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

Re: different approaches to anthroposophy

Expand Messages
  • carynlouise24
    Greetings Durward and Peter; apologies for interrupting your discussion but if I may bring in a thought for consideration. `I know many of the leaders of the
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings Durward and Peter; apologies for interrupting your discussion but if I may bring in a thought for consideration.

      `I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution'

      But this is a very simple answer: Truth.

      We are in the age of developing the consciousness soul and it does surprise me that the leaders of the movement and many who call themselves anthroposophist have not grasped this simple fact.

      The silence on 9/11 from the anthroposophists is questionable. There is enough evidence too shine light on this happening.

      And yet there seems to be an ostrich position taken by burying ones head in the sand. And of course this makes it worse.

      Looking at this event from a distance we see the ruthless engineering behind it was to attack innocent people and with this stir up racist hate.

      One cannot wonder why there is an anti-west feeling in the east. But this is also engineered. `Race against race, hate against hate' .

      The churches are hopelessly inadequate to come forward with the truth so all the talk about values and traditions mean zero.

      This is the evil that has come upon our times the inability for any decent and moral leader to speak the Truth about 9/11.

      Instead they hide behind the over used phrased `the Islamic threat'.

      I have said this before; for America to regain her dignity she should speak the truth, with all the implications this involves, and for America to be respected throughout the world she needs to take a moral stand and own up to the truth, sooner rather than later, else the anti-feelings will infester and why should the unrighteous prince of this world receive credit when people in the west and in the east are dying because of the inability to speak the truth.

      The Hierarchies are only too willingly to help but they can only do so if men approach the truth in willingness imbued with moral feeling.

      Every epoch has its lesson to learn and this lesson is the Consciousness Soul.

      Your thoughts on this are appreciated.

      Caryn



      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.
      > He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works. I put this remark in the same category as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures. What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them. I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves. The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.
      > Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science. My first class teacher, Hans Gebert, was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them, but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd. My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going, like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them, but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value. I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy, through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.
      >
      > In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today, it has to evolve, and it does. No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom; every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy, music etc., is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s; and wholly new branches of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse. Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do. But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it. That's why the emphasis on the arts.
      > Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome. Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality.
      > A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics. It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany. To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down, that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted). In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).
      > I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge. A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum, Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows. It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier. Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age!
      > The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of "What can I do for the society?", but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?" That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times. As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new. I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.
      > Starman
      >
      >
      >
      > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      > From: peter.lam41@...
      > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
      > Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject. I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder. What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns. I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult. Any source for the latter? There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said: The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton. I think that came from Walter
      > Johannes Stein. Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'. As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do. I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time. I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest. PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously:
      > authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
      > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
      >
    • Durward Starman
      ******* Sorry, Caryn, you ve tried this before. I have no interest in conspiracy theories. There are lots of political groups online where you can discuss such
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ******* Sorry, Caryn, you've tried this before. I have no interest in conspiracy theories. There are lots of political groups online where you can discuss such things if you wish. They have nothing to do with Steiner or anthroposophy--- except perhaps as an example of just the kind of thing I wrote about below, namely people stretching some remarks the Doctor made about European Masons in the 1920s to buttress their conspiracy theories now, in our 21st century, in a completely different time and place.
         
           Specifically, the idea that the 19 Saudis and Egyptians flying the planes into buildings for Bin Laden's Al Qaeda was actually a Western (CIA? Jewish?) conspiracy belongs with Holocaust denial and people arguing we really didn't land on the moon. There is no evidence that it was anything other than what it clearly was, an attack on Western economic power by anti-modernist Wahabi Islamists. I have seen no evidence at all, in 8 years, of it being a 'Reichstag Fire' strategy, a staged event to cause the West to hate the Muslim world--- instead all available evidence points the opposite way.
         
           The only relevance to Steiner is his forecast of demonic powers (666) beginning to attack the world in 1998, which he connected to Islam. I can re-post those remarks if anyone wants to talk realistically about radical Islam and its war on mankind.

        -starman


         

        To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
        From: carynlouise24@...
        Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:02:25 +0000
        Subject: [steiner] Re: different approaches to anthroposophy

         
        Greetings Durward and Peter; apologies for interrupting your discussion but if I may bring in a thought for consideration.

        `I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution'

        But this is a very simple answer: Truth.

        We are in the age of developing the consciousness soul and it does surprise me that the leaders of the movement and many who call themselves anthroposophist have not grasped this simple fact.

        The silence on 9/11 from the anthroposophists is questionable. There is enough evidence too shine light on this happening.

        And yet there seems to be an ostrich position taken by burying ones head in the sand. And of course this makes it worse.

        Looking at this event from a distance we see the ruthless engineering behind it was to attack innocent people and with this stir up racist hate.

        One cannot wonder why there is an anti-west feeling in the east. But this is also engineered. `Race against race, hate against hate' .

        The churches are hopelessly inadequate to come forward with the truth so all the talk about values and traditions mean zero.

        This is the evil that has come upon our times the inability for any decent and moral leader to speak the Truth about 9/11.

        Instead they hide behind the over used phrased `the Islamic threat'.

        I have said this before; for America to regain her dignity she should speak the truth, with all the implications this involves, and for America to be respected throughout the world she needs to take a moral stand and own up to the truth, sooner rather than later, else the anti-feelings will infester and why should the unrighteous prince of this world receive credit when people in the west and in the east are dying because of the inability to speak the truth.

        The Hierarchies are only too willingly to help but they can only do so if men approach the truth in willingness imbued with moral feeling.

        Every epoch has its lesson to learn and this lesson is the Consciousness Soul.

        Your thoughts on this are appreciated.

        Caryn

        --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@. ..> wrote:
        >
        >
        > ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.
        > He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works. I put this remark in the same category as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures. What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them. I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves. The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.
        > Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science. My first class teacher, Hans Gebert, was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them, but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd. My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going, like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them, but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value. I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy, through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.
        >
        > In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today, it has to evolve, and it does. No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom; every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy, music etc., is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s; and wholly new branches of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse. Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do. But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it. That's why the emphasis on the arts.
        > Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome. Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality.
        > A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics. It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany. To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down, that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted). In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).
        > I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge. A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum, Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows. It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier. Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age!
        > The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of "What can I do for the society?", but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?" That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times. As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new. I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.
        > Starman
        >
        >
        >
        > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
        > From: peter.lam41@ ...
        > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
        > Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject. I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder. What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns. I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult. Any source for the latter? There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said: The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton. I think that came from Walter
        > Johannes Stein. Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'. As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do. I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time. I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest. PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously:
        > authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
        > http://clk.atdmt. com/GBL/go/ 177141665/ direct/01/
        >




        Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
      • Peter Lam
        Thanks again to Starman, your piece again helps me get a fresh perspective on several things.  You touch on many relevant matters, which could also give rise
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 16, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks again to Starman, your piece again helps me get a fresh perspective on several things.  You touch on many relevant matters, which could also give rise to several new 'threads'.  To keep my piece from being too long, I won't take you up on everything here.  On reading through before sending, I hope my style does not appear unfriendly, it is not meant to be.
           
          Your post of 15 Dec suggests much less the conservative I had thought on the basis of your post of 13 Dec, although even the latter indicated a certain independence for example in the suggestion:  "If he were alive today, he'd probably start doing a series of lessons via the Internet, podcasting, etc...".   It just happens that of all the files I saw 'uplifted' to this site I have opened only one:  Prokofieff's "The Being of the Internet" dating from 2005.  Interesting to compare, especially if you read the whole article including towards the end 'The Exceptionality of the Class Texts'.
           
          The reference to the 'safest path' etc you have in mind is probably part of chapter 5 of Occult Science which appears in parenthesis:  "(The path that leads to sense free thinking by way of the communications of spiritual science is thoroughly reliable and sure.  There is however another that is even more sure, and above all more exact; at the same time, it is for many people also more difficult.  The path in question is set forth in my books The Theory of Knowledge implicit in Goethe's World-Conception and The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity....").  Quoted from G and M Adam's translation, oddly the more recent C E Creeger translation omits the bit about it being more difficult for many people.  Being more difficult for many people is somewhat different to your "the most difficult for men in our time".  (People generally also like to include women these days as in fact Steiner did.)
           
          On the question of these two paths, a very interesting more recent source is Florin Lowndes'  Enlivening the Chakra of the Heart, especially chapter 2 of part four.  Original German of 1996.  Lowndes in turn gives many further references to Steiner and quotes the same passage from Occult Science  referred to above.  One Lowndes' quote of Steiner reads:  "People have not managed to read the Philosophy of Freedom in a different way from other books.  And that is what is needed, and  must be emphasized in no uncertain terms, for otherwise the development of the Anthroposophical Society will lag far behind the development of anthroposophy.  In which case anthroposophy, taking a round-about path through the Anthroposophical Society, will be wholly misunderstood by the world - and nothing can result from this but conflict upon conflict!"  Although from 6 Feb 1923, this statement does not seem to me to be overtaken by events.

