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

Re: Occupy the Future and the youth

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    The parallel movement outside St Paul s cathedral is having a good effect too Dottie. They have reversed the actions of the Cathedral authorities to evict them
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 7, 2011
      The parallel movement outside St Paul's cathedral is having a good effect too Dottie. They have reversed the actions of the Cathedral authorities to evict them and now they have these authorities' support. The movement is causing a soul searching in the City of London and questions are being asked about what the morality should be of the individuals that work in the finance industry and how there appeared to be an absence of moral purpose during the years preceding the credit crunch. Homelessness is going up in the UK but not to the extent that you have it I think.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:
      >
      > I am happy to say that there is a presence in the Movement by the young people.
      >  
      > http://occupythefuture.org/2011/12/07/stories-photos-videos-from-the-national-day-of-action-to-stop-and-reverse-foreclosures-on-december-6/%c2%a0
      >  
      > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      >
    • dottie zold
      http://occupythefuture.org/    Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way. Rudolf Steiner ... From: dottie
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 7, 2011


         
        "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner



        --- On Wed, 12/7/11, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:

        From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
        Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Occupy the Future and the youth
        To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 6:59 AM

         
        I am happy to say that there is a presence in the Movement by the young people.
         
         
        "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner

      • JoAnn Schwartz
        Dear All, I was sad to learn of the passing of Michael Friedjung, whom many here may remember from the very early days of the Steiner internet.  A lovely
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 7, 2011
          Dear All,

          I was sad to learn of the passing of Michael Friedjung, whom many here may remember from the very early days of the Steiner internet.  A lovely obituary can be found here:

          http://www.iap.fr/actualites/avoir/2011/Novembre/In_Memoriam-Michael-Friedjung.pdf

          Who is remembered, lives...
          JoAnn
           
          ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
          "The vote you cast when you buy something is as important
          as the vote you cast in the ballot box."
          --- John Perkins

        • ted.wrinch
          Yes, he was an interesting man who I saw at an anthro science conference several years ago. As I recall, his parents were anthroposophists but he moved away
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 7, 2011
            Yes, he was an interesting man who I saw at an anthro science conference several years ago. As I recall, his parents were anthroposophists but he moved away from this for many years. And then returned later in his life, when he was a successful astro-physicist. He said at the conference that he had tried to find evidence for Steiner's assertion that the sun consists of 'negative space' but that he hadn't been successful. I had hoped that people at the conference would be interested in pursing Nick Thomas' interesting and fruitful mathematical treatment of the etheric (see his Science between space and counterspace). But no one seemed interested in any kind of collaborative, shared work…

            T.

            Ted Wrinch

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, JoAnn Schwartz <sr_joanna@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear All,
            >
            > I was sad to learn of the passing of Michael Friedjung, whom many here may remember from the very early days of the Steiner internet.  A lovely obituary can be found here:
            >
            > http://www.iap.fr/actualites/avoir/2011/Novembre/In_Memoriam-Michael-Friedjung.pdf
            >
            > Who is remembered, lives...
            > JoAnn
            >
            >  
            > ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
            > "The vote you cast when you buy something is as important
            > as the vote you cast in the ballot box."
            > --- John Perkins
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            >
          • ted.wrinch
            This is a nice definition of the mainstream and incidentally provides a neat summary of the mainstream in biology - I guess that the author s biological
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 7, 2011
              This is a nice definition of the 'mainstream' and incidentally provides a neat summary of the mainstream in biology - I guess that the author's biological scientific training helped him here.

              "Sebastian said: there is no "mainstream" neuroscience. There's GHOST STORIES, and there's neuroscience.

