Occultism
Alan S. Fine MD is too
subtle to suggest that anthroposophically oriented occultism
(and WE of course) can cause massacres. Instead, the cult victim
recovery expert proposes that occultism can offer nothing to
prevent such tragedies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Occultism
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:23:21 -0400
[Previous
post by Alan]
Now my question for you. Do you believe
that occultism can inspire evil actions in the minds of certain
types of people as well? I believe it can and it does.
Alan S. Fine MD
Alan, how would you define occultism? In light
of that definition, what is the relationship between anthroposophy
and occultism?
Who are the "certain types of people"
who can be inspired to evil by occultism?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:04:43
Alan, how would you define occultism? In
light of that definition, what is the relationship between anthroposophy
and occultism?
Who are the "certain types of people" who can be inspired
to evil by occultism?
Robert Flannery
New York
I provided definitions of occultism in a previous post.
According to an occultic worldview, which
incorporates a belief in monism and usuallly pantheism or panentheism
as well, since all is one then we are left with not only epistemological
relativism, but moral relativism as well. Such a worldview *can*
lead to acts of evil.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:55:39 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
According to an occultic worldview, which
incorporates a belief in monism and usuallly pantheism or panentheism
as well, since all is one then we are left with not only epistemological
relativism, but moral relativism as well. Such a worldview *can*
lead to acts of evil.
Anthroposophy is not based upon moral relativism
of any kind. Moral relativism is a fundamentalist cliche against
any religious or spiritual philosophy that embraces reincarnation
and karma. It is argued that we don't have to suffer the consequences
of our actions because we get "a second chance" in
another life.
This argument negates the law of karma, which
is based upon equal justice for all, completely. On the contrary,
it is Christian fundamentalism that denies justice and leaves
room for moral irresponsibility because it is believed that the
redemption of Christ exonerates the believer from the consequences
of his conduct as long as he just repents and believes.
And would you please explain what you mean
by "epistemological relativism"? It is completely foreign
to anthroposophy or to POF, which is an approach to monism.
In an earlier post you said that New Age monism
is a threat to the practice of medicine and the art of healing.
Now you're telling us that this monism incorporates epistemological
and moral relativism. This is all intellectually stimulating
and entertaining bullshit, invented by fundy theologians in American
Bible colleges.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:20:02 -0400
I asked:
Alan, how would you define occultism? In
light of that definition, what is the relationship between anthroposophy
and occultism?
Who are the "certain types of people" who can be inspired
to evil by occultism?
John offered:
I provided definitions of occultism in
a previous post.
According to an occultic worldview, which incorporates a belief
in monism and usuallly pantheism or panentheism as well, since
all is one then we are left with not only epistemological relativism,
but moral relativism as well. Such a worldview *can* lead to
acts of evil.
I'll apologize for my intellectual weakness
now, but that description doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
I'm more interested in what Alan has to say
about this, anyway, since it's his original passage I'm following
up on:
Now my question for
you. Do you believe that occultism can inspire evil actions in
the minds of certain types of people as well? I believe it can
and it does.
Alan S. Fine MD
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:00:19
At 10:20 PM 4/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
I provided definitions of occultism in
a previous post.
I'll apologize for my intellectual weakness
now, but that description doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
The definitions I provided earlier from Encyclopedia
Britanicca and the Oxford Dictionary don't make sense? We are
in trouble.
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:17:08 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume [mailto:tastraum@online.no]
John Morehead wrote:
According to an occultic worldview, which
incorporates a belief in monism and usuallly pantheism or panentheism
as well, since all is one then we are left with not only epistemological
relativism, but moral relativism as well. Such a worldview *can*
lead to acts of evil.
[To which Tarjei Straume responded]
Anthroposophy is not based upon moral relativism
of any kind. Moral relativism is a fundamentalist cliche against
any religious or spiritual philosophy that embraces reincarnation
and karma. It is argued that we don't have to suffer the consequences
of our actions because we get "a second chance" in
another life.
[Bob Tolz now asks]
Question to John Morehead:
What, in layman's terms, do you mean by "epistemological
relativism" and "moral relativism"?
Question to Tarjei Straume:
Doesn't the "law of karma" actually
refer to a kind of "law of consequences" in which one
does indeed suffer the consequences of one's actions?
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:03:16 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote:
Question to Tarjei Straume:
Doesn't the "law of karma" actually
refer to a kind of "law of consequences" in which one
does indeed suffer the consequences of one's actions?
That is correct. The subject of karma versus
redemption, i.e. Christ suffering the consequences of humanity's
sins in the latter's place, is as complicated as the Resurrection
Body. One needs to distinguish between subjective and objective
sins. We all have our individual karma to sort out, but Christ
has paid for the sins that would otherwise have hindered humanity
to become re-united with the spiritual world during the future
course of evolution.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:33:04 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
That is correct. The subject of karma versus redemption, i.e.
Christ suffering the consequences of humanity's sins in the latter's
place, is as complicated as the Resurrection Body. One needs
to distinguish between subjective and objective sins. We all
have our individual karma to sort out, but Christ has paid for
the sins that would otherwise have hindered humanity to become
re-united with the spiritual world during the future course of
evolution.
One thing I've had some difficulty with in
any theory which posits either another life (reincarnation) or
a continued life (heaven) after death is that the believer may
be prone to engage in good behavior as a personal investment
which is ultimately to be rewarded with a personal salvation
or enlightenment. I would describe that as a somewhat selfish
altruism.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:35:14 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote:
One thing I've had some difficulty with in any theory which posits
either another life (reincarnation) or a continued life (heaven)
after death is that the believer may be prone to engage in good
behavior as a personal investment which is ultimately to be rewarded
with a personal salvation or enlightenment. I would describe
that as a somewhat selfish altruism.
I'm with you one hundred percent on that objection,
Bob. But what you're describing (and objecting to) is a child-like,
immature religiousness. This selfish element is most strongly
present in fundamentalist faiths. One of the Muslims who did
a suicide terrorist action in Israel, for instance, had been
promised seventy virgins in Paradise as a reward for his deed.