        • Durward Starman
          ******* Anyone who is doing his own spiritual research has to be independent and arrive at his own conclusions. I don t blindly agree with all my friend
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 16, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            ******* Anyone who is doing his own spiritual research has to be independent and arrive at his own conclusions.  I don't blindly agree with all my friend Prokofieff's conclusions anymore than he agrees with mine, nor would I expect him to.  He finds my combining anthroposophy with the Edgar Cayce readings and astrology rather a bit too eclectic for him, and I find him rather too "anthroposophically orthodox";  notwithstanding that I consider his contributions to anthroposophy among the most valuable of our times.   I haven't read the entire article in the Files section (anyone in our group can upload files to it, by the way). 

                I was given Lowndes' book and read it carefully but it didn't do anything for me as far as adding to Knowledge of the Higher Worlds was concerned.  I did not find it inspired or showing that the author has experienced what you experience when you open the chakras. I would recommend people simply read/ work with Steiner's books. 

               And I don't agree with the attempt to remove the word "man" from English language.  It never meant "male".  The word had its origin in an ancient root word for "mind", signifying beings with minds;  the derivative "woman" meant  "man with a womb."  I feel that clear thinking requires clear use of language, and the masses are befuddled if you first corrupt their language, George Orwell pointed out.   I'd say convincing people that the ancient word for "thinking being" meant only males so that they would abolish it is pretty sad, so I declined to go along.

                As to the difficulty of philosophical thinking,  a certain brilliant thinker named Thomas Edison opined towards the end of his life, "5% of the people think; 10% of people think they think; and the other 85% would rather die than think."  Perhaps an exaggeration by a cranky old man, but I wonder.

            Starman




            To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
            From: peter.lam41@...
            Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:47:18 -0800
            Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

             

            Thanks again to Starman, your piece again helps me get a fresh perspective on several things.  You touch on many relevant matters, which could also give rise to several new 'threads'.  To keep my piece from being too long, I won't take you up on everything here.  On reading through before sending, I hope my style does not appear unfriendly, it is not meant to be.
             
            Your post of 15 Dec suggests much less the conservative I had thought on the basis of your post of 13 Dec, although even the latter indicated a certain independence for example in the suggestion:  "If he were alive today, he'd probably start doing a series of lessons via the Internet, podcasting, etc...".   It just happens that of all the files I saw 'uplifted' to this site I have opened only one:  Prokofieff's "The Being of the Internet" dating from 2005.  Interesting to compare, especially if you read the whole article including towards the end 'The Exceptionality of the Class Texts'.
             
            The reference to the 'safest path' etc you have in mind is probably part of chapter 5 of Occult Science which appears in parenthesis:  "(The path that leads to sense free thinking by way of the communications of spiritual science is thoroughly reliable and sure.  There is however another that is even more sure, and above all more exact; at the same time, it is for many people also more difficult.  The path in question is set forth in my books The Theory of Knowledge implicit in Goethe's World-Conception and The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity....").  Quoted from G and M Adam's translation, oddly the more recent C E Creeger translation omits the bit about it being more difficult for many people.  Being more difficult for many people is somewhat different to your "the most difficult for men in our time".  (People generally also like to include women these days as in fact Steiner did.)
             
            On the question of these two paths, a very interesting more recent source is Florin Lowndes'  Enlivening the Chakra of the Heart, especially chapter 2 of part four.  Original German of 1996.  Lowndes in turn gives many further references to Steiner and quotes the same passage from Occult Science  referred to above.  One Lowndes' quote of Steiner reads:  "People have not managed to read the Philosophy of Freedom in a different way from other books.  And that is what is needed, and  must be emphasized in no uncertain terms, for otherwise the development of the Anthroposophical Society will lag far behind the development of anthroposophy.  In which case anthroposophy, taking a round-about path through the Anthroposophical Society, will be wholly misunderstood by the world - and nothing can result from this but conflict upon conflict!"  Although from 6 Feb 1923, this statement does not seem to me to be overtaken by events.




            Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
          • carynlouise24
            Durward, may I ask does the sand get into your eyes or do you keep them closed? It is my understanding the Muslim people hold their morals highly. They are
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 17, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Durward, may I ask does the sand get into your eyes or do you keep them closed?

              It is my understanding the Muslim people hold their morals highly. They are extremely moral people. If one digs deep enough one might find where the extremist element comes from, those that stir up trouble and unrest on purpose in the Middle East for their own agenda.

              The morals of the Muslim people compared to the western people are 100 fold.

              Your concept of 666 is surprising considering you call yourself to be an anthroposophist an astrological one as well.

              You talk about knowledge of higher worlds, art, eurythmy etc etc without addressing the most fundamental fact of life. Truth.

              As you stated eloquently yourself:

              `I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge.'


              Or are your opinions swayed by that institution – the Jewish Vatican –who obviously want to place the so called anti-christ on their throne … of which the one sits already.






              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > ******* Sorry, Caryn, you've tried this before. I have no interest in conspiracy theories. There are lots of political groups online where you can discuss such things if you wish. They have nothing to do with Steiner or anthroposophy--- except perhaps as an example of just the kind of thing I wrote about below, namely people stretching some remarks the Doctor made about European Masons in the 1920s to buttress their conspiracy theories now, in our 21st century, in a completely different time and place.
              >
              >
              >
              > Specifically, the idea that the 19 Saudis and Egyptians flying the planes into buildings for Bin Laden's Al Qaeda was actually a Western (CIA? Jewish?) conspiracy belongs with Holocaust denial and people arguing we really didn't land on the moon. There is no evidence that it was anything other than what it clearly was, an attack on Western economic power by anti-modernist Wahabi Islamists. I have seen no evidence at all, in 8 years, of it being a 'Reichstag Fire' strategy, a staged event to cause the West to hate the Muslim world--- instead all available evidence points the opposite way.
              >
              >
              >
              > The only relevance to Steiner is his forecast of demonic powers (666) beginning to attack the world in 1998, which he connected to Islam. I can re-post those remarks if anyone wants to talk realistically about radical Islam and its war on mankind.
              >
              > -starman
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              > From: carynlouise24@...
              > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:02:25 +0000
              > Subject: [steiner] Re: different approaches to anthroposophy
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Greetings Durward and Peter; apologies for interrupting your discussion but if I may bring in a thought for consideration.
              >
              > `I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution'
              >
              > But this is a very simple answer: Truth.
              >
              > We are in the age of developing the consciousness soul and it does surprise me that the leaders of the movement and many who call themselves anthroposophist have not grasped this simple fact.
              >
              > The silence on 9/11 from the anthroposophists is questionable. There is enough evidence too shine light on this happening.
              >
              > And yet there seems to be an ostrich position taken by burying ones head in the sand. And of course this makes it worse.
              >
              > Looking at this event from a distance we see the ruthless engineering behind it was to attack innocent people and with this stir up racist hate.
              >
              > One cannot wonder why there is an anti-west feeling in the east. But this is also engineered. `Race against race, hate against hate' .
              >
              > The churches are hopelessly inadequate to come forward with the truth so all the talk about values and traditions mean zero.
              >
              > This is the evil that has come upon our times the inability for any decent and moral leader to speak the Truth about 9/11.
              >
              > Instead they hide behind the over used phrased `the Islamic threat'.
              >
              > I have said this before; for America to regain her dignity she should speak the truth, with all the implications this involves, and for America to be respected throughout the world she needs to take a moral stand and own up to the truth, sooner rather than later, else the anti-feelings will infester and why should the unrighteous prince of this world receive credit when people in the west and in the east are dying because of the inability to speak the truth.
              >
              > The Hierarchies are only too willingly to help but they can only do so if men approach the truth in willingness imbued with moral feeling.
              >
              > Every epoch has its lesson to learn and this lesson is the Consciousness Soul.
              >
              > Your thoughts on this are appreciated.
              >
              > Caryn
              >
              > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.
              > > He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works. I put this remark in the same category as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures. What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them. I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves. The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.
              > > Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science. My first class teacher, Hans Gebert, was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them, but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd. My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going, like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them, but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value. I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy, through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.
              > >
              > > In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today, it has to evolve, and it does. No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom; every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy, music etc., is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s; and wholly new branches of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse. Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do. But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it. That's why the emphasis on the arts.
              > > Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome. Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality.
              > > A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics. It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany. To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down, that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted). In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).
              > > I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge. A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum, Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows. It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier. Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age!
              > > The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of "What can I do for the society?", but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?" That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times. As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new. I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.
              > > Starman
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              > > From: peter.lam41@
              > > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
              > > Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject. I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder. What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns. I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult. Any source for the latter? There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said: The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton. I think that came from Walter
              > > Johannes Stein. Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'. As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do. I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time. I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest. PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously:
              > > authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > __________________________________________________________
              > > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
              > > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
              > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
              >
            • Ray Dunne
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 17, 2009
              • 0 Attachment

                Starman,

                   Greetings, I am a new member who has been sort of lurking for the past few weeks. I haven't been able to fit myself into any spiritual group very cleanly but currently I'm sort of a neo-pagan with an interest in my Irish heritage. I found Rudy Steiner searching for as much information as I could find on something called 'the hibernian mysteries'. I'll try to pick your brain on that later. I write today because I am compelled to speak out about your statements about conspiracy theories. It is hard for me to understand how any thinking man can accept what our country is doing, has been doing over the past decade in the Arab world, as it is presented to us by the media. Was the individual who the day after Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. expressed doubts about the presence of WMD's in Iraq a conspiracy theorist? He probably would have been considered one if we hadn't found out first hand that there were not. Of course there are backward,racist, violent 'bad guys' in the arab world, but aren't there a few of those over here as well? You're doing exactly what they'd hope you'd do; fear them and ignore the fact that the U.S. has literally assaulted reason and logic with it's disgraceful foreign policy. 

