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

Re: Steiner on sociopaths

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    Hi Friends, I was reading the posts a while back and did not have time to offer my thoughts on this subject of whoa and you brings it as well as what this has
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Friends,

      I was reading the posts a while back and did not have time to offer my thoughts on this subject of whoa and you brings it as well as what this has to do with Sociopaths....

      In my little experience of watching sociopathic behaviour it seems to me that it is true something else is speaking and being through the human being which in a way has completely alienated the human being from the consciousness of his actions and also the consequences for himself and others.

      My companion has been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and a whole host of other medical terms trying to speak to what professionals understand is happening within the human being. Problem for the professionals is that there is no understanding of Man as spirit in the world and no understanding of spirit in the world therefore any diagnosis is inept at reaching to how one can be healed or worked with past giving drugs to dull the experience. I imagine in some cases this is a good thing, however it does set a powerful collective culmative future laying over where anyone with spiritual experiences will be medicated...in fact they will be medicated to stop humans from these experiences before they are even apparant, at birth.

      I have to say Adrian, that the idea of evil people, or those bringing it, is something I can not see really as a real possibility. My experience is speaking to 'whoa unto him who brings it'. The spiritual beings need to be able to help guide man ever higher through various experiences and there are human beings whom they are able to use, who have not developed past certain behaviours, just like those the angels are guiding to certain experiences that will help him better understand man and his dillema in the world today and which also allows him to be better prepared for evil in the future, who are not progressive but are in certain areas of development that will allow them to experience shame of what they brought to the human being whom they have brough the whoa to. I am reminded of Rudolf Steiner sharing that it was backwards to think of Judas as a good guy because he helped to usher in Christianity...which was something I always understood to be until my own experience of whoa and the personalities who brought it. Although the experience, the poison turned into medicine, has brought me a greater understanding of man in the world and especially for those who are destitute in consciousness and the possibility of attaining it in this lifetime, I know those who brought the whoa have my empathy and thanks but greater my empathy for how they could devour man in the manner they looked to do.

      So it is my experience, that those who bring whoa until man are not progressive by any means, and for those who have encountered life changing experiences through this whoa, and can ask 'brother what ails thee' within, will learn what it will be like in the 6th epoch in this lifetime: in other words what will be required of him.

      Good Sunday to all,
      d





      > Hi Mike,
      > One of the tasks of the 5th Epoch is to lay the basis to receiving evil in the 6th Epoch on the basis of acceptance. Evil as you know needs to exist to teach us Love. We need to learn to oppose evil with passive resistance therefore understanding how evil will work now and in the future is an important task.
      > Coming back to your post, I think there should be made a distinction between 'beings born without an I' and 'Humans who have lost their I'
      > and now a new being ( the Locust)has been created by peoples imginations! That is exactly the reason why I think that trying to figure out what is what, is impossible for us un-initiated humans. Personally I regard humans or beings that commit evil deeds as progressive beings that are used by evil or sacrifice themselves to commit evil so we can learn from it. Against that exist the sacrificial humans that are the subject of the evil deeds, who through their sacrifice evolve further as well. So however you look at evil , it needs to be part of our human development for a time to come, so bring on the locust swarms :) Love Adrian
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher" <mhelsher@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Thank you Adrian, That was exactly what I needed to hear, and be reminded of. I think that is one of the best aspects of conversation, the reminders that we receive in different words at different times and situations. Having the situation in my face, and then reading the psychological description, that fit to a T the persons long standing neurotic behavior, makes it easy to judge and condemn. Not to mention having allow myself and family and friends to be duped into believing the Hansel and Gretel type story. Guess I wanted to put him in the oven...;)
      > >
      > > Best
      > >
      > > Mike
      > >
      > > --- 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. There are many cases where people do appear as to have no spirit but that is only our subjective reasoning. Steiner spoke about these beings not for us to make our personal judgements but to state a fact, a spiritual fact. Psychologists have no idea of these differences and there can be many different reasons why people lack emphathy, think for instance on people that have autism, or people that have lost the connection between soul and spirit because of drug use, or people that have been abused so badly that they block out their I.
      > > > Anthroposophical knowledge is knowledge that needs to be taken in for our own development , not to be used as a tool for judgement ! Kind Regards, Adrian
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher" <mhelsher@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I seem to have come in contact with what the psychology world would call a psychopath/sociopath. From what little I have read, a brief sample of which is here:
      > > > >
      > > > > http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Sociopath
      > > > >
      > > > > I have found that for the most part, there is no cure for this, what amounts to a disease of non-empathy. It reminds me of a touchy RS subject where there is the consideration of human beings being born without an "I". Ted Bundy comes to mind here.
      > > > >
      > > > > Anyways, I have had direct contact with the most cunningly sly and manipulative smooth talker I have ever in my life come across. Always on the make with charm and what I now see as phony concern for others, until he finds a victim and gets them trapped in his web of deceit, and then feeds like a vampire on the un-suspecting, sucking up shame and blame frosted with twisted logic and an endless mind game of total victimization. I recently bailed my little brother out of a relationship like this where there was the threat of physical harm, and we got to use the Police for one thing that I was grateful to have them around for.
      > > > >
      > > > > So I was wondering if anyone remembers any lectures that RS might have given that might relate to the total lack of empathy in a human being.
      > > > >
      > > > > Best
      > > > >
      > > > > Mike
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • 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, 2009
      • 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.