              My Comment: I think that sometimes Sebastian gets too radical, like seeing just in black and white, and this ends up limiting his own strength in pointing out problems in Irreducible Mind. The concept that there is a distinction between mainstream science and non mainstream science (including fringe science, not necessarily in a derrogatory sense) is a good working concept. That refers to the prevailing ideas that are accepted and to the "prevailing rejection" of some other ideas. For example, in evolutionary biology there used to be some prevaling ideas accepted and some other ideas that were (usually by sheer opposition) rejected. Mutations were random (and not teleological), acquired traits would not go to offsprings (Weissmann Barrier), genetic information flows in the direction DNA -> RNA -> Proteins, and never in the reverse direction (the so called "Central Dogma"). Now, what is the big deal in being "non-mainstream"? Well, the big deal (i.e. the problem) is that these ideas have not been sanctioned. Science works largely based on trust. We (non physicists) trust that the quantum mechanics theory has been well tested (I did not check that). We (non biologists) trust that information flows from DNA to proteins and never vice versa (even most biologists have not checked that for themselves). We trust that fMRI findings in "social neurosciences" (here) are being well investigated and well reported. All this trust comes from the fact that there is some form of "sanctioning" of ideas in science, even though this process is far different from the dogmas of many religions, and even though this sanctioning is far more, let's say, diffuse than the tenets of many a religion. The bottom line is this: if you want to "get informed" about what are the accepted ideas in any branch of science, all you need to do is "follow the stream" (i.e. be mainstream). You may dig into the details if you want to, but there is very little "social demand" (or "peer demand," or demand from the part of the Academia) that you go into these inumerable details that back up each and every assertion in any area of science. However, if the ideas that you are trying to get informed about are not mainstream ideas, then the only way to do a truly responsible study in the matters is to check a lot about the details, about the authors and their credibility, about the criticism that has been directed to them, and so on. Just to give you one example: I myself could only get to conclde that there seems indeed to be a kernel of good truth in the "reincarnation case report" of the boy Imad Elawar (reported by Ian Stevenson) after having studied this one single case exhaustively, and after getting in contact with both main parties involved in supporting and refuting the case. As to Ghost Stories, they are of many different kinds in term of evidential value. The only way to assess each case's evidential weight is to do something pretty much like what I did with the Imad Elawar case.
              "


              http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/irreducible_skepticism.htm

              T.