                 I agree that conspiracy theories are dangerous to the mind when a person doesn't maintain an measure of emotional detatchment to them. No one should assume something as serious as Americans conspiring to have 3000 of it's citizens murdered in order to justify a multi-billion dollar military campain to be true with out addequate proof.  And there isn't adequate proof that this happened, so no one should be believe that with any emotional investment. But a thinking person can't help but notice that it was just that event that has fueled a foreign policy that is in many ways bizarrely illogical. What we are doing could never have been accepted had it not been for sept.11. And we are, hippocritically and arrogantly, a country completely unconcerned(unquestioning)about why sept.11 happened in terms of our actions in THEIR land, and how it could have happened in terms of the events that went down that day, and how we can truly prevent it from happening again. There is one answer for each of those questions and it is answers given to us by the government (on sept.11 bizzarely enough), relayed by the media without an significant debate, and wholeheartedley accepted by all those brave americans who don't want the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. Again, the answers to all of those questions today are the same one's given to us by the government on the day of the event! And if you don't just except that you are a conspiracy theorist? You have that much faith in our media?

                Anyway, I have found the small amount I have read of Steiner to be fascinating, and I'd like to know what you guys know about the 'hibernian mysteries'. But if you guys aren't smart enough to see through the con job this country is pulling over on the world I'll always question the fruits of anthroposophical methods.

                Rumann O'Duinn

                  

                ----- Original Message -----

                From: Ray Dunne

                Sent: 12/15/09 08:18 PM

                To: steiner@yahoogroups.com

                Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

                 

                ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.


                   He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works.  I put this remark in the same category  as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures.  What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them.  I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves.  The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.

                    Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science.  My first class teacher, Hans Gebert,  was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them,  but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd.  My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going,  like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them,  but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value.  I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy,  through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.

                    In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today,  it has to evolve, and it does.   No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom;  every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy,  music etc.,  is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s;  and wholly new branches  of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse.  Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do.  But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it.  That's why the emphasis on the arts.

                   Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome.  Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality. 

                   A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics.  It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany.  To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down,  that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its  "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted).  In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).  

                   I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge.  A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum,  Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people  talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows.  It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier.  Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age! 

                    The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of  "What can I do for the society?",  but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?"  That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times.  As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new.  I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.

                Starman




                To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                From: peter.lam41@yahoo.com
                Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
                Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

                 

                Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject.  I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder.  What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns.  I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult.  Any source for the latter?  There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said:  The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton.  I think that came from Walter Johannes Stein.  Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'.  As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do.  I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time.  I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest.  PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously: authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.




                Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

              • Durward Starman
                Wacko conspiracy theories I ve tolerated from that person for 2 years now, but he/she is now off the list. Anti-Semitism is going too far. -starman To:
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 17, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wacko conspiracy theories I've tolerated from that person for 2 years now, but he/she is now off the list. Anti-Semitism is going too far.

                  -starman




                  To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                  From: carynlouise24@...
                  Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:01:11 +0000
                  Subject: [steiner] Re: different approaches to anthroposophy

                   
                  Durward, may I ask does the sand get into your eyes or do you keep them closed?

                  It is my understanding the Muslim people hold their morals highly. They are extremely moral people. If one digs deep enough one might find where the extremist element comes from, those that stir up trouble and unrest on purpose in the Middle East for their own agenda.

                  The morals of the Muslim people compared to the western people are 100 fold.

                  Your concept of 666 is surprising considering you call yourself to be an anthroposophist an astrological one as well.

                  You talk about knowledge of higher worlds, art, eurythmy etc etc without addressing the most fundamental fact of life. Truth.

                  As you stated eloquently yourself:

                  `I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge.'

                  Or are your opinions swayed by that institution – the Jewish Vatican –who obviously want to place the so called anti-christ on their throne … of which the one sits already.

                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@. ..> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > ******* Sorry, Caryn, you've tried this before. I have no interest in conspiracy theories. There are lots of political groups online where you can discuss such things if you wish. They have nothing to do with Steiner or anthroposophy- -- except perhaps as an example of just the kind of thing I wrote about below, namely people stretching some remarks the Doctor made about European Masons in the 1920s to buttress their conspiracy theories now, in our 21st century, in a completely different time and place.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Specifically, the idea that the 19 Saudis and Egyptians flying the planes into buildings for Bin Laden's Al Qaeda was actually a Western (CIA? Jewish?) conspiracy belongs with Holocaust denial and people arguing we really didn't land on the moon. There is no evidence that it was anything other than what it clearly was, an attack on Western economic power by anti-modernist Wahabi Islamists. I have seen no evidence at all, in 8 years, of it being a 'Reichstag Fire' strategy, a staged event to cause the West to hate the Muslim world--- instead all available evidence points the opposite way.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The only relevance to Steiner is his forecast of demonic powers (666) beginning to attack the world in 1998, which he connected to Islam. I can re-post those remarks if anyone wants to talk realistically about radical Islam and its war on mankind.
                  >
                  > -starman
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                  > From: carynlouise24@ ...
                  > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:02:25 +0000
                  > Subject: [steiner] Re: different approaches to anthroposophy
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Greetings Durward and Peter; apologies for interrupting your discussion but if I may bring in a thought for consideration.
                  >
                  > `I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution'
                  >
                  > But this is a very simple answer: Truth.
                  >
                  > We are in the age of developing the consciousness soul and it does surprise me that the leaders of the movement and many who call themselves anthroposophist have not grasped this simple fact.
                  >
                  > The silence on 9/11 from the anthroposophists is questionable. There is enough evidence too shine light on this happening.
                  >
                  > And yet there seems to be an ostrich position taken by burying ones head in the sand. And of course this makes it worse.
                  >
                  > Looking at this event from a distance we see the ruthless engineering behind it was to attack innocent people and with this stir up racist hate.
                  >
                  > One cannot wonder why there is an anti-west feeling in the east. But this is also engineered. `Race against race, hate against hate' .
                  >
                  > The churches are hopelessly inadequate to come forward with the truth so all the talk about values and traditions mean zero.
                  >
                  > This is the evil that has come upon our times the inability for any decent and moral leader to speak the Truth about 9/11.
                  >
                  > Instead they hide behind the over used phrased `the Islamic threat'.
                  >
                  > I have said this before; for America to regain her dignity she should speak the truth, with all the implications this involves, and for America to be respected throughout the world she needs to take a moral stand and own up to the truth, sooner rather than later, else the anti-feelings will infester and why should the unrighteous prince of this world receive credit when people in the west and in the east are dying because of the inability to speak the truth.
                  >
                  > The Hierarchies are only too willingly to help but they can only do so if men approach the truth in willingness imbued with moral feeling.
                  >
                  > Every epoch has its lesson to learn and this lesson is the Consciousness Soul.
                  >
                  > Your thoughts on this are appreciated.
                  >
                  > Caryn
                  >
                  > --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.
                  > > He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works. I put this remark in the same category as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures. What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them. I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves. The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.
                  > > Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science. My first class teacher, Hans Gebert, was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them, but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd. My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going, like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them, but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value. I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy, through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.
                  > >
                  > > In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today, it has to evolve, and it does. No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom; every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy, music etc., is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s; and wholly new branches of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse. Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do. But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it. That's why the emphasis on the arts.
                  > > Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome. Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality.
                  > > A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics. It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany. To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down, that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted). In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).
                  > > I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge. A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum, Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows. It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier. Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age!
                  > > The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of "What can I do for the society?", but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?" That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times. As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new. I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.
                  > > Starman
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                  > > From: peter.lam41@
                  > > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
                  > > Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject. I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder. What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns. I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult. Any source for the latter? There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said: The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton. I think that came from Walter
                  > > Johannes Stein. Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'. As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do. I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time. I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest. PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously:
                  > > authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                  > > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
                  > > http://clk.atdmt. com/GBL/go/ 177141665/ direct/01/
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                  > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
                  > http://clk.atdmt. com/GBL/go/ 171222984/ direct/01/
                  >




                  Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
                • Durward Starman
                  ******* I knew this would happen as soon as I started talking about politics again. But this time I m not going to just say, okay discussion of politics is
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 17, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ******* I knew this would happen as soon as I started talking about politics again.  But this time I'm not going to just say, okay discussion of politics is off-topic. There are just too many people trying to study esoteric things who have the most irrational so-called "thinking" about current events. I'm tired of not responding to it.  I'm also tired of the disrespectful attitude that is epidemic in our times, so forgive me "Rumy" if I take you to task about "Rudy" Steiner, this list, and your contribution to it.

