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

Re: still yet another attempt at 7fold thinking

Expand Messages
  • robert.barnskog
    My name is also Robert, and I`m from Sweden. I have tried to read your posts on the sevenfold thinking before, but must confess that I had difficulties
    Message 1 of 3 , May 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      My name is also Robert, and I`m from Sweden. I have tried to read your posts on the sevenfold thinking before, but must confess that I had difficulties entering into them. This one was easier.

      I know very little about Waldorf education, and even less about the Waldorf Critics list. In fact, I have only been to Waldorf schools a few times, and then it was a question of having them as places for meetings. It had no relation to the education performed there. So don´t take my words too seriously. But what I think is this: A school system that leads to all these debates and strong emotions (including yours) is simpy not worth having. It might be the best one conceived ever – but if all these discussions belong to it, it is better doing something else. At least until our civilization is ready. Look how far you, yourself, is from the actual education. You think about a specific method of thinking – even a universally optimal one - in order to approach a discussion list about a school system, that is related to a philosophical system that you are interested in. If you work with Waldorf education – then you are close to it in that way of course, but it seems – when reading your post – that you have put a lot of effort into something that is quite far removed from the "core business" itself.

      On the other hand I believe strongly in trying to grasp why Waldorf is actually good, if it is good. And in the same way: What is good with "normal" education, and what is not? What is good with the Montessory system? And so on. Or simply: what do you think yourself? What is pedagogy all about? When you have evaluated this, use it in an ordinary school. If you are not allowed – look for other people and found a new system, without the "problematic" esoteric background. It will be good enough. Don't forget most people never go to a Waldorf school anyway, so if the new system has some problems of reaching the "potential heights" of Waldorf, it will still be better than the "ordinary", which is what it is all about.

      Basically the whole thing is related to the problem of "exoteric esoterics", as are all the external activities of anthroposophy. Exoteric esoterics!? Well, it can be taken for granted that such a thing is problematical. Steiner of course knew that, but gave it a chance and hoped for the best.

      If you still think it is worth putting energy into Waldorf, I think it is best to be completely open with the esoteric background. Tell people about it even if they haven't asked for it. I think it is this way it should be done: either strip the esoterics off and found something new that is based on insights that can be realized from common sense. Or be completely open and proud of it. I have read about several examples – even in Sweden – where anthros have tried to hide the esoterics behind different activities. Then they are confronted with it by the press etc, and the whole thing gets very confusing, and probably embarrassing.

      So this is my pessimistic view on Waldorf. In then goes without saying that I don't think there is much to gain from WC discussions.

      Regarding the 7fold thinking: what do you plan to use it for? Is it an "esoteric tool" or something you intend to use for everyday life?

