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

Guilt

Expand Messages
  • Mathew Morrell
    Let me make a brief case in favor of guilt, by first stating that there are limitations to what guilt can provide therapeutically speaking, and that obsessive
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Let me make a brief case in favor of guilt, by first stating that
      there are limitations to what guilt can provide therapeutically
      speaking, and that obsessive guilt (or being guilt ridden) is
      counterproductive in the emotional healing process. At some point
      you must transcend guilt and, in modern vernacular, "forget about it"-
      --as hard as that might be. As Nietzsche says, forgetting is
      necessary for "all the nobler functions and functionaries…"

      However guilt is unavoidable for most people, for it comes with
      having a conscience. If you did not have a conscience you would not
      feel guilt. You would be person who can commit sin without
      suffering. For the rest of us, sin is suffering. Eventually we move
      through the guilt stage through atonement, but not after we have
      burned in its fires long enough for our soul to achieve an emotional
      memory of the event. In this way, we evolve as individuals.

      The danger of the New Age---as it is preached in pop culture---is
      that it negates the quality of guilt; and therefore negates the
      feeling of pain due to wrong action. In fact, the primary aim of New
      Age thought is to be guilt free, to be liberated from all universal
      concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, to do whatever one wants
      to do, whenever one wants to do it, without shame, guilt, fault,
      guilt, remorse, or responsibility, in essence to live in the eternal
      innocence of unreflective unconsciousness. Guilt is seen as
      backward, as something that gets in the way of living life to the
      fullest. Guilt is the opposite of what the New Age strives for: a
      life lived in the moment, without the repercussions of Time.
    • My2Cents
      Dear Mathew and All, Guilt is indeed a sign of human conscience. Steiner writes to the effect that there was a very specific point in history when conscience
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mathew and All,

        Guilt is indeed a sign of human conscience. Steiner writes to the effect that there was a very specific point in history when conscience replaced what was known in older times, such as the old Roman days, as The Furies. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, human conscience is exemplified by Eurypides in his "Oedepus".

        Blessings,

        My2Cents

        --- On Mon 07/03, Mathew Morrell < tma4cbt@... > wrote:
        Subject: [steiner] Guilt

        Let me make a brief case in favor of guilt, by first stating that
        there are limitations to what guilt can provide therapeutically
        speaking, and that obsessive guilt (or being guilt ridden) is
        counterproductive in the emotional healing process. At some point
        you must transcend guilt and, in modern vernacular, "forget about it"-
        --as hard as that might be. As Nietzsche says, forgetting is
        necessary for "all the nobler functions and functionaries�"

        However guilt is unavoidable for most people, for it comes with
        having a conscience. If you did not have a conscience you would not
        feel guilt. You would be person who can commit sin without
        suffering. For the rest of us, sin is suffering. Eventually we move
        through the guilt stage through atonement, but not after we have
        burned in its fires long enough for our soul to achieve an emotional
        memory of the event. In this way, we evolve as individuals.

        The danger of the New Age---as it is preached in pop culture---is
        that it negates the quality of guilt; and therefore negates the
        feeling of pain due to wrong action. In fact, the primary aim of New
        Age thought is to be guilt free, to be liberated from all universal
        concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, to do whatever one wants
        to do, whenever one wants to do it, without shame, guilt, fault,
        guilt, remorse, or responsibility, in essence to live in the eternal
        innocence of unreflective unconsciousness. Guilt is seen as
        backward, as something that gets in the way of living life to the
        fullest. Guilt is the opposite of what the New Age strives for: a
        life lived in the moment, without the repercussions of Time.






        _______________________________________________
        No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
        Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
      • Durward Starman
        ******* The reference was to the great change from the time of the Golden Age Greek dramatist Aeschylus, the first to make plays which werre a profane version
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          ******* The reference was to the great change from the time of the Golden
          Age Greek dramatist Aeschylus, the first to make plays which werre a profane
          version of the rites enacted in the Mysteries, to the" Silver Age" one
          Sophocles, and then the much lesser 'Bronze Age' Euripdes---- by whose time
          all the spiritual which still poured into Aeshylus' work had disappeared,
          and it was only the human intellect, clever though he was, treating the same
          traditional stories. In Aeshylus' time, a man who harmed his blood-relations
          was pictured as pursued by the Furies, spirit-beings shown on the stage:
          only a generation or so later, Euripides had to stage the same plays showing
          a character like Medea tormented instead by her own mind, her conscience.
          Steiner said therefore that this time was the historical origin of
          conscience.

