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

Educated Guess: Stephen Clarke today on the WC

Expand Messages
  • guidastella
    ... , Stephen Clarke
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke" <mozartg@...> wrote: (Jan, 7th )

      >
      >I left
      > the Anthropososphy Tomorrow list recently because I could not stand
      > trying to have intelligent discussions with people who had not done
      > their basic (cultural and esoteric, both) homework and whose
      > undereducated intellectualism led them into fabulous realms..."where
      > no man has gone before".... Whoops, gotta watch it.

       

      --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "guidastella" <guidastella@...> wrote: (Jan, 20th)

      >
      >But even so, I
      > can hardly believe you would even contemplate the possibility that your
      [esoteric]
      > work would have any acceptation on the WC.

       

       

      --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke" <mozartg@...> wrote: (Today)

      >
      > Dear Volker:
      > If you wish to lead me on a wild goose chase through logic and other
      > people's scholarship...no thanks.
      >
      > SRC: It is hard for me to reconcile that you don't know what
      > Steiner's Inspiration and Intuition are, yet you do know that there
      > are (in his system) two guardians. You also seem to misconstrue the
      > nature of the Greater Guardian itself, which is strange. Are you
      > playing games with me here, volker?
      >
      > SRC: Peter, really. This assertion of yours is so completely
      > false I am wondering what is going on.

      >  

      > SRC: Depends. Are you quizzing me, or do you really wish to know?

      > And what is your background and experience-to-date in this area?
      > These are not frivolous questions; if I am to give you good
      > answer, I must know to whom I am speaking and on what level I need to
      > to frame my responses.
      > This is not the historian's approach, but I am not speaking as an
      > historian, and you are not speaking to one.
      > So, on this matter, you must meet me on my ground.
      >
      > Dear Diana:
      >
      > All of this amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.
      >
      > This thing can not be settled by disputation.
      >
      > The analytic historian wished to base his/her theories about the
      > subject at hand on documentable sources. this is well and good.
      >
      > The practitioner bases his/her understanding of his/her experiences on
      > the basis of their effects within his/her own organism. These reports
      > must be given credence - yes, critical credence, which the historical
      > approach can contribute.
      >
      > But, in the spirit of reciprocity, the analyst must be willing to
      > accept practitioner reports at face value
      , at least as a starting point.
      >
      > Here we have pernicious assumptions of authority.
      >
      > I have no problem accepting - critically - Peter S.'s contributions.
      > The question before us is: can he/you accept mine?
      >
      > Dear Peter:
      >
      > SRC: I think you are making distinctions without differences. Is
      > the "idea" of a thing (as you put it initially) really all that
      > different from the "notion" of it? If you wish to pin your argument on
      > such a niggling difference, you should define your terms better.
      >
      > SRC: According to an historian's point of view, yes. But that was
      > not how I was approaching the subject, and that will not get you very
      > far if you wish to understand - not just analyse - the meaning of the
      > term. If all you wish to do is trace the language used for the idea,
      > then you have the playing field all to yourself; I will bow down
      > before your data.
      > But you were referring to the idea; the concept of the thing -
      > you were quite explicit about that - and in regard to that I can
      > contribute something from the arena of the person who _does_ it.
      >
      > I can enter into your world; can you enter into mine?
      >
      > But that is precisely the point: can you give yup - or allow - a
      > non-observer contribution?
      >
      > Specifically, the "source" for the idea of the Guardian is in
      the
      > experience of every person who encounters it. Every person who has
      > entered the spiritual world as an autonomous actor has had to come to
      > terms with it. Traces are present in lore, ancestral traditions, and,
      > ocassionally, in documentable sources, but these later are a feeble
      > trace indeed. You may be agnostic about the possibility of such a
      > thing, but you should be able to consider it.
      >
      > SRC: That is all your sources can tell you. They are incomplete
      > and misleading.
      You are bouncing of the inherent limits of your
      > professional observer standpoint, which is legitimate, but inadequate
      > at this point.
      >

      > SRC: I may not be an historian of professional caliber or status,

      > but I've done the homework on my tradition. I am more than familiar
      > with all that. I would interpret those historical similarities as
      > culturally differentiated iterations of deeper, more stable archetypal
      > patterns of consciousness. That would be an initial pass at it; there
      > are deeper levels active within them; that is from where they derive
      > their potency.
      >
      > SRC: Alrite; I am objecting to your "historical perspective" as
      > being inadequate and yielding you distracting and essentially false
      > answers. I am sure you are familiar with the adage: "If all you have
      > is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
      >
      > You are quite adept at pointing out the knots and over-reachings
      > of anthroposophy. All in good fun, fair play, and necessary, too. But
      > can you do the same kind of criticism on your own discipline - or do
      > you think it superior, exempt, and immune from faults which bedevil
      > any other systems?
      >
      > SRC: I fail to see the difference in your distinction. It seems
      > to me as if you are retreating into a fog of verbiage, and escaping
      > encounter with the essential question
      : "What is the origin of the
      idea
      > of the Guardian?"
      >
      > SRC: No, it is not. That _is_ how historians see it. There is a
      > difference. The former is primary, the latter is secondary. You must
      > face up to this essential limitation of your professional vantage
      > point. I know my tradition, I work within it, and I use it, and within
      > my limits, I know how to use it. You are looking at it, trying to
      > figure it out from how it looks to you. Your spectrum is limited. You
      > are doing the equivalent of trying to understand poetry by analyzing
      > the shapes of the letters.

      >
      > SRC: I'm saying that none of it was new; he lifted it wholesale
      > from unwritten sources. At this point is disappears from your radar,
      > but you cannot say that at that point it does not exist; you can only
      > say that you do not wee it.
      He did popularize the concept and
      almost
      > copyrighted the term, but that is like scientists claiming
      > intellectual property rights on genetic material that they have decoded.
      >
      > SRC: No. Being a Rosicrucian, and as you allow, B-L got his figure
      > from his occult and Rosicrucian encounters and then wrote it up. It
      > then it entered the language in a new aspect and became, in turn, a
      > source to draw upon - along with the results of new encounters.
      >
      > Damn; why do I have to encounter obstruction with you you on every
      > single little thing that I have to say? I have easily admitted all
      > kinds of things that you have brought to attention, and without
      > rancor, even with appreciation. You are not in academia, where its
      > win-loose and the man who is faster on his semantic feet and who has
      > the sharper wits trounces his opponent. I'm not into that. I can do
      > some of it, but I don't like it.
      > If we can try to come to common understandings without either of us
      > claiming privilege - except in our respective fields of expertise -
      > that would be best. I suggest it. Otherwise, I am going to get real
      > tired real quick.

      >
      > Dear Roger:
      >
      > SRC: Its a rough world out there and one should never take
      > anything at face value.
      Period. Misplaced trust is a bitch.
      >
      > DD:
      >
      > SRC: I am not offended. Why would you think such a thing. Don't
      > make it an emotional issue.
      >

      > SRC: No. the topic started when volker said that B-L invented the

      > idea of the Guardian. It was that statement which I challenged. Peter
      > first supported v. on this, then has backed off. v. is rather mum.
      >
      > SRC: i am frustrated that all of a sudden, everything gets real
      > fuzzy, intellectually:
      what is this about post-1940 sources? This is
      > brand new and appropos of nothing. that my have been a typo, but the
      > mental glitches and blind spots that I have been pointing out are
      > hanging us up.
      >
      > SRC: People don't believe the same things about reality, either;
      > so what? I do not pretend to know what I believe; I believe in what I
      > first have come to know.

      >
      > Dear Diana:
      >
      > SRC:Please; you are getting things all mixed up. Just like in our
      > discussion of karma: you wished to have me defend all sorts of loony
      > ideas about it that you thought were essential to the idea.
      >
      > Here you wish to engage me on a Wikipedia entry that I have already
      > said is laughable. But Peter cited it and I worked with what he put
      > before us. This is a "straw man" argument.
      >
      > All I took from the Wiki thing was its own mentions of the
      > Guardian concept; the different ways in which the idea revealed
      > something of itself in different cultures - evidence that contradicted
      > Peter's - and volkers!- assertion that B-L "invented" the idea.
      >
      >
      Why is it so hard for anyone to admit that that statement is
      > wrong, and as contradicted by the very evidence brought forward to
      > support it? Instead we're off into the philosophical no-mans'-land of
      > observer and practitioner. You hold APT folks' feet to the fire when
      > they woose out. Here I am saying that you do it, too. So what BFD.
      > Can we move on?
      >
      > Dear Diana:
      >
      > SRC: Whoops, we can stop right there. If you think it is
      > ridiculous, and can dismiss my statement so peremptorily, it is
      > pointless to continue.

