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

Re: Hausen article - Ressurection Power review

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    ... Ok, Stephen, let me clarify my point. If the Anthroposophical Society, re-founded during the Christmas Conference, had been allowed to continue to exist,
    Message 1 of 89 , Dec 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke"
      <mozartg@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Frank:
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
      > <eltrigal78@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "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.
      >
      > SRC: I think that is a very reasonable approach and
      > 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
      > think.
      >
      >
      > 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
      > > been different.
      >
      > SRC: You have documented and analyzed the GA/GAS situation in
      > 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
      >
      Ok, Stephen, let me clarify my point. If the Anthroposophical Society,
      re-founded during the Christmas Conference, had been allowed to
      continue to exist, the spiritual world might have condoned its
      existence - even without Rudolf Steiner. But it ceased to exist in
      1925, and the only thing left was the General Anthroposophical
      Society, a run of the mill corporation which, it seems to me at least,
      isn't spiritually appealing. That's why I wrote: "If the 2 Societies
      had continued to exist, things *might* have been different." But your
      remark about not crying about spilt milk is apt. If a guy like Von
      Beckerath - mentioned previously by Ottmar and me - decides to throw
      in the towel, it looks like the fight is over.
      Frank
    • 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.