      RB


      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      >
      > PREAMBLE:
      >
      > I regret taking so long to get this post up. 
      > Somehow, this turned out to be about the hardest
      > of all my attempts at 7fold thinking.  Believe it
      > or not, I started around mid-October.  But even
      > after more than half a year, I still haven't
      > brought it to a satisfactory conclusion.  I've
      > been looking at my own text for so long now that
      > I can hardly see it.  I guess this means it's
      > about time to go with what I have.  So, I'm
      > pretty much resigned to showing as much as I have
      > done, and to hoping that something more adequate
      > might somehow result.
      >
      > I feel that I should have finished this post long
      > ago, but somehow it kept dragging out.  I had to
      > keep going over it and over it.  I've had some
      > health problems, but I can't really blame them
      > for the delay; I have to blame my own
      > disorganization and time-wasting for a great part
      > of the delay.  Really, the whole thing took a
      > long time to "come together".  And some of the
      > things that I had written didn't quite ring true
      > after a while, and I had to change or scrap them. 
      > And . . . for much of the time I simply couldn't
      > get my mind to work.
      >
      > Around Christmas, I thought that I had a report
      > almost ready to post, but then I decided that I
      > would have to rewrite much of it -- and then it
      > seemed that I would have to rewrite almost all of
      > it, nearly starting all over.  And for a while I
      > thought that I might give up the intention of
      > posting at all on this subject.  Then, around the
      > middle of January, things started to change
      > within me, I got more ideas for positive action,
      > and the logjam on my previous attempts at outside
      > action started to break -- or so I thought for a
      > while.  So, I had a lot of work and re-working to
      > do.
      >
      > But then, some diversions came up.  One thing
      > that took a lot of time was a re-consideration of
      > the chronology of the life of Jesus Christ. 
      > More, I had some other ideas about actions to
      > take, and I tried to do some things, but I kept
      > running into blockages.  And more health
      > problems.  Then tax time.  (US-Americans will
      > know what that means.)  And more online
      > diversions; Beinsa Douno and all that.  The whole
      > thing just kept dragging on and on.
      >
      > In my last major post on this theme I left with
      > this question unanswered:  "What is the best way
      > to counteract the WC ['Waldorf Critics'] and
      > suchlike activities?"  By those "activities" I
      > mean the relentless online opposition to
      > Anthroposophy, accomplished mainly through
      > e-lists and blogs.
      >
      > I took this question as the starting-point for my
      > next (and now present) attempt at 7fold thinking. 
      > That was only a starting-point; the question
      > began as almost more of a feeling than a thought
      > in my mind.  I assumed that the question would be
      > refined as I went along. -- One difficulty was
      > that in this case I was not only trying to answer
      > a factual question; I was trying to work out a
      > course of action for myself.  And that can get
      > really complicated:  a lot depends on my
      > capabilities and on the practical possibilities
      > in my environment -- and these are hard to pin
      > down, especially for an habitually impractical
      > person such as myself.  Another difficulty was
      > that I wasn't only trying to think out a simple
      > theme; I was trying to solve a real problem,
      > trying to get "new ideas".  It's hard enough just
      > trying to think, really *think*,  simple, easily
      > surveyable thoughts, but trying to think out more
      > complicated, innovative thoughts is . . . well, a
      > "real bear".
      >
      > (The reader can find links to my previous
      > struggles with 7fold thinking here:
      > <www.altanthroinfo.9f.com/index.htm>
      > Scroll down to the section on "Wrestling . . .” 
      > The present post might not make much sense if the
      > reader will have not have gotten at least some of
      > this background.)
      >
      > I am trying to make this post more readable than
      > were my previous posts on this theme.  This time,
      > I will lead with a brief summary of the
      > essentials and results, then I will follow with a
      > couple of appendices, which the reader can either
      > take or leave.  The first will be an outline of a
      > suggestion for a simple course of action that
      > everyone can take.  The second will be a report
      > on my own long, messy "process":  I will let the
      > reader see much of my "process" in approaching
      > this question, with a barely-refined record of my
      > "musings".
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------
      >
      > THE SEVENFOLD DIALECTIC
      >     (a summary in this case)
      >    
      > According to Bondarev, the seven stages of
      > dialectic are as follows:
      >
      > 1. thesis
      > 2. antithesis
      > 3. synthesis
      > 4. beholding (Anschauen)
      > 5. perception of the Idea
      > 6. individualization of the Idea
      > 7. unity of this individual and the general (in
      > another formulation, Bondarev says:  "The cycle
      > is completed with the return of the idea with
      > which it began, to all-unity. . . . This is the
      > concluding, seventh element, or the seventh
      > stage." )
      >
      > (1-2:)  THESIS-ANTITHESIS
      >
      > The question with which I started was this: "What
      > is the best way to counteract the WC and suchlike
      > activities?"
      >
      > I had, at first at least, to take this as a moral
      > question for me personally; the question is far
      > too big for me to consider in general, for
      > everybody.  As a moral question for me, it takes
      > the form:  "What do I choose to do?"  But what I
      > would want to choose to do would be to take the
      > "best way" -- the most effective for the forward
      > development of the whole Cosmos.  The question of
      > what is "best" is not a matter of my *doing*, of
      > taking a course of action, but it is a question
      > of fact:  there does exist a "best" way for me,
      > and the exact nature of this "best" way is a
      > question of objective fact.  Taken thus, the
      > question isn't merely "personal" for me; it isn't
      > merely a "matter of opinion".  It is as much a
      > question of objective fact as is the question of
      > the number of giant squid on Earth.  Somewhere,
      > in the great objective World of Truth, the answer
      > exists.
      >
      > But the immediate problem for me is that I don't
      > know this objective fact about the "best" way. 
      > Here, it seems, is the "antithesis".  The
      > "thesis" would be that there does exist an
      > objectively "best" course of action for Robert
      > Mason, but the "antithesis" would be that he
      > doesn't know what this course is.
      >
      > (3:) SYNTHESIS
      >
      > So I tried, by ordinary cogitation, to find out
      > what this "best" course is for me.  And, as far
      > as I can see, my ordinary thinking doesn't show
      > me the "best" way of responding to the WC and
      > their ilk.
      >
      > I have in the past entered the WC e-list and
      > tried to engage in discussion.  But it quickly
      > became evident to me that such an effort was
      > futile, unproductive, doomed, useless.  My only
      > hope became that the discussion might be useful
      > for some of the lurkers on the WC, but the
      > lurkers continued to lurk.  They were silent, and
      > I saw no point in going on; I got out.  Since
      > then, it has been clear to me that I don't want
      > to do *that* again.  I don't want to play the WC
      > game:  endless, futile arguments going nowhere. 
      > That much is clear, and my opinion on that has
      > not changed in years. -- But that is only a
      > negative "response"; I have yet to come up with a
      > better, more positive one.
      >
      > In a time of extremity, I did get some key 
      > information about myself:  my main, heartfelt
      > reason for living is to learn how to think
      > better. -- What this means for my response to the
      > WC is that, whatever else this response might be,
      > it must first of all meet my need for learning to
      > think better.  This is simply a fact about
      > working effectively with the "tools that I have". 
      > In this case my primary tool is myself.
      >
      > (4:)  BEHOLDING
      >
      > I tried to take the question into a higher realm
      > of thinking.  There must exist, objectively, a
      > "best", a most effective, way of of countering
      > the WC-ish resistance to Anthroposophy.  I don't
      > know what exactly this "best" way is, and I
      > sought some guidance, from the Gods or from
      > wherever or whatever, in the form of mental
      > pictures -- hopefully some pictures that I can
      > understand.
      >
      > I got a lot of mental pictures, but seemingly
      > none that mapped out an optimal course of action
      > in detail.  It seemed that the Gods were not
      > showing me in pictures exactly what to do;
      > instead They were mostly reading me the riot act
      > about my character flaws.  I was not shown a
      > chart of my "best" course of action in any
      > visible, material sense; rather I was shown some
      > glaring defects that I need to correct in myself,
      > and some qualities that I need to develop in
      > myself.
      >
      > It seemed that I was shown that I need to become
      > more reverent, more innocent and blameless, more
      > respectful, more sober and serious, more mild,
      > more serene, more grateful, more trusting, and
      > indeed:  more industrious.  It seemed that I
      > needed to acquire these qualities and especially
      > to take them into my actions toward or about the
      > WC.
      >
      > Does all this add up to "beholding" in Bondarev's
      > sense? -- I did get some mental pictures that, it
      > seems, helped me to approach the problem, though
      > hardly in the way that I had hoped.  That's about
      > the best "beholding" that I could come up with. 
      > Beyond that, as to whether this meets Bondarev's
      > criteria, I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
      >
      > (5:)  PERCEPTION OF THE IDEA
      >
      > I think that I got a big hint about the Platonic
      > Idea that is relevant here.  It is none other
      > than the Archetype of Man Himself, the Christ. 
      > In this case it is Man as moral agent, as a free
      > spirit, such as Steiner tried to teach us in
      > *PoF*.  And in this case I am merely a human
      > being trying to make a moral choice about what
      > course to take in response to the WC-ish
      > opposition to Anthroposophy.  I didn't want
      > merely to do as I "felt like" doing; I wanted to
      > find the optimal, the cosmically "best" course of
      > action for me.  I presumed that this optimal
      > course is not merely a matter of opinion; it does
      > exist objectively as a matter of fact.  But the
      > big problem was for me to know exactly what it
      > is.
      >
      > In general, I believe that "the Idea" here is the
      > Archetype of Man Himself as a loving, free spirit
      > facing a moral decision.  A Man, any human being,
      > is only a limited being with limited knowledge of
      > the consequences of any action, so any moral
      > decision cannot be based upon a calculation of
      > the full consequences of an action.  At best, a
      > moral decision can be based upon one's most
      > comprehensive information about the consequences.
      >
      > -- The archetype of Man as/in Jesus Christ must
      > include the quality of "innocence", since Jesus
      > was without sin.  Whatever the Human Archetype
      > does in response to any problem must be done with
      > complete absence of guilt -- i.e. an open, clear
      > soul. 
      >
      > I infer that the Archetype of Man, since it
      > includes the qualities intrinsic to Man, must be
      > such that an individual human being who conforms
      > to that archetype should naturally have a perfect
      > "soul", and therefore should have a basic mood of
      > "faith". -- I gather that a pure "astral body",
      > or "soul" of a human being who conforms to the
      > Archetype of Man, who is "without sin",
      > "innocent", would naturally feel all those
      > feelings which Steiner groups under the
      > fundamental mood of "veneration", for all these
      > flow from "faith" -- which itself flows from the
      > knowledge that lies deep within the soul herself,
      > as an inherent possession of the human soul. 
      >
      > Therefore, Man, as an archetype, is a spirit of
      > freedom and love, but more, is a spirit of faith,
      > of healthy, reverent, trusting feelings.
      > But real freedom requires, first of all, real
      > thinking.  A True Man must be a true thinker. 
      >
      > Since Christ is the Archetype of Man, opposition
      > to Christ is also thereby an opposition to the
      > possibilities of Man, to what Man can be. 
      > Essentially, Man is a Spirit of Freedom and Love. 
      > A True Man will be free in his actions, and such
      > freedom depends, in the first place, on
      > consciousness, on the attainment of true
      > thinking.  As Steiner said, and as experience
      > proves, thinking is the spiritual form of love --
      > and in a True Man love will become so thorough
      > that it permeates his whole organism, so that he
      > becomes "harmonious" in all his feelings.  (In
      > anthro-speak:  so that the astral body becomes
      > transformed into Spirit Self.)  But there is
      > more:  on this Earth only Man, in contrast to the
      > animals, can *speak*.  And a True Man will speak,
      > and speak only that which is true. -- So I gather
      > that, in opposition to the opposition of the WC
      > and the like, it behoves me first of all to work
      > upon myself, to become a better approximation of
      > the Archetype of Man.  I need to think better,
      > and I also need to purify my feelings; thus I
      > might *do* better.  And as a big part of this
      > doing, I want to speak better, to speak more
      > effectively and more truly.
      >
      > (6:) -- INDIVIDUALIZATION OF THE IDEA
      >
      > So, how is this general Idea, of Man Himself to
      > be applied in this particular case? -- The
      > particular moral agent is none other than myself
      > (I am not trying to delineate the "right" moral
      > decision for everyone here), and the moral
      > problem is about my response to the WC-ish
      > opposition to Anthroposophy. 
      >
      > So I try to think clearly about the problem at 
      > hand:  how am I to best counteract the WC-ish
      > opposition to Anthroposophy.  I try to see under
      > the surface, past the superficial appearances, to
      > the real force behind the WC activity, and I see
      > at the base:  hatred of the Christ.  Rudolf
      > Steiner was merely the foremost public
      > representative of Christ in modern times (that
      > is, the most educational one who got the most
      > publicity, as far as I know), and Anthroposophy
      > is the most powerful Christ-revelation, powerful
      > enough to infuse and transform all aspects of
      > modern culture.  So, this opposition to
      > Anthroposophy is ultimately a way of "getting at"
      > the Christ.  Steiner faced fierce, even
      > murderous, opposition in his day, as did Christ
      > when He was on Earth.  The devils of Hell have
      > always hated Christ and worked against Him, and
      > the WC-ish opposition is ultimately a
      > continuation of that ancient struggle.  Perhaps
      > this reality is mostly unconscious to the WC
      > people, nevertheless it is the reality.
      >
      > Steiner has told us what is the most effective
      > way to counter opposition to Anthroposophy:  not
      > to waste time and effort trying to reach people
      > who are not reachable, but to move forward with
      > positive Anthroposophical work.  I think that for
      > me this means first of all to work upon myself. 
      > I'm trying, still, to learn how to *think*,
      > really.  This I take to be my primary task in
      > life now, and if I can put even one more true
      > thinker into this world, that would be a defeat
      > for the WC and their ilk.  Not that they likely
      > care what I do, even if they might take notice of
      > me -- but the devils who inspire them do notice
      > that sort of thing, and the emergence of a real
      > thinker would be a defeat for them and a victory
      > for Christ, even if only a little one.
      >
      > And more:  RS admonished the student that he
      > should realize that inner work is at least as
      > important as outer work.  Work upon oneself, work
      > in the non-physical worlds, really *is* work for
      > the whole world, including the physical one. 
      >
      > I did try to do a little more "physical" work on
      > the Internet, but that didn't come to much.  And
      > I did come up with a plan to "cast out demons"
      > from the WC-ish cyberspaces.  But that plan is
      > only borderline "physical", at best.
      >
      > I feel that I still need to do more in the outer
      > world.  But I still don't know exactly what or
      > how.  In fact, I've been casting about for
      > something to do and some way to do it, but so far
      > I haven't come up with much.  I don't know what
      > else to do now but to keep looking, hoping that
      > something will turn up. -- Really, my knowledge
      > of cosmic effects is very limited; my knowledge
      > of "moral techniques" is limited; and I'm not
      > getting much "moral intuition" either.  My energy
      > is very limited, and so is my power.  But I still
      > feel that there has to be something more that I
      > could do; I just haven't found it yet.
      >
      > And since I can't answer the cosmic question
      > about the "best" way, I can turn to a lesser,
      > more answerable question:  what would Robert
      > Mason love to do in this case?  This question
      > follows in the spirit of Steiner's *PoF*, but
      > once again, asked in this way it is a question of
      > objective fact.  Unhappily, it is also a question
      > about myself, and if I want to approach the
      > matter in a practical way, it is also a question
      > about the realistic possibilities.  The "facts"
      > about both these aspects are hard for me to
      > ascertain. -- About the only handle I can get on
      > these immediate questions is to try to find (in
      > practice?) what gives me "joy in the doing".
      >
      > (7:)  ALL-UNITY (THE UPSHOT)
      >
      > What did the 7fold thinking process add up to in
      > this case?
      >
      > It's hard to say; I still haven't worked it all
      > out.  The main thing about my response to the WC
      > and their ilk is not to play their game but to do
      > my work.  (But I want to make my work playful,
      > enjoyable, even childlike.  If I find the right
      > course of action for me, then it will inherently
      > be joyful.)  At this point, it seems that my work
      > is firstly to work upon myself:  to work upon my
      > thinking, upon my feelings -- and then upon my
      > actions.  And I need, ever and again, to
      > understand that work upon myself, inner work, is
      > in itself real work for the whole world.  But I
      > also feel that I want to do more *in* the outer
      > world, and that's mostly what I haven't figured
      > out yet.
      >
      > CONCLUSION:
      >
      > What is different now compared to the situation
      > before I started this exercise?
      >
      > Before I started, I didn't know what I was going
      > to do about the WC and the like.  I knew that I
      > wanted to do *something*, but I didn't know what. 
      > I knew that I didn't want to enter and take part
      > in their endless discussions.  That hasn't
      > changed; but what has changed? -- I had some
      > ideas for activities in the physical world, but
      > those haven't worked out yet; maybe they will
      > work out better in the future.  I had the idea
      > for "exorcising" the WC and similar cyberspaces,
      > and that can be done by almost anyone from
      > anywhere.  I also had a lot of ideas about what I
      > needed to do to improve myself, especially my
      > feelings.
      >
      > But mainly I had the idea that I wanted and
      > needed to become a better thinker.  I was already
      > working at that anyway, but now I have come to
      > the realization and the intention to intensify my
      > efforts in that direction.  It has become my
      > first reason for living.  And I have progressed
      > to the point that thinking for me has become a
      > holy sacrament:  This is a real experience.  I
      > enter a state of mildness and reverence; I expand
      > into the thought-world, which is the spiritual
      > world in its most "abstract" form of experience,
      > and I experience the thoughts as they live out
      > their own lives and impulses.  It is not so much
      > a "revelation from above", but an entrance into
      > the "above" and a sharing in the life there. -- I
      > don't do this very often, only at rare moments. 
      > But I try to do this more often, and to spread
      > out these moments over more of my life.
      >
      > And to the extent that I succeed, this will be a
      > serious defeat for the opponents of
      > Anthroposophy, in the WC and elsewhere.  It will
      > be more of a defeat than they know -- or can
      > know, given their rejection of and derision at
      > what they consider to be "magical thinking".  The
      > existence of even one more real thinker in this
      > world is a serious defeat for them in their
      > opposition to Anthroposophy, and if they don't
      > know that, then at least the devils who inspire
      > them know that. 
      >
      > Even external science is starting to catch on
      > about the effects of "meditation".  For instance,
      > as David Wilcock recently reported:
      >
