play (aka, and the first shall be last and the last shall be first)
- Everyone has their own spiritual Path. Even if they join in a community of like souls - within that community their Way will be uniquely theirs.
Steiner discovered something, that has yet to be fully recognized, however, even by most of those who study him. He discovered in the soul of man something new - something that was just appearing as an aspect of the evolution of consciousness. As man is the microcosm, this was a discovery of something also reflected in the macrocosm. Here then a paradox, for was this new both in the microcosm and in the macrocosm? This paradox requires we look at Time more carefully.
In Catherine MacCoun's remarkable book: On Becoming An Alchemist, she talks about the arrows of time. The arrow from the past moves forward and is one to which we relate in a linear way. The arrow from the Future moves seemingly backward (relative to the Now. Past > Now < Future. She makes a very interesting distinction by suggesting that the Past arrow gives us the How the Now came to be, while the Future arrow gives us the Why the Now came to be. The How is a causal question, the Why is a meaning question.
She points this out because she has observed how we can become confused when we look at our Now without realizing this Now has these two different qualities. Often, for example, folks can think the How - the causal explanation - is also the Why. We see this in the thinking about physical evolution in natural science.
On this list are a number of individuals. The page for this group on Yahoo suggests there are over 300 members. I assume, but am not sure, this means when we send a message over 300 people get it. Only a small number of people post, however, perhaps less than a dozen regulars. These appear to form an "in-group" of sorts, concerning which there is a kind of comradeship and shared vocabulary - the marks of a kind of community sourced in the electronic aethers.
Tarjei and Dottie, who I have known via these electronic aethers for a long time (although whether we really "know" each other is unlikely), replied to my Field's book store post.
Tarjei directly, taking on Tom's old mantel of mocking sarcasm, and Dottie replied indirectly by posting a kind of moral judgment about those who raise themselves up by putting others down. It should be noted that neither directly faced the question I raised.
Rudolf Steiner, of course, never spoke ill of anyone (and if you believe that I've got a bridge to nowhere in Arizona I'd like to sell you cheap). He didn't appreciate pedantry, or dilettantism in particular, and the latter he often considered the real bane of what he was trying to accomplish with reforming the Society for the third or fourth time at the eventually failed Christmas Conference. Yes, I did say failed - although Sergei, as Dottie likes to call him, touts this failed Conference as the magic in the heart of Anthroposophy. If you want some facts, however: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/Giersch.html
The on-line Websters defines dilettantism as follows: 1) a lover of the arts; 2) a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge (synonyms: dabbler and amateur).
The curious thing about Anthroposophy is that however hard you try you can't get it by reading books. Anthroposopy is this new thing in the current Now of history, and while we can get a fair idea of How it got noticed, Why its here - that is what does it Mean - can only be found if we practice introspection, and seek to discover this within our own souls. As we do this we discover that we manifest it. It is our own will that changes our thinking nature, such that Anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition) has to be created by our own activity.
In Truth and Knowledge (the published version of Steiner's dissertation, not something one can be a dabbler or amateur about) Steiner makes this bold assertion as to what Anthroposophy is: [The object of knowledge is not to repeat in conceptual form something which already exists, but rather to create a completely new sphere, which when combined with the world given to our senses constitutes complete reality. Thus man's highest activity, his spiritual creativeness, is an organic part of the universal world-process. The world-process should not be considered a complete, enclosed totality without this activity. Man is not a passive onlooker in relation to evolution, merely repeating in mental pictures cosmic events taking place without his participation; he is the active co-creator of the world-process, and cognition is the most perfect link in the organism of the universe. [Emphasis added]
Someone just purchased a copy of my Misperception of Cosmic Space .., which I take as an indication of the Why I am here in this Now on this list, which has little to do with Kim, and Dottie and Targei and Frank, and a lot more to do with perhaps one or two folks among the mysterious 300.