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

Re: Steiner on sociopaths

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Hansen
    Hi Simone, Yes I did mean someone initiated like Steiner,ofcourse in a court of law that would not be accepted !The highest authority to judge is ofcourse
    Message 1 of 68 , Jul 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Simone,
      Yes I did mean someone 'initiated'like Steiner,ofcourse in a court of law that would not be accepted !The highest authority to judge is ofcourse Christ! As for our personal freedom to judge others I do agree there is a certain freedom but it will always be a subjected view. There is a spiritual law that says that even thoughts have an affect on other beings and we are responsible for our own thoughts and the effects they have. Personally I have experienced this as an 'instant karma'effect many times, till I got the message of how this law works :)Love Adrian


      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "sim1dmg" <simonedim@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I agree Tarjei, as long as we're not considered authority, we're free to
      > make psychiatric and spiritual diagnoses and let anyone know about them.
      > I think (suppose) Adrian meant 'Steiner' where he wrote 'right
      > authority', but since Steiner isn't here, what (I think) he really meant
      > is that we should just leave it alone.
      >
      > He's right in that, if anyone gave a penny for my psychiatric/spiritual
      > diagnoses I wouldn't throw them around carelessly.
      >
      > Hugs,
      >
      > Simone
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
      > <coolvibes@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Hansen"
      > > anthropop1@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi Mike,
      > > >
      > > > As my post before relates to your question, I think that judgement
      > of
      > > other souls should be left to the right authority.
      > >
      > > That appeal to authority would be limited to courts of law in cases of
      > > criminal charges. Psychiatrists already have tremendous power when the
      > > question of someone charged with a serious crime is "normal" or not is
      > > raised, whether the person is responsible for his or her own actions
      > and
      > > so on.
      > >
      > > Other than that, every juman being has the right to make judgments
      > about
      > > other human beings with regard to one's own relationship to other
      > > people. In other words, the very notion of authority suggests a
      > > situation where someone is to be punished, incarcerated, committed to
      > > institution or subjected to medical treatment or therapy by a court of
      > > law.
      > >
      > > Outside the scope of such drastic action, there is no room for
      > > authority, and no human being needs any external authority to make
      > > personal judgments about other human beings. In other words, if I
      > decide
      > > that someone is possessed by demons or has no ego and for that reason
      > > want nothing to do with that person, it's my right and privilege to
      > make
      > > that judgment for myself, and no authority has the right to decide or
      > > overrule my personal judgments in any area.
      > >
      > > Every human being has the right to be his or her own judge in all
      > > matters of existence and social matters without any interference by
      > > authority whatsoever.
      > >
      > > Tarjei
      > >
      >
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      ... Richard, There s a big difference between broccoli and cows, the latter being sentient beings. Once there must have been wild ancestor cows, but the
      Message 68 of 68 , Aug 19 2:57 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Richard W <compostking75@...> wrote:
        >


        > What exactly do you take issue with in my last paragraph of my last post?  True, there are no wild cows, or wild broccoli, or whatever.  I think that is the point.  We plant seeds to eat, we raise animals for milk/meat, etc.  You may say that it was wrong to ever "domesticate" an animal, but where does that leave us now?  We are still responsible for them.  Do you think we should let them go extinct?  I am not trying to be sarcastic...just stating what I see as the end result of that logic.  I'm sure you see it differently, but I can't imagine what your answer would be....so feel free to enlighten me.

        Richard,
        There's a big difference between broccoli and cows, the latter being sentient beings. Once there must have been wild ancestor cows, but the deformities (meat/milk machines) we call cows are practically man-made. Yes, we plant seeds to eat: fine, it's necessary and it's good; and yes, we raise animals for milk, meat, etc. None of these are necessary or good. In fact meat in unhealthy and milk is dubious. Furthermore, the land and water required for their subsistence, which would otherwise be cultivated, is as uneconomical as it gets. So the industry involved is cruel but not unusual punishment. And I do *not* say it's wrong to domesticate animals. I have 4 dogs and 5 cats and I have no intention of eating any of them. What should we do with the cows, pigs et al? Yes, let them go extinct, at least in their present unnatural form!
        ____________

        >
        > --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...>
        > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Killing.....Was Steiner on sociopaths
        > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 11:04 PM
        >
        > Hi Richard,
        >
        > I am familiar with the agriculture course. The problem with having animals and not killing them is, as I understand it, that it's not economical. It'd be like an animal old folks home - which would be nice, but the farmer would be forfeiting income from the sale of the animals for consumption. I take issue with your last paragraph, however:
        >
        >
        >
        > R: As a matter of fact, many of these animals would not exist w/o our help. Their survival is dependent upon our ability to provide for them. Sometimes I imagine this as a result of a "contract" made long ago for both of our sakes. The reality is more complex, of course.
        >
        > F: I've heard this before and consider it sophism (with due respect). Of course they wouldn't exist without us. They are planted like seeds, genetically modified to the point of near helplessness, then slaughtered and eaten (soya comes to mind). They are products to be consumed. Did you ever see a wild cow?
        >
        > Frank
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, Richard W <compostking75@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Thanks for your reply Frank.  What you are talking about is a different topic, but one surely closely related to my question.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Your German expert was correct.  Animals are indeed vital to the long-term sustainability and fertility of a farm.  Reading the Agriculture course will give a better understanding of what Steiner was referring to.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > It is possible, btw, to keep animals on a farm w/o killing them.  It is not practiced widely today (if at all) but it certainly is a possibility.  I believe population control is the key.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > As a matter of fact, many of these animals would not exist w/o our help.  Their survival is dependent upon our ability to provide for them.  Sometimes I imagine this as a result of a "contract" made long ago for both of our sakes.  The reality is more complex, of course.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Richard
        >
        > >
        >
        > > --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > From: Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@ ...>
        >
        > > Subject: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] Re: Killing..... Was Steiner on sociopaths
        >
        > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
        >
        > > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 3:38 PM
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >  
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > A long time ago I attended a conference in Germany where an expert on bio-dynamic farming gave a talk, and invited questions afterward. I was a vegetarian (still am, but not so much...;-) I asked him if it was possible to have a bio-dynamic farm without animals. He looked at me like I'd just arrived from Mars and said he didn't understand the question. So I explained that there are ever more vegetarians in the world who don't agree that animals should be killed for food when it's not necessary. So I'm asking if it's necessary. He quoted Steiner about how animals are an integral part of the organic system and they're needed for fertilizer, etc. So his answer was, in effect, yes, they are necessary. I knew a guy here in Argentina (German), who had a small bio-dynamic dairy farm. I asked him what he did with the cows when they get old --- and what about the calves. He said he lets the cows die on his farm (instead of selling them for leather and dog
        > food).
        >
        > > Look, he said, they`re happy! Actually, they did look happy, and they all had their horns, which are invariably cut off here. He said (sheepishly) that he sells the male calves to another farmer, who then "probably" sells them to the slaughter house. I know another guy here who has a very small bio-D farm, more like a big garden, who only produces vegetables and fruit and makes a living selling direct to consumers who come to him. His fertilizer is from a compost heap. No animals. That's the extent of my limited knowledge on the subject.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Frank
        >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.