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

Tarjei and mindgames

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    Tarjei: Yes. What puzzles me is that your apparent extensive study of Steiner s works through a number of years has kept you spellbound on one topic only that
    Message 1 of 48 , Jul 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Tarjei:
      Yes. What puzzles me is that your apparent extensive study of
      Steiner's works through a number of years has kept you spellbound on
      one topic only that you abuse in order to misrepresent Anthroposophy
      and its founder. I am not less puzzled when you subscribe to an
      anthroposophical email list where all kinds of anthroposophically
      related topics are discussed, only to insist upon this obsession of
      yours that is not even a part of Anthroposophy.

      Bradford comments;

      Smear, character assassination, and the wonderful song by Neil Young
      where he Young talks about the 'Needle and the damage done and every
      junkie like a setting sun' had to do with esoteric understanding of
      moral complicity. Addiction to denial and addiction to lies and half-
      truths for buying momentary INDULGENCES against the soul's defense
      are the unformed pockets of excuses and unresolved denials in the
      soul. Now stabalizing the point of view where your ethical compass
      can see through your own lies, has brought Michael Moore and
      Fahrenheit 9/11 into the cross hairs. Is Michael Moore merely using
      the same character assassination on Bush as P.S. has been using on
      Steiner and Anthroposophy? Are both values the same?

      Many Anthros, unlike Tarjei who has an opinion, love to sit on some
      fence and say this is like this and everything is equal. I for one
      have to admire Tarjei when he accused P.S. of the kind of character
      assassination and guilt by association that the entire Dan Dugan
      mission stems from. Steiner defended our rights to be Anthros and to
      think into the future of Spiritual Science and measure, beyond
      denials, the height of a being like Christ that humanity is on the
      road to become. Steiner defended our rights to think past dogmatism,
      fundamentalism and mass denial.

      In sloppy esoteric development, amongst many Anthros, such fierce
      defense and strong opinion unsettles the stomach of Anthros. They
      like the idea that we can't really understand things and opinion and
      hatreds or passions upset esoteric clarity. How can anyone have
      esoteric clarity if they have passion about something?

      We had for years in the exoteric world attacks by Right Wingers. It
      crept up into Liberal of all stripes and general mockery and
      permitted mockery of anyone who takes homeopathy or bio-dymanics or
      Waldorf Education seriously. Certain opinions began to pollute the
      waters where real research into history and humanity meet the sewage
      line of talk show hosts. The left always has this wide live and let
      live attitude. Until recently. But I wish to offer you the level of
      insight as to first, coming to terms with discernment over bullshit
      and secondly the results of lies. The results of lies, if Steiner
      was a liar obviously that makes me a delusional idiot. That goes
      without saying, of course.

      So that leaves just basic floating opinions and bickering and free
      speech, free to believe or speak about a person anyway that makes
      sense in your opinion. Discerning, high nose bleed, Logos navigation
      on the trail of Truth and sincerity is really a lost art. Now is the
      time of moral relativism and blinders.

      Yet, let us compare, just for Goethean observation, the Goethean
      observation of what happens when you later change your opinion...
      Not just after death when you see the facts of the afterlife...but
      when moral complicity and lies fail to inspire your own sincere
      quest for truth after hating the very ideas where truth might be
      located. We can actually study this in a Goethean Manner. Here is
      one example and I'm sure others can supply other examples. What do
      we defend? Why would we defend it? How do we evaluate character and
      moral strength and how do we evaluate moral weakness supported by
      false insights?

      And in it all is the 'Theory of Angels' and the task of inner
      development.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/history-unthwarted.html

      "If we aren't attentive, Bill Buckley's antiwar pronouncement,
      issued in an interview with the New York Times, could be relegated
      to a minor footnote in this week's news pages, whereas it really
      speaks volumes about the history of the last 50 years and the fall
      of American freedom in the push for perpetual war.

      What he said, in his famously circuitous way, was this: "With the
      benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-
      territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year
      ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we
      would be in, I would have opposed the war."

      Thus does he implicitly concede that the antiwar forces were right,
      and the warmongers were wrong, and thus does he implicitly repudiate
      everything his magazine and website have ever written about this
      subject, and thus does he add his name to the roster of people who
      reject the main project of the Bush administration and the main
      cause of the world's woe.

      Perhaps if the interviewer had hung around a bit longer, Buckley
      would have repudiated the sanctions of the 1990s that helped inspire
      the events of 9/11, and perhaps even the original Gulf War that
      started this whole mess and hurled US-Islamic relations onto this
      destructive path. Why not? It's as easy as waving a hand.

      The games played by a public intellectual are a marvel of moral
      irresponsibility. He casually suggests that a war would be a grand
      idea. The result is that 10,000 die and life is ruined for the
      living. Civilization is replaced by shifting stenches of death,
      disease, and filth. Millions swear retribution.

      Ah, but then the intellectual changes his mind! War wasn't all it
      was cracked up to be, or so he tells a reporter for a newspaper,
      before clicking off his cell and ordering up a nice lunch.

      But he can't bring back the dead. Neither American mothers and
      fathers, nor Iraqi children and widows, are comforted by his change
      of mind. He can't drain the streets of the sewage that flows freely
      where children play amidst the wreckage. He can't bring electricity
      back to schools and hospitals and homes and businesses, or will away
      the blazing sun that bakes homes at night when people are trying to
      sleep to escape the nightmare of the day, but they cannot because of
      the explosions and screams. He can't take away the hate that has
      swelled up the souls of young boys who see what the empire did to
      their families, communities, faith, and freedoms.

      He can't pay hundreds of billions in debt accumulated to fund the
      war, or personally compensate Iraqi merchants for their lost profits
      and livelihoods. He can't persuade the suicide bombers not to give
      up their lives to kill their enemies who gave them this war. He
      can't bring back the rule of law to Iraq or solve incredibly
      intractable economic problems. He can't expunge the culture of war
      that has shaped a generation of the enlisted or perversely inspired
      teens around the country to turn to violence as a means of settling
      disputes.

      He can't heal the wounds, physical and spiritual, of the innocents
      who were arrested, held in prison, and tortured before being
      released only under international pressure. He can't take away the
      humiliation of a people who have lived for more than a year under
      martial law before they regained "sovereignty" under a puppet regime
      that rules from a frightened fortress.

      He can't disarm the states that are working on acquiring nuclear
      weapons as a way of protecting themselves from the US, since
      everyone knows that US attacked Iraq not because it had nukes but
      because it did not. There are no means at his disposal to prevent a
      future nuclear holocaust triggered because the old standards of
      diplomacy just seemed so out of fashion in an age of terrorism.

      No, he can't do any of this. But he can walk away from it all, with
      just a few words. Had he known, he would have opposed it. That he
      presided over a media empire that made all of this possible, that
      even turned the opinion of conservatives who should have opposed
      every bit of this into a chorus of cheers for a regime that has been
      a calamity for human liberty, for this he cannot be held
      responsible. He is just a commentator after all. He doesn't own the
      wars he advocates, so he bears no liability when they go wrong.

      He knows full well that this will be the only article that will draw
      attention to his personal culpability for the tragedy. He is part of
      a class of thinkers who treat world affairs like a parlor game: roll
      the dice, pick the card, take a chance, win some, lose some. War is
      even better, so far as these people are concerned, because there are
      no rules. You play when you feel like it and crush opponents through
      violent force.

      War, these people know, isn't like a real game of chess. You don't
      checkmate; instead you sweep your hand across the board, declare
      yourself the winner, and dare your opponent to disagree. The crucial
      thing is to pretend that the people are chess pieces made of wood
      and stone rather than flesh and blood.

      All the warmongers have something to answer for, but Buckley in
      particular. His goal at the start of his career was to change the
      American right from peace-loving to warmongering. He did that. He
      succeeded. Now, at 78, he should look carefully at the ideological
      world he created, one where his own movement parties as the victims
      of imperial violence weep.

      It didn't have to be this way. Back when the madness first began,
      with Harry Truman's initial call for a post-war US empire, Buckley
      could have stood athwart history and yelled not "kill!" but "stop!"

      Tarjei:
      But those are the topics most of us here are interested in.
      Anthroposophy is a worldview and cosmology, and it rests upon the
      epistemology outlined in the PoF. For this reason, we are interested
      in Christian theology, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, folklore,
      mythology, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, Platonism, the New Age
      Movement, etc. We are interested in how various worldviews compare
      to Anthroposophy, what they have in common and how they differ. We
      are curious about how different members stand in relation to the
      many spiritual and philosophical paths and views that are
      available to us all. But you're not interested in any of this
      because you don't think it has anything to do with "Steiner's racial
      or ethnic doctrines", which might have been interesting if they
      could be discussed in a normal manner. You discuss this *only* topic
      in a manner that is not normal because your approach is not
      intellectually honest, and for this reason, the result is blind
      alleys and endless boredom.
    • lightsearcher1
      UH, OH, Bradford ! I think Taibbi s been reading your posts, kind sir!
      Message 48 of 48 , Jul 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        UH, OH, Bradford !

        I think Taibbi's been
        reading your posts, kind sir!

        > By Matt Taibbi
        > ...I'm off on this tangent
        > because I'm enraged by the
        > numerous attempts at verbose,
        > pseudoliterary, "nuanced" criticism...

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
        "holderlin66" wrote:

        > SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN
        > Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore a
        > coward.
        >
        > By Matt Taibbi
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.