              Ted Wrinch

              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
              >
              > Sorry, Yahoo has munged that link again. You need to remove the fullstop:
              >
              > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/THES1.html
              >
              > T.
              >
              > Ted Wrinch
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
              > >
              > > "Clairvoyance is fantasy"
              > >
              > > In this Roger provides the standard criticism by atheist rationalists or humanists of such phenomena. My response to such criticism when I was first investigating these things was to look at what had been done to provide evidence of their existence by the likes of the Society for Psychical Research. As people will know, the research within this society was prosecuted by some very capable, scientifically trained individuals, such as the physicists William Crookes and Oliver Lodge. Many experiments were carried out over time which seemed to indicate truth in the phenomena; but, perhaps symptomatically, at the same time there was great resistance to this discovery from the scientific community, who for a time wanted to deprive Crookes of his Fellowship of the Royal Society. Perhaps the most famous result of the SPR's work was a series of over a 1000 pages of apparent communications by Frederick Myers to several medium after his death in 1901 (these were known as the 'cross correspondences'). Several messages purported to express the suffering he experienced in trying to 'get through' and the latter is typical:
              > >
              > > "Oh, if I could only leave you the proof that I continue. Yet another attempt to run the blockade - to strive to get a message through. How can I make your hand docile enough - how can I convince them? I am trying, amid unspeakable difficulties. It is impossible for me to know how much of what I send reaches you. I feel as if I had presented my credentials - reiterated the proofs of my identity in a wearisomely repetitive manner. The nearest simile I can find to express the difficulty of sending a message is that I appear to be standing behind a sheet of frosted glass, which blurs sight and deadens sound, dicatating feebly to a reluctant and somewhat obtuse secretary. A feeling of terrible impotence burdens me. Oh it is a dark road."
              > >
              > > Professor Rhine at Duke University in the 60s contributed to this body of work with his studies on the phenomena using a series of tightly controlled experiments using modern electronic data generation and monitoring techniques. These studies seemed to reinforce the earlier work.
              > >
              > > But then came the sceptics, including professional magician James Randi and his CSICOP organisation, and they claim that *all* work of this kind has been disproven. But CSICOP has its own agenda, well described by Barrie Colvin on his 'Paraphysics research group' website:
              > >
              > > "What has become very clear to me over the course of many years of involvement in the physical aspects of the paranormal is that there exists a significant body of scientists who do not approach the subject in a scientific manner. Many scientists take the view that the paranormal simply cannot happen and therefore there cannot be any reliable evidence in support of it. This head-in-the-sand attitude is actually very common within the scientific community and is just as unwelcome as those who readily accept evidence despite the lack of proof. This subject clearly requires input from individuals who truly adopt a scientific approach to the subject - an approach that impartially considers the evidence without any preconceived views."
              > >
              > > PSICOP has carried on in this vein for the 3 and a half decades of it existence and is still doing so today. A recent effort of PSICOP to debunk the abilities of a Russian psychic were in turn debunked by the famous physicist Brian Josephson (he of Nobel prize and Josephson junction fame!), described in the Times Higher Education Supplement here:http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/THES1.html.
              > >
              > > We can add to this scepticism the fact that the foundation endowed by Arthur Koestler after his death in Edinburgh to investigate the paranormal also spends most of its time trying to disprove the existence of these phenomena. I've also posted on the scurrilous depth the likes of Dawkins and Grayling will go to to try to prevent more open minded scientist from using the premises of the Royal Society. All in all I think its clear that there is great fear amongst the atheists of these kinds of phenomena and Roger is in good company.
              > >