      >
      > SRC: No; you believe (i.e.; place your trust) in that equally
      > fabulous thing called "reality", which no one has yet agreed on
      what

      > it is. Would you care to offer a definition that we all can agree on?
      > For "all", I would, for starters, settle for all atheistic
      materialists.
      >
      > It goes back to what Dan (and I first) said: the meaning of life
      > is what you choose or make it to be. That goes for "god" and it
      goes
      > for "reality."
      >
      > I can tell you my stories, you can tell me mine; all the rest is
      > froth and commentary. If you want your story to have priority over
      > mine, you can kiss this discussion goooodbye.

      >
      > SRC: Why, what testing or sampling have you done? Oh, you think
      > the whole idea is ridiculous. Sounds like a closed mind to me. Knock
      > yourself out, I won't argue with you.
      >
      > SRC: No, no insensitive intention. I was chuckling at myself 'cuz
      > Roger slam-dunked me with his reply.
      >
      > Dear Peter:
      >
      > Yes, I am getting frustrated. We are experiencing a classical
      > situation of conceptual roadblock.
      One more time....
      >
      > According to him, 1. the reality of occult fact is accepted. 2. volker
      > refers to the "idea" of the Guardian. This includes, but is not
      > limited to, its documented traces. It involves the whole gestalt -
      > which includes the esoteric underpinnings which are archetypal and
      > predating B-L. 3. "romantic invention" (repeated so he must
      think it

      > an excellent formulation) indicates and reinforces the impression that
      > volker thinks that B-L pulled the idea out of is...hat and that it is
      > basically useless to try and take the "notion" (sic) too
      seriously.
      >
      > All I did was say that, as described, B-L did not "invent"
      the idea of
      > the Guardian. That's all (at first!). I do not see why it is so hard
      > for you or v. to accept this as being evident. I read you as using
      > simple, colloquial English; if you want to parse your own use of
      > language to the point where no one knows what we are talking about any
      > more, well....yes, frustrated.
      >
      > Dear Diana:
      >
      > SRC: OK; this is precisely the point at which we can make some
      > progress. If we each assume for each other that each of us is trying
      > our best to make sense out of life, and that each of us has good
      > reasons for believing whatever it is we do, that they are based on
      > whatever experiences life has gifted us with, and that each set of
      > ideas that we may have about it is only approximate anyway, and that
      > no one has an exclusive lock on a totally true system about it, then
      > we can have a conversation.
      >
      > The first step in all this is for us to say what we mean and mean
      > what we say. No ad hominems, etc. (spell-check gives "humanoids). And
      > we have got read as written what the other person says and respond to
      > the points as raised. I have been consistently misrepresented on this
      > score lately and I do protest.
      >
      > As I said in my last post, the first thing people in conversation have
      > got to do is listen. Again, you are misrepresenting what I have said.
      > If you do not wish to read my posts but instead use them as a
      > springboard for your own objections to your own misconceptions, go
      > right ahead. That is up to you, but its nothing I can speak to.
      >
      > You are not quoting me; you are interpreting me, and wrongly. I know
      > how to use the English language to express myself clearly. As an
      > editor, you should be able to read the words of others without
      > interjecting your own biases. C'mon!
      >
      > I'm going to be stubborn on this: don't try and jerk me around.

      >  

      > See, you

      are tolerating my "belief"; you can't accept the possibility
      > that the spiritual world is an objectively real place, and that people
      > can encounter a somewhat fixed topography - not one of materialistic
      > stasis and not pure whatever, either, but what Corbin would call
      > "Imaginal."

      >
      > Suit yourself. Bullshit, eh? Hmmm.

      >  

      > SRC: I

      have no idea what that means. Look, I've been around long
      > enough to know that 1. you don't win arguments with list
      > owners/moderators, and 2. when respect is not given and tendered
      > (i.e.; "bullshit"), discourse degenerates.
      >
      > Dan: you win. I'm out. It's been fun. Up until now.
      >
      > Unsubscribingly yours,
      >
      > Stephen
    • val2160
      ... Est ignota procul nostraeque impervia menti, Vix adeunda deis, annorum squalida mater, Immensis spelunca aevi, quae tempora vasto Suppeditat revocatque
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "guidastella" <guidastella@...> wrote:

        > >I left
        > > the Anthropososphy Tomorrow list recently because I could not stand
        > > trying to have intelligent discussions with people who had not done
        > > their basic (cultural and esoteric, both) homework and whose
        > > undereducated intellectualism led them into fabulous realms..."where
        > > no man has gone before".... Whoops, gotta watch it.

        Est ignota procul nostraeque impervia menti,
        Vix adeunda deis, annorum squalida mater,
        Immensis spelunca aevi, quae tempora vasto
        Suppeditat revocatque sinu. Complectitur antrum,
        Omnia qui placido consumit numine, serpens
        Perpetuumque viret squamis, caudamque reductam
        Ore vorat tacito relegens exordia lapsu.
        Vestibuli custos vultu longaeva decoro
        Ante fores Natura sedet, cunctisque volantes
        Dependent membris animae.

        Far away, all unknown, beyond the range of mortal minds and scarce to be approached by the gods, is a cavern of immense age, hoary mother of the years, her vast bosom at once the cradle and the tomb of time. A serpent surrounds this cave, his slow majesty engulfing all things. The glint of his green scales never ceases and he swallows his upturned tail, silently writhing as he explores his own beginning. Before the entrance sits Nature, guardian of the threshold, ancient yet ever lovely, and flitting spirits hang from every limb.

        Claudian, On Stilicho's Consulship


      • guidastella
        Dear Val, The way your reply is arranged gives the impression I wrote the ... It isn t true: this excerpt comes from a post S. Clarke wrote on WC:
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Val,


           The way your reply is arranged gives the impression I wrote the following:

           > >I left

          > > the Anthropososphy Tomorrow list recently because I could not stand
          > > trying to have intelligent discussions with people who had not done
          > > their basic (cultural and esoteric, both) homework and whose
          > > undereducated intellectualism led them into fabulous realms..."where
          > > no man has gone before".... Whoops, gotta watch it.


          It isn't true: this excerpt comes from a post S. Clarke wrote on WC:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/7559

            So you've found the polemic guardian of the threshold is mentioned by Claudian, what shows it's much older than WCers would like to believe. If you take this information there, it's certain Peter S. will find a way to argue that Claudian's guardian was a completely different entity than what is described in the 1842's novel: you could fool it with a piece of cake and so on.

           Kind regards,

           Stella


        • dottie zold
          Stephen suddenly wakes up a bit in the hole....   SRC: Peter, really. This assertion of yours is so completely false I am wondering what is going on. Even
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen suddenly wakes up a bit in the hole....
             
            SRC: Peter, really. This assertion of yours is so completely
            false I am wondering what is going on
            . Even according to your own
            choosen source for the subject - which is not the best possible one by
            a long shot - asserts that the Guardian is an archetypal component of
            the universal human condition. (I quote below) Neither Cerebus, the
            Dragon, the Snake, the Hobgoblin, the King of Evil - none of these are
            "after 1842"! You seem to be valuing your (its) own secondary
            historical citations over the source material itself!!!!!!

            And each of those biblio.-type "References" comprise and refer to a
            vast body of pre-existing lore."
             
            Dottie: No, not Peter Staudenmaier Stephen, I mean he's your man! He's THE man who is telling it like it is to the Steiner students according to you, he's the one straightening us all out....let's see how Mr. Staudenmaier wiggles out of this predicament he got himself into with a new disciple....
            All good things,
            Dottie
            (my emphasis)

            "If there is something more powerful than destiny, this must be the human being who bears destiny unshaken." Rudolf Steiner

            --- On Thu, 2/5/09, guidastella <guidastella@...> wrote:
            From: guidastella <guidastella@...>
            Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Educated Guess: Stephen Clarke today on the WC
            To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 6:10 PM

            --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke" <mozartg@...> wrote: (Jan, 7th )
            >
            >I left
            > the Anthropososphy Tomorrow list recently because I could not stand
            > trying to have intelligent discussions with people who had not done
            > their basic (cultural and esoteric, both) homework and whose
            > undereducated intellectualism led them into fabulous realms..."where
            > no man has gone before".... Whoops, gotta watch it.

             

            --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "guidastella" <guidastella@...> wrote: (Jan, 20th)
            >
            >But even so, I
            > can hardly believe you would even contemplate the possibility that your [esoteric]
            > work would have any acceptation on the WC.