      > ". . . . 50 different scientific studies have
      > confirmed the Meditation Effect is real.
      >
      > "7000 people get together and meditate -- and
      > global terrorism goes down by 72 percent.
      >
      > "Similarly dramatic decreases were seen in war,
      > fatalities and violent crime.
      >
      > "Even if skeptics want to argue about whether or
      > not this is 'real,' the fact is that all other
      > variables have been ruled out -- including
      > weekends, weather, holidays, et cetera.
      >
      > "This effect has been documented in numerous
      > peer-reviewed publications, including the Journal
      > of Offender Rehabilitation."
      >
      > Yes, even "science" is confirming what Steiner
      > said long ago:  inner work really is effective
      > work for the whole world.  So I say to the WC and
      > the like -- My opposition to your opposition is
      > this:  love over your hatred.  You can argue as
      > much as you want; I partake of the sacrament,
      > which is an act of love.  As Steiner said,
      > thinking is love in its spiritual form, and
      > insofar as I am a true thinker, my thinking will
      > defeat your hatred and opposition to the Spirit,
      > in ways you don't even know.  This defeat is not
      > an activity of opposing hostility to your
      > hostility; it is an activity of love, which is
      > for you as much as it is for anyone.  Maybe I
      > don't love you well enough, but that is my
      > failing, not a failing of love, or of
      > Anthroposophy.  You don't have to remain stewing
      > in your hatred; you can accept and find the love,
      > and so come over to the side of the Truth; the
      > way is wide open.
      >
      > Robert Mason
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------
      > APPENDIX 1
      >
      > ABOUT EXORCISM
      >
      > I had the idea that I, or anyone, could drive out
      > the devils from the cyberspaces of opposition to
      > Anthroposophy, just as one can exorcise a
      > physical space, such as a house.  The thing is,
      > one doesn't really drive out the devils through
      > one's own power, but by calling in the power of
      > Jesus Christ.  The devils of Hell know Christ,
      > fear Him, and yield to His spiritual power. 
      > Christ on Earth told us this. -- What Does the
      > *Bible* Say About Exorcism?
      >
      > "And these signs will accompany those who
      > believe: in my name they will cast out demons . .
      > . ." (Mark 16:16 ESV)
      >
      > "The seventy-two returned with joy, saying,
      > 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your
      > name!'" (Luke 10:17 ESV)
      >
      > "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers,
      > cast out demons. You received without paying;
      > give without pay." (Matthew 10:8 ESV)
      >
      > "And he called to him his twelve disciples and
      > gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast
      > them out, and to heal every disease and every
      > affliction." (Matthew 10:1 ESV)
      >
      > "Behold, I have given you authority to tread on
      > serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of
      > the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you." (Luke
      > 10:19 ESV)
      >
      > "For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud
      > voice, came out of many who had them, and many
      > who were paralyzed or lame were healed." (Acts
      > 8:7 ESV)
      >
      > "John answered, 'Master, we saw someone casting
      > out demons in your name, and we tried to stop
      > him, because he does not follow with us.' But
      > Jesus said to him, 'Do not stop him, for the one
      > who is not against you is for you.'" (Luke 9:49-
      > 50 ESV)
      >
      > "Paul . . . turned and said to the spirit, 'I
      > command you in the name of Jesus Christ to
      > come out of her.' And it came out that very
      > hour." (Acts 16:18 ESV)
      >
      > "Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists
      > undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus
      > over those who had evil spirits, saying, 'I
      > adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.' . .
      > . . But the evil spirit answered them, 'Jesus I
      > know . . . ." (Acts 19:13-15 ESV)
      >
      > -- Those are only a few quotes in this vein.  The
      > point is that human being can tell the devils to
      > "come out in the Name of Jesus Christ", and they
      > will come out.  The power comes from the Name of
      > Jesus Christ, and I don't see any reason why that
      > power should be limited to a localized physical
      > space.
      >
      > It is apparent that the cyberspaces of the WC,
      > the Quackometer, Zooey's blog, and the like, are
      > infested with devils and demons inspiring the
      > devilish hatred of and opposition to
      > Anthroposophy.  And "we" can cast those devils
      > out.  If the human denizens of those cyberspaces
      > keep inviting the devils back in, even
      > unconsciously, then we can keep casting them out. 
      > The human dwellers and visitors in those
      > cyberspaces might well still be subjected to the
      > poisonous ideas there, but at least those people
      > would be less subject to obsession and possession
      > by the devils that might otherwise be hanging
      > around. 
      >
      > -- The question bothered me:  Where do the devils
      > go after they have been "cast out"?  If they are
      > just left to roam, that's probably bad news for
      > somebody.  Jesus cast out the "legion" of demons,
      > and they entered the swine and drove them to
      > destruction.  That was good for the possessed
      > man, but hard on the swine.  And, as Steiner
      > relates, when Jesus saw Lucifer and Ahriman
      > fleeing from the gates of the Essenes, Jesus
      > realized that the other people were worse off,
      > because Lucifer and Ahriman had only gone and
      > oppressed those others all the more. -- The
      > *Bible* records Jesus as saying:
      >
      > "'When the unclean spirit has gone out of a
      > person, it passes through waterless places
      > seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, "I
      > will return to my house from which I came." And
      > when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept,
      > and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it
      > seven other spirits more evil than itself, and
      > they enter and dwell there, and the last state of
      > that person is worse than the first. So also will
      > it be with this evil generation.'" (Matthew
      > 12:43-45 ESV)
      >
      > -- This indicates to me that a devil who is
      > merely "cast out" is not therefore rendered
      > harmless; he is still free to do mischief, and he
      > will do that if he gets the chance.  So, I always
      > make a point of telling the devils whom I adjure
      > to "come out" that they don't have to remain as
      > devils, that they can go into the Light and
      > become spirits of Light.  And why not?  If even
      > Lucifer and Ahriman can be redeemed, then the way
      > to redemption should be open for all lesser
      > beings.
      >
      > The point of this Appendix is just to make some
      > suggestions to the reader of some simple actions
      > he can take to remedy the situation.  He can
      > instruct, in the Name of Jesus Christ, the devils
      > to come out of the infested cyberspaces, and he
      > can remind the devils that they don't have to
      > remain devils.
      >
      > The reader can find his own way to do this; I'm
      > not saying that my way is the best.  This note is
      > just to give some hints, some food for thought.
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------
      > APPENDIX 2
      >
      > MY PROCESS -- MUSINGS:
      >
      > (What follows in this section is an idealized
      > recording of my "process" in approaching this
      > question.  This process was of course disorderly,
      > meandering, and sometimes repetitive.  If the
      > reader wishes to see the route I took, here it
      > is, somewhat cleaned up, but still muddled and
      > floundering.  I did eventually try to bring some
      > order in the results.  This recounting of what
      > led up to the results is only for the very
      > patient, and maybe for those who want to attempt
      > their own 7fold thinking --)
      >
      > To my perception, I don't see much difference
      > among the online opponents of Anthroposophy (at
      > least in English); they all seem to be pretty
      > much the same as the WC.  And I had already made
      > an attempt to work within the WC.  And I did,
      > more recently, attempt to draw some people from
      > "Zooey's" blog and the "Quackometer" into
      > conversation, but my attempts didn't even get
      > posted.
      >
      > Here is the message that I tried to post on those
      > blogs:
      >
      > >>To all who might be getting tired of playing
      > the usual games here:
      >
      > >>I invite any and all to come over to an Anthro
      > discussion group, such as
      > <groups.yahoo.com/steiner> or
      > <groups.yahoo.com/steiner12> (I hang out here,
      > cyber-virtually, and post sometimes.)
      >
      > >>Here's the deal: If you are not satisfied with
      > this forum and wish to try something else, then
      > I'll try to engage in dialogue with you, within
      > some limits.  I don't get a lot of time online,
      > and I am slow, but I am willing to spend some
      > time where it might do some good.
      >
      > >>I don't intend to discuss recondite details
      > about Anthro history or Waldorf education, or
      > whatever -- but I am willing to discuss something
      > more meaningful and effective, i.e.  the
      > fundamentals of Anthroposophy.  And really, the
      > fundamentals are just that: fundamental.  They
      > must be grasped before discussion of recondite
      > details could ever be useful.  And I believe that
      > such a fundamental discussion can be useful for
      > everyone who is sincere -- for somewhere, deep
      > down, everyone knows the Truth and can recognize
      > it when he sees it. 
      >
      > >>What is fundamental about Anthroposophy is a
      > positive change in consciousness, a deepening of
      > thinking and feeling, leading to better actions. 
      > In the basics of Anthroposophy there is
      > information about the fundamentals of life and
      > the world, and of death.  This information can be
      > recognized by all with normal minds and good
      > will.  And this information can be put into
      > effect, so that people can overcome sickening
      > materialism, and live and die as human beings.
      >
      > >>Hoping for a real discussion, of something
      > real,<<
      >
      > (But that post never made it onto the blogs.  I
      > presume that the moderators intercepted it and
      > hid it. -- Many of the WC people already know
      > where I am in the cyber-world, but anyone reading
      > this essay may feel free to post that little
      > offer to the WC.  But now, I have even less
      > inclination toward "arguing"; I'm more likely to
      > spend my time only in real *dialogue*.  But I
