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

Re: Love of Truth (was: 'Skepticism', or a Clash of Worldviews)

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    A good example of the love of the lie in Staudi case is his ongoing claim that Steiner s conception and understanding of the East was orientalist . This
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      A good example of the love of the lie in Staudi case is his ongoing claim that Steiner's conception and understanding of the East was 'orientalist'. This expression 'orientalism' in Steiner's day, and still in some parts of the academy today, simply meant an honest interest in the Orient. Post Edward Said's famous book of the same name in the late 70s, it acquired a new meaning of the distortion of the true reality of the Orient by narrower Western perspectives, such as that given through colonialism. This negative meaning is the one Staudi has in mind when he characterises Steiner's thought by this term. As I showed before Christmas, this is a lie. I showed then that Steiner's conception of the orient, for example of the culture of Hindu India and Buddhism, matches their own understanding, as given by their sacred literature, legends and festivals.

      In fact, it is Staudi that has the 'orientalist' perspective on the East for the reason Steiner points to in this lecture:

      "I have frequently emphasised and must here emphasise again that the life of Buddha is to be understood as the Buddhists understand it and not as it is interpreted by materialistic historians. We must first come ourselves to the recognition that Buddha became Buddha by passing through a great many incarnations; that he became first a Bodhisattva. And then having been born as the son of King Suddhodana, ascended in the 29th year of his life to the dignity of a Buddha. We must know that the ascension of the Bodhisattva to the stage of Buddha means in actual fact that such an individual has his very last incarnation on Earth in the life he lives as Buddha. When he has become a Buddha, he never returns again into an earthly body, but works in other than earthly worlds. This must be quite clear to us from the beginning. We must know for an absolute fact that the Buddha by his exaltation from Bodhisattva to Buddha rose to a cosmic dignity and does not require in the course of his further evolution ever to descend again into a physical earthly human being."

      Man in the Light of Occultism, Theosophy and Philosophy, lecture 9

      It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha as the Buddhists do, for instance by taking account of the meaning and distinction between a Bodhisattva and a Buddha seriously: to understand the concept of a Bodhisattva requires that once take the concept of reincarnation seriously. Staudi, and his cohort on WC, have spent the best part of a decade scoffing at reincarnation. He, by his example, denigrates the underpinnings of the Buddhist world-view and, with that, the world-view itself. And he does this because his Westernising, 'Orientalist' world-view is that of positivism, scepticism, and scientism, that don't take the spiritual seriously.