             

             

            --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke" <mozartg@...> wrote: (Today)
            >
            > Dear Volker:
            > If you wish to lead me on a wild goose chase through logic and other
            > people's scholarship...no thanks.
            >
            > SRC: It is hard for me to reconcile that you don't know what
            > Steiner's Inspiration and Intuition are, yet you do know that there
            > are (in his system) two guardians. You also seem to misconstrue the
            > nature of the Greater Guardian itself, which is strange. Are you
            > playing games with me here, volker?
            >
            > SRC: Peter, really. This assertion of yours is so completely
            > false I am wondering what is going on.

            >  

            > SRC: Depends. Are you quizzing me, or do you really wish to know?
            > And what is your background and experience-to-date in this area?
            > These are not frivolous questions; if I am to give you good
            > answer, I must know to whom I am speaking and on what level I need to
            > to frame my responses.
            > This is not the historian's approach, but I am not speaking as an
            > historian, and you are not speaking to one.
            > So, on this matter, you must meet me on my ground.
            >
            > Dear Diana:
            >
            > All of this amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.
            >
            > This thing can not be settled by disputation.
            >
            > The analytic historian wished to base his/her theories about the
            > subject at hand on documentable sources. this is well and good.
            >
            > The practitioner bases his/her understanding of his/her experiences on
            > the basis of their effects within his/her own organism. These reports
            > must be given credence - yes, critical credence, which the historical
            > approach can contribute.
            >
            > But, in the spirit of reciprocity, the analyst must be willing to
            > accept practitioner reports at face value
            , at least as a starting point.
            >
            > Here we have pernicious assumptions of authority.
            >
            > I have no problem accepting - critically - Peter S.'s contributions.
            > The question before us is: can he/you accept mine?
            >
            > Dear Peter:
            >
            > SRC: I think you are making distinctions without differences. Is
            > the "idea" of a thing (as you put it initially) really all that
            > different from the "notion" of it? If you wish to pin your argument on
            > such a niggling difference, you should define your terms better.
            >
            > SRC: According to an historian's point of view, yes. But that was
            > not how I was approaching the subject, and that will not get you very
            > far if you wish to understand - not just analyse - the meaning of the
            > term. If all you wish to do is trace the language used for the idea,
            > then you have the playing field all to yourself; I will bow down
            > before your data.
            > But you were referring to the idea; the concept of the thing -
            > you were quite explicit about that - and in regard to that I can
            > contribute something from the arena of the person who _does_ it.
            >
            > I can enter into your world; can you enter into mine?
            >
            > But that is precisely the point: can you give yup - or allow - a
            > non-observer contribution?
            >
            > Specifically, the "source" for the idea of the Guardian is in the
            > experience of every person who encounters it. Every person who has
            > entered the spiritual world as an autonomous actor has had to come to
            > terms with it. Traces are present in lore, ancestral traditions, and,
            > ocassionally, in documentable sources, but these later are a feeble
            > trace indeed. You may be agnostic about the possibility of such a
            > thing, but you should be able to consider it.
            >
            > SRC: That is all your sources can tell you. They are incomplete
            > and misleading.
            You are bouncing of the inherent limits of your
            > professional observer standpoint, which is legitimate, but inadequate
            > at this point.
            >

            > SRC: I may not be an historian of professional caliber or status,
            > but I've done the homework on my tradition. I am more than familiar
            > with all that. I would interpret those historical similarities as
            > culturally differentiated iterations of deeper, more stable archetypal
            > patterns of consciousness. That would be an initial pass at it; there
            > are deeper levels active within them; that is from where they derive
            > their potency.
            >
            > SRC: Alrite; I am objecting to your "historical perspective" as
            > being inadequate and yielding you distracting and essentially false
            > answers. I am sure you are familiar with the adage: "If all you have
            > is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
            >
            > You are quite adept at pointing out the knots and over-reachings
            > of anthroposophy. All in good fun, fair play, and necessary, too. But
            > can you do the same kind of criticism on your own discipline - or do
            > you think it superior, exempt, and immune from faults which bedevil
            > any other systems?
            >
            > SRC: I fail to see the difference in your distinction. It seems
            > to me as if you are retreating into a fog of verbiage, and escaping
            > encounter with the essential question
            : "What is the origin of the idea
            > of the Guardian?"
            >
            > SRC: No, it is not. That _is_ how historians see it. There is a
            > difference. The former is primary, the latter is secondary. You must
            > face up to this essential limitation of your professional vantage
            > point. I know my tradition, I work within it, and I use it, and within
            > my limits, I know how to use it. You are looking at it, trying to
            > figure it out from how it looks to you. Your spectrum is limited. You
            > are doing the equivalent of trying to understand poetry by analyzing
            > the shapes of the letters.

            >
            > SRC: I'm saying that none of it was new; he lifted it wholesale
            > from unwritten sources. At this point is disappears from your radar,
            > but you cannot say that at that point it does not exist; you can only
            > say that you do not wee it.
            He did popularize the concept and almost
            > copyrighted the term, but that is like scientists claiming
            > intellectual property rights on genetic material that they have decoded.
            >
            > SRC: No. Being a Rosicrucian, and as you allow, B-L got his figure
            > from his occult and Rosicrucian encounters and then wrote it up. It
            > then it entered the language in a new aspect and became, in turn, a
            > source to draw upon - along with the results of new encounters.
            >
            > Damn; why do I have to encounter obstruction with you you on every
            > single little thing that I have to say? I have easily admitted all
            > kinds of things that you have brought to attention, and without
            > rancor, even with appreciation. You are not in academia, where its
            > win-loose and the man who is faster on his semantic feet and who has
            > the sharper wits trounces his opponent. I'm not into that. I can do
            > some of it, but I don't like it.
            > If we can try to come to common understandings without either of us
            > claiming privilege - except in our respective fields of expertise -
            > that would be best. I suggest it. Otherwise, I am going to get real
            > tired real quick.

            >
            > Dear Roger:
            >
            > SRC: Its a rough world out there and one should never take
            > anything at face value.
            Period. Misplaced trust is a bitch.
            >
            > DD:
            >
            > SRC: I am not offended. Why would you think such a thing. Don't
            > make it an emotional issue.
            >

            > SRC: No. the topic started when volker said that B-L invented the
            > idea of the Guardian. It was that statement which I challenged. Peter
            > first supported v. on this, then has backed off. v. is rather mum.
            >
            > SRC: i am frustrated that all of a sudden, everything gets real
            > fuzzy, intellectually:
            what is this about post-1940 sources? This is
            > brand new and appropos of nothing. that my have been a typo, but the
            > mental glitches and blind spots that I have been pointing out are
            > hanging us up.
            >
            > SRC: People don't believe the same things about reality, either;
            > so what? I do not pretend to know what I believe; I believe in what I
            > first have come to know.

            >
            > Dear Diana:
            >
            > SRC:Please; you are getting things all mixed up. Just like in our
            > discussion of karma: you wished to have me defend all sorts of loony
            > ideas about it that you thought were essential to the idea.
            >
            > Here you wish to engage me on a Wikipedia entry that I have already
            > said is laughable. But Peter cited it and I worked with what he put
            > before us. This is a "straw man" argument.
            >
            > All I took from the Wiki thing was its own mentions of the
            > Guardian concept; the different ways in which the idea revealed
            > something of itself in different cultures - evidence that contradicted
            > Peter's - and volkers!- assertion that B-L "invented" the idea.
            >
            >
            Why is it so hard for anyone to admit that that statement is
            > wrong, and as contradicted by the very evidence brought forward to
            > support it? Instead we're off into the philosophical no-mans'-land of
            > observer and practitioner. You hold APT folks' feet to the fire when
            > they woose out. Here I am saying that you do it, too. So what BFD.
            > Can we move on?
            >
            > Dear Diana:
            >
            > SRC: Whoops, we can stop right there. If you think it is
            > ridiculous, and can dismiss my statement so peremptorily, it is
            > pointless to continue.

            >
            > SRC: No; you believe (i.e.; place your trust) in that equally
            > fabulous thing called "reality", which no one has yet agreed on what
            > it is. Would you care to offer a definition that we all can agree on?
            > For "all", I would, for starters, settle for all atheistic materialists.
            >
            > It goes back to what Dan (and I first) said: the meaning of life
            > is what you choose or make it to be. That goes for "god" and it goes
            > for "reality."
            >
            > I can tell you my stories, you can tell me mine; all the rest is
            > froth and commentary. If you want your story to have priority over
            > mine, you can kiss this discussion goooodbye.