              > > My view is that these phenomena are rather rare and not very typical to modern life but that there is most likely something in them. I first read about them through Colin Wilson's book the Occult, as it was not easy to find such phenomena even mentioned in mainstream literature. The latter situation has not changed much and the famous cross correspondences are not even mentioned in Wiki's article on Myers. On the correspondences we have the following views, from lawyer Victor Zammit's site:
              > >
              > > "The most convincing proof of the reality of life after death ever set down on paper."
              > > Colin Wilson
              > >
              > > "Ask any critic of the paranormal to account for the evidence of the cross-correspondences, and you can be assured of bewilderment or, at best, ignorant dismissal." Montague Keen
              > >
              > > "a momentous scientific conclusion of prime importance to mankind.". Colin Brookes-Smith, 1990
              > > He quotes the response at the time of the incredulous SPR as:
              > >
              > > 'At one stage those who were investigating the Myers Cross-Correspondences hired private detectives to put Mrs. Piper, one of the mediums involved, under surveillance. Her mail was opened, private detectives followed her, questions were asked about her friends and about those she spoke to. All the investigations proved her innocent of fraud or conspiracy or trickery."
              > >
              > >
              > > T.
              > >
              > > Ted Wrinch
              > >
              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Over in the WC out-house Roger the Codger writes:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > "Allow me, please, to add this. In an important sense, Steiner had no
              > > > epistemology after he turned to occultism. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that he had no epistemology that stands up to rational scrutiny.
              > > >
              > > > As a Theosophist and, later, an Anthroposophist, Steiner claimed to acquire knowledge through the use of clairvoyance. There is a problem. Clairvoyance does not exist. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that there has never been a convincing demonstration of clairvoyance; no one has ever produced credible evidence of clairvoyance. As for the fruits of Steiner's claimed clairvoyant powers, they weigh heavily against him. Steiner gave us reams of evidence that his method for acquiring "knowledge" is wholly unreliable.
              > > >
              > > > Clairvoyance is fantasy. Claims of clairvoyance are hollow. Bodies of
              > > > "knowledge," such as Anthroposophy, that depend on clairvoyance are empty. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that the burden of proof lies wholly with Steiner's followers. They should try to prove that clairvoyance exists. Until they attempt this and, at least provisionally, succeed at it, little that they say will hold much water."
              > > > ____________
              > > >
              > > > I think that Roger has a point, because to a large extent Anthroposophy does depend on Steiner's clairvoyance and his claim that it is possible for anyone who makes the (considerable) effort to attain it. I first fell in love with anthroposophy because of a Waldorf school where not only my daughter but *all* the kids were happy; then the threefold society concept really rang a bell, especially at a time when the contest was between Soviet communism and western capitalism. Here was a "third way". Then Steiner's Christology, where all the loose ends were tied. But these things didn't really require clairvoyance. There are other elements that do, of course, such as the evolution of the earth, and others. Actually, though, calling a anthroposophy a spiritual science requires that Steiner's research by duplicatable. Is it? Meditation certainly helps the soul's development - not only anthroposophical methods - and anthroposophy itself can be life-changing in a very positive sense, but they don't necessarily lead to clairvoyance.
              > > > Frank
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • eltrigal78
              ... Michael s book mentioned in his obit: Puttng Soul into Science may be downloaded as a Ebook from Southern Cross Review:
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 8, 2011
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, JoAnn Schwartz <sr_joanna@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear All,
                >
                > I was sad to learn of the passing of Michael Friedjung, whom many here may remember from the very early days of the Steiner internet.  A lovely obituary can be found here:
                >
                > http://www.iap.fr/actualites/avoir/2011/Novembre/In_Memoriam-Michael-Friedjung.pdf
                >
                > Who is remembered, lives...
                > JoAnn
                >