      This ongoing love of the lie, that Staudi has demonstrated in so many facets of his work now, is why his body of work as a whole is unimportant, and why no 'Steiner defenders', or anyone else that takes the spiritual seriously, listens to him.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > Looking through the archives, per chance, I came across Tarjei's posting on 'Love and its Meaning in the World'. This is, in my opinion, one of the core lectures in anthroposophy, one I read soon after coming across Steiner's thought for the first time in my mid-20s. I particularly noticed this passage again, which seems so pregnant with significance for our times:
      >
      > "Wisdom steeped in love, which at once furthers the world and leads the world to Christ — this love of wisdom also excludes the lie. For the lie is the direct opposite of the actual facts and those who yield themselves lovingly to the facts are incapable of lying. The lie has its roots in egoism — always and without exception. When, through love, we have found the path to wisdom, we reach wisdom through the increasing power of self-conquest, through selfless love. Thus does man become a free personality. The evil was the sub-soil into which the light of love was able to shine; but it is love that enables us to grasp the meaning and place of evil in the world. The darkness has enabled the light to come into our ken. Only a man who is free in the real sense can become a true Christian."
      >
      > Love of wisdom (truth) is the path to truth! And love of wisdom above our own ideas of wisdom: all of us have ideas about the truth but they are often only our own partial view of the situation, influenced by our personality, upbringing, predilections and etc. Loving the truth above our idea of it allows us bit by bit to let go of such partialities. This is to accept that at the deepest levels we all suffer from Socratic ignorance and recognising this is to begin to learn. To have a love of the truth and a life dedicated to actively knowing the truth is to be a member of the intelligensia.
      >
      > What I've noticed about the WC is that no one there loves the truth. Some of them have a view of parts of the truth, that accords with their political ideals and philosophical pre-conceptions, but they are not interested in expanding that view to encompass the ever-widening, open-ended perspective that such a love reveals. So, as an example, someone like Diana apparently has a self-conception of being a literate, intelligent member of the intelligentsia (she describes herself as being, unlike the people here she denigrates, not being 'anti-intellectual'). But her philosophical perspective is, from her behaviour on WC, that of positivism and scientism, that de-values the inner life (for example, in the way she's happy to characterise the whole of the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages') and a priori dismisses the spiritual as being no more than 'people's beliefs'. She loves her conception of the truth (the egotism that Steiner refers to), that she finds comfortable and unchallenging, rather than truth itself. Hence her self-conception does not match reality and she is far from being either against 'anti-intellectualism' or a member of the intelligentsia.
      >
      > And to the extent that she proclaims her partial truth as one that is sufficiently comprehensive that it excludes, for instance, anthroposophy, she is following the love of the lie. In a recent exchange, she claimed that no one here had tried to or was interested in answering Peter Staudenmaier's arguments and that PS was 'respectful' of Steiner's ideas. These claims are both very obvious lies; no one could claim such obvious lies as truth except someone interested in their own idea of truth above truth itself. And because such a person loves their idea of truth more than truth, and so defends the distorted facts it supports, they end up loving those facts. They end up loving the lie and its expression in the world. Love of the lie, as we've seen over the years on WC, and in spades in the current 'war of world-views' being prosecuted, leads to *hatred* of the truth (as something that, subconsciously, challenges the narrower truth). As this group, as people that find value in Steiner's ideas, espouse a wider conception of truth, one beyond positivism and scientism for instance, than WC, this hatred has evidently flowed out into hatred of us, and is why Diana and co (and Staudi, in his more indirect, subtle mode) are unable to refrain from insulting us. Love or hate, that's the choice. But as to love is to let live, Tarjei's bumper sticker seems correct, and it's only an action of self-reform that could change the WC members' relationship to truth - though outsiders can and should point to the way-markers that they have found that can be a guide - and convert it to a relationship that values dispassionate love of truth above one's own partial view of it.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > I was feeling a bit glum after posting the 'war of the world-views' as
      > > I don't like war and reading the confrontation on those sites feels like
      > > I've been in one.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Tarjei
      > >
      >
    • ted.wrinch
      Well, this is what happens when you don t re-read through carefully enough, and aren t feeling well :(. It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha…
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, this is what happens when you don't re-read through carefully enough, and aren't feeling well :(.

        "It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha…"

        Obviously, I hope, I had the protagonists a bit reversed. But you get the idea…

        T.