            >
            > SRC: Why, what testing or sampling have you done? Oh, you think
            > the whole idea is ridiculous. Sounds like a closed mind to me. Knock
            > yourself out, I won't argue with you.
            >
            > SRC: No, no insensitive intention. I was chuckling at myself 'cuz
            > Roger slam-dunked me with his reply.
            >
            > Dear Peter:
            >
            > Yes, I am getting frustrated. We are experiencing a classical
            > situation of conceptual roadblock.
            One more time....
            >
            > According to him, 1. the reality of occult fact is accepted. 2. volker
            > refers to the "idea" of the Guardian. This includes, but is not
            > limited to, its documented traces. It involves the whole gestalt -
            > which includes the esoteric underpinnings which are archetypal and
            > predating B-L. 3. "romantic invention" (repeated so he must think it
            > an excellent formulation) indicates and reinforces the impression that
            > volker thinks that B-L pulled the idea out of is...hat and that it is
            > basically useless to try and take the "notion" (sic) too seriously.
            >
            > All I did was say that, as described, B-L did not "invent" the idea of
            > the Guardian. That's all (at first!). I do not see why it is so hard
            > for you or v. to accept this as being evident. I read you as using
            > simple, colloquial English; if you want to parse your own use of
            > language to the point where no one knows what we are talking about any
            > more, well....yes, frustrated.

            >
            > Dear Diana:
            >
            > SRC: OK; this is precisely the point at which we can make some
            > progress. If we each assume for each other that each of us is trying
            > our best to make sense out of life, and that each of us has good
            > reasons for believing whatever it is we do, that they are based on
            > whatever experiences life has gifted us with, and that each set of
            > ideas that we may have about it is only approximate anyway, and that
            > no one has an exclusive lock on a totally true system about it, then
            > we can have a conversation.
            >
            > The first step in all this is for us to say what we mean and mean
            > what we say. No ad hominems, etc. (spell-check gives "humanoids). And
            > we have got read as written what the other person says and respond to
            > the points as raised. I have been consistently misrepresented on this
            > score lately and I do protest.
            >
            > As I said in my last post, the first thing people in conversation have
            > got to do is listen. Again, you are misrepresenting what I have said.
            > If you do not wish to read my posts but instead use them as a
            > springboard for your own objections to your own misconceptions, go
            > right ahead. That is up to you, but its nothing I can speak to.
            >
            > You are not quoting me; you are interpreting me, and wrongly. I know
            > how to use the English language to express myself clearly. As an
            > editor, you should be able to read the words of others without
            > interjecting your own biases. C'mon!
            >
            > I'm going to be stubborn on this: don't try and jerk me around.

            >  

            > See, you are tolerating my "belief"; you can't accept the possibility
            > that the spiritual world is an objectively real place, and that people
            > can encounter a somewhat fixed topography - not one of materialistic
            > stasis and not pure whatever, either, but what Corbin would call
            > "Imaginal."

            >
            > Suit yourself. Bullshit, eh? Hmmm.

            >  

            > SRC: I have no idea what that means. Look, I've been around long
            > enough to know that 1. you don't win arguments with list
            > owners/moderators, and 2. when respect is not given and tendered
            > (i.e.; "bullshit"), discourse degenerates.
            >
            > Dan: you win. I'm out. It's been fun. Up until now.
            >
            > Unsubscribingly yours,
            >
            > Stephen



          • elfuncle
            ... THE man who is telling it like it is to the Steiner students according to you, he s the one straightening us all out....let s see how Mr. Staudenmaier
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:

              > Dottie: No, not Peter Staudenmaier Stephen, I mean he's your man! He's THE man who is telling it like it is to the Steiner students according to you, he's the one straightening us all out....let's see how Mr. Staudenmaier wiggles out of this predicament he got himself into with a new disciple....

              Well, thank you Dottie and Stella for updating us a little about the bizarre circus in the hole these days. Newcomers to this group may feel bewildered about all this talk about the hole, what is it, where is it, why are we talking about it and so on. I wont repeat the mythology of Ynthinkable Facility this time, but if you want to read up on that, you can begin with this post and find the links to older posts from there:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/39157 

              Well, a few days ago I took another deep breath and pinched my nose to take a peek (the stench is unbearable), and I noticed that Frank was quite active, wearing a strong and expensive gasmask I suppose. I would have argued against any anthroposophist participating there for reasons I keep repeating, but Frank has a mind of his own -- and he did such a good job of rebutting Staudenmaier's and Clarke's allegations of Steiner's racism that Staudenmaier went into his classic defensive-aggressive mode, which means he backslided into his old but genuine impoliteness and sarcasm, wondering what Frank's next dance would be and so on -- because we all know that anthroposophists in the hole are nothing but their dancing circus elephants.

              The situation in the hole has been peculiar after Clarke's defection, a move he attributed to "intellectual honesty," a concept I used a great deal myself in the spring of 2004 in dialogues with Staudenmaier because his intellectual honesty is an absolute zero, zilch. He is deceptive and deliberately dishonest to the bone, and the ironic situation is that Clarke runs to him, embracing his alleged views, in the name of "intellectual honesty," which is the opposite of everything he stands for.

              One of the curious things is that after Clarke becomes a bona fide holeman, and probably constipated in the process, by swallowing Staudenmaier's race-poison and praising the entire Unbplumbable Toilet in such loving words that the local demons blush, he declares to this unholy congregation, his new soulmates, that he is still an anthroposophist, that they all need to become clairvoyant and cross the threshold into the spiritual world and so on, and the holefolks scratch their heads and don't quite know how to tackle their new comrade-in-arms.

              Enter Tom Mellett, the sophisticated standup comedian, chiming in with an amusing and entertaining piece about steinerholics who need the 12 steps to get off their addiction; then he and Stephen agree that Frank is in denial like an alcoholic on the bottle, Stephen has a real wakeup call and understands that he has been brainwashed by steinerism and needs to take those 12 steps, calling for Joel to help him, and of course Peter, Stephen, and Tom all agree that Frank is in denial and that he's doing his denial dance. And the number one symptom for Frank's steinerholism and state of denial is, of course, that he refuses to acknowledge that Steiner was a racist.

              All of this is right down Tom's alley, of course, because he has argued enthusiastically earler that Steiner was a lush, a drunk, that he drank himself into a stupor consistently for a long time in order to erase his atavistic clairvoyance and forget his earlier incarnations.

              I discovered a very interesting detail in all this, which came from Mr. Clarke, namely a remark of his that came immediately after he and Staudenmaier had ridiculed Frank for his views, a remark of insinuation, implication, and association. This is the type of insinuating remark that often goes by unnoticed, but it's very effective and it can't be refuted without throwing everything out in the open, spelling it out, because of the obvious deniability on behalf of the holefolks.

              Before I get to this, I am reminded of an exchange in the hole from exactly a decade ago, in 1999, that some around here may remember, when I was debating the moderate holeman  Steve Premo. He said at one point that he would defend and support the right of anthroposophists to free speech, because he also favored the right of neo-Nazis to have free speech. And perhaps not so coincidentally, this was when Dan Dugan was first trying to argue his case that anthroposophy is akin to Nazism and that Steiner was Hitler's spiritual twin brother. I called Premo on this insinuation, and he yelled bloody murder because of course he had not consciously intended any such thing, I had misunderstood, he insisted. But I had not misunderstood; I addressed Premo's subtext, which originates in the subconscious of the author and goes straight to the subconscious hearts of the readers.

              And Stephen Clarke just did the same thing, in the same place. Check this out -- Stephen confronts Diana about a slightly different issue:

              "We are all familiar with that fact that racists don't like being called on their racism; they are blind to it. Because it has been so internalized, they can't get any distance on it in order to examine it. I suggest the same phenom is happening here; not the you are racist, but that because your proceed on the a priori assumption that your point of view is superior, you are unaware of that assumption. You cannot prove that your opinion is better, you can only choose to believe it."

              This comes immediately after a long discussion with Frank versus all the rest that exploded when Frank said: "Steiner was not a racist." (Why didn't Stephen write instead, "We are all familiar with that fact that alcoholics don't like being called on their alcoholism," for instance?)

              So what Stephen is saying here, indirectly, is that those who are in denial of Steiner's racism are also in denial of their own racism because they are indeed racists, even if, as Peter would have said, they have suppressed their racism through denial to the point where they think they are not racists, while other anthroposophists are open, overt and unashamed racists, and only the latter group of anthroposophists (the anthro-wackos) have understood Steiner correctly. Steiner can only be properly understood, of course, if you read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" together with Steiner's "Mein Lebensgang" and acknowledge the striking phonetic similarity between the names Rudolf Steiner and Adolf Hitler, whose joint cosmic mission it was to pave the way to the Holocaust.

