2581Fw: Belated replies
- Jan 28, 2004----- Original Message -----From: rick bobbetteTo: lilolemissySent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:29 AMSubject: Re: cosmosophy requestDear Sheila;
Could you please post my ‘reply to pierre’ at Starman’s site? I’m far to busy with actual Steiner ... and won’t be around there any more. Also, after that posting is another one (calendar of the soul error) that I’m putting at the other three sites I occasionally visit. You can do with it as you wish....
Thanks for your continued interest in this topic. I do not go where I’m not welcome, and your email did not get through, so I only noticed your last posting ‘by accident’ as they say, while doing a final check on another issue.
I only want to point out that my original question was never answered, and to pose it again with more context as to why I asked it. You remember, I’m sure, that I asked: If Starman’s zodiac was taught by Steiner, why didn’t Dornach teach it? Why didn’t Starman respect Steiner’s oft-stated 2,160 years for zodiac sign governance? And why did he rely on a single document from a period when traitors where particularly active in the Society?
Answer? - I’m lazy, ignorant and banned from the ‘list’ for inciting terrorism!
The reason I asked these questions is that I’ve known the Dornach zodiac from 1977, through bio-dynamics, and worked with it on and off over about ten years, through helping a couple of bio-dynamic dairy farms. I don’t take things for granted, so I collected basic books to satisfy myself that the whole thing wasn’t a complete fraud, as my investigations of Astrology from the early 60's to the early 70's proved that realm to be. (I got to calling it the land of ‘high priests of self-fulfilling prophecies’, ‘hypno-psychics’, and ‘credulous dilettantes’). Although Dornach has its problems, they are in quite a different league from ‘Astrologers’, to my view. Their zodiac I could trace back to the ‘40's through Shulz, but it was pretty clear that Vreede taught it originally, as is now explicit. It is completely different from Starman’s; their shared inequality does not make them the same, and they are completely different.
I first noticed the discrepancies between Dornach and the lecture contents about 1983, and this (though not my first interest in Steiner) prompted me to begin flagging star-knowledge references as I pursued my other interests. The Essays you’ve peeked at result from over 2.000 lectures (and his basic books) surveyed, and I now have to bring the whole thing to a certain closure, with about 3,000 lectures accounted for. The zodiac that emerges from this is also completely different from Starman’s. (I don’t really care, for the moment, which, if any, are ‘right’ - I just need to know who’s who and from where.)
One thing that is really dangerous about Starman’s approach is that he is repeating again and again, associated with meditations, that his zodiac is the one that Steiner taught his students.... but it’s not in the lectures and Dornach doesn’t teach it, so where else is it? Which students were taught it? Compared to the many times Steiner gives dates for Aries and Pisces, and the 2,160 year governance, the very few references to the calendar (which I have yet to find him describe) are totally inconclusive. Starman’s zodiac is not in the lectures and Dornach doesn’t teach it!
Now fairly early on, I came across Steiner’s explicit explanation of the transcriptions. He didn’t like them, but over the first few years, time after time he would give a lecture, and within a few days false reports would appear that could only have come from the members present. So he had to have the transcriptions, accurate records, that he could use to defend himself from some of the members themselves (it only takes a few). This is one of the reasons I’m willing to work with the transcriptions as basically accurate records. There was a lot worse going on at the period mentioned - besides the Theosophists he had stuff that came to a head a couple of years later - check out "Community Life... The Crisis in the Anthroposophical Society", 25 Dec. 1914 to 29 Sept. 1925; 1991, Anthroposophical Press. Now we have Starman saying that I’m "hysterical" for pointing out this real possibility, and with the "clear thinking" of his official, accredited authority, telling the insane lie that these things are "imaginary"! You can be sure that when someone calls verified truth a lie, somewhere else they are calling a muddy lie, the truth.
So perhaps now you understand my question? We have a reasonable survey of the lectures, with no hint of Starman’s zodiac (I have no agenda, I’m just reporting, warts and all and will gladly include all that continues to turn up); we have lots of work from Dornach, with no hint of Starman’s zodiac; we have Starman, with his one document, unquestionable astrological authority and clientele to protect and expand, and an overtly overbearing, deceitful and mediumistic mentality; and we have the Society which consistently had some members that lied about what Steiner said. These things are all there, in plain sight.
Any serious, competent researcher would have to ask exactly the questions I did, and without a clear answer wouldn’t even suggest that an otherwise unsupported document was the zodiac Steiner taught, let alone behave as Starman is, including the repeated phrase ‘Steiner taught’... ‘Steiner taught’... , hypnotically and mediumistically (you know Steiner’s view of hypnotism and mediums?) ‘Steiner taught’... repeated as an introduction to repeated meditations, repeatedly, repeatedly... over... and over... and over... and over... and so imprinting it deeper and deeper into uncritical and trusting souls.
