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

Re: Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition

Expand Messages
  • Jenny
    and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as an adult. ... are not being allowed to be themselves---in other words, to the choleric in
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 12, 2007
      and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as
      an adult.
      >
      > ******She appeals to people who feel they have a lot of talent but
      are not being 'allowed' to be themselves---in other words, to the
      choleric in us, which we especially feel as teens.
      > Actually, if she hadn't stopped short at a certain point, she
      would have found her way to spiritual science; and her work,
      Nietzchean though it is expressed, has many points of contact with
      anthroposophy. She experienced the human spirit but never broke
      through to experiencing the spiritual world THROUGH that.
      Her 'Objectivism' is still useful for people who need to have a
      stronger sense of self---but is not good for any who have too strong
      a one already!
      > Dr. Starman
      >


      Hello, Dr. Starman and All!

      Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of Ayn
      Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
      Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality precedes
      consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim that
      one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be very
      interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how Ayn
      Rand "got it wrong".

      Thank you so much!

      Jenny
    • carynlouise
      ... Hi Jenny Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today s lecture - I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing Objectivist reality preceding
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
        > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
        >
        > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of Ayn
        > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
        > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality precedes
        > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim that
        > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be very
        > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how Ayn
        > Rand "got it wrong".
        >
        > Thank you so much!
        >
        > Jenny
        >

        Hi Jenny

        Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -

        "I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing"


        Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?

        "A huna Pfene Li nofa Li Songo Gonya Muri"
        "Too many people die in the world because they are too poor to stay
        alive"
      • Mathew Morrell
        Not Van Gogh, but the supra-personal Christ within him, was capable of perceiving the one Reality of a wheat field from many different perspectives; some
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
          Not Van Gogh, but the supra-personal Christ within him, was capable
          of perceiving the one Reality of a wheat field from many different
          perspectives; some painted in an aura of silence: calm, full of
          light and peaceful solitude. Other wheat fields were on fire in the
          Word; each stalk painted like a holy flame. Van Gogh's wheat fields
          were not Platonic idea forms, but a living essence filled with
          character and dimensionality unique unto themselves.

          Which is the true wheat field? Was Van Gogh's collection of wheat
          field paintings just imaginative fancies created by his brain, as the
          subjectivist would insist? Or was Van Gogh so masterful at
          describing and analyzing his states of subjectivity that he
          discovered an objective ground, not only within side himself, but in
          the physical world, as well---a suprapersonal objectivity that is an
          outflowing of spiritual thought?

          Starman is right when he says objectivism doesn't have anything to do
          with spiritual science and can retard the soul on an evolutionary
          level, stunting spiritual growth. But, as Starman has also said in
          the past, Steiner was not a "subjectivist" and therefore truth and
          knowledge play a central role in his science-based occult
          philosophy. In his Theory of Knowledge, for instance, he defines
          subjective thinking as a necessary "transitional stage", not the end
          result, of scientific perception.

          The extreme subjectivist (e.g. JZ Knight) feels that all things are
          relative, that no objective truth exists in the world, and that you
          cannot perceive anything beyond yourself, hence their rejection of
          all laws that apply universally to everyone, politically,
          spiritually, or physically. Most New Age thinkers reject the
          physical world on the grounds that it is maya, illusion, which is
          devoid of innate truth beyond our personal consciousness. JZ herself
          smokes a pipe and preaches that the world is a pipe dream.

          On the other hand, Steiner was no metaphysical objectivist. In fact,
          he rejected the objective idealism of Plato and Hegel in which things
          are mere representations of their mental existence. In-between
          Hegelian-Platonic idealism and Kantian subjectivity there exists a
          kind of locus point where thinking (the movement of consciousness)
          becomes involved in the subjective act of perception, uniting two
          totally different sphere of comprehension. Comprehending phenomena
          through this locus point is the key to occult perception, our locus
          point being conscience, the I AM principle, which is objectivity on a
          universal level, a kind of God's eye view of reality transcending the
          personal self.





          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carynlouise" <carynlouise@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
          > >
          > > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of
          Ayn
          > > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
          > > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality
          precedes
          > > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim
          that
          > > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be
          very
          > > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how
          Ayn
          > > Rand "got it wrong".
          > >
          > > Thank you so much!
          > >
          > > Jenny
          > >
          >
          > Hi Jenny
          >
          > Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -
          >
          > "I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing"
          >
          >
          > Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?
          >
          > "A huna Pfene Li nofa Li Songo Gonya Muri"
          > "Too many people die in the world because they are too poor to stay
          > alive"
          >
        • Durward Starman
          *******Ayn Rand is a whole subject in herself. In one past incarnation she longed to be a philosopher like Aristotle, but was unable to be: so in this life she
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 24, 2007
            *******Ayn Rand is a whole subject in herself. In one past incarnation she
            longed to be a philosopher like Aristotle, but was unable to be: so in this
            life she indulged her wish, but because it was in a later epoch it did not
            have the effect it would have then. And intellect, when it has no
            appropriate use in this time, becomes corrupted by the opposing powers. So
            her philosophical system is a sort of dead-end. It did not lead to renewing
            the powers of the soul for art, for creativity, as anthroposophy does, but
            rather leads to a sort of spiritual prison for those who swallow it whole.