              My point is that if those who deny Steiner's racism may soon be accused of being racists themselves. "We are all familiar with that fact that anthroposophists don't like being called on Steiner's racism; they are blind to it" has become: "We are all familiar with that fact that racists don't like being called on their racism; they are blind to it."

              In 1999 and 2001, I spent ten months in the hole in the aggregate, most of the time debating racism in connection with anthroposophy. And everything I have to say to the holefolks on this subject is in those archives; they are a cinch to find. But Stephen Clarke is an idiot. I am usually very hesitant to use such a word, but a spade is a spade, and Stephen is an idiot. He comes here and demands answers to Staudenmaier's type of questions about anthroposophy and racism, when all my answers are there like pearls inside the dungs of old holeshit, if he would only care to look, He is not an idiot for being asleep when those discussions and posts were written, but for diving fully blast into Staudenmaier's intellectual deceptions and tricks in the very name of intellectual honesty after having studied anthroposophy for many decades. Someone who knows little or nothing about anthroposophy and is totally unaware of Staudenmaier's obsessive academic acrobatics is not an idiot for taking the bait, but Stephen is a sucker, just like Frank pointed out.

              The question of what racism is, leads to entirely different ballgame (although I hate that expression), because it boils down to semantics and the evolution of words and language from decade to decade. Staudenmaier talks about "racial thinking," claiming that all theosophy/anthroposophy/esotericism is rooted in "racial thinking," which is more or less synonymous with racism depending on the context. But for Staudenmaier, and this is the most noteworthy part, racism has absolutely no moral or ethical implications or qualities, although he plays consistently on those strings in order to stir up the moral feelings of others. Staudenmaier himself only thinks that racism is an intellectually stimulating topic to study academically, and that there is nothing moral or immoral about it.

              And this is something that Staudenmaer has in common with Tom Mellett, who is more  knowledgeable about everything anthroposophical than most, but he demonstrates time and time again that he has no core, or as Hermann Hesse put it in "Siddartha," Tom has no sanctuary, no holiness, nothing is sacred to him. Everything contained in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which he has spent so many years learning about, is only something to play havoc with and make entertainment out of, and to make fun of everyone who takes any aspect of life seriously. And it looks like he's doing it out of boredom; it doesn't matter to him if he injures or even kills the Christ Impulse contained in anthroposophy because it's only a bottle of booze anyway, a poison that anthros are addicted to.

              And now, I understand, Stephen unsubs from the hole while the demons, werewolves, babysnakes, asuric rodents and other homesteaders wipe his saliva off their butts, because this brief love affair is over and the angels down below are weeping.



              Tarjei
            • val2160
              ... stand ... done ... realms... where ... Sorry about that, Stella-I see that I removed Stephen s header when I removed the Waldorf Critic s-there were two
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "guidastella"
                <guidastella@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear Val,
                >
                >
                >
                > The way your reply is arranged gives the impression I wrote the
                > following:
                >
                > > >I left
                > > > the Anthropososphy Tomorrow list recently because I could not
                stand
                > > > trying to have intelligent discussions with people who had not
                done
                > > > their basic (cultural and esoteric, both) homework and whose
                > > > undereducated intellectualism led them into fabulous
                realms..."where
                > > > no man has gone before".... Whoops, gotta watch it.
                >
                >
                > It isn't true: this excerpt comes from a post S. Clarke wrote on WC:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/7559
                > <../../../../../../waldorf-critics/message/7559>

                Sorry about that, Stella-I see that I removed Stephen's header when I
                removed the Waldorf Critic's-there were two additional to your own.
                Best-Val
              • Frank Thomas Smith
                ... Someone who ... That was after Stephen waxed teary about how he had been politely welcomed to the WC, treated with respect, bla, bla. And I wrote That s
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                  <coolvibes@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  Someone who
                  > knows little or nothing about anthroposophy and is totally unaware of
                  > Staudenmaier's obsessive academic acrobatics is not an idiot for taking
                  > the bait, but Stephen is a sucker, just like Frank pointed out.

                  That was after Stephen waxed teary about how he had been politely
                  welcomed to the WC, treated with respect, bla, bla. And I wrote
                  "That's because they recognize a sucker when they see one." That
                  pissed him off no end, to the point where he said he could never again
                  take me seriously. And Walden or somebody chided me for insulting
                  Stephen and wanted me to repent - although I was merely warning him.
                  Now that after only a few days Stephen has seen the light and
                  unsubbed,they're practically *begging* him to come back. Know why?
                  Because they know a sucker when they see one.
                  Frank


                  T: And this is something that Staudenmaer has in common with Tom
                  Mellett,...(snip)

                  I'd rather not talk about Tom in a place where he has no possibility
                  of replying.

                  Frank
                • elfuncle
                  ... If TM wants to reply or comment, he can do so in the Hole just like DW, PS, DD, PK and aaaaall the other Constipated Ones down below if and when they feel
                  Message 8 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:

                    > I'd rather not talk about Tom in a place where he has no possibility
                    > of replying.


                    If TM wants to reply or comment, he can do so in the Hole just like DW, PS, DD, PK and aaaaall the other Constipated Ones down below if and when they feel like barking, burping, or barfing.

                    Tarjei

                    "Never pity a holeman or get mushy about a wacko."
                    ( -- Uncle Taz: Web Wisdom)
                  • val2160
                    ... they ... overt ... only ... Why is it of interest to comment on Bulwer-Lytton s writings? Because, almost solely because of his writings the Theosophy
                    Message 9 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <coolvibes@...> wrote:

                      > So what Stephen is saying here, indirectly, is that those who are in
                      > denial of Steiner's racism are also in denial of their own racism
                      > because they are indeed racists, even if, as Peter would have said, they
                      > have suppressed their racism through denial to the point where they
                      > think they are not racists, while other anthroposophists are open, overt
                      > and unashamed racists, and only the latter group of anthroposophists
                      > (the anthro-wackos) have understood Steiner correctly. Steiner can only
                      > be properly understood, of course, if you read Hitler's "Mein Kampf"
                      > together with Steiner's "Mein Lebensgang" and acknowledge the striking
                      > phonetic similarity between the names Rudolf Steiner and Adolf Hitler,
                      > whose joint cosmic mission it was to pave the way to the Holocaust.

                      "Why is it of interest to comment on Bulwer-Lytton's writings?  Because, almost solely because of his writings the Theosophy movement began, and Nazism was inspired to attempt to take over the world.  The pen is, in fact, mightier than the sword – since it influences and controls it.  Today, largely because of the work and inspiration of early writers like Bulwer-Lytton, the New Age movement is growing incredibly fast, from almost nothing a few decades ago other than a few people interested in Edgar Cayce and yoga.  As the industrial world runs out of petroleum, massive change will occur.  What happens at this time will be controlled, as it always has been, by those of the strongest spiritual belief and commitment.  Bulwer-Lytton's writings led, rather directly, to the assumption of power by Adolf Hitler, and the Second World War.  It will be interesting to see what happens next."

                      "Many people discount things unseen, and pay little attention to occult or esoteric explanations, either of strange happenings or of uncontested events (such as Hitler's incredible rise to power).  Those who do, however, do so at their peril.  While they may reject spiritual explanations or aspects of world events, there are many world leaders who take these matters very seriously."

                      "It does not matter who wrote these myths or whether they exist in a spiritual realm or in the physical world.  To criticize these myths as of diminished utility or value because of the source or their spiritual/physical nature is analogous to the use of an ad hominem attack against an argument."

                      http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnBulwerLytton.htm

                    • elfuncle
                      Ah, this fella is a seer, an initiate, and he s got a PhD too, although he coupldn t find a single faithful one to give hm a half decent web design -- From
                      Message 10 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ah, this fella is a seer, an initiate, and he's got a PhD too, although he coupldn't find a single faithful one to give hm a half decent web design  --

                        From the main page:

                        http://www.foundationwebsite.org/
                         

                        "The thesis of this book is that when fossil-fuel reserves deplete in a few years, the global human population of Earth will drop to about 500 million people or less -- a small fraction of the current six billion.  The future is one of global ethnic war and the end of the modern industrialized world.  The book examines a "minimal regret" population strategy that shows promise as a sustainable, environmentally sound basis for world population.  This population consists of a single industrialized nation of five million people and a hunter-gatherer population of five million. "

                        Holy crap, this is reminiscent of fundamentalist sci-fi in the vein of "The Late Great Planet Earth," "Left Behind," etc.