And the Protestant-Christian fundies are not only looking forward
to sensual pleasures in heaven (mostly good food and non-alcoholic
drinks, absolutely no sex: cake and church-coffee, etc.) - but
also the kinky-sadistic enjoyment of watching the unbelievers
get tortured down below for all eternity.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:22:06 -0700
On 26 Apr 99, at 3:55, Tarjei Straume wrote:
John Morehead wrote:
According to an occultic worldview, which
incorporates a belief in monism and usuallly pantheism or panentheism
as well, since all is one then we are left with not only epistemological
relativism, but moral relativism as well. Such a worldview *can*
lead to acts of evil.
Anthroposophy is not based upon moral relativism
of any kind. Moral relativism is a fundamentalist cliche against
any religious or spiritual philosophy that embraces reincarnation
and karma.
It's worse than that; moral relativism (as
I understand it) is a fundamentalist cliche against any notion
of morality that is not based on hard and fast rules set forth
in scripture.
The idea that morality flows from religion,
with the implication that those who do not follow an established
religion are less moral or at greater risk for immoral acts,
is highly offensive to me. It is akin to (but much milder than)
the idea from the Middle Ages that Jews eat babies.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:48:24 +0200
Robert Flannery wrote:
I'll apologize for my intellectual weakness
now, but that description doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
John Morehead wrote:
The definitions I provided earlier from Encyclopedia Britanicca
and the Oxford Dictionary don't make sense? We are in trouble.
You may define pantheism, panentheism, moral
relativism, and epistemological relativism all you want. What
does not make sense is the attribution of these terms to anthroposophy.
They are based upon total ignorance of anthroposophy and of POF
(Philosophy of Freedom), which is its epistemological and philosophical
foundation.
Pantheism and panentheism is Biblical.
And he answered and said
unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace,
the stones would immediately cry out.
- Luke 19:40
Another instance of Biblical pantheism/panentheism
is when Christ calms the sea.
The suggestion that anthroposophy, or its
philosophical foundation "Philosophy of Freedom," has
anything to do with epistemological or moral relativism, is meaningless
nonsense. You would first have to read and understand POF before
you can even discuss this philosophy. The main argument in the
POF is that human freedom is indeed possible, and that the perfect
expression of this freedom is found in "moral imagination".
The conclusion is that by choosing a more and more unselfish,
loving, philanthropic, and self-sacrificing course of thought
and action, man finds his true freedom. The opposite (licence
and immorality) leads to slavery, to the tyranny of the senses
and the like. This has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with
what could even remotely be called "moral relativism."
What the epistemology of the POF is concerned,
it requires years of concentrated study to gain a tentative grasp
of it. Rita Stebbing, for example, first made an English translation
of the book, then worked with it for thirty years, and then made
another, improved translation. When the POF was first published
in 1994, there were very, very few people, if any, who understood
it. Now, a century later, it has become the main focus among
anthroposophists and similar philosophers. It is a heavy book
with a revolutionary approach to epistemology not found in any
other New Age system or in any other philosophical direction.
Still, it is the book that Steiner said would survive all his
other works.
It is precisely because the POF demands so
much from the reader, and at the same time establishes the very
epistemology that justifies an extended understanding of science,
making spiritual science a real, legitimate field of research
- because of all this, I need to take my time when responding
to requests about why anthroposophy is a science and not a religion.
I am working on it, and the post will be made in due time.
But the point here is that Christian theologians
are both ignorant and arrogant when they say that anthroposophy
is based upon "epistemological relativism." They don't
have a clue about anthroposophical epistemology unless they're
willing to spend a few years trying to understand "Philosophy
of Freedom." My suggestion, therefore, is that you do just
that (read the POF carefully) so that you may be able to back
up a claim of this kind.
The POF is available online at
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA004/TPOF/
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry, plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana,
criminality, death, skulls, skeletons, banners, links, links,
links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:02:23 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Flannery
Date: Sunday, April 25, 1999 12:12 PM
Subject: Occultism
Now my question for you. Do you believe
that occultism can inspire evil actions in the minds of certain
types of people as well? I believe it can and it does.
Alan S. Fine MD
Alan, how would you define occultism? In
light of that definition, what is the relationship between anthroposophy
and occultism?
Who are the "certain types of people" who can be inspired
to evil by occultism?
Robert Flannery
New York
Thank you for asking. Making definitions is
the best way to sharpen ones thinking. Occultism is the belief
in hidden forces and powers beyond simple material observation
and understanding, and involves the study and practice of certain
"arts" (such as alchemy, astology, tarot reading, casting
spells) designed to experience and utilize these forces. ( ps.
No help from Brittanica here).
You may disagree with my definition, but if
you accept it, then anthroposophy certainly qualifies as an occult
pursuit. For example how could eurythmy be considered anything
but a mystic or occult art?
Now for more of my opinion. As appealing as
unlocking the mysteries of the spiritual world is to adults it
is even more so, in my experience, in adolescents. As the adolescent
delves ever further into an occult path (it seems wicca and satanism
are the most popular in my region) there is stimulation of altered
states of conciousness (call it what you like anthropops), akin
to hypnotic trance. The altered state is one of a high degree
of suggestibility, but also involves stimulation of parts of
the mind involved in primitive aggressive survival reactions.
When combined with the suggestibility, the aggression takes a
form consistent with the paradigms of the occult pursuit. In
wicca, it might be a possession state for example. But whatever
the form, in the altered state, the aggression is both heightened,
and dissociated. In extreme cases, the result is a teenager who
seems like a great kid in public (and in many ways is), and is
plotting violence in private. Or it may be a priest who secretly
sexually assaults a woman, or a clown who murders children.
Most occult paths i have encountered have
some way of managing the aggressive forces they stimulate, be
it in a positive direction (for the "white" arts) or
negative (for the "black" arts). But black or white,
good or evil, I dont think teenagers should set themselves down
an occult path. I dont care which one it is. Steiner may agree
with me on this point, (I realize this way of wording it may
be offensive to the believers), as he enjoined his followers
from teaching Anthroposophy to the youngsters.
Waldorf teachers you are a caring bunch. You
are sincerely interested in your students wellbeing. Do you agree
that children should be discouraged from exploring the occult?
And if so what do you do to safeguard against it?
