understanding rabid denial

 

From: holderlin66
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:25 pm
Subject: understanding rabid denial

Bradford writes;

A small complimentary study going along with Christine's contribution of "The Grand Inquisitor". When did the Ahrimanic creep, sneak and enter into our soul life and what does it feel like? Our study should allow us to see and taste for ourselves the experience in our soul that haunts all of humanity at the Karmic threshold of the Ahrimanic world.

Do we admire Dr. Steiner's thorough investigation of Death and the Christ Event? Do we admire and hear Maria Corelli and "Barrabas Dream of the World's Tragedy"? Do we begin to appreciate the scaffolding of physical, etheric, astral and I AM structures so vividly reasoned and explored by Steiner? The answer is, we don't appreciate them until we have tasted the bitter logic that now prevails in the souls of humanity today. This bitter logic of being duped by the Church presents a Karmic consequence that has led to Science and the Church of Ahrimanic insights.

To really enter into the struggle of hypocrisy and the intimacies of the intellectual soul, you need freedom shattered and see for yourself the Karmic relationship between what was Luciferic for the Church 550 years ago, that has now shifted to Ahrimanic because of the battle of the human I AM at the threshold. Can anyone avoid this battle or not taste it? It is a shivering to the logic of the soul.

The replica here presented is the common ground of souls soaked with natural science who cling to hypocrisy and have not gambled either on the Spiritual World; but side with sympathy on the world of Ahriman. In that definition Fundies are all hypocrites who shy away from the threshold but coyly flirt with Ahrimanic Spin in order to find some Sympathy and hopes that in that Sympathy their non-existent soul and spirit will avoid the dumpster where Ahriman's cliff notes spill out the guts of those who look for Sympathy from the Devil.

[from "gene pool and the Darwin Award":]

Marquis de Sade, French libertine (1740-1814).

In his dialogue, Philosophy in the Bedroom, de Sade insults and derides Christianity several times. In his novel 120 Days of Sodom, he is quoted as saying "The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." Also, the "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man," which can be found online is clearly the work of someone with contempt for religion.

http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/SADE_dialogue_between_a_priest_and_a_dying_man.htm

"My friend, prove to me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I'll let you imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not amaze me. `Tis a mechanical operation, perhaps as simple as the workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand.

(snip)

"Your god is a machine you fabricated in your passions' behalf, you manipulated it to their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy, belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it; good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has an equal need of vices and virtues, whenever she was pleased to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but to her workings for the unique cause of our fickle human behavior, and in her laws hope to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.

PRIEST - And so whatever is in this world, is necessary.

DYING MAN - Exactly.

PRIEST - But is everything is necessary - then the whole is regulated.

DYING MAN - I am not the one to deny it.

PRIEST - And what can regulate the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?

DYING MAN - Say, is it not necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?

PRIEST - Yes.

DYING MAN - And do you find any presence of wisdom in that?

PRIEST - None.

DYING MAN - It is then possible that things necessarily come about without being determined by a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason or wisdom in that primary cause.

PRIEST - What are you aiming at?

DYING MAN - At proving to you that the world and all therein may be what it is and as you see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would require to be explained and who would at the same time be the explanation of nothing; and that once `tis plain your god is superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore non-existent; thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.

PRIEST - At that rate there is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.

DYING MAN - True, but why not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian's sun or Moses' Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.

PRIEST - Can it be doubtful?

DYING MAN - Then `tis egotistical.

PRIEST - No, my son, `tis as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace my creed.

DYING MAN - And I wonder how the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.

PRIEST - But who can be mistaken about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?

DYING MAN - He who sees in him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and the most arrent of all imposters.

PRIEST - O God, you hear him and your wrath thunders not forth!

DYING MAN - No my friend, all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than those your Jesus incarnates.

PRIEST - What! the prophecies, the miracles, the martyrs - are they not so many proofs?

DYING MAN - How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a stratagem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime?

As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I'd be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where it is infringed upon?

Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there's the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; and more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them.

Your Jesus' feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable.

Ah my friend! were it true that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr, or prophecy to secure recognition? and if, as you declare, the human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for all mankind because emanating from a just god, then would it be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble each other through the homage they would render the god whence they had got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner, and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of resisting the inward impulse to worship him.

Instead of that, what do I behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries; as many different cults as there are different minds or different imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it physically impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god's doing? Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do you through your blasphemies.

Return to your senses, preacher, your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them.

PRIEST - Alas, justice dealt only too harshly with one of the four.

DYING MAN - If he alone got what he deserved it was he who deserved it most richly; seditious, turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon, and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk and stirring up the rabble; and hence came in line for punishment in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this perhaps is one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one lives under, kings and their majesties are the only thing I respect; and whoever does not love his country and his king were better dead than alive.

PRIEST - But you do surely believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him whose life has been good?

DYING MAN - What other, my friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me, in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all other theories are of pride's composition, this one alone is of reason's. Moreover, `tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature's perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow, the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing? And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in me through no fault of my own, or again punished for crimes wherefore the ultimate responsibility is not mine? how are you to put your alleged god's goodness into tune with this system, and can he have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave me free will to determine?

PRIEST - You are free.

DYING MAN - Yes, in terms of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of grace, which was to acquire such importance in your reveries. What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime, would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns of an irresistable force, and never for an instant is it within our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect balance she maintains between the one and the other that her immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into your skin.

PRIEST - Then we should not shrink from the worst of all crimes.

DYING MAN - I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let's not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one's breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul.

Reason, sir - yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart.

But I feel my strength ebbing away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. -

My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs.

NOTE

The dying man rang, the women entered; and after he had been a little while in their arms the preacher became one whom Nature had corrupted, all because he had not succeeded in explaining what a corrupt nature is.

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Haven't read the whole thing yet - just got my monitor back. But did you see "Quills"?? Loved it. I know and understand de Sade very well.

And skimming over what you have just sent here reminds me of the whole movie "Amadeus" which is Salieri's whole argument to the priest who visits him, ending with him (Salieri) calling himself the "patron saint of mediocrities". I love it!

That whole thing with the posting about Steiner being a sadist because some chick was in love with him and he was "mean to her" really makes me laugh! Whoever is writing that trash hasn't got a CLUE as to the meaning of the word "sadism". Really. To back this up, I would have to speak privately. But REALLY!