        Ted Wrinch

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > A good example of the love of the lie in Staudi case is his ongoing claim that Steiner's conception and understanding of the East was 'orientalist'. This expression 'orientalism' in Steiner's day, and still in some parts of the academy today, simply meant an honest interest in the Orient. Post Edward Said's famous book of the same name in the late 70s, it acquired a new meaning of the distortion of the true reality of the Orient by narrower Western perspectives, such as that given through colonialism. This negative meaning is the one Staudi has in mind when he characterises Steiner's thought by this term. As I showed before Christmas, this is a lie. I showed then that Steiner's conception of the orient, for example of the culture of Hindu India and Buddhism, matches their own understanding, as given by their sacred literature, legends and festivals.
        >
        > In fact, it is Staudi that has the 'orientalist' perspective on the East for the reason Steiner points to in this lecture:
        >
        > "I have frequently emphasised and must here emphasise again that the life of Buddha is to be understood as the Buddhists understand it and not as it is interpreted by materialistic historians. We must first come ourselves to the recognition that Buddha became Buddha by passing through a great many incarnations; that he became first a Bodhisattva. And then having been born as the son of King Suddhodana, ascended in the 29th year of his life to the dignity of a Buddha. We must know that the ascension of the Bodhisattva to the stage of Buddha means in actual fact that such an individual has his very last incarnation on Earth in the life he lives as Buddha. When he has become a Buddha, he never returns again into an earthly body, but works in other than earthly worlds. This must be quite clear to us from the beginning. We must know for an absolute fact that the Buddha by his exaltation from Bodhisattva to Buddha rose to a cosmic dignity and does not require in the course of his further evolution ever to descend again into a physical earthly human being."
        >
        > Man in the Light of Occultism, Theosophy and Philosophy, lecture 9
        >
        > It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha as the Buddhists do, for instance by taking account of the meaning and distinction between a Bodhisattva and a Buddha seriously: to understand the concept of a Bodhisattva requires that once take the concept of reincarnation seriously. Staudi, and his cohort on WC, have spent the best part of a decade scoffing at reincarnation. He, by his example, denigrates the underpinnings of the Buddhist world-view and, with that, the world-view itself. And he does this because his Westernising, 'Orientalist' world-view is that of positivism, scepticism, and scientism, that don't take the spiritual seriously.
        >
        > This ongoing love of the lie, that Staudi has demonstrated in so many facets of his work now, is why his body of work as a whole is unimportant, and why no 'Steiner defenders', or anyone else that takes the spiritual seriously, listens to him.
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Looking through the archives, per chance, I came across Tarjei's posting on 'Love and its Meaning in the World'. This is, in my opinion, one of the core lectures in anthroposophy, one I read soon after coming across Steiner's thought for the first time in my mid-20s. I particularly noticed this passage again, which seems so pregnant with significance for our times:
        > >
        > > "Wisdom steeped in love, which at once furthers the world and leads the world to Christ — this love of wisdom also excludes the lie. For the lie is the direct opposite of the actual facts and those who yield themselves lovingly to the facts are incapable of lying. The lie has its roots in egoism — always and without exception. When, through love, we have found the path to wisdom, we reach wisdom through the increasing power of self-conquest, through selfless love. Thus does man become a free personality. The evil was the sub-soil into which the light of love was able to shine; but it is love that enables us to grasp the meaning and place of evil in the world. The darkness has enabled the light to come into our ken. Only a man who is free in the real sense can become a true Christian."
        > >
        > > Love of wisdom (truth) is the path to truth! And love of wisdom above our own ideas of wisdom: all of us have ideas about the truth but they are often only our own partial view of the situation, influenced by our personality, upbringing, predilections and etc. Loving the truth above our idea of it allows us bit by bit to let go of such partialities. This is to accept that at the deepest levels we all suffer from Socratic ignorance and recognising this is to begin to learn. To have a love of the truth and a life dedicated to actively knowing the truth is to be a member of the intelligensia.
        > >
        > > What I've noticed about the WC is that no one there loves the truth. Some of them have a view of parts of the truth, that accords with their political ideals and philosophical pre-conceptions, but they are not interested in expanding that view to encompass the ever-widening, open-ended perspective that such a love reveals. So, as an example, someone like Diana apparently has a self-conception of being a literate, intelligent member of the intelligentsia (she describes herself as being, unlike the people here she denigrates, not being 'anti-intellectual'). But her philosophical perspective is, from her behaviour on WC, that of positivism and scientism, that de-values the inner life (for example, in the way she's happy to characterise the whole of the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages') and a priori dismisses the spiritual as being no more than 'people's beliefs'. She loves her conception of the truth (the egotism that Steiner refers to), that she finds comfortable and unchallenging, rather than truth itself. Hence her self-conception does not match reality and she is far from being either against 'anti-intellectualism' or a member of the intelligentsia.
        > >
        > > And to the extent that she proclaims her partial truth as one that is sufficiently comprehensive that it excludes, for instance, anthroposophy, she is following the love of the lie. In a recent exchange, she claimed that no one here had tried to or was interested in answering Peter Staudenmaier's arguments and that PS was 'respectful' of Steiner's ideas. These claims are both very obvious lies; no one could claim such obvious lies as truth except someone interested in their own idea of truth above truth itself. And because such a person loves their idea of truth more than truth, and so defends the distorted facts it supports, they end up loving those facts. They end up loving the lie and its expression in the world. Love of the lie, as we've seen over the years on WC, and in spades in the current 'war of world-views' being prosecuted, leads to *hatred* of the truth (as something that, subconsciously, challenges the narrower truth). As this group, as people that find value in Steiner's ideas, espouse a wider conception of truth, one beyond positivism and scientism for instance, than WC, this hatred has evidently flowed out into hatred of us, and is why Diana and co (and Staudi, in his more indirect, subtle mode) are unable to refrain from insulting us. Love or hate, that's the choice. But as to love is to let live, Tarjei's bumper sticker seems correct, and it's only an action of self-reform that could change the WC members' relationship to truth - though outsiders can and should point to the way-markers that they have found that can be a guide - and convert it to a relationship that values dispassionate love of truth above one's own partial view of it.
        > >
        > > T.
        > >
        > > Ted Wrinch
        > >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > I was feeling a bit glum after posting the 'war of the world-views' as
        > > > I don't like war and reading the confrontation on those sites feels like
        > > > I've been in one.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Tarjei
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • elfuncle
        ... enough, and aren t feeling well :(. ... Methinks you got it right the first time, Ted. Buddhists, or latter day Buddha admirers, are ignorant of history
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
          >
          > Well, this is what happens when you don't re-read through carefully enough, and aren't feeling well :(.
          >
          > "It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha…"


