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

Re: The true Orient

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    I agree with almost all that entirely, just not the not bothering bit. I may be fishing in a very big pond but PS is the biggest fish I ve ever tackled! T. Ted
    Message 1 of 36 , Dec 29, 2011
      I agree with almost all that entirely, just not the not bothering bit. I may be fishing in a very big pond but PS is the biggest fish I've ever tackled!

      T.

      Ted Wrinch


      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
      >
      > My major point is this: The hostile opposition to anthroposophy today is
      > driven by the same reactionary forces found in the medieval tradition of
      > the Church when it polemicized against the Enlightenment and secular
      > natural science in the 17th and 18th centuries. In other words, this
      > topic is too huge and too broad for us to bother with a tiny and
      > insignificant minority that's on the losing side of historical progress
      > -- and knows it.
      >
      > Tarjei
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I would be careful: in making this post and apparently agreeing with
      > > Diana you've triggered her sense of moral and intellectual superiority
      > > and she now feels safe claiming that people that she disagrees with
      > are
      > > 'bigoted', 'illiterate' and 'several rungs down the intellectual
      > ladder'
      > > from her (how nice). Her ability to understand an argument separately
      > > from her opinion about the person posing the argument has never been
      > > very strong and I don't think that this is helping her.
      > >
      > > As far as I can see, I haven't expressed any specific agreement with
      > > Diana, but it looks like she is agreeing with some key issues in my
      > > previous post. I'm surprised that she "recommends" it to the others,
      > > because the way I describe Peter S (his bloated ego, insecurity etc.)
      > > definitely amounts to a barrage of what DD calls "ad hominem
      > arguments".
      > > This is my response, more or less, to the never-ending ad hominem
      > > insults that PS keeps hurling against "anthroposophists,"
      > > "esotericists," "latter-day Steiner admirers" etc. -- that they are
      > > opposed to scholarship and academic discipline, hate universities and
      > > other higher learning, loathe books, and insist upon being completely
      > > ignorant of history. And according to PS, this description fits
      > everyone
      > > who is in any way attracted to, positively studying, or in agreement
      > > with, some or all of Rudolf Steiner's works.
      > >
      > > Incidentally, a friend of mine who just turned 90 and was also one of
      > my
      > > father's best friends, Arnljot Strømme Svendsen, is a professor of
      > > economics. We used to have some extended philosophical discussions in
      > > the early nineties, and he told me about many of his colleagues -- all
      > > professors, who were anthroposophists, but he couldn't understand
      > > anything they were talking about when they tried to explain it to him;
      > > it seemed like they confused themselves. When I explained some of ti
      > > Arnljot, it made perfect sense to him. The point is not that those
      > > anthroposophical professors were confused, but that they were
      > academics,
      > > scholars -- in economics.
      > >
      > > I don't know what PS makes of anthroposophical academics like physics
      > > professor Arthur Zajonc, who -- as I mentioned in a recent post -- has
      > > been appointed as the new president of the Mind & Life Institute.
      > > (Personally, I find this interesting because the Mind & Life Institute
      > > also features the Dalai Lama as Honorary Chairman on the Board of
      > > Directors.
      > >
      > > I've been intrigued by this, because it hits very close to home indeed
      > > in my case. The woman I've been living with now since 1997 is actually
      > > an old flame of mine from way back in 1969. Her two youngest sons, in
      > > their late twenties and early thirties, are half Tibetan; they had an
      > > audience with Dalal Lame in India some time back, and the missus has
      > > shared the photos from that occasion on Facebook. We spend Christmas
      > and
      > > birthdays with the Tibetan father of these young men, and with his
      > > family, which consists of him and his Tibetan wife and her daughters,
      > > both in their twenties, from a previous relationship. And keeping in
      > > mind the philosophical discussions we're having from time to time
      > > regarding anthroposophy and Tibetan Buddhism, the discovery of deep
      > > conversations between Arthur Zajonc and Dalai Lama at the Mind & Life
      > > Institute struck a special cord with me.
      > >
      > > (It's extremely rare that I mention a personal note like this,
      > > especially after extremely bad experiences with Sugar Cherubs and
      > > Adorable Darlings alike, but I think it's really called for in this
      > > instance.)
      > >
      > > We recently mentioned paradigms and paradigm shifts -- the new words
      > > brought into prominence by the American historian and philosopher of
      > > science Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), author of "The Structure of
      > Scientific
      > > Revolutions". The term is most applicable to the Enlightenment period,
      > > showing its initial symptoms in the 15th century and coming to
      > > completion by the beginning of the 19th century.