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 7:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Bradford writes:

<snip>
The replica here presented is the common ground of souls soaked with natural science who cling to hypocrisy and have not gambled either on the Spiritual World; but side with sympathy on the world of Ahriman. In that definition Fundies are all hypocrites who shy away from the threshold but coyly flirt with Ahrimanic Spin in order to find some Sympathy and hopes that in that Sympathy their non-existent soul and spirit will avoid the dumpster where Ahriman's cliff notes spill out the guts of those who look for Sympathy from the Devil.
<snip>

Jesus Bradford, you really know how to suck the luciferic fantasies out of a guy. I had to read an old Sufi tale (The clever fish) to bring myself out of the black hole that the dieing man brought me into.

I read a sad story about a baby with a parasitic malformed second head that had surgery recently. There were pictures that were quite horrific for me to look at. The baby unfortunately did not survive the surgery.

Made me think of the surgery that we have to perform on our own intellects, and how the "dieing man" might get reincarnated.

Those of us who are baptized by water, may not have to fall into the pit of Kazad-dum. But we all have to stand at the bridge - I think.

Thanks Bradford

Mike

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

I wrote:

I had to read an old Sufi tale (The clever fish) to bring myself out of the black hole that the dieing man brought me into.

Oops, actually the story is called "the three fishes."

Mike

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

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:21 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Dear Christine,

As frequently happens when inaccuracies are freely created, Targei's comments on sadism in Catherine's article have apparently led you to making some assumptions. Here is what she actually wrote, which clearly has nothing to do with the typical sexual way we interpret the use of the term "sadomasochism"

"The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not implying repressed sexual anything. On a psychic level, sadomasochism is a state of polarization in which one partner takes a path of descent, the other a path of ascent. As the submissive goes down into the dark, irrational, death-oriented underground of the subconscious, the dominant ascends to blazing heights of clarity, precision and control. The temporary objectification or casting-out of the inferior element fills him with vitality and strength. It's called "dominant euphoria."

"Alice's preferred direction of movement seems to have been downward, Steiner's upward, so they were well-suited as partners in such a dance. His evident dominant euphoria is what makes this particular volume of his lectures is so much fun to read. In place of his usual dreamy, diffident circumlocutions, we get swashbuckling declarative sentences, exultantly witty common sense and bold self-assertion. His gleeful wrath does not stop with Alice. It slashes into all that is neurotic and silly and ineffectual in his own creation--the Anthroposophical Society. About that, he is brilliantly precise, and his lectures are well worth reading for their analysis of what's wrong with the Society even now. The abrupt changes of level that make his remarks so laugh-out-loud funny are a welcome comedown from the dreamy oxygen-deprived heights where he himself had placed the thing. He's cruel, yet somehow likeable. The euphoria is infectious."

Please keep in mind that I have taken this out of its context and I am not advocating (or not not advocating) its views. I am only posting this to suggest that people read the original material and not make assumptions because someone with an ax to grind has made allegations.

warm regards,
joel

On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 20:01, golden3000997 wrote:

Haven't read the whole thing yet - just got my monitor back. But did you see "Quills"?? Loved it. I know and understand de Sade very well.

And skimming over what you have just sent here reminds me of the whole movie "Amadeus" which is Salieri's whole argument to the priest who visits him, ending with him (Salieri) calling himself the "patron saint of mediocrities". I love it!

That whole thing with the posting about Steiner being a sadist because some chick was in love with him and he was "mean to her" really makes me laugh! Whoever is writing that trash hasn't got a CLUE as to the meaning of the word "sadism". Really. To back this up, I would have to speak privately. But REALLY!
--
Joel Wendt

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

At 19:21 09.02.2004, Joel quoted Catherine MacCoun's article about RS and Alice Sprengel:

The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not implying repressed sexual anything.

In other words, Rudolf Steiner abused this lady ferociously. If we don't believe that, we're saying that he was an inerrant saint without human weaknesses. If we admit that RS was human and had his faults, we should also agree that perhaps he was a ferocious abuser of women, whether you call it sadism or sadomasochism or plain meanness.

Joel, I'm not a saint. I've done cocaine and cat houses and casinos and drinking and you name it. But I've never abused women. And I could not admire, much less try to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.

Don't you realize that MacCoun's article is nothing but a piece of dirty, malicious gossip, as though the author were the reincarnation of Alice Sprengel out to revenge herself on Steiner for declining to please her romantic aspirations?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 11:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 11:41, Tarjei Straume wrote:

At 19:21 09.02.2004, Joel quoted Catherine MacCoun's article about RS and Alice Sprengel:

The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not implying repressed sexual anything.

In other words, Rudolf Steiner abused this lady ferociously. If we don't believe that, we're saying that he was an inerrant saint without human weaknesses. If we admit that RS was human and had his faults, we should also agree that perhaps he was a ferocious abuser of women, whether you call it sadism or sadomasochism or plain meanness.

Dear Targei,

[I would guess that one has to read the relevant lectures where he speaks of her to judge whether he "abused her with ferocity". I haven't, and I am pretty sure you haven't either. Catherine, however, has cited the lectures as sources, so it seems that if one is really interested in what he said, then they are free to check those lectures out, or to read the book with which Catherine began her essay: "Community Life, Inner Development, Sexuality and the Spiritual Teacher".

You also suggest that somehow this means that he "was a ferocious abuser of women", which is nowhere suggested in the Catherine's article or even in the quoted statements. I can't follow your reasoning here at all.]

Joel, I'm not a saint. I've done cocaine and cat houses and casinos and drinking and you name it. But I've never abused women. And I could not admire, much less try to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.

[again, where is this said? Catherine's point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]

Don't you realize that MacCoun's article is nothing but a piece of dirty, malicious gossip, as though the author were the reincarnation of Alice Sprengel out to revenge herself on Steiner for declining to please her romantic aspirations?

[Oh really? Okay, have it your way, but keep in mind that I think we can do better than making statements about "dirty malicious gossip". Not sure that adds anything to the underlying questions being examined, which have to do with certain social effects in the Anthroposophical Society engendered by what perhaps is worth calling Steiner's own shadow. I can't quite buy: he was perfect, we are flawed. I also can't buy he didn't create any karma either. But the fact is I don't have knowledge of these facts, just that to think otherwise disturbs the logos-nature of my thinking.]