Alan S. Fine MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 07:33:49 +0200
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Waldorf teachers you are a caring bunch. You are sincerely interested
in your students wellbeing. Do you agree that children should
be discouraged from exploring the occult? And if so what do you
do to safeguard against it?
Ignorance of the occult may also be dangerous
- especially in the years ahead. It is precisely such ignorance
that is exploited by "left-handed" occultists and destructive
cults. Knowlegde of the occult may serve as a protection. My
own study of occultism as a teenager has kept me away from dangerous
cults and influences later in life.
This danger does not necessarily apply to
people with no interest in or curiosity about occultism whatsoever.
But the interested and curious should be informed, and anthroposophy
is the best available information on the subject.
I cannot answer for the Waldorf teachers.
Occultism is not a part of the WE curriculum. If a student asks
for advice about occult literature to be perused privately, I
believe each teacher would respond on an individual basis. I
certainly don't think that "Stay away from that stuff!!"
is an appropriate answer.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:03:41 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan S. Fine MD [mailto:asf@peakpeak.com]
You may disagree with my definition, but
if you accept it, then anthroposophy certainly qualifies as an
occult pursuit. For example how could eurythmy be considered
anything but a mystic or occult art?
Would you classify T'ai Chi as a mystic or occult art? That's
the closest thing I can think of to eurythmy.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:32:06 +0200
Dr. Alan Fine is still very uncomfortable
with anthroposophy and Waldorf education. It is dangerous for
teenagers almost like drugs, weapons, and violent films. This
is why he writes:
Waldorf teachers you are a caring bunch.
You are sincerely interested in your students wellbeing. Do you
agree that children should be discouraged from exploring the
occult? And if so what do you do to safeguard against it?
Waldorf teachers should lock away their anthroposphical
books, because they are very harmful for children. And so is
eurythmy. Eutythmy is also very dangerous occultism, and it is
quite alarming that the kids practice it in Waldorf schools.
They could become serial killers or mass murderers before you
know it, or take off in a collective suicide craze. That is why
Alan is so uncomfortable that he writes:
You may disagree with my definition, but
if you accept it, then anthroposophy certainly qualifies as an
occult pursuit. For example how could eurythmy be considered
anything but a mystic or occult art?
Ooooo-eeeeeeee-oooooo!!! Waldorf is Satan.
Spooky regards
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:05:25
At 03:55 AM 4/26/99 +0200, you wrote:
John Morehead wrote:
According to an occultic worldview, which
incorporates a belief in monism and usuallly pantheism or panentheism
as well, since all is one then we are left with not only epistemological
relativism, but moral relativism as well. Such a worldview *can*
lead to acts of evil.
Anthroposophy is not based upon moral relativism
of any kind. Moral relativism is a fundamentalist cliche against
any religious or spiritual philosophy that embraces reincarnation
and karma.
[snip]
And would you please explain what you mean
by "epistemological relativism"? It is completely foreign
to anthroposophy or to POF, which is an approach to monism.
In an earlier post you said that New Age monism is a threat to
the practice of medicine and the art of healing. Now you're telling
us that this monism incorporates epistemological and moral relativism.
This is all intellectually stimulating and entertaining bullshit,
invented by fundy theologians in American Bible colleges.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
"New Age Movement adherents [and other
occultists} usually claim to be both epistemological and moral
relativists. Epistemology literally means, 'theory of knowledge,'
and in philosophy refers to the study of questions of human knowledge
and truth. As epistemological relativists NAM believers deny
that any particular claims to religious knowledge are ultimately
true. As MaccLaine writes concerning her New Age experiences:
'I was aware at all times that everyone else was pursuing their
own path, consciously or unconsciously. They had their own perceptions,
their own truth, their own pace, and their own version of enlightenment.
It was not possible to judge another's truth.' Consequently,
if each of us has his own truth, moral assertions must be just
as subjective and relative as other knowledge-claims." (Francis
Beckwith and Stephen Parrish, _See the Gods Fall_, College Press,
1997, p. 228)
Contrary to Tarjei's "colorful"
complaint above, epistemological and moral relativism within
an occultic worldview is not "fundie @#&*." Rather,
it is clearly articulated within books written by occultists
and New Age adherents.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:06:23
At 06:17 AM 4/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
[To which Tarjei Straume responded]
Anthroposophy is not based upon moral relativism
of any kind. Moral relativism is a fundamentalist cliche against
any religious or spiritual philosophy that embraces reincarnation
and karma. It is argued that we don't have to suffer the consequences
of our actions because we get "a second chance" in
another life.
[Bob Tolz now asks]
Question to John Morehead:
What, in layman's terms, do you mean by
"epistemological relativism" and "moral relativism"?
See my post in response to Tarjei where I
define both epistemological and moral relativism.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:34:49 -0600
Would you classify T'ai Chi as a mystic
or occult art? That's the closest thing I can think of to eurythmy.
Bob Tolz
I dont have any experience with Tai Chi so
I couldnt say. Eurythmy is presented as a mystery revealed, and
a unique expression of the etheric. These characteristics which
to me give eurhythmy its occult feel, may not be present in Tai
Chi.
Alan Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:38:09 -0600
Ooooo-eeeeeeee-oooooo!!! Waldorf is Satan.
Spooky regards
Tarjei Straume
I do not appreciate this sarcastic reply.
Alan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:38:40 -0600
I cannot answer for the Waldorf teachers.
Occultism is not a part of the WE curriculum. If a student asks
for advice about occult literature to be perused privately, I
believe each teacher would respond on an individual basis. I
certainly don't think that "Stay away from that stuff!!"
is an appropriate answer.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
I do appreciate this thoughtful reply.
Alan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:45:02 -0700
On 27 Apr 99, at 9:34, Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Eurythmy is presented as a mystery revealed,
and a unique expression of the etheric.
It is probably more accurate to say that it
is believed to be a mystery revealed, etc. It is presented to
the kids the same way any physical activity is presented, at
least in my experience.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paulina Leonard
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:07:11 -0500
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Eurythmy is presented as a mystery revealed...
So is the apple, the orange, the carrot and
the tomato you eat a mystery revealed!!!
and Occultism is the belief in hidden forces
and powers beyond simple material observation and understanding,
and involves the study and practice of certain "arts"
(such as alchemy, astology, tarot reading, casting spells) designed
to experience and utilize these forces.
