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

1270Re: [steiner] Re: to experience thinking

Expand Messages
  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
    Oct 18, 2002
      lilolemiss@... writes:
      Hi, Carol, Dr. Starman,

      Forgive my interruption here. Kuhliwind [sp?] has lectured quite a bit in my area [California] and personally, in my own short-sightedness, I feel safe only with Steiner's interpretations. Some of you have far more experience and knowledge than I, so I'll "err" on the safe side. :)  Besides, I'm familiar with Steiner's style and see no reason to go on to someone else. Gee, I can't even keep up with Steiner!

      *******I do also, Sheila---- and usually read him or other authors that add to my understanding of anthroposophy, like Carl Unger, Guenther Wachsmuth, Elizabeth Vreede, Eugen Kolisko,  George Adams, and many others. Kuhlwind did not do so for me.

         And I'd like to point out that anyone who is doing an exposition based on Steiner's work is not 'fundamental'. Steiner's work was. They're commentators, secondary. They can have their own independent insight but it's for everyone to judge what anthroposophists make anthroposophy clear to them, just as the movement started because people saw that Steiner understood Blavatsky and could make Theosophy clear where other people made it murkier.

      From my reading of your post I would conclude that you find
      Kuhliwind's fundamental distinctions to be a bunch of crap.
      Is that the case? 

    • Show all 20 messages in this topic