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--
Joel Wendt

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Joel quoted CM:

The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware.

Tarjei:

And I could not admire, much less try to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.

Joel:

[again, where is this said? Catherine's point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]

Catherine's point is, according to your own quote, that Steiner abused Alice Sprengel with ferocity. You may argue that Steiner did not abuse any other women ferociously, which would make him a ferocious abuser of a woman and not of women. A question of semantics or grammar or detail I assume.

You're trying to say that the author did not intend to convey what is there in plain language for all to read, which looks to me like a clumsy attempt to backpaddle by confusing the issue.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Thank you Joel, but I am NOT taking this as a simple, sexual connotation. I have a broad and deep and personal knowledge and experience of what is being talked about here - the mental, emotional, psychological, spiritual and physical realities of the S/m relationship.

I can't go into greater depth on a public forum, but I maintain that I know exactly what is being described and that the rest of her article's description of Steiner and this woman's relationship does not warrant the label of S/m.

Christine

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:03 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Pls excuse me if I jump in,Tarjei, but I have discussed myself this topic in the past directly with Joel so I let myself say the following.

And precisely :

I don't know why an "honourable guy" like Joel is here and there trying to demonstrate that "Steiner was not perfect" and "he didn't overcome his double" and so on.

Well, I can't stand firstly the meaning of such nonsenses (Joel organized also a "poll" about it on his website) secondly that if he is pleased to "demonstrate" this fact he looks at Mc Coun's coillection of garbage obviously not the facts of Springer's paranoia but Mc Coun's fantasies about it), that in itself is able only to show MC Coun's preconceiptions.

And I'm saying " Mc Coun's garbage" just AFTER having read 1915's lectures about the "Spiritual teacher".

Andrea the ( once more choleric) Italian.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Joel quoted CM:

The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware.

Tarjei:

And I could not admire, much less try to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.

Joel:

[again, where is this said? Catherine's point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]

Catherine's point is, according to your own quote, that Steiner abused Alice Sprengel with ferocity. You may argue that Steiner did not abuse any other women ferociously, which would make him a ferocious abuser of a woman and not of women. A question of semantics or grammar or detail I assume.

You're trying to say that the author did not intend to convey what is there in plain language for all to read, which looks to me like a clumsy attempt to backpaddle by confusing the issue.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Oh come off it Targei. The question is not the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what Catherine wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated a woman in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question of fact - did he or did he not.

All I have done is have the essay on my website, for which act you berate me. You don't know what he said in those lectures. When you care to quote what he said (which is the real factual issue), then we can talk about whether Catherine was a gossip or not. Your asserting it does not make it so.

j.

On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 13:15, Tarjei Straume wrote:

Joel quoted CM:

The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware.

Tarjei:

And I could not admire, much less try to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.

Joel:

[again, where is this said? Catherine's point is entirely different from the way you are portraying it.]

Catherine's point is, according to your own quote, that Steiner abused Alice Sprengel with ferocity. You may argue that Steiner did not abuse any other women ferociously, which would make him a ferocious abuser of a woman and not of women. A question of semantics or grammar or detail I assume.

You're trying to say that the author did not intend to convey what is there in plain language for all to read, which looks to me like a clumsy attempt to backpaddle by confusing the issue.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--
Joel Wendt

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

From: Jo Ann Schwartz
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

--- Joel Wendt wrote:

Oh come off it Targei. The question is not the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what Catherine wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated a woman in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question of fact - did he or did he not.

All I have done is have the essay on my website, for which act you berate me. You don't know what he said in those lectures. When you care to quote what he said (which is the real factual issue), then we can talk about whether Catherine was a gossip or not. Your asserting it does not make it so.

Dear Joel,

So, Rudolf Steiner can be held accountable for what he said in a lecture but Catherine MacCoun can NOT be held accountable for what she said in an essay?

I believe you were not only present for, but also participated in, the extensive discussion of this subject on Anthroposophical Views in 1999 during which Malcolm Ian Gardner showed that Catherine's interpretation of events was incorrect, complete with extensive quotes from the relevant lectures, which had (at that time) only recently appeared in English. If quoting from the lectures did not convince you then, why should one believe that quoting from the lectures will convince you now?

Musing on just the facts, ma'am, just the facts,

JoAnn

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

At 20:16 10.02.2004, Joel wrote:

Oh come off it Targei. The question is not the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what Catherine wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated a woman in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question of fact - did he or did he not.

He did not. He merely defended himself against speculations and gossip that tended to arise from such incidents that were none of his doing. It got so bad at one point that he had to announce an end to private interviews, with the exception of his closest friends (like Rittelmeyer).

RS did not abuse anyone, male or female. But of course he had his faults and weaknesses and prejudices and idiosynchrasies. He spoke about healthy diets and so on, but his personal favorite was black coffee and Swiss chocholate with a glass of cognac. And he made errors of judgement, but not in the moral-ethical department.

Rudolf Steiner was indeed a saint, and he was canonized too, as Thomas Aquinas.

All I have done is have the essay on my website, for which act you berate me.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in claiming that I remind you of Peter Staudenmaier and Dan Dugan while at the same time publishing MacCoun's dirty slander about Rudolf Steiner. You were all worked up and hostile because I wrote some posts about the Asuras, as if it freaked you out or something, making me wonder if you've been bitten by an Asura who took a chunk of your ego out of your ass.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel: She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief. Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)

Frank

At 19:21 09.02.2004, Joel quoted Catherine MacCoun's article about RS and Alice Sprengel:

The ferocity with which he abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not implying repressed sexual anything.

In other words, Rudolf Steiner abused this lady ferociously. If we don't believe that, we're saying that he was an inerrant saint without human weaknesses. If we admit that RS was human and had his faults, we should also agree that perhaps he was a ferocious abuser of women, whether you call it sadism or sadomasochism or plain meanness.

Joel, I'm not a saint. I've done cocaine and cat houses and casinos and drinking and you name it. But I've never abused women. And I could not admire, much less try to emulate, a person who was a ferocious abuser of women.

Don't you realize that MacCoun's article is nothing but a piece of dirty, malicious gossip, as though the author were the reincarnation of Alice Sprengel out to revenge herself on Steiner for declining to please her romantic aspirations?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:03 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

At 23:56 10.02.2004, Frank wrote:

In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel: She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief. Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)

Frank

Thank you, Frank.

In her article "Work On What Has Been Spoiled," MacCoun implies that RS also had a strong psycho-pathological trait in common with Sprengel, resulting in a sadomasochistic relationship. Some commentators theorize that the author may have projected some pathologies of her own into this, which is not implausible.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: at
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

After her falling out with Steiner, Alice Sprengel joined Theodore Reuss' OTO. Here is a snippet on her life from the OTO perspecitve by Peter-R. Koenig :

"Alice Sprengel (September 28th 1871-1947) came from Berne, but was the illegitimate child of a Lutheran pastor from Pomerania; she was one of Rudolf Steiner's closest colleagues in Berlin [51]. She acted in his first mystical drama "Die Pforte der Einweihung" ("The Portal of Initiation") on August 15th 1910 in Munich; she played the rôle of Theodora. But when Steiner married Mlle. Sivers in December 1914, she transferred her loyalties to Theodor Reuss, obtaining an authorisation to found O.T.O. lodges, [52] becoming one of the O.T.O.'s "executive council of 3 (supreme council)" [53] at the "Anational Grandloge & Mystic Temple, "Verità Mistica", Or[ient] Ascona"; the other two members of the council maybe were Frau Hardegger and Frau Jantzen.
51. Heinrich Wendt to Yorke, 1957. Also quoted in Ellic Howe: "The Magicians of the Golden Dawn", London 1972, p. 282.
52. Wendt to Yorke on 24.11.57.
53. Grunddahl Sjallung to Crowley, letter "circa" 1938, Warburg Institute"
From:
http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/consider.htm

Koenig has a Q&A section that discusses Sprengel and Steiner: http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/early.htm

Q: What lies behind the story told by Alice Sprengel, that Steiner was supposed to have torn up the diploma that made him an O.T.O. member?

A: This becomes clear in the proper context. Alice Sprengel nursed hopes that Steiner would marry her; when he jilted her in 1915, she was disillusioned, and transferred her esoteric loyalties to Reuss. Frau Sprengel's relationship with Steiner is shown in her letters to him, which can be found in Volume 253 of Steiner's "Collected Works".

Q: What did Frau Sprengel do in the O.T.O.?

A: I refer you to my book "The O.T.O. Phenomenon", where the story is told in detail. Reuss gave her an authorisation to set up O.T.O. lodges, and made her a member of the O.T.O.'s "executive council of three" in 1921. The other two members of the "three" were also women, which presumably started tongues wagging in the moral climate of those days. After Reuss died in 1923, almost everyone in the O.T.O. was jockeying to become his heir, but nobody knew which of his various Orders could be passed on, or even if Reuss had named his successor. So far, not one document has been found which unambiguously states who Reuss's heir was, although there have been several claimants to the title. This has meant from that day to this that an endless round of plotting and scheming is part of every O.T.O.'s stock-in trade, in an effort to prove that they alone are the 'real' O.T.O.; something which started in the Swiss O.T.O. lodges Reuss had left behind. Before World War Two, Frau Sprengel's Swiss branch of the O.T.O. acted as a sort of 'exiles lodge' for occult refugees from all over Europe, such as the notorious founder of the German Fraternitas Saturni, Eugen Grosche.

It is quite conceivable that two dozen years after her disappointment with Steiner, one sunny afternoon at her headquarters in the sunny southern Swiss canton of Ticino, Frau Sprengel (surrounded of course by her favourite followers) suddenly 'remembered' Steiner's supposed O.T.O. membership-certificate, which he had promptly torn to bits. She then took good care to write down the wording of this certificate from memory all those years later. As an old member of the O.T.O. with a high degree, it is possible that she confused Steiner's oath on joining the MM (dated 3 January 1906) with the longer candidate's oath of Reuss's subsequent MM-O.T.O., which she now shortened to "Alte und Primit. Ritus von M. u. M. O.T.O." (Ancient and Primit[ive] Rite of M[emphis] a[nd] M[israim O.T.O.). The abbreviations used are evidence that she could have had an O.T.O. certificate to hand when 'remembering' Steiner's supposed certificate - but also that she was in a hurry, because such documents never use abbreviations. Nor did Frau Sprengel's original note of what she recalled survive; only a copy of it which came into the hands of a certain Gundula Bader (later mixed up in Metzger's O.T.O.), who passed it on to one Emil Bock. By way of yet another intermediary called Erich Gabert, the copy eventually fetched up in the archives of Steiner's Anthropsophical Society at the 'Goethenæum', and was duly included in Steiner's immense "Collected Works", in Volume 265 on page 100. Therefore it can hardly be called a mysterious business at all.

Q. What was behind Reuss's announcement of a forthcoming book about 'Sex in Theosophy and Anthroposophy, with the original pledges of the leaders'?

A: I have to admit I haven't got the faintest idea.

Daniel

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel: She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief. Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)

Frank

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:14 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Hi Tarjei

there is a further topic (last but not least) about the thread "Mc Coun'a article-Sprengel-Steiner".

Did anyone imagine what really means on a actually occult level to scatter falsehoods and twisted pictures about an Initiate like Steiner and, moreover, to cooperate to their "movement" in the world (web or not)? It's a play with fire.......

A.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

At 23:56 10.02.2004, Frank wrote:

In GA 264, the editor's note re Alice Sprengel: She was a member, in Munich since around 1904, was an actress in the mystery dramas in which she played Theodora. She also made symbolic ornaments for members, for which she was nominated by R.S. in 1911 as "Guardian of the Seals". She went to Dornach in 1914 and worked on the construction of the first Goetheanum. "At the beginning of 1915 a strong psychopathalogical element appeared in her, with which she sowed much mischief. Because of this she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society by the Central Vorstand in Autumn 1915. She abandoned Dornach and moved to Tessin, Switzerland." (my trans.)

Frank

Thank you, Frank.

In her article "Work On What Has Been Spoiled," MacCoun implies that RS also had a strong psycho-pathological trait in common with Sprengel, resulting in a sadomasochistic relationship. Some commentators theorize that the author may have projected some pathologies of her own into this, which is not implausible.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

Did anyone imagine what really means on a actually occult level to scatter falsehoods and twisted pictures about an Initiate like Steiner and, moreover, to cooperate to their "movement" in the world (web or not)? It's a play with fire.......