                       You are not  "compelled" to speak about conspiracy theories, you want to speak about them because everybody loves a soapbox ---because we are in a very egotistical time, by which I mean we're supposed to be developing the ego. But what needs to happen to ordinary ideas is that they need to be raised up through working with anthroposophy, otherwise you have no clear ideas about the mundane events you observe.

                        I can suggest two books and two videos.  The first book is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern studies at, which is an excellent overview of the stagnation of the Islamic intellectual world and how the anti-modern Wahhabi Islam developed in response to our Western world advancing beyond and therefore militarily defeating the Arabs 200 years ago, when they had a religion that said that they had all the truth and infidels had nothing to teach them.  The second is "Hatred's Kingdom"  about Saudi Arabia and how, since the 1920s, it has used its oil wealth to fund the anti-modern, anti-western madrassas and mosques in Pakistan and all over the world. This has been going on since long before the creation of Palestine,  and long before the United States of America had any involvement in the Middle East.  The two videos are the film "Obsession"  and Geert Wilders'  film "Fitna"  which he did after the Moslems killed his fellow filmmaker and friend Theo van Gogh in Holland.  You can see and hear the Moslem "imams"  preaching clearly and openly that they will take over the United States, take over the United Kingdom, impose their traditional tribal Sharia law,  abolish freedoms, impose restrictions on all women, kill all Jews and homosexuals and on and on and on.   Western people who try to have a reasonable, moderate opinion of Islam all need to watch these films and hear direct from their mouths what these people want,  in order to break out of the  ethnocentric delusion that all their hatred has been caused by the United States, that all we have to do is stop supporting Israel and they will like us, etc. etc. etc.  That is a fantasy.

                        As Steiner said repeatedly, we have to have realistic thinking first in order to understand what comes from higher worlds. All right, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this as I've been saying it for eight years unnecessarily, but here we go again. Number one, there is no truth to the anti-Semitic rumor that no Jews were in the World Trade Center towers, having been warned beforehand; hundreds of Jews (as well as Arabs,  for that matter) were killed there.  Number two: it's completely false that the towers were demolished by explosives.  You can get any number of films for yourself and see that the buildings began collapsing in the exact floors that the planes crashed into, meaning that, if they were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, people who somehow got into the World Trade Center and planted those explosives (without being seen doing it) must have known exactly what floors the planes would crash into in advance, which is an absurd stretch of imagination (not even considering the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that was probably headed for the White House which the passengers caused to crash beforehand ---  there was no pre-planted explosives in those cases),  and moreover if the buildings were to be destroyed by explosives, why would anyone bother to hijack planes and fly them into the buildings? If the purpose was a Reichstag Fire strategy, of a staged event to encourage people to support a military counteraction, that could've been accomplished by just using bombs to bring the buildings down and blaming it on bin Laden,  so these people with way too much time on their hands who try to say the buildings were demolished by explosive charges are being completely irrational.  [I was there, teaching in New York City, the first time the buildings were bombed in 1993:  it was a well-known goal of the Wahhabi Muslims for decades to destroy them.]

                        Therefore, the buildings were definitely destroyed by the planes that crashed into them. Number three: we have security camera videos of the 19 hijackers getting on board the planes;  we have the airlines' flight lists showing who was on board, real people whose husbands and wives know they went on those planes and died.  Anyone who tries to say those people didn't really board the planes and didn't really die on those planes  has to maintain an enormous conspiracy involving hundreds of people faking security camera video tapes,  all of which has been kept secret for eight years from massive investigations.  So there's no rational dispute about who was on those planes. Number four: the hijackers were 19 Saudis and Egyptians who were all Wahhabi Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, who left behind numerous documents saying what they intended to do such as Mohammed Atta's will,  and we have Osama bin Laden on tape with mullah Omar immediately after the crashes talking about how they planned them  and how he was confident the buildings would actually collapse from the jet fuel because he had a background in construction work in his family. We also have the open confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind here in the US, about to be tried in New York City.

                        Respond to that with concrete, rational thoughts.

                        What I've seen for the past eight years are two kinds of irrationality among Americans: first, antigovernment feelings pressure people to look for our government behind every event which happens, without recognizing that this is being ethnocentric, denying that there are forces and events in the world which have nothing to do with us. It's a sort of hidden egotism that subconsciously feels that we are so powerful that we have to be the people causing everything that happens. [ The war of Islam against the entire world goes back to the sixth century and has nothing to do with the United States of America that has only existed for three centuries.  The hatred of the United States comes about because of our power and success, making us the most visible representative of the Western world;  actually, the humiliation of the Arabs was at the hands of the French and the British who were the colonial powers, not the US, and the real holy war began after the aggressively atheist Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979.  in other words, we are under attack because we are the greatest Western power while secondary attacks are underway against England, France and Russia. ] The second kind of irrational thinking is related to the first, namely an inability to advance one's ideas to grasp new geopolitical realities. For people who formed their world of ideas during the Cold War, the reality of a worldwide violent war led by a dark ages religion  is just not digestible,  does not compute.  We call them "September 10th thinkers" or people stuck in the 20th century.

                        Besides the facts of the attacks by Al Qaeda, I'll address the other things you've mixed in here.  First, thankfully you left the name George Bush out of your screed which is so much like the ones I've been hearing for eight years, but those diatribes were all directed against him and making him out to be a villain. Okay, both President Clinton and Hillary Clinton, as well as numerous leading politicians in the 1990s, also believed that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear and biological weapons.  Intelligence was saying  so to all the countries, not just the US. The reason why was that, as we now know, he went to great lengths to convince everyone he was doing so so that they would fear his power, particularly Iran  which was also pursuing them (and is now succeeding).  I bring up George Bush because this kind of argument has always been made by liberal Democrats to attack Bush, so, okay, now that your boy is president, if this was all just a conspiracy, why is he continuing to search for bin Laden and send more troops to Afghanistan?  He has access to all the intelligence now.  And why did Tony Blair agree with who was responsible and agree to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan?  You want to sell people on the idea that it was a conspiracy by George Bush and the prime minister of England?  So where are all the tell-all books by people revealing the conspiracy now that both of them are out of power? How come Pres. Obama hasn't revealed it?  Why is he keeping troops in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan? Why did he confront fundamentalist Islam in his speech in Egypt about its anti-Semitism and the support of the Arab masses for Al Qaeda and their hatred of the modern Western world? Is he part of the conspiracy? This is absurd.

                        There's lots that could be said here about the mysteries and initiation. In ancient Greece they were the greater mysteries and the lesser mysteries. The lesser mysteries involve learning to use your reason and intelligence correctly and govern your emotions, and you had to pass through that before you will be ready for the greater mysteries.  if you think people here on this list such as myself have nothing to communicate to you  about such matters unless we are "intelligent" enough in your judgment -- -- -- meaning we agree with your conspiracy theories, which I've dissected above -- -- --  then that's your loss. 

                       As to the relevance  to Steiner and anthroposophy: see his prediction about the demonic forces becoming active in 1998 which I posted earlier. Let's just put it very simply: our modern Western world is the result of the Christ-Impulse working in the world, raising us up from the more primitive levels most of us were at 2000 years ago. This is the source of our art, music and advanced technology such as you are looking at right now.  But there are opposing forces working against the powers which draw us up:  the Marxism that has been spread all over the Western world for 150 years now and which teaches us to hate the free actions of human beings and our civilization created by them, the  environmentalist movement that has been taken over by the same socialists, using the "global warming" hoax as an excuse to gain power, the backward fundamentalist religions  which in a variety of forms  also want to gain power and eliminate all freedom, etc.  What forces are upward drawing and which are evil can be recognized by their fruits. Look at the fruits of Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden.  Here in the US, ignore the hyperbole and propaganda from liberal Democrats, stuck in their pre-2001 world of ideas.  This is a worldwide war and has nothing to do with the CIA or whatever US politician somebody wants to rant about.  The attacks on us, just like the attack on Madrid, London, the bombing in Bali,  are very real parts of it.  They were not staged by the United States government.  Oh yes, and, by the way, Paul McCartney didn't die,  JFK isn't in a nursing home in Florida, the moon landings were not faked, and the Holocaust did happen.
                       
                       Q.E.D.

                     Next subject? 

