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

language limits expression sometimes . . .

Expand Messages
  • write3chairs@yahoo.com
    crazy artists . . . http://clicks.robertgenn.com/overwhelmed.php ... crazy artists . . . http://clicks.robertgenn.com/overwhelmed.php On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:16
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 20, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      crazy artists . . . http://clicks.robertgenn.com/overwhelmed.php

      On Oct 19, 2010, at 6:16 AM, anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      Messages In This Digest (4 Messages)

      Messages

      1a.

      Re: Bestial Bottom Slime

      Posted by: "val2160" wdenval@...   val2160

      Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:07 am (PDT)




      --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "ted.wrinch"
      <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.yahoo.com/ 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.

      " It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence,
      but on the contrary it is their social existence that determines their
      consciousness. "
      ????

      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
      >

      1b.

      Re: Bestial Bottom Slime

      Posted by: "elfuncle" elfuncle@...   elfuncle

      Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:44 am (PDT)



      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.

      Tarjei

      --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "ted.wrinch"
      <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.yahoo.com/ 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
      >

      1c.

      Re: Bestial Bottom Slime

      Posted by: "ted.wrinch" ted.wrinch@...   ted.wrinch

      Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:02 pm (PDT)



      Hi Taz,

      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.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- 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.
      >
      > Tarjei
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "ted.wrinch"
      > <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.yahoo.com/ 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
      > >
      >

      2a.

      Symptomatic study of linkages with destiny

      Posted by: "elfuncle" elfuncle@...   elfuncle

      Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:16 pm (PDT)



      Rudolf Steiner: The Karma of Vocation (GA 172)
      SIXTH LECTURE, November 18, 1916Symptomatic study of linkages with
      destiny: Friedrich Theodor Vischer, Max Eyth, Hofrath Eysenhardt by
      Alfred von Berger.You have seen how involved the more profound questions
      of destiny are in human life, something we recognize when we try to
      approach them in ways made possible by spiritual science. For this,
      however, many things today will be necessary if man is to correctly put
      himself into the nature of those phenomena that lead to a truly fruitful
      grasp of life. When we consider these involved problems, we must
      frequently take roundabout paths in order to see clearly the
      difficulties that hinder our understanding. We have all grown up, in a
      sense, in the thinking of the present, and even though many of us
      suppose we have attained to unprejudiced thinking, it is always well to
      be quite unsparing in testing ourselves and our self-knowledge,
      especially the unprejudiced character of our thinking. Before we proceed
      further, therefore, permit me to draw your attention to some
      particulars.

      It is often difficult to discuss these things because language is
      obstinate when we undertake to work out concepts in accord with reality.
      It is easy to suppose that a concept that has been worked out and is, as
      it were, obtained from the sum total of occult science is directed
      toward an entirely different objective than is really intended. In this
      way, various misunderstandings arise. A certain observation may
      frequently be made when we discuss the course of life of eminent
      personalities. I will give you an example. A small brochure has just
      been published in Switzerland. It deals with the person we have
      mentioned in a different connection, Friedrich Theodor Vischer, the
      author of Auch Einer and the great Aesthetics, and describes with loving
      devotion the life of this true-hearted and extraordinarily prolific
      Swabian. Permit me to mention him here simply as an example of some
      things that we desire to consider in connection with the question of
      human destiny; we could just as well select another example.

      Vischer was as true a Swabian by nature as might be found in the
      nineteenth century. The biographical sketch73 that has just been
      published shows how he grew up in poverty, how this compelled him to
      take the theological training in the Tubingen seminary, and so on. Now,
      the point that interested me is that at the very beginning attention is
      called to the fact that even his secondary schooling was rather narrow.
      To be sure, the boys learned to get along in Latin and later in the
      Greek writers, but they really did not know until a rather late age into
      what main river the Neckar empties, nor had they even seen a map until
      they were fairly well along in years. Many such defects in the
      educational system are mentioned.

      Now let us look at the matter in the right light. Friedrich Theodor
      Vischer became, in a sense, a great and famous man who accomplished
      something important. We must understand how he became the specific
      individual we find in history. The fact that he had never seen a map
      before a particular age has something to do with this; if he had seen a
      map earlier, a certain trait in his character would not have been
      present. Much else that is severely criticized had to be so. In short,
      if we view the matter from a more comprehensive standpoint, we shall say
      that the soul of Vischer descended from the spiritual world and chose
      precisely his environment. It wanted to have just the education that
      would keep it for a time from seeing a map. Likewise, his soul wanted to
      be close to the Neckar river but did not wish to know into which major
      river it emptied. If we study Vischer, we shall see that precisely all
      his whims and abundant peculiarities are truly integrating components of
      his greatness. So it seems really out of order for someone to write his
      biography and criticize the school that actually made him the very man
      he was.