      > doubt that most of the WC people know the
      > difference.)
      >
      > Actually, someone did come out of the WC to ask
      > some basic questions in Steiner12.  And I
      > answered, giving it about the best shot that I
      > could.  But that person apparently just wanted to
      > argue.  And I quickly bailed out; I've had too
      > much of online arguments doomed to futility. 
      > People who want to obstruct can always find ways
      > to argue; people who want to progress will find
      > ways to work.  At this point in my life, I don't
      > want to engage in endless arguments; they seem
      > useless to me.  What would be more useful is for
      > people to make up their minds that they really
      > want to progress.  But I can't force people to
      > make that decision, and I wouldn't even if I
      > could; I respect free will.  And I am coming to
      > see the incorrigible perverseness of perversity.
      > -- Yet, maybe somewhere there is some
      > "corrigibilty"? . . . I still want to *do*
      > something, but what?
      >
      > I had earlier joined the WC e-list and tried to
      > enter into dialogue there.  But I got nowhere; I
      > ran into stone wall after stone wall, and when I
      > tried to turn the discussion to the basics of
      > Anthroposophy, no one there responded
      > meaningfully, not even a lurker.  So I gave up
      > and left; I didn't see any point in spending my
      > time and energy in a doomed effort.  But I didn't
      > leave it alone altogether; I couldn't, it seemed. 
      > I kept peeking in and trying to figure out what
      > was really going on over there.  And it seemed to
      > me that what was *really* going on was not what
      > was happening on the surface.  On the surface
      > there were mostly denunciations of Steiner's
      > alleged "racism" and picking away at alleged
      > deficienies in Waldorf education.  But that was
      > merely "surface stuff"; under the surface I
      > perceived repressed racial feeling, and even
      > deeper, hostility to Christ Himself. 
      >
      > And I became more and more "freaked out" by the
      > whole thing; I had a hard time understanding how
      > such a thing as the WC could even exist.  I tried
      > to work out some understanding in my last major
      > post on this theme.  And . . . so I next faced
      > the question of what was I going to *do* about
      > it.  To my ordinary thinking, I don't see any
      > need for changing this much of my previous
      > approach:  just to stay out of the WC and not let
      > them waste my time and energy, and otherwise to
      > continue on with my own Anthro "work", such as it
      > may be.  But now I see that some people do go
      > into the online opponents' territory and try to
      > work in there.  And I haven't really decided
      > whether my reaction through ordinary thinking
      > actually shows me the "best" way of responding to
      > the WC and their ilk.
      >
      > Someone who has tried that more recently than I
      > did came to this conclusion:  "But what I've
      > found is that people that won't follow reason -
      > wherever it takes them, which can be past their
      > own prejudices and pre-expectations - aren't
      > worth debating with."  And:  "Sheesh, wonder why
      > anyone bothers having these discussions." -- Yes:   
      > I think:  Why bother?  It's a waste of time. 
      > Maybe some people on the fringes might be
      > reachable, but the hard-core WC people, and the
      > like, are hopeless. -- But I think again, and
      > still I want to *do* something.
      >
      > ***
      >
      > Stumbling back toward the beginning: 
      >
      > I seem to be working toward a contrasting thesis-
      > antithesis, as a way of beginning a 7fold
      > thinking approach to this problem.  Perhaps the
      > thesis would be that an objectively "best" way of
      > counteracting the opponents does exist, somewhere
      > in the great Platonic World of Ideas, but the
      > antithesis would be that I don't know what that
      > course of action is -- and that I know only my
      > floundering, groping, inept take on the
      > situation, and I have only my weak tools to work
      > with?
      >
      > It seems that here I have gotten about as far as
      > I can get with ordinary thinking.  I've gotten
      > the thesis-antithesis and the synthesis.  I see
      > the contradiction between the existence of an
      > objectively optimal response from me to the WC
      > and suchlike opponents, and I see my lack of
      > knowledge of that "right", cosmically "best",
      > response -- and I have "reasoned" about it all by
      > ordinary means:  I don't want to play the usual
      > games of the opponents and waste my time on
      > endless arguments about obscure Anthro details; I
      > want to deal only with something *real*, the
      > fundamentals of Anthroposophy and what the WC
      > people are really doing, under the surface: 
      > working from their hatred of the Christ and of
      > what He brings to Mankind, freedom and knowledge. 
      > I want to bring to people what they really need: 
      > the information for living and dying as human
      > beings.  And I want to work on myself, to improve
      > myself such as I can with the tools and abilities
      > that I have.  And . . . I want to be realistic
      > about all of this, to do what is really possible;
      > I'm likely not going to convince the core WC
      > people, not going to convert them.  At most I
      > might reach some of the fringe people, but I've
      > tried that before and didn't see any evidence of
      > a response.  So I try to follow RS's advice as I
      > understand it:  not to waste my time in arguments
      > with the opponents, and to try to work positively
      > at Anthro achievements.  For me, lately, that has
      > been to work with 7fold thinking.  Maybe now I
      > might "branch out" into some other type of
      > activity, but I'm not sure what.
      >
      > So, that's about as far as ordinary thinking has
      > taken me.  But I gather that all this is not
      > enough; I need to go further.  There does exist
      > an optimal course of action for Robert M; I don't
      > know it, but I would like to presume that the
      > Gods know it.  It's not a "should", a
      > commandment, but a fact, a cosmic quantity.  In
      > this approach a moral question becomes a question
      > of fact.  I am not so much looking for a course
      > of action that will please me; I am looking to
      > find the objectively "correct" course of action
      > for me.
      >
      > STEINER SAID:
      > (from *Anthroposophy -- An Introduction*: Lecture
      > VIII: Lecture: 9th February, 1924; Dornach; GA
      > 234)
      >
      > [referring mainly to Man's life after death:)
      >
      > "Whether a man is being helped or injured is for
      > ordinary consciousness to recognise; but the
      > effect of a deed, be it good or evil, wise or
      > foolish, in the spiritual world â€" its warming or
      > chilling, lightening or darkening action (there
      > are manifold effects) â€" all this arises before
      > imaginative consciousness and begins to be there
      > for us. And we say to ourselves: Because you did
      > not know all this when you let your ordinary
      > consciousness function in your actions, it does
      > not follow that it was not there. Do not imagine
      > that what you did not know of in your actions â€"
      > the sources of luminous and warming rays, etc. â€"
      > was not there because you did not see or
      > experience it. Do not imagine that. You have
      > experienced it all in your sub-consciousness; you
      > have been through it all. Just as the spiritual
      > eyes of your higher consciousness see it now, so,
      > while you were helping or harming another by your
      > kind or evil deed, your sub-consciousness
      > experienced its parallel significance for the
      > spiritual world."
      >
      > "There is so much in life that we cannot fulfil
      > on earth. In a sense, we must incur a debt to the
      > future, admitting that life sets tasks which we
      > cannot absolve in this present earthly life. We
      > must owe them to the universe, saying: I shall
      > only be able to experience that when I have
      > passed through death. The Science of Initiation
      > brings us this great, though often tragical
      > enrichment of life; we feel this unavoidable
      > indebtedness to life and recognise the necessity
      > of owing the gods what we can only experience
      > after death. Only then can we enter into an
      > experience such as we owe to the universe."
      >
      > "With ordinary consciousness we see we are
      > incurring debts, but cannot read the ‘promissory
      > note’ we ought to write. With initiation-
      > consciousness we can, indeed, read the note, but
      > cannot meet it in ordinary life. We must wait
      > till death comes. And, when we have attained this
      > consciousness, when we have so deepened our human
      > conscience that this indebtedness is quite alive
      > in us, we are ready to follow human life farther,
      > beyond the retrospective tableau of which I have
      > spoken and in which we reach back to birth. We
      > now see that, after a few days, we must begin to
      > experience what we have left un-experienced; and
      > this holds for every single deed we have done to
      > other human beings in the world. The last deeds
      > done before death are the first to come before
      > us, and so backwards through life. We first
      > become aware of what our last evil or good deeds
      > signify for the world. Our experience of them
      > while on earth is now eliminated; what we now
      > experience is their significance for the world."
      >
      > "Thus, in undergoing all he has previously left
      > unexperienced, man [after death] feels all around
      > him beings far higher than himself. They unfold
      > their sympathies and antipathies towards all he
      > now lives through as a consequence of his earthly
      > life. In this experience immediately after death
      > we are within a kind of ‘spiritual rain’. We live
      > through the spiritual counterpart of our deeds,
      > and the lofty beings who stand above us rain down
      > their sympathies and antipathies. We are flooded
      > by these, and feel in our spiritual being that
      > what is illuminated by the sympathies of these
      > lofty beings of the higher hierarchies will be
      > accepted by the universe as a good element for
      > the future; whereas all that encounters their
      > antipathies will be rejected, for we feel it
      > would be an evil element in the universe if we
      > did not keep it to ourselves. The antipathies of
      > these lofty beings rain down on an evil deed done
      > to another human being, and we feel that the
      > result would be something exceedingly bad for the
      > universe if we released it, if we did not retain
      > it in ourselves."
      >
      > (from *Anthroposophy -- An Introduction*: Lecture
      > IX; lecture: 10th February, 1924; Dornach; GA
      > 234:)
      >
      > "There is no single experience whose spiritual