      > >
      > > If we take a look at the transition period here, namely the 17th and
      > the
      > > 18th centuries, we find that the natural-scientific philosophies and
      > > modes of inquiry that emerged met strong resistance from the old
      > > established order, which was based upon Biblical theology,
      > Aristotelian
      > > science, the astrology-based geocentric model of the solar system and
      > so
      > > on. Some of the new thinkers were pressured to retractions, others who
      > > stood their ground were sometimes dismissed from their positions
      > because
      > > their offices were often dependent upon church approval. And the
      > > universities were still dominated by the old guard throughout this
      > > period, which meant that the early scientists had to establish their
      > own
      > > institutions, as subcultures or counter-cultures as it were. So Isaac
      > > Newton and his peers established The Royal Society of London for
      > > Improving Natural Knowledge in November 1660 -- it was granted a
      > Royal
      > > Charter by King Charles II as the Royal Society of London.
      > >
      > > These new disciplines or modes of inquiry didn't become fully
      > integrated
      > > in the universities until the 19th century, i.e. during the period
      > > 1780-1840.
      > >
      > > When we consider that Copernicus worked out his theory in the early
      > 16th
      > > century, we're looking at an "incubation period" so to speak of three
      > > centuries before this was commonly accepted (also by the Catholic
      > > Church). And if we take it from the 1680's, when Newton's mathematical
      > > proof of Kepler's ellipses became known (after he had been hoarding it
      > > for two decades), we're looking at a period of 130-140 years before it
      > > became really mainstream. With this in mind, take a fresh look at the
      > > excerpt from Rittelmeyer's Rudolf Steiner Enters My Life on the entry
      > > page of Anthroposophy Tomorrow. The dialogue quoted took place in
      > 1915,
      > > and we're only three years from 2015. At the moment, there is an
      > > increasing interest in anthroposophically related studies and other
      > > esoteric studies at the universities. In the meantime, such
      > alternative
      > > subcultural movements have been developing and spreading through their
      > > own institutions, such as the Anthroposophical Society, the Mind &
      > Life
      > > Institute, various academies for alternative medicine and related
      > > disciplines -- just like the Royal Society and other independent
      > > institutions initially carried the natural-scientific impulse for a
      > > century and a half while the universities kept clinging to the old
      > > churches.
      > >
      > > I am not talking about all the media coverage and fuss about Waldorf
      > > teacher training and Waldorf schools, because we all know that
      > > anthroposophy is sooo much more than pedagogy. We're talking here
      > about
      > > deepening studies of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and so on
      > in
      > > the light of anthroposophical insight, courses in anthroposophical
      > > cosmology and spiritual science proper.
      > >
      > > Of course this doesn't mean that anthroposophy and related esoteric
      > > studies will replace any of the current mainstream "materialistic"
      > > courses. The old theological and classical studies, which are
      > basically
      > > relics from the old order of the Middle Ages, are still being taught
      > > side by side with the natural and technical sciences and mathematics.
      > > But in the long run, over centuries and millennia to come, the old
      > will
      > > always be replaced by the new.
      > >
      > > It's in this light we need to understand the often passionate and
      > > fanatical opposition to anthroposophy that first arose after the first
      > > world war under the umbrella of fascism and nationalism, and then
      > during
      > > the last couple of decades as anti-New Age, phobia of occultism and
      > > spirituality and so on with all kinds of untruths attached, sometimes
      > > sincere and sometimes contrived, and often fed by the irrational
      > > behavior of Adorable Darlings, whom the Sugar Cherubs like to attract
      > as
      > > their court jesters or dancing elephants.
      > >
      > > But look: These Sugar Cherubs and Adorable Darlings alike are
      > > insignificant minorities making loud noises, nothing else. I think it
      > > was pointed out by you, Ted, that Peter Staudenmaier is not very
      > strong
      > > in mathematics, and therefore not in science either. And without a
      > > thorough understanding of math and science, it's not possible to
      > > understand the history of philosophy during the Enlightenment and
      > > through Kant and the German idealists into Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,
      > > American pragmatism, analytic philosophy (Russell), phenomenology,
      > > empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, structuralism, etc. Peter
      > > Staudenmaier's nonsensical ramblings about what he calls "esoteric
      > > epistemology" indicate that he has done no homework whatsoever in this
      > > field. And he calls himself a scholar?