                    Starman




                    To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                    From: rayofdarkness@...
                    Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:15:43 -0500
                    Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

                     



                    Starman,
                       Greetings, I am a new member who has been sort of lurking for the past few weeks. I haven't been able to fit myself into any spiritual group very cleanly but currently I'm sort of a neo-pagan with an interest in my Irish heritage. I found Rudy Steiner searching for as much information as I could find on something called 'the hibernian mysteries'. I'll try to pick your brain on that later. I write today because I am compelled to speak out about your statements about conspiracy theories. It is hard for me to understand how any thinking man can accept what our country is doing, has been doing over the past decade in the Arab world, as it is presented to us by the media. Was the individual who the day after Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. expressed doubts about the presence of WMD's in Iraq a conspiracy theorist? He probably would have been considered one if we hadn't found out first hand that there were not. Of course there are backward,racist,  violent 'bad guys' in the arab world, but aren't there a few of those over here as well? You're doing exactly what they'd hope you'd do; fear them and ignore the fact that the U.S. has literally assaulted reason and logic with it's disgraceful foreign policy. 

                     I agree that conspiracy theories are dangerous to the mind when a person doesn't maintain an measure of emotional detatchment to them. No one should assume something as serious as Americans conspiring to have 3000 of it's citizens murdered in order to justify a multi-billion dollar military campain to be true with out addequate proof.  And there isn't adequate proof that this happened, so no one should be believe that with any emotional investment. But a thinking person can't help but notice that it was just that event that has fueled a foreign policy that is in many ways bizarrely illogical. What we are doing could never have been accepted had it not been for sept.11. And we are, hippocritically and arrogantly, a country completely unconcerned( unquestioning) about why sept.11 happened in terms of our actions in THEIR land, and how it could have happened in terms of the events that went down that day, and how we can truly prevent it from happening again. There is one answer for each of those questions and it is answers given to us by the government (on sept.11 bizzarely enough), relayed by the media without an significant debate, and wholeheartedley accepted by all those brave americans who don't want the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. Again, the answers to all of those questions today are the same one's given to us by the government on the day of the event! And if you don't just except that you are a conspiracy theorist? You have that much faith in our media?

                    Anyway, I have found the small amount I have read of Steiner to be fascinating, and I'd like to know what you guys know about the 'hibernian mysteries'. But if you guys aren't smart enough to see through the con job this country is pulling over on the world I'll always question the fruits of anthroposophical methods.

                    Rumann O'Duinn

                      

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Ray Dunne
                    Sent: 12/15/09 08:18 PM
                    To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                    Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

                     
                    ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.

                       He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works.  I put this remark in the same category  as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures.  What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them.  I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves.  The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.

                        Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science.  My first class teacher, Hans Gebert,  was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them,  but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd.  My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going,  like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them,  but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value.  I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy,  through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.

                        In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today,  it has to evolve, and it does.   No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom;  every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy,  music etc.,  is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s;  and wholly new branches  of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse.  Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do.  But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it.  That's why the emphasis on the arts.

                       Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome.  Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality. 

                       A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics.  It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany.  To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down,  that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its  "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted).  In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).  

                       I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge.  A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum,  Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people  talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows.  It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier.  Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age! 

                        The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of  "What can I do for the society?",  but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?"  That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times.  As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new.  I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.

                    Starman




                    To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                    From: peter.lam41@yahoo.com
                    Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
                    Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

                     

                    Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject.  I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder.  What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns.  I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult.  Any source for the latter?  There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said:  The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton.  I think that came from Walter Johannes Stein.  Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'.  As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do.  I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time.  I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest.  PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously: authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.




                    Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.





                    Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
                  • Rumann
                    Starman, sorry about that comment at the end of my last message. That wasn t a very thoughtful comment. I just wanted to let you know that you did not address
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 18, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Starman, sorry about that comment at the end of my last message. That wasn't a very thoughtful comment.

                      I just wanted to let you know that you did not address any of the concerns of the 911truth movement (which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans)except for the idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. You can find the concerns at the 911truth.org. But let me ask you a few things here. How many world trade center buildings fell on 9/11? I've asked this to hand full of people I know and most say two. If you said two, you are wrong. Three world trade center buildings collapsed that day. WTC building 7, located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any airplane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening. One block, same day, no airplanes, no mention of this anywhere in our brave country but on the above mentioned website. Also, there is a lot of controversy raised by very respected engineers that the buildings could have fallen the way they fell by any other means but controlled demolition. And when you hear these engineers describe why it's implausible that they fell by any other means on the videos available on the website you can not believe that there isn't a single bit of discussion on the matter in our media. Never has been.

                      You went to great lengths to describe how evil the backward fundamentalist muslims are. Starman, I never disagreed with you on that. I won't disagree with you about how evil Suddam Hussain was either. And I won't disagree with you on the idea of this country being in grave danger either. What I don't believe is that a never-ending multi-trillion dollar military campain that utilized outright lies to justify itself is the answer.

                      I don't know anything about these other JFK, holocost,and moon conspiracies, and that you woud attribute those to me is unfair. I'm not a whacko, a rumy, or a egotist, as you imply. I just don't agree with you.