      > counterpart is not engraved into the spiritual
      > world in which we are ever present, even while on
      > earth. Every hand-shake we have exchanged has its
      > spiritual counterpart; it is there, inscribed
      > into the spiritual world."
      >
      > ". . . . it is a part of this [after-death]
      > experience to feel that beings whom, for the
      > present, we may call ‘superhuman’, are
      > participating in it. Pressing onwards through
      > these spiritual counterparts of our experiences,
      > we feel as if these spiritual beings were
      > showering down their sympathies and
      > antipathies upon our deeds and thoughts, as we
      > experience them backwards. Thereby we feel what
      > each deed done by us on earth, each thought,
      > feeling, or impulse of will, is worth for purely
      > spiritual existence."
      >
      > "We [after death] now feel: There is something I
      > have done on earth, in thought or deed; it has
      > its corresponding spiritual worth, and this is
      > engraved into the spiritual cosmos. The beings
      > whom I now encounter can either do something with
      > it, or not; it either lies in the direction of
      > their evolution or of the evolution for which
      > they are striving, or it does not. We feel
      > ourselves placed before the beings of the
      > spiritual world and realise that we have acted in
      > accordance with their intentions or against them,
      > have either added to, or subtracted from, what
      > they willed for the evolution of the world."
      >
      > -- What I gather from all this is that everything
      > that I do on Earth has an objective, factual
      > value for the whole Universe; the true quantity
      > and quality of this "value" is not merely "a
      > matter of opinion"; it is a question of fact. 
      > This "significance for the world" seems to be
      > known to the High Beings, the "Gods", and after
      > death we, like it or not, run into the
      > consequences of what our Earthly deeds
      > "signified" for Them and the whole world.
      >
      > So . . . my course of action in response to the
      > WC does have an objective effect on the whole
      > world, whether I know it or not.  Ergo, it seems
      > to me, there must exist an optimal, a "best"
      > course of action for me -- "best" in the sense
      > that it is most helpful to the forward progress
      > of cosmic evolution.  But . . . I can't possibly
      > calculate all the effects of my deeds for the
      > whole Universe, forever.  Such a calculation is
      > simply beyond my knowledge and my capabilities.
      >
      > And so, it seems, I need some information from
      > Above; I need to get the facts, from the Gods, I
      > hope.  Bondarev says that the next step in 7fold
      > thinking is "beholding"; Steiner says that
      > spiritual inspiration comes first in "fantasy",
      > in the creating of mental images in
      > consciousness.  So, so, so . . . I try to wipe
      > the slate clean, to erase all my opinions and
      > prejudices, to allow that these might all be
      > wrong, and to open myself up to teaching from
      > Above.  And I try to do this in mental picturing.
      >
      > But I'm not getting any pictures; they don't
      > "come to" me. 
      >
      > I try to start off by creating some.  I visualize
      > myself with bowed head and folded hands walking
      > reverently under a sky filled with the onlooking
      > Higher Beings, the "choirs of angels".  I seem to
      > be walking toward a city (known to me, that I
      > recently passed by) from the southeast, along the
      > river that runs through it.  (I didn't plan this;
      > this is just the way the imaging worked out.)  I
      > see ahead of me, in or around the city, the
      > Dragon, writhing.  I get scared, and look around
      > for help.  To the left, south of the river, I
      > "see" Micha-El with His sword.  And then I
      > visualize the Christ somewhere above, somewhat to
      > the right.  I hope for help and protection from
      > Them.  But as I advance into the city, the Dragon
      > gets bigger and bigger, surrounding me, and I get
      > smaller and smaller. 
      >
      > Next step:  I did some more asking the Gods for
      > help in finding the optimal path for me in
      > dealing with the WC and their ilk.  Asking for
      > pictures.  Got some imagery of experiences over a
      > (nearby tidal) river and environs, in a sky-like
      > dome, with Russian-like saints and higher beings
      > in view.  Expansive, good feelings, but I still
      > had the question:  what does this have to do with
      > the WC and so on?  Is it that I must seek for
      > reverence and sincerity from any WC people who
      > want to "talk", or what?  Got pictures alright,
      > but not sure whether they were relevant.
      >
      > -- In another session, trying again:  The next
      > image that I get (one that seems relevant; there
      > are many, many that do not) is that of my face
      > with the "blessed" smile that comes from pure
      > thinking and reverence.  The thought that I get
      > now is that, whatever I do in relation to the WC
      > etc., I must maintain my "innocence", that is, I
      > must act toward them in a way that is completely
      > free of blame (against me), that is helpful to
      > them.  I had the thought that I might make them
      > the "offer" for them to come out of the WC, or at
      > least of suspending their activity there, and
      > trying to find the way out of their evident
      > unhappiness.  They do seem so unhappy, and the
      > way to greater happiness is so clear, and so
      > available.  The way is plain enough to find to
      > the kind of reverence that RS talks about in the
      > opening pages of *KoHW*, or at least to make the
      > moral decision to seek Truth over one's
      > prejudices.  Of course, to do this, really and
      > not merely by talk, requires self-awareness,
      > which requires work and sometimes some pain.  But
      > having made at least that little moral decision,
      > then one (with the consciousness normal in
      > technological-scientific culture) can do the kind
      > of self-aware thinking that RS taught in *PoF*. 
      > Most of the WC people and that ilk do seem to
      > have enough modern intellectual consciousness to
      > be able to do this much at least, and this
      > requires no belief, just a doing.  And if one
      > really does this, then one inherently thereby
      > also feels blessedness, love, in pure thinking. 
      > And thinking is most immediately available
      > experience of "spirit" for most of us in modern
      > consciousness.  With that experience of the
      > blessedness of thinking, then the way forward is
      > clear toward Anthroposophy; it's just a matter of
      > maintaining that feeling, and that consciousness,
      > while taking in the concepts of the results of
      > spiritual-scientific investigations.  Perhaps one
      > might have to pass through a little pain because
      > of the increased flow of life energy dissolving
      > the prejudices right down into the physical
      > organism, but that little pain is so minor
      > compared to the great gain in happiness and self-
      > reality.
      >
      > I had the thought that childhood in modern
      > society is so much harder even that it was when I
      > was a child, and getting harder all the time. 
      > The stresses are so much greater:  especially the
      > stress of early puberty bringing sexuality to
      > mere children, the stress of the sexualization of
      > society pushing children to sexiness younger and
      > younger, the stress of the collapse of family
      > life (hardly knowing their mothers, much less
      > their fathers), the stresses of the influx of
      > modern technology (TV, cell phones, computers,
      > etc., etc.), and the stresses of wrong education
      > -- the earliness of intellectualization, the
      > transportation, the crowding and dehumanization,
      > the violence, etc., etc. . . . and so on and on. 
      > Children need some relief so desperately, and
      > Steiner education tries, and is able, to bring
      > some relief, even a little.  But the WC people
      > try to deny children even this little relief. 
      > The WC campaign is so stupendously cruel -- cruel
      > not only to the living and the dead, but
      > especially cruel to children, who need Waldorf
      > education so desperately.  It is so hard to live
      > as human beings in modern society, especially for
      > children, and the WC campaign is to deny people
      > the information and the methods that they need to
      > live as human beings.  The WC people are mostly
      > unconscious of all this, but their cruelty is
      > still, effectively, so tremendous.  The WC
      > people, through fear and hatred and prejudice,
      > fight so hard against the Reality in
      > Anthroposophy; they live in such unhappiness, and
      > they try to make the rest of the world as unhappy
      > as they are.   And all this is so cruel.  The WC
      > people need a way out, and I should (?) offer
      > them the way out, such as I can, and such as
      > however many or few of them will accept.
      >
      > -- Another thought:  it seems that a lot of very
      > advanced human spirits are coming into
      > incarnation now.  There is this huge influx of
      > children who not only "trail clouds of glory"
      > behind them; they bring the glory with them. 
      > They see the heavens; they know the love; and
      > they give out the love in many ways, with amazing
      > skills that bring new beneficial inventions to
      > humanity.  But at the same time, there is a huge
      > influx of very bad human spirits; they are, as
      > Steiner said, those who seek to push the spirit
      > into the cesspool.  In these times the good is
      > getting so much better, and the bad is getting so
      > much worse, that it seems that a tremendous
      > battle is coming, even more of a battle between
      > good and evil than we have seen on earth in
      > recent times.
      >
      > And again, it is so hard especially for young
      > people to live human lives.  So much works
      > against the good that these advanced spirits
      > would bring:  such hindrances as technology,
      > family breakdown, economics, and particularly the
      > "educational" system.  The good are put down,
      > hindered, and maybe even dosed with Ritalin. 
      > Waldorf education is just a faint glimmer of
      > hope, of help, for these incoming spirits.  And
      > that's why the crime of the "Waldorf critics" is
      > so great:  they try to deny even this little
      > relief to the good incoming spirits, and thus to
      > deny to the wider society the good that these
      > advanced spirits might bring.
      >
      > I suppose, maybe, I could come to the WC and the
      > like, not to play their usual game, but to offer
      > them a way out of their misery.  At the least
      > they could see that the idea that Anthroposophy
      > is a crock is itself only a thought, and it came
      > about though some kind of thinking.  From that,
      > it is but a short step to see that thinking
