Mc Coun's pamphlet in a wider context

 

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:57 am
Subject: Mc Coun's pamphlet in a wider contextMcCoun's pamphlet in a wider context.

McCoun's pamphlet in a wider context.

Dear listmates,

after having discussing, mostly on AT, various issues about Mc Coun's pamphlet on 1915's events in Dornach, it's time to examine it all in a wider context.

In my opinion there have been, and there are, some streams in the world of Anthroposophy (or, to say better, walking border-line between Ant. and something else) whose aim is to find some "lack of something" inside Spiritual Scientific path.

So, here and there, there was said, and it is presently said again and again, that Steiner's path lacks of "magic", "life", "warmth", (Tomberg played a biggest role in those attempts and Heindel too acted this way in the 1910s) "linkage between vertical and horizontal" (this is Mc Coun's case) and so on.

So how have to look at these statements the anthro-pops who, on the contrary are able to grasp the full completeness, both for soul's and social life, of the inner development path built by Steiner and carried on by people like Stein, Zeylmans van Emmichoven, Polzer Hoditz, Colazza, Scaligero, Kuhlewind, Lievegood, Ben Aharon among many others ?

Well if the lack of capacity of grasping the wholeness of the path remain in a purely personal subjective mood, that's only a personal problem of the guy involved in it and a purely private karmic matter.

There is no social damage at all and, if in case, we can try to help those guys.

The very problem arises when such a problem begins to be spread all around in a somewhat "objective" way by the means of a public communication via the media.

We have always seen, in the whole of the above said cases, that, in order to support their statements, those guys (some of them rather important in spiritual history of XX Century) ended up to spread also lies and falsehoods. And here the issue begin to become "smelling of sulphur".

This the case also in Mc Coun's pamphlet that presents Steiner's personality in a slanderous, sadomaso way (ridiculous better than dangerous indeed) ) and, in the same time, keeps on forgetting the following facts.

1) Goetsch was a mental disturbed person that, after leaving Dornach, spent all his years trying to denigrate Steiner's work.

2) Springel was a personality who thought of herself to be a great, great Initiate drowning more and more in a sea of esoteric ambition also after having left Dornach for the ambiguous gang of OTO.

And, talking about OTO here is also possible to say that the whole of all the Goetsch-Springel querelle was carried on following an occult attempt of OTO (maybe A.Crowley himself) to disrupt the AS and Steiner's work.

What else ?

Andrea the Italian

...................................................................................................................................

From: kroklokwafzi2001
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:41 am
Subject: Re: Mc Coun's pamphlet in a wider context

Dear Andrea,

I am a German anthroposopher. Gisele invited me to share this group. I have been following the happenings on the market-place since about four weeks now. And I do get the impression, that some critics should not be taken too serious. Thank You very much for Your open words on McCoun. A "critic", who cannot differ between an assumption and an insight, is not critical against himself, he has no knowledge of his own foregoing in the intellectual process. He would have no chance in any academic discussion. His reasonings are not the result of insight. So what can be his fundamental drive?

I think, he doesn't know his own reasons, since he isn't able to observe his logic and to control it. This would be fundamental for any scientific work. A full conscience of ones own methods, thats what the time is crying for. This "critic" is arguing like a drunkard.

We have had enough of his bottle!

Rolf from Hamburg

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: McCoun's pamphlet in a wider context.

At 19:41 15.02.2004, Rolf wrote:

A "critic", who cannot differ between an assumption and an insight, is not critical against himself, he has no knowledge of his own foregoing in the intellectual process. He would have no chance in any academic discussion. His reasonings are not the result of insight. So what can be his fundamental drive?

I think, he doesn't know his own reasons, since he isn't able to observe his logic and to control it. This would be fundamental for any scientific work. A full conscience of ones own methods, thats what the time is crying for. This "critic" is arguing like a drunkard.

First off, it looks like you're contributing to my confusion about people's genders here - it's not always easy to sort out when some names don't have 'male' or 'female' written all over them or are in other ways misleading. I may be wrong, but it looks like you're talking about Catherine MacCoun here, who published her article "Work on What Has Been Spoiled" back in 1996 or something:

http://members.aol.com/kitmac/workon.htm

Joel and other supporters of Catherine MacCoun's article just call her Catherine and keep urging us not to criticize her wonderful masterpiece because she is such a brilliant and sensitive lady and good friend. She is in fact an accomplished author:

http://www.isbn.nu/author/MacCoun,%20Catherine/

I call her by her last name, however, to remind all those anthroposophist knights in shining armor who defend her so valiantly, that I am not criticizing "dear Catherine," but a published article by MacCoun, the writer.

One of MacCoun's knights is Joel Wendt, another anthroposophist who is so impressed with the above-mentioned article of hers that he has been featuring it as a guest essay on his website for many years:

http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/ktmc1.html

Wendt just unsubscribed from Anthroposophy Tomorrow because he did not get the adoration and admiration here that he was seeking for himself and MacCoun, but the list archives are public, so nobody needs to forward anything to other lists or to former subscribers to get them to read it. They can read it if and when they want to by visiting the Yahoo! website.

There was a curious phenomenon around Catherine MacCoun that became known as the "Cult of Catherine." A number of anthroposophists(!) became very upset whenever their queen was challenged, especially about her article concerning Alice Sprengel and Heinrich Goesch. These people are, in other words, not "critics," although the critics of RS and anthroposophy and Waldorf are of course very pleased with MacCoun's article and link it up all over the web.

The funny thing about Joel Wendt is that he seems to claim a monopoly on the word "anthroposophist". Only those who share his understanding of Philosophy of Freedom, he argues, can call themselves anthroposophists. In the same breath, Joel Wendt calls Steiner's cosmology bad science fiction, i.e. uninteresting fabrication. Is that what he means by "outlaw anthroposophy"?

Joel, I can't say I miss your presence at the moment, but I hope you're reading this. Come back when it gets a little too serious around here and we need some fun.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Continued in "Another Article"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind