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

Re: Professor Staudenmaier's anti-Semitic obsession

Expand Messages
  • Kim
    I will just add a little on Sophiology. Steiner describes three periods, the time of the sentient soul where we know her as Sophia, then came the period of the
    Message 1 of 228 , Mar 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I will just add a little on Sophiology.
      Steiner describes three periods, the time of the sentient soul where we
      know her as Sophia, then came the period of the intellectual soul where
      we know her as Philosophia, and from the beginning of the 2000 century
      we know her as Anthroposophia. Many people long of course for the old
      version of Sophia or Philosophia, why fex. Tomberg became catholic. The
      Rosicrucian created the Protestant religion preparing the time of
      Anthroposophia, the time of the new Michael. Steiner prepared the German
      western culture and it was primarily intellectual, why he gave the
      knowledge in a way the westerner could understand. The following period,
      the Slavic, are also under preparation and there they go the heart way.
      Here will the orthodox eastern church get a renaissance.
      Kim

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Charlotte Cowell
      <charlottecowell@...> wrote:
      >
      > I was interested to hear mention of the link (real or supposed)
      between
      > 'Jewishness' and Russia. Of course, you do encounter many Jews from
      > Eastern Europe, one of the heartlands of Judaism, but it is also the
      centre for
      > Sophiology - if anything I'd be inclined to see emerging from the
      EastÂ
      > the school of Orthodox Christian Mystics who are devoted to Sophia
      > (Solovyev, Tomberg, for example). I tend to see a definite bridge
      > here between this particular school and Steiner/anthroposophy. From
      > that bridge you then get the link with French esotericism of the more
      > magically oriented kind and Rosicrucianism generally. Once you're into
      > that stream of the western mystery school you've got a major emphasis
      > on Kabbalah, which is perhaps where this whole 'Jewish' theory is
      > entangled?
      >
      >
      >
      > All this continues to put me in mind of the occult
      > difficulties thrown up by the Nazis (difficulties being an
      > understatement) as being the crux of this entire issue, the
      > actual root of all the outrage and confusion from folks on all sides,
      > but particularly those who are engaged in vendetta or obsession as the
      > prof. appears to be. This is understandable in the sense that what
      > happened in that era created a psychic/spiritual 'knot' and black spot
      > of the gravest possible proportions, that has continued to stretch all
      > mystery school and occult students to their absolute limit ever since.
      > Bearing in mind we have Crowley, Blavatsky and Gurdjieff thrown into
      > that whole mix and what you end up with is an 'issue' - an occult
      > egregore, to perhaps encapsulate it a little.
      >
      >
      >
      > Maybe the prof. does not yet know why he's angry or in need of this
      debate, he just knows he's on a
      > mission and wants answers. He's found a bone to gnaw. At least, he
      thinks he wants answers, but
      > may have been closed to the possibility of ever receiving an
      > explanation that he will find satisfactory both intellectually and
      > spiritually (even though he claims not to be spiritual). This
      > is tricky, as true spiritual answers generally involve a leap of faith
      > if they are to be accepted....
      >
      >
      >
      > On the other hand, he may just want an argument, there is always that
      possibility, and academics typically need to spar in order to avoid
      drying up.
      >
      >
      >
      > In this case, would it be best to ignore him, perhaps, rather than
      engage him in any form of
      > discussion that fuels his fire and helps him fulfill his own
      > prophecies? I've found that letting go can be one of the biggest tests
      > we face - one can become very attached to demons, as they can be to us
      > - but once the initial wrench is over it can be a big relief.
      >
      >
      >
      > Alternatively, if you find that this is just too important to let drop
      > (important questions are at stake, after all, I can see that as I've
      > grappled with similar ones myself), perhaps it is time to instigate a
      > breakthrough - are there any points whatsoever upon which you and he
      > agree in terms of history, philosophy, theology, etc?
      >
      >
      >
      > Perhaps this is useful or perhaps not, but for what it's worth (and
      > please ignore anything that seems inappropriate or irrelevant to what
      > is happening, I realise I am new to this particular debate): Intuition
      > tells me that part of the 'solution' to the problem posed by the
      argument with the prof.
      > will be to approach it from a gypsy angle and/or as
      > a Fool. Bearing in mind of course that you probably will not
      change
      > his mind, but you may succeed in neutralising/diffusing hostilities
      and
      > preventing the cauldron from bubbling over further.
      >
      >
      >
      > But that's just my opinion, I know what it's like when one is locked
      into a struggle of this kind and it can be very draining.
      >
      >
      >
      > Cx
      >
      > --- On Tue, 8/3/11, ted.wrinch ted.wrinch@... wrote:
      >
      > From: ted.wrinch ted.wrinch@...
      > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Professor Staudenmaier's
      anti-Semitic obsession
      > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Tuesday, 8 March, 2011, 23:14
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Â
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Well they're still obsessing about their second favourite topic
      over in the hole. The prof has just responded to my speculation that his
      obsession with anti-Semitism seems like a fashionable left wing
      orientation, in the way that support of the Soviet Union was for
      leftists of previous generations. He thinks that by saying this I've
      said that there is a special association between the Soviet Union and
      Jewishness!!.
      >
      >
      >
      > After limbering up with this non-sequitur, he moves onto one another
      of his hoary old favourites: the link, as he conceives it, between
      Jewish high intelligence and anti-Semitism. It seems apposite to point
      out at this point that anti-Semitism, along with racism, is one of the
      subjects that is guaranteed to get the prof's adrenaline pumping and we
      can see him in action at attacking Hannah Arendt for not being Jewish
      enough at the a recent Yale seminar: YIISA/IASA Conference Panel:
      "Hannah Arendt and Antisemitism http://vimeo.com/15632864. It seems a
      shame that someone of the talent and stature of Arendt has to put up
      with mealy-mouthed criticism from the likes of the prof, but oh well.
      >
      >
      >
      > But, returning to the subject of Jewish high intelligence, the prof,
      of course, believes that there is no such thing - inconveniences like
      statistics, observations and measurements aside - and instead says that
      the notion is simply part of the usual and wider anti-Semitism that he
      expects to find amongst anthroposophists. This, and the rest of his
      tirade, is so groundlessly bonkers that I have to wonder if the prof's
      simply become unhinged. There's not a lot one can say to such
      solipsistic idiocy that ignores the facts.
      >
      >
      >
      > Frank : have you noticed that the prof is still addressing you in all
      this (I'm pretty much damned AFA he's concerned so it's no surprise that
      I'm included)?
      >
      >
      >
      > T.
      >
      >
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
    • Charlotte Cowell
      Yes, I think this has to be basically true for most such organisations and it s also well known that mystery religions ultimately fall into decline as culture
      Message 228 of 228 , Mar 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, I think this has to be basically true for most such organisations and it's also well known that mystery religions ultimately fall into decline as culture and civilisation changes. I think this is the natural order of things and it's how you distinguish movements such as Anthroposophy, Golden Dawn, the Fourth Way, etc, from actual religions. One might recognised Steiner as a great initiate and teacher, but it would be unreasonable to make him analogous with Christ and the lux aeterna.