                        Tarjei

                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                        > coolvibes@ wrote:
                        >
                        > > So what Stephen is saying here, indirectly, is that those who are in
                        > > denial of Steiner's racism are also in denial of their own racism
                        > > because they are indeed racists, even if, as Peter would have said,
                        > they
                        > > have suppressed their racism through denial to the point where they
                        > > think they are not racists, while other anthroposophists are open,
                        > overt
                        > > and unashamed racists, and only the latter group of anthroposophists
                        > > (the anthro-wackos) have understood Steiner correctly. Steiner can
                        > only
                        > > be properly understood, of course, if you read Hitler's "Mein Kampf"
                        > > together with Steiner's "Mein Lebensgang" and acknowledge the striking
                        > > phonetic similarity between the names Rudolf Steiner and Adolf Hitler,
                        > > whose joint cosmic mission it was to pave the way to the Holocaust.
                        >
                        >
                        > "Why is it of interest to comment on Bulwer-Lytton's writings?
                        > Because, almost solely because of his writings the Theosophy movement
                        > began, and Nazism was inspired to attempt to take over the world. The
                        > pen is, in fact, mightier than the sword – since it influences and
                        > controls it. Today, largely because of the work and inspiration of
                        > early writers like Bulwer-Lytton, the New Age movement is growing
                        > incredibly fast, from almost nothing a few decades ago other than a few
                        > people interested in Edgar Cayce and yoga. As the industrial world runs
                        > out of petroleum, massive change will occur. What happens at this time
                        > will be controlled, as it always has been, by those of the strongest
                        > spiritual belief and commitment. Bulwer-Lytton's writings led,
                        > rather directly, to the assumption of power by Adolf Hitler, and the
                        > Second World War. It will be interesting to see what happens next."
                        >
                        > "Many people discount things unseen, and pay little attention to occult
                        > or esoteric explanations, either of strange happenings or of uncontested
                        > events (such as Hitler's incredible rise to power). Those who do,
                        > however, do so at their peril. While they may reject spiritual
                        > explanations or aspects of world events, there are many world leaders
                        > who take these matters very seriously."
                        >
                        > "It does not matter who wrote these myths or whether they exist in a
                        > spiritual realm or in the physical world. To criticize these myths as
                        > of diminished utility or value because of the source or their
                        > spiritual/physical nature is analogous to the use of an ad hominem
                        > attack against an argument."
                        >
                        > http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnBulwerLytton.htm
                        >

                      • val2160
                        You know Tarjei, if you wanna dismiss whatev this guy has to say on the basis of his examination of minimal regret population strategy and/or a poor web
                        Message 11 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          You know Tarjei, if you wanna dismiss whatev this guy has to say on the
                          basis of his examination of "minimal regret" population strategy and/or
                          a poor web design that's hunky dory. You're free to do that 'cuz, as
                          far as I know you haven't professed to be committed to the discussion of
                          ideas while refraining from ad hominem arguments.-Val

                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                          <coolvibes@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Ah, this fella is a seer, an initiate, and he's got a PhD too,
                          although
                          > he coupldn't find a single faithful one to give hm a half decent web
                          > design --
                          >
                          > From the main page:
                          >
                          > http://www.foundationwebsite.org/ <http://www.foundationwebsite.org/>
                          >
                          > "The thesis of this book is that when fossil-fuel reserves deplete in
                          a
                          > few years, the global human population of Earth will drop to about 500
                          > million people or less -- a small fraction of the current six billion.
                          > The future is one of global ethnic war and the end of the modern
                          > industrialized world. The book examines a "minimal regret" population
                          > strategy that shows promise as a sustainable, environmentally sound
                          > basis for world population. This population consists of a single
                          > industrialized nation of five million people and a hunter-gatherer
                          > population of five million. "
                          >
                          > Holy crap, this is reminiscent of fundamentalist sci-fi in the vein of
                          > "The Late Great Planet Earth," "Left Behind," etc.
                          >
                          > Tarjei
                          >
                          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                          > > coolvibes@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > > > So what Stephen is saying here, indirectly, is that those who are
                          in
                          > > > denial of Steiner's racism are also in denial of their own racism
                          > > > because they are indeed racists, even if, as Peter would have
                          said,
                          > > they
                          > > > have suppressed their racism through denial to the point where
                          they
                          > > > think they are not racists, while other anthroposophists are open,
                          > > overt
                          > > > and unashamed racists, and only the latter group of
                          anthroposophists
                          > > > (the anthro-wackos) have understood Steiner correctly. Steiner can
                          > > only
                          > > > be properly understood, of course, if you read Hitler's "Mein
                          Kampf"
                          > > > together with Steiner's "Mein Lebensgang" and acknowledge the
                          > striking
                          > > > phonetic similarity between the names Rudolf Steiner and Adolf
                          > Hitler,
                          > > > whose joint cosmic mission it was to pave the way to the
                          Holocaust.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > "Why is it of interest to comment on Bulwer-Lytton's writings?
                          > > Because, almost solely because of his writings the Theosophy
                          movement
                          > > began, and Nazism was inspired to attempt to take over the world.
                          The
                          > > pen is, in fact, mightier than the sword – since it influences
                          and
                          > > controls it. Today, largely because of the work and inspiration of
                          > > early writers like Bulwer-Lytton, the New Age movement is growing
                          > > incredibly fast, from almost nothing a few decades ago other than a
                          > few
                          > > people interested in Edgar Cayce and yoga. As the industrial world
                          > runs
                          > > out of petroleum, massive change will occur. What happens at this
                          > time
                          > > will be controlled, as it always has been, by those of the strongest
                          > > spiritual belief and commitment. Bulwer-Lytton's writings led,
                          > > rather directly, to the assumption of power by Adolf Hitler, and the
                          > > Second World War. It will be interesting to see what happens next."
                          > >
                          > > "Many people discount things unseen, and pay little attention to
                          > occult
                          > > or esoteric explanations, either of strange happenings or of
                          > uncontested
                          > > events (such as Hitler's incredible rise to power). Those who do,
                          > > however, do so at their peril. While they may reject spiritual
                          > > explanations or aspects of world events, there are many world
                          leaders
                          > > who take these matters very seriously."
                          > >
                          > > "It does not matter who wrote these myths or whether they exist in a
                          > > spiritual realm or in the physical world. To criticize these myths
                          as
                          > > of diminished utility or value because of the source or their
                          > > spiritual/physical nature is analogous to the use of an ad hominem
                          > > attack against an argument."
                          > >
                          > > http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnBulwerLytton.htm
                          > >
                          >
                        • elfuncle
                          It looks like the stuff PS would read for his research. PS claims that Steiner predicts a future race-war between white and colored humanity, it s one
                          Message 12 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            It looks like the stuff PS would read for his "research." PS claims that Steiner predicts a future "race-war"  between "white" and "colored" humanity, it's one of his favorite contentions; and this Caldwell fella prophesizes "a global ethnic war" (the same thing) that will wipe out over 90% of the world population.

                            As PS would have said, "Yours for race war."

                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > You know Tarjei, if you wanna dismiss whatev this guy has to say on the
                            > basis of his examination of "minimal regret" population strategy and/or
                            > a poor web design that's hunky dory. You're free to do that 'cuz, as
                            > far as I know you haven't professed to be committed to the discussion of
                            > ideas while refraining from ad hominem arguments.-Val


                            I think "ad residensium arguments" is more accurate than "ad hominem arguments" in my case, because I usually insult the place (=the Abyss) and not its residents, whom I regard as victims, comparable to radiation sickness after a nuclear fallout or something like that. It's when you hear people say, "Everyone knows where it is, but nobody wants to go there."

                            But sometimes ad residensium arguments behave like cluster bombs and missiles, causing civilian casualties; that's how ad hominems occur accidentally like collateral damage.

                            Tarjei
                          • val2160
                            Dear Stella, I have a little more time now that everyone is off to school to comment on your post. Thank you for bringing some of Stephen s comments. I
                            Message 13 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Stella,

                              I have a little more time now that everyone is off to school to comment
                              on your post. Thank you for bringing some of Stephen's comments. I
                              apologize agian for leaving off Stephen's header-it was not intentional
                              I assure you. I am grateful also to Stephen for his time spent on the
                              WC list because I learned some things about myself. For one thing-I
                              felt that Stephen was so much more gracious and tolerant of the other
                              members of the WC list than I have been. For example, when Walden who
                              is not Walden, (you were right Dottie) but Steve said that Stephen's
                              word "snared" was so appropriate, Stephen took the comment totally in
                              stride as he did many other, let's just call them " attribution errors"
                              that would have basically sent me into orbit if they had been directed
                              at me. So I could be more tolerant-people make mistakes. I make
                              mistakes too.

