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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on sociopaths

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    Hi Adrian, but aren t Ahriman and Lucifer in the spiritual worlds? They may be fallen but they too are in the spiritual worlds or maybe you can share what you
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Adrian, but aren't Ahriman and Lucifer in the spiritual worlds? They may be fallen but they too are in the spiritual worlds or maybe you can share what you mean by this specifically? I'm also recalling that Rudolf Steiner shared that eventually evil itself will be something that does enter into the higher hierarchies little by little.
       
      Evil is a funny subject for me as I never viewed evil as a real reality and just as a challenge for us to rise. I imagine if I view evil now I have to say its something that comes from the outside in. I was thinking about how it is said that in the future, or even now, with the Manicheans they will take this evil into them and then transform it. If we look possibly at the future Lord Matreiya it seems to me that we might see this element of this evil being taken in however I was thinking that its not his evil but what he would have to transform in order to have the final element of Flesh back into Word...he would be the first to do so no? But I can't see that one who works in this manner as the Manicheans can be evil but that those who bring evil are through and through against the evolutioin of Man.
       
      I am thinking that the one the good higher beings work through and have to affect a thing that is part of the karmic element of ones' life is something different. And although I imagine it can be true that some of those that bring whoa can be considered to be further progressed then the one receiving the whoa it doesn't seem to be what I could see at this time as a basic fact or truth as a whole.
       
      The ones I have felt the whoa from are generally non reflective people. Other than having very hateful relationships with their mother they have no ability to self reflect and that is a common ingredient across the board with a group of about 5 I have encountered in the last few years.
       
      Now there is also a difference it seems to me between personal karma and a world karma. And sometimes those who are the recipients of this whoa can experience this whoa and what was brought about as something furthered more then their own actions. And just like my experience of the Christ being before me there is this element of this is for the world, for understanding Man.
       
      But evil is different. It uses human beings different. In the whoa portion one can experience what they are learning rather quickly if they are self reflective and truly are trying to work with the higher beings in transforming their selves so as to be of service. But with evil such as in sociopaths it seems to me that it comes from the outside. ( I am thinking that they way I wrote this last time it was considered that I put schizophrenics in the same boat, I do not at all, I don't consider them evil although I do believe it does make the beings who are working counter to man an easier target.)
       
      I think one can look to the schizophrenic, which is why i brought it up, and know that they actually do hear voices. It's not just a halucination, it is a verbal hearing. It is from out yet also from within. It is almost directly in front of their own space of being but unseen. They experience it as if the person is standing right in front of them and then some they are direct to the side. If you watch these people having conversations they are directly looking in front of them. That's how they experience it.
       
      I asked to understand what my companion was going through with these voices as I could not understand if he was having an inner dialogue as many do during the path of spiritual work or if it was a verbal as in hearing a verbal communication. He kept saying it was verbal and I just could not understand if he was right as I know that when we have these ongoing dialogues with us and higher beings they appear verbal but they are not although they can be felt in a thunderous experience where it seems verbal. Like when Michael will say 'Get it right' it feels verbal but its not. My companion would also say that one voice spoke for all the voices that are shouting. I didn't understand...he said that all are shouting but one has been picked as the leader.
       
      So, my experience is that they do hear verbal just like the man said of the Son of Sam incident: it is a verbal command. What happens is that suddenly as if in a communication where everyone, hundreds of people are shouting, one suddenly stands out and can be heard. My first experience was that the voices are distorted and one stood out. That is what my companion meant when one voice speaks for all of them: one stands out clearer and is the embodiment of all the other voices. So he can experience that one speaks for them all. The other voices start to fade back, its not that they say 'oh we will let this being speak for us' rather it is that as it comes into clarity, one stands out as the others fade back.
       
      My companion had told me that when he first started hearing the voices as an adult and then tried to put himself into a mental ward, the voices were shouting crazily and that's what made him try to commit himself. However the staff and his family did not feel he was a danger to anyone and would not commit him. I imagine now that was a good thing beings he has encountered Rudolf Steiner's work through me and now his life is starting to make sense in a way that it didnt' before. He's conscious of what is going on and instead of using medicine, he's been off for a year now as they did not stop the voices, he is working to seperate himself from putting the feelings behind the thoughts...he says that is what makes the difference between someone going out and hurting someone and someone not: no feelings into the thoughts of what is being brought forth. He is also able to now look at what are his thoughts and what are their thoughts, and what is the unknown between the two, where he can not distinguish whose thought it is as they seem emeshed and something from his own beings memory.
       