Dear Valentina, Tarjei and Joel,

It doesn't matter whether you scatter false hoods about an Initiate any more than if you do about a regular joe walking down the street. First of all one would have to consider whether Catherine actually did scatter false and twisted pictures of Steiner on purpose and with the intent to decieve. I do not believe she did. Secondly I think Steiner can handle it.

Far worse happens when one goes about a character anihilation of one who may not be able to handle it on the level of a Dr. Stiener. It is one thing to disagree but quite another to disregardinly throw personal twisted thinkings onto her person because she wrote a paper people consider to be false. It's funny because the way we are handling it is the very thing that we do not like in how she handled Steiner in the paper. We are doing to her the exact thing she claims was so callous of Steiner to do to Sprengle and which we roar that it was not a possible for him to be so mean spirited. But it seems it is not above us to be meanspirited. And I guess people think that is okay. I don't think it is.

I have not found Catherines paper to be a convincing picture of the incident pertaining to Sprengle and Steiner. Would I like it not to be on Joel's site, you bet. Why? Because I think it does not represent a true picture of those events. To use it as a tool, to show how one finds others who have written on the idea of Anthroposophy and its deficits, does not do justice to the real problem facing the community of Steiner students. And it is a slap in the face to the legacy of Dr. Steiner for it to be continually publicized by a student of his unless the student is convinced that this article represents the truth. Whether Joel thinks the community needs to move forward is irrelevant to this issue. Does the paper represent a true moment and if so has Catherine shown her insight to be true by the facts of the case. I don't think it does and I do not think she has.

Joel mentioned a Mr. Malcom not wanting to have his response to Catherine be next to the article on his site. I find that honorable. When reading a particular passage presented by Joel and the word 'ferocious' I recognize why Tarjei and others feel this is maligning Steiner. And I would have to agree with them. However I do not think it was the authors intent to malign. And I do think it irresponsible to continue the publication of the article on Joel's site.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:45 am
Subject: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

Did anyone imagine what really means on a actually occult level to scatter falsehoods and twisted pictures about an Initiate like Steiner and, moreover, to cooperate to their "movement" in the world (web or not)? It's a play with fire.......

Dear Valentina, Tarjei and Joel,

It doesn't matter whether you scatter false hoods about an Initiate any more than if you do about a regular joe walking down the street. First of all one would have to consider whether Catherine actually did scatter false and twisted pictures of Steiner on purpose and with the intent to decieve. I do not believe she did. Secondly I think Steiner can handle it.

No I think that is actually a different thing on an "objective" level, while it can be te same on a" subjective" one. Moreover if someone is compelled to throw stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear the consequence of this, doesn't it?

In any case the strangest of it all is the fact that hosting such an article is not a "struggle for truth" and a gesture of bravery but only an actual "struggle for lies". It's enough to read 1915's lectures and compare the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it. It' has the same face value if a site dedicated to the studies about the Holocaust should host an article about the "non existence" of gas chambers and mass murders during the Third Reich!

A.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

Moreover if someone is compelled to throw stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear the consequence of this, doesn't it?

Dear Andrea,

We all bear consequences of our actions. Why you seem to think it different for a Christian Initiate versus the every day joe or josephine I have no idea. The author in question seems to be on her own initiatic path just like many on this list. One can decide to determine what the 'initiate' means versus what is the practice of an initiate. Are we all who dillegently endeavor to the spiritual truths initiates or only those who have already succeeded? If one is not considered an initiate in the process of finding the spiritual mysteries what is the name one is considered to be? The idea that it is okay to tear down one who is not considered a Christian Initiate by someone elses standards opens us up to the days of the Crusades in my mind.

There is no worldwide attack either. It actually seems to turn into one when those defending Dr. Steiner attack the person who wrote the article in the manner they have. I think it far worse to Dr. Steiners legacy for his students to engage in the kind of demonizing and 'outing' of the person in question.

Now it is said by some that the author deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth mentality. And are we governed by 'well I can say this because she said that'? If so we are in for a very long haul and a very big surprise when we meet Christ, not to mention the long fire that will accompany the burning off of all the icky things we said and did in this lifetime against others. And not to mention what we will have to accomodate for in our ongoing soul path. Defending a person is one thing but tearing down another person to do it is a whole completely different story.

Andrea

In any case the strangest of it all is the fact that hosting such an article is not a "struggle for truth" and a gesture of bravery but only an actual "struggle for lies".

Dottie

Well I think it begins with a struggle for truth. Bravery is the action it takes to counter that which is held by the mindset of the same group. However at some point, when truly questioning the validity of the article, one has to take in all considerations of the character and other doings of said person, in this case Dr. Steiner.

At some point it would seem to me that to continue to publish this article on ones website, such as Joel has, becomes questionable. And the reason being is I do not find the article to be a true account. Now, maybe Joel thinks it is. But it seems to me it is rather a point of his to make in a sense. And I think that particular position, if true, sucks.

I wonder if Joel would even consider taking it off the site due to the fact the point of the author can not be ascertained to be a true rendering. But alas it is hard to course correct on a thing we are determined shows a certain thing we are trying to make a point in. And then again we have so much water under the bridge I don't know if one can surmount the monstrocity of the ego to do such a thing we have held so dear to our cause. And then why would one want to?

Andrea

It's enough to read 1915's lectures and compare the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it. It' has the same face value if a site dedicated to the studies about the Holocaust should host an article about the "non existence" of gas chambers and mass murders during the Third Reich!

Dottie

A bit of a stretch Andrea. I realize people feel very close to Dr. Steiner and his teachings. I am one of them. I am also one who believes she is in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds and have been much ridiculed for it. But so what? Does this give us the right to harm others through our words in his defence? I think not.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

 

From: at
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Dottie wrote:

Now it is said by some that the author deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth mentality. And are we governed by 'well I can say this because she said that'? If so we are in for a very long haul and a very big surprise when we meet Christ, not to mention the long fire that will accompany the burning off of all the icky things we said and did in this lifetime against others. And not to mention what we will have to accomodate for in our ongoing soul path. Defending a person is one thing but tearing down another person to do it is a whole completely different story.