          Methinks you got it right the first time, Ted. Buddhists, or latter day Buddha admirers, are ignorant of history and learning, and they don't understand their own movement. Buddha was a charlatan full of guru tricks; he sat under the Bodhi tree and made some wacky things up, calling it Enlightenment. He borrowed heavily from the Vedas, and his followers have a credulous and naive relationship to his claims. Krishna, of course, just like Jesus Christ, never wrote an autobiography in his senior years probably because he couldn't remember anything. (Only scholars like PS can refresh such memories.) I'm positive that Der Staudi can recommend some academic atheist Sanskrit scholars who can debunk not only Buddhism but also Hinduism. Many Buddhists have only learned about this philosophy through translations. The late George Harrison, for instance, was completely ignorant of the history of his own movement.

          Rudolf Steiner read Sanskrit, of course, in addition to Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic: The classical languages indispensable to serious historians. He didn't learn any contemporary languages (other than his native German), but Marie von Sivers made up for that with her command of five or six European languages (plus her thorough knowledge of the arts).

          Anyway if PS should target Buddhists and Hindus, or latter day Buddha and Krishna admirers, he would have to compete with the Doctor himself as well as Sanskrit scholars, many of whom are Buddhists, Hindus, Theosophists and Anthroposophists themselves, and some of these may even be esotericists, and they're the worst of the lot because they understand weird and wacky things like different stages of consciousness. The Sugar Cherubs are so frustrated by not comprehending the topic of consciousness -- or epistemology for that matter -- that they choose to write it all off as "racial thinking," because this sounds to them sufficiently derogatory and inflammatory to warrant repeated Hate-athons. We run Lovathons and they answer with Hate-athons.

          It's all quiet on the Sugar Front these days, which usually indicates they're up to something (if they're not only licking their wounds because of all the love we've sent them or sinking into sheer boredom).
          Or maybe it's like WWI with nine years instead of four. The stench of the trenches, the rats, lice, rotting bodies in shallow graves, poison gas, stagnant mud, etc.

          "Rats were a constant companion in the trenches in their millions they were everywhere, gorging themselves on human remains (grotesquely disfiguring them by eating their eyes and liver) they could grow to the size of a cat.

          "Men tried to kill them with bullets shovels or anything else they had at hand, but they were fighting a losing battle as only 1 pair of rats can produce 900 offspring in a year."

          Over in Sugarland, those rats are not only rabid as well, but also possessed by Asuras: The notorious Asuric rats!

          Remember also that some historians are talking about a thirty years' war of the 20th century (1914-1945), which means that not truce or armistice makes any sense, but only total victory. We've already established that the Sugar Cherubs are Nazis and that they only need to be deprogrammed and re-educated, like the Germans were after 1945. But first you've got to knock out their Luftwaffe and blow up their subs, and for that purpose you'll need those 400 AT subscribers. Awaken them like they evoked the nature spirits in The Lord of the Rings; arm them and train them. Once motivated and engaged, all your spies, double agents, cybertrolls etc. will report for duty. Watch out for those Adorable Darlings and similar loose cannons; keep some of them chained up in the AT Basement; that's Mike Helsher's department and specialty, but he's like me and weary after the first nine years, ready to retire, just like many WWI vets retired before WWII. This may be WWIII and may indeed turn out to be a hundred years' war.

          The torch is being passed, Brother Ted, from the weary soldiers and field officers to you. the choice is yours; you can drop the torch and say like Jesus, let this cup pass from me, or you can run with it, through the battles of the future. Think Star Trek. The Sugar Cherubs are the Klingons and the Romulans. Watch out for their cloaking device and their deceptive peace offerings. Use your double agents and your trolls. Organize surprising and devastating Tet offensives. Use plenty of fairy tales, myths, music, poetry, anthrobabble, comedy, mantras, and chants. Recruit plenty of gnomes.