        VT is quite interesting on the 'fate' of societies, saying that it should be the goal of 'secret circles' (which be definition are closed circles) to break free once their original mission is accomplished and to make their activities into a living spiral, which is achievable via the doorway offered by Christ. There are various discussions within MoTT pertaining to the closed and open circles. For example, within Letter X, The Wheel of Fortune:

        "The cosmic myth, the esoteric drama which underlies the exoteric 'process of evolution' sets forth, in the first place, the idea of the open circle and the closed circle. The open circle - or spiral - is the world before the Fall of the six days of creation crowned by the seventh day, the cosmic sabbath, which corresponds to what one designates in mathematics as the 'step of the spiral'. It suggests the idea of unlimited growth and advancement, being through its form only the introduction to the antechamber of eternity. It promises unlimited progress.

        For the AS, this means that while the rending of the closed circle following Steiner's death was protracted and painful, the opportunities and potential inherent in the opening out far exceed what was possible before. There is greater freedom in this state, as we are told:

        "The closed circle in contrast, is in principle only a prison, whatever its extent may be. It is a wheel which turns on itself and therefore suggests no advancement beyond its circle. The idea that the closed circle - or wheel - suggests, is that of eternal repetition."

        Of course this precisely describes the wheel of suffering that Buddha transcended and promised was possible for whomsoever was able to follow the same road (an almost endless process in the context of all souls). Then we received the perfection of this philosophy in the life of Christ, who not only transcended material existence, but returned in order to open a doorway for everyone else.

        The spiral is therefore a crucial symbol for any spiritual workers - any soul. In the letter of the Star (XVII), we are reminded that it represents growth and evolution and urged to consider that:

        "In our time it is a matter of the task of effecting the third step of the evolutionary spiral of the Hermetic tradition - the 'third Renaissance' on the subject of the Emerald Table. our time makes appeal to the collective endeavour of Hermeticists....[so that] the essence of modern wisdom [may] be saved in a spiritual 'Noah's Ark' from the deluge which is going to come, and may it thereby be transmitted to the future....this is the message of the woman kneeling under the stars on the bank of a current which flows from the past into the future."