                      Ruman O'Duinn

                      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > ******* I knew this would happen as soon as I started talking about politics again. But this time I'm not going to just say, okay discussion of politics is off-topic. There are just too many people trying to study esoteric things who have the most irrational so-called "thinking" about current events. I'm tired of not responding to it. I'm also tired of the disrespectful attitude that is epidemic in our times, so forgive me "Rumy" if I take you to task about "Rudy" Steiner, this list, and your contribution to it.
                      > You are not "compelled" to speak about conspiracy theories, you want to speak about them because everybody loves a soapbox ---because we are in a very egotistical time, by which I mean we're supposed to be developing the ego. But what needs to happen to ordinary ideas is that they need to be raised up through working with anthroposophy, otherwise you have no clear ideas about the mundane events you observe.
                      > I can suggest two books and two videos. The first book is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern studies at, which is an excellent overview of the stagnation of the Islamic intellectual world and how the anti-modern Wahhabi Islam developed in response to our Western world advancing beyond and therefore militarily defeating the Arabs 200 years ago, when they had a religion that said that they had all the truth and infidels had nothing to teach them. The second is "Hatred's Kingdom" about Saudi Arabia and how, since the 1920s, it has used its oil wealth to fund the anti-modern, anti-western madrassas and mosques in Pakistan and all over the world. This has been going on since long before the creation of Palestine, and long before the United States of America had any involvement in the Middle East. The two videos are the film "Obsession" and Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" which he did after the Moslems killed his fellow filmmaker and friend Theo van Gogh in Holland. You can see and hear the Moslem "imams" preaching clearly and openly that they will take over the United States, take over the United Kingdom, impose their traditional tribal Sharia law, abolish freedoms, impose restrictions on all women, kill all Jews and homosexuals and on and on and on. Western people who try to have a reasonable, moderate opinion of Islam all need to watch these films and hear direct from their mouths what these people want, in order to break out of the ethnocentric delusion that all their hatred has been caused by the United States, that all we have to do is stop supporting Israel and they will like us, etc. etc. etc. That is a fantasy.
                      > As Steiner said repeatedly, we have to have realistic thinking first in order to understand what comes from higher worlds. All right, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this as I've been saying it for eight years unnecessarily, but here we go again. Number one, there is no truth to the anti-Semitic rumor that no Jews were in the World Trade Center towers, having been warned beforehand; hundreds of Jews (as well as Arabs, for that matter) were killed there. Number two: it's completely false that the towers were demolished by explosives. You can get any number of films for yourself and see that the buildings began collapsing in the exact floors that the planes crashed into, meaning that, if they were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, people who somehow got into the World Trade Center and planted those explosives (without being seen doing it) must have known exactly what floors the planes would crash into in advance, which is an absurd stretch of imagination (not even considering the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that was probably headed for the White House which the passengers caused to crash beforehand --- there was no pre-planted explosives in those cases), and moreover if the buildings were to be destroyed by explosives, why would anyone bother to hijack planes and fly them into the buildings? If the purpose was a Reichstag Fire strategy, of a staged event to encourage people to support a military counteraction, that could've been accomplished by just using bombs to bring the buildings down and blaming it on bin Laden, so these people with way too much time on their hands who try to say the buildings were demolished by explosive charges are being completely irrational. [I was there, teaching in New York City, the first time the buildings were bombed in 1993: it was a well-known goal of the Wahhabi Muslims for decades to destroy them.]
                      > Therefore, the buildings were definitely destroyed by the planes that crashed into them. Number three: we have security camera videos of the 19 hijackers getting on board the planes; we have the airlines' flight lists showing who was on board, real people whose husbands and wives know they went on those planes and died. Anyone who tries to say those people didn't really board the planes and didn't really die on those planes has to maintain an enormous conspiracy involving hundreds of people faking security camera video tapes, all of which has been kept secret for eight years from massive investigations. So there's no rational dispute about who was on those planes. Number four: the hijackers were 19 Saudis and Egyptians who were all Wahhabi Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, who left behind numerous documents saying what they intended to do such as Mohammed Atta's will, and we have Osama bin Laden on tape with mullah Omar immediately after the crashes talking about how they planned them and how he was confident the buildings would actually collapse from the jet fuel because he had a background in construction work in his family. We also have the open confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind here in the US, about to be tried in New York City.
                      > Respond to that with concrete, rational thoughts.
                      > What I've seen for the past eight years are two kinds of irrationality among Americans: first, antigovernment feelings pressure people to look for our government behind every event which happens, without recognizing that this is being ethnocentric, denying that there are forces and events in the world which have nothing to do with us. It's a sort of hidden egotism that subconsciously feels that we are so powerful that we have to be the people causing everything that happens. [ The war of Islam against the entire world goes back to the sixth century and has nothing to do with the United States of America that has only existed for three centuries. The hatred of the United States comes about because of our power and success, making us the most visible representative of the Western world; actually, the humiliation of the Arabs was at the hands of the French and the British who were the colonial powers, not the US, and the real holy war began after the aggressively atheist Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. in other words, we are under attack because we are the greatest Western power while secondary attacks are underway against England, France and Russia. ] The second kind of irrational thinking is related to the first, namely an inability to advance one's ideas to grasp new geopolitical realities. For people who formed their world of ideas during the Cold War, the reality of a worldwide violent war led by a dark ages religion is just not digestible, does not compute. We call them "September 10th thinkers" or people stuck in the 20th century.
                      > Besides the facts of the attacks by Al Qaeda, I'll address the other things you've mixed in here. First, thankfully you left the name George Bush out of your screed which is so much like the ones I've been hearing for eight years, but those diatribes were all directed against him and making him out to be a villain. Okay, both President Clinton and Hillary Clinton, as well as numerous leading politicians in the 1990s, also believed that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear and biological weapons. Intelligence was saying so to all the countries, not just the US. The reason why was that, as we now know, he went to great lengths to convince everyone he was doing so so that they would fear his power, particularly Iran which was also pursuing them (and is now succeeding). I bring up George Bush because this kind of argument has always been made by liberal Democrats to attack Bush, so, okay, now that your boy is president, if this was all just a conspiracy, why is he continuing to search for bin Laden and send more troops to Afghanistan? He has access to all the intelligence now. And why did Tony Blair agree with who was responsible and agree to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? You want to sell people on the idea that it was a conspiracy by George Bush and the prime minister of England? So where are all the tell-all books by people revealing the conspiracy now that both of them are out of power? How come Pres. Obama hasn't revealed it? Why is he keeping troops in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan? Why did he confront fundamentalist Islam in his speech in Egypt about its anti-Semitism and the support of the Arab masses for Al Qaeda and their hatred of the modern Western world? Is he part of the conspiracy? This is absurd.
                      > There's lots that could be said here about the mysteries and initiation. In ancient Greece they were the greater mysteries and the lesser mysteries. The lesser mysteries involve learning to use your reason and intelligence correctly and govern your emotions, and you had to pass through that before you will be ready for the greater mysteries. if you think people here on this list such as myself have nothing to communicate to you about such matters unless we are "intelligent" enough in your judgment -- -- -- meaning we agree with your conspiracy theories, which I've dissected above -- -- -- then that's your loss.
                      > As to the relevance to Steiner and anthroposophy: see his prediction about the demonic forces becoming active in 1998 which I posted earlier. Let's just put it very simply: our modern Western world is the result of the Christ-Impulse working in the world, raising us up from the more primitive levels most of us were at 2000 years ago. This is the source of our art, music and advanced technology such as you are looking at right now. But there are opposing forces working against the powers which draw us up: the Marxism that has been spread all over the Western world for 150 years now and which teaches us to hate the free actions of human beings and our civilization created by them, the environmentalist movement that has been taken over by the same socialists, using the "global warming" hoax as an excuse to gain power, the backward fundamentalist religions which in a variety of forms also want to gain power and eliminate all freedom, etc. What forces are upward drawing and which are evil can be recognized by their fruits. Look at the fruits of Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden. Here in the US, ignore the hyperbole and propaganda from liberal Democrats, stuck in their pre-2001 world of ideas. This is a worldwide war and has nothing to do with the CIA or whatever US politician somebody wants to rant about. The attacks on us, just like the attack on Madrid, London, the bombing in Bali, are very real parts of it. They were not staged by the United States government. Oh yes, and, by the way, Paul McCartney didn't die, JFK isn't in a nursing home in Florida, the moon landings were not faked, and the Holocaust did happen. Q.E.D.
                      > Next subject?
                      > Starman
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                      > From: rayofdarkness@...
                      > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:15:43 -0500
                      > Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Starman,
                      > Greetings, I am a new member who has been sort of lurking for the past few weeks. I haven't been able to fit myself into any spiritual group very cleanly but currently I'm sort of a neo-pagan with an interest in my Irish heritage. I found Rudy Steiner searching for as much information as I could find on something called 'the hibernian mysteries'. I'll try to pick your brain on that later. I write today because I am compelled to speak out about your statements about conspiracy theories. It is hard for me to understand how any thinking man can accept what our country is doing, has been doing over the past decade in the Arab world, as it is presented to us by the media. Was the individual who the day after Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. expressed doubts about the presence of WMD's in Iraq a conspiracy theorist? He probably would have been considered one if we hadn't found out first hand that there were not. Of course there are backward,racist, violent 'bad guys' in the arab world, but aren't there a few of those over here as well? You're doing exactly what they'd hope you'd do; fear them and ignore the fact that the U.S. has literally assaulted reason and logic with it's disgraceful foreign policy.
                      >
                      > I agree that conspiracy theories are dangerous to the mind when a person doesn't maintain an measure of emotional detatchment to them. No one should assume something as serious as Americans conspiring to have 3000 of it's citizens murdered in order to justify a multi-billion dollar military campain to be true with out addequate proof. And there isn't adequate proof that this happened, so no one should be believe that with any emotional investment. But a thinking person can't help but notice that it was just that event that has fueled a foreign policy that is in many ways bizarrely illogical. What we are doing could never have been accepted had it not been for sept.11. And we are, hippocritically and arrogantly, a country completely unconcerned(unquestioning)about why sept.11 happened in terms of our actions in THEIR land, and how it could have happened in terms of the events that went down that day, and how we can truly prevent it from happening again. There is one answer for each of those questions and it is answers given to us by the government (on sept.11 bizzarely enough), relayed by the media without an significant debate, and wholeheartedley accepted by all those brave americans who don't want the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. Again, the answers to all of those questions today are the same one's given to us by the government on the day of the event! And if you don't just except that you are a conspiracy theorist? You have that much faith in our media?
                      >
                      > Anyway, I have found the small amount I have read of Steiner to be fascinating, and I'd like to know what you guys know about the 'hibernian mysteries'. But if you guys aren't smart enough to see through the con job this country is pulling over on the world I'll always question the fruits of anthroposophical methods.
                      >
                      > Rumann O'Duinn
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: Ray Dunne
                      > Sent: 12/15/09 08:18 PM
                      > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                      >
                      > ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.
                      >
                      > He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works. I put this remark in the same category as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures. What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them. I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves. The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.
                      > Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science. My first class teacher, Hans Gebert, was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them, but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd. My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going, like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them, but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value. I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy, through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.
                      >
                      > In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today, it has to evolve, and it does. No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom; every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy, music etc., is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s; and wholly new branches of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse. Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do. But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it. That's why the emphasis on the arts.
                      > Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome. Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality.
                      > A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics. It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany. To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down, that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted). In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).
                      > I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge. A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum, Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows. It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier. Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age!
                      > The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of "What can I do for the society?", but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?" That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times. As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new. I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.
                      > Starman
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                      > From: peter.lam41@...
                      > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
                      > Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                      >
                      >
                      > Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject. I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder. What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns. I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult. Any source for the latter? There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said: The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton. I think that came from Walter Johannes Stein. Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'. As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do. I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time. I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest. PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously: authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.
                      >
                      >
                      > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _________________________________________________________________
                      > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
                      > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
                      >
                    • Durward Starman
                      *******Well, at least now every reader can see that this is indeed a distraction from our group s topic, since you re not writing about Steiner or anything
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 19, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        *******Well, at least now every reader can see that this is indeed a distraction from our group's topic, since you're not writing about Steiner or anything relative  to  anthroposophy, so this will be my last post on this topic. The so-called "9/11 truth movement"  is of no interest to me anymore than Holocaust deniers or the people who say that Pres. Obama was not born in the United States.  I am also not interested in having a group set up for the study of Steiner  and anthroposophy distracted by political discussion that has no relation to it, first, and second, as I've said repeatedly, fuzzy thinking leads you away from insight into anthroposophy,  And this whole subject is the result of not doing hard enough thinking. 