          Tarjei
        • ted.wrinch
          You re standing on a double blooded battlefield full of dead subscriptions; it s all quiet in Sugarland because the Cherubs may be up to something, like
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            You're standing on a double blooded battlefield full of dead subscriptions; it's all quiet in Sugarland because the Cherubs may be up to something, like storming foreign forums as they often do, or they may be knocked completely out by you. You'll have an army all to yourself, 400 strong, to march against the Cherubs; all you have to sound the trumpet and wake them up, inspire them. Like Alex the Great.

            Knocked out by me of course: the strafing of months of acute analysis of their petty, ad-homimen laced arguments has snuffed out the will to resist. Staudi is staggering against the ropes in his ISE ring, knocked into semi-unconsciousness by truth and honesty. 400! An army of the dead, like from LOTR, as you say: very tempting, but the time for Macht is passed; we're the tenth hierarchy in becoming and channel love and freedom now. I think Tolkein had spent too long amongst the mustard gas and rotting bodes of WW1.

            "Frank will wreck his ship, he's done it before, and this time he's jinxed it completely by naming it after Darth Vader."

            Yes, I've heard that it doesn't seem to go very far out to sea before trouble hits. Getting Mellett involved can't be a good idea. He's back, BTW, in the kiosk - which turned out to be just an annex of the WC in the end - with a name from some HP Lovecraft horror story (which is perhaps an attractive choice for the kiosk clientele).

            "I'm positive that Der Staudi can recommend some academic atheist Sanskrit scholars who can debunk not only Buddhism but also Hinduism."

            Indubitably: academics like Staudi read everything, debate everything, know everything. The Buddhists just spend lifetimes sitting and concentrating and reading the scriptures and don't really know anything about their traditions. It's a ridiculous concept to think that people working within a tradition would understand anything about it; it's similar to expecting a fish to know anything about water. In reality, only trained scholars, that can take an objective viewpoint on the subject and see it as an 'object of study' can truly understand what it means to reach nirvana and transcend the cycle of being. The others are just self-deluded cultists that have spent thousands of years in self denial.

            "But first you've got to knock out their Luftwaffe and blow up their subs, and for that purpose you'll need those 400 AT subscribers. Awaken them like they evoked the nature spirits in The Lord of the Rings; arm them and train them."

            Luftwaffe grounded; subs sunk (see Bambi section later). Well, it was the army of the dead in the book, but perhaps this is the better image.

            "Watch out for those Adorable Darlings and similar loose cannons; keep some of them chained up in the AT Basement; that's Mike Helsher's department and specialty, but he's like me and weary after the first nine years, ready to retire, just like many WWI vets retired before WWII. This may be WWIII and may indeed turn out to be a hundred years' war."

            Nine years, huh - that's heroism, with medals dues all round! Steiner said that WW1 was 10 times more devastating than the 30 years war; by the middle of WW1 they'd already had the equivalent of 20 years of previous warfare experience under their belts. But we are now into cyberwars, and psychic feints and operation mindfuck (Illuminatus Trilogy, Robert Anton Wilson) so maybe were nearing the hundred years phase already.

            ""Rats were a constant companion in the trenches in their millions they were everywhere, gorging themselves on human remains (grotesquely disfiguring them by eating their eyes and liver) they could grow to the size of a cat."

            Yes, anthro remains, the Karaiskos war to the end, till one side wins unequivocally and the other dies and sinks onto the mud, to be food for rats.

            "The torch is being passed, Brother Ted, from the weary soldiers and field officers to you. the choice is yours; you can drop the torch and say like Jesus, let this cup pass from me, or you can run with it, through the battles of the future."

            Oh God, don't put me on the spot or anything! Maybe the torch doesn't need passing - I reckon that insulting the great pagan god Bambi is such an offence to the spiritual world that my demonstration of Staudi doing this will call down karmic fire from the spiritual worlds and wreak havoc by itself on his decade long anthro guerrilla warfare. Maybe his time is already numbered….

            As for the others - Hong Kong Phooey: they aren't in the frame: homicidal maniac Karaiskos or derranged Winters: who would take them seriously?

            "Organize surprising and devastating Tet offensives."

            Maybe I've done that already? I've only ever really been targeting Staudi (my raison d'être for joining this group in a previous post was a little to widely drawn). And his reserve of credibility I'd say is on empty, with little left for him to lock and load with. More of a damp squib than WW3?

            T.