      > itself is the activity that needs to be
      > investigated.  Thinking is the bedrock, and a
      > deeper experience of thinking is needed before
      > any other conclusions.  If one can come to a
      > deeper experience of thinking, the spirituality
      > and the blessings of thinking become a matter of
      > experience, and all else can follow from that.
      > The experience of the blessedness generates a
      > true reverence for Truth, for Reality, and the
      > path to Anthroposophy is wide open from there. --
      > And most of the WC people have at least enough of
      > modern consciousness that they could, with a
      > little goodwill, move to that deeper experience
      > of thinking.  The trick is, it all depends upon
      > that little bit of goodwill.  And that requires
      > some sincerity.  Can I find any sincerity there?
      >
      > -- In another meditation:  Asking the Gods again
      > to show me in pictures the optimal path for me in
      > dealing with the WC people.  Go a lot of images
      > of parents and elders in my youth and childhood
      > to whom I did not show enough respect, not only
      > "not show", but not have inwardly.  I blamed them
      > for their faults without appreciating enough
      > their goodness and achievements.  Translating
      > that picture to my question about the WC:  maybe
      > I don't have enough respect for them; not only
      > don't I show it, but I don't have it.  Maybe I
      > need to understand that, despite their faults,
      > still their achievements and strivings deserve
      > respect, because these, for all I know, might be 
      > real achievements.  Maybe they are more sincere
      > than I give them credit for?  Maybe they're doing
      > the best they can with the tools that they have,
      > given their life-paths?  Maybe?  Can I judge at
      > all, or do I have to give them the benefit of the
      > doubt?  Maybe I should apologize to them for
      > "condescending", as one of them said to me????
      >
      > (And maybe, as Steiner said, many of them might,
      > deep down, actually have a longing for
      > Anthroposophy:
      >
      > ("It often happens in life that a man deadens
      > himself to what lies in the subconscious; there
      > are people who may have an intense longing for
      > Anthroposophy â€" but they deaden it. By raging
      > against Anthroposophy they deaden this longing
      > and delude themselves by repudiating it. But
      > after death the longing asserts itself all the
      > more forcibly. The most ardent longing for
      > Anthroposophy often shows itself after death in
      > the very people who have raged against it in
      > life." [Links Between the Living and the Dead
      > (10th October, 1913; Bergen; GA 140)]
      > (I am aware that some in the WC already know of
      > this idea and sneer at it.  But, somehow, if the
      > right way of bringing up this longing could be
      > found before death, then maybe these "Sauls"
      > might become "Pauls"?)
      >
      > -- Another session, trying again to get some
      > message from the Gods about my optimal course in
      > relation to the WC etc. -- Got an image of my
      > recent visits to a restaurant where I was getting
      > food for someone sick and dying; had more of my
      > feeling in this session in relation to what I
      > went through back then, with the sickness and
      > death.  Had the thought:  I need to have more of
      > an earnest, serious, somber, even tragic feeling
      > in relation to the WC people; being freaked out
      > isn't nearly good enough; it isn't serious
      > enough, given what I have gotten in experience
      > from the Gods.  I must have more respect for the
      > WC people; I don't have enough knowledge to
      > determine that they -- all -- are not sincere at
      > some level.  More:  not only respect, but
      > seriousness and sobriety; being freaked out
      > trivializes the situation and demeans myself; it
      > is a sign of my own un-development.  Maybe pity
      > is condescending; I need rather to have respect
      > and seriousness?  However, I resolve not to let
      > them snow me; not to let them waste my time or
      > set my agenda.  But at least I can't let myself
      > merely be freaked out.
      >
      > -- Yet another session:  Still asking the Gods
      > for a visualization about my optimal path in
      > response to the WC etc.; not getting any pictures
      > that seem meaningful for this question, just
      > scenes from everyday life, with maybe a dome of
      > Beings overhead.  But I did get the idea from all
      > this, somehow, that I was not being gentle and
      > mild enough in relation to the WC people.  Being
      > freaked out is not mildness; being freaked out is
      > a sign of my own underdevelopment.  Seems that I
      > need to regard the WC inwardly with not only
      > respect but mildness, and not only outwardly but
      > deeply, inwardly.  This is what I gathered from
      > the thought of the Manicheans and their pacifism;
      > I need to be not only peaceful in my outward
      > actions but especially in my inward thoughts and
      > feeling.  Still, I can't let the WC people waste
      > my time or determine my work; they are still
      > hostile and their game is designed, perhaps
      > unconsciously, as a spider's web to ensnare the
      > Anthro and entangle him in futility.  But, for me
      > . . . mildness, mildness.
      >
      > -- Trying yet again:  There can be no
      > "desperation" in seeking the 4th stage or any
      > stage of the 7fold dialectic, if -- one regards
      > one's "lower self" from the vantage of the
      > "higher self".  That is, if one lives in one's
      > eternal being ("spirit"?), then one sees one's
      > striving for 7fold thinking like all other
      > strivings of the lower self, the transitory self,
      > the illusory self.  Desperation must be out; only
      > the serenity and calmness, the clear-sightedness,
      > of the view from the eternal can prevail.  To the
      > eternal self it is not a matter of desperation as
      > to whether or not the lower self achieves 7fold
      > thinking; it is a matter of objective viewing,
      > like all else transitory as seen from the
      > eternal, the inherently unchanging.
      >
      > -- Still yet another session:  Took a nap, kinda,
      > this afternoon, then as awoken, tried to
      > meditate; trying to experience more fully the
      > meanings themselves and the activity of thinking. 
      > Didn't do very well at that; then had the thought
      > that I needed to accept and recognize that which
      > I had already been given from the spiritual
      > worlds:  the information of Anthroposophy.  And I
      > needed to recognize that I did "know" it already,
      > in way, deep down, subconsciously, just as
      > everyone deep down already knows the Truth.  And
      > I can recognize it when I see it, just as I had
      > the experience "I have always known this" when I
      > first read *KoHW*.  And there's no excuse for not
      > acknowledging this "knowledge"; it's unreal not
      > to.  I couldn't say that no one ever told me; I
      > have been told, and that really is enough, if I'm
      > honest with myself.
      >
      > So . . . tried again to ask the Gods to give me
      > some pictures in answer to the question about my
      > cosmically optimal course in dealing with the WC
      > etc.  Got a picture, a scene from my daily life
      > of the past few years, and the feeling from the
      > picture was that of coldness, bleakness,
      > tiredness, almost despair.  And I had the
      > thought:   "I have to work with the tools that I
      > have."  I had almost had this same thought at the
      > scene pictured.  And that seemed to be a kind of
      > answer to my question:  in dealing with the WC I
      > can at best work only with the tools that I have. 
      > And I have only modest tools; I'm tired; I don't
      > have a lot of time, even though I'm getting more
      > time online than I have over the past few years. 
      > I don't have access to all the minutiae that the
      > WC want to discuss.  I tried years ago to get a
      > discussion going in the WC about the basics, and
      > no one there wanted to talk about that, really;
      > not even any of the lurkers came forward.  So,
      > this is about all that I can do with the tools
      > that I have:  talk about the basics with people
      > who are sincere and willing to listen.  I can't
      > let the WC people sap my time and energy playing
      > their usual games.  I can do only that which I
      > *can* do, with my tools.  To try to do anything
      > else would be unrealistic, and to be unrealistic
      > is to be ineffective.  And my question was about
      > the most effective way of countering the WC.
      >
      > My way might not be the right way for everyone,
      > but I think that all Anthros need to at least ask
      > those same questions:  Are the WC and their ilk
      > merely wasting my time in endless discussion of
      > minutiae, while the real questions are much more
      > basic:  the need for reverence for truth, and the
      > moral decision to choose objective thinking over
      > a preference for one's own prejudices.  And
      > reverence for Truth sometimes entails a demand
      > for self-awareness, and that demand sometimes
      > entails some pain.  I think that the real problem
      > with the WC and their kind is not as much what is
      > discussed on the surface as what lies beneath the
      > surface.  And one can get under the surface only
      > by going into the basics, and in a real way, not
      > merely by talking.  One must appeal for sincerity
      > and self-awareness.
      >
      > -- Another session, trying to think objectively. 
      > The concepts, not I, do the thinking.  Expanded. 
      > Asking the question about the WC.  Mental
      > pictures of my recent travel to/from a family
      > funeral.  Got the idea:  the best path for RM is
      > not only to help most effectively the living, but
      > also the dead.  Do the dead need endless
      > discussions of the WC agenda?  Or something more
      > basic?
      >
      > -- And:  the need to help the animals and all
      > creation, which "groaneth and travaileth".  Does
      > the WC discussion do this, or is something else
      > needed?
      >
      > -- Not only do I want to "talk" to help "others",
      > but I crave the human contact.  I am the most
      > immediate tool which I can work with, and this is
      > a condition of that tool.  I must work with the
      > tools that I have.
      >
      > -- Yet again thinking, asking again about my
      > optimal course, trying to get some "beholding"
      > visualizations.  Got the image of my aunt's and
      > uncle's home area in the country; got the feeling
      > of the slowness, the simplicity of the faith
      > there, even the "backwardness", a<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • Robert Mason
      ... – that you have put a lot of effort into something that is quite far removed from the core business itself.
      Message 2 of 3 , May 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        To Robert Barnskog, who wrote:

        >>. . . . but it seems – when reading your post
        – that you have put a lot of effort into
        something that is quite far removed from the
        "core business" itself.<<

        Robert M writes:

        But a big point I was trying to make is that for
        the WC Waldorf education isn't really the "core
        business". IMO the talk there about Waldorf
        education is just "surface stuff" (that's
        American psycho-babble). I try to see under the
        surface to the real "stuff", the real "core
        business". And I "see", really, under the
        surface, hatred of the Christ. Opposition to
        Waldorf education is really a way of opposing
        the Christ.

        Robert B wrote:

        >>. . . . look for other people and found a new
        system, without the "problematic" esoteric
        background.<<

        RM writes:

        That may already be happening. I'm told that
        even in Germany maybe a third of Waldorf
        teachers aren't even Anthroposophists. But I
        don't know much about that.

        RB wrote:

        >>If you still think it is worth putting energy
        into Waldorf, I think it is best to be
        completely open with the esoteric background.<<

        RM writes:

        I agree; I'm against deception. I think I made
        that point in my long post. But sometimes even
        the Waldorf teachers might not know about the
        "esoteric background".

        RB wrote:

        >>Regarding the 7fold thinking: what do you plan
        to use it for? Is it an "esoteric tool" or
        something you intend to use for everyday life?<<

        Robert M writes:

        If you go to my Web page that I linked and read
        about 7fold thinking from the beginning, you'll
        get a pretty good idea of how I got into it. I
        got that idea from Bondarev, and I saw how he
        found the 7fold pattern throughout *PoF*. I
        tried to parse some Steiner texts, and I found
        the 7fold pattern there, if I looked for it.
        And so it seemed to me that Bondarev was really
        onto something; it made more and more sense.
        But soon it wasn't enough for me only to parse
        existing texts; I wanted to learn how to do it
        -- the thinking. I had already wanted at least
        to learn, in this incarnation, how to *think*.
        This wish has only gotten stronger as time goes
        on and death gets closer. It seems that
        thinking is 7folded; and why not? -- Everything
        else in the world is 7folded. So, I am trying
        to learn how to think 7foldedly.

        And, if Bondarev is right, this kind of thinking
        needs to become ever more "exoteric", if
        civilization is to be saved. And I may be the
        only one who is trying to do it, in English, as
        far as I know. It seems to me that at least one
        lone guy should make the try.

        So, I do it for myself and, hopefully, for the
        wider world. But, as Steiner tells us, even
        work upon oneself *is* work for the world. I
        hope that more will come of it later; right now,
        I'm just trying.

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