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

Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition

Expand Messages
  • Ashley Case
    that was my first time reading about the temperaments and nutrition. thanks for the easy overview. it was facinating to consider the man as plant in reverse.
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >
       
      that was my first time reading about the temperaments and nutrition.  thanks for the easy overview.  it was facinating to consider the man as plant in reverse.
       
      i mentioned before that i have always had a spiritual affinity to rocks.  well, i have a real alienation from plant life.  i wonder why?  the more i learn, the more blind spots i find in myself.
      -------Original Message-------
       
      Date: Thursday, June 20, 2002 06:17:51 PM
      Subject: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
       
      ashley.case@... writes:
      I am currently intested in the basics like understanding the four parts to the human being; the four incarnations of earth; the significance of Christ in Anthroposophy; nutritional implications of Anthroposophy; the four ethers; four temperaments; the notion of threefoldness vs. duality .. basically the foundations of an anthroposophical world view.


      *******Now that I've answered about the 4 ethers and 4 temperaments, I'll say a bit about nutrition. We have 3 bodies expressing themselves within the physical, and these three manifest the pattern we call Threefold Man. This is that we have a nerves-and-senses system centered in the head, and opposite to this the wonderful system that digests our food and provides us with energy to will, which is connected with the limbs (including the particular---ahem--- 'limb' the male uses to reproduce, which has quite a different form in the female, though still a 'limb'!). The former (the head)  is Earthy, that is, condensed in space, while the latter is the Fire pole. In between is the ever-changing middle ground, the circulatory system that goes ever from one pole to the other and back. These were called by the old alchemists Salt, Sulfur and Mercury. (The 'three' and the 'four' & their relations are a deep study indeed...)

         But Steiner built on the pure thought-form of Goethe, connecting this to other perceptions of the same reality that that great man saw. The Three, Goethe saw in the Ur-Plant. He saw that all plants are a variation on an archetypal reality of three contractions and expansions. The seed is a contraction, which then expands into the radicles stretching above and below, the upper becoming the stalk and the lower the root-system. The plant above then contracts into the trunk, and then expands again into leaf-formation. Then it contracts again into the calyx, which now expands into flower and fruit---containing the contracted seed, and the eternal cycle begins again...

         Now, this is the pattern of the ETHERIC world, whose clearest representative is the plant (traces of the etheric forces can be observed even in minerals, but covered over by the physical; and it is also in animals, but metamorphosed by the astral in it: in the plant, it is itself only). Man's etheric body is the inverse of the plant, so our reproductive organs are below, not above. (The Kabbalists saw man as a Tree growing downward from Heaven, our 'roots' above.) As the plant has a part that shuns the light and encloses itself in the earth, so our head closes itself off within itself; while the plant's flower & fruit needs the fiery forces of the sun to ripen, fiery forces likewise at work in our 'metabolic-limb' system. As the central organ of the plant is the leaf, capable of assuming an infinite number of shapes, so our circulatory system has all the varied organs of the middle body, liver, stomach, gall etc.

          Hence fruits stimulate the metabolic-limb system, leaf vegetables the circulatory or rhythmic system and roots the head and nerves. This is a generality only, though: within the plant world, there are many varieties of each. Carrots, for instance, are like fruits but held below the surface, and so stimulate more than the head; potatoes affect the head, all right, but anaesthetize it rather than stimulate it.

         I'd like to recommend Maria Geuter's "Herbs In Nutrition" (Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association, 1978) as a start on this subject. In addition to specific use of herbs for children, in the first chapter she has brief but wise observations from her own experiences in curative education. The Choleric has the affinity for fruits, but since he is already 'fiery' this would be the worst for him: instead he needs roots and grains, everything requiring much energy to digest, particularly raw foods like salads, and starches. This prevents him from being TOO energetic for his own good. Giving sugar or easily-digested fruit to a choleric is like feeding a fire gasoline!

         The Sanguine also needs to be 'brought down to earth' a bit, but for him the roots and/or leaves need to be cooked, as he has not enough energy to digest. He also craves dairy products like cream, for grounding. The Phlegmatic has a sluggish digestion and needs variety of food to stimulate it, and often highly spiced & hot food; especially the light-and-warmth parts of the plant world, green leafy vegetables & fruits. But it is the Melancholic above all who must have fruits and sugar to bring him up out of his dark 'root-earth'. Never let a melancholic feed only on things that grow in darkness like peanuts or potatoes.