      > >
      > > If Peter S was really serious about his academic approach to
      > > anthroposophy, he should be discussing professor Arthur Zajonc's take
      > on
      > > holism in the universe, which he has derived from a lifelong study of
      > > quantum physics -- something he is discussing with Dalai Lama. Here is
      > > something concrete, namely the science of physics, where Peter
      > > Staudenmaier can actually endeavor to prove or disprove something.
      > It's
      > > a riddle that Einstein grappled with on his deathbed, but I'm positive
      > > that Peter can help Arthur out, being such an eminent scholar of
      > > philosophy and epistemology. (I believe this was a sarcasm, but
      > because
      > > English is not my native language, Dan Dugan wouldn't understand
      > that.)
      > >
      > > I prefer to use proper names for individuals when I'm not doing
      > > vaudeville or fairy tales or something, especially when I see that the
      > > Adorable Darling clowns playing "defenders of the faith" with the
      > Sugar
      > > Cherubs keep messing with their opponents' names (Debra Smell and Dan
      > > Dragon and so forth) because they can only write nonsensical
      > gibberish.
      > > But that's all they do there, all of them, writing gibberish. It's not
      > > worth paying attention to anymore. Personally, I'm through discussing
      > > with those people; that finished in 2004. After that, I've only been
      > > playing and trolling and writing mythologies and fairy tales and songs
      > > about them. And that's what you should be doing, Ted, to get it out of
      > > your system, as a cartharsis sort of. Write a fairy tale about der
      > > Staudiwolf and the Little Red Anthrohood.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Finally , Ted, here is a good Steiner-quote for you -- in fact, for us
      > > all:
      > >
      > > "Of very great importance for the development of the student is the
      > way
      > > in which he listens to others when they speak. He must accustom
      > himself
      > > to do this in such a way that, while listening, his inner self is
      > > absolutely silent. If someone expresses an opinion and another
      > listens,
      > > assent or dissent will, generally speaking, stir in the inner self of
      > > the listener. Many people in such cases feel themselves impelled to an
      > > expression of their assent, or more especially, of their dissent. In
      > the
      > > student, all such assent or dissent must be silenced. It is not
      > > imperative that he should suddenly alter his way of living by trying
      > to
      > > attain at all times to this complete inner silence. He will have to
      > > begin by doing so in special cases, deliberately selected by himself.
      > > Then quite slowly and by degrees, this new way of listening will creep
      > > into his habits, as of itself. In spiritual research this is
      > > systematically practiced. The student feels it his duty to listen, by
      > > way of practice, at certain times to the most contradictory views and,
      > > at the same time, bring entirely to silence all assent, and more
      > > especially, all adverse criticism. The point is that in so doing, not
      > > only all purely intellectual judgment be silenced, but also all
      > feelings
      > > of displeasure, denial, or even assent. The student must at all times
      > be
      > > particularly watchful lest such feelings, even when not on the
      > surface,
      > > should still lurk in the innermost recess of the soul. He must listen,
      > > for example, to the statements of people who are, in some respects,
      > far
      > > beneath him, and yet while doing so suppress every feeling of greater
      > > knowledge or superiority. It is useful for everyone to listen in this
      > > way to children, for even the wisest can learn incalculably much from
      > > children. The student can thus train himself to listen to the words of
      > > others quite selflessly, completely shutting down his own person and
      > his
      > > opinions and way of feeling. When he practices listening without
      > > criticism, even when a completely contradictory opinion is advanced,
      > > when the most hopeless mistake is committed before him, he then
      > learns,
      > > little by little, to blend himself with the being of another and
      > become
      > > identified with it. Then he hears through the words into the soul of
      > the
      > > other. Through continued exercise of this kind, sound becomes the
      > right
      > > medium for the perception of soul and spirit. Of course it implies the
      > > very strictest self-discipline, but the latter leads to a high goal.
      > > When these exercises are practiced in connection with the other
      > already
      > > given, dealing with the sounds of nature, the soul develops a new
      > sense
      > > of hearing. She is now able to perceive manifestations from the
      > > spiritual world which do not find their expression in sounds
      > perceptible
      > > to the physical ear. The perception of the "inner word" awakens.
      > > Gradually truths reveal themselves to the student from the spiritual
      > > world. He hears speech uttered to him in a spiritual way. Only to
      > those
      > > who, by selfless listening, train themselves to be really receptive
      > from
      > > within, in stillness, unmoved by personal opinion or feeling only to
      > > such can the higher beings speak of whom spiritual science tells. As
      > > long as one hurls any personal opinion or feeling against the speaker
      > to
      > > whom one must listen, the beings of the spiritual world remain
      > silent."