A quote from Albert Steffen may prove illuminating:

"Even if we have to condemn someone's deeds", says Rudolf Steiner, "we should not criticize the person himself, but love him. Whether we really love him will be shown in our moments of meditation."

Albert Steffen. "Meetings with Rudolf Steiner." Verlag Für Schöne Wissenschaften, Dornach, 1961. Page 131.

Translated by Reginald Ernest Raab, Erna McArthur and Virginia Brett

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:12 am
Subject: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

Moreover if someone is compelled to throw stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear the consequence of this, doesn't it?

Dear Andrea,

We all bear consequences of our actions. Why you seem to think it different for a Christian Initiate versus the every day joe or josephine I have no idea.

I'll try to explain.

If you spread lies about someone else there is a double effect. The first concern your own personale karma, Here it lies the difference if you are concious or not about what you're carrying on. The more conscious you are the worse the consequences will be. Here there is no matter about the "whom" you're lying about and I agree with you.

The second effect is about the lie in itself and it is the creation of a demonic spiritual being able to gain access in others' brain and soul. The bigger the importance of the matter (of the "object" of the lie, in this case RS) the bigger is also the objective consequence of the gesture.( Needless to say: RS's Spiritual being has absolutely no "damage" in it all!)

So the spiritual effect is a purely objective fact. (See for instance the lecture about "Christ and Human Soul" in which RS explains the double nature of the sin) Consider it like a difference of charge or power, just to talk in a "physics' way".

The author in question seems to be on her own initiatic path just like many on this list

No it seems to me that the "author" got nothing of "initiatic" but only a freudian-like background mixed with a personal,- too -personal knowledge of some anthroposophic insight.

The idea that it is okay to tear down one who is not considered a Christian Initiate

Hey, who said that???

by someone elses standards opens us up to the days of the Crusades in my mind.

There is no worldwide attack either.

Huh, the web is a "worldwide" mean or not ?

It actually seems to turn into one when those defending Dr. Steiner attack the person who wrote the article in the manner they have. I think it far worse to Dr. Steiners legacy for his students to engage in the kind of demonizing and 'outing' of the person in question.

There's no "demonizing" at all. There is only a sum of lies and falsehoods, The "demonic" is in it only.

Now it is said by some that the author deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth mentality.

No, I think that an "anthroguy" has the duty to defend Spiritual contents, Don't try to put it in a twisted way!

And are we governed by 'well I can say this because she said that'? If so we are in for a very long haul and a very big surprise when we meet Christ, not to mention the long fire that will accompany the burning off of all the icky things we said and did in this lifetime against others. And not to mention what we will have to accomodate for in our ongoing soul path. Defending a person is one thing but tearing down another person to do it is a whole completely different story.

Tearing down??????

Well, ok let' anyone on the web cast stones on Spiritual Science and keep ourselves silent since we are "pious christians" used to turn the other cheek!!

Excuse me I'm not an Hare Krishna or a S.Vincenzo's Lady.

A.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:54 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

The second effect is about the lie in itself and it is the creation of a demonic spiritual being able to gain access in others' brain and soul.

Dear Andrea,

A demonic spiritual being gaining access to others brain and soul almost seems like it takes away from a persons accountability for the actions. 'Oh the demon did it', or oh the devil made me do it' does not work for me. I am the one accountable for my actions and would not have it any other way. I realize there are unthinking and slavish/lethargic energies that demons and so forth can enter but I'd be hardpressed to think this is one of them.

My experience of the author in question is not one who would declare 'oh the devil made me do it' kind of gal. She may or may not course correct her positions and decide whether or not what was involved when writing this particular piece but I can hardly see her saying the 'devil made me do it'. Nor does that seem realistic to me.

Andrea

The bigger the importance of the matter (of the "object" of the lie, in this case RS) the bigger is also the objective consequence of the gesture.

Dottie

I think it would be more important and bigger consequences if the person stating it was a Dr. Steiner verus the author, although she may well disagree with me on this. And then again the author would have had to have the intent to lie and malign. She did not in my view.

Dottie

The author in question seems to be on her own initiatic path just like many on this list

Andrea

No it seems to me that the "author" got nothing of "initiatic" but only a freudian-like background mixed with a personal,- too -personal knowledge of some anthroposophic insight.

Dottie

Well you are wrong on that account. One paper does not make a life time Andrea. I was lucky to have been part of an amazing group of people on line at one point and the author is an amazing writer and thinker, and has a great grasp of the inner workings of the spirit world. We can disagree with her on the paper, but that doesn't make you or anyone else right about the things you say regarding her personal person.

Dottie

The idea that it is okay to tear down one who is not considered a Christian Initiate

Andrea

Hey, who said that???

Dottie

From the way I see the fight regarding this subject it seems to me that it is okay to tear the author down but not a Christian Initiate. That is what I get by your comments about there is hell to pay for tearing down a Christian Iniate. So, I ask, well what happens when one tears down another in defense of the Christian Initiate?

Dottie

by someone elses standards opens us up to the days of the Crusades in my mind.

There is no worldwide attack either.

Andrea

Huh, the web is a "worldwide" mean or not ?

Dottie

I do not see this as a world wide attack, nor a world wide web attack. I see it as a person writing a paper that others disagreed with. The author is not out there peddling her wears to the first buyer. She wrote a paper and that is that. The only people keeping it alive are the ones who are defending this. And then again Joel on his website. But I don't think that is a world wide attack either. I think it is out of proportion the way it was being handled earlier.

Dottie

It actually seems to turn into one when those defending Dr. Steiner attack the person who wrote the article in the manner they have. I think it far worse to Dr. Steiners legacy for his students to engage in the kind of demonizing and 'outing' of the person in question.

Andrea

There's no "demonizing" at all. There is only a sum of lies and falsehoods, The "demonic" is in it only.

Dottie

I disagree with you. And I am talking about the way she has been attacked personally versus debating the article. And it has been ugly. We may not like what she said or how she potrayed Dr. Steiner but to go about defending him we excortiated her. And I personally think this goes against his work in How to Know Higher Worlds and its exercizes. It reminds me of a picture in the paper of the Buddhas chasing other Buddhas of a different sect down the street with sticks. It was hilarious for about a millesecond. And then the hipocritical nature of man sets in on a thinking person and suddenly it is not so funny anymore.

Dottie

Now it is said by some that the author deserves this kind of critiquing because she dared to put such a paper out. Well, then we are back at an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth mentality.