         Of course the matter is more complicated with meat in the diet. Beef is very like roots in its effect, weighing us down deeper in the body. Fish is much lighter, fowl still more so. It's a vast study to learn to recognize the effects of the 4 Ethers in the variety of plants and animals on earth, and how each affects us. This is what underlay Macrobiotics and Ayur-Veda, seeing how the qualities in Nature match and either amplify or counteract the corresponding ones in us. But fortunately, our anthroposophic movement---which so many seem to do nothing but find fault with, while seldom passing on any productive knowledge like that above---has produced a wealth of research on the subject, gained from actual experience in agriculture and nutrition with both children and adults, and there is much that can be found by any who seek.

      To Be Continued...

      Dr. Starman

      Post to steiner@egroups.com

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

      Search the archives of the group at:
      http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

      Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
      http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
       
    • DRStarman2001@aol.com
      ... *******The melancholic temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I d say. One way it s indicated is many Earth and Fire signs in the horoscope and
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated Fri, 21 Jun 2002 1:08:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashley.case@... writes:

        > that was my first time reading about the temperaments and nutrition. thanks for the easy overview. it was facinating to consider the man as plant in reverse.
        >
        > i mentioned before that i have always had a spiritual affinity to rocks. well, i have a real alienation from plant life. i wonder why? the more i learn, the more blind spots i
        > find in myself.

        *******The melancholic temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water.

        Starman
      • Ashley Case
        I don t understand your explanation . ... From: steiner@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 07:44:21 AM To: steiner@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          I don't understand your explanation .
           
          -------Original Message-------
           
          Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 07:44:21 AM
          Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
           
          In a message dated Fri, 21 Jun 2002 1:08:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashley.case@... writes:

          > that
          was my first time reading about the temperaments and nutrition.  thanks for the easy overview.  it was facinating to consider the man as plant in reverse.

          > i mentioned before that i have
          always had a spiritual affinity to rocks.  well, i have a real alienation from plant life.  i wonder why?  the more i learn, the more blind spots i
          > find in myself.

          *******The melancholic temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water.

          Starman

          Post to steiner@egroups.com

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

          Search the archives of the group at:
          http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

          Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
          http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
           
        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
          ... *******A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > > that was my first time reading about the temperaments and nutrition. thanks for the easy overview. it was facinating to consider the man as plant in reverse.
            > > i mentioned before that i have always had a spiritual affinity to rocks. well, i have a real alienation from plant life. i wonder why? the more i learn, the more blind spots i
            > > find in myself.
            >
            > *******The melancholic temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and
            > Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water.
            >
            > Starman

            ashley.case@... writes:
            > I don't understand your explanation .


            *******A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there's little Light Ether.
            It gives one much will and practicality but little depth of feeling, and can tend towards ruthlessness. The horoscope is one way of seeing it--- specifically what planets are in Fire, Air, Water and Earth signs, though the planets are involved, too.

            Starman
          • Ashley Case
            yes, that s me! is there any way i can rehabilitate myself? ... From: steiner@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 08:37:54 AM To:
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              yes, that's me!  is there any way i can rehabilitate myself?
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 08:37:54 AM
              Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
               

              > > that was my first time reading about
              the temperaments and nutrition.  thanks for the easy overview.  it was facinating to consider the man as plant in reverse.
              > > i
              mentioned before that i have always had a spiritual affinity to rocks.  well, i have a real alienation from plant life.  i wonder why?  the more i learn, the more blind spots i
              > >
              find in myself.
              >
              > *******The melancholic temperament, with
              too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and
              > Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water.
              >
              > Starman

              ashley.case@... writes:
              > I don't
              understand your explanation .


              *******A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there's little Light Ether.
              It gives one much will and practicality but little depth of feeling, and can tend towards ruthlessness. The horoscope is one way of seeing it--- specifically what planets are in Fire, Air, Water and Earth signs, though the planets are involved, too.

              Starman


              Post to steiner@egroups.com

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

              Search the archives of the group at:
              http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

              Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
              http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
               
            • DRStarman2001@aol.com
              ... A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there s
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > > > i have always had a spiritual affinity to rocks. well, i have a real alienation from plant life. i wonder why? the more i learn, the more blind spots i find in myself.
                > >
                > > *******The melancholic temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water.
                A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there's little Light Ether.
                It gives one much will and practicality but little depth of feeling, and can tend towards ruthlessness. The horoscope is one way of seeing it--- specifically what planets are in Fire, Air, Water and Earth signs, though the planets are
                > involved, too.
                >
                > Starman

                ashley.case@... writes:
                > yes, that's me! is there any way i can rehabilitate myself?

                *******Of course: the planets are simply what we 'inherit' from past incarnations. First, you may find you like to have Watery (Phlegmatic) people close to you. They have something you feel you need. If you allow yourself to feel TOO different from them, you may not be able to receive what you need from them. Remember, opposites attract.

                And in your judgements, "Allow justice to be tempered by mercy and a knowledge of human frailty", as the old advice to judges went. An example of a Fire-Earth woman was Ayn Rand, who despite her brilliance and contributions to literature & philosophy made a wreck of her personal life. The worst example of the Fire-Earth man was Hitler. What good to accomplish what you will if it's at the cost of human happiness?

                It's not an unusual condition for modern man. Lack of 'Water' is the underdevelopment of the rhythmic system. Adopting regular routines, doing things repeatedly & rhythmically, is the treatment. You'll find Phlegmatics have a strong need for this. Nutritionally, have green leafy vegetables, and avoid fruit/sugar and below-ground vegetables.

                Starman
              • Ashley Case
                this is very helpful. and i think i do attract phlegmatics (and then hate them!) i will try to see what I can learn from them. what will i do with my ice
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  >
                  this is very helpful.  and i think i do attract phlegmatics (and then hate them!)  i will try to see what I can learn from them.  what will i do with my ice cream addiction ?
                   
                  thanks a lot for the practical advice.  and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager.  I found her unreadable as an adult.
                   
                  -------Original Message-------
                   
                  Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:03:35 AM
                  Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
                   

                  > > >  i have always had a
                  spiritual affinity to rocks.  well, i have a real alienation from plant life.  i wonder why?  the more i learn, the more blind spots i find in myself.
                  > >
                  > > *******The melancholic
                  temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and  Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water. 
                     A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there's little Light Ether.
                     It gives one much will and practicality but little depth of feeling, and can tend towards ruthlessness. The horoscope is one way of seeing it--- specifically what planets are in Fire, Air, Water and Earth signs, though the planets are
                  > involved, too.
                  >
                  > Starman

                  ashley.case@... writes:
                  > yes,
                  that's me!  is there any way i can rehabilitate myself?

                  *******Of course: the planets are simply what we 'inherit' from past incarnations. First, you may find you like to have Watery (Phlegmatic) people close to you. They have something you feel you need. If you allow yourself to feel TOO different from them, you may not be able to receive what you need from them. Remember, opposites attract.

                    And in your judgements, "Allow justice to be tempered by mercy and a knowledge of human frailty", as the old advice to judges went. An example of a Fire-Earth woman was Ayn Rand, who despite her brilliance and contributions to literature & philosophy made a wreck of her personal life. The worst example of the Fire-Earth man was Hitler. What good to accomplish what you will if it's at the cost of human happiness?

                     It's not an unusual condition for modern man. Lack of 'Water' is the underdevelopment of the rhythmic system. Adopting regular routines, doing things repeatedly & rhythmically, is the treatment. You'll find Phlegmatics have a strong need for this. Nutritionally, have green leafy vegetables, and avoid fruit/sugar and below-ground vegetables.

                  Starman


                  Post to steiner@egroups.com

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                  Search the archives of the group at:
                  http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

                  Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                  http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                   
                • Ashley Case
                  one more thing .. does this explain my dislike of summer and my love of autumn? ... From: steiner@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:10:32 AM To:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    one more thing .. does this explain my dislike of summer and my love of autumn?
                     