                            There have always been political conspiracies in our world, and there are also always events which are NOT caused by conspiracies no matter what suspicious minds cook up; any rational person can see that some things would simply involve far too many people to be the result of a conspiracy.  I addressed this in the other post -- -- -- which I note you completely ignore in order to continue the conversation you wish to have, which you are welcome to have on any number of political groups elsewhere.  There was a conspiracy to kill Pres. Kennedy over 40 years ago, for instance, as well as one to kill his brother and Dr. Martin Luther King, for that matter. Back then, all that was necessary was to dupe a few newsmen, and so a small number of intelligence agents and underworld figures could succeed.  The same conspiracy would not succeed today with a 24 hour cable news cycle and the Internet. You're living in a fantasy world when you say that nobody except a few brave people are talking about building number seven. I've heard about it for seven years, endlessly! That theory has been spread (and debunked) all over the Internet,  just do a Google search for World Trade Center building seven or World Trade Center conspiracy. Building number seven was not built as sturdy as the World Trade Center towers because it was built over a Consolidated Edison underground power station,  most New Yorkers know, and its bottom 18 floors were struck by massive amounts of debris from the 2 collapsing buildings and set on fire, and it collapsed a few hours later. End of story. Every news men in New York that day watched it collapse, reported on it (I saw it  collapse on television at the time, live,  and in fact I remember people worrying it was about to because it was burning at its base, and they were interviewing engineers who said they were worried it would also collapse). 

                            The reason why this is a non-story is not because there's some conspiracy to keep reporters from reporting on it, but because, if someone has a clear head, it's ridiculously easy to discover the truth, that's TRUTH I said, with just a little bit of unbiased research, which all the reporters have done, but which your conspiracy theorists are simply incapable of doing because they don't want to let go of their preconception that there was a conspiracy.  Try doing a little real hard thinking, instead of believing "engineers" who are conspiracy theorists (yes, engineers and scientists can also become victims of the conspiracy theory virus) -- -- -- do some clear thinking yourself. First, clear away the absurd ideas that nobody has talked about this, that there's been no mention of it, etc. etc. etc. Try Google, as I said.  See, this is what refutes  the conspiracy theorist point of view:  with so many people observing an event, and with everybody having cell phones and access to the Internet, and with everyone able to get on their soapbox and publicize things, you think this hasn't been talked about?  You think every little event hasn't been talked about, in an age when we know every detail of Tiger Woods' life whether we want to or not?  Literally millions of people were watching every square inch of the World Trade Center that day, and so what do you think, some people went and planted explosive charges in that building and set them off without anybody seeing them do so? How many cops and firefighters swarming all over the area would have to have been either fooled or sworn to secrecy? And,  more importantly for clear thinking, for what purpose?????  What was the importance of building seven?   This is just stupid. ITS only importance is to buttress the absurd theories of people trying to claim that the two MAIN buildings were also down by demolition, and I demolished (pun intended) that argument in my last post, which I once again note you had zero response to.

                           Enough time wasted on this. The sun rose this morning, the mailman delivered your mail, and the massively filmed the event of two large airliners flying into the two tallest buildings in New York City shows just what it appeared to show, two airliners filled with enough jet fuel to fly to California being hijacked and flown into the two tallest buildings in New York City, which have for a generation been a symbol of Western progress and might, a hated symbol amongst the adherents of the backward dark ages religion that is at war with the modern world.   This is the 21st century, and the great conflict is not between the US and Russia, where the right wing blames everything on Russian conspiracies and the left wing blames everything on CIA conspiracies done to fool everybody into supporting the cold war against Russia; that kind of thinking is completely outmoded.  This is a war between an unimaginably evil Muslim religion taken over by the being that Steiner described, and all the forces of civilization everywhere, whether in Chechnya, Israel, London, India, Bali, Madrid, Iraq,  or New York City.  Americans who are used to blaming their country for everything that happens in the world have to stop being so ethnocentric and learn to see the world as it actually is,  These are events that are not caused by the United States but are caused by exactly the people who publicly state they are doing it,  adherents of an anti-modern, anti-Western ideology, who could never in a million years  be persuaded to be tools of the CIA or any Western country.

                            To distantly relate this to the topic of this group, Dr. Steiner spoke often about the love of ease being an enemy of modern-day man, and it would certainly be much easier to blame everything on a CIA conspiracy, because then you could be as lazy as you wanted, since events would not require any action on your part. Unfortunately, we have to combat this inner laziness because the ostrich strategy of putting one's head in the sand will only result in even more terrible events, for instance if the world allows Iran to build atomic bombs.  I'm afraid that this is quite a real war, and I cannot predict much good in the near future.  But to deal with it, we have to at first make the effort to think clearly about what's really happening.

                        Starman




                        To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                        From: rayofdarkness@...
                        Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:37:12 +0000
                        Subject: [steiner] Re: different approaches to anthroposophy/political distractions again

                         
                        Starman, sorry about that comment at the end of my last message. That wasn't a very thoughtful comment.

                        I just wanted to let you know that you did not address any of the concerns of the 911truth movement (which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans) except for the idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. You can find the concerns at the 911truth.org. But let me ask you a few things here. How many world trade center buildings fell on 9/11? I've asked this to hand full of people I know and most say two. If you said two, you are wrong. Three world trade center buildings collapsed that day. WTC building 7, located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any airplane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening. One block, same day, no airplanes, no mention of this anywhere in our brave country but on the above mentioned website. Also, there is a lot of controversy raised by very respected engineers that the buildings could have fallen the way they fell by any other means but controlled demolition. And when you hear these engineers describe why it's implausible that they fell by any other means on the videos available on the website you can not believe that there isn't a single bit of discussion on the matter in our media. Never has been.

                        You went to great lengths to describe how evil the backward fundamentalist muslims are. Starman, I never disagreed with you on that. I won't disagree with you about how evil Suddam Hussain was either. And I won't disagree with you on the idea of this country being in grave danger either. What I don't believe is that a never-ending multi-trillion dollar military campain that utilized outright lies to justify itself is the answer.

                        I don't know anything about these other JFK, holocost,and moon conspiracies, and that you woud attribute those to me is unfair. I'm not a whacko, a rumy, or a egotist, as you imply. I just don't agree with you.