You must understand the need for clear questions to be given clear answers, and that bald lies such as those offered by Starman regarding me and the occurrence of traitors at the time mentioned, are especially not to be tolerated by accredited authorities that command authority in a domineering manner.
As I mentioned, I don’t go where I’m not welcome, or stay, so I’ll just stamp the dust off my feet and toddle on. Feel free to email; if you don’t hear back in a week, try again.
Take care, give care
Be aware, and beware! Rick
Dr, Starman has, for over three years, included in Calendar of the Soul presentations at his Steiner Yahoo Groups internet site, statements such as: ‘The Sun, according to the Doctor, is under the influence of Aries to April 30th in our era...’
These contain a fundamental error which, repeated by an accredited authority many times and taken at face value, make Dr. Steiner look like a fool to anyone acquainted with the issues, but not with Steiner’s work. Anyone with background knows that the day of solar exit or entry into a zodiac sign is valid for about 72 years, not any ‘era’ of however many thousand - as did Rudolf Steiner. At a pinch, you might say ‘in our lifetime’, but ‘in our era’ is totally false. How many properly informed people have read this, falsely believing it to authoritatively represent Steiner’s view, and correctly dismissing the whole thing as an ignorant absurdity, lost an opportunity to objectively evaluate Steiner and his work?
This transference of a 72 year period to one of thousands also brings into question whether Dr. Starman has incorporated the 92 years of precession since the time when the specific dates were written down, by whoever (1912). If not, the actual dates he proposes would have to be adjusted accordingly (whatever their actual validity).
Anyone who thinks these issues are trivial, needs to be reminded of Dr. Steiner’s views on the extremely dangerous effects of falsehoods that are unconsciously accepted (let alone included as part of meditation), and his comment that the 2% lie takes the 98% truth and throws it all ‘into corruption’; that is:
"It is not without consequence, however, for it is much less evil when a lie is consciously accepted, than when it takes shape unconsciously, and degrades man and drags him down. For if we consider a lie as it appears in a man's consciousness, every time he falls asleep it leaves his physical and etheric bodies with his consciousness, and lives on in spaceless, timeless being, in the eternal being, while Man is in dreamless sleep. There is prepared all which can result from the lie in the future; that is, everything is made ready to correct it, if it is in the consciousness. But if it is in the unconscious, it remains with the physical and etheric bodies lying in the bed. When Man is not occupying these bodies, it then belongs to the Cosmos, and not to the earthly Cosmos alone, but to the whole Cosmos; there it works for the destruction of the Cosmos; above all, for the destruction of the whole of humanity, for this destruction begins in humanity itself." (Man - Hieroglyph of the Universe, pp.179-180)
"An enormous amount depends on whether there are some people who understand the need for this very thing I have been describing. These days it is not even possible to calculate how deeply one sins against the maxim of using thinking as a method of seeking, and of suspending completed thoughts for as long as possible. That is why the phantoms of untruth buzz about our world, and why lying is becoming more and more habitual. But the more humanity leans towards lying and the more it is gripped by the tendency to lie, the more decadent it becomes. A constant oscillation between Lucifer and Ahriman begins to establish itself; on the one side, untruths are spoken, whether directly out of ill-will, or just out of thoughtlessness. And in placing together 'ill-will' and 'thoughlessness' we have already indicated that Lucifer is in league with the Spirit of Lies! Lucifer is connected with the Spirit of Lies, for thus he obtains easy access, since, in their turn, lies generate passions. And we, meanwhile, are losing the power to establish a balance between what we think and what we feel and will. It is urgent that mankind become strongly enough aware of an immensely widespread, subconscious tendency, because this subconscious tendency opposes that step we have said is necessary for the future. It opposes the tendency to establish a tough-minded responsibility for whatever one formulates as a truth... "Something can only really become a truth after it has been placed, so to speak, in all kinds of positions and has had light cast on it from various directions - only if one has really suspended judgement for as long as possible. No over-hastily expressed point of view, over-hastily expressed opinion, no report of an event that is delivered in too great a haste, can be the truth - but they can have the effect of bringing mankind more and more into decadence. This matter can even be the subject of experiments. We would probably agree that most people are not straightforward out-and-out liars. Some are, of course. But the worst thing of all is the unconscious and subconscious lying that is the result of Luciferic seduction - lying that contains a quarter or an eighth or a sixteenth of the truth. It might even be ninety-eight percent true, but the dynamic impetus of the remaining two percent corrupts the whole thing and carries it all into corruption." (The Riddle of Humanity, pp.168-171)
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
- Next post in topic >>