          But just as the Ego is a two-edged sword, giving us both the possibility
          of Love as well as Evil, so conscience can be perverted into a tormenting
          wave of guilt beyond all reason---- one, moreover, used by religious
          power-structures to make people believe they need the church hierarchy to be
          saved from their "sinfulness", as Wilhelm Reich and others pointed out. Some
          of the New Age philosophy is (quite rightly) reacting to this perversion of
          Christianity, the demonization of our reproductive desires for instance,
          which is nowhere in Jesus' teaching (or in Steiner's, for that matter)-----
          best exemplified by the hair-shirted monks in "Monty Python and the Holy
          Grail"wacking themselves over the head with boards in the name of "God."
          Instead, what has evolved in the modern West is what William James called a
          "Religion of Healthy-Mindedness", where what is deemed healthy is
          pragmatically seen as good.

          As for the opposite extreme, the evasion of the slightest twinge of
          conscience in order to avoid all guilt resulting therefrom----- yes, it's
          there in lots of New Age stuff (as in secular humanism, socialism and
          communism, for that matter); but even that is the perception of a dangerous
          truth, that the initiate can kill and incur no karma. There is no action
          which is wrong in itself; it's rather as the Edgar Cayce Readings put it,
          that what an individual is "judged" by after death is "what we have done
          about the ideals we have set." So morality is in a true sense "relative"
          ---- but this is a dangerous truth which initiates withold from the masses
          who must hold to absolute morality until ready to graduate beyond it as free
          spirits. And all too many think they're ready to graduate to that who
          clearly are not, as can be seen in their acting like Aleister Crowley
          instead of Rudolf Steiner.
          "The philosopher is one who would act the same if there were no laws."

          -starman

          www.DrStarman.com


          >
          >Dear Mathew and All,
          >
          >Guilt is indeed a sign of human conscience. Steiner writes to the effect
          >that there was a very specific point in history when conscience replaced
          >what was known in older times, such as the old Roman days, as The Furies.
          >Unless I'm greatly mistaken, human conscience is exemplified by Eurypides
          >in his "Oedepus".
          >
          >Blessings,
          >
          >My2Cents
          >
          > --- On Mon 07/03, Mathew Morrell < tma4cbt@... > wrote:
          >Subject: [steiner] Guilt
          >
          > Let me make a brief case in favor of guilt, by first stating
          >that
          >there are limitations to what guilt can provide therapeutically
          >speaking, and that obsessive guilt (or being guilt ridden) is
          >counterproductive in the emotional healing process. At some point
          >you must transcend guilt and, in modern vernacular, "forget about it"-
          >--as hard as that might be. As Nietzsche says, forgetting is
          >necessary for "all the nobler functions and functionaries�"
          >
          >However guilt is unavoidable for most people, for it comes with
          >having a conscience. If you did not have a conscience you would not
          >feel guilt. You would be person who can commit sin without
          >suffering. For the rest of us, sin is suffering. Eventually we move
          >through the guilt stage through atonement, but not after we have
          >burned in its fires long enough for our soul to achieve an emotional
          >memory of the event. In this way, we evolve as individuals.
          >
          >The danger of the New Age---as it is preached in pop culture---is
          >that it negates the quality of guilt; and therefore negates the
          >feeling of pain due to wrong action. In fact, the primary aim of New
          >Age thought is to be guilt free, to be liberated from all universal
          >concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, to do whatever one wants
          >to do, whenever one wants to do it, without shame, guilt, fault,
          >guilt, remorse, or responsibility, in essence to live in the eternal
          >innocence of unreflective unconsciousness. Guilt is seen as
          >backward, as something that gets in the way of living life to the
          >fullest. Guilt is the opposite of what the New Age strives for: a
          >life lived in the moment, without the repercussions of Time.
        • sarah
          The Zoroastrians claim the Conscience first came from their teachings from the word Asha , which means universal moral Truth, which predates the Greeks by
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment

            The Zoroastrians claim the Conscience first came from their teachings from the word "Asha", which means universal moral Truth, which predates the Greeks by many centuries. Zoroastrianism puts great value on the development of wisdom and insight co-creating with a God of pure compassion, over blind obedience to a wrathful God, making conscience the guide, not fear. In fact, Christianity, Greek philosophy and Judaism are all indebted to Zarathustra whose teachings spread when the Persians invaded Babylon in 539BC. Before their education in Babylon, the Jews were just henotheistic appeasement-based terrified pagans. (I've just done an assignment on this and thoroughly enjoyed it!)

            Most modern scholars date Zarathustra to 1000BC-1700BC. I think Steiner dates him to 6000BC(?). One thing for sure; he predated Euripides!

            Sarah
            Waldorf Doll Making DVD - NOW AVAILABLE!
            e-Patterns, Dolls and More;
            www.sarahs-dolls.com
          • Durward Starman
            ******* Steiner has quite a different take on history than the usual one. He sees it as an evolutiion of consciousness, where regular academic theory regards
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 7, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ******* Steiner has quite a different "take" on history than the usual one.
              He sees it as an evolutiion of consciousness, where regular academic theory
              regards our consciousness as pretty much the same all along---- people were
              the same us, only stupider, in the past, which is also their attitude to
              children today. There is, however, abundant evidence for the consciousness
              of ancient men being completely different than ours, once one's mind is
              opened to the possibility---- whereas closed-minded academics interpret the
              very things which should stand out as evidence in a way opposite to the
              truth because they just can't imagine things otherwise. For instance, the
              Egyptians' way of representing the human being with the torso turned
              sideways is dismissed as a mere stylism of depiction, not based on people
              then objectively perceiving differently; the same with no one being able to
              represent three dimensions before Leonardo, everything seen 2-dimensionally.

              But these ancient states of consciousness can be re-experienced and
              verified via the Akashic Records. According to these, Steiner states that
              there were a long line of "Zoroasters" stemming from the original great one
              about 6000 B.C.: it became a title, rather like High Lama, so that the
              historical Zoroaster or Zarathustra we know from about the 6th century B.C.
              was the last of a long line. Moreover, the "Gathas" or sacred scriptures of
              Zoroastrianism originated long before writing in the Farsi language and were
              passed down orally for a long time, like the earlier Sanskrit Vedas, only
              committed to writing sometime between 3000 B.C. and the Hellenic era-----
              and they were re-written or ordered by this very Zoroaster in the 6th-5th
              century B.C. Now, this was exactly the time of the first arising of
              conscience historically, and also the time when what we call the Old
              Testament was likewise compiled and put into the order IT still has. So, the
              scriptures were interpreted quite differently then, and a dimension added to
              them which the originals did not possess, as the consciousness of the
              priests had changed so much along the way. (An interesting study of this
              transformation of myth-pictures from earlier states of consciousness into a
              later literary one, which needs to be investigated in order to see how the
              later layers are superimposed upon the primary material, is "Hamlet's Mill"
              by Giorgio de Santillana---- which showed, among other things, that the
              ancients were aware of the precession of the equinoxes and Zodiac Ages long
              before its historical discovery by Hipparchus in the 3rd century B.C., and
              that the Danish legend of Hamlet that Shakespeare used, was originally a
              creation myth having to do with the overthrow of one god/king by another,
              like Zeus overthrowing Kronos or Saturn.)