            However, if you read her epistemological writings, such as her
            Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and compare them to Steiner's
            philosophical writings, such as the Philosophy of Freedom, it's obvious she
            was on the same track. She just made an error similar to Hegel's which
            caused her to fall short of Steiner. (I'm not sure how many people will be
            interested in this; philosophy is usually a sure way to lose listeners these
            days. But what the heck.) See, Hegel took the concept as the ultimate
            reality rather than the thinking mind that creates concepts, or more
            accurately draws them from the infinite well of concepts by the faculty of
            "intuition" as Steiner puts it (not meaning our usual use of the word
            intuition by that). Rand took the outside world as the ultimate reality,
            thus making the activity of cognition concrete but never going deeply enough
            within to recognize what it was that took the 'percepts' from the external
            world and 'integrated' them into a universal concept. She had a horror of
            non-material means of knowing and a sort of dread of looking within. [Taking
            speed every day for 40 years didn't help, either.] But any intense study of
            philosophy can be a start in the direction of anthroposophy, and hers sure
            is intense.

            As for being an atheist, objectivists regard most religion as primitive
            superstition and a hindrance to thinking and progress, an emotional
            mysticism which leads to irrationality and wars.

            Well?????? Any problems with that ????????

            Remember, Steiner was accused by many priests of being an atheist because
            he didn't agree with the usual idiotic approach to religion (one even egged
            on the local Swiss to burn down the building). Buddha's followers were
            likewise called atheists because they thought outside of the traditional
            formulaic method of thinking about the Divine or ultimate reality. Socrates
            was forced to drink the hemlock for the same reason.

            But to Rand, the Self was our Spirit and thinking was done with that
            Spirit, and Man was a being destined to create a life for himself, for his
            own sake, as a free spirit. Making an individual merely a means to another
            end----saying he must live to serve some hypothetical God, or the state, or
            Osama Bin Laden or anything outside of himself--- was repugnant to her, and
            seemed no different in the case of the traditional Christianity (which
            Steiner also opposed in his early career) than in the case of the communism
            which denied and crushed all individuals as she experienced it in Lenin's
            Russia, where her parents were reduced to poverty when the state took over
            her father's business.

            There's one other great point of contact between their approaches: just
            about all the New Age garbage today and for the past century or more has
            gone back to the decadent Eastern religious point of view, that all external
            reality is an illusion. (That's suuuuuuuch a helpful philosophy for building
            a building, starting a farm, running a school, making remedies for
            illnesses, etc.!!!) Rand was repulsed both at the dishonesty of those who
            push this snake-oil while violating it every day---- as William James joked
            about a gathering of philosophers, they concluded there was no such thing as
            reality but all left by the door, not the window---- and the
            feeble-mindedness of the losers who buy it rather than see it as what it is,
            a failed philosophy from people who live in mud huts and starve by the
            millions (most of whom have now intelligently jettisoned it in favor of the
            Western philosophy they see lifting them out of poverty).

            Both Rand and Steiner stood firmly on the ground of Western
            philosophy--- Rand regarding it as a great gift now being abandoned for
            irrationalism and socialism, and Steiner regarding it as also a treasure but
            one which needed to be extended into a SPIRIT science as well as a natural
            and soul one, or else it would become a force for evil.


            Starman

            www.DrStarman.com





            >From: "Jenny" <jnnfrm62@...>
            >Reply-To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
            >To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: [steiner] Re: Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
            >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:26:40 -0000
            >
            > and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as
            >an adult.
            > >
            > > ******She appeals to people who feel they have a lot of talent but
            >are not being 'allowed' to be themselves---in other words, to the
            >choleric in us, which we especially feel as teens.
            > > Actually, if she hadn't stopped short at a certain point, she
            >would have found her way to spiritual science; and her work,
            >Nietzchean though it is expressed, has many points of contact with
            >anthroposophy. She experienced the human spirit but never broke
            >through to experiencing the spiritual world THROUGH that.
            >Her 'Objectivism' is still useful for people who need to have a
            >stronger sense of self---but is not good for any who have too strong
            >a one already!
            > > Dr. Starman
            > >
            >
            >
            >Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
            >
            >Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of Ayn
            >Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
            >Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality precedes
            >consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim that
            >one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be very
            >interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how Ayn
            >Rand "got it wrong".
            >
            >Thank you so much!
            >
            >Jenny

            _________________________________________________________________
            Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now.
            http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.