                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "guidastella"
                              <guidastella@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              <http://de.mc459.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=waldorf-critics@yahoogroup\
                              \
                              > s.com> , "Stephen Clarke" mozartg@
                              > <http://de.mc459.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mozartg@ > wrote:
                              > (Jan, 7th )

                              > > Specifically, the "source" for the idea of the Guardian is in the
                              > > experience of every person who encounters it. Every person who has
                              > > entered the spiritual world as an autonomous actor has had to come
                              to
                              > > terms with it. Traces are present in lore, ancestral traditions,
                              and,
                              > > ocassionally, in documentable sources, but these later are a feeble
                              > > trace indeed. You may be agnostic about the possibility of such a
                              > > thing, but you should be able to consider it.

                              Now, granted my education level is not that of Peter Staudenmaier's as I
                              only spent ten years in State Universities but when I read "autonomous
                              actor" I equated that with a self-directed participant. Stephen later
                              goes on to make the analogy to the driver of a car. Which again seems to
                              fit with my self-directed participant concept. Yet, Peter with the
                              benefit of a far greater education than I, both we can assume in quality
                              and quantity, seems to have an entirely different notion of what an
                              autonomous actor is.

                              "Your claim sounds too sweeping to me, which is
                              exactly what your original claim sounded like. I disagree that every
                              spiritually
                              engaged person encounters the guardian of the threshold."

                              Autonomous actor=engaged apparently for Peter. Stephen said nothing
                              about "every spiritually engaged person" nor did he make any sweeping
                              claim, but rather a qualified claim, as any competent reader can read
                              for themselves.

                              P.S.: "Yes, that's what your original claim sounded like. You seemed to
                              be saying that
                              anybody who disagrees with your sweeping assertion about the guardian of
                              the
                              threshold doesn't know much about spiritual practice. I think this claim
                              is
                              false. I do not think that either Diana or I misinterpreted you; I think
                              we
                              disagree with you."

                              Might have sounded that way to Peter but that's not what the words
                              autonomous actor convey to me. Nor is it how they are defined. As
                              Stephen goes on to mention in the comments you posted, Stella, the
                              critics are often left raising objections to their own misconceptions of
                              what is written and I see that as the case here.

                              P.S.: "I don't see what that has to do with it. There are very many
                              spiritual
                              traditions. They agree that spiritual things are real. They do not all
                              include
                              the guardian of the threshold as one of those real spiritual things."

                              No one said they did. No sweeping claim was made. Not very many
                              traditions involve an autonomous actor.

                              "To my mind, what you just described is not a fundamental and necessary
                              and
                              universal aspect of the objectively real spiritual world, but a specific
                              process
                              for entering into contact with that world. Various spiritual traditions
                              often
                              differ widely on such matters. I do not agree that all of them posit
                              something
                              akin to the guardian of the threshold."

                              Again, no one said they did. There was no statement made to the effect
                              that "all spiritual traditions posit something akin to the guardian of
                              the threshold."

                              Is this a case then of a mistake? Am I not understanding what Stephen
                              was attempting to convey? Or does Peter misunderstand or simply
                              misconstrue?-Val
                            • val2160
                              ...
                              Message 14 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "guidastella" <guidastella@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com
                                > <http://de.mc459.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=waldorf-critics@yahoogroup\
                                > s.com> , "Stephen Clarke" mozartg@

                                > > Dear Diana:
                                > >
                                > > SRC:Please; you are getting things all mixed up. Just like in our
                                > > discussion of karma: you wished to have me defend all sorts of loony
                                > > ideas about it that you thought were essential to the idea.


                                > > As I said in my last post, the first thing people in conversation have
                                > > got to do is listen. Again, you are misrepresenting what I have said.
                                > > If you do not wish to read my posts but instead use them as a
                                > > springboard for your own objections to your own misconceptions, go
                                > > right ahead. That is up to you, but its nothing I can speak to.
                                > >
                                > > You are not quoting me; you are interpreting me, and wrongly. I know
                                > > how to use the English language to express myself clearly. As an
                                > > editor, you should be able to read the words of others without
                                > > interjecting your own biases. C'mon!
                                > >
                                > > I'm going to be stubborn on this: don't try and jerk me around.

                                Well, yeah there it was-I thought so. Raising objections to their own misconceptions.  Yup. And Stephen knows how to use the English language. Yup. Thought so. Of course, if any dissenting parties have something to add I'm all ears.-Val

                                When pure statistics and measured features
                                Are no more keys to living creatures,
                                When dancing and bursting into song
                                Proves our most learned scholars wrong,
                                When all the world is fresh and new
                                And once more Nature to herself is true,
                                When light and darkness merge their love,
                                Into a higher unity above
                                When fairy tales and legends old
                                Tell the true history of the world
                                Then, but a single, secret phrase
                                Shall put to flight our mixed up ways.
                                Novalis

                              • val2160
                                ... radiation ... They should probably just go outside, then. ... It s when you hear people say, The shit doesn t fall far from the toilet. -Val
                                Message 15 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <coolvibes@...> wrote:

                                  > I think "ad residensium arguments" is more accurate than "ad hominem
                                  > arguments" in my case, because I usually insult the place (=the Abyss)
                                  > and not its residents, whom I regard as victims, comparable to radiation
                                  > sickness after a nuclear fallout or something like that. It's when you
                                  > hear people say, "Everyone knows where it is, but nobody wants to go
                                  > there."


                                  They should probably just go outside, then.
                                   
                                  > But sometimes ad residensium arguments behave like cluster bombs and
                                  > missiles, causing civilian casualties; that's how ad hominems occur
                                  > accidentally like collateral damage.

                                  It's when you hear people say, "The shit doesn't fall far from the toilet."-Val
                                • dottie zold
                                  You mean Steve Premo? All good things, Dottie p.s. what I learned from this whole thing with Mr. Clarke in the hole is that I didn t have to respond to the
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    You mean Steve Premo?

                                    All good things,
                                    Dottie

                                    p.s. what I learned from this whole thing with Mr. Clarke in the hole is that I didn't have to respond to the ridiculousness of the arrogant remarks he made whole scale against Waldorf, Anthroposophy and individuals whom he thought he was much more enlightend than. I found myself going 'holy cow, look at that ego just lighting up like a fire bug everytime somebody stroked his, what must be by now, very large head'. I mean the across the board comments he made were just so telling and I thought 'wow, how interesting that it is so open for all to see what others have been pussyfooting around with trying to give his fat head some distance to be himself and not bring it on home with some truth serum.' Doesn't serve when sympathies are allowed to go unmentioned when it comes to such important work where if there is no foundation, true foundation, then someone can claim Rudolf Steiner is a racist and we are too for we are all fooling ourselves for we dont'
                                    agree with him or Mr. Staudenmaier the great historian.

                                    And now Mr. Clarke wants to write a scathing report of anthros and the critics and of course leave his own, which is where he should be looking, closet closed. For shame.

                                    All good things,
                                    Dottie

                                    "If there is something more powerful than destiny, this must be the human being who bears destiny unshaken." Rudolf Steiner


                                    --- On Fri, 2/6/09, val2160 <wdenval@...> wrote:

                                    > From: val2160 <wdenval@...>
                                    > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Educated Guess: Stephen Clarke today on the WC
                                    > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 10:49 AM
                                    > Dear Stella,
                                    >
                                    > I have a little more time now that everyone is off to
                                    > school to comment
                                    > on your post. Thank you for bringing some of Stephen's
                                    > comments. I
                                    > apologize agian for leaving off Stephen's header-it was
                                    > not intentional
                                    > I assure you. I am grateful also to Stephen for his time
                                    > spent on the
                                    > WC list because I learned some things about myself. For
                                    > one thing-I
                                    > felt that Stephen was so much more gracious and tolerant of
                                    > the other
                                    > members of the WC list than I have been. For example, when
                                    > Walden who
                                    > is not Walden, (you were right Dottie) but Steve said that
                                    > Stephen's
                                    > word "snared" was so appropriate, Stephen took
                                    > the comment totally in
                                    > stride as he did many other, let's just call them
                                    > " attribution errors"
                                    > that would have basically sent me into orbit if they had
                                    > been directed
                                    > at me. So I could be more tolerant-people make mistakes. I
                                    > make
                                    > mistakes too.
                                    >
                                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
                                    > "guidastella"
                                    > <guidastella@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com
                                    > >
                                    > <http://de.mc459.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=waldorf-critics@yahoogroup\
                                    > \
                                    > > s.com> , "Stephen Clarke" mozartg@
                                    > >
                                    > <http://de.mc459.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mozartg@
                                    > > wrote:
                                    > > (Jan, 7th )
                                    >
                                    > > > Specifically, the "source" for the idea
                                    > of the Guardian is in the
                                    > > > experience of every person who encounters it.
                                    > Every person who has
                                    > > > entered the spiritual world as an autonomous
                                    > actor has had to come
                                    > to
                                    > > > terms with it. Traces are present in lore,
                                    > ancestral traditions,
                                    > and,
                                    > > > ocassionally, in documentable sources, but these
                                    > later are a feeble
                                    > > > trace indeed. You may be agnostic about the
                                    > possibility of such a
                                    > > > thing, but you should be able to consider it.
                                    >
                                    > Now, granted my education level is not that of Peter
                                    > Staudenmaier's as I
                                    > only spent ten years in State Universities but when I read
                                    > "autonomous
                                    > actor" I equated that with a self-directed
                                    > participant. Stephen later
                                    > goes on to make the analogy to the driver of a car. Which
                                    > again seems to
                                    > fit with my self-directed participant concept. Yet, Peter
                                    > with the
                                    > benefit of a far greater education than I, both we can
                                    > assume in quality
                                    > and quantity, seems to have an entirely different notion of
                                    > what an
                                    > autonomous actor is.
                                    >
                                    > "Your claim sounds too sweeping to me, which is
                                    > exactly what your original claim sounded like. I disagree
                                    > that every
                                    > spiritually
                                    > engaged person encounters the guardian of the
                                    > threshold."
                                    >
                                    > Autonomous actor=engaged apparently for Peter. Stephen
                                    > said nothing
                                    > about "every spiritually engaged person" nor did
                                    > he make any sweeping
                                    > claim, but rather a qualified claim, as any competent
                                    > reader can read
                                    > for themselves.
                                    >
                                    > P.S.: "Yes, that's what your original claim
                                    > sounded like. You seemed to
                                    > be saying that
                                    > anybody who disagrees with your sweeping assertion about
                                    > the guardian of
                                    > the
                                    > threshold doesn't know much about spiritual practice. I
                                    > think this claim
                                    > is
                                    > false. I do not think that either Diana or I misinterpreted
                                    > you; I think
                                    > we
                                    > disagree with you."
                                    >
                                    > Might have sounded that way to Peter but that's not
                                    > what the words
                                    > autonomous actor convey to me. Nor is it how they are
                                    > defined. As
                                    > Stephen goes on to mention in the comments you posted,
                                    > Stella, the
                                    > critics are often left raising objections to their own
                                    > misconceptions of
                                    > what is written and I see that as the case here.
                                    >
                                    > P.S.: "I don't see what that has to do with it.
                                    > There are very many
                                    > spiritual
                                    > traditions. They agree that spiritual things are real. They
                                    > do not all
                                    > include
                                    > the guardian of the threshold as one of those real
                                    > spiritual things."
                                    >
                                    > No one said they did. No sweeping claim was made. Not very
                                    > many
                                    > traditions involve an autonomous actor.
                                    >
                                    > "To my mind, what you just described is not a
                                    > fundamental and necessary
                                    > and
                                    > universal aspect of the objectively real spiritual world,
                                    > but a specific
                                    > process
                                    > for entering into contact with that world. Various
                                    > spiritual traditions
                                    > often
                                    > differ widely on such matters. I do not agree that all of
                                    > them posit
                                    > something
                                    > akin to the guardian of the threshold."
                                    >
                                    > Again, no one said they did. There was no statement made to
                                    > the effect
                                    > that "all spiritual traditions posit something akin to
                                    > the guardian of
                                    > the threshold."
                                    >
                                    > Is this a case then of a mistake? Am I not understanding
                                    > what Stephen
                                    > was attempting to convey? Or does Peter misunderstand or
                                    > simply
                                    > misconstrue?-Val
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    > (Yahoo! ID required)
                                    >
                                    > mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                  • elfuncle
                                    ... That may be the case with a normal toilet, but the Unthinkable Facility is unplumbable and its residents are all constipated, which means that no shit
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:

                                      > It's when you hear people say, "The shit doesn't fall far from the
                                      > toilet."-Val


                                      That may be the case with a normal toilet, but the Unthinkable Facility is unplumbable and its residents are all constipated, which means that no shit falls there anymore, and for that reason they only recirculate old, stale shit. The Doctor explained the reason for this.

                                      The old shit being recirculated in the Abyss is nothing but an extremely offensive, hateful, untruthful, and dishonest smear campaign against Steiner, anthroposophy, and anthroposophists, similar to what was launched against Steiner after the first world war, and against the Jews in the 1930's. Those who think they can have intelligent and productive discussions with such folks would have sat down with Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels for philosophical dialogues.

                                      Tarjei
                                    • val2160
                                      ... Facility ... extremely ... Jews ... productive ... I think you must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.-Val
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <coolvibes@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
                                        > wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > It's when you hear people say, "The shit doesn't fall far from the
                                        > > toilet."-Val
                                        >
                                        > That may be the case with a normal toilet, but the Unthinkable Facility
                                        > is unplumbable and its residents are all constipated, which means that
                                        > no shit falls there anymore, and for that reason they only recirculate
                                        > old, stale shit. The Doctor explained the reason for this.
                                        >
                                        > The old shit being recirculated in the Abyss is nothing but an extremely
                                        > offensive, hateful, untruthful, and dishonest smear campaign against
                                        > Steiner, anthroposophy, and anthroposophists, similar to what was
                                        > launched against Steiner after the first world war, and against the Jews
                                        > in the 1930's. Those who think they can have intelligent and productive
                                        > discussions with such folks would have sat down with Heinrich Himmler
                                        > and Joseph Goebbels for philosophical dialogues.

                                        >
                                        > Tarjei

                                        I think you must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.-Val
                                      • elfuncle
                                        ... that ... recirculate ... Himmler ... That was the problem when the Goethanum was arsoned, and when they later came for the Jews: Too many people didn t
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                                          > coolvibes@ wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
                                          > > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > > It's when you hear people say, "The shit doesn't fall far from the
                                          > > > toilet."-Val
                                          > >
                                          > > That may be the case with a normal toilet, but the Unthinkable
                                          > Facility
                                          > > is unplumbable and its residents are all constipated, which means that
                                          > > no shit falls there anymore, and for that reason they only recirculate
                                          > > old, stale shit. The Doctor explained the reason for this.
                                          > >
                                          > > The old shit being recirculated in the Abyss is nothing but an
                                          > extremely
                                          > > offensive, hateful, untruthful, and dishonest smear campaign against
                                          > > Steiner, anthroposophy, and anthroposophists, similar to what was
                                          > > launched against Steiner after the first world war, and against the
                                          > Jews
                                          > > in the 1930's. Those who think they can have intelligent and
                                          > productive
                                          > > discussions with such folks would have sat down with Heinrich Himmler
                                          > > and Joseph Goebbels for philosophical dialogues.
                                          > >
                                          > > Tarjei
                                          >
                                          > I think you must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.-Val


                                          That was the problem when the Goethanum was arsoned, and when they later came for the Jews: Too many people didn't give a shit.

                                          Tarjei
                                        • val2160
                                          ... the ... against ... the ... later ... Was it? Or was the problem that no one was buyin the expensive shit that was available?-Val
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Feb 6, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                                            <coolvibes@...> wrote:

                                            > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
                                            > > > wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > > It's when you hear people say, "The shit doesn't fall far from
                                            the
                                            > > > > toilet."-Val
                                            > > >
                                            > > > That may be the case with a normal toilet, but the Unthinkable
                                            > > Facility
                                            > > > is unplumbable and its residents are all constipated, which means
                                            > that
                                            > > > no shit falls there anymore, and for that reason they only
                                            > recirculate
                                            > > > old, stale shit. The Doctor explained the reason for this.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > The old shit being recirculated in the Abyss is nothing but an
                                            > > extremely
                                            > > > offensive, hateful, untruthful, and dishonest smear campaign
                                            against
                                            > > > Steiner, anthroposophy, and anthroposophists, similar to what was
                                            > > > launched against Steiner after the first world war, and against
                                            the
                                            > > Jews
                                            > > > in the 1930's. Those who think they can have intelligent and
                                            > > productive
                                            > > > discussions with such folks would have sat down with Heinrich
                                            > Himmler
                                            > > > and Joseph Goebbels for philosophical dialogues.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Tarjei
                                            > >
                                            > > I think you must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.-Val
                                            >
                                            > That was the problem when the Goethanum was arsoned, and when they
                                            later
                                            > came for the Jews: Too many people didn't give a shit.

                                            Was it? Or was the problem that no one was buyin' the expensive shit
                                            that was available?-Val
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.