Sex

 

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:04 pm
Subject: sex

Was RS a prude?

I remember rummaging through some the scant archives on the S98 list when I first joined and reading some great threads on RS's take on sex and sexuality.

As a matter of fact, Frank asked me what my take on sex was when I first joined that list. If I remember right, I said that it was a fun feel-good experience that I share with my wife, but that I didn't think that it had much of anything to do with love.

Funny story:

I started a twelve step group meeting with a bunch of friends that was to meet on Friday nights. For a format we chose a topic meeting. We wrote down all kinds of wonderful topics that we thought would be good to talk about, and put them in a can, so that some one could choose blindly and destiny might be fulfilled.

Well, a couple of years went by and the meeting was a regular stop for about 15 people who always crowded into a Friendlys restaurant afterward.

One night out of the topic can came "SEX" and we all looked around and grinned and moaned and rolled our eyes, until someone said: "Can't we just cheat this once and choose a different topic." We all agreed to try again in hope of a lighter topic, when out of the can comes "Remorse."

By now we were all big-eyed and open-mouthed and someone said, "well we aren't going to get off easy tonight, and both of those topics go together for me."

So there was the topic of the meeting: "Sex and remorse."

Well, you got to remember that no one comes to a Twelve step group because their life is just peachy. Every one shared some deep dark sexual secrets and experiences that revolved around the topic. The honesty was gut-wrenching to say the least.

After the meeting, every one was quite drained and we all just went straight home. Only one person showed up at our familiar rendezvous and she told us the next week that she had to eat alone.

Truth and Love

Mike

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex

In a message dated 3/20/2004 10:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhelsher writes:

I said that it was a fun feel-good experience that I share with my wife, but that I didn't think that it had much of anything to do with love.

Hi Mike!

I sure hope your attitude has improved since then!

: ) Christine

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:32 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex

[Mike:]

Was RS a prude?

Sex and Spiritual Science

From Scaligero's autobiography

Quote (Free translation of mine)

"The Hindrancers are able to operate inside man by the means of a highest level force ,the Sex, whose sublimation, as far as "rarefied" in a platonic way , is unable to free herself from Lucifer's prison. In the same time this prison is inseparable from Ahrimanic's one, which is able to link the related feeling and thinking to the sensible maya.

As a starting point, in order to distinguish - inside the Eros stream-the difference between the power of the I AM and the power of the Hindrancers, it's possible to work by the Rosicrucian meditation about the link between the Hierarchies and the pure streams of thinking, willing, feeling. That's a very different technique from the one trying to attempt to "catch" the basic erotic impulses by the means of a willed stimulus of voluptuousness.

The ambiguity and the elusiveness of Eros are based on the main fact that: it shows itself like an unitary Power. The I AM tries uselessly to overcome it or to practice the detaching from it, since he is in front of a power that is able to involve his own strength in a not perceivable way. That's the source of every sexual magic's fail: the basic identification of the I with the Nature powers."

Andrea adds:

According to Steiner here we find also the key to understand the link between every nationalistic and racist impulse and the not-freed sexual impulses.

If you think to the wild excitement of the crowds screaming and clapping while the Dictator (whatever "political colour" he got) was scattering out his thunders of words you can have a good picture about it. In TH Meyer's "Light for the New Millennium" there is a good description from a Steiner's letter about the "zombie" shape of German crowds at the Eve of Darkness. " dull physical bodies, hardened etheric bodies. empty astral bodies, "I" cut away from their sheaths ...".

A little more Scaligero

Quote

.........".......What can be said about a matter of such a difficult communicability? The first step of a process which only in part comes from disciple's own development is the following: to grasp -by the means of the contemplation-the Hierarchies' action inside the thinking-willing-feeling streams. He has to perceive each stream in its pure condition and then he has to distinguish the higher unique stream of thinking-willing-feeling from the zone in which it is trapped by the Hindancers , following the necessity of everyday soul consciousness life.

........By the means of the "freed imagination" it is possible to manage the instincts power through a detachment that is, in the same time, a deeper communion with a power that usually shows itself distorted as desire, building the base of a totally different relation with it

........ The RoseCross meditation, together with some exercises of the "Esoteric School" is able to lead the seeker to such a chance.....

....Fear, hatred, desire ,eros, rage: they are "sign" of the overturning of the power: it's necessary that the I AM first separates alchemically the mixed elements in order to re-build the synthesis in a second time.......that is the chance for the Initiate to transform evil in good, so at the end of Occult Science Rudolf Steiner shows the Grail-enterprise as the way of the I AM in the depth of Earth's core."

End of the Quote

Andrea concludes.

Here we see also what is the path to carry on the task of re-mix every "outer" element ,as race, family, gender, blood in order to gain the actual crossing of Michaelian Treshold of true Cosmopolitism.

Andrea

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex

I said that it was a fun feel-good experience that I share with my wife, but that I didn't think that it had much of anything to do with love.

Hi Mike!

I sure hope your attitude has improved since then!

: ) Christine

Well, it's tricky. You see, as soon as I say I know something....well, you know the thing about "thesis and anti-thesis."

I remember hanging with some Buddhist friends for a while, we had lengthy conversations about sex and sexuality and one guy told me that "The act of sex itself, between two (or more) people is intrinsically using someone."

I think what I mean by Sex not having anything to do with Love is the old "Sex for Sex sake"....I used to call it "Sport Fucking." The experience being akin to the home team scoring a touch-down in the final seconds of the game...

Now, we went over some great stuff this past summer about high school kids entering puberty and the explosion of the astral forces, and the channeling of sexual energy into creative activities or sports. I was bowled over by it all and right now can't remember much, but it all made so much sense. Basically, a healthy balance and development of a child's thinking, feeling, and willing will generally result in much less desire for promiscuity in their teenage years.

One of my fellow classmates was married and his wife was six months pregnant. He shared with us that he only had sex with his wife to create their child, and that they were abstinent otherwise and that his relationship was very loving and compassionate - Weird, but I had to admire him for it.

I have to now go back and read Andrea's post again - really deep stuff (thanks bud).

Sex and Love

Mike

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:57 am
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, golden3000997 wrote:

Hi Mike!

I sure hope your attitude has improved since then!

: ) Christine

Gidday Christine,

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too. Most males in his audience will have needed little convincing I am sure, haha. Presumably you will now be wondering whether Steiner subsequently improved his attitude...

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:46 am
Subject: Re: sex

Raymond:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too. Most males in his audience will have needed little convincing I am sure, haha. Presumably you will now be wondering whether Steiner subsequently improved his attitude...

Hey Raymond!

Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'. Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not love Raymond, or did you not know this?

Dottie

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: sex

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

Hey Raymond!

Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'. Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not love Raymond, or did you not know this?

Gidday Dottie,

It is not me, but Christine, who appears not to agree with this view. Did I read you wrong, Christine? (See your quote below)

Hi Mike!

I sure hope your attitude has improved since then!

: ) Christine

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

From: zapdingo
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: sex

Raymon wrote:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.

What reminds me of these interesting words:

"I believe in love.
I believe in anything
That's gonna get me what I want."

I'm taking guesses as to the author.

Bryan

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, zapdingo wrote:

Raymon wrote:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.

This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?

Thanks,

Paulina

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Hey Raymond!

Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'. Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not love Raymond, or did you not know this?

Dottie

Hey Dottie,

I'm might get in trouble for this one. But I was thinking about what you said about orgasm and how the Jewish faith (I think) sees it different than most.

Well, I heard once that the experience of orgasm for women is ten times what it is for men. So it makes sense that you would be more in tune with the idea of love as relating to sex. :^)

There might be hope for us men though. I was thumbing through Mother Jones Mag recently and in the back they had an ad for pills that supposedly increase the potency of a mans orgasm :^O

I'll be sure to let you all know if I have a clairvoyant cognitive experience during sex, as soon as I get those wonderful pills :^) :^O

Mike

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Raymon wrote:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.

Paulina wrote:

This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?

I have also read this by RS but don't remember the reference. What he said was that love should not be confused with sexuality, and that when sexuality and love blended, it was a very coincidental happenstance - and then he said something about a train hitting something on the track or a similar metaphor. It would be useful if someone with better memory could look it up and quote it.

Steiner also echoed Thomas Aquinas when he indicated that sex was for reproduction only, and that a marriage licence was no ticket to sexual excesses between two people. Thomas Aquinas wrote under the subject title "On Fornication" that every emission of semen that is not an endeavor to cause pregnancy, is a sin against nature. (I don't remember seeing a comparable reference by Aquinas to the female orgasm however, but in the PoF, Steiner says that the woman trades the pleasure of sexual intercourse with the pain of childbirth.)

So Steiner was indeed "a prude" in at least two of his incarnations.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

I wrote:

So Steiner was indeed "a prude" in at least two of his incarnations.

Another remark by RS comes to mind for which I don't remember the reference. He once said that Anthroposophy could never become a popular movement for the very reason that it rests upon the acknowledgement that all existence arises from suffering. At the moment, it looks like Anthroposophy can become a popular movement, but in that case, most of it will be watered-down, feel-good-Anthroposophy. Reincarnation becomes a hedonistic joyride in and out of bodies and so on. Playboy-Steiner. The acquisition of spiritual knowledge becomes a pleasurable hobby like golf. Anthroposophical celebrities will sit on talk shows and chat Steiner for the masses. The question is how moch meat will be left on the bones of Anthroposophia when the media culture has consumed her.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: gjpalo
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:23 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

[Paulina:]

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, zapdingo wrote:

Raymon wrote:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.

This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?

Perhaps this is what was meant. It is from the lecture cycle, Earthly and Cosmic Man, May 14, 1912:

For many of you will certainly know that just in our present materialistic times this concept (love) is shoved into something else and distorted, in that the materialism in our time forcibly places the concept of love as close as possible to the concept of sexuality, with which it has absolutely nothing to do. This is a point where our present spiritual culture not only departs from reason, but even departs from anything that is in some way still allowable for healthy thinking. Here, through its materialism, the development in our time not ony comes into the unreasonable and non-logical, but into the scandalous, when what one can call love is so closely joined up with what may be described with the concept of sexuality. The fact that, under certain circumstances, in addition to the love between man and woman, sexuality can enter in -- this fact does not itself give a justifiable foundation for bringing both these concepts as close together as possible: the comprehensiveness of love and empathy, and the total specificness of sexuality. Logically, this is just as intelligent as, for example, putting the concepts of "the locomotive" and "being run over" side by side as two concepts that belong together, in the same way as love and sexuality today, just because occasionally locomotives do run over people. This, though, does not stem from some form of scientific preconception, but rather from the non-sensible and even partially unwholesome way of thinking of our time.

I would add that C.S. Lewis also distinguished between erotic love and sexuality in a similar way. The "being in love" kind of love is, which he called eros, is, phenomenologically observed, very different in character from sexual passion, which he called Venus.

Gerry Palo

Hello buddy!

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Dottie:

Hey Raymond!

Lets try 'sex has nothing to do with Love'. Wanna start over? Yeah, I didn't think so. The orgasm is not love Raymond, or did you not know this?

Dottie

Mike:

I'm might get in trouble for this one. But I was thinking about what you said about orgasm and how the Jewish faith (I think) sees it different than most.

Hey Mike,

No it wasn't you. It was the way Raymond worded his point that had me thinking it was something indecent in reference to Dr. Steiner. And it was this that I was responding to.

What came to me one day a few years back while I was sitting eating pizza, go figure, that people were treating the 'feeling' of the orgasm as if it was love itself. And it came through the twinkling lights at Christmas time and the thought concurred with the brilliant lights surrounding me.

I like what the Jewish faith brings in regards to this sexual holiness. It is allowing me to get it straight within my self. I remember Bruno A. speaking on this in regards to his personal relationship and I remember it not making sense to me then. But now with having been celibate for many years I realize where this is taking me. It's taking me to a higher idea for when or if in this lifetime I find my self or allow my self in an intimate relationship with another. And I like this thought.

Maybe the Jewish people take it too far with how Bradford was explaining a story the other day with the hole sheet thing. It seems one would have to curb ones desire from within versus from without. Putting a sheet there seems like cheating in a sense to me and would seem to go back to the olden days when men went outside their marriages for a little fun. I get what is trying to be accomplished by its kind of like what Jesus said in the way of 'if you think it in your heart you have already gone astray from your higher self'. I think the word 'sin' is so overrated and completely misunderstood hence the need for my own personal interpretation with the above thought on Jesus words.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having lots of fun with sex and so forth. However I do see that just like our spiritual understandings are growing so might this sexual aspect of whom we are as well.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: sex

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

... It was the way Raymond worded his point that had me thinking it was something indecent in reference to Dr. Steiner. And it was this that I was responding to.

Gidday Dottie,

I meant nothing indecent, but was merely pointing out what I believe is RS' support for Mike's point of view. I'll check on the source - it may indeed be the same as the passage posted by Gerry.

Popularly, where infidelity is involved, it is held that men tend to separate sex and love, whereas women see them as inextricably linked. What interested me was that the apparent difference in view between Mike and Christine seemed to illustrate this split in opinion between the sexes.

Had Steiner been female, perhaps he would have expressed himself differently, do you think?

Oh, and reversing the word order as you suggested - 'sex has nothing to do with love' vs 'love has nothing to do with sex' ... to me these both have the same meaning, so I'm not sure of your point.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Hi Gerry,

Not sure if you've been around this list for long, but Welcome anyway.

I've always appreciated your posts to the Waldorf list.

Thanks for finding this quote, it really brought it home for me.

All the best

Mike

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:51 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume <elfuncle@chello.no>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Raymon wrote:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.

Paulina wrote:

This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?

I have also read this by RS but don't remember the reference.

My 2cc.

The "Sex" topic hides the deepest misteries of Mankind. Steiner did not give an analyis of this topic. . He told something about it, here and there, mostly on the lecture cycle GA 253, about Sex , The Spiritual Teacher and the GAS (Goesches' events).

He told also that at that moment in time there was not possible to say more. (He said the same also about the so called "Jewish question"). Fifty years after Scaligero choosed the task to say this "more" from a Spiritual standpoint.

In his "Trulogy" (I posted some sketches about it a while ago) he tried to take a step ahead either towards Left Handed Sexual magic or Right Handed Platonic Love. He did so due to his personal experience about it. He underlined that the core of sex matters is not about the fact to make or to make not sex. He underlined that the core is in rooted the link between the "act" and the inner , inmaginative life of the human subject performing the act itself.. Who is in the path of freeing the thinking-imaginative life from the brain got, in the same time, the chance of a totally new relation with the life of sex in order to drive this life back to the Cosmic Love realm, aka the Sophianic realm, from where this life of sex did originate. He found also the link between the sex and the Cosmic Love matters with the Grail saga that, in itself, is based on triadic Soul's gesture (each one of the Three Heroes Parsifal,Galahad and Feirfiz is the representative of a force of the Soul -Thinking-Willing-Feeling).

The Grail saga began to overcome both the usual sex-generation love and the Platonic chastity too and got at its kernel the True Imaginative experience able to help us to begin the bridge's crossing towards the "take up" of the sex streams inside the Cosmic Love ones. Needles to say that here we are in front of the deepest Man's Misteries with links, for instance, with another giant issue aka the Etherization of Blood and The Etheric Christ Advent..........

A.

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

From: bryan miller
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:20 am
Subject: Re: sex

Ahem...Allow me to briefly interrupt the serious talk again to present the answer to my quizz below. Due to the lack of interest, I embbedded the correct option(s) among a few wrong ones, just for fun (my own, of course).

Who said that and where:

1) Anna Nicole Smith, in her wedding ceremony
2) Dorothy Parker, in her poem "Lonesome"
3) Peter Staudenmaier, in his unpublished autobiography "Monogamy Sucks and so do I"
4) Lloyd Cole, in his song "Forest Fire"
5) Everybody including myself, after a few beers too many.

Bryan

"I believe in love.
I believe in anything
That's gonna get me what I want."

I'm taking guesses as to the author.

Bryan

Beer

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: sex

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

I like what the Jewish faith brings in regards to this sexual holiness. It is allowing me to get it straight within my self. I remember Bruno A. speaking on this in regards to his personal relationship and I remember it not making sense to me then. But now with having been celibate for many years I realize where this is taking me. It's taking me to a higher idea for when or if in this lifetime I find my self or allow my self in an intimate relationship with another. And I like this thought.

To all posting on this issue of sex being seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone comment your Hasidic rabbi made. There is an entire range of perspective on sex among Jews, just as among Gentiles or any other group. In Luranic Kabbalah, for instance, there are six paths to divine knowledge andone of these six paths is known as the sexual path of the Bull.

On this path, according to Jewish mystical tradition it is possible in sexual union to draw higher spiritual energies into the act throught "santifying context of the Sabbath and proper understanding of the and involves the mystery of the kiss. The Bull path is the reconciliation of two opposites, power and love.

See;
-Song of Songs (1;20)
-Sha'ar ha-Kelalim (Capter 2)
-Milton's "Paradise Lost (Raphael's answer to Adam on the union of soul with soul)
-Spenser's "The Faerie Queene

It's no wonder that so many people today do not know how love and sex can be mutal and or related. We have removed the fig leaf from the genitals and put it over our faces and made fucking a recreational activity.

At any rate, I hardy think it worth while to quote Steiner in this regard, or Aquinas or Augustine! LOL! Good grief, guys! That is is like quoting the pope about sexual union. Get a grip. Just be honest and say,"I cannot speak to this issue of love and sex being one as having never had the experience of such a spirtual merging", but, don't say it doesn't exist because you have not know it. Some have. :-)

Paulina

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

At 17:42 25.03.2004, Paulina wrote:

To all posting on this issue of sex being seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone comment your Hasidic rabbi made. There is an entire range of perspective on sex among Jews, just as among Gentiles or any other group. In Luranic Kabbalah, for instance, there are six paths to divine knowledge andone of these six paths is known as the sexual path of the Bull.

On this path, according to Jewish mystical tradition it is possible in sexual union to draw higher spiritual energies into the act throught "santifying context of the Sabbath and proper understanding of the and involves the mystery of the kiss. The Bull path is the reconciliation of two opposites, power and love.

In this context, it should be noted that according to RS, it was Yahve who created sexual love, i.e. he introduced love into the reproductive act. From the way I have understood it, however, this particular regency of Yahve ended around the middle of the 20th century and is becoming hijacked by ahrimanic and asuric Beings. This also has to do with atavistic wisdom ending around the middle of the 20th century, plus the future prospect of reproducing directly through the Creative Word, the Logos, through the larynx.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

sex/Repro Technology

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: sex

Paulina:

To all posting on this issue of sex being seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone comment your Hasidic rabbi made.

Hey Paulina,

What I am trying to get at is the idea that chasing the orgasm is not love. The Rabbi raised a question within me as to how it can be a 'holy' union versus a lust union. How in this moment does one keep gracethought in mind. I guess for me I like this idea for myself where it doesn't become about just the 'feeling' and more about the perfect union that serves something in both partners. Just like my thoughts go deeper towards questions of the universe I like that in this moment I am contemplating how to rise to a higher level within me towards this act. Kim and I had a short conversation about the 'twins' meeting and it seems the thought comes that once they have worked out all the lust aspects is when they can truly meet as one in a sense. And that even maybe they don't meet until this has been worked out. And I think this makes it even the more beautiful for some reason. It is hitting me as something special with a great understanding of something deeper at work. Or it can be that when in a relationship one can turn the tide in a sense towards this point. I like that idea as well.

Paulina:

On this path, according to Jewish mystical tradition it is possible in sexual union to draw higher spiritual energies into the act throught "santifying context of the Sabbath and proper understanding of the and involves the mystery of the kiss. The Bull path is the reconciliation of two opposites, power and love.

Yes, it seems there is quite a bit of this and then again it seems that much of it is corrupted in a way that befell the Temple Virgins.

Paulina:

See;
-Song of Songs (1;20)
-Sha'ar ha-Kelalim (Capter 2)
-Milton's "Paradise Lost (Raphael's answer to Adam on the union of soul with soul)
-Spenser's "The Faerie Queene

I guess I think of it as being corrupted now and having been for a long while. Don't know specificallyi about the Bull path you speak of and can only imagine thatwithin the Jewish tradition it is still something they can lead others in as far as a higher understanding. I can recall reading in a controversial book by Ravenscroft about such sexual acts and so forth. Even though much can be disputed in that particular book I believe many of those things continue to be used to find a way to 'spiritual' experiences. And then the Queen comes in and kicks everyones ass. It's almost as if She seduces as one is willing to be seduced and then WHAM! ones experiences can be seen through the art or whatever one happens to be beholden to through their everyday lives. I've seen it happen with a few local artists and musicians. I call her Lucy.

Paulina:

Just be honest and say,"I cannot speak to this issue of love and sex being one as having never had the experience of such a spirtual merging", but, don't say it doesn't exist because you have not know it. Some have. :-)

Glad to see you feeling better:)))))

Dottie

Sex, Cupid, Krishna and Naughtiness

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:

In this context, it should be noted that according to RS, it was Yahve who created sexual love, i.e. he introduced love into the reproductive act. From the way I have understood it, however, this particular regency of Yahve ended around the middle of the 20th century and is becoming hijacked by ahrimanic and asuric Beings. This also has to do with atavistic wisdom ending around the middle of the 20th century, plus the future prospect of reproducing directly through the Creative Word, the Logos, through the larynx.

Not "in this context", Tarjei.

As long as there are males and females, i.e., two sexes walking around it hardly relevant to talk about reproducing through the larynx, and is it this kind of thing that make the Dianas and Dans think we are all new age loonies.

We are still in a time period where the cosmic sexual model for the division and reuniting of cosmic energies termed masculine and feminine continue to be the driving force of creation.

There are rungs on the ladder of ascent, if you want to say they are passe, have at it, but you are missing the point about what a man and woman were meant to offer one another. The path of the Bull is the rung on the ladder that leads to the path of the Lion (the heart), Luranically speaking.

"The emotion of love is regarded by the Germans as a virtue, as a divine emanation, as something mystic...it is profound and has something of illuminism about it."

-Stendal

Paulina

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

AMEN SISTER - HALLELUJAH JESUS!!!

Hey guys - don't you know that ALL sex is between the ears? The rest is just friction.

Christine

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

From: danifyou
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Rép. : Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

----Message original -----
De : Tarjei Straume

Raymon wrote:

Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do with sex was promoted by Steiner too.

Paulina wrote:

This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?

I have also read this by RS but don't remember the reference. What he said was that love should not be confused with sexuality, and that when sexuality and love blended, it was a very coincidental happenstance - and then he said something about a train hitting something on the track or a similar metaphor. It would be useful if someone with better memory could look it up and quote it.

Steiner also echoed Thomas Aquinas when he indicated that sex was for reproduction only, and that a marriage licence was no ticket to sexual excesses between two people. Thomas Aquinas wrote under the subject title "On Fornication" that every emission of semen that is not an endeavor to cause pregnancy, is a sin against nature. (I don't remember seeing a comparable reference by Aquinas to the female orgasm however, but in the PoF, Steiner says that the woman trades the pleasure of sexual intercourse with the pain of childbirth.)

So Steiner was indeed "a prude" in at least two of his incarnations.

And where does that come from ya think? Reminescence Hebrew Mission Abrahamic "Thou shall not waste thy seed"!

Danny

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

From: DByron
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Paulina wrote:

At any rate, I hardy think it worth while to quote Steiner in this regard, or Aquinas or Augustine! LOL! Good grief, guys! That is is like quoting the pope about sexual union. Get a grip. Just be honest and say,"I cannot speak to this issue of love and sex being one as having never had the experience of such a spirtual merging", but, don't say it doesn't exist because you have not know it. Some have. :-)

I have to admit my main reaction to the guys' posts was the depressing thought that apparently in my next incarnation I am doomed to forget everything I now know about this subject.

Still laughing,
Deborah

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:19 pm
Subject: Re: sex

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

Paulina:

To all posting on this issue of sex being seperate from love, I think you are making too great an assumption about what the Jewish faith teaches about sex based on theone comment your Hasidic rabbi made.

Hey Paulina,

What I am trying to get at is the idea that chasing the orgasm is not love.

Totally in agreement with you, Dottie.

The Rabbi raised a question within me as to how it can be a 'holy' union versus a lust union. How in this moment does one keep gracethought in mind. I guess for me I like this idea for myself where it doesn't become about just the 'feeling' and more about the perfect union that serves something in both partners.

And here I think that Steiner gives remarkable clues about what can and should work between a man and a woman in terms of their differing strengths and gifts. The male must be archetypcally strong to be sexually competent and the female provided the archtypally beautiful (beauty as in the eyes of the beholder), and her faith in him is the bestowing gift whereby he retains his strength to face the world, be it war or the corporate world. Ask your Rabbi about the kiss that transpires between Abba and Imma, for it is here that understanding of the six Sefirot have their origin.

I guess I think of it as being corrupted now and having been for a long while.

Again, I agree with you, totally. Fucking around will do that. It's no wonder that the islamic extremists look at the west and see us as decadent devils. Unfortunately, their undestanding of women and what can and should transpire between a man and woman is just s messed up. Two sides of a bankrupt coin, heads or tails, so to speak.

Paulina

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:42 am
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Paulina wrote:

This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. He was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here with the Steiner reference?

Gidday Paulina,

Sorry for the slow reply – I was not ignoring you. The full quote with references is given at the end of this post.

Yes, in the social climate of that time Steiner was hardly able to lift the lid on this sort of thing.

In the quote, he says that it (the throwing together of sex and love) is `the worst expression of materialism', and that this is something the spiritual science of the future must counter. While spiritual science has not achieved much in this respect, the secular world is managing to bring it forth quite well. As for us, we have Frank haha. But seriously, he is likely on the right track. For a development of the theme shows that morality, too, has nothing to do with sex. Any sexual behavior in itself is not, then, to be considered immoral. Steiner, it seems, was after all no prude.

I have in mind an analysis along anthroposophical lines, which discusses the reasoning behind the stern attitudes of the old Judeo-Christian culture towards sex. And that while correct for that era, it is now out of place in today's world. (Analogous to Steiner's `Mission of Alcohol' type statements which hold that alcohol usage was right and proper at one time, but today should be considered harmful.) So today, in moralizing about sex, one is playing into Lucifer's hands, for it is an unfree, mechanized, knee- jerk morality.

If this sort of thing interests you, email me offline and I'll find the discussion (it's on the web someplace) and send it to you. It's too candid to post here.

Another apposite quote, from GA 147 `Secrets of the Threshold' (Lecture II) Aug 25, 1913, Munich, runs as follows:

`... Lucifer wants to make physical love similar to spiritual love. Then he can root it out of the physical or sense-world and lead it over into a special kingdom of his own…'

OK here's the original quote you asked for It's in `Love, Marriage, Sex in the light of Spiritual Science' by Rev R Lewis, a compilation in three volumes I think, published in the early 90's, and is from GA 143 `Experiences of the Supersensible: the Paths of the Soul to Christ' / `Ancient Wisdom and the Heralding of the Christ Impulse' May 8, 1912, Cologne.

"In relation to compassion and love, I could even speak of a program - if I were to speak in a primitive fashion - that spiritual science must fulfil in the future. Materialism today - which has never before happened on the earth - has even arrived at a scandalous science in this field. The worst thing that is accomplished today is the throwing together of love and sexuality. That is the worst expression of materialism, the most devilish thing in the present time.

The things that are being accomplished in this field will eventually have to be very carefully peeled away, layer by layer. Sexuality and love have absolutely nothing to do with each other!

Sexuality is something which has nothing at all to do with pure, innocent, original love. Science has brought all this into the realm of the scandalous, in that it has brought about a whole literature which is concerned with bringing both these things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, into connection with each other."

See ya, Raymon

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:38 am
Subject: Re: sex

Raymond: [quoting RS:]

The things that are being accomplished in this field will eventually have to be very carefully peeled away, layer by layer. Sexuality and love have absolutely nothing to do with each other!

Sexuality is something which has nothing at all to do with pure, innocent, original love. Science has brought all this into the realm of the scandalous, in that it has brought about a whole literature which is concerned with bringing both these things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, into connection with each other."

For me when I read your post on this subject you stated that love and sex did not have anything do with one another according to Dr. Steiner. And this in my eyes was speaking to a subject vetted earlier here in the year: sadomasochism. BUT actually what Dr. Steiner stated as can be seen above is that sexUALITY and love have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Which I agree with although it does seem we use this sexuality to try and gain love as mostly this is what we see all around us in the world and are actually inundated with it. And this was my point of chasing the orgasm.

Paulina spoke on the point of the man being manly in a sense and it truly is this that leads the woman in my understanding. And the men are specifically being pointed, through media and whathaveyou, in the direction that completely corrupts the beautiful aspect of that physical union of two people. And the woman wanting 'love' go along for the ride. And then most likely it becomes what they want as well. My own personal experience is that it was fun but something was always nagging me in the back of my mind that something something wasn't right. Not that it was bad or whathave you rather I would be left questioning my self later about what was missing in a sense. Just like in my spiritual studies, something asks me to think above or past a thing and so it was with the sexual union.

Dottie

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:04 am
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, raymon_ford wrote:

Gidday Paulina,

Sorry for the slow reply – I was not ignoring you. The full quote with references is given at the end of this post.

No problem.

Yes, in the social climate of that time Steiner was hardly able to lift the lid on this sort of thing.

I remain firm in my position that Steiner, nor Aquinas are men able to address what transpires, potentially and or metaphsyically in sex when love is part of the equation that brings down spritiual forces into the physical anymore than could the current pope. The last pope, who was murdered by the current curia, was far more able to speak to this issue and grasped the point of what I had hoped to make because he witnessed what transpired via such love and was himself a product of it, as well as carrying the Christ within. But, Steiner is hardly the man to have asked about the mystery of love and sex. Just look at the marriage he made early on. Weight the evidence. I don't believe that union was anything but as platonic as was the second marriage on of necessity to establish a boundary between Steiner and the esoteric groupies crawling out of the woodwork. Friendship was the basis of the first and a merging of mutal aestheticism the second.

In the quote, he says that it (the throwing together of sex and love) is `the worst expression of materialism', and that this is something the spiritual science of the future must counter. While spiritual science has not achieved much in this respect, the secular world is managing to bring it forth quite well. As for us, we have Frank haha. But seriously, he is likely on the right track. For a development of the theme shows that morality, too, has nothing to do with sex. Any sexual behavior in itself is not, then, to be considered immoral. Steiner, it seems, was after all no prude.

If anything is to gleaned correctly from Steiner it is that we all are to make our own decisions about matters of morality and bear the consequences of those decisions. That is what is to occur at this point of our evolution toward Freedom.

I have in mind an analysis along anthroposophical lines, which discusses the reasoning behind the stern attitudes of the old Judeo-Christian culture towards sex. And that while correct for that era,

YEH GADS! Do you hear what you are saying? YOU desire to analysis this issue along anthroposophical lines and then make a determination about what is correct for this era? Hello!

OK here's the original quote you asked for It's in `Love, Marriage, Sex in the light of Spiritual Science' by Rev R Lewis, a compilation in three volumes I think, published in the early 90's, and is from GA 143 `Experiences of the Supersensible: the Paths of the Soul to Christ' / `Ancient Wisdom and the Heralding of the Christ Impulse' May 8, 1912, Cologne.

That is Lewis, not Steiner. I have about as much regard for Rev. Lewis as I do PS, so thanks anyway. I've seen them, discarded them. Not only shouls Clueless Lewis have his ass kicked for his publishing of his silly little opining on sex, drugs, alcohol and cyanide to generate revenue, but, the individuals in the American Society who provided him with the names and addresses of members should be ashamed for their part in this solicitation for individual profit.

"In relation to compassion and love, I could even speak of a program - if I were to speak in a primitive fashion - that spiritual science must fulfil in the future.

Sounds like you are well on your way to a mission of becoming another anthopoop guru, and aren't we in need of another one of those!

It's really too bad anthroposophists fail to "get it' that the task of the time is to work on redeeming one's individual astral forces rather than pontificating on how eveyone else should be eating, drinking, loving, intercoursing in speech, friendship and intimate relationships.

Paulina

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:13 am
Subject: Re: sex

dottie zold wrote:

Paulina spoke on the point of the man being manly in a sense and it truly is this that leads the woman in my understanding. And the men are specifically being pointed, through media and whathaveyou, in the direction that completely corrupts the beautiful aspect of that physical union of two people. And the woman wanting 'love' go along for the ride.

Brave Hearts;

I disagreed with Paulina when she first offered this and I further disagree with the failure we have in looking at the changing role of males and females. Ideally the fallen Man was Man and woman was woman had held sway for some time. It is very clear that the I AM experiences in Men and Women are emerging as stronger dominating types, stronger inward experiences overthrow the theory that Men are the dominating steering force and women must, would and should follow the leaders. I find the whole idea repulsive that we could even take on such a retro theory. My reasons:

Firstly, it has to do with Patriarchal historical revisionism and Adamic and Fallen types that had shifted from Atlantean Matriarchal, Maternal Motherly Singers, who had woven matter sheaths and spun them out of their wills. After Atlantis, it slowly shifted to Patriarchal, and Paternalistic Seed Carriers, as an OT, revised, revisionist history thread.

At the NT, and particularly at the historical landing of the Michael School, of the famed subject matter of 1888 that P.S. is talking about, the shift to a new Balance of Male and Female with a new I AM - remodelled Soul structure - AnthroSophic Soul structure - strongly comes upwards to meet new conditions of the I AM. This offsets the weight in the scale of Men on one side or the weight in the scale of women on the other side, but achieves a kind of karmic and incarnational signature and balance.

Male Egotism and their entire Patriarchal B.S. (and here we could go into various regions where this Patriarchal dogma is clung to and these would be retardations projected out through dogmatic fundamentalism in various religious codes. All False.) could be high lighted by the failed historical insights of both Peter Staudenmaier, hardly worth mentioning, and even less on point, Diana.

Male and Female models that understand the changing reality of the roles of Males and Females also reveal changes in history that snoops like P.S. can't cope with because the scope of history and time does not reveal these changes to their faulty intelligence. Spiritualized Intellect is lacking and failed concepts of current history, where mighty changes have been muffled over by Ahrimanic/Hitler and 1933-1945 cultural incursions, shocks and reversals that continue to dupe and delude with superfical theories of antisemitism right to 2001. Therefore we can blame both Diana and Peter Staudenmaier for how we goose stepped back to the failures of the 20th century racism as we entered the 21 st century under George Bush's failed Fundamentalism. You share it, you think it, you eat it.

Philosemitic or antisemitic constructs and how contemplation through Blavatsky revealed parts of the historical timing of a revolutionary contemplation shift is targeted for deception by Peter Staudenmaier. Here the entire scheme of ancient human development could begin to be explored on the Foundations of the I AM, going all the way back to Saturn Evolution. And weaving a tale through Lemuria and Atlantis, records this intense historical shift of balance of Sexes and vision of Races from Matriarchy to Patriarchy to BALANCE.

It is remarkable that Peter S. wishes to entertain something as invisible as Atlantean theory only to find himself tangled in denying Atlantis as a mirage and Lemuria as a mirage, but opening the can of worms that False Racist ideas stem from entire false paradigms of (woo-woo) false occult history. Which Peter Staudenmaier denies because he gets dialectally lost in. The set up is very interesting. There is no way for Peter Staundenmaier to embrace advanced occult history, because he denies that such a history exists. There is no history of the I AM.. therefore any shift from Matriarchal to Patriarchal paradigms and back to balance is based on a figment in Bradford's overheated brain.

"It is believed the Ubaidian civilization is the beginning of the Sumerian culture. The Ubaid built mound temples, adding to their height over time. The mounds are likely to protect their shrines during the frequent floods. The Ubaid worshiped the spirit-god Ea (Enki) and the Great God Anu. The Ubaid are known for the saying do not offer the food and drink of death but the bread of life and the water of life. The food and drink of death offers immortality. This is the basis for Garden of Eden myth. This is likely a localized belief not shared in other cultures.

"About this time the Sumarian Culture began a shift from Feminine spirit-god symbols to Masculine spirit-god symbols leading to a fundamental schism of beliefs and values. The Sumarian culture eventually developed a distorted paternalistic view of their environment. Women became second class citizens, no longer being created in the image of God.

The ancients believed the image of God requires both male and female characteristics. The World was basically matriarchal because women were revered for their ability to create and sustain life. Not superior or equal but complementary like Mother Earth and Father Sun.

"Many still hold the belief that when the earth was viewed as a mother, things were more peaceful. The Sumarians to justify their perversion created a second account of creation stating that woman is born of man. Woman, they believed tempted man from God and are therefore intrinsically evil. Women would become second class citizens and eventually regarded as chattel.

"These destructive paternalistic beliefs are incorporated into the three major Sumarian religions, Semitic-Judaism, Judo-Christianity and Semitic-Islam. Some believe Indo-European tribes spread paternalism because of their belief in an aggressive sky god who is male and human male leaders were given the powers of god . They believe with this change came slavery, war and walled cities."

Bradford concludes;

So the discussion is certainly not Orgasm. This prefered dwelling on Sentient Soul and adolescent perks gives nothing to the mature contemplation we need to understand how in the Chymical Wedding Rosenkreuz saw Venus Naked. This has everything to do with the Endocrine system that is Pituitary and Pineal based. You get to the Pineal and Pituitary and at least you get somewhere, at least you arrive at the Shores of the Michael School. Here Paulina has always been correct. Vertical and Horizontal love meets at the crossroads of the human heart.

Today we are in a state of balance of Female and Male because of the level of distortion in the devlelopment of Etheric and Astral conditions carried into the bodies we incarnate in. None of us are perfect. Failed distortions of the Anima and Animus and rich realities of Feminine side Males and Masculine side Females mix and mingle in entirely new historical patterns. Distortions are everywhere. Distortions are interesting study examples. Peter is a distortion.

The shift of historical paradigms from Matriarchal and Patriarchal to Balance was how the Romantics kicked off a whole new chapter in the history of Racism and the Sexes. Today man is not always from mars and women are not always from venus. Beauty and the Imagination of the duel concepts of Male and Female, reveal what we have discussed about Venus Naked and the founding of Rome by Aeneas.

And something for Diana and Peter:

Since Zarathustra can't be understood try something different;

"12/03/2003 Entry: "Nasty Little Virginthustra"

Ben Shapiro perfectly sums up why I'm sick of the largely non-Jewish philosemitic backbone of the Republican Party (even though he is, himself, Jewish): defending Ann Coulter from those mean, bad librul Jews, he stakes out the rather untenable position that Judaic identity is premised on (and virtually solely on) unerring support for Israel.

In Ben's world, you aren't crispety crunchety chocolatey Jewy if you don't "act Jewish". Apparently, Joe Lieberman, an intensely religious man, is only "semi-observant" (I guess because he doesn't agree with Ben). Other Democrats, who are either Jewish or have Jewish connections, are trusted by the Jewish community at large...but those aren't "real" Jews. They don't believe "real" Jewish things - although apparently the only real Jewish value Ben can put forth is not being a Democrat.

There's a reason why the left's version of "identity politics" works and the right's version doesn't. The left generally bases their ethnic/racial ideals and policies on actual attitudes within a community. The reason so many black people vote for Democrats isn't because we're so cowed by the Democratic machines that we just don't know about Republicanism, but that, instead, the promise of a Democratic platform is actually what's in tune with what's most important to us. In much the same way, the Jewish community isn't being led around by the Clintonian Pied Piper, blindly supporting Democrats because we say "shalom" every so often. Unless, of course, you're like Ben and think that American Jews in the main are too stupid and too un-Jewish to understand what's really good for them.

That Ben does this, and that the rest of the Republican Party is full of the same hate-filled, psuedo-philosemitic slackwits is well-known by all the minority groups that they try to dictate "proper" identity to - and it's losing them the nominal inroads they were making. Whoever the Democratic nominee is needs to harp on this as an overall theme on the Republican plan for America - they don't want to serve you, they want to be in charge of you.

Much like the ongoing specter of political correctness, the right has taken a fringe left problem, and become exactly what they were railing against."

http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00002211.htm

sex / and a Date...

Sex and the Failures of Science

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:32 am
Subject: Re: sex

Bradford wrote:

Ideally the fallen Man was Man and woman was woman had held sway for some time. It is very clear that the I AM experiences in Men and Women are emerging as stronger dominating types, stronger inward experiences overthrow the theory that Men are the dominating steering force and women must, would and should follow the leaders. I find the whole idea repulsive that we could even take on such a retro theory. My reasons:

Dear Bradford,

I believe the whole point even unto before the fall was the fact that there are indeed two different energies that hold within them what we refer to as the masculine and feminine principles. They are distinct in their oneness in my understanding. They both serve their purposes. It may be the Haaretz and the Hashayim concept if I am recalling the words correctly.

I recall at one point in my life I thought that men and women were not different that the only difference was their sex. I have since realized the beauty that stands as the feminine and the masculine principles that live within me and without. I so dig the male role and the female role in the physical universe. I love the idea of the twin becoming One and what brought it to that exact moment most exhilerating in its understanding.

I do not see it that women have to follow any leader but to negate the differences that make up the whole seems a bit askew. We are not the same. We do indeed have different rolls. And no that does not mean women roll over and play dead. The woman must match her man in my understanding. It's an eye for an eye but not in the killing but in the loving and the creating. And it is very very powerful. Most of my personal relationships with the men in my life is along this line without the sexual aspect. And it is clear that this is not my gig at this point in time so it has been worked out in my friendships. And it is Rilke who also helped me through his little book called Letters to a Young Poet that allowed me to realize this growing towards one another process.

We are different and so shall we remain even unto the uniting in my humble opinion.

Love to you,
Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

At 00:56 26.03.2004, Paulina wrote:

As long as there are males and females, i.e., two sexes walking around it hardly relevant to talk about reproducing through the larynx, and is it this kind of thing that make the Dianas and Dans think we are all new age loonies.

We are still in a time period where the cosmic sexual model for the division and reuniting of cosmic energies termed masculine and feminine continue to be the driving force of creation.

I am not going to argue with you about that, but I'll mention something else that RS pointed out - in connection with the Freemasons: The apron represents the overcoming of sensuality, so that men and women will learn to work side by side as equals without sensuality getting in the way. He also said that the overcoming of sensuality is a major task for our age. I don't have the references to this, but perhaps someone else has, or maybe I'll stumble across the texts later.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

At 00:56 26.03.2004, Paulina wrote:

As long as there are males and females, i.e., two sexes walking around it hardly relevant to talk about reproducing through the larynx, and is it this kind of thing that make the Dianas and Dans think we are all new age loonies.

We are still in a time period where the cosmic sexual model for the division and reuniting of cosmic energies termed masculine and feminine continue to be the driving force of creation.

Tarjei:

I am not going to argue with you about that, but I'll mention something else that RS pointed out - in connection with the Freemasons: The apron represents the overcoming of sensuality, so that men and women will learn to work side by side as equals without sensuality getting in the way. He also said that the overcoming of sensuality is a major task for our age. I don't have the references to this, but perhaps someone else has, or maybe I'll stumble across the texts later.

If I knew I was getting involved with a bunch of sex maniacs I'd have thought twice before coming to this party.

Shocked,
Frank

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: sex

dottie zold wrote:

The woman must match her man in my understanding. It's an eye for an eye but not in the killing but in the loving and the creating. And it is very very powerful. Most of my personal relationships with the men in my life is along this line without the sexual aspect.

Love to you as well;

TAMMY WYNETTE

Stand By Your Man
(Tammy Wynette/Billy Sherrill)

Sometimes its hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doing things that you don't understand

Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

But if you love him you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him
Cause after all he's just a man

Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Bradford comments;

Dysfunctional relationships abound and this is not the exception, this is the rule. Distortion of the etheric and astral forces as the Soul stands today is like watching the Sopranos where the women, who are dysfunctional snakes enable their men to be, malicious unethical killers is hardly different than Jeff Foxworthy's noble attempts to defuse the locked in dysfunctions in fundamentalism and pockets of ignorance in America. Or the Mormons carry this distorted religious, OT mind set around with them.

Enablers of dysfunction or enablers to abuse, sitting back and allowing fathers to abuse or molest daughters, or mothers abusing doing their Jon Benet fantasies with their little dress up Barbie and Ken children, or the current look at Bush Fundamentalism and marriage and Biblical fundie dogmas, against gays and lesbians is off time and reflects retardation.

This retardation of thinking has not been studied enough. Where the history, in relation to when the I AM and etheric and astral forces, began to emerge from the Female container or the Male container and WHY, these changes arise should be safely contemplated without stigma. It is the WHY these changes arise that seems to promote Retardation of Thinking and enables the weak minded to scurry back to suppressing these very unique social, physical and sexual issues. They are unique issues because there is not a developed concept of etheric and astral body vehicles that have been studied enough to show the developed or the undeveloped. It is clear no matter what race none of us are equal in inner distribution or balance. Yet this discrepency is very easy to see if it is there or if it is not there. The rest is developing a clear history of changes in the whole scope of Pre-I AM development, Matriarchy-Patriarchy and new phases of imbalance and adjustment explored and understood by society and the the individuals and their intimate questions.

Fundamentalism in the Arab community, in particular how they view their women is bizarre. Old Adamic. Hasidic lunacy is also, bearing a retarded social force. And the problem is that we carry these damaging attitudes and create a social ripple effect. Hilary Clinton was not manifesting this sweet home body stigma. Martha Stewart was targetted and in America uppitty women are targetted still if they gain power in this Man's hallucination of a world. I don't even want to think about Laura Bush.

Learning to see through beauty and Romanticism that women and men are wonderful erotic and mighty archetypes are studies in new ground. Rosie O'Donnell's performance in "Beautiful Girls" reveals the failure of men to See Beauty, to recognize profound Beauty of Soul because of their entrapment in false boobs. Rosie's speech in the film, in the supermarket, is classic.

The film "Dangerous Beauty" is one of the most profound studies of the strength of women in a man's world I've seen.

"In 1583 Venice, women were regarded as little more than possessions. Education and willfulness were negative traits, reserved only for those who plied their bodies for money. Marriage had nothing to do with love -- it was a contract made based exclusively on considerations of wealth and position. If a girl's family didn't have money, she had no hope of marrying an "important" man, no matter how deeply the two loved each other. In a situation like that, if she wanted him, her only hope was to become his mistress. And, if she was truly ambitious and skilled, she could become a courtesan, a mistress to dozens of men, all willing to pay for her services.

Such are the circumstances of Veronica Franco (Catherine McCormack), who is desperately smitten with Marco Vernier (Rufus Sewell) -- and he with her. But the difference in their social position makes a legal relationship impossible. When Marco, not wanting to lead Veronica on, informs her of this harsh truth, she is devastated, and chooses to follow the advice of her mother (Jacqueline Bisset) and become a courtesan. Soon, with her rare mix of beauty, intelligence, and wit, she is the most prized prostitute in Venice, desired by everyone from the local bishop to the King of France. But, during the age of the Spanish Inquisition, power gained through "sinful" means can be a tenuous thing.

Against the backdrop of Veronica and Marco's tumultuous relationship, director Marshall Herskovitz explores the injustices visited upon women at a time when they were universally viewed as inferior to men. The obedient wives are presented as timid, uncertain creatures who dream of a better lot for their daughters while secretly envying Veronica's freedom. For her part, although Veronica uses every weapon at her disposal to hold her own in power struggles with men, she would give all that she has away for a life with Marco."

Bradford concludes;

Now my wife can take apart and put together Harley's. I have been a playwright and director for most of my life until I discovered the wonder of nurturing and teaching. My wife is analytic logic and I am synthetic logic. My wife has a higher capacity of spiritual empathy that is astonishing and our marriage vows were done on the premise of "Mutual Sanctuary". That I did not seek a relationship where my dysfunctions could be baby sat by a woman. Nor did I want to baby sit hers. Rather that I can be most myself with her she isn't seeking to change me into a nicer and better bradford. That she can be most herself with me and I don't wish to change her into a nicer better Tara. The observation of our doubles is integrated and balanced within our discussions and we disagree on mostly minor issues. But spiritual Ethics is very important along with healthy eroticism.

However I had to go through an entire process of discovering the nature of Beauty and observing, not merely the joy of the opposite sex, but what makes the I AM of the other so beautiful. What various capacities and qualities exist in the I AM of another, aside from the fact that Women are beautiful to look at and understand from my perspective; and Men are beautiful and predictable creatures to some women.

It is interesting to make a DEAL BREAKER list of must have's in a relationship. Mine included not only sexual skills but thought, heart and insight skills. It took me about 21 years to figure out what I wanted having dated an extensive number of women. And to be happy or comfortable with who I was. I could smell dysfunction miles away and that was not part of my DEAL BREAKER list, no matter how externally beautiful or successful they might be. Deal Breakers would be twisted dysfunctions, pettiness, nagging, none of those things, as well as severe mood swings that needed drugs, booze or sex to fix, would be creative sustainers for a strong relationship.

Deal Breakers..it is odd when I have heard from others when they honestly attempt to list their Deal Breakers in the opposite sex. Sometimes it is equal or better salary. Sometimes it is car type. It is interesting to allow someone to outline their Deal Breakers.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: sex

BRADFORD:
This retardation of thinking has not been studied enough. .

It's Friday night Brad and you are so in trouble if this is referring to me. K'

d

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

From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:21 am
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Paulina wrote:

I remain firm in my position that Steiner, nor Aquinas are men able to address what transpires, potentially and or metaphsyically in sex when love is part of the equation that brings down spritiual forces into the physical anymore than could the current pope...

Gidday Paulina,

Your comparison with the pope is apt - both he and RS are regarded by many of their followers as infallible haha. I have no issue with your paragraph otherwise. It was certainly a great loss for the last pope to have died when he did.

If anything is to gleaned correctly from Steiner it is that we all are to make our own decisions about matters of morality and bear the consequences of those decisions. That is what is to occur at this point of our evolution toward Freedom...

Quite so.

YEH GADS! Do you hear what you are saying? YOU desire to analysis this issue along anthroposophical lines and then make a determination about what is correct for this era? Hello!

I was relating someone else's analysis in the belief you would find it useful. There is little enough on this topic, sensitive as it is, out there.

That is Lewis, not Steiner. I have about as much regard for Rev. Lewis as I do PS, so thanks anyway...

The quote was pure Steiner, not Lewis - Lewis was merely the compiler. Another similar quote, from a lecture a few days later, and I assume unconnected with any Lewis compilation, was posted here on Mar 25 by Gerry.

"In relation to compassion and love, I could even speak of a program - if I were to speak in a primitive fashion - that spiritual science must fulfil in the future.

Sounds like you are well on your way to a mission of becoming another anthopoop guru, and aren't we in need of another one of those!

No, the 'program ... that spiritual science must fulfil in the future...' etc - everything there at the end of my post - was Steiner's words, not mine. You asked for the reference, I gave it.

It's really too bad anthroposophists fail to "get it' that the task of the time is to work on redeeming one's individual astral forces rather than pontificating on how eveyone else should be eating, drinking, loving, intercoursing in speech, friendship and intimate relationships.

Ah yes. On another list a writer stated in a post to me that anthroposophists are the 'shouldiest' people he had met. He called it 'bullshould'. I found that quite funny. I am not knocking you Paulina - that was well said, and should (oops - I used the 'S' word haha) be said more often.

See ya, Raymon

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: sex

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, holderlin66 wrote:

dottie zold wrote:

Paulina spoke on the point of the man being manly in a sense and it truly is this that leads the woman in my understanding. And the men are specifically being pointed, through media and whathaveyou, in the direction that completely corrupts the beautiful aspect of that physical union of two people. And the woman wanting 'love' go along for the ride.

Brave Hearts;

I disagreed with Paulina when she first offered this and I further disagree with the failure we have in looking at the changing role of males and females.

That is interesting to hear, Brad, given that the minister who married you, and who is your friend has, from all outward appeareances, most exactly the kind of man-woman relationship about which I was trying to convey the good gods willed and hoped for us as solace, consolation, strength on this sad and lonely sojurn through incarnations as we struggle to regain unification with our divine origin. I think that I have just failed to communicate what I was trying to say and can't really do better today. Just think about B and D and their successful and mutual long term relationship for more understanding of what I was hoping to convey about what can and should go on in a relationship to promotes the advancement of the human race.

I do not believe anthroposophy has any special answers when it comes to sex. Tarjei's reply about the masonic apron is off the mark. The apron is a symbol of purity of thought, deed, and action in all departments of one's life. Sex is not impure when love is involved on the part of both partners and the mystery of the KISS, as understood in the Kabbalah is part of the equation. I was not talking about the scales of balance in the power play between the sexes. Not at all my point. Ridiculous.

I was trying to talk about the differeing, but complimentary aspects that are carried down into the physical incarnation, and the nurturing - physical nurturing - orgasm or no orgasm that transpires in a loving intimacy.

It is just ridiculous to talk about how we are supposed to be overcoming our phsyical need for love and affection in the same way as we are supposed to overcome materalistic obession. As long we are in a physical body the need for physical conctact, touching, caressing, nurturing is absolutely essential for positive health and development. This is as essential a need as food water and is present from birth to death.

At any rate, I am of the opinion that this thread was started here by someone ( using an alias) intending to snooker the anthropops and that the joke is on us. What has been said on this thread has just been lame.

Men.

Shaking my head,
Paulina

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

From: Harvey Bornfield
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Dear Infatuated ones!

Why not consider Love and Sexuality in the widest historical and cultural context as possible, in an attempt to explore the mystery of the relationship between the two realms of experience, which can be polar opposites in some contexts, and congruent in others.

The relationship between these two subjects becomes extremely narrowly-focused if we are hunting for Steiner or for that matter any externally-evidenced iron-clad authority to suffocate the exercise of our freedom to courageously self-evidence intuitions in this area. For it would do us all good to come to the shock that we are a hundred years downstream of Steiner, and 70 downstream of the manifestation of the Etheric Christ, the debut of the Son-of-Man within the experiential theater of heart thought, and Truth to tell, Truth to dwell, one can only imagine that it would be repulsive to Steiner himself if he eavesdropped upon us, only to find us seeking counsel in the husks and inventory of his written words when one could bravely fathom within a vibrant consciousness soul perspective that the real issue is the creation of a means to hold a dialogue between these two spheres of activity, and through such intercourse#@$!!! : ), to examine the prospects of their cross-influence. Cigarette Anyone?

Earlyfire is surprised that those who by rejoicing to regard Mary Magdelena as the disciple whom Christ kisses on the mouth, affirm a more honest paradigm of a healthy relationship between the Greek Eros and Agape than the creepy crawly attitude of black-batman costumed priests of the Roman Catholic faith and the church they rode in on, which bears little resemblence to health, nonetheless continue to remain under the hypnotic house- and soul-arrest of its sexually-filthy attitudes, rather than rushing into more enlightened high ground such as Byzantine (Greek, Russian Orthodox gesture of world and spirit wedded in their priests).

And it is an irony, and one which might be considered an interesting and unsuspected fallout of the 868 A.D. Disaster which offed the spirit as an indwelling lifeline to God, that sexual union, because of its access to intimacy, least stereotypeable, holy intimacy, an equally individualizable experience, was tacitly by such rejection of individuality as a new paradigm, exiled as shameful, and so the notion of sexual touch banished from the palette of honorable learning experience, its meaning, robbed of ecstasy, compressed to the Vatican catacombs of mere furtive fly-by-night biological function. Then you look around, and know at once why you suspect that there are many men and woman who live to this day, intent on equating life in that fallen abyss, that blind bat-cave, as a prerequisite to the path to the ascent to human wholeness.

Our bottom line, and one which we have come to unaided by voice of outer counsel, by the middle man, even great middle men, whom the Christ-within is destined to replace as spokesman, is that sex is a magnifying glass, morally neutral, and expands causing to blossom or thrive (or blister and fester) motives at whatever level of purity, expectations they be -, hot desire, coagulated craving obsession, or desireless cool wonder, or unpossessed angelic silence, or archangelic spike of awe, any spin's innuendo or moral intent which be focused through its broad powerful lens; and finally, that it is in the exploration of what and how we to bring to acts of love-making, whether raw or consecrated that which champions the perfection of sexual energies, making of them deeds that reaching over the Threshold to within earshot of the hierarchies and so become for them worthy spiritual food, that we acquire a voice through which we, in the not-too-distant future of the coming sixth-root race, will verily! speak forth man. Pursuing this, we can all find profitable things to say one to another, friend to friend, lover to lover, stranger to stranger, and most mysterious and unsuspected conversation of all these, man to God-within.

Regarding this adventure, another interesting point arises:
A person summoned to engage Michaelic endeavor, especially if involved in Manichean-level self-transformative work, would probably be, or so it seems to us, and you will have to play jury to our imaginations most exodus-like, most post-Egyptian, most post-group-soul in focus, that an individual would probably be interested in this age of first-hand self-evidencing, in almost avoiding altogether what seems to us a lunacy of attempting to define "for all time" this chimerical and elastic relationship between Love and Sex, which can range on the astral experiential level from noble to sordid, manifesting elevating moral stature of Tantric practice on one hand, or the cultural accomplishment of the Geisha Girl, or again gutter_down into the twisted or moral repugnance and squalor of a morally vacuous Red Light District.

And so it seems to us that context of whatever the judgment we source, would probably enjoy a refreshing spin of effervescence if it were imbued with a courageous viewpoint, one which speaks of, and takes into account temporary windows of relevance to judgments, giving judgments a 'shelf-life which is not forced to suffer the lunacy of imagining that ideas or relationships of ideas may be "defined once and for all", either by a Noble Doctor, (which would draw fire and disputation by his detractors who, vastly immature spiritually, would imagine that one could actually piggyback one's vain ambitions to nobility upon the broken back of another's reputation, and that none would be the wiser.). And so remind ourselves again that any authority which resides outside acts of self-evidencing we are challenged to intuit through the bravely emerging consciousness soul's emerging "third'eye", our crystal ball within, one of the REAL, unpostponable cognitive-sphere tasks for serious spiritual aspirants in this post Kali-Yuga age, is a tad disingenuous for the age of living in the responsibilities of connection to An Etheric Christ.

But how to cherish the thought of coming to regard the future history we author on the floorboards of the 21st century stage in a way which honors the notion of a "shelf-life of ideas", again, of windows of relevance in which what is said of the relationship between sex and love can be enclosed, or seen as valid. Lest one forget that just as Steiner himself remarks that evil is good out of synch with the needs of a particular epoch, what he didn't tell us, has to be courageously, Michaelically birthed from intuitions in the here and now, is that the relevance of discussing the relationship of sex with love, or sex 'vs.' love, or love, small "L" vs. Love large "L", is something we need to discover and perfect, rather than judge.

It is not the absence of sex which guarantees the ascendency of love as a prime Christic Directive in this age where spiritual aspiration seems favored by the hierarchies to triumph over the claustrophobic myopia of campaigns of material ambition, but rather the Presence'ng of Love within the sexual act which perfects, which "Sublimes" sex.

And now a brief digression, an intermission:
Alchemy, that is to say, what we can fairly consider for the purposes of discussion to be equatable, phenomenologically equatable to Mystical or Archetypal or Platonic Chemistry, or as a peasant would rejoice to say, just plain Chemistry, "capital C" Alchemy has more esoteric dimensions for the word Sublimate than physical or Ahrimanic, or fallen chemistry. But those terms are bridgable one to another, just as the gates to the worlds are open one to another "if one has but the will knows but a few of the secrets" (a phrase kidnapped, stolen, and slightly, if appropriately morphed from the preface to Marian Zimmer Bradley's the Mists of Avalon!)

In physical, or 'scorpion chemistry', sublimation is the "ability" of a substance to transform from solid to vapor state without going through the liquid phase. In Alchemy, or 'Eagle-Chemistry', a more celestial, wide-angle interpretation might be offered as the ability to transform, i.e., to catharse from raw (astral) feelings and gross (etheric) attitudes (Brad: Chela, Venus labor) a "Second-Innocence". On the Vulcan level, transforming death, transmuting the paralyzed, enchanted elements itself, no less than the achievement of the Gogotha Deed, we see the alchemical workings of Aqua-Regia in the dissolution of all rudeness (as a peasant would say), and witness even a more piercing and ultimate initiation, which is the Shakespearean making rich and strange, (the verb=>) the 'Full_Fathom_Fiving' of all base and self-absorbed and blind sub-altruistic intent, the complete ennobling of matter into something rich and strange. This was the true invitation of the Golden Sun Christ who 2000 years ago prepares the Earth for dissolving in the Venus World, back into the sun, when the hearts of men can on food no less than sunlight dine, and who role-models it for the first time, defining a new race which is identified as the "Son of Man!

So put this Nag Champa in your hashish pipes and smoke it, and remember that in more spiritually intelligent cultures than ours, the Hindu, Sex is the perfection of the Dragon energy, the Kundalini, and the name given to the Initiate is "Nag" or Serpent, and that in the Orient, there ever exists a spiritual orientation which seems much less dualistic, much less redneck, much less kneejerk in compulsive homage to the tyranny of the Either/Or, no such evidence of a jaded, troubled, western war called Love ".vs." Sex. You will find "Nag" mentioned and discussed in Blavatsky's brief and sublime book "The Voice of the Silence"

Thus, not through resort to the controversy of pros and cons, which is most speculative, the fool's exercise of the raising up and the debunking of heros and reputations, but in this age of actually engaging, embracing, thrilling, redeeming the Dragon, we embark upon the lifelong quest to transforming the nature of sex through love. It is well to remember that What Michael does with a sword, Orpheus can do with a harp.

Once again, smoke rises braiding like two intertwining serpents from off staff of Hermes, from the remote Oracle of Delphi. Perfume to infatuate, anyone?

Our intermission's now ended. Then let our surf wash up on your shores, speaking well of the sea which sires it.

Warm Regards,
Harvey

"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind, but mankind cannot comprehend."
Ludwig van Beethoven

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Your comparison with the pope is apt - both he and RS are regarded by many of their followers as infallible haha.

Get a life will you Raymond.

Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Hi Paulina, You wrote:

<snip>

It's really too bad anthroposophists fail to "get it' that the task of the time is to work on redeeming one's individual astral forces rather than pontificating on how eveyone else should be eating, drinking, loving, intercoursing in speech, friendship and intimate relationships.

Paulina

Mike:

I really liked that one, thanks.

I was tempted to be my ridicules self and play into the sex thing with statements about what is "sexist" or "sexism" and what is not, with lots of semantic drivel. Thought about pitting the guys against the gals and really kicking up some dust. And then you go and drop this bomb on me and all the air came out of my whoopee-cushion.

Though I like to read and write lots of anthro babble, I think that to really get it I have had to spend some time doing the psycho-babble thing. Spent many years and $ with different therapists. Did a few "searching and moral inventories." Did a year of couples counseling with my wife, before we got married, all in which the topic of sex came up and was mulled over. I'm so sick of doing family tree's, but the reality of my instruction or education in the realm of my own sexuality had to be dealt with.

My first learning's about sex and sexuality came from my dad's secret stash of Playboy Mags. I was absolutely clueless and here were these pictures that sent weird feelings through my body.

My parents were clueless too. Both came from hardened Catholic families out of the 50's (here in the US; Ahh the Eisenhower years). To top it off my Dad was given up for adoption when he was six years old. He lived with his grandmother and was sent to a Catholic school, in the days when the Nuns would whack the kids, and the stigma of being a "Bastard child" was hard to shake. My mom's dad was a raging alcoholic.

So ... Ignorance and arrogance abound.

Anyway, did just about all the stupid stuff that I said that I would never do, and some things I didn't know that I could do.

But there was always this underlying guilt, from all the hush hush paranoia that I inherited.

I've never seen anyone come out of a promiscuous lifestyle with anything that I saw as a redeeming human attribute for my self. Oh it makes for great fun and bragging rights, and maybe a temporary feeling of being liberated from sexual oppression, but all that shit tends to fade after a while.

On a different note:

My wife and I have struggled with sexual issues recently that I thought I had all figured out and stored in my Jungian/Freudian brain folder. But low and behold there is another level. Thus I think that is one of the reasons that I started this thread, because I still have allot to learn.

And I better hurry up! cause my daughter is 11 going on seventeen and she's talking about boys !!!! :^O

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: sex

Harvey Bornfield

And so remind ourselves again that any authority which resides outside acts of self-evidencing we are challenged to intuit through the bravely emerging consciousness soul's emerging "third'eye", our crystal ball within, one of the REAL, unpostponable cognitive-sphere tasks for serious spiritual aspirants in this post Kali-Yuga age, is a tad disingenuous for the age of living in the responsibilities of connection to An Etheric Christ.

But how to cherish the thought of coming to regard the future history we author on the floorboards of the 21st century stage in a way which honors the notion of a "shelf-life of ideas", again, of windows of relevance in which what is said of the relationship between sex and love can be enclosed, or seen as valid. Lest one forget that just as Steiner himself remarks that evil is good out of synch with the needs of a particular epoch, what he didn't tell us, has to be courageously, Michaelically birthed from intuitions in the here and now, is that the relevance of discussing the relationship of sex with love, or sex 'vs.' love, or love, small "L" vs. Love large "L", is something we need to discover and perfect, rather than judge.

It is not the absence of sex which guarantees the ascendency of love as a prime Christic Directive in this age where spiritual aspiration seems favored by the hierarchies to triumph over the claustrophobic myopia of campaigns of material ambition, but rather the Presence'ng of Love within the sexual act which perfects, which "Sublimes" sex.

Bradford wonders;

Intercourse is reading, thinking, understanding, empathy exchange of heart over fluids, seeing Concepts and Percepts in nature and in another human I, as well as the mighty vote from Goethe that Speech together, is of higher value than fools gold. This may amount to Sublime Sex. Certainly Christine touched the hem of the Angelhood potential in the human being. But what does H.L.Mencken think? As suddenly his thoughts on the subject are here to see, do they differ, fall short, or soar above what the School of Spiritual Science can grasp on the lofty subject?

In Defense of Women
by H. L. Mencken

has an entire research document devoted to this subject. What line or level of thinking does Mencken maintain?

http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/defense/

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:19 pm
Subject: sex

Extensive Study - Male Persepective - Sex

We had many discussions about the 'Life Tableau' on this list. It is a common experience for every one as they approach the door of death. We connected it to the etheric life forces and (The Way-The Truth-The Life).. Well the Etheric Christ and the Etheric life is obviously something Harvey and Christine have hit upon. Such Etheric world experience is absolute common knowledge and either people like Diana do their homework or remain acting silly.

The depth at which Christine and Harvey have touchd into the subject matter of THE LIFE is profound. Now, what is most respected, by all of us, is when subject matter is raised to the perception and Cogniton where Truths, such as the Etheric seperaton from the Physical body and the actual events can be studied. To argue that those events don't happen, reveals a general failure of real interest and curiosity and a general silliness. If you or if anyone had the interest or curiosity they would see that something incredible and Spiritual happens when the Silver Cord and the Etheric Body are severed. If they have fear or no curiosity and wish to disbelieve facts, they must wander aimlessly in some soup of current abstract intelligence that means nothing and includes none of the higher aspects of the human being.

If you compare SEX and the Male point of view, as a common experience, you must also take into consideration what Harvey and Christine wrote, and in particular, Mike and Harvey's experiences and also the high Ideal that Paulina holds. But what follows here, after Christine's very profound threefold review, is a typical Male point of view, regarding the lack of insight into all the deeper aspects that have been discussed here Sex becomes dull and meaningless. This typical experience vaguely includes the following statement.

"They say that just before dying, one perceives a "life review." Something comparable happened to me: As my capacity for response died, I reviewed my sexual history."

http://www.nypress.com/17/12/feature/feature.cfm

Christine wrote, so wonderfully; [From "To Mike from Christine"]

Now for the beautiful secret of Love. Love is a Threefold Entity. Eros, Philia and Agape. All three must be present for any of them to be real.

Eros - Erotic Love - This is Creative, physically real love. The expression is primarily that of bodily sex, but has been shown by many contemporary psychologists to also be the driving force of a myriad of creative energies. From this comes Creation (as it is in our material world). Even without a partner in our life, each of us has Eros - the need to create. On a practical level, it could be the creation of children. But it can also be an energy channeled into any physical manifestation that the couple chooses.

Philia - Brotherly Love - This is Compassion. This is the level of Love at which we can share the hopes, fears, happiness and sorrow of another human being. How many times have we seen a couple who supposedly "love" each other, but who ignore the pain of their partner or even cause it? A couple who have developed the real capacity to love could never ignore the pain of their partner or even their partner's interests, thoughts, feelings and work in life. With true compassion, everything about "you" becomes very interesting, because it has become part of "me". Everything you Think, Feel and Do is as if I were Thinking, Feeling and Doing it, too. This love, of course, exists well outside of a male/ female partnership, but even there it is related to some kind of creative drive.

This is the love that follows "you" to the grave. I die with "you" and am reborn with "you". It is the promise of the Eternal Nature of Love. We lose everything else as we go through the many "gates" of Death, but we will not lose Conscious Love - Christ filled, Heart filled, True Love. This is our promise. This is what makes it all worth while. Gilgamesh can now follow Enkidu through the portal of death into Life beyond the grave. "I" can follow "you" there and we will be together forever.

When Christ spoke of the fact that there is no marriage in Heaven, he was refering to the mundane, legal contract that the people were asking about. It was this contract that he was referring to when he condemned divorce as a legal deed that could be used to put a woman out of house and home and with no means of support, forcing her to become an adulteress. He condemned the men that did this for their "hardness of heart." But the marriage contract means nothing beyond the grave. The only truth that can be carried across the Threshold is "I am with You always, even unto the end of time." In as much as the Christ is in "me" and is in "you" then we are with each other always, even unto the end of time.

Christine

GOODBYE TO ALL THAT
A dispatch from the postsexual frontier.
By David Ritchie

I was lying in bed at my apartment in Seoul one night, alone and thinking about a woman I know. Twelve months earlier, the thought of her would have sent me into arousal. But not now. I simply lay there, unstirred. My fondness for her was unchanged. Her beauty was unchanged. But something else had changed profoundly. Diabetes had caught up with me.

Diabetics have trouble with peripheral nerves and with circulation in the extremities. Together, those systems permit, or don't permit, a man's sexual response. Over the previous few months, my fifth extremity had shut down. It no longer responded. Suddenly, I was inactive at an age when many men were fathering children. I had lost the ability to achieve erection. And with the ability, the desire departed as well.

They say that just before dying, one perceives a "life review." Something comparable happened to me: As my capacity for response died, I reviewed my sexual history. The recollections were not happy ones. Over the years, erotic drives had brought me close to calamity, or at least serious difficulty, on an annual basis. Now I understood why Sophocles said in his old age, "At last I am free from an insane and cruel master!"

"Insane" comes close to describing some of my romantic associations over the years. Did I really contemplate marriage to a mental health worker as deranged as any of her charges? What attracted me to a hulking giantess? Why did I have that intense relationship with a self-styled psychic whom I once found seated on the living room floor of my apartment, her hand raised to detect ethereal vibrations? My experiences with that last lover–who once told me that my kitchen appeared to be haunted by an entity resembling a spectral mime–would fill a book.

Events reached their worst at a cabin in rural New England, some 20 years ago. My companion of the moment got drunk, piled into bed with me and insisted I perform a peculiarly invasive act, one the state's dated Blue Laws could never have anticipated. I complied as best I could. About all I can say in my defense is that the deed occurred in private, between consenting adults and did not actually involve shedding blood. After disengaging, I stood in the bathroom, shaken, wiping myself off and reflecting on what had just happened. No merry quotes from Rabelais came to mind. Instead, my thoughts were nearer those of the king in Richard II:

O...that I could forget what I have been,

Or not remember what I must be now!

Such scenes replayed themselves, one after another, in my brain as I lay there in my darkened apartment in Seoul. Though I did not exactly celebrate with Sophocles, the loss of my libido was no cause for lamentation, either. I sighed with relief.

I later discreetly mentioned the condition to a few friends and associates. You might think other men would commiserate with a man whose capacity for sexual response has vanished. Or you might be surprised. One of my acquaintances, for instance, a very wise man who lives on a spectacular piece of real estate in the Rockies west of Denver, replied, "Good for you! You're free from a tremendous source of trouble!"

Not everyone has congratulated me on losing that burning in my loins, but neither has any man actually said, "That's awful!" or even, "Sorry." Why not? I suspect that many men would like to share my newfound status as a eunuch.

"Eunuch" is the proper word. Though still anatomically intact, I find myself in much the same situation as the eunuchs of Korea's ancient court–outside the sexual circus, glancing in. From this perspective, how does our hypersexual society look? One sees a world as bizarre and alien as a Rod Serling fantasy, or Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights. Rather than gremlins on aircraft wings, however, or ghastly trees with human faces, one perceives… Well, won't you come with me for a walk through Seoul, as viewed through a eunuch's eyes?

My home is near Taehangno (University Street), a boulevard known for its bustling nightlife. Here sexuality is anything but subliminal. Midway between my apartment and the subway is a convenience store where I buy the morning paper. Just outside the store is a sign advertising a club whose initials have been altered to read, in English, "SEX." Posters on adjacent walls advertise a production of The Vagina Monologues. The posters show a young woman baring her teeth in a grimace. Dentata, indeed. On a building nearby, someone has placed large mannequins fashioned in the style of traditional Korean "gokdu" figurines. One depicts a man riding astride a huge serpent.

Every time I walk to the subway station, I pass young women trying to walk in shoes that might better be described as crippling afflictions. Just outside the station, a CD store displays a poster of a half-clad pop singer. One of the few things she wears is an enigmatic expression.

The subway ride is a study in sexual imagery. Posters show young women contorted into various poses. A dominatrix stands over a supine man. A bare-chested youth with shaggy hair and a come-hither expression advertises something or other. In one gigantic ad – for what, I'm not sure – two androgynous young men with perfect hair and perfect teeth appear very close to a kiss.

After getting off the subway at Jonggak, which is roughly Seoul's equivalent of Times Square, I wander across the street to a building with a big internet room in the basement. Here, I can check email. The inbox is often flooded with pornographic spam or ads ("SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED?") for products that promise to make a man into a walking sex machine.

I used to work in this building. My job was editing publications to promote Korea as a tourist destination; much of my work involved festivals. Promotional material for one festival went everywhere. Its emblem was a jolly, unmistakably phallic mushroom. That grinning mushroom is about the only cheerful memory I have of matters sexual.

More typical of my sexual recollections is the thought of a young man in San Francisco whose neighbors had to listen to his screams as he was dying of AIDS, evidently in the dementia phase. He had no one for comfort at the end. His mother denounced him in unprintable language, and his lover, another AIDS patient, had passed away a few months before.

Consider also an American illustrator whose brilliant use of color I admired. He died, I learned, of auto-asphyxiation in pursuit of an enhanced orgasm. The leather contraption around his neck reportedly failed to release him at the critical moment, and he perished. Can a man be called a martyr when he dies for an erection? Not everyone would say yes.

Then there was a Western businessman I knew in Seoul. His satyriasis destroyed his marriage to a beautiful and charming Korean woman. His infidelity was extravagant, and he made no particular effort to hide it. When his wife confronted him with the evidence, he flew to the United States with their young daughter and used the child to attempt extortion. Arrested soon afterward for child neglect, he said it all had been just a joke. The authorities were not amused. He went to jail. In a conversation with me later, his ex imagined his sex life in prison. "He's still young!" she said with a vengeful grin.

If a drug had side effects like these, we probably would deem it a menace and have it banned.

Ever grimmer memories pass in review. One involved a friend – a handsome man with a splendid voice and great potential as a writer and artist – who squandered those assets on devotion to sex and alcohol. He found a partner who had the same preoccupations, plus an inclination to violence. This paramour tried to strangle him one night in a drunken fury. It has been years since that unhappy fellow contacted me. When last heard from, he said he was contemplating chemical castration. He asked if anyone could advise him on how to have it done.

Perhaps the saddest case of all was that of a classmate from college. An M.D., he settled in a small Virginia town with his neurologist wife. One morning in 2001, he shot her to death in the kitchen of their home. Then he sent final emails to friends (possibly as his wife lay dead in the kitchen) and proceeded to hang himself from a tree. The motive? Sexual jealousy, I was told.

"I understand his wife was getting emails from another man," one of his friends informed me by letter.

Compared to stories like these, a eunuch's life is an idyll.

Korean literature expresses the pain of sexual desire eloquently in the 16th-century poem "Bedroom Chagrin" by Cheong Cheol. Part of the poem might be rendered freely into English as follows:

If only I could free myself from longing...

Why must the rain come down so heavily?...

My lamp alight, I play upon the lute

And sing a song of love to quench my pain,

While in the background I can hear the rain.

In similar fashion, so-called sexual humor now impresses me as little more than an effort to mask anguish. Shakespeare's sex jokes, such as those in Othello, merely accentuate the horrors of "romance" in his plays. For that matter, much of Shakespeare may be read as a cautionary tale about sexuality run wild. He has the ruined Timon warn, for instance, against "melt[ing] down thy youth in different beds of lust."

Meanwhile, Marlowe's "Passionate Shepherd to his love" – "Come live with me and be my love" – sounds, to a modern-day eunuch at least, like a used-car dealer's spiel without the laughs. Take away erotic appreciation, and much of Western literature suddenly seems grotesque, if not downright scary.

But "scary" does not apply to my new life as a postsexual. "Liberated" is better. The old fire between my legs is gone. In its absence, life is secure and pleasant.

"Don't you miss the satisfaction of orgasm?" some have asked.

Not really. Other rewards have taken its place.

One is a new relaxation in dealing with women. Now I can hug a woman without getting aroused. It is amazing how much more stable and rewarding a man's relationships with women can be without the distraction of a tumescent organ.

At the same time, appeals to sexuality have ceased to sway my judgment greatly – a beautiful woman no longer makes me burn. About the most she can do is cause my insides a brief flutter. She is a lovely sight to be sure, like sunset over the Yellow Sea or the blue tile rooftops of Seoul under snow. But feminine beauty now lacks the power it once had over me. My work does not suffer as a result.

Find men who will talk candidly about their struggle with sexual desire, and you may be impressed to discover how many men really do not want intercourse at all. On the contrary, they fear it. From fiction, a barely disguised reflection of such fear is the death struggle between man and octopus in Victor Hugo's Toilers of the Sea.

Hugo's description of the man about to be consumed by a ravenous, multi-limbed creature of muscle and mucus sums up much of bedroom activity neatly from the male viewpoint. (For a female perspective, see Germaine Greer's famous simile about getting attacked by an enormous snail.) Fear of that devouring monster, or rather what it represents, is never far from masculine consciousness.

Take the example of a friend of mine, a virile young man from Canada who once taught in Asia. Tormented by a porn addiction, he feared it would destroy him. At last, to remove temptation from pornographic websites, he disabled his computer's internet connection at home and ripped out some wires to make sure it could not be restored. This act was a high-tech equivalent of castration. Though drastic, it worked.

Men in such straits may pray – literally pray – to have their sex drive removed. That was my request. I would undergo such torture from lust at times that I remember asking God, "Please, take it away!"

And that was what happened. Diabetes, the leading cause of such sexual dysfunction in men, delivered me from the jaws of the devouring monster.

Would I go back? No. This sea change in my sexual life more than compensates for the bother of monitoring blood sugar and injecting insulin daily, and even for nerve and circulatory damage. Better to live with diabetes and dysfunction than with a raging libido.

Better still is the discovery that I didn't really want sex in the first place. I wanted to be hugged and held, not brought to climax. A sincere, warm embrace from a woman is worth more than 10,000 orgasms. That lesson, lost on me while I still burned for sex, became clear only when my libidinal drive disappeared.

None of this is meant to make light of sexual dysfunction or dismiss it as trivial. It is of course a devastating experience for many men, especially when they have been conditioned by a hypersexual culture to think that "manhood" is merely the ability to impregnate a woman. Yet sex is only a minor part of manhood and masculinity. Though inactive sexually, I am still considered masculine. My loss of libido has not prevented me from holding a good job, eating and dressing well, maintaining a cordial and comfortable social life. I am, in fact, far more comfortable now than before, when a woman's presence turned up my thermostat.

An added benefit is that I am no longer subject to the sexmongers– the corporate entities that use eroticism to manipulate our behavior and spending. To estimate how profoundly they influence your life, make a list of goods and services you buy that have some erotic connection, from clothing and magazines to dinners and drinks. Add up the prices. Pretty soon, you are looking at enough money to buy a cozy home.

If you are a man, there is a reasonably high likelihood that diabetes, heart trouble or some other condition will do to you what it did to me. If that happens, you may spend thousands of dollars on medication, surgery or whatever else you imagine will "correct" the problem.

Or, you may realize that problems are in the eye of the beholder. Why not view this one from a different perspective? You could do worse than take the path of least resistance and just accept the loss. As the urge subsides, you may discover that you have lost nothing of lasting value. Life is not confined to the bedroom. It offers rewards other than orgasms.

If you already have lost the ability, be glad. The dangling sword, so to speak, can no longer threaten your security and peace of mind. Take my word for it. Every time a new monument is built, a new skyscraper is thrust into the sky, I am happy to live in a world where such a tower, to paraphrase Freud, is just a tower.

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:58 pm
Subject: Re: sex

holderlin

In Defense of Women
by H. L. Mencken

has an entire research document devoted to this subject. What line or level of thinking does Mencken maintain?

http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/defense/

My comments follow Mencken's bliss:

"Every man, I daresay, has his own notion of what constitutes perfect peace and contentment, but all of those notions, despite the fundamental conflict of the sexes, revolve around women. As for me -- and I hope I may be pardoned, at this late stage in my inquiry, for intruding my own personality -- I reject the two commonest of them: passion, at least in its more adventurous and melodramatic aspects, is too exciting and alarming for so indolent a man, and I am too egoistic to have much desire to be mothered. What, then, remains for me? Let me try to describe it to you.

It is the close of a busy and vexatious day--say half past five or six o'clock of a winter afternoon. I have had a cocktail or two, and am stretched out on a divan in front of a fire, smoking. At the edge of the divan, close enough for me to reach her with my hand, sits a woman not too young, but still good-looking and well-dressed--above all, a woman with a soft, low-pitched, agreeable voice. As I snooze she talks -- of anything, everything, all the things that women talk of: books, music, the play, men, other women. No politics. No business. No religion. No metaphysics. Nothing challenging and vexatious -- but remember, she is intelligent; what she says is clearly expressed, and often picturesquely. I observe the fine sheen of her hair, the pretty cut of her frock, the glint of her white teeth, the arch of her eye-brow, the graceful curve of her arm. I listen to the exquisite murmur of her voice. Gradually I fall asleep -- but only for an instant. At once, observing it, she raises her voice ever so little, and I am awake. Then to sleep again -- slowly and charmingly down that slippery hill of dreams. And then awake again, and then asleep again, and so on.

I ask you seriously: could anything be more unutterably beautiful? The sensation of falling asleep is to me The most exquisite in the world. I delight in it so much that I even look forward to death itself with a sneaking wonder and desire. Well, here is sleep poetized and made doubly sweet. Here is sleep set to the finest music in the world. I match this situation against any that you ran think of. It is not only enchanting; it is also, in a very true sense, ennobling. In the end, when the girl grows prettily miffed and throws me out, I return to my sorrows somehow purged and glorified. I am a better man in my own sight. I have grazed upon the fields of asphodel. I have been genuinely, completely and unregrettably happy."

Bradford comments;

Now this Martini relation to some trophy wife who puts you to sleep has never been my craving. I always wanted a strong equal with life in her. Even though I had something of an affliction at one time to sweet and lushish Cancerian women... it shifted to Aries Idealists, but always mutually exploring the uncharted region of the Romantics of the Heart. In this term, or karmic stream, the Romantics, I imply the stream of the Romantics that also appeared in the transcendentalists. The heart and male and female dynamics, as it appeared from this list, has been explored very vigorously by a few of us.

In the 1950's, when I was growing up, such a Martini woman who would put someone to sleep really appeared to me demeaning, that nobody really valued a female's wonderful insights. Insights which I craved to understand. One of the most stunning little relationships.. Tarjei.. Bob Dylan and Joen Baez had a stunning relationship in poetry and song... And their two personalities missed, just as Dylan in a rough world and Joan seemingly from a more sheltered world. Dylan insisting that it's rough. But Baez song is rich with insight as well.

DIAMONDS AND RUST
(Words and Music by Joan Baez)

Well I'll be damned
Here comes your ghost again
But that's not unusual
It's just that the moon is full
And you happened to call
And here I sit
Hand on the telephone
Hearing a voice I'd known
A couple of light years ago
Heading straight for a fall

As I remember your eyes
Were bluer than robin's eggs
My poetry was lousy you said
Where are you calling from?
A booth in the midwest
Ten years ago
I bought you some cufflinks
You brought me something
We both know what memories can bring
They bring diamonds and rust

Well you burst on the scene
Already a legend
The unwashed phenomenon
The original vagabond
You strayed into my arms
And there you stayed
Temporarily lost at sea
The Madonna was yours for free
Yes the girl on the half-shell
Would keep you unharmed

Now I see you standing
With brown leaves falling around
And snow in your hair
Now you're smiling out the window
Of that crummy hotel
Over Washington Square
Our breath comes out white clouds
Mingles and hangs in the air
Speaking strictly for me
We both could have died then and there

Now you're telling me
You're not nostalgic
Then give me another word for it
You who are so good with words
And at keeping things vague
Because I need some of that vagueness now
It's all come back too clearly
Yes I loved you dearly
And if you're offering me diamonds and rust
I've already paid

Baez and Dylan

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] sex

Bradford Quotes:

Better still is the discovery that I didn't really want sex in the first place. I wanted to be hugged and held, not brought to climax. A sincere, warm embrace from a woman is worth more than 10,000 orgasms. That lesson, lost on me while I still burned for sex, became clear only when my libidinal drive disappeared.

Mike:

No shit man.

I have had archetypal dreams about my first romance for 20 years and we never had sex. We used to sit and hold each other, and walk and hold hands, and she was the first person in this life to tell me that she loved me.

Bradford, I hope you start up your own web-site like Uncle-Taz. Maybe you could call it "Uncle Brad's."

This article that you quoted sent shock waves through my mind and heart. I found myself longing for the "chemical castration."

The relationship that I had prior to my wife, left me with no doubt that I didn't have a clue as to what love was: We were all into this lucerfiric kind of love making and poetry and music and incence and always telling each other "I Love you" and I think I'm about to puke. It ended in her attempting suicide and me saving her life on an intuitive whim. And also began for me a three year abstenence from sex (with another person).

I have a friend that is addicted to internet Porn and used to send me some sites to check out on occasion. Most of the time I would just delete them, but last year I viewed a few and wound up in the same state that I used to get into with my free-base pipe (this was before crack). Richard Prior tells the story quite nicely... Well wouldn't you know that my wife found in the internet history all the files that I looked at (I was too ashamed to tell her). When she looked at them she found some relating to teen porn, which wasn't of particular interest to me, but none the less probably came up during the barrage of pop-ups. So she gets scared and questions my 10 year old daughter and tells her that I looked at the stuff, who is very Sanguine at school. Next thing I know I'm getting all these funny looks from all these people in our Waldorf community that used to talk to me readily, but now turn their heads and get noticeably uncomfortable. My wife at one time implied that she thought I might even be a sexual predator.... (My wife is a beautiful soul by the way, and I mean her no harm at all in saying this).

Social stigma and group-soul dynamics have an interesting correlation.

Thank God for the book of Job, and RS's Gospel of Saint John Lectures

Any info on the "Chemical Castration" would be interesting.

Though I also think that an Alchemical castration might be better.

TRUTH, and Love

Mike

Love

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:32 am
Subject: Re: sex

Mike:

Though I also think that an Alchemical castration might be better.

Hey Mike,

Funny how this thread seems to be working through many of us at the same time. I have a long time friend who has been into porn since I met him twenty years ago. I never felt threatened by it, when we were in an intimate relationship, because I realized it was his thing to work through. I remember him having a box of pictures and so forth that he thought I was going to 'make' him throw away and he had created this big fight of its me against him and his box. I just took the heat away and said 'hey that's on you and whatever'. I had no judgement although I did keep my eyes open in case it seduced him even further into that part of the world. He never did slide into anything more although I did start to notice at times here and there the girls were in their teens. What's interesting is that just as he is growing out of this mode he has developed some sexual agitation along with prostrate and so forth. Funny how it happens at the end of a thing. Anyhow, now he is looking at what has led to this and looking at the hiding of something and how it will turn up in the body somewhere.

Last night I was just checking a few things out on line when I hit the whole soulmate, twin soul stream. And I can see in my life how who I might consider to be my twin energy wise matches exactly how this is explained in many writings. I have found that somehow we have been pushing each other or rather inspiring each other to a wholesome aspect of our relationship. And for us, true or not true as twin souls, really is not the point. We are working towards our Christ consciousness and that will lead to the Oneness that many people sense within they are looking for or thinking on. I find it such a great thing to aspire to within regarding soul mate and others as well. For me we are all soulmates so in preparing my self towards the Christ consciousness I find that not only is it towards my Oneness but also the Oneness that transcends ones soulmate or twinsoul.

Gotta run, but I love that this is so right on time for me and I think it is such an inspiring thought in truly becoming free.

Love,
d

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex

Mike:

Though I also think that an Alchemical castration might be better.

Hey Mike,

Funny how this thread seems to be working through many of us at the same time. I have a long time friend who has been into porn since I met him twenty years ago. I never felt threatened by it, when we were in an intimate relationship, because I realized it was his thing to work through. I remember him having a box of pictures and so forth that he thought I was going to 'make' him throw away and he had created this big fight of its me against him and his box. I just took the heat away and said 'hey that's on you and whatever'. I had no judgement although I did keep my eyes open in case it seduced him even further into that part of the world. He never did slide into anything more although I did start to notice at times here and there the girls were in their teens. What's interesting is that just as he is growing out of this mode he has developed some sexual agitation along with prostrate and so forth. Funny how it happens at the end of a thing. Anyhow, now he is looking at what has led to this and looking at the hiding of something and how it will turn up in the body somewhere.

mike:

Hi Dottie, I used to live with a friend that went way down that road. He used to sell dope to all the junkies in town and trade sexual favors for it. It wasn't long before I started to find bloody needles all around the house. At one point we had a girl fall of the roof of our porch, and break her arm trying to steal my buddies stash. He wound up having a long term relationship with a local prostitute, and he eventually started his own escort service running out of Boston. I hadn't seen him for a while, when I dropped by his house one day unexpectedly. He had turned a whole room of his house into a sexual torture chamber of sorts, and ran to shut the door as I walked in. This kind of shit freaks me out; and the eventual outcome of this life-style even more so...

His Girl friend eventually got her face beaten to the point of permanent brain damage, in a drug deal gone sour. She was on heavy meds for years and finally died just a few months ago. She was in her early thirties I think.

One of many sad stories. Remember the two brothers (played by the Sheen's) that got rich on porn, and how that story ended?

Anyway, makes the two times over the past couple of years that I got caught up in that crap seem even more sickening. Maybe if I ever get done with the critics, I could go on an anti-porn crusade. I bet if I played my cards right I could even get some funding from some religious fundies :^)

Last night I was just checking a few things out on line when I hit the whole soulmate, twin soul stream. And I can see in my life how who I might consider to be my twin energy wise matches exactly how this is explained in many writings. I have found that somehow we have been pushing each other or rather inspiring each other to a wholesome aspect of our relationship. And for us, true or not true as twin souls, really is not the point. We are working towards our Christ consciousness and that will lead to the Oneness that many people sense within they are looking for or thinking on. I find it such a great thing to aspire to within regarding soul mate and others as well. For me we are all soulmates so in preparing my self towards the Christ consciousness I find that not only is it towards my Oneness but also the Oneness that transcends ones soulmate or twinsoul.

Gotta run, but I love that this is so right on time for me and I think it is such an inspiring thought in truly becoming free.

Love,
d

So right on time for me too Dottie. Through it all I can see that that is what is happening with my wife and I. I used to look for comfort and approval from her, and when I didn't get it...well, you know that story I bet. But through "looking for Love in all the wrong places" I had to first find it within me, which I have. But it has takin a while to find it in her. And you know what? I see it now. She is a beautiful soul. And all her animosity toward me stems from my own ignorance of the Christ within her.

Funny how my attitude changed when I stopped wanting her to act like Christ, and realized that's what she is.

All the best

Mike

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

From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: sex

Bradford:

We had many discussions about the 'Life Tableau' on this list. It is a common experience for every one as they approach the door of death. We connected it to the etheric life forces and (The Way-The Truth-The Life).. Well the Etheric Christ and the Etheric life is obviously something Harvey and Christine have hit upon. Such Etheric world experience is absolute common knowledge and either people like Diana do their homework or remain acting silly.

Excuse me, Bradford, but I don't recall ever commenting on this list or anywhere else in your earshot on near-death experiences, their spiritual meaning, my own Life Tableau or possibly my own near-death experiences. I am not fodder for your Rich Truths and Stunning Insights and would appreciate your not alluding to me and my possible Etheric Life Experiences when you know almost nothing about me or my experiences.

Diana

 

 Isis Sophia Studies

 sex/Repro Technology

 Sex, Cupid, Krishna and Naughtiness

 sex / and a Date...

 Baez and Dylan

 To Mike from Christine

 Beer

 Hello buddy!

 Love

Sex and the Failures of Science

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

March/April 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind