Re: final message and a last comment
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
> I have in the unread aspect of my inbox from the list, 11 subject line
> threads containing almost a hundred individual e-mails. I don't want to
> spend my mental/spiritual energy sorting this out, so I am leaving.
You have obviously blended your personal email karma with the karma of this group, by choosing the individual email option in your Yahoo preferences. This means that all the wacky luciferic rants and tomes from the AT has intermingled with your bank statements and so on, challenging your online serenity. Getting out fast is positively the best option for you.
> It is, however, not my intention to avoid any questions or aspects of any dialog
> regarding which a member of this list sees some importance. So here are my
> e-mail addresses should anyone want to open a more focused discussion on any <snip>
These email addresses posted on a public forum like this is bound to get you spam, which will further compromise and complicate your computer karma. But we know you're sacrificing the peace of your inbox for the sake of your retarded disciples who desire your guidance so desperately.
> I want to go over a little more some general ideas concerning the three
> renunciations that are preliminary to the experiences of living thinking.
> Each renunciation is at the same time related to a corresponding deepening
> in our ability to love the object of thought.
That's what I just told them: Find out what Joel is thinking about, love that thing, and you'll be blessed with the love and warmth and affections of of Joel.
> It is this love, rooted in the renunciation (learning to think on our knees), which brings about the
> experience pointed to by Steiner: "It thinks in me."
That's what I always admired about you: Your ability to think on your knees. Your humility has a Francis of Assissi kind of flair to it.
> (The below is very
> general - much more detail and nuance can be found in my essay: In Joyous
> Celebration of the Soul Art and Music of Discipleship.)
Where's the YouTube with the discipleship music?
> Now love in this case is not an excess of sympathy,
Obviously not. Tough love like yours needs to be unsympathetic, like the searing and merciless Sword of Truth. (Otherwise it may lead to Sympathy For The Devil.)
> for the first
> renunciation is to learn to notice in our thinking "about" the influence of
> the unredeemed antipathies and sympathies (likes and dislikes).
That's why it's so good to see that your own antipathies and sympathies are so thoroughly redeemed.
> Once noticed we begin the disciplined elimination from our thinking of this
> influence out of the sub-conscious elements of our feeling life. The end
> result is organic thinking, or the ability to think "with" the object of
Nice one. So if your object of organic thought is the AT, you're beginning to think "with" the group. Excellent. And if you have difficulties with it, try munching on some organic vegetables while typing.
> Steiner called this Goetheanism, and many people learn to practice
> it (which is why I encourage the study of Goethean Science). At the same
> time, organic thinking can relate to anything which has life in it, from a
> human biography to the biography of a Society study group.
Or the biography of the AT -- "I Left My Heart In The AT" (to be sung to the tune of "I Left My Heart In San Francisco").
> To love the object of thought in the form of organic thinking means to not
> judge it's appearance in the Now, but to recognize that it exists in Time as
So if you make the AT and its contributors and lurkers your object of organic thought, you should love all of it without judging it in the now. I guess that's why it's called Anthroposophy Tomorrow, because tomorrow is Judgment Day and all hell will break loose. (And no apostrophy in 'its', mind you, when the genitive case is meant and not 'it is'.)
> So we learn to recreate the object of thought in terms of its own
> appearance in the stream of time. It is crucial, for example, to have a
> wide-awake appreciation of the Anthroposophical Society over time, in order
> to understand its present condition.
Even more important to have a wide-awake appreciation of Anthroposophy Tomorrow.
> The second renunciation concerns thought-contents in themselves. We acquire
> favorite thoughts, to which we become attached because our ego has created
> them. This is especially so of those thoughts we created as readers of a
> text. We like to believe we have understood a great teacher, and disavow
> (because we have slept through it) the thought creation process itself. All
> the same our collection of thoughts is entirely our own, and as much as we
> like to use Steiner as an "authority" the thought we display in that fashion
> is our own. This can include quotations, because quotations generally are
> placed within a context of meaning (we use them for a certain purpose, and
> the meaning of the quote in the overall representation of our thoughts is
> wrapped around the quote according to that purpose which is entirely our
Rest assured, Joel, you're the authority and nobody else. We'll treasure these texts of yours that you offer us. Of course we like to believe we have understood your greatness, but we haven't until we do your exercises the way you tell us to do them.
> Dennis Klocek calls this renunciation of thought-contents: silent practice.
> We divorce ourselves from having favorite thoughts, and learn with
> considerable strength of will-in-thinking to not think them.
We're gonna divorce ourselves from Steiner and Einstein and Blavatsky and Gandhi and Schweitzer and the Bible and the Baghavad Gita and marry you, Joel. We, the church, are the bride, and you, the Master, are the groom.
> What I identify with is that which Steiner discovered and wrote about in his
> first three books, for he too surrendered to "it" in order to write those
You shouldn't be reading those Steiner-books, Joel. Those texts should be renounced. They only lead to favorite thoughts to which we become attached because our Steiner's ego has created them.
> We can call this "it" Anthroposophy,
Nah, call it Joelosophy instead. You once said that Rudolf Steiner's Christology and cosmology was nothing other than bad science fiction. And now you keep peddling an old piece of gossip-garbage claiming that Rudolf Steiner was into some kind of spiritual-sexual sadism, by an author who also insisted that some correspondence or conversations between Ita Wegman and Rudolf Steiner was "pillow talk." I call that sewage talk. Seems to me you're more jealous of Rudolf Steiner's greatness than she.