I rather agree with your perspective on Tom. I've noticed down the three years I have been following the Hole farrago that he is a little above the sniderey and sarcasm of the Hole Creatures themselves, but still far from someone one could imagine as having been a follower of Rudolph Steiner in their past. I've puzzled about this since coming across his infamous '98 website some five years ago (late I know, but I'm never ahead of the curve, except in software development! ) . This was rather funny, and slightly refreshing in it's irreverence; but also sad and perplexing in it's, only very partly explained, pain. The pain becomes a little clearer, however, as Tom reveals more of himself. I don't suppose he will ever be very clear to us, but we can see two vitiating themes in his path to his meeting with anthroposophia. One is what he has described as the casual Brooklyn racism of his youth meeting the potential for racist interpretation of parts of Steiner's work. The second is his revelation today that he believed himself a reincarnation of Steiner in his middle years. Both revelations indicate a lack of balance and maturity of character that is required to meet an occult worldview like antthroposophy without being swept away. And perhaps his current dalliance in the Abyss is some kind of dark retribution for those youthful wrong turnings, Tom castigating himself now for his failure to do so when he was younger.
Me, I prefer reverence and respect, like you. My experience in meeting anthroposophia was almost the opposite of Tom's, which may look rather surprising as we were both science geeks in our callow youth. But for me reading lectures like 'Faith, hope and love' and the series 'The redemption of thought' (Steiner's brilliant study in Thomism) in my erstwhile materialistic mid 20s were a holy revelation. I remember creeping into the reading room at the Scottish National Library in Edinburgh on cold Winters' nights and feeling like I was glowing from within with warmth and light. Not something that is at all comprehensible to the lying spirit-scoffery of the likes of PS and the Abyss, but true none-the-less.
--- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@.. .> wrote:
> Tom may indeed be funny and entertaining, and quite knowledgeable too,
> about anthroposophy, with all seriousness and earnestness removed from
> it. Anthroposophy is a joke, and Rudolf Steiner is a clown. And this
> Wibke Reinstein character, who I understand claims to be Rudolf
> Steiner's individuality and was lured into the hole by Tom for the
> hilarity and the circus, is now unsubbing because Tom hasn't taken
> proper care of the lady like he promised.
> If you do a search in the Rudolf Steiner Archive on key words like
> authority, incarnation etc. you should find several instances where
> Steiner makes it clear that it is absolutely inappropriate for an
> individual to claim importance because of some previous incarnation. He
> was specifically talking about Besant's and Leadbeater's presentation of
> Krishnamurti as the reincarnated Christ, but the principle was a general
> one. For this reason, Steiner refused to talk about his former
> incarnations, and if someone pestered him about their own, he would
> sometimes not speak to them for weeks (according to Rittelmeyer) .
> So the post mortem publication of private correspondence between Steiner
> and Wegman, where such things are revealed regarding those two, feels
> like eavesdropping or sneak-peaking for someone who has learned to
> cultivate anthroposophy with the reverence and respect necessary for
> comprehension. And with regard to the recognition of previous
> connections in our present human relationships, in former lifetimes,
> Steiner says that approaching such mysteries with regard to ourselves
> and others fill us with a holy shyness.
> Now, the notion of "holy shyness" it totally antithetical to everything
> that lives and kicks in the Abyss; reverence and respect is constantly
> ridiculed and scorned and attributed to cult brainwashing and the like.
> Tom doesn't promote arrogance and scorn but hilarity that's not only
> irreverent, which is often appropriate, but absolute disrespect and with
> no recognition of anything sacred in anthroposophy as a gift to humanity
> from the spiritual world.
> Tom has made all kinds of jokes and hilarities based upon Steiner's
> former incarnations, they seem to be the funniest things he has ever
> read about. He also found it very amusing to spread all kinds of rumors
> about Steiner, that he went on a heavy drinking binge in his youth
> allegedly to erase his atavistic clairvoyance, raving around in a drunk
> stupor for several years. That's the kind of iconoclastic tales to
> expect from Tom Mellett. Of course, one can engage in this sort of thing
> and encourage him to continue by reminding him how entertaining and
> clever he is, or one may choose instead to take anthroposophy seriously,
> which will undoubtedly elicit all kinds of contempt and scorn from the
> Abyss and more jokes from Tom.
> One may go on and on commenting on what these characters write, but
> speaking for myself, I think it's sufficient to quote one-liners (like
> quote of the month) with one-liner comments and then move on to
> something real.
> --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
> <ted.wrinch@ > wrote:
> > "The star's agent and
> > publicist are having lunch together to discuss the recent personal
> attacks being
> > made by one very annoying person in the media against the star."
> > http://groups
group/waldorf- critics/message/ 15219
> > But Tom, don't you know that ad hom, personal attacks are a completely
> valid and non logically falacious form of reasoniong when the person
> they are directed to is using a peronal, and falacious form of logic to
> frame his arguments. This is just the point about my analysis of Peter's
> dishonesty. A dishonest person using dishonest techniques of
> argumentation forgoes the normal etiquette of logical dispute because
> almost the only content to his statments is derived from his character
> and its flaws. Talk about shooting the messanger! But other than this
> you've writen a funny and entertaining post.
> > T.
> > Ted Wrinch