Andrea

No, I think that an "anthroguy" has the duty to defend Spiritual contents, Don't try to put it in a twisted way!

Dear Andrea,

My intent is not to put it in a twisted way. I think the Anthro guy, not a cave man, gets to defend Steiner. I think however it is really important how he goes about it if he is going to honor the inner work of Dr. Steiner and wants to take it on as his own. I think we make Steiner look bad if we attack verus defend his work. We do not accentuate the positive of his works nor ours by dragging in all her personal psyche and how we interpret it in a negative way. Just state the facts. The paper she wrote does not add up to the facts of the case. They are her own intuitions and she has not proved her case by a mile regarding Sprengel and Steiner.

Dottie

Defending a person is one thing but tearing down another person to do it is a whole completely different story.

Andrea

Tearing down??????

Well, ok let' anyone on the web cast stones on Spiritual Science and keep ourselves silent since we are "pious christians" used to turn the other cheek!!

Dottie

Well I am Christian and I have no problem turning the other cheek and I do it all the time. No harm in it at all believe me. And that is what Christ said 'I tell you give your other cheek as well, and not only seven times but seventy times seven'.

But that doesn't mean one does not get to defend Steiner. But we do get to defend him in a Michaelic way. And my Michaelic understanding is not one of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, rather it is one of enlightment. His sword is one of enlightment not of death. And if we hold true that words are like bullets, which is a phrase Dr. Steiner coined it seems, we would have to be aware of what we are creating for our own souls as well as the one we are impugning. And I am well aware of the fact that I fall far from the Glory of God but that doesn't mean I can't keep trying to be more Christ like.

Andrea

Excuse me I'm not an Hare Krishna or a S.Vincenzo's Lady.

Dottie

What is a S.Vincenzos Lady? I come from the prostitute lineage my self it seems. I have been marked in a way. And that is one who harkens unto Christ as far as I can tell. And I am not a Hare Krishna maybe:) I am not sure of exactly what one considers a Hare Krisha to be. But I love Krishna.

My whole point in all of this Andrea is that there is a higher way to defend Steiner than I have seen on this particular subject. Just because I advocate, if that is what I am doing, a higher way does not mean I do not think one should not defend Dr. Steiners work. I think his work is way worthy of defending. But I think it is important how we do it.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:46 am
Subject: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Am I unkind if I tell you that I have enough of it and this is becoming a discussion leading nowhere ? Again and again: I invite the listmates, if they are interested, to read and compare. Igot my impressions about it you got yours. So I'm not interested any more in Mc Coun's trials bye bye and amen.

A.

Post scriptum:

S Vincenzo's Ladies were gentlehearted old women used to help poor and droputs in Italy in the past centuries (S:Vincenzo de'Paoli was their guru) but in itself this remark of mine was an ironical one, a kind of translation of an Italian "slang". The same is about "Hare Krishna" yellow-orange dressed guys wandering in the town with an everlasting smile fixed on their faces. (Krishna Himself has nothing to do with those guys).

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:49 am
Subject: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

OOPS, Dottie,

I forgot to add " the cave dweller" to my signature!!

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:48 am
Subject: Re: R: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

Am I unkind if I tell you that I have enough of it and this is becoming a discussion leading nowhere ?

Hi Andrea,

No I do not think it unkind. And that is cool about dropping it.

Andrea:

A.

Post scriptum:

S Vincenzo's Ladies were gentlehearted old women used to help poor and droputs in Italy in the past centuries (S:Vincenzo de'Paoli was their guru) but in itself this remark of mine was an ironical one, a kind of translation of an Italian "slang".

Dottie

Well, ironically I am one of them if that is what they are. Although the gentlehearted of myself might be disputed.

Happy Venerdi,

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:52 am
Subject: Re: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea wrote:

OOPS, Dottie,

I forgot to add " the cave dweller" to my signature!!

ANDREA I am so sorry for that:)))))))))))) when I read it after I had sent it I just about fell off my chair. It was not marked for you or anyone else it was just an expression I use at times.

I wish you could hear my laughter, got a belly full,

Dottie

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:54 am
Subject: R: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Growl, gnarf, grunt,

oh well I hear it!

Have a nice weekend
Ad majora

Andrea the Italian

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: R: I: R: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Andrea turning green wrote:

Growl, gnarf, grunt,

oh well I hear it!

Have a nice weekend
Ad majora

Andrea! That is so not funny.:))) I do not laugh like that. I have a very pretty laugh almost gigglish like...not

And a good weekend to you as well,

Dottie

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold wrote:

Andrea

It's enough to read 1915's lectures and compare the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it. It' has the same face value if a site dedicated to the studies about the Holocaust should host an article about the "non existence" of gas chambers and mass murders during the Third Reich!

Dottie

A bit of a stretch Andrea. I realize people feel very close to Dr. Steiner and his teachings. I am one of them. I am also one who believes she is in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds and have been much ridiculed for it. But so what? Does this give us the right to harm others through our words in his defence? I think not.

Sincerely,
Dottie

Dear Dottie,

What do you mean when you say that you believe Catherine to be in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings in the spiriutal world?

If she were in contact with Steiner across the threshold or even her higher self ) seems like there would have been a correspondence, a dialog of enlightment - private enlightment on Catherine's personal difficulties/views on matters of 'Alice, the esoteric groupie' - rather than her needing to write a slanderous article.

Sincerely,
Paulina

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:18 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Dottie

A bit of a stretch Andrea. I realize people feel very close to Dr. Steiner and his teachings. I am one of them. I am also one who believes she is in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds and have been much ridiculed for it. But so what? Does this give us the right to harm others through our words in his defence? I think not.

Sincerely,
Dottie

[Paulina:]

Dear Dottie,

What do you mean when you say that you believe Catherine to be in contact with Dr. Steiner and his teachings in the spiriutal world?

Dear Paulina,

If you follow my terrible sentence structure you will see that I am consistant in saying 'I am one of them and I am also one who believes she (meaning me) is in contact with Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds. So, here I am referring to myself and not Catherine.

Paulina

If she were in contact with Steiner across the threshold or even her higher self ) seems like there would have been a correspondence, a dialog of enlightment - private enlightment on Catherine's personal difficulties/views on matters of 'Alice, the esoteric groupie' - rather than her needing to write a slanderous article.

