 400 lonely hearts ads to see how men and women chooseabout
> > partners.
> > <http://physorg.tradepub.com/?pt=cat&page=_INTL>
> > in the theory of evolution includes a number of accepted theories
> > how men and women choose their partners.It wasn't the first study of this kind that I found-just the most
> They had to spend good money to research that?
recent. Here's another article:
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 emSorry to be the one to break it to you but your sample size would be too
> fer nutting.