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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
      >
      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 2 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
        > > 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 3 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
          >
          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 4 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
            > > > 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 5 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
              >
              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 6 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                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 7 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                  > > 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 8 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                    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 9 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                      >
                      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 10 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                        >
                        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 11 of 18 , Jun 21, 2002
                          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 12 of 18 , Jun 12, 2007
                            and i *loved* Ayn Rand, as a teenager. I found her unreadable as
                            an adult.
                            >
                            > ******She appeals to people who feel they have a lot of talent but
                            are not being 'allowed' to be themselves---in other words, to the
                            choleric in us, which we especially feel as teens.
                            > Actually, if she hadn't stopped short at a certain point, she
                            would have found her way to spiritual science; and her work,
                            Nietzchean though it is expressed, has many points of contact with
                            anthroposophy. She experienced the human spirit but never broke
                            through to experiencing the spiritual world THROUGH that.
                            Her 'Objectivism' is still useful for people who need to have a
                            stronger sense of self---but is not good for any who have too strong
                            a one already!
                            > Dr. Starman
                            >


                            Hello, Dr. Starman and All!

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

                            Thank you so much!

                            Jenny
                          • carynlouise
                            ... Hi Jenny Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today s lecture - I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing Objectivist reality preceding
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                              > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
                              >
                              > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of Ayn
                              > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
                              > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality precedes
                              > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim that
                              > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be very
                              > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how Ayn
                              > Rand "got it wrong".
                              >
                              > Thank you so much!
                              >
                              > Jenny
                              >

                              Hi Jenny

                              Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -

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


                              Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?

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

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

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

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

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





                                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carynlouise" <carynlouise@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
                                > >
                                > > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of
                                Ayn
                                > > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
                                > > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality
                                precedes
                                > > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim
                                that
                                > > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be
                                very
                                > > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how
                                Ayn
                                > > Rand "got it wrong".
                                > >
                                > > Thank you so much!
                                > >
                                > > Jenny
                                > >
                                >
                                > Hi Jenny
                                >
                                > Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -
                                >
                                > "I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing"
                                >
                                >
                                > Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?
                                >
                                > "A huna Pfene Li nofa Li Songo Gonya Muri"
                                > "Too many people die in the world because they are too poor to stay
                                > alive"
                                >
                              • Durward Starman
                                *******Ayn Rand is a whole subject in herself. In one past incarnation she longed to be a philosopher like Aristotle, but was unable to be: so in this life she
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 24, 2007
                                  *******Ayn Rand is a whole subject in herself. In one past incarnation she
                                  longed to be a philosopher like Aristotle, but was unable to be: so in this
                                  life she indulged her wish, but because it was in a later epoch it did not
                                  have the effect it would have then. And intellect, when it has no
                                  appropriate use in this time, becomes corrupted by the opposing powers. So
                                  her philosophical system is a sort of dead-end. It did not lead to renewing
                                  the powers of the soul for art, for creativity, as anthroposophy does, but
                                  rather leads to a sort of spiritual prison for those who swallow it whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                  Starman

                                  www.DrStarman.com





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

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