                    -------Original Message-------
                     
                    Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:10:32 AM
                    Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
                     
                    this is very helpful.  and i think i do attract phlegmatics (and then hate them!)  i will try to see what I can learn from them.  what will i do with my ice cream addiction ?
                     
                    thanks a lot for the practical advice.  and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager.  I found her unreadable as an adult.
                     
                    -------Original Message-------
                     
                    Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:03:35 AM
                    Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
                     

                    > > >  i have always had a
                    spiritual affinity to rocks.  well, i have a real alienation from plant life.  i wonder why?  the more i learn, the more blind spots i find in myself.
                    > >
                    > > *******The melancholic
                    temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and  Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water. 
                       A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there's little Light Ether.
                       It gives one much will and practicality but little depth of feeling, and can tend towards ruthlessness. The horoscope is one way of seeing it--- specifically what planets are in Fire, Air, Water and Earth signs, though the planets are
                    > involved, too.
                    >
                    > Starman

                    ashley.case@... writes:
                    > yes,
                    that's me!  is there any way i can rehabilitate myself?

                    *******Of course: the planets are simply what we 'inherit' from past incarnations. First, you may find you like to have Watery (Phlegmatic) people close to you. They have something you feel you need. If you allow yourself to feel TOO different from them, you may not be able to receive what you need from them. Remember, opposites attract.

                      And in your judgements, "Allow justice to be tempered by mercy and a knowledge of human frailty", as the old advice to judges went. An example of a Fire-Earth woman was Ayn Rand, who despite her brilliance and contributions to literature & philosophy made a wreck of her personal life. The worst example of the Fire-Earth man was Hitler. What good to accomplish what you will if it's at the cost of human happiness?

                       It's not an unusual condition for modern man. Lack of 'Water' is the underdevelopment of the rhythmic system. Adopting regular routines, doing things repeatedly & rhythmically, is the treatment. You'll find Phlegmatics have a strong need for this. Nutritionally, have green leafy vegetables, and avoid fruit/sugar and below-ground vegetables.

                    Starman


                    Post to steiner@egroups.com

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                    Search the archives of the group at:
                    http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

                    Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                    http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                     
                  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                    ... ******She appeals to people who feel they have a lot of talent but are not being allowed to be themselves---in other words, to the choleric in us, which
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > i have always had a spiritual affinity to rocks. well, i have a real alienation from plant life. i wonder why? the more i learn, the more blind spots i find in myself.

                      > > > *******The melancholic temperament, with too little of the phlegmatic, I'd say. One way it's indicated is many Earth and Fire signs in the horoscope and little Water.
                      > A person who has much Warmth Ether and Life Ether but little Sound, Chemical or Number Ether has no affinity for plants ---or animals, either, if there's little Light Ether.
                      > It gives one much will and practicality but little depth of feeling, and can tend towards ruthlessness. The horoscope is one way of seeing it--- specifically what planets are in Fire, Air, Water and Earth signs, though the planets are
                      > > involved, too.
                      > > Starman

                      > ashley.case@... writes:
                      > > yes, that's me! is there any way i can rehabilitate myself?

                      *******Of course: the planets are simply what we 'inherit' from past incarnations. First, you may find you like to have Watery (Phlegmatic) people close to you. They have something you feel you need. If you allow yourself to feel TOO different from them, you may not be able to receive what you need from them. Remember, opposites attract.
                      > And in your judgements, "Allow justice to be tempered by mercy and a knowledge of human frailty", as the old advice to judges went. An example of a Fire-Earth woman was Ayn Rand, who despite her brilliance and contributions to literature & philosophy made a wreck of her personal life. The worst example of the Fire-Earth man was Hitler. What good to accomplish what you will if it's at the cost of human happiness?
                      > It's not an unusual condition for modern man. Lack of 'Water' is the underdevelopment of the rhythmic system. Adopting regular routines, doing things repeatedly & rhythmically, is the treatment. You'll find Phlegmatics have a strong need for this. Nutritionally, have green leafy vegetables, and avoid fruit/sugar and below-ground vegetables.
                      > Starman

                      ashley.case@... writes:

                      > this is very helpful. and i think i do attract phlegmatics (and then hate them!) i will try to see what I can learn from them. what will i do with my ice cream addiction ?

                      *******Well, that means you have some of the Sanguine temperament too! It gives a love of cream. So you're probably not just Fire and Earth. A complete picture is found in the horoscope. You can cast your own online now, at astro.com.

                      >>>> thanks a lot for the practical advice. and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as an adult.

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

                      >>>one more thing .. does this explain my dislike of summer and my love of autumn?

                      *******Yes, if the 'Fire' nature is already too strong, hot climate can even make one physically sick---fevers and other forms of 'excarnating' from the body.

                      Dr. Starman
                    • hillstar34@aol.com
                      Oh my god i must be going insane, i have just listened to a justification of hating plants, due to a temperament explanation, you know what, give me that
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Oh my god
                        i must be going insane, i have just listened to a justification of hating
                        plants, due to a temperament explanation, you know what, give me that cold
                        old time religion,. i hate maggots does that have application? i can only
                        imagine the idiot savant who hates plants here, maybe your mum planted to
                        many mums, could it be just a tad deeper? please spare me the i hate love
                        ice cream they did a study, criminals apparently love ice cream too, lets
                        draw some intersecting lines and come up with something we must be onto them
                        now, by golly, where is sherlock holmes, could you possibly apply this to
                        something current like war, hunger, the pharmaceutical companies, enron?
                        i hate wood ticks, was born in February and am melancholic, but i think i
                        hate wood ticks because they are yuckie,and i think i was born in February
                        because my parents did the hoochie coochie in June to brazilian music,
                        sincerely the wood tick hater,
                      • Ashley Case
                        In spite of the dissenter, I really did appreciate the individual attention, Starman . ... From: steiner@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 03:50:25
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >
                          In spite of the dissenter, I really did appreciate the individual attention, Starman .
                           
                          -------Original Message-------
                           
                          Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 03:50:25 PM
                          Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
                           
                          Oh my god
                          i must be going insane, i have just listened to a justification of hating
                          plants, due to a temperament   explanation, you know what, give me that cold
                          old time religion,. i hate maggots does that have application? i can only
                          imagine the idiot savant who hates plants here, maybe your mum planted to
                          many mums, could it be  just a tad deeper? please spare me the i hate  love
                          ice cream they did a study, criminals apparently love ice cream too, lets
                          draw some intersecting lines and come up with something we must be  onto them
                          now, by golly,  where is sherlock holmes, could you possibly apply this to
                          something current like war, hunger, the pharmaceutical companies, enron?
                            i hate wood ticks, was born in February and am melancholic, but i think i
                          hate wood ticks because they are yuckie,and i think i was born in  February
                          because my parents did the hoochie coochie in June to brazilian music,
                          sincerely  the wood tick hater,

                          Post to steiner@egroups.com

                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                          Search the archives of the group at:
                          http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

                          Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                          http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                           
                        • Ashley Case
                          and to the meanie .. i never said i hated plants. i feel alienated from the plant world, and i feel a deep loss for this. ... From: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >
                            and to the meanie .. i never said i hated plants.  i feel alienated from the plant world, and i feel a deep loss for this.
                             
                            -------Original Message-------
                             
                            Date: Friday, June 21, 2002 03:50:25 PM
                            Subject: Re: [steiner] Introduction to Anthroposophy #3: Nutrition
                             
                            Oh my god
                            i must be going insane, i have just listened to a justification of hating
                            plants, due to a temperament   explanation, you know what, give me that cold
                            old time religion,. i hate maggots does that have application? i can only
                            imagine the idiot savant who hates plants here, maybe your mum planted to
                            many mums, could it be  just a tad deeper? please spare me the i hate  love
                            ice cream they did a study, criminals apparently love ice cream too, lets
                            draw some intersecting lines and come up with something we must be  onto them
                            now, by golly,  where is sherlock holmes, could you possibly apply this to
                            something current like war, hunger, the pharmaceutical companies, enron?
                              i hate wood ticks, was born in February and am melancholic, but i think i
                            hate wood ticks because they are yuckie,and i think i was born in  February
                            because my parents did the hoochie coochie in June to brazilian music,
                            sincerely  the wood tick hater,

                            Post to steiner@egroups.com

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            steiner-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                            Search the archives of the group at:
                            http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

                            Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                            http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                             
                          • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                            ... *******She said she had no affinity for plants. You re welcome to go seek old time religion anywhere you want, but not to insult other list members here. I
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated Fri, 21 Jun 2002 5:50:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, hillstar34 writes:

                              > Oh my god
                              > i must be going insane, i have just listened to a justification of hating
                              > plants, due to a temperament explanation, you know what,
                              > give me that cold old time religion...

