Re: Hausen article - Ressurection Power review
- Dear Frank:
--- In email@example.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
>SRC: I think that is a very reasonable approach and
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Stephen Clarke"
> <mozartg@> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 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.
interpretation - one that he could have taken and one that I would
prefer to take myself. BUT: he framed the whole affair in such cosmic
terms that the way you put it is almost an excuse for his overstepping
the mark, and certainly predisposes those to followed to suppose the
most esoteric and far ranging implications, either plus or minus as is
yor wont. I think he painted himself into a corner here. This is a
hard nut and I do not think I have the last word, but Stiener's own
words are on the record and should have to be taken at face value, I
Your "believe or be cast out" -
> well, in a way yes. *However* - and here we return again to theSRC: You have documented and analyzed the GA/GAS situation in
> 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
> been different.
such comprehensive detail that one is almost bound to accept it at
face value, as I do, since I am not able nor prepared to do my own
research on it. Yet as valuable as that historical research is, it is
all fallout from critical events that transpired during the last few
years of Rudolf Steiner's life, ones that framed the issues and set
the playing field for all that followed; the rest is corollaries,
consequences, and fallout.
It is hard to tell from your sentences what your point of view on
it is, but, to clarify mine: mine is that after RS passed on, neither
the GA nor the GAS, nor any number of Societies proved capable of
continuing to incarnating more than a fraction of the impulses
radiating from the Anthroposophical Movement, aka: the Michael School.
The AS proved to be a dud, and as I gather from your precis, not even
a legally valid entity capable of incarnating a fundamental esoteric
impulse - which is proved by the history of it since.
Those apops who are not part of either or any Society
organization probably by far and away represent the bulk of those
representing the Movement, working from the periphery in
non-hierarchical fashion, united only in the extent to which we
intuitively collaborate on individually perceived indications. I count
myself as one of those. Most of the work I do is not capable of being
mentioned, much less discussed, on line or within any Society format.
Sad or not, that is the truth and its useless to cry over spilt milk.
My 3 cents, too. Stephen
- --- In email@example.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "val2160" wdenval@
> > > --- In email@example.com, "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.