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

Fw: Reply to Pierre: "Re:Steiner/Zodiac

Expand Messages
  • lilolemissy
    Dear Pierre, I am forwarding Rick Bobbette s reply to your message due to his inability to rely upon a stable internet connection. It just came through to me
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 24, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Pierre,

      I am forwarding Rick Bobbette's reply to your message due to his inability
      to rely upon a stable internet connection. It just came through to me as a
      "conduit" along with unrelated correspondence I was relieved to receive,
      considering the terribly harsh winter conditions in his locale.

      Blessings,

      Sheila


      > Dear Pierre;
      > Thanks for pursuing this topic, and for your
      > review of my essay. Also, thanks for noticing the typographic error.
      > I loaned out my `Vol.II' about ten years ago, and it never came back,
      > but I looked up the full quote in my ` Foundations at the Periphery',
      > and it is as you say. These things creep into any large project,
      > which is one of the reasons why it is so important to have multiple
      > references - I trust you had no problem once you found the error, in
      > tracking down the correct source. I would just ask, now, that you try
      > to do the same thing with either Starman's, or the Dornach-Bio-
      > dynamic claims of Steiner support for unequal constellations! Please!
      >
      > I'm rather more puzzled by your `surprise'
      > that I would not bring forward an obviously erroneous passage which,
      > taken at face value, makes Steiner look like a fool. This includes my
      > wondering why you would not mention what is clear in this passage,
      > but rather suggest something which is equally clearly not there?
      > After all, everybody (with any interest in the subject) knows
      > that `modern astronomy' makes no such statements as occur in what I
      > excluded. There simply must be a transcription or translation error
      > here. It's so-called `astrology' that arbitrarily says that Aries
      > starts at the spring equinox and then, ignoring the stars however you
      > want to group them, divides up the year into twelve. Steiner repeats
      > this complaint so many times, and it is so incidental to his view,
      > that I stopped recording occurrences after 8-10. His real complaint
      > here has never been (to my survey) that there should be unequal
      > constellations, but that attention should be paid to the precession
      > of the equinoxes. You would be wise to do the same, and if you apply
      > this precession (as he says in the actual quote) to Aries "from about
      > the eighth century before the Mystery of Golgotha until about the
      > fifteenth century after..." you don't get anything near what Starman,
      > Dornach or the Bio-dynamic group claim. You seem to think that
      > Steiner's reference to the `Calendar' obviously signifies one of the
      > unequal claims.... but why?... and which one? He also frequently
      > says, clearly, that the constellations govern for about 2,160 years
      > each, and integrates this into his cycles of reincarnation.
      >
    • DRStarman2001@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/24/2004 10:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... *******A few minutes reading of Dr. Elizabeth Vreede s letters (she was Steiner s
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 1/24/2004 10:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, lilolemissy@... writes:

        I would just ask, now, that you try
        >to do the same thing with either Starman's, or the Dornach-Bio-
        >dynamic claims of Steiner support for unequal constellations! Please!
        >             I'm rather more puzzled by your `surprise'
        >that I would not bring forward an obviously erroneous passage which,
        >taken at face value, makes Steiner look like a fool. This includes my
        >wondering why you would not mention what is clear in this passage,
        >but rather suggest something which is equally clearly not there?
        >After all, everybody (with any interest in the subject) knows
        >that `modern astronomy' makes no such statements as occur in what I
        >excluded. There simply must be a transcription or translation error
        >here. It's so-called `astrology' that arbitrarily says that Aries
        >starts at the spring equinox and then, ignoring the stars however you
        >want to group them, divides up the year into twelve. Steiner repeats
        >this complaint so many times, and it is so incidental to his view,
        >that I stopped recording occurrences after 8-10. His real complaint
        >here has never been (to my survey) that there should be unequal
        >constellations, but that attention should be paid to the precession
        >of the equinoxes. You would be wise to do the same, and if you apply
        >this precession (as he says in the actual quote) to Aries "from about
        >the eighth century before the Mystery of Golgotha until about the
        >fifteenth century after..." you don't get anything near what Starman,
        >Dornach or the Bio-dynamic group claim. You seem to think that
        >Steiner's reference to the `Calendar' obviously signifies one of the
        >unequal claims.... but why?...


        *******A few minutes' reading of Dr. Elizabeth Vreede's letters (she was Steiner's hand-picked first head of the Mathematical-Astronomical section of the Society and was tutored by him directly in astronomy/astrology), published by the Anthroposophic Press as "Anthroposophy and Astrology", will show anyone that Steiner clearly used both the unequal "sidereal" zodiac (the constellations) AND the 12 equal signs. The Anthroposophic Press has it listed in its catalog here along with another of her books:
        http://www.anthropress.org/search/search.php?q=vreede

           The original Calendar for 1912-13 with the unequal zodiac (which I have been translating and presenting a bit at a time here for the past few years) has now finally been translated in full & published and is available here:

        http://www.anthropress.org/detail.html?session=dd3814677cb8d98fdaa94ed94daebc21&id=0880105348

           By the way, they also now have at least one of Willi Sucher's books:

        http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=0880103698

           A very good treatment of the reality of the 12 equal "signs" separate from the constellations (the "Steps of the Sun") may be found in Powell's Hermetic Astrology, Vol. 1. They are two very different things, real in different ways. It requires astronomy and three-dimensional diagrams to really understand, which is a little hard to quickly or easily explain in this medium.

           But I will not respond anymore to some fellow, banned from this list, hysterically implying that the sideareal zodiac is something Steiner never used and has been imported into anthoposophy by imaginary "traitors". A few minutes' study of the books above would show the falsehood of this to anyone who can think and read clearly.

        Dr. Starman
        http://www.DrStarman.net
      • lilolemissy
        Dear Pierre and Dr. Starman, LilOleMissy didn t write the below nor has she any part in Pierre s role other than one of factual discrimination and forwarding a
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 25, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Pierre and Dr. Starman,
           
          LilOleMissy didn't write the below nor has she any part in Pierre's role other than one of factual discrimination and forwarding a responsive post which had no other way of ever seeing the light of day on this list.
          I'm not sure who Pierre's reply was to, since he neither addressed it nor signed it, and as for "traitors," one only needs to look into the Files section of the Steiner list and read Marie Steiner's words included in with Dr. Unger's *What is Anthroposophy?* for a hint of only one instance among very many having taken place from within as well as outside the Society and Steiner's followers. Since there are also many other examples along this same pathway, I would suggest the moral integrity of the early true Anthroposophists in not blatently smearing another in public is worth investigating when denying or questioning this shadow side of the Society's history. I would also remind the list Rick Bobbette did not request that I submit his response to Pierre, which I did independently, acting on the inherent fair integrity Anthroposophy promotes, which he, himself, is barred from expressing to this list. I believe anyone who is or has ever been deeply and seriously involved in attempting definitive in-depth research realizes there is no time to spare on superfluous matters from varying foci, especially nonproductive ones. Rudolf Steiner did not smear his critics or silence those who disagreed with him, while among my papers and letters are many private and public first hand accounts of what can be filed under the heading of "traitors." His words of one's hiding one's head in the sand so very often apply throughout Anthroposophical history when one's head is not totally stuck into the sand. In the interests of the Being Anthroposophia, I would like to respectfully request that any further criticism from anyone on this list of another, and especially of one who is unable to respond and/or defend him/herself, be discouraged.
           
          Thank you for your work on the Zodiac, Dr. Starman, and for sharing with us where this might be found. This is good news indeed. My work on transcribing for our Files section Steiner's *The Inner Nature of Man and the Life Between Death and a New Birth* has passed the half-way mark, and I deeply apologize to all for my slowness.
           
          Blessings,
           
          Sheila
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:44 AM
          Subject: Re: [steiner] Fw: Reply to Pierre: "Re:Steiner/Zodiac

          In a message dated 1/24/2004 10:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, lilolemissy@... writes:

          I would just ask, now, that you try
          >to do the same thing with either Starman's, or the Dornach-Bio-
          >dynamic claims of Steiner support for unequal constellations! Please!
          >             I'm rather more puzzled by your `surprise'
          >that I would not bring forward an obviously erroneous passage which,
          >taken at face value, makes Steiner look like a fool. This includes my
          >wondering why you would not mention what is clear in this passage,
          >but rather suggest something which is equally clearly not there?
          >After all, everybody (with any interest in the subject) knows
          >that `modern astronomy' makes no such statements as occur in what I
          >excluded. There simply must be a transcription or translation error
          >here. It's so-called `astrology' that arbitrarily says that Aries
          >starts at the spring equinox and then, ignoring the stars however you
          >want to group them, divides up the year into twelve. Steiner repeats
          >this complaint so many times, and it is so incidental to his view,
          >that I stopped recording occurrences after 8-10. His real complaint
          >here has never been (to my survey) that there should be unequal
          >constellations, but that attention should be paid to the precession
          >of the equinoxes. You would be wise to do the same, and if you apply
          >this precession (as he says in the actual quote) to Aries "from about
          >the eighth century before the Mystery of Golgotha until about the
          >fifteenth century after..." you don't get anything near what Starman,
          >Dornach or the Bio-dynamic group claim. You seem to think that
          >Steiner's reference to the `Calendar' obviously signifies one of the
          >unequal claims.... but why?...


          *******A few minutes' reading of Dr. Elizabeth Vreede's letters (she was Steiner's hand-picked first head of the Mathematical-Astronomical section of the Society and was tutored by him directly in astronomy/astrology), published by the Anthroposophic Press as "Anthroposophy and Astrology", will show anyone that Steiner clearly used both the unequal "sidereal" zodiac (the constellations) AND the 12 equal signs. The Anthroposophic Press has it listed in its catalog here along with another of her books:
          http://www.anthropress.org/search/search.php?q=vreede

             The original Calendar for 1912-13 with the unequal zodiac (which I have been translating and presenting a bit at a time here for the past few years) has now finally been translated in full & published and is available here:

          http://www.anthropress.org/detail.html?session=dd3814677cb8d98fdaa94ed94daebc21&id=0880105348

             By the way, they also now have at least one of Willi Sucher's books:

          http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=0880103698

             A very good treatment of the reality of the 12 equal "signs" separate from the constellations (the "Steps of the Sun") may be found in Powell's Hermetic Astrology, Vol. 1. They are two very different things, real in different ways. It requires astronomy and three-dimensional diagrams to really understand, which is a little hard to quickly or easily explain in this medium.

             But I will not respond anymore to some fellow, banned from this list, hysterically implying that the sideareal zodiac is something Steiner never used and has been imported into anthoposophy by imaginary "traitors". A few minutes' study of the books above would show the falsehood of this to anyone who can think and read clearly.

          Dr. Starman
          http://www.DrStarman.net

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