      Let it be clearly understood that I did not want to emphasize that
      schools which do not show maps to children are of the right kind. But
      for Vischer it was entirely right and had to be so. We have often
      experienced this in the nineteenth century and up to the present day.
      Certain famous scientists are a case in point. They were quick to
      criticize the present system of education, demanding that much more
      natural science be introduced into the schools. However, when someone
      would ask the scientists: "You yourselves experienced these conditions
      -- do you find them so terribly bad," they generally did not know what
      to say. We must understand clearly that everything has at least two and,
      under some circumstances, many sides. What do we have really when a
      biographer sits down and so forms his concepts and ideas -- in this case
      the biographer was a woman -- that such a thing is written as I have
      just told you about Vischer? It really contributes nothing whatever to
      an understanding of the personality concerned. When someone forms such
      concepts, he actually slashes -- spiritually, I mean -- into the person
      with whom he is dealing. If we do not wish to slash into a personality
      with our concepts, we should simply have to characterize in a loving way
      the nature of the school in all its narrowness and how it brought forth
      this individuality. But people slash -- and criticize, which is surely
      slashing in many respects. What is the cause of this?

      It comes from cruelty, a quite definite characteristic that is
      widespread in the thought system of the present and is rooted in the
      subconscious. Since people lack the courage to practice this cruelty
      outwardly, they are cruel in their concepts and ideas. In many works of
      the present time we observe this cruelty in descriptions and
      representations. We observe it in much that is done and said, and it is
      far more common at the bottom of the soul than is ordinarily supposed. I
      have told you that in some schools of black magic the custom exists of
      acquiring the means for performing black magic by having the novitiate
      cut into the flesh of living animals. Certain characteristics are thus
      developed in the soul. Not everyone can do that at present, but many
      people gratify the same lust through their system of concepts; this does
      not lead to black magic, of course, but to our present civilization.
      Much today is permeated by this characteristic; of this we must be
      entirely clear. We arrive at an unprejudiced grasp of the world only by
      paying attention to such things; it is achieved in no other way.

      Today, beginnings tending toward attaining a particular view of the
      relationships of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch do exist everywhere. We
      do not come to understand this period when we simply criticize it or
      surrender to an abstract idealism, without taking into consideration
      that what appears in the form of mechanism, as a mechanistic culture,
      belongs absolutely and necessarily to it. Merely to condemn the
      mechanical element has no meaning whatever. Now, beginnings toward some
      understanding of what gives continuing life to our fifth post-Atlantean
      epoch have actually appeared, but few concepts that correspond with
      reality have yet been found for it and there is little inclination to
      pay attention to those who have tried to grasp it. It will be necessary
      for us to deal with these people whose endeavors will be a point of
      departure for true energetic, spiritual scientific activities.

      There is a significant poet of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch through
      whose poetic works the life of the age pulses. This is Max Eyth,74 who
      ought to be better known because he is truly a poet of our epoch. He is
      also a Swabian, the son of a schoolmaster who wanted his son also to be
      a schoolmaster but karma willed otherwise. Relatively early in his life
      he chose a technical vocation, became a true technician, and then went
      abroad to England. There he devoted himself especially to the production
      of steam-ploughs and became their poet. The way he has sung with warm,
      loving heart of these amazing mechanical beasts is today's true poetry.
      There is a peculiar interplay of sentiment in this heart. On the one
      hand, he is a man fully devoted to technology; on the other, he is
      receptive to everything that can be grasped without preconceptions by an
      intellect schooled in the mechanistic- materialistic concepts of the
      fifth post-Atlantean epoch.

      Max Eyth wrote a novel which deals with the modern life of Egypt, where
      the English company that employed him frequently sent him to introduce
      and test the steam-ploughs. This novel contains an explanation of how
      the pyramids were built according to a specific system. Now, if you
      calculate certain ratios that Eyth discovered and included in a
      supplement to one of his novels, you will find, up to the thirtieth
      decimal point at least, the so-called number,75 π, by which the
      diameter of a circle must be multiplied in order to arrive at the
      circumference. You understand: 3.14159 . . . carrying many decimals and
      extending to infinity. It might easily be supposed that this symbol
      π represents the result of later scientific progress. However, it
      occurred to Max Eyth that the ancient Egyptian temple priests must have
      known it up to the thirtieth or fortieth decimal point in primeval times
      because they used it to determine the ratios according to which they
      built the pyramids. In other words, because Eyth was a technician,
      something was disclosed to him that is deeply hidden in the ancient
      structure of the pyramids. Thus he was able to point out that our
      culture really has two origins: the one that we know from historical
      records and that of ancient times in which people depended on a kind of
      knowledge that relied more on atavistic clairvoyance; this later
      disappeared and today must be found again.