              As we come down closer to our era, people naturally began to imagine
              that their ancestors had a similar consciousness to ours and they imposed
              meanings onto words and documents which they did not originally have.
              Compare, for example, the original words of the I Ching without the later
              commentary by Confucius, to how it stands combined with his much later layer
              of interpretations. Similarly, the Book of Job was only added to the
              canonical Hebrew scriptures (the Torah or 5 Books of Moses and the Haggadah
              or later writings & traditional tales) only in the final revision at the
              time of the return from the Captivity, although it's clearly from an older
              source (Edgar Cayce said in fact it was the OLDEST book of the Bible), with
              Man already in existence and yet Satan is still up in heaven, ahsn't fallen
              in the Garden yet. It, like Genesis, clearly came from a state of
              consciousness which the later writers could not re-enter. So I think the
              "back-dating" of conscience by students of Zoroastrianism in our time is an
              error. They are reading it in to documents from a time before its existence.
              The same thing is done when people assert that concepts of citizenship,
              justice etc. go back to Hammarabi's first Laws in Babylon, where actually a
              person was not conceived of as a 'citizen' until Rome, which Steiner also
              points out. As for that characterization of the Hebrews before contact with
              Persia, I think that's also erroneous. The Hebrews' agreement with their God
              was quite different than pagan religions contemporary with them: it was an
              experiemnt in eugenics, requiring purification and endogamy, to produce a
              body perfect enough for the Messiah to incarnate in. fortunately, they
              succeeded. Of course, people with no experience of the Christ easily have
              erroneous views of Judaism and of Christianity for that matter. (A great
              source for understanding both as well as Eduard Schure's The Great
              Initiates, and for the Aryan Zoroastrian 'fire religion' his later book From
              Sphinx To Christ: An Occult History, inspired by Steiner.)

              For a comparison of how radical Steiner's view of history is to our
              modern dogmas, consider his saying that the mathematical mind only
              originated with Abraham, that when God speaks to him saying "your
              descendents will be numbered as the sands of the shore or the stars in the
              sky", it's symbolic of the counting mind coming into existence for the first
              time. Anyone can immediately raise objections to such an idea, pointing out
              evidences of "counting" before this, etc. The difference is in what man was
              able to do FOR HIMSELF versus what the gods did IN Man. For instance, alll
              mathematical terms are of Greek origin. The Greeks of the 7th through 5th
              centuries B.C. discovered the ratio of the radius of a circle to its
              circumference and named it after a Greek letter, Pi. Historically we know no
              ordinary people before them knew of it: treatises for building are only
              empirical, based on using lengths of cord rather than pure ideas, with no
              abstract mathematical thinking shown. And yet if you take the height of the
              Great Pyramid and construct a circle on it, its area is equal to the square
              base of the pyramid. So the value of Pi is built into it. The modern man
              must conclude the Egyptians knew of Pi. But it was the initiates who built
              the Pyramid, in a time when a divine being could enter an initiate and think
              IN him, and he would direct the others. So you have the startling situation
              where ancient people could use principles yet not think principles. In the
              same way, what was done by initiates was not typical of the people of an age
              because their evolution had been accelerated far beyond their time.

              This is why the statements of Dr. Steiner are easily ridiculed by
              academia, like that logic originated with Aristotle: it's easy to come up
              with apparent contradictions, and difficult to accept at first because we've
              all been taught the exact opposite in our Ahrimanic public schools, where
              consciousness is as it is now when you're awake and always has been the same
              as we've experienced it as waking adults from Rome to our time. Almost no
              one outside of anthroposophy imagines anything any differently, although
              history as an evolution of consciousness used to be described by many great
              philosophers up to only a century or two ago, many of whom Steiner quoted,
              like Hegel.

              Starman

              www.DrStarman.com





              >From: "sarah" <sarahwh@...>
              >
              >The Zoroastrians claim the Conscience first came from their teachings from
              >the word "Asha", which means universal moral Truth, which predates the
              >Greeks by many centuries. Zoroastrianism puts great value on the
              >development of wisdom and insight co-creating with a God of pure
              >compassion, over blind obedience to a wrathful God, making conscience the
              >guide, not fear. In fact, Christianity, Greek philosophy and Judaism are
              >all indebted to Zarathustra whose teachings spread when the Persians
              >invaded Babylon in 539BC. Before their education in Babylon, the Jews were
              >just henotheistic appeasement-based terrified pagans. (I've just done an
              >assignment on this and thoroughly enjoyed it!)
              >Most modern scholars date Zarathustra to 1000BC-1700BC. I think Steiner
              >dates him to 6000BC(?). One thing for sure; he predated Euripides!
              >
              >Sarah
              >Waldorf Doll Making DVD - NOW AVAILABLE!
              >e-Patterns, Dolls and More;
              >www.sarahs-dolls.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.