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

Re: Steiner on sociopaths

Expand Messages
  • Kim
    Hi Dottie, The difference between Lucifer and Ahriman is that Lucifer is an inner reality and Ahriman is an outer reality, he is not part of us, but underlying
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Dottie,
      The difference between Lucifer and Ahriman is that Lucifer is an inner
      reality and Ahriman is an outer reality, he is not part of us, but
      underlying the physical reality.
      As Lucifer is the negative aspect of the Father, and Ahriman the
      negative aspect of the Mother, so are Sorat the negative aspect of the
      Son. Christ is Love, and if we don't build this in our selves, we lose
      the little we have of our I to the Soratic spirits.
      Regards,
      Kim

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
      <dottie_z@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Kim, thanks for some quotes. It seems to me that we are directly
      dealing with the earlthly element of Lucifer and Ahriman therefore we do
      have beings out of place who are working counter, and finding those
      human I's who will work with them and for them, mostly obviously
      unconscious at this point, however in the future more consciously as
      they will make a choice to align with the dying earth versus the
      transforming earth. And then it seems the remenant of that will be what
      will be under the Ahriman control. I hesitate to say Sordat as I still
      do not understand his world.
      >
      > We hear from some in the Steiner movement that Ahriman is not of this
      world of this cosmic evolutionary path and therefore he will not be
      redeemed as its not ours to redeem and then there are other quotes by
      Steiner that disagree with this and others that agree! Steiner is always
      so interesting and as there are seven layers to the mysteries as he
      shares I imagine any one take being made as a fact is counter to the
      esence of the thing.
      >
      > Evil is evil without love then what we can also see this as is Ahriman
      and Lucifer without Christ is evil. Not the human being as there will be
      enough time for those who are in the process of finding him...but those
      who make a choice to make this world heaven on earth and disregard the
      transforming and rising earth will remain with it as a remenant for
      whatever that future world is with Ahriman aided by Sorat...again I
      cannot enter so well into this Sorat consideration as I am not clear on
      what his final wish is versus that of Ahriman and then versus that of
      Lucifer. As Lucifer is redeeming, and again we hear different schools of
      thoughts on Ahriman in the Steiner movement, its imagined that Lucifer
      is that which lights the way in the end.
      >
      > I was thinking about this idea of Yaweh putting eminimity between the
      woman/Eve and the Devil/Lucifer. I was thinking .....well its
      interesting to me to consider their relationship. And Yawehs in that
      moment...funny reading Occult Science again and finding these little
      missed considerations that speak to mysteries from the Manas, Buddhi and
      Atma element of our soul....and so its ever deepening to me to know that
      there is always this twist when we think we know something, something
      else is trying to speak forth as well depending on the question of the
      listener.
      >
      > And the idea of Christ not being of the earth and yet Christ was when
      united with Earth Moon and Sun....but Ahriman and Sordat, depending on
      whom you listen in on in the Movement, are not of this world. And each
      schooling of thought has its own quotes to support its contention...Ahhh
      >
      > So on this earth is what my concern is and on this point this is the
      Ahriman and Lucifer we are dealing with. And although I can look at
      their work as a challenge it is devestating at the same time when I can
      look around and see others at their mercy due to a dimmed
      consciousness....and everything seeks to keep this consciousness dimmed
      through media and now at an all time high through the foods we eat that
      are seeking as to what I can attest: to depresss man in his physical
      organs so that he cannot rise to his consciousness....
      >
      > All good things,
      > Dottie
      >
    • 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.