                              *******She said she had no affinity for plants. You're welcome to go seek old time religion anywhere you want, but not to insult other list members here. I don't see where your post was adding anything to any discussion.

                              Starman
                            • Jenny
                              and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as an adult. ... are not being allowed to be themselves---in other words, to the choleric in
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 12, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as
                                an adult.
                                >
                                > ******She appeals to people who feel they have a lot of talent but
                                are not being 'allowed' to be themselves---in other words, to the
                                choleric in us, which we especially feel as teens.
                                > Actually, if she hadn't stopped short at a certain point, she
                                would have found her way to spiritual science; and her work,
                                Nietzchean though it is expressed, has many points of contact with
                                anthroposophy. She experienced the human spirit but never broke
                                through to experiencing the spiritual world THROUGH that.
                                Her 'Objectivism' is still useful for people who need to have a
                                stronger sense of self---but is not good for any who have too strong
                                a one already!
                                > Dr. Starman
                                >


                                Hello, Dr. Starman and All!

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

                                Thank you so much!

                                Jenny
                              • carynlouise
                                ... Hi Jenny Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today s lecture - I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing Objectivist reality preceding
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
                                  >
                                  > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of Ayn
                                  > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
                                  > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality precedes
                                  > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim that
                                  > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be very
                                  > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how Ayn
                                  > Rand "got it wrong".
                                  >
                                  > Thank you so much!
                                  >
                                  > Jenny
                                  >

                                  Hi Jenny

                                  Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -

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


                                  Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?

                                  "A huna Pfene Li nofa Li Songo Gonya Muri"
                                  "Too many people die in the world because they are too poor to stay
                                  alive"
                                • Mathew Morrell
                                  Not Van Gogh, but the supra-personal Christ within him, was capable of perceiving the one Reality of a wheat field from many different perspectives; some
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Not Van Gogh, but the supra-personal Christ within him, was capable
                                    of perceiving the one Reality of a wheat field from many different
                                    perspectives; some painted in an aura of silence: calm, full of
                                    light and peaceful solitude. Other wheat fields were on fire in the
                                    Word; each stalk painted like a holy flame. Van Gogh's wheat fields
                                    were not Platonic idea forms, but a living essence filled with
                                    character and dimensionality unique unto themselves.

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

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

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

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





                                    --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carynlouise" <carynlouise@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
                                    > >
                                    > > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of
                                    Ayn
                                    > > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
                                    > > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality
                                    precedes
                                    > > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim
                                    that
                                    > > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be
                                    very
                                    > > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how
                                    Ayn
                                    > > Rand "got it wrong".
                                    > >
                                    > > Thank you so much!
                                    > >
                                    > > Jenny
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Hi Jenny
                                    >
                                    > Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -
                                    >
                                    > "I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing"
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?
                                    >
                                    > "A huna Pfene Li nofa Li Songo Gonya Muri"
                                    > "Too many people die in the world because they are too poor to stay
                                    > alive"
                                    >
                                  • Durward Starman
                                    *******Ayn Rand is a whole subject in herself. In one past incarnation she longed to be a philosopher like Aristotle, but was unable to be: so in this life she
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jun 24, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      *******Ayn Rand is a whole subject in herself. In one past incarnation she
                                      longed to be a philosopher like Aristotle, but was unable to be: so in this
                                      life she indulged her wish, but because it was in a later epoch it did not
                                      have the effect it would have then. And intellect, when it has no
                                      appropriate use in this time, becomes corrupted by the opposing powers. So
                                      her philosophical system is a sort of dead-end. It did not lead to renewing
                                      the powers of the soul for art, for creativity, as anthroposophy does, but
                                      rather leads to a sort of spiritual prison for those who swallow it whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                      Starman

                                      www.DrStarman.com





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

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