            Ted Wrinch

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
            > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Well, this is what happens when you don't re-read through carefully
            > enough, and aren't feeling well :(.
            > >
            > > "It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha…"
            >
            > Methinks you got it right the first time, Ted. Buddhists, or latter day
            > Buddha admirers, are ignorant of history and learning, and they don't
            > understand their own movement. Buddha was a charlatan full of guru
            > tricks; he sat under the Bodhi tree and made some wacky things up,
            > calling it Enlightenment. He borrowed heavily from the Vedas, and his
            > followers have a credulous and naive relationship to his claims.
            > Krishna, of course, just like Jesus Christ, never wrote an autobiography
            > in his senior years probably because he couldn't remember anything.
            > (Only scholars like PS can refresh such memories.) I'm positive that Der
            > Staudi can recommend some academic atheist Sanskrit scholars who can
            > debunk not only Buddhism but also Hinduism. Many Buddhists have only
            > learned about this philosophy through translations. The late George
            > Harrison, for instance, was completely ignorant of the history of his
            > own movement.
            >
            > Rudolf Steiner read Sanskrit, of course, in addition to Hebrew, Latin,
            > Greek and Aramaic: The classical languages indispensable to serious
            > historians. He didn't learn any contemporary languages (other than his
            > native German), but Marie von Sivers made up for that with her command
            > of five or six European languages (plus her thorough knowledge of the
            > arts).
            >
            > Anyway if PS should target Buddhists and Hindus, or latter day Buddha
            > and Krishna admirers, he would have to compete with the Doctor himself
            > as well as Sanskrit scholars, many of whom are Buddhists, Hindus,
            > Theosophists and Anthroposophists themselves, and some of these may even
            > be esotericists, and they're the worst of the lot because they
            > understand weird and wacky things like different stages of
            > consciousness. The Sugar Cherubs are so frustrated by not comprehending
            > the topic of consciousness -- or epistemology for that matter -- that
            > they choose to write it all off as "racial thinking," because this
            > sounds to them sufficiently derogatory and inflammatory to warrant
            > repeated Hate-athons. We run Lovathons and they answer with Hate-athons.
            >
            > It's all quiet on the Sugar Front these days, which usually indicates
            > they're up to something (if they're not only licking their wounds
            > because of all the love we've sent them or sinking into sheer boredom).
            > Or maybe it's like WWI with nine years instead of four. The stench of
            > the trenches, the rats, lice, rotting bodies in shallow graves, poison
            > gas, stagnant mud, etc.
            >
            > "Rats were a constant companion in the trenches in their millions they
            > were everywhere, gorging themselves on human remains (grotesquely
            > disfiguring them by eating their eyes and liver) they could grow to the
            > size of a cat.
            >
            > "Men tried to kill them with bullets shovels or anything else they had
            > at hand, but they were fighting a losing battle as only 1 pair of rats
            > can produce 900 offspring in a year."
            >
            > Over in Sugarland, those rats are not only rabid as well, but also
            > possessed by Asuras: The notorious Asuric rats!
            >
            > Remember also that some historians are talking about a thirty years' war
            > of the 20th century (1914-1945), which means that not truce or armistice
            > makes any sense, but only total victory. We've already established that
            > the Sugar Cherubs are Nazis and that they only need to be deprogrammed
            > and re-educated, like the Germans were after 1945. But first you've got
            > to knock out their Luftwaffe and blow up their subs, and for that
            > purpose you'll need those 400 AT subscribers. Awaken them like they
            > evoked the nature spirits in The Lord of the Rings; arm them and train
            > them. Once motivated and engaged, all your spies, double agents,
            > cybertrolls etc. will report for duty. Watch out for those Adorable
            > Darlings and similar loose cannons; keep some of them chained up in the
            > AT Basement; that's Mike Helsher's department and specialty, but he's
            > like me and weary after the first nine years, ready to retire, just like
            > many WWI vets retired before WWII. This may be WWIII and may indeed turn
            > out to be a hundred years' war.
            >
            > The torch is being passed, Brother Ted, from the weary soldiers and
            > field officers to you. the choice is yours; you can drop the torch and
            > say like Jesus, let this cup pass from me, or you can run with it,
            > through the battles of the future. Think Star Trek. The Sugar Cherubs
            > are the Klingons and the Romulans. Watch out for their cloaking device
            > and their deceptive peace offerings. Use your double agents and your
            > trolls. Organize surprising and devastating Tet offensives. Use plenty
            > of fairy tales, myths, music, poetry, anthrobabble, comedy, mantras, and
            > chants. Recruit plenty of gnomes.
            >
            > Tarjei
            >
          • elfuncle
            ... What you did was a Ted offensive, and you should keep that up and combine it with Asian guerilla tactics with underground tunnels and all that. Use the
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:

              > "Organize surprising and devastating Tet offensives."
              >
              > Maybe I've done that already?


              What you did was a Ted offensive, and you should keep that up and combine it with Asian guerilla tactics with underground tunnels and all that. Use the Waldorf basements, recruit the zombies entombed there, move in and out of the shadows, and hit them suddenly and hard. The Tet Offensive, launched on January 30, 1968, was the turning point in the Vietnam War. A bunch of poor, barefoot peasants beat the biggest and best equipped war machine the world had ever seen. LBJ and Tricky Dick were gonna bomb them back to the stone-age; LBJ called it "a little piss-ant country," and yet they beat the mighty Pentagon and CIA combined with all their murderous arsenal and military superiority. In other words, a Ted-Tet-Offensive would be invincible.

              Tarjei
            • ted.wrinch
              I think that, 100 years into the Michael age and at the beginning of the Second Coming, we re past all that. Best to just leave them in the etheric dust… T.
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I think that, 100 years into the Michael age and at the beginning of the Second Coming, we're past all that. Best to just leave them in the etheric dust…

                T.

                Ted Wrinch

                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                >
                > > "Organize surprising and devastating Tet offensives."
                > >
                > > Maybe I've done that already?
                >
                > What you did was a Ted offensive, and you should keep that up and
                > combine it with Asian guerilla tactics with underground tunnels and all
                > that. Use the Waldorf basements, recruit the zombies entombed there,
                > move in and out of the shadows, and hit them suddenly and hard. The Tet
                > Offensive, launched on January 30, 1968, was the turning point in the
                > Vietnam War. A bunch of poor, barefoot peasants beat the biggest and
                > best equipped war machine the world had ever seen. LBJ and Tricky Dick
                > were gonna bomb them back to the stone-age; LBJ called it "a little
                > piss-ant country," and yet they beat the mighty Pentagon and CIA
                > combined with all their murderous arsenal and military superiority. In
                > other words, a Ted-Tet-Offensive would be invincible.
                >
                > Tarjei
                >
              • elfuncle
                And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 7, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ( -- matthew 16:19)

                  The translation -- or, if you like, as A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1896 – 14 1977), the Hare Krishna guru of the sixties, used to put it when editing the Baghavad Gita, namely the PURPORT -- the above would read like this:

                  "And I will give unto thee the keys of Anthroposophy Tomorrow: and whatsoever thou shalt moderate on the AT shall be bound in in the anthro-cyberworld: and whosoever thou shalt nuke from the AT shall be sent into Sugarland." ( -- The Book of Taz, Volume XVI, Chapter 88, verse 201b)

                  Incidentally, I just doublechecked: You are an OWNER of this group and have been so for some time, which means that you have complete control over all features and settings of the group and can also delete (nuke) the group with the Doomsday Button.

                  Tarjei


                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I think that, 100 years into the Michael age and at the beginning of the Second Coming, we're past all that. Best to just leave them in the etheric dust…
                  >
                  > T.
                  >
                  > Ted Wrinch

                • elfuncle
                  ... and ... And most importantly, my advice is to stick with the Lovathon strategy we ve been working on for a while now. Let Love and Sunshine be thine
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 7, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:

                    > The torch is being passed, Brother Ted, from the weary soldiers and
                    > field officers to you. the choice is yours; you can drop the torch and
                    > say like Jesus, let this cup pass from me, or you can run with it,
                    > through the battles of the future. Think Star Trek. The Sugar Cherubs
                    > are the Klingons and the Romulans. Watch out for their cloaking device
                    > and their deceptive peace offerings. Use your double agents and your
                    > trolls. Organize surprising and devastating Tet offensives. Use plenty
                    > of fairy tales, myths, music, poetry, anthrobabble, comedy, mantras, and
                    > chants. Recruit plenty of gnomes.


                    And most importantly, my advice is to stick with the Lovathon strategy we've been working on for a while now. Let Love and Sunshine be thine armour.

                    "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" ( -- Ephesians 6:10-18)

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