Re: [wc] accusation and condemnation
- On 2 April 2011 18:34, alicia h. <zzzooey@...> wrote:
> 'I am very sorry for anyone who's experienced a loss of faith as it's'There is a Jewish Psalm of David that can help with the banishment
> one of the most shattering things that can occur to a human being...'
> This attitude is what makes spiritual/religious people unbearable to be
> around. Not even realizing that the person who loses religious faith wins
> something else.
of demons if anyone is really interested in employing esoteric methods in the
struggle against evil. If not, then simply ignore this and focus on good and
beautiful things in your own world:
Now everyone needs to just go in peace, enjoy their weekend and
trust in their guardian angel if they are still able to believe in such things.
Whether or not I like Tom or you like me, God loves all his children.'
-- Despicable. Really truly awful. If you don't like what I say and if
you don't want my 'esoteric methods' to combat 'evil'... then you have
no right to criticize them? 'Go in peace' -- 'God loves all his
children' -- 'trust' the 'guardian angel'?
The best thing that can be said about this junk is that it resembles
some wacky kind of spiritual spam. Like the Viagra emails. It's just
that what you get shoved down your throat isn't awareness of the
physical impotence of others but of the spiritual impotence. Because
that's what this is: she's chanting at others but she's obviously only
trying to convince herself. And if we can't reinforce -- accept or? --
her beliefs in evil powers, occult forces, and whatnot, then we should
go away in peace, focus on 'the good and beautiful'... just as long as
we don't shatter her evidently rather fragile spiritual universe.
So much for 'the armour of god'.
- I wrote:
> When somebody says that a particular set of statements is naive, or aLots of Steiner fans don't like that distinction; they think ideas and persons are the same thing. Indeed many esotericists -- see Dennis's post for the most recent example -- are entirely unaware of the distinction between claims and persons. Not only do they fail to acknowledge the distinction themselves, they think everybody else rejects the distinction too. They don't seem to realize that this makes it impossible for them to engage in public discussion.
> particular way of approaching a topic is naive, they are not saying
> that the person who made the statements is 'inferior'. What they are
> doing is simply assessing various claims put forward in public. That is
> how it is possible to determine whether Ted's claims about materialism
> are naive, whether Dennis's claims about Nazism are naive, whether
> Frank's claims about antisemitism are naive, whether Charlotte's claims
> about esotericism are naive, and so forth. This would be much easier
> for many esotericists to understand if they would distinguish claims
> from persons.
It is nonetheless possible for the rest of us to discuss their claims, naive as these claims may be. This will of course strike many esotericists as an exercise in accusation and condemnation, not to mention denigration and hatred and so forth. That is a standard aspect of esoteric epistemologies and of esoteric worldviews as such, which frequently reject critical analysis and celebrate credulity. Hence the chronic difficulties esotericists have in discussing history.
The same thoroughly credulous approach underlies anthroposophist claims about antisemitism, about Nazism, about racism, and about many other topics. Dennis and Frank, for example, believe that they know more about the history of Nazism than historians of Nazism do. These beliefs are quite delusional. They are as sensible as Dennis or Frank believing that they know more than I do about what I had for breakfast this morning or that they know more than I do about the house I grew up in.
Nobody is saying that esotericists are inferior when we point out that such claims are obviously mistaken. Nobody is trying to put esotericists down, nobody is trying to belittle them, nobody is condemning them or denigrating them when we point out that historians of Nazism actually do know more about the history of Nazism than they do, and that they could learn a lot about the history of Nazism from historians of Nazism.
Greetings to all,