        Earlier on in this letter - more specifically with regard to secret societies - it is explained that:

        "The circle of ceremonial magic - just like that of science - is closed in principle, but every individual human soul can leave it by embracing a more elevated ideal and by renouncing all the advantages that the circle offers. This is an important aspect of the meaning of the formula of Christ "I am the door", namely, that there is an exit from every closed circle, from all captivity of the spirit. "I am the door, if anyone enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (John x, 9).  It is thus, for example, that Teilhard de Chardin could enter the closed circle of science without being captured, and he could leave his circle by transforming it into a spiral.....the spiral: this is the "good news" (ie, the Gospel) to all those in captivity in closed circles. Jesus Christ said to Nathanael:

        "Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these....truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." (John 1, 50 - 51).

        Cx

        --- On Sat, 26/3/11, Frank Thomas Smith <fts.trasla@...> wrote:

        From: Frank Thomas Smith <fts.trasla@...>
        Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Marie Steiner
        To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, 26 March, 2011, 13:29

         


        Many moons ago, a mysterious guy, Alberto, Argentine, sort of initiate, told me that when the initiator of a spiritual movement dies, the organization he built inevitably degenerates. We were talking about the Anthroposophical Society, of which he knew little, but he did know Steiner's work, the little then available in Spanish.
        Frank

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Charlotte Cowell <charlottecowell@...> wrote:
        >
        > I just think it's the nature of these types of societies - if they're based around the charisma/ability of one particular individual, it stands to reason that they can't continue in the same way after that person's death. There'll always be a void and yes, I guess there's a lot of anxiety that the wrong person should not fill that gap, but plenty of hope that some other person can and will continue the tradition. Inevitably some members will feel that this 'other person' should be their own self....so yes, I guess there was some rivalry, but it would have been nigh on impossible to agree on a successor, right? The English really took to VT but the Germans weren't keen - maybe he just didn't fit in, and certainly there was a political disagreement....
        >
        > --- On Fri, 25/3/11, cinnamon94@... <cinnamon94@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: cinnamon94@... <cinnamon94@...>
        > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Marie Steiner
        > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Friday, 25 March, 2011, 23:52
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Thanks, Charlotte. Is it fair to say that there was a certain amount of jockeying for position? This tale suggests that but maybe its not fair to characterize the period in that way?
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Charlotte Cowell <charlottecowell@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Cinnamon, this short wiki article has some points that may be helpful. Please note that Robert Powell's view is highly controversial with respect to the Bodhisattva, and not one VT himself would have agreed with.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Tomberg
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > --- On Fri, 25/3/11, cinnamon94@ <cinnamon94@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > From: cinnamon94@ <cinnamon94@>
        >
        > > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Marie Steiner
        >
        > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > > Date: Friday, 25 March, 2011, 16:58
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >  
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Charlotte's comments bring up something I'm interested in. What is the best source of information about what was going on in the AS in the years immediately after Steiner died? Thanks.
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Charlotte Cowell <charlottecowell@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > As far as I'm aware he had a big fall out with the widow of RS, who along with a significant faction of the AS believed RS was the last true initiate and other people shouldn't have the temerity to display such authority on spiritual matters.....
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > in my opinion this is the last thing RS himself would have thought or decreed. RS was personally very powerful and I'm sure would have taken some standing up to, but I don't think he would have denied the presence of grace, or qualities such as clairvoyance, in others. He had an incredibly friendly and mutually inspiring relationship with his Russian colleague for a number of years
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > Also, I think some members of the AS believed they'd found an 'Avatar' - a point upon which many other people (not surprisingly) differed. You guys probably know that story better than I do.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > --- On Fri, 25/3/11, val2160 <wdenval@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > From: val2160 <wdenval@>
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: VT and the Papacy - PS
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > Date: Friday, 25 March, 2011, 16:24
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >  
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "bikhe hozho" <hozhonahasglii@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > The idea of freedom is paradoxical. Spiritually, as simple social freedom, it's nonsense. Freedom only makes spiritual sense if it is used to choose and commit in a way that is congruent with one's destiny, even if that be a self-chosen destiny. One can't live one's life without some sort of orienting commitment. Submitting to that imperative, gladly and knowingly makes every day a good day to die without fear.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > This is where the spirituality of the Will comes in and one's theories become grounded.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > Anthroposophy never got past twiddling its mental thumbs and VT may well have said to himself: "You can't fire me, I quit."
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > Not-you can't fire me because you don't have the authority to do so-interesting. I am reminded again of the twelve step programs:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > ]We admitted we were powerless over alcoholâ€"that our lives had become unmanageable.Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > > > Aye, there's the rub - the idea of obedience, however you trim it, and part of the rub with Tomberg. I don't see how someone in love with freedom can submit to the Catholic Church's dogma - and the Pope, or even the idea of an infallible pope. (see pg 99 of "Meditations of the Tarot", Letter V - The Pope). To travel from Catholicism to anthroposophy is a clear road (to me), but the opposite direction seems full of potholes.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > > > Frank
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.