                Michael's book mentioned in his obit: "Puttng Soul into Science"
                may be downloaded as a Ebook from Southern Cross Review:

                http://southerncrossreview.org/Ebooks/ebsoulsci2.htm

                Frank
              • Frank Thomas Smith
                Spiritualism is hard to defend and easy to refute, Ted. Too many frauds involved. You may be interested in an in-depth book on the subject by
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 8, 2011
                  Spiritualism is hard to defend and easy to refute, Ted. Too many frauds involved. You may be interested in an in-depth book on the subject by Sherlock...er...sorry! by Arthur Conan Doyle: "The History of Spiritualism".
                  Frank

                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > "Clairvoyance is fantasy"
                  >
                  > In this Roger provides the standard criticism by atheist rationalists or humanists of such phenomena. My response to such criticism when I was first investigating these things was to look at what had been done to provide evidence of their existence by the likes of the Society for Psychical Research. As people will know, the research within this society was prosecuted by some very capable, scientifically trained individuals, such as the physicists William Crookes and Oliver Lodge. Many experiments were carried out over time which seemed to indicate truth in the phenomena; but, perhaps symptomatically, at the same time there was great resistance to this discovery from the scientific community, who for a time wanted to deprive Crookes of his Fellowship of the Royal Society. Perhaps the most famous result of the SPR's work was a series of over a 1000 pages of apparent communications by Frederick Myers to several medium after his death in 1901 (these were known as the 'cross correspondences'). Several messages purported to express the suffering he experienced in trying to 'get through' and the latter is typical:
                  >
                  > "Oh, if I could only leave you the proof that I continue. Yet another attempt to run the blockade - to strive to get a message through. How can I make your hand docile enough - how can I convince them? I am trying, amid unspeakable difficulties. It is impossible for me to know how much of what I send reaches you. I feel as if I had presented my credentials - reiterated the proofs of my identity in a wearisomely repetitive manner. The nearest simile I can find to express the difficulty of sending a message is that I appear to be standing behind a sheet of frosted glass, which blurs sight and deadens sound, dicatating feebly to a reluctant and somewhat obtuse secretary. A feeling of terrible impotence burdens me. Oh it is a dark road."
                  >
                  > Professor Rhine at Duke University in the 60s contributed to this body of work with his studies on the phenomena using a series of tightly controlled experiments using modern electronic data generation and monitoring techniques. These studies seemed to reinforce the earlier work.
                  >
                  > But then came the sceptics, including professional magician James Randi and his CSICOP organisation, and they claim that *all* work of this kind has been disproven. But CSICOP has its own agenda, well described by Barrie Colvin on his 'Paraphysics research group' website:
                  >
                  > "What has become very clear to me over the course of many years of involvement in the physical aspects of the paranormal is that there exists a significant body of scientists who do not approach the subject in a scientific manner. Many scientists take the view that the paranormal simply cannot happen and therefore there cannot be any reliable evidence in support of it. This head-in-the-sand attitude is actually very common within the scientific community and is just as unwelcome as those who readily accept evidence despite the lack of proof. This subject clearly requires input from individuals who truly adopt a scientific approach to the subject - an approach that impartially considers the evidence without any preconceived views."
                  >
                  > PSICOP has carried on in this vein for the 3 and a half decades of it existence and is still doing so today. A recent effort of PSICOP to debunk the abilities of a Russian psychic were in turn debunked by the famous physicist Brian Josephson (he of Nobel prize and Josephson junction fame!), described in the Times Higher Education Supplement here:http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/THES1.html.
                  >
                  > We can add to this scepticism the fact that the foundation endowed by Arthur Koestler after his death in Edinburgh to investigate the paranormal also spends most of its time trying to disprove the existence of these phenomena. I've also posted on the scurrilous depth the likes of Dawkins and Grayling will go to to try to prevent more open minded scientist from using the premises of the Royal Society. All in all I think its clear that there is great fear amongst the atheists of these kinds of phenomena and Roger is in good company.
                  >
                  > My view is that these phenomena are rather rare and not very typical to modern life but that there is most likely something in them. I first read about them through Colin Wilson's book the Occult, as it was not easy to find such phenomena even mentioned in mainstream literature. The latter situation has not changed much and the famous cross correspondences are not even mentioned in Wiki's article on Myers. On the correspondences we have the following views, from lawyer Victor Zammit's site:
                  >
                  > "The most convincing proof of the reality of life after death ever set down on paper."
                  > Colin Wilson
                  >
                  > "Ask any critic of the paranormal to account for the evidence of the cross-correspondences, and you can be assured of bewilderment or, at best, ignorant dismissal." Montague Keen
                  >
                  > "a momentous scientific conclusion of prime importance to mankind.". Colin Brookes-Smith, 1990
                  > He quotes the response at the time of the incredulous SPR as:
                  >
                  > 'At one stage those who were investigating the Myers Cross-Correspondences hired private detectives to put Mrs. Piper, one of the mediums involved, under surveillance. Her mail was opened, private detectives followed her, questions were asked about her friends and about those she spoke to. All the investigations proved her innocent of fraud or conspiracy or trickery."
                  >
                  >
                  > T.
                  >
                  > Ted Wrinch
                  >
                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Over in the WC out-house Roger the Codger writes:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > "Allow me, please, to add this. In an important sense, Steiner had no
                  > > epistemology after he turned to occultism. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that he had no epistemology that stands up to rational scrutiny.
                  > >
                  > > As a Theosophist and, later, an Anthroposophist, Steiner claimed to acquire knowledge through the use of clairvoyance. There is a problem. Clairvoyance does not exist. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that there has never been a convincing demonstration of clairvoyance; no one has ever produced credible evidence of clairvoyance. As for the fruits of Steiner's claimed clairvoyant powers, they weigh heavily against him. Steiner gave us reams of evidence that his method for acquiring "knowledge" is wholly unreliable.
                  > >
                  > > Clairvoyance is fantasy. Claims of clairvoyance are hollow. Bodies of
                  > > "knowledge," such as Anthroposophy, that depend on clairvoyance are empty. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that the burden of proof lies wholly with Steiner's followers. They should try to prove that clairvoyance exists. Until they attempt this and, at least provisionally, succeed at it, little that they say will hold much water."
                  > > ____________
                  > >
                  > > I think that Roger has a point, because to a large extent Anthroposophy does depend on Steiner's clairvoyance and his claim that it is possible for anyone who makes the (considerable) effort to attain it. I first fell in love with anthroposophy because of a Waldorf school where not only my daughter but *all* the kids were happy; then the threefold society concept really rang a bell, especially at a time when the contest was between Soviet communism and western capitalism. Here was a "third way". Then Steiner's Christology, where all the loose ends were tied. But these things didn't really require clairvoyance. There are other elements that do, of course, such as the evolution of the earth, and others. Actually, though, calling a anthroposophy a spiritual science requires that Steiner's research by duplicatable. Is it? Meditation certainly helps the soul's development - not only anthroposophical methods - and anthroposophy itself can be life-changing in a very positive sense, but they don't necessarily lead to clairvoyance.
                  > > Frank
                  > >
                  >
                • ted.wrinch
                  Sure Frank and I agree. Though the cross correspondences are regarded as one of the more fraud free accounts. Plus, and I didn t go into this as it s a big
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 8, 2011
                    Sure Frank and I agree. Though the cross correspondences are regarded as one of the more fraud free accounts. Plus, and I didn't go into this as it's a big subject on its own, there are all the problems of interpreting what the purported mediumistic communications are saying - we can think of Steiner's indications concerning the difficulty of gaining pure spiritual knowledge from such accounts, which are mediated through the body of the medium. All I was trying to do in these postings was outline my own researches, that convinced me of the opposite of Roger's viewpoint, and then to update them a little with things I've found since I did this research. If one moves away from the admittedly complex and fraud prone area of spiritualism the simpler, modern topic of research of the paranormal, parapsychology, altered states of consciousness and such comes into view. The research here seems less problematic - to an open minded skeptic - and therefore more convincing.

                    Thanks for the reference.

                    T.

                    Ted Wrinch

                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Spiritualism is hard to defend and easy to refute, Ted. Too many frauds involved. You may be interested in an in-depth book on the subject by Sherlock...er...sorry! by Arthur Conan Doyle: "The History of Spiritualism".
                    > Frank
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > "Clairvoyance is fantasy"
                    > >
                    > > In this Roger provides the standard criticism by atheist rationalists or humanists of such phenomena. My response to such criticism when I was first investigating these things was to look at what had been done to provide evidence of their existence by the likes of the Society for Psychical Research. As people will know, the research within this society was prosecuted by some very capable, scientifically trained individuals, such as the physicists William Crookes and Oliver Lodge. Many experiments were carried out over time which seemed to indicate truth in the phenomena; but, perhaps symptomatically, at the same time there was great resistance to this discovery from the scientific community, who for a time wanted to deprive Crookes of his Fellowship of the Royal Society. Perhaps the most famous result of the SPR's work was a series of over a 1000 pages of apparent communications by Frederick Myers to several medium after his death in 1901 (these were known as the 'cross correspondences'). Several messages purported to express the suffering he experienced in trying to 'get through' and the latter is typical:
                    > >
                    > > "Oh, if I could only leave you the proof that I continue. Yet another attempt to run the blockade - to strive to get a message through. How can I make your hand docile enough - how can I convince them? I am trying, amid unspeakable difficulties. It is impossible for me to know how much of what I send reaches you. I feel as if I had presented my credentials - reiterated the proofs of my identity in a wearisomely repetitive manner. The nearest simile I can find to express the difficulty of sending a message is that I appear to be standing behind a sheet of frosted glass, which blurs sight and deadens sound, dicatating feebly to a reluctant and somewhat obtuse secretary. A feeling of terrible impotence burdens me. Oh it is a dark road."
                    > >
                    > > Professor Rhine at Duke University in the 60s contributed to this body of work with his studies on the phenomena using a series of tightly controlled experiments using modern electronic data generation and monitoring techniques. These studies seemed to reinforce the earlier work.
                    > >
                    > > But then came the sceptics, including professional magician James Randi and his CSICOP organisation, and they claim that *all* work of this kind has been disproven. But CSICOP has its own agenda, well described by Barrie Colvin on his 'Paraphysics research group' website:
                    > >
                    > > "What has become very clear to me over the course of many years of involvement in the physical aspects of the paranormal is that there exists a significant body of scientists who do not approach the subject in a scientific manner. Many scientists take the view that the paranormal simply cannot happen and therefore there cannot be any reliable evidence in support of it. This head-in-the-sand attitude is actually very common within the scientific community and is just as unwelcome as those who readily accept evidence despite the lack of proof. This subject clearly requires input from individuals who truly adopt a scientific approach to the subject - an approach that impartially considers the evidence without any preconceived views."
                    > >
                    > > PSICOP has carried on in this vein for the 3 and a half decades of it existence and is still doing so today. A recent effort of PSICOP to debunk the abilities of a Russian psychic were in turn debunked by the famous physicist Brian Josephson (he of Nobel prize and Josephson junction fame!), described in the Times Higher Education Supplement here:http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/THES1.html.
                    > >
                    > > We can add to this scepticism the fact that the foundation endowed by Arthur Koestler after his death in Edinburgh to investigate the paranormal also spends most of its time trying to disprove the existence of these phenomena. I've also posted on the scurrilous depth the likes of Dawkins and Grayling will go to to try to prevent more open minded scientist from using the premises of the Royal Society. All in all I think its clear that there is great fear amongst the atheists of these kinds of phenomena and Roger is in good company.
                    > >
                    > > My view is that these phenomena are rather rare and not very typical to modern life but that there is most likely something in them. I first read about them through Colin Wilson's book the Occult, as it was not easy to find such phenomena even mentioned in mainstream literature. The latter situation has not changed much and the famous cross correspondences are not even mentioned in Wiki's article on Myers. On the correspondences we have the following views, from lawyer Victor Zammit's site:
                    > >
                    > > "The most convincing proof of the reality of life after death ever set down on paper."
                    > > Colin Wilson
                    > >
                    > > "Ask any critic of the paranormal to account for the evidence of the cross-correspondences, and you can be assured of bewilderment or, at best, ignorant dismissal." Montague Keen
                    > >
                    > > "a momentous scientific conclusion of prime importance to mankind.". Colin Brookes-Smith, 1990
                    > > He quotes the response at the time of the incredulous SPR as:
                    > >
                    > > 'At one stage those who were investigating the Myers Cross-Correspondences hired private detectives to put Mrs. Piper, one of the mediums involved, under surveillance. Her mail was opened, private detectives followed her, questions were asked about her friends and about those she spoke to. All the investigations proved her innocent of fraud or conspiracy or trickery."
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > T.
                    > >
                    > > Ted Wrinch
                    > >
                    > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Over in the WC out-house Roger the Codger writes:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > "Allow me, please, to add this. In an important sense, Steiner had no
                    > > > epistemology after he turned to occultism. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that he had no epistemology that stands up to rational scrutiny.
                    > > >
                    > > > As a Theosophist and, later, an Anthroposophist, Steiner claimed to acquire knowledge through the use of clairvoyance. There is a problem. Clairvoyance does not exist. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that there has never been a convincing demonstration of clairvoyance; no one has ever produced credible evidence of clairvoyance. As for the fruits of Steiner's claimed clairvoyant powers, they weigh heavily against him. Steiner gave us reams of evidence that his method for acquiring "knowledge" is wholly unreliable.
                    > > >
                    > > > Clairvoyance is fantasy. Claims of clairvoyance are hollow. Bodies of
                    > > > "knowledge," such as Anthroposophy, that depend on clairvoyance are empty. Or, if we want to phrase things more cautiously, we can say that the burden of proof lies wholly with Steiner's followers. They should try to prove that clairvoyance exists. Until they attempt this and, at least provisionally, succeed at it, little that they say will hold much water."
                    > > > ____________
                    > > >
                    > > > I think that Roger has a point, because to a large extent Anthroposophy does depend on Steiner's clairvoyance and his claim that it is possible for anyone who makes the (considerable) effort to attain it. I first fell in love with anthroposophy because of a Waldorf school where not only my daughter but *all* the kids were happy; then the threefold society concept really rang a bell, especially at a time when the contest was between Soviet communism and western capitalism. Here was a "third way". Then Steiner's Christology, where all the loose ends were tied. But these things didn't really require clairvoyance. There are other elements that do, of course, such as the evolution of the earth, and others. Actually, though, calling a anthroposophy a spiritual science requires that Steiner's research by duplicatable. Is it? Meditation certainly helps the soul's development - not only anthroposophical methods - and anthroposophy itself can be life-changing in a very positive sense, but they don't necessarily lead to clairvoyance.
                    > > > Frank
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • ted.wrinch
                    It s pretty good - I think I got my copy from you a few years ago. But I didn t finish it - always too many other things to read. T. Ted Wrinch
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 8, 2011
                      It's pretty good - I think I got my copy from you a few years ago. But I didn't finish it - always too many other things to read.

                      T.

                      Ted Wrinch

                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "eltrigal78" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, JoAnn Schwartz <sr_joanna@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Dear All,
                      > >
                      > > I was sad to learn of the passing of Michael Friedjung, whom many here may remember from the very early days of the Steiner internet.  A lovely obituary can be found here:
                      > >
                      > > http://www.iap.fr/actualites/avoir/2011/Novembre/In_Memoriam-Michael-Friedjung.pdf
                      > >
                      > > Who is remembered, lives...
                      > > JoAnn
                      > >
                      >
                      > Michael's book mentioned in his obit: "Puttng Soul into Science"
                      > may be downloaded as a Ebook from Southern Cross Review:
                      >
                      > http://southerncrossreview.org/Ebooks/ebsoulsci2.htm
                      >
                      > Frank
                      >
                    • elfuncle
                      Quite a few years ago -- at the Anthropos-Views list to the best of my recollection -- I was sharing a lot of insight about scientology for a while. Michael
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 8, 2011
                        Quite a few years ago -- at the Anthropos-Views list to the best of my recollection -- I was sharing a lot of insight about scientology for a while. Michael Friedjung sent me his recollections about how he had experienced this weird and soul-damaging organization and gave me instant permission to publish it on my site -- here it is still:

                        http://uncletaz.com/friedjung.html

                        What he writes at the end here is very interesting -- that the scientologists achieve some kind of "clear" or initiate insight/clairvoyance by somehow killing or destroying the Guardian of the Threshold, which is quite amazing and gives us an idea of how this particular variety of so-called left-handed occultism works.

                        Tarjei

                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > It's pretty good - I think I got my copy from you a few years ago. But I didn't finish it - always too many other things to read.
                        >
                        > T.
                        >
                        > Ted Wrinch
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "eltrigal78" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, JoAnn Schwartz <sr_joanna@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Dear All,
                        > > >
                        > > > I was sad to learn of the passing of Michael Friedjung, whom many here may remember from the very early days of the Steiner internet.  A lovely obituary can be found here:
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.iap.fr/actualites/avoir/2011/Novembre/In_Memoriam-Michael-Friedjung.pdf
                        > > >
                        > > > Who is remembered, lives...
                        > > > JoAnn
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > Michael's book mentioned in his obit: "Puttng Soul into Science"
                        > > may be downloaded as a Ebook from Southern Cross Review:
                        > >
                        > > http://southerncrossreview.org/Ebooks/ebsoulsci2.htm
                        > >
                        > > Frank
                        > >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.