The term 'occult' does not mean "alchemy,
astology, tarot reading, casting spells anymore than the term
"parent" means child abuse, or neglect or the term
'student' means "trenchcoat mafia" or the term 'trenchcoat
mafia' means killer.
"Occult" means hidden, covered.
Period.
The seeds I now plant in my garden are of
an 'occult' nature. So is a caterpillar whose butterfly nature
hidden, covered; not revealed until it breaks from its cocoon
and flys away.
Aesop's fable are 'occult' in nature, i.e.,
the meaning is hidden behind the words.
The "Jataka Tales, Lives of the Buddha" which are the
most wonderful of moral lessons, are 'occult', i.e., the words
speak of the deeds of animals,but the meaning behind the words,
hidden in the telling, speaks of the soul and of cause and consequence
of actions taken and not taken.
Jesus Christ, Himself, spoke 'occult' parables.
He spoke of the soul of man as a wedding guest, a prodigal son,
a mustard seed. He performed 'occult' deeds. His healing were
of an 'occult' or mysterious nature. He took dirt, spit on it,
put this on a man's eyes and healed his blindness. He took unleavened
bread and wine and poured His own beingness into these earthly
substances. Very mysterious, indeed!
The entire, wonderful book of Revelations
is _occult_, i.e., the meaning and content is hidden in mighty
pictorial language.
Don't eat anymore vegetables or fruit, Alan.
No question about it - you are definitely in occult danger!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:46:49 -0700
On 27 Apr 99, at 12:07, Paulina Leonard wrote:
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
and Occultism is the belief in hidden forces
and powers beyond simple material observation and understanding,
and involves the study and practice of certain "arts"
(such as alchemy, astology, tarot reading, casting spells) designed
to experience and utilize these forces.
The term 'occult' does not mean "alchemy,
astology, tarot reading, casting spells anymore than the term
"parent" means child abuse, or neglect or the term
'student' means "trenchcoat mafia" or the term 'trenchcoat
mafia' means killer.
"Occult" means hidden, covered. Period.
That is one meaning of "occult."
The other meaning, the one Alan is using and the one that is
used when one refers to anthroposophy as an occult pursuit, is
this:
occult - matters regarded as involving the
action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or
some secret knowledge of them. Merriam-Webster, Webster's Ninth
New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984.
Alan is correct that alchemy, astrology, tarot
reading, and casting spells are occult pursuits, as is anthroposophy.
You seem to be implying that Anthroposophy
is "occult" only in the sense that the seeds that you
plant in your garden are "occult" or hidden. If so,
you are either mistaken or being disingenuous. Anthroposophy
is occult in the sense that Alan uses the term.
That does not mean, of course, that Anthroposophy
involves alchemy, astrology, tarot reading, or spells, any more
than, say, astrology involves alchemy.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:47:32 +0200
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
and Occultism is the belief in hidden forces
and powers beyond simple material observation and understanding,
and invoves the study and practice of certain "arts"
(such as alchemy, astology, tarot reading, casting spells) designed
to experience and utilize these forces.
Paulina Leonard wrote:
The term 'occult' does not mean "alchemy,
astology, tarot reading, casting spells anymore than the term
"parent" means child abuse, or neglect or the term
'student' means "trenchcoat mafia" or the term 'trenchcoat
mafia' means killer.
"Occult" means hidden, covered. Period.
Steve Premo wrote:
That is one meaning of "occult."
The other meaning, the one Alan is using and the one that is
used when one refers to anthroposophy as an occult pursuit, is
this:
occult - matters regarded as involving the action or influence
of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge
of them. Merriam-Webster, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
1984.
Alan is correct that alchemy, astrology, tarot reading, and casting
spells are occult pursuits, as is anthroposophy.
You seem to be implying that Anthroposophy is "occult"
only in the sense that the seeds that you plant in your garden
are "occult" or hidden. If so, you are either mistaken
or being disingenuous. Anthroposophy is occult in the sense that
Alan uses the term.
That does not mean, of course, that Anthroposophy involves alchemy,
astrology, tarot reading, or spells, any more than, say, astrology
involves alchemy.
This is a semantic topic, but the word "occult"
carries so many connotations and associations beyond the definitions
in the dictionaries that it needs to be clarified, and the often
prejudicial misunderstandings need to be addressed.
Alan, I apologize if you took offence from
my sarcastic comment, but you're the one who brought up the tragedy
in Colorado to whisper a certain caution against the source of
your misgivings about WE and anthroposophy, and then added that
eurythmy is occultic and that teachers should keep the kids away
from the occult. implying that the practice of eurythmy in Waldorf
schools is potentially dangerous for the students.
Regardless of what the dictionaries say, the
word "occult" conjures up the world of Stephen King
for most people - things that go bump in the night and can scare
the living daylights out of you or eat you alive. And don't forget
that this spooky word consists of two magic syllables, namely
"OC" and "CULT". I have seen fundamentalist
Christians literally trembling from fear and loathing when pronouncing
the words "cult" and "occult", spitting them
out like lethal bullets so forcefully that even Shakespeare would
have taken off his hat. In these circles, the occult is associated
with astrology, witchcraft, and similar works of Satan. Alan
makes a distinction between black and white magic here, but he
is leaning toward the Christian fundamentalists with his suspicion
that it is all potentially evil and dangerous nevertheless -
especially for kids and for young people.
In anthroposophy, the word "occult"
is used in the simple sense, "hidden from ordinary sense-perception."
Thus "Geheimwissenschaft" becomes "occult science",
a "science of the invisible". And it is in this simple,
non-sensational, non-spooky sense that Paulina is using the word.
The Merriam-Webster definition that Steve sites is also correct,
because it is inclusive of all religious and spiritual concepts
in existence - a very crucial point that is frequently tossed
out the window, not only by fundamentalists, but also by media
usage. A Roman Catholic lithurgy is rarely if ever mentioned
as something occult, but Satanic rites are always called occult.
In Norway, young vandals enjoy the sport of church-torching,
the arsoning of churches, and then they leave behind a pentagram
or something similar so that the theologians can call them occultists
in the media, which they find very exciting. One of our bishops
has a brother who is professor of systematic theology. He made
an appeal not too long ago that we should all have a week of
prayer against occultism. And in this context, among church-torchings,
pentagrams, crystal balls, strange deaths, astrology, palmistry,
paganism, ancient myths - there are the anthropops and their
Waldorf schools. A highly suspect group, reading the works of
a madman who called himself an occultist of all things.
Rudolf Steiner called the Biblical records
"occult documents". By this he not only meant that
these books had an occult content, but that they were written
in a "mystery language," where many phrases and passages
have an esoteric as well as an exoteric significance. A "master
of Israel," for instance, is a specific title that signifies
an initiate of the fifth degree. And when Nicodemus came to Jesus
"at night," it was an encounter out-of-the-body. "The
Father" is often a euphemism for death, the threshold, and
the Greek word translated as "eyewitnesses" at the
opening of the Luke gospel should read "seers," clairvoyants.
(This is especially appropriate for Luke, who was never physically
present at the events he describes.)
So the question is: If young people should
be discouraged by their teachers from pursuing occult studies,
does this mean that they should not read the Bible? Or that if
they do read the Bible, they must not pursue interpretations
that go bump in the night (in a very literal sense in the case
of Nicodemus) - ? Or what about the occult property of plant-seeds
and Goethe's etheric plant - how dangerous is this for youngsters?
Worse than ecstacy and LSD? Worse than heroin and cocaine?
Occult, cult-like bumps in the night from
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:33:35 -0700
On 27 Apr 99, at 21:47, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Thanks for the fine essay on the meaning of
"occult," Tarjei.
Steve Premo wrote:
That is one meaning of "occult."
The other meaning, the one Alan is using and the one that is
used when one refers to anthroposophy as an occult pursuit, is
this:
occult - matters regarded as involving the action or influence
of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge
of them. Merriam-Webster, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
1984.
The Merriam-Webster definition that Steve
sites is also correct, because it is inclusive of all religious
and spiritual concepts in existence - a very crucial point that
is frequently tossed out the window, not only bu fundamentalists,
but also by media usage.
Yes, prayer is an occult practice within this
meaning, just as casting a spell is an occult practice.
One of our bishops has a brother who is
professor of systematic theology. He made an appeal not too long
ago that we should all have a week of prayer against occultism.
And in this context, among church-torchings, pentagrams, crystal
balls, strange deaths, astrology, palmistry, paganism, ancient
myths - there are the anthropops and their Waldorf schools. A
highly suspect group, reading the works of a madman who called
himself an occultist of all things.
Sorry, Tarjei, but I don't see Anthroposophy
in a different light from astrology, palmistry, or other occult
practices. Sure, Christian fundamentalists think that these other
occult practices are works of Satan, but they also think that
everybody but them is going to spend eternity in Hell. There
is no way you can distance yourself from astrology enough to
convince the fundies that Anthroposophy is not Satanic.
Hell, I've even heard the Baha'i Faith referred
to as a Satanic cult by Christian fundies, and the Baha'is are
about as mainstream as you can get.
As far as I'm concerned, Wicca is as fine
a religion as any, paganism is a legitimate spiritual path, and
Anthroposophy is right up there with them. I only have a problem
when Anthroposophists claim that their spiritual path is a reliable
way to learn about the physical world, and that "materialist
science" is less reliable.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:37:29 +0200
I wrote:
One of our bishops has a brother who is
professor of systematic theology. He made an appeal not too long
ago that we should all have a week of prayer against occultism.
And in this context, among church-torchings, pentagrams, crystal
balls, strange deaths, astrology, palmistry, paganism, ancient
myths - there are the anthropops and their Waldorf schools. A
highly suspect group, reading the works of a madman who called
himself an occultist of all things.
Steve Premo wrote:
Sorry, Tarjei, but I don't see Anthroposophy in a different light
from astrology, palmistry, or other occult practices. Sure, Christian
fundamentalists think that these other occult practices are works
of Satan, but they also think that everybody but them is going
to spend eternity in Hell. There is no way you can distance yourself
from astrology enough to convince the fundies that Anthroposophy
is not Satanic.
I am somewhat ambivalent about astrology.
As an isolated science or pseudo-science, it is unreliable for
the reason that too many conclusions are drawn by those who study
and practice it. A horoscope is probably a valuable contributing
factor to understand a human being and his or her social relationships,
talents, and interests, but astrologers underestimate the influence
of culture, environment, heredity (DNA), and karma as significant
and powerful modifiers of the astrological profile. Although
they take reincarnation into consideration, I have seen little
or no effort to understand an individual's cosmic past. Astrology
might have been useful if those who spend long years of time
and effort on it would recognize its limitations, that are considerable.
Rudolf Steiner held the view that astrology
started out as an absolutely true science when it was developed
in Mesopotamia, but that modern astrology had lost touch with
supersensible reality and degenerated to pure superstition. For
this reason, anthroposophists are working on something called
"new astronomy". What this means is that traditional
astrology must be abandoned (although we can certainly learn
many interesting things from it), and a new, spiritualized astronomy
must be rebuilt from scratch. I believe that some books about
this new astronomy have been published in German, and perhaps
Stephen Tonkin knows someting about it?
The reason why Christian fundamentalists regard
astrology as satanic and evil is that the Bible emphasizes the
earth-wisdom of the Hebrews as superior to the more ancient art
of astrology. For this reason we have the fascinating drama between
Moses and his people versus the Egyptian Pharao and his astrologers,
culminating in the parting of the sea. My personal interest in
Rudolf Steiner originated with his brilliant explanations of
Biblical events. He tells us that Moses was the first metereologist.
The Egyptians still lived in the past, placing all their faith
in the reading of the stars, thus failing to recognize the the
tides. It's that simple. Moses calculated the hours of ebb and
flow,leading the Egyptians into a trap so they drowned.
This leads me to touch another topic featured
by the PLANS website, namely Rudolf Steiner's alleged anti-Semitism.
I have mentioned the following before, but it's worth repeating:
Steiner did speak unkindly of blacks, clearly illustrated by
the excerpts posted. Black people were virtually non-existent
and unkown in Europe, so he had no conventional source of information
about this ethinic group. Jews are a different matter. I would
challenge anyone on this list to explain to me what is anti-Semitic
about any of the excerpts posted on the PLANS website under "Steiner
and the Jews." In my view, there is absolutely nothing,
and the suggestion that there is, is taken out of thin air.
Rudolf Steiner never made a racist, biased,
derogatory remark about Jews. Quite the contrary. The anthroposophical
approach to racial evolution and ancient history places the Hebrew
race in a very special light - a light that may be seen as so
flattering that it would be more appropriate to accuse Steiner
of preaching Jewish supremacy, which is probably one of the reaons
why the early Nazis accused him of being a Jewish-born Sionist
bolshevik.
According to anthroposophical cosmology -
which has also been called a Christology, and by some, "The
New Christ-Revelation" - the Mystery of Golgotha, i.e. the
events recorded in the Gospels beginning with the Betrayal and
ending with the Ascension, is the turning point of history, the
crucial pivot in human evolution when the sun-god (known in the
ancient cults) incarnated physically in the body of Jesus of
Nazareth.
I'll skip the discussion of the two Jesus-children
and just mention that the "conception without sin"
does not mean that Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus
Christ. If that had been the case, the genealogies recorded by
Matthew and Luke, from Adam through Abraham to Joseph, would
have been of no consequence and not worth mentioning. But the
entire Old Testament is about sex, about "begetting",
about one patriarch after another finding the correct mate, the
prime purpose being the procurement of the most advanced possible
physical body, etheric body, and astral body for the Christ.
To this end, a "selective breeding" was taking place
in the Hebrew race, guided by spiritual powers. All the most
advanced souls from all civilizations and peoples on the earth,
high priests and monarchs and emperors, the initiate seers, the
elite of humanity - they all incarnated as patriarchs and prophets
among the Hebrews. The Hebrews were getting the cream of the
crop in human evolution in order to provide a genealogical lineage
that was suitable - not for an emperor, but for a GOD - an event
never surpassed in human history, not before, and not since.
It is in this light that we need to consider
certain statements by Rudolf Steiner, for instance that Abraham
was the first human being with a brain of modern construction.
These insights have helped me to understand why the Jews are
still producing an overabundance of exceptionally gifted and
talented individuals in science, philosophy, music, and the arts.
I have also understood that envy of such gifts and abilities
may have been a contributing factor to anti-Semitism, or hatred
against the Jews. And this is why I find the accusation of anti-Semitism
in Steiner and in anthroposophy, as it is featured by PLANS,
so outrageous, malicious, and offensive, and why I take it so
personal. I find this so very offensive because it's not even
a half-truth or a quarter-truth, but a complete, unalloyed LIE.
Anti-Semitism is an extremely complicated,
delicate, difficult, and sensitive topic, especially after the
Holocaust. The history of Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism,
the relationship between Christians and Jews, the religious tensions
and disputes involved - these are things that I am still struggling
to understand, always learning something new. The apostle Paul
said that salvation comes from the Jews, to the Jew first and
to the gentile second. If we take this idea to heart, skipping
for the moment the dispute between Christians and Jews about
whether or not the Risen Christ is the Messiah, - if we examine
this utterance by Paul, we must conclude that it is Jewish supremacist
rather than anti-Semitic. (The idea of Christian anti-Semitism
is based upon the banality that 'the Jews killed Jesus', ignoring
the fact that Jesus and all the apostles were Jewish.) But my
point is that any charge of anti-Semitism against anthroposophy
must be based upon the same line of reasoning that makes all
Christians anti-Semitic. And within this line of reasoning, the
the very Sermon on the Mount becomes anti-Semitic by criticizing
the Old Testament ethos and suggesting the "forgive, bless,
and pray for your enemies" ethos instead. Because Rudolf
Steiner spoke about the opposing forces (against Christ) in our
time proceeding from nationalism and Old Testament principles.
And by the latter he was referring to all cultures in the world,
not specifically Judaism.
With this in mind, I repeat my challenge to
show me that Rudolf Steiner was indeed anti-Semitic. The allegation
has been posted on the PLANS site in the faint hope that it fits
the proposterous theory of anthroposophy being some kind of Nazism
in disguise. But this smear endeavor is a total failure. It is
ignorant, untrue, and extremely audacious.
Hell, I've even heard the Baha'i Faith
referred to as a Satanic cult by Christian fundies, and the Baha'is
are about as mainstream as you can get.
As far as I'm concerned, Wicca is as fine a religion as any,
paganism is a legitimate spiritual path, and Anthroposophy is
right up there with them. I only have a problem when Anthroposophists
claim that their spiritual path is a reliable way to learn about
the physical world, and that "materialist science"
is less reliable.
It is highly questionable for an anthroposophist
to make a claim like that. Steiner could make it because he himself
made discoveries by his initiation science where conventional
science came up short (geology and archeology for instance).
So a claim of this kind is most likely to come from anthroposophists
who simply paraphrase Steiner out of context.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:24:26 +0200
I wrote:
And would you please explain what you mean
by "epistemological relativism"? It is completely foreign
to anthroposophy or to POF, which is an approach to monism.
In an earlier post you said that New Age monism is a threat to
the practice of medicine and the art of healing. Now you're telling
us that this monism incorporates epistemological and moral relativism.
This is all intellectually stimulating and entertaining bullshit,
invented by fundy theologians in American Bible colleges.
John Morehead wrote:
Methinks you doth protest too much.
"New Age Movement adherents [and other occultists} usually
claim to be both epistemological and moral relativists. Epistemology
literally means, 'theory of knowledge,' and in philosophy refers
to the study of questions of human knowledge and truth. As epistemological
relativists NAM believers deny that any particular claims to
religious knowledge are ultimately true. As MaccLaine writes
concerning her New Age experiences: 'I was aware at all times
that everyone else was pursuing their own path, consciously or
unconsciously. They had their own perceptions, their own truth,
their own pace, and their own version of enlightenment. It was
not possible to judge another's truth.' Consequently, if each
of us has his own truth, moral assertions must be just as subjective
and relative as other knowledge-claims." (Francis Beckwith
and Stephen Parrish, _See the Gods Fall_, College Press, 1997,
p. 228)
As I have already said, this has nothing whatsoever
to do with anthroposophy or with Rudolf Steiner's epistemology
as explained in "Truth and Science" and "Philosophy
of Freedom."