      > > (Rudolf Steiner: Knowledge of the Higher Worlds And Its Attainment,
      > II,
      > > The Stages of Initiation
      > > <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA010/English/AP1947/GA010_c02.html> ,
      > > GA 10)
      > >
      > > This is a very good exercise for you, Ted: Listen to Peter
      > Staudenmaier
      > > very intensely without approval or disapproval on your part, and with
      > > absolutely no comment or retort. If you succeed in doing that, the
      > > spiritual world will open up to you and you'll be initiated.
      > >
      > > Remember also that an anthroposophist is in possession of a very
      > > powerful sting he doesn't use. When the bee stings, it dies, so it
      > only
      > > stings when in mortal danger. Peter Staudenmaier, for all his faults,
      > is
      > > not trying to kill you.
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > >
      > > Tarjei
      > >
      >
    • ted.wrinch
      Diana s last posting hasn t got any nicer, but she adds to it such a level of ignorance and lack of self knowledge that there s little that could be said in
      Message 36 of 36 , Dec 31, 2011
        Diana's last posting hasn't got any nicer, but she adds to it such a level of ignorance and lack of self knowledge that there's little that could be said in reply.

        T.

        Ted Wrinch

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Pete K:
        >
        > ""Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" as said by those incapable of its proper
        > application and as such suffer from it a lot."
        >
        > Pete's not really getting it. Sarcasm is a low form of humour because it intends to raise the worth of its subject at the cost of the worth its target. High humour, good humour, the healing kind, raises the worth of everyone involved. The frequent resort to sarcasm in WC by Der Staudi (it's the only humour he appears to understand), Diana and more recently Pete K is an indication of the low standard of morality in WC (there are other indicators, such as Der Staudi's frequent lack of compassion and common humanity). Tarjei has just pointed out the low the standard of criticism that obtains there in another post.
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > >
        > > It's quite remarkable how the WC uncritically stick together when one of them comes under fire;  after Diana defending Der Staudi, Der Staudi now defends Diana. Where's the independent thought, the vaunted critical spirit in this? But, like Diana, and perhaps for similar reasons, Der Staudi is descending into increasing incoherence. He has little idea of what an ad-hominem argument is - he should look it up sometime: as Tarjei has said, his posts are full of ad-hominem arguments (he should consider that 'abusive ad hominem' arguments are only a *small* part of the category). Anyway, to continue. Der Staudi has misunderstood the import of Diana's recent post as badly as she has; even if one could entirely separate a poster from their posts, for the sake of public discussion, one cannot do so for what Diana said, which is that *all* my posts are 'down the ladder'. If all my posts are intellectually sub-standard that would imply to most people so is my mind. Which is what she actually meant. A conclusion to this might be: as the 'discussion' on WC sinks ever lower in this manner the value and significance of the group descends with it. At one time, many years ago, WC was known even by its critics to be performing a valuable job. Those days seem to be long gone.
        > >
        > > T.
        > >
        > > Ted Wrinch
        > >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Descending to Diana's level for a moment, talk of being 'higher up the intellectual ladder' than others is the kind of thing pedants always believe about the object of their criticism. I'm happy to leave Diana to this kind of superiority.
        > > >
        > > > T.
        > > >
        > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Diana has misunderstood herself over on WC again. My list of her criticisms was taken from one of her posts, where she threw them all together against 'anthroposophists', and particularly against me as the only person mentioned in the post. Claiming that my posts are 'several rungs down the ladder' from Tarjei is equivalent to claiming they are at least that far down the ladder from herself, as she almost certainly considers Tarjei 'down the ladder' from herself. But anyway, what she misses entirely is how (typically) unpleasant she is. Her claim about being 'up the ladder' was in any event little justified by her performance in debate when I was over on WC, when she appeared to understand little and was frequently reduced to insulting me, correcting my spelling and challenging my understanding of words - which latter she invariably lost: remember 'modus vivendi', Diana? As I've said - I really tried to avoid engaging with here when I was there as doing so I found an unpleasant and profitless exercise.
        > > > >
        > > > > T.
        > > > >
        > > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I would be careful: in making this post and apparently agreeing with Diana you've triggered her sense of moral and intellectual superiority and she now feels safe claiming that people that she disagrees with are 'bigoted', 'illiterate' and 'several rungs down the intellectual ladder' from her (how nice). Her ability to understand an argument separately from her opinion about the person posing the argument has never been very strong and I don't think that this is helping her.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > T.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        > > > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I was considering writing to his university to complain about his poor
        > > > > > > scholarship and dishonesty.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Methinks your incessant Staudi-obsession only serves to feed his ego,
        > > > > > > which seems to combine a grandiose, bloated self-image with some deep
        > > > > > > insecurity and sense of inferiority. By focusing so much on this
        > > > > > > individual and investing so much energy in pursuing this particular
        > > > > > > "interest", you also give him a lot of power over you, in a sense. He's
        > > > > > > got a huge place in your soul, a big armchair. You seem to be
        > > > > > > knee-jerking to the tune of his every whistle.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > That much said, the very notion of writing to his university about his
        > > > > > > poor scholarship and dishonesty and whatever, is a very bad idea in my
        > > > > > > humble opinion. It reminds me of Alan Dershowitz a few years back, when
        > > > > > > he intervened in the internal affairs of St. Paul University and
        > > > > > > succeeded in having them deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein. In addition,
        > > > > > > Dershowitz has been spreading all kinds of lies about Noam Chomsky.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > If you infer any characteristic similarities between Dershowitz and
        > > > > > > Staudenmaier from the above descriptions of the former, you should also
        > > > > > > infer that the kind of action you're contemplating with regard to PS'
        > > > > > > university is a Dershowitz-type course of action. (Dershowitz is an
        > > > > > > arch-Zionist btw, who hates Finkelstein and Chomsky for winning every
        > > > > > > debate against him, and he hates Jimmy Carter too for his alleged
        > > > > > > anti-Semitism after writing the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".
        > > > > > > Because Finkelstein and Chomsky are both Jewish, they are accused of
        > > > > > > "self-hatred" in lieu of "anti-Semitism". I'm convinced that
        > > > > > > Staudenmaier can sort those things out, because he is a master juggler
        > > > > > > when it comes to cramming as many anti-Semites (and self-haters
        > > > > > > me-guesseth) as possible into a Volkswagen beetle and then adding a long
        > > > > > > bibliography with footnotes and references that only esoteric retards
        > > > > > > don't bother to read because they hate books and history and learning.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Besides, universities are for everybody, not just the honest ones who do
        > > > > > > good scholarship. PS has the democratic right to do practice any
        > > > > > > scholarship he wants. The dishonesty is up to readers and listeners to
        > > > > > > discover. Expressing a personal opinion about the matter serves no
        > > > > > > purpose whatsoever, except to bloat his ego even further, making him
        > > > > > > feel important because of your attention.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >As a teaching institution, I feel that they ought to know that he's
        > > > > > > potentially a corrupter of the young.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Wow, now you're giving the dude the status of a Socrates. You've got to
        > > > > > > be a fan of "der Staudi", Ted! But I've noticed that PS and his fellow
        > > > > > > Sugar Cherubs have picked up on this statement of yours, and the way
        > > > > > > they change, edit, twist it is interesting. All of a sudden, it's the
        > > > > > > universities, not PS, that corrupt the young, because Peter Staudenmaier
        > > > > > > = all universities and academic studies (i.e. if you're not interested
        > > > > > > in his rants, you're opposed to academic learning and scholarship). It's
        > > > > > > somewhat reminiscent of political dictators who identify with their
        > > > > > > nations and peoples as a whole. Anyway, Peter S identifies with
        > > > > > > academia. He is scholarship, pure and simple.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >However, it's not clear that Steiner is particular part of his class
        > > > > > > portfolio.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I don't know what you mean, but from the looks of it, the Sugar Cherubs
        > > > > > > have concluded that Steiner thought the universities were corrupters of
        > > > > > > the young. I don't recall him saying that, but it's an intriguing topic,
        > > > > > > especially when we consider how the military industrial complex has been
        > > > > > > hijacking the best talents from the universities for a very long time.
        > > > > > > Not historians in particular (Sorry, PS), but physicists, chemists,
        > > > > > > psychiatrists, and even esotericists like yogis and the like. The CIA
        > > > > > > discovered that people who mastered certain Oriental disciplines were
        > > > > > > capable of standing perfectly still in a given position for hours and
        > > > > > > hours, and the CIA immediately sought to recruit such people and use
        > > > > > > them as snipers and assassins and such. The very hijacking, abuse and
        > > > > > > corruption of young talents from the universities by the war industry
        > > > > > > seems to have been a contributing factor in the worldwide student
        > > > > > > protests in the 1960's.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Universities should be independent and free from outside interference,
        > > > > > > whether such outside disturbance and disruption comes from the CIA, the
        > > > > > > Pentagon, Alan Dershowitz, or yourself.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Just my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Tarjei
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.