[wc] Re: esoteric lessons for the first class and race
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Peter Staudenmaier
>anthroposophists who drop in on this forum from time to time under
> Steinar wrote:
> > it looks like nobody trusts anybody
> > here. All these hate-cults and killer-cults around make internet forum
> > users see enemies all over the places.
> As far as I can tell, this is indeed one of the aims of the various
imagined identities; they seem to be trying to corrode the basic
procedures of an email list and sow distrust and promote confusion. I
think the best way to deal with this is to focus on the claims put
forward by any listmate, rather than the personalities behind those
>Waldorf and of anthroposophy view anthroposophists as "enemies". This
> One of the more revealing of Steinar's claims is that critics of
is, for what it's worth, exactly how many Waldorf advocates and many
anthroposophists view us. This unfortunate tradition extends back to
Rudolf Steiner himself. Criticism, in the anthroposophist view, is a
The problem is where is the neutral territory. God is on both sides.
The Lord of the universe knows every persons history because He is them.
Its called a leela in Hinduism which is where curved space takes us
back to. The vedic texts and quantum physics takes us back there and
so does the Tao. He followed the Tao to get here.
Hello again !
>"laypeople": they need to be talked down to and treated like children
> > Because we do not have the acumen, knowledge, erudition and insight,
> > so you have to be patient with us like with your own children.
> That is a handy summary of the standard anthroposophist view of
if they are ever to grasp the profound Wisdom of anthroposophy. It is
also, interestingly enough, a pretty good summary of anthroposophist
attitudes toward learning about history: Steinar's position is that in
order to make even basic sense of historical material, a special and
rare level of acumen, knowledge, erudition and insight are required.
>neither trained scholars nor anthroposophists and thus are presumably
> That notion is foolish. Lots and lots of people -- people who are
"laypeople" in Steinar's sense -- routinely figure out historical
questions by paying attention to the issues involved and informing
themselves when necessary through readily available means. Consider
Steinar's own example: His stance was that he was unable to
distinguish geographic continents, racial categories, and
chronological periods, and that in order to do so, he would need to
read numerous books in foreign languages.
>however, fit a remarkable number of anthroposophist sympathizers who
> That description does not fit the "laypeople" I know. It does,
show up on this list, and who often tend to throw their hands up in
the air when confronted with even simple and straightforward questions
about historical matters, among many other matters.
>anthroposophist, Frank Smith, appears to have fallen for it --
> I think this episode -- not to mention the fact that at least one
illustrates remarkably well the way a number of anthroposophists
approach public discussion not just of their own worldview, but of
pretty much everything. Summery Saturday greetings to all,
> Peter Staudenmaier
> Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
- Baandje wrote:
> I just hope you and the others were right about who that really was,I don't see why that would matter. I don't have the faintest idea who Steinar was, except for the obvious fact that his stated identity was fictional. When things like that happen, the best approach, in my view, is to focus on the arguments put forward rather than the supposed personalities behind them, real or imaginary. The two interesting things about this particular incident were that at least one anthroposophist who reads this list, Frank Smith, was taken in by this ruse, and that the claims Steinar put forward speak volumes about anthroposophist perceptions of critical discussion of anthroposophy. Among many other reasons, these things are important because they underscore yet again the crucial differences between credulous reading and critical reading, a longstanding and fundamental point of contention between Waldorf admirers and Waldorf critics. It is, for example, central to the various attempts to engage Baandje himself in meaningful discussion, not to mention Brad et al. In that sense, it can even be helpful once in a while to have folks like Steinar wander in; it presents a kind of reality check and an object lesson in basic discernment for all readers of the list. Greetings,
> because y'all chased the poor dude away for good, apparently.
The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?