      But still other things are to be found in Max Eyth. However
      insignificant it seems, this is extraordinarily important. One of his
      stories, a collection of which is entitled Behind the Plow and Vice,
      brings you face to face with a riddle of life, a riddle of destiny. It
      contains a splendid description of an engineer's capacities and ability
      to build bridges. But he is a little too brilliant; one might say, a bit
      careless. After he has built a bridge, which is again described in a
      splendid way, he is in a train passing over the bridge. There he sits in
      the train, but he has overlooked something in building the bridge. As he
      passes over it, it collapses and he is killed. This is an impressive
      karmic question -- not answered, naturally, but posed. We see here how
      modern man approaches the profound question of destiny. Here we have a
      man who is brilliant in his profession and who dies at a relatively
      early age through his connection with a work that he created. I should
      like to say that this poetic fiction raises an important question of a
      sort that spiritual science seeks to answer. Such things do, of course,
      happen in the numerous variations of life. Now we have described a case
      that shows us how karma is fulfilled swiftly and precipitously. To be
      sure, such an event makes karma inevitable, but let us suppose
      hypothetically that in another case the person was not on the train as
      it passed over the bridge, but was sitting at home by the fire. Then he
      would probably have been imprisoned for a couple of years because of his
      mistake, but not much more than that would have happened to him in this
      life. What then?

      You see, the important point is that what had brought death to this man,
      the death he suffered in connection with his work, must enter his karma
      either here in this life or in the life between death and a new birth.
      The experience must be gone through, but it may be accelerated as in the
      case described by Eyth, or it may be extended over a longer period of
      time. Indeed, life itself in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch will raise
      profound questions of destiny and the very conditions of life in this
      epoch will make people realize how life reveals riddles in a new way
      that is different from that of earlier epochs.

      Thus, when we consider people who are really somewhat gifted with
      brilliant intellects, we can observe that they seek today for different
      complexities of life in their artistic creation than those of earlier
      periods. How frequently it happents that the individuals who do discover
      significant complexities of life are those who are engaged in practical
      vocations. From this point of view the books of Max Eyth are
      extraordinarily instructive: first, because he is really a great and
      gifted writer, and second, because, as an entirely modern human being,
      he creates wholly from the requirements of modern life. It is especially
      interesting -- permit me to make this remark parenthetically -- that
      those who read Eyth learn through this mere outward exposure much that
      it would be important for theosophists to know -- for example, many
      things connected with the life of Olcott,76 the first president of the
      Theosophical Society. We find this hidden away in the writings of Eyth,
      who was in America at a time when Olcott was doing all kinds of strange
      things there. In short, even social karma may thrust itself upon us when
      we do not disdain acquainting ourselves with what this modern spirit has
      written. In general, however, the peculiar fact is that often not the
      individuals gifted with genius -- Max Eyth was a genius -- but those
      formed by the life-mechanisms of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, see the
      intricacies of modern life with special clearness because their minds
      are formed in a special way.

      I am acquainted with a man who was a jurist in his younger years77 -- a
      time when one could be a legal mind without necessarily realizing his
      financial gains from the practice of law. He was a clear-headed person
      who viewed everything without preconceptions, who by reason of his gifts
      attracted the attention of his superiors, as one calls them, not so much
      on account of his brilliance, but because he was a good and diligent
      worker whom they could use. Now, since he had established his reputation
      as an actuary or assessor, he entered a government ministry where he was
      also a remarkable worker who viewed everything with open eyes. There he
      was once assigned an important, significant task. He was to prepare a
      report on matters pertaining to the schools and to education and he was
      instructed to prepare it in such a way that it would indicate a
      transition to a sort of liberal system. That pleased him and, since he
      was a clearheaded individual who saw through the present state of
      affairs, an excellent report resulted, really an excellent plan of
      reform that looked to liberalizing and modernizing some of the
      conditions in the schools. But while he was working on his report, the
      market changed, as people say, and a reactionary report was required.
      His superior then said to him, "This report is so good that you
      certainly will be able to prepare a comparable reactionary report also;
      now, can you do this?" The man replied, "No, that I cannot do!" "Indeed,
      why not?" "Because this report presents my conviction!" "What? This is
      your conviction?" Well, the superior was most indignant and saw quite
      clearly that he no longer had any use for this man, a person not only
      diligent but also possessed of a conviction of his own. Clearly, such a
      person could not be used.

      Yet, the man was an excellent jurist and worker. What could be done? He
      had proven himself everywhere, and it was well known that he was a
      competent jurist. Well, the effort was made to give him a promotion.
      People who have proven themselves in this way must, if possible, be ke
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.