                        Ruman O'Duinn

                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@. ..> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > ******* I knew this would happen as soon as I started talking about politics again. But this time I'm not going to just say, okay discussion of politics is off-topic. There are just too many people trying to study esoteric things who have the most irrational so-called "thinking" about current events. I'm tired of not responding to it. I'm also tired of the disrespectful attitude that is epidemic in our times, so forgive me "Rumy" if I take you to task about "Rudy" Steiner, this list, and your contribution to it.
                        > You are not "compelled" to speak about conspiracy theories, you want to speak about them because everybody loves a soapbox ---because we are in a very egotistical time, by which I mean we're supposed to be developing the ego. But what needs to happen to ordinary ideas is that they need to be raised up through working with anthroposophy, otherwise you have no clear ideas about the mundane events you observe.
                        > I can suggest two books and two videos. The first book is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern studies at, which is an excellent overview of the stagnation of the Islamic intellectual world and how the anti-modern Wahhabi Islam developed in response to our Western world advancing beyond and therefore militarily defeating the Arabs 200 years ago, when they had a religion that said that they had all the truth and infidels had nothing to teach them. The second is "Hatred's Kingdom" about Saudi Arabia and how, since the 1920s, it has used its oil wealth to fund the anti-modern, anti-western madrassas and mosques in Pakistan and all over the world. This has been going on since long before the creation of Palestine, and long before the United States of America had any involvement in the Middle East. The two videos are the film "Obsession" and Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" which he did after the Moslems killed his fellow filmmaker and friend Theo van Gogh in Holland. You can see and hear the Moslem "imams" preaching clearly and openly that they will take over the United States, take over the United Kingdom, impose their traditional tribal Sharia law, abolish freedoms, impose restrictions on all women, kill all Jews and homosexuals and on and on and on. Western people who try to have a reasonable, moderate opinion of Islam all need to watch these films and hear direct from their mouths what these people want, in order to break out of the ethnocentric delusion that all their hatred has been caused by the United States, that all we have to do is stop supporting Israel and they will like us, etc. etc. etc. That is a fantasy.
                        > As Steiner said repeatedly, we have to have realistic thinking first in order to understand what comes from higher worlds. All right, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this as I've been saying it for eight years unnecessarily, but here we go again. Number one, there is no truth to the anti-Semitic rumor that no Jews were in the World Trade Center towers, having been warned beforehand; hundreds of Jews (as well as Arabs, for that matter) were killed there. Number two: it's completely false that the towers were demolished by explosives. You can get any number of films for yourself and see that the buildings began collapsing in the exact floors that the planes crashed into, meaning that, if they were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, people who somehow got into the World Trade Center and planted those explosives (without being seen doing it) must have known exactly what floors the planes would crash into in advance, which is an absurd stretch of imagination (not even considering the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that was probably headed for the White House which the passengers caused to crash beforehand --- there was no pre-planted explosives in those cases), and moreover if the buildings were to be destroyed by explosives, why would anyone bother to hijack planes and fly them into the buildings? If the purpose was a Reichstag Fire strategy, of a staged event to encourage people to support a military counteraction, that could've been accomplished by just using bombs to bring the buildings down and blaming it on bin Laden, so these people with way too much time on their hands who try to say the buildings were demolished by explosive charges are being completely irrational. [I was there, teaching in New York City, the first time the buildings were bombed in 1993: it was a well-known goal of the Wahhabi Muslims for decades to destroy them.]
                        > Therefore, the buildings were definitely destroyed by the planes that crashed into them. Number three: we have security camera videos of the 19 hijackers getting on board the planes; we have the airlines' flight lists showing who was on board, real people whose husbands and wives know they went on those planes and died. Anyone who tries to say those people didn't really board the planes and didn't really die on those planes has to maintain an enormous conspiracy involving hundreds of people faking security camera video tapes, all of which has been kept secret for eight years from massive investigations. So there's no rational dispute about who was on those planes. Number four: the hijackers were 19 Saudis and Egyptians who were all Wahhabi Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, who left behind numerous documents saying what they intended to do such as Mohammed Atta's will, and we have Osama bin Laden on tape with mullah Omar immediately after the crashes talking about how they planned them and how he was confident the buildings would actually collapse from the jet fuel because he had a background in construction work in his family. We also have the open confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind here in the US, about to be tried in New York City.
                        > Respond to that with concrete, rational thoughts.
                        > What I've seen for the past eight years are two kinds of irrationality among Americans: first, antigovernment feelings pressure people to look for our government behind every event which happens, without recognizing that this is being ethnocentric, denying that there are forces and events in the world which have nothing to do with us. It's a sort of hidden egotism that subconsciously feels that we are so powerful that we have to be the people causing everything that happens. [ The war of Islam against the entire world goes back to the sixth century and has nothing to do with the United States of America that has only existed for three centuries. The hatred of the United States comes about because of our power and success, making us the most visible representative of the Western world; actually, the humiliation of the Arabs was at the hands of the French and the British who were the colonial powers, not the US, and the real holy war began after the aggressively atheist Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. in other words, we are under attack because we are the greatest Western power while secondary attacks are underway against England, France and Russia. ] The second kind of irrational thinking is related to the first, namely an inability to advance one's ideas to grasp new geopolitical realities. For people who formed their world of ideas during the Cold War, the reality of a worldwide violent war led by a dark ages religion is just not digestible, does not compute. We call them "September 10th thinkers" or people stuck in the 20th century.
                        > Besides the facts of the attacks by Al Qaeda, I'll address the other things you've mixed in here. First, thankfully you left the name George Bush out of your screed which is so much like the ones I've been hearing for eight years, but those diatribes were all directed against him and making him out to be a villain. Okay, both President Clinton and Hillary Clinton, as well as numerous leading politicians in the 1990s, also believed that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear and biological weapons. Intelligence was saying so to all the countries, not just the US. The reason why was that, as we now know, he went to great lengths to convince everyone he was doing so so that they would fear his power, particularly Iran which was also pursuing them (and is now succeeding). I bring up George Bush because this kind of argument has always been made by liberal Democrats to attack Bush, so, okay, now that your boy is president, if this was all just a conspiracy, why is he continuing to search for bin Laden and send more troops to Afghanistan? He has access to all the intelligence now. And why did Tony Blair agree with who was responsible and agree to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? You want to sell people on the idea that it was a conspiracy by George Bush and the prime minister of England? So where are all the tell-all books by people revealing the conspiracy now that both of them are out of power? How come Pres. Obama hasn't revealed it? Why is he keeping troops in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan? Why did he confront fundamentalist Islam in his speech in Egypt about its anti-Semitism and the support of the Arab masses for Al Qaeda and their hatred of the modern Western world? Is he part of the conspiracy? This is absurd.
                        > There's lots that could be said here about the mysteries and initiation. In ancient Greece they were the greater mysteries and the lesser mysteries. The lesser mysteries involve learning to use your reason and intelligence correctly and govern your emotions, and you had to pass through that before you will be ready for the greater mysteries. if you think people here on this list such as myself have nothing to communicate to you about such matters unless we are "intelligent" enough in your judgment -- -- -- meaning we agree with your conspiracy theories, which I've dissected above -- -- -- then that's your loss.
                        > As to the relevance to Steiner and anthroposophy: see his prediction about the demonic forces becoming active in 1998 which I posted earlier. Let's just put it very simply: our modern Western world is the result of the Christ-Impulse working in the world, raising us up from the more primitive levels most of us were at 2000 years ago. This is the source of our art, music and advanced technology such as you are looking at right now. But there are opposing forces working against the powers which draw us up: the Marxism that has been spread all over the Western world for 150 years now and which teaches us to hate the free actions of human beings and our civilization created by them, the environmentalist movement that has been taken over by the same socialists, using the "global warming" hoax as an excuse to gain power, the backward fundamentalist religions which in a variety of forms also want to gain power and eliminate all freedom, etc. What forces are upward drawing and which are evil can be recognized by their fruits. Look at the fruits of Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden. Here in the US, ignore the hyperbole and propaganda from liberal Democrats, stuck in their pre-2001 world of ideas. This is a worldwide war and has nothing to do with the CIA or whatever US politician somebody wants to rant about. The attacks on us, just like the attack on Madrid, London, the bombing in Bali, are very real parts of it. They were not staged by the United States government. Oh yes, and, by the way, Paul McCartney didn't die, JFK isn't in a nursing home in Florida, the moon landings were not faked, and the Holocaust did happen. Q.E.D.
                        > Next subject?
                        > Starman
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                        > From: rayofdarkness@ ...
                        > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:15:43 -0500
                        > Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Starman,
                        > Greetings, I am a new member who has been sort of lurking for the past few weeks. I haven't been able to fit myself into any spiritual group very cleanly but currently I'm sort of a neo-pagan with an interest in my Irish heritage. I found Rudy Steiner searching for as much information as I could find on something called 'the hibernian mysteries'. I'll try to pick your brain on that later. I write today because I am compelled to speak out about your statements about conspiracy theories. It is hard for me to understand how any thinking man can accept what our country is doing, has been doing over the past decade in the Arab world, as it is presented to us by the media. Was the individual who the day after Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. expressed doubts about the presence of WMD's in Iraq a conspiracy theorist? He probably would have been considered one if we hadn't found out first hand that there were not. Of course there are backward,racist, violent 'bad guys' in the arab world, but aren't there a few of those over here as well? You're doing exactly what they'd hope you'd do; fear them and ignore the fact that the U.S. has literally assaulted reason and logic with it's disgraceful foreign policy.
                        >
                        > I agree that conspiracy theories are dangerous to the mind when a person doesn't maintain an measure of emotional detatchment to them. No one should assume something as serious as Americans conspiring to have 3000 of it's citizens murdered in order to justify a multi-billion dollar military campain to be true with out addequate proof. And there isn't adequate proof that this happened, so no one should be believe that with any emotional investment. But a thinking person can't help but notice that it was just that event that has fueled a foreign policy that is in many ways bizarrely illogical. What we are doing could never have been accepted had it not been for sept.11. And we are, hippocritically and arrogantly, a country completely unconcerned( unquestioning) about why sept.11 happened in terms of our actions in THEIR land, and how it could have happened in terms of the events that went down that day, and how we can truly prevent it from happening again. There is one answer for each of those questions and it is answers given to us by the government (on sept.11 bizzarely enough), relayed by the media without an significant debate, and wholeheartedley accepted by all those brave americans who don't want the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. Again, the answers to all of those questions today are the same one's given to us by the government on the day of the event! And if you don't just except that you are a conspiracy theorist? You have that much faith in our media?
                        >
                        > Anyway, I have found the small amount I have read of Steiner to be fascinating, and I'd like to know what you guys know about the 'hibernian mysteries'. But if you guys aren't smart enough to see through the con job this country is pulling over on the world I'll always question the fruits of anthroposophical methods.
                        >
                        > Rumann O'Duinn
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Ray Dunne
                        > Sent: 12/15/09 08:18 PM
                        > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                        > Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                        >
                        > ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.
                        >
                        > He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works. I put this remark in the same category as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures. What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them. I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves. The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.
                        > Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science. My first class teacher, Hans Gebert, was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them, but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd. My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going, like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them, but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value. I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy, through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.
                        >
                        > In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today, it has to evolve, and it does. No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom; every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy, music etc., is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s; and wholly new branches of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse. Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do. But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it. That's why the emphasis on the arts.
                        > Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome. Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality.
                        > A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics. It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany. To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down, that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted). In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).
                        > I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge. A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum, Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows. It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier. Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age!
                        > The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of "What can I do for the society?", but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?" That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times. As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new. I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.
                        > Starman
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                        > From: peter.lam41@ ...
                        > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
                        > Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy
                        >
                        >
                        > Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject. I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder. What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns. I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult. Any source for the latter? There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said: The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton. I think that came from Walter Johannes Stein. Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'. As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do. I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time. I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest. PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously: authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.
                        >
                        >
                        > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                        > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
                        > http://clk.atdmt. com/GBL/go/ 171222984/ direct/01/
                        >




                        Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.