- Robert, when I wrote: where self centered ambition is recognized to be fully absent , I really meant it, in a thorough sense. Let me elaborate aMessage 1 of 20 , Aug 25, 2008View Source
Robert, when I wrote: "where 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent", I really meant it, in a thorough sense.
Let me elaborate a little... meaning that, 'once one, lets say me, has ascertained, using whatever means I freely will, be it thought, inner vision, inner full body experience, angelic or disincarnate resource spirit beings etc etc; that a given anthroposophist expressing him/her self within discussion is reflecting an earnest attempt to widen their spiritual knowledge/experience through the act of socialization, AND thus NOT intentionaly pursuing a self centered, one man/woman mission, THEN there exists a possibility for more positive stuff to thrive within the exchange, more than that of mere ideas.
However, in retrosopect, I understand that it's hard to draw a line here, seeing as people are known to unconsciously pursue selfish interests. But all the same, if such an individual where expressing themselve in a truly genuine fashion, even if a condition of 'fault' were present, good things would still transcend from the sharing in 'conversation'. The 'fault element' would be shuffled a little by underlying soul forces....
OK, can you see that?
Also, in this exchange, I've raised the topic of discussion just a little bit to a more superficial plane than it was in the original post - though certainly not to the extreme that you did.
Do you recognize this?
--- In email@example.com, "Robert Mason" <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carol" organicethics@ wrote:
> > I think within the activity of 'an anthroposophical' discussion, where
> > 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent, there
> > a little more positive stuff than a mere exchange of abstract ideas
> > concepts.
> Of course there is no personal ambition among
> Anthros; we have all risen above that.
> Are you in the market for a slightly used
> suspension bridge?
- ... Yes, when you put it as an if-then proposition, I can see it. ... post ... Uh, no; I don t see what you mean by raising to a more superficial plane .Message 2 of 20 , Aug 28, 2008View Source--- In email@example.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:
> OK, can you see that?Yes, when you put it as an if-then proposition,
I can see it.
> Also, in this exchange, I've raised the topic of discussion just apost
> little bit to a more superficial plane than it was in the original
> - though certainly not to the extreme that you did.Uh, no; I don't see what you mean by "raising"
> Do you recognize this?
to a "more superficial plane". Maybe you
meant *less superficial*?
-- And I can see much of what you say about
TV causing people to confuse fantasy with
reality. But this can also happen with books
and movies. For instance, in bars Bogart used
to run into people who wanted to take a poke
at him to prove they were tougher than he
was. And even in ancient Rome, I think,
actors were "stars". But TV likely intensifies
this pseudo-reality because of TV's hypnotic
effect and easy availability.