Dottie

Alas, you have misunderstood my sentence which we are well aware is not hard to do. And this is not the place to be discussing Catherines PRIVATE difficulties or PRIVATE celebrations according to the world of Paulina or Dottie or anyone else for that matter in my opinion.

Her private things are her own. And now we know she may have let a few cats out of the bag regarding her own personal life and maybe she wished she hadn't. I know I was way green and googoo eyed when joining the list you were once apart of, and boy there are things I wish I hadn't said, but you know what, one learns as one goes along and one should not have to have these things, said to a specific group of people one trusted, shouted on line to others who were not there.

My thoughts,

Dottie

p.s. And I am way not interested in speaking with you regarding my own personal enlightment regarding Dr. Steiner. I am well aware of what you think and do not wish to revist this subject with you. Not that you are all to interested unless you are feeling rather feisty today. And lets hope it isn't so, or at least that I can rise above any response I might wish later I had not said.

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:56 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold wrote:

Dear Paulina,

If you follow my terrible sentence structure you will see that I am consistant in saying 'I am one of them and I am also one who believes she (meaning me) is in contact with Steiner and his teachings in the spiritual worlds. So, here I am referring to myself and not Catherine.

Paulina

If she were in contact with Steiner across the threshold or even her higher self ) seems like there would have been a correspondence, a dialog of enlightment - private enlightment on Catherine's personal difficulties/views on matters of 'Alice, the esoteric groupie' - rather than her needing to write a slanderous article.

Dottie

Alas, you have misunderstood my sentence which we are well aware is not hard to do. And this is not the place to be discussing Catherines PRIVATE difficulties or PRIVATE celebrations according to the world of Paulina or Dottie or anyone else for that matter in my opinion.

Dottie,

I was not discussing Catherine's private affairs, but, rather her perspective, that cannot be seperated from what she wrote. Perhaps you need to read read my sentence. It is not a matter of discussing personal matters, it is a matter of perspective and understanding that we write what we are. Had Catherine not had personal difficulties about how she saw the matter that transpired between AS & RS she would not have written the article.

No one is able to separate who they are, or what they are,of what they subcribe to from what they write, unless they are intentionally trying to manipulate.

Her private things are her own. And now we know she may have let a few cats out of the bag regarding her own personal life and maybe she wished she hadn't. I know I was way green and googoo eyed when joining the list you were once apart of, and boy there are things I wish I hadn't said, but you know what, one learns as one goes along and one should not have to have these things, said to a specific group of people one trusted, shouted on line to others who were not there.

Not the point. In fact, I rather think you are the one close to betraying some private matters here.

My thoughts,

Dottie

p.s. And I am way not interested in speaking with you regarding my own personal enlightment regarding Dr. Steiner. I am well aware of what you think and do not wish to revist this subject with you. Not that you are all to interested unless you are feeling rather feisty today. And lets hope it isn't so, or at least that I can rise above any response I might wish later I had not said.

If you aren't interested in speaking to the matter why are you posting on it on a public list? Such a claim means you have crossed the threshold in full consciousness and are in touch with him. Well, I am certainly interested in hearing you say you are in touch with Steiner in higher worlds.

I'm not feeling feisty. I'm asking for clarification. That is a pretty significant claim, Dottie.

Up to you if you do, or don't answer.

Am on my way out anyway; have to put my dog-child to sleep today.

Paulina

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Am on my way out anyway; have to put my dog-child to sleep today.

Paulina

I'm very sorry. I had put my dog-child to sleep not to long ago too.

Love and light

Mike

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Paulina wrote:

If you aren't interested in speaking to the matter why are you posting on it on a public list?

Dear Paulina,

I used my example as a person who feels very close to Dr. Steiner and that this does not give me or anyone else who feels close to Dr. Steiner free reign to trash another person. Just because we love what he shared and who he is does not allow us to tear another down to protect him in the manner I witnessed on line.

Paulina

Such a claim means you have crossed the threshold in full consciousness and are in touch with him.

Dottie

Actually it does not have to mean that exactly Paulina. There is no one way the spirit connections work or meet. I have not crossed the threshold in full consciousness, in this life time, yet. I found the Holy Grail of my self and practice making it available in my daily life and meditations. I do feel very guided by him and definetly have felt his presence in my presence. I do think it would be better if he was in contact with those who are able to express themselves better than I. And I am sure he is but still...my life would be easier.

Paulina

Up to you if you do, or don't answer.

Dottie

Dear Paulina, you and I have walked down this path before and have made a mess of things, an ugly mess. I am not interested in doing it again.

Paulilna

Am on my way out anyway; have to put my dog-child to sleep today.

Dottie

As always Paulina you are in my prayers and my thanksgivings and I am sure everyone elses. I wish you much peace of mind and heart today and always.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: Gisele
Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:43 am
Subject: Re: R: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding rabid denial

Paulina wrote:

Am on my way out anyway; have to put my dog-child to sleep today.

~~~~I am sorry to hear that Paulina.

Gisele

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:02 am
Subject: attacking a Christian initiate

At 18:45 12.02.2004, Andrea wrote:

Moreover if someone is compelled to throw stones on a Christian Initiate this is certainly an harsh private karmic matter of such an individual.. But this is true only if he (she) keeps it hidden in his (her) soul.. If he (she) writes about it making it public , well, it changes everything , becoming a worldwide attack against the Inititate, and he (she)''ll bear the consequence of this, doesn't it?

In any case the strangest of it all is the fact that hosting such an article is not a "struggle for truth" and a gesture of bravery but only an actual "struggle for lies". It's enough to read 1915's lectures and compare the whole with Mc Coun's pamphlet to realize it.

My thoughts on this:

I think is one matter to attack and smear a Christian initiate when you stand upon the plaform of atheism or orthodox Christianity or any other regular worldview that collides with esotericism and occultism. You have an innocent ignorance of sorts. But if you do this on the basis of occult studies by dabbling in forces that your "I AM" is not strong enough to control, you get involved in deep deceptions and false paths on an entirely different level. I believe that's what happened to the aforementioned Christina Stoddard who wrote a couple of books in the 1930's under the pseudonym "Inquire Within." I have promised I will quote an entire chapter about RS from "Trail of the Serpent" (1936). Everything takes time, just be patient.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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


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