I have not read "See the Gods Fall: Four
Rivals to Christianity", but I have seen it advertised on
fundamentalist websites that feature hellfire polemics against
other denominations and religions. This indicates that it is
sectarian, fundamentalist propaganda.
This problem with everybody pursuing their
own ego-trip kind of path was mentioned by Steiner as a phenomenon
of the future. He said that humanity is destined to cross the
threshold anew, i.e. develop modern clairvoyance, but if this
is done without the influence of the Christ, Ahriman (or Satan)
will effect an initiation where each person ends up in his or
her own isolated cosmos, nobody recognizing anyone else's reality.
This is not, however, the Christian initiatory path outlined
by Steiner.
Contrary to Tarjei's "colorful" complaint above, epistemological
and moral relativism within an occultic worldview is not "fundie
@#&*." Rather, it is clearly articulated within books
written by occultists and New Age adherents.
It is NOT articulated by anthroposophists,
which this list is all about. Anthroposophists have a highly
critical attitude to the aspect of New Age you're referring to.
The Norwegian-Danish anthroposophist, Waldorf teacher, musician
and poet Hans-Jørgen Høinæs has written a
most interesting book entitled "Between New Age and Technopolis."
He writes about the heritage of Alice Bailey in the New Age Movement,
with channeling and uncritical approaches to spiritual "masters"
where the individual self-determination and will is set aside.
His humor is delightful, e.g. when a young man with a heart condition
has had a transplant from a pig (in Technopolis the human body
is a machine where you just put in new parts), then falls in
love and has a romantic candle light dinner with his lady, tells
her how his swine pump is beating for her, and takes a look at
the menu, which offers baked pig hearts in cream sauce as the
special of the week.
Equally funny is Høines' analysis of
New Age channeling, people hearing voices telling them the strangest
things that they never question. I don't know if this book has
been translated to more accessible languages like German or English,
but it deserves it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:46:31
I have not read "See the Gods Fall:
Four Rivals to Christianity", but I have seen it advertised
on fundamentalist websites that feature hellfire polemics against
other denominations and religions. This indicates that it is
sectarian, fundamentalist propaganda.
I see. We simply practice guilt by association
and make no attempt to interact with the ideas presented, let
alone critique them. I wonder how that would go over with Anthroposophists
if orthodox Christians said, "Ya know, we noted some things
in the writings of Steiner, but since that obviously comes from
websites devoted to occultism, irrationalism and other fringe
religious ideas, this indicates it is merely New Age propaganda."
I don't think that would go down nearly as smoothly as Tarjei's
casual dismissal based merely upon a stereotypical understanding
of websites which the book may be mentioned on. (Incidentally,
the book can also be found via Amazon.com. Perhaps that might
mean it has ideas worthy of consideration, eh?)
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:51:21 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Contrary to Tarjei's "colorful"
complaint above, epistemological and moral relativism within
an occultic worldview is not "fundie @#&*." Rather,
it is clearly articulated within books written by occultists
and New Age adherents.
I'm still not sure I understand what "moral
relativism" is. Is it that the individual makes his or her
own determination as to what is moral as opposed to rely on some
"objective" standard announced by an authority?
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:55:41 +0200
I wrote:
I have not read "See the Gods Fall:
Four Rivals to Christianity", but I have seen it advertised
on fundamentalist websites that feature hellfire polemics against
other denominations and religions. This indicates that it is
sectarian, fundamentalist propaganda.
John Morehead wrote:
I see. We simply practice guilt by association and make no attempt
to interact with the ideas presented, let alone critique them.
I wonder how that would go over with Anthroposophists if orthodox
Christians said, "Ya know, we noted some things in the writings
of Steiner, but since that obviously comes from websites devoted
to occultism, irrationalism and other fringe religious ideas,
this indicates it is merely New Age propaganda." I don't
think that would go down nearly as smoothly as Tarjei's casual
dismissal based merely upon a stereotypical understanding of
websites which the book may be mentioned on. (Incidentally, the
book can also be found via Amazon.com. Perhaps that might mean
it has ideas worthy of consideration, eh?)
You're sidestepping the issue completely,
John. The book in question and the websites I mentioned are completely
irrelevant (and so was my reference to them). It has nothing
whatsoever to do with anthroposophy or the writings of Steiner.
Your belief that it does shows that you haven't done your homework
on anthroposophy, because you fail to make the distinction between
anthroposophy and New Age. You have piled it all in one heap.
To back up your claim, you need to find a quote by Steiner -
not by any New Age direction referred to in your excerpt from
that book - that fits your ideas about moral and epistemological
relativism. This is the crucial point that you're sidestepping
with your response above.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:53:07
At 01:55 AM 4/29/99 +0200, you wrote:
You're sidestepping the issue completely,
John. The book in question and the websites I mentioned are completely
irrelevant (and so was my reference to them). It has nothing
whatsoever to do with anthroposophy or the writings of Steiner.
Your belief that it does shows that you haven't done your homework
on anthroposophy, because you fail to make the distinction between
anthroposophy and New Age. You have piled it all in one heap.
To back up your claim, you need to find a quote by Steiner -
not by any New Age direction referred to in your excerpt from
that book - that fits your ideas about moral and epistemological
relativism. This is the crucial point that you're sidestepping
with your response above.
We consistently talk past each other, Tarjei.
Even so...
I have not sidestepped any issue. You dismissed
the source I quoted, not by dealing with the issue raised, but
by dismissing it via websites the book may be featured on. That
is not dealing with the issue, sir. You sidestepped.
And you must be unaware that scholars of religion
routinely classify Anthroposphy as a New Age religion. There
may be some differences, but if Anthroposophy incorporates a
belief in monism, then no epistemological or moral distinctions
are even possible because all is one. Making knowledge and moral
judgements requires duality. So when you get down to it, if Anthroposophy
incorporates a belief in monism, then it does indeed hold to
a form of moral and epistemological relativism (the epistemological
relativism you have already demonstrated on this list with appeals
to "higher logic"). As I said in my last post, me thinks
you doth protest too much.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:36:11 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Making knowledge and moral judgements requires
duality.
I disagree with what I perceive as your underlying
assumptions here. Correct me if my perceptions are wrong.....
It seems to me that you see a belief in the
underlying unity of all things (you call it "monism")
as being entirely inconsistent with a view of the separation
of the divine from the human (you call it "duality").
It also seems to me that what's left unsaid in your statement
is an underlying assumption that in order to obtain knowledge
or to make moral judgments, one must be separated from the object
of one's observation. Ergo, your logical conclusion would follow
that since monism and duality are mutually inconsistent, then
one cannot adhere to monism and at the same time be capable of
making knowledge or moral judgments.
Did I get that right?
Let me pause here, because if I didn't follow
your underlying assumptions correctly, then there's no need for
me to go to the next step in my analysis.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:32:32 -0700
On 29 Apr 99, at 6:53, John & Wendy Morehead
wrote:
Making knowledge and moral judgements requires
duality.
I'm no religious scholar, and I'm curious
what you mean by "duality." Could you explain?
In a prior post, I expressed the opinion that
"moral relativism" is a belief in morality which does
not flow from hard and fast rules laid down in scripture. But
perhaps that is not what you mean at all. Your statement that
any morality based on monism (which you explained as meaning
"all is one") is necessarily "moral relativism"
and that duality is necessary for true moral judgments leads
me to believe that my prior statement is incorrect.
Could you explain, in layman's terms, what
you're talking about?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:24:31
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Making knowledge and moral judgements requires duality.
If all is one (monism) then it is impossible
to make any distinctions at all, including those between good
and evil. Within a monistic worldview, what appears to be the
duality of good on the one hand and evil on the other, ultimately
are mere illusion at one level and which disappear once one adjusts
one's perceptions since there can be no distinctions if indeed
all is one.
At 11:36 AM 4/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
I disagree with what I perceive as your
underlying assumptions here. Correct me if my perceptions are
wrong.....
It seems to me that you see a belief in the underlying unity
of all things (you call it "monism") as being entirely
inconsistent with a view of the separation of the divine from
the human (you call it "duality"). It also seems to
me that what's left unsaid in your statement is an underlying
assumption that in order to obtain knowledge or to make moral
judgments, one must be separated from the object of one's observation.
Ergo, your logical conclusion would follow that since monism
and duality are mutually inconsistent, then one cannot adhere
to monism and at the same time be capable of making knowledge
or moral judgments.
Knowledge requires both an objective knower,
and some objective thing that is known. But if all is one, and
to take it a step further, all is divine, then true knowledge
is impossible since their is no duality, no knower and the known.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:31:16
At 08:32 AM 4/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
I'm no religious scholar, and I'm curious
what you mean by "duality." Could you explain?
Duality simply means "more than one."
By contrast, monism would imply that ultimately all is one basic
essence or reality, and the perceived distinctions (of duality)
are ultimately illusory or at least a temporary manifestation
of the one.
In a prior post, I expressed the opinion
that "moral relativism" is a belief in morality which
does not flow from hard and fast rules laid down in scripture.
But perhaps that is not what you mean at all.
Moral relativism is the opposite of an absolute,
objective morality, wherein objective moral values exist independent
of the individual and which are absolute for differing individuals
and cultures. In other words, morality is not merely created
by the individual subjectively and relative only to that individual.
Now one can go further and define various models of absolute
morality (such as the Divine Command Theory which you hint at
above) but my comment was more general in nature.
Now, I'm sure we'll disagree that morality
is absolute and objective as opposed to relative and subjective,
but I am not necessarily arguing for my view of ethics. I am
simply pointing out the foundation for ethics which flows from
an occultic worldview.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:02:26 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
We consistently talk past each other, Tarjei. Even so...
I have not sidestepped any issue. You dismissed the source I
quoted, not by dealing with the issue raised, but by dismissing
it via websites the book may be featured on. That is not dealing
with the issue, sir. You sidestepped.
No I didn't. I did address the issue by explaining
that anthroposophy and POF does not fit the categories of moral
and epistemological relativism that may be applicable to certain
aspects of New Age that have nothing to do with anthroposophy.
And you must be unaware that scholars of religion routinely classify
Anthroposphy as a New Age religion.
This classification is justified from a certain
point of view, but it is an over-simplification by closer analysis,
demonstrated by your failure to make the distinction in question.
There may be some differences, but if Anthroposophy
incorporates a belief in monism, then no epistemological or moral
distinctions are even possible because all is one. Making knowledge
and moral judgements requires duality.
You obviously have no understanding at all
of anthroposophical monism. The dualities of day and night, ebb
and flow etc. exist within the monistic, empirical reality, never
outside it. Your statement that "no epistemological or moral
distinctions are even possible because all is one" is pure,
unadulterated nonsense - especially when applied to anthroposophy.
So when you get down to it, if Anthroposophy
incorporates a belief in monism, then it does indeed hold to
a form of moral and epistemological relativism (the epistemological
relativism you have already demonstrated on this list with appeals
to "higher logic").
"Higher logic" is an expression
I used to describe "sense-free thinking", spiritualized
thinking. A disciplined thinking of this kind, however, must
grow out of sense-bound logic. Thank you for showing me a perfect
specimen of "lower logic", which may be classified
as sense-bound irrationality. The paradox of "lower logic"
seems to be that it is a sense-dependent thinking that does not
make sense.
As I said in my last post, me thinks you
doth protest too much.
I am not protesting; I am correcting you.
You don't know what anthroposophical monism is about, because
you have not studied it. You are drawing conclusions from premises
that you have not examined.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:41:47
At 06:02 PM 4/29/99 +0200, you wrote:
No I didn't. I did address the issue by
explaining that anthroposophy and POF does not fit the categories
of moral and epistemological relativism that may be applicable
to certain aspects of New Age that have nothing to do with anthroposophy.
You may refer me to Steiner's writings, which
I do not have access to relative to this particular question,
but could you please briefly explain how Anthroposophy, a monistic
and occultic worldview, philosophically avoids moral and epistemological
relativism? I'm not asking you to post a lengthy Steiner quote,
and I'm not asking for a cop out on my own research, a simply
argument or syllogism would suffice. If all is one, then it would
seem impossible to posit the existence of an objective knowner
and a fact to be known, which would imply duality. Likewise,
it would be impossible to posit the existence