      I watched a man on tv a few months ago who had killed his whole family. And he was noted as a sociopath and that he could fool anyone. I watched and listened to him and have thought alot about this young man and when I take so many others that are called sociopaths I just can't get past this idea of something else taking over the human beings capacity to think and feel. The idea of the human being without the I seems a bit foreign to me as it seems to me we would be looking at something as an imposter with no ability in a new life, almost like a machine in a sense, no consequence really, no karma, nothing that is of this world. I think to say one has a demon within in that the adversarial beings are working, and one with no I are two different things. Can we be at a place where a being with no I can incarnate through another human being that is pure evil and at the full use of the adversarial beings? If so where is it that Steiner speaks on this. I have read a few things but nothing of the sort where the I is completely missing and therefore a walking automatom. Even with Ahriman there will be a human intent to incarnate, a human being who has chosen a certain path, if it was a human being without an I it would not serve the higher beings in the sense that it would not be a human being who had chosen to go against his own spiritual nature, it would be the adversarial beings playing with themselves in a sense...their task is to get the human I to turn against its nature...or so it seems to me. It would mean nothing if it was not an I. Or their world would be a falsehood even for their very own selves, it would be a bubble of nothingness....
       
      I have to run but this idea of the difference between what is evil and what is not is on my plate to understand as evil has to be called evil, that is its name and its activity, and it is very different from a man who is making mistakes or those bringing whoa, it has its very own destinal forces trying to thwart man from his rightful course. And when we call another man evil when really it is a process of becoming a good human being through these tight moments in his life, aids and abetts the beings who are evil and would like nothing more than to have others throw him over to the other side so he can become more resentful and hateful than he has already come to through his own process. The bodhisattva path seems to fight against his very thing from happening.
       
      Adrian, are you my friend Adrian of the Hallelujiah fame at the amazing conference this past summer?
       
      At what point do we begin to see human beings with no I exactly on purpose?
       
      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 Mon, 8/10/09, Adrian Hansen <anthropop1@...> wrote:

      From: Adrian Hansen <anthropop1@...>
      Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on sociopaths
      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 2:44 AM

      Hi Dottie,
      Thank you for your thoughts, evil is the most difficult subject to understand from a spiritual point of view so the more we learn the better !

      As I understand it there is 'no evil' in the spiritual world so evil beings that posses humans can only be from fallen angels like Ahriman and Lucifer etc. I think it therefore unlikely for instance that our guardian angel can steer us into evil deeds.

      There are really three different discussions involved here and the second one is the existence of humans without the 'I' which I see paranoid schizophrenia not being of this kind.
      In case of paranoia, there are no other beings involved and ofcourse the person has an 'I'. It is a process where the spiritual bodies, (etheric, astral or I) are removed or partially removed from the physical. The reasons for this can be manifold and give the effect of 'seeing' in the spiritual world under false conditions( uninitiated). Sometimes there are simple causes as certain drugs can invoke psychotic reactions.Other times diseased organs can be the cause of psychotic experience.
      None of these cases has anything to do with evil. Back to evil !
      We just had a case here in NZ where a university professor stabbed his girlfriend 216 times and partly mutilated her body because he said he was 'provoced'( he was told his penis was too small). The person's trial was partly shown on tv and it was clear that this person had some kind of possesion other than a human being. I would not say he had no 'I' or that he was a psychopath
      because that would mean that his complete 'make up was known.
      His family still loves him ofcourse and they never saw anything in him what could have caused this event. Would this mean he was psychopathic for only a few minutes, or was he possesed for a few minutes ? Although he was clearly narcisistic, it would not explain his deed.
      So you can see that these cases are clearly not simple and we have to learn from them and not only despise them.
      Whether beings like this are part of a progressive evolution is also very difficult to judge and I wouldn't just take your personal view as thruth :)Good to hear from you again Dottie,I have been worried about you for a while ! Love Adrian



       

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold" <dottie_z@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-digest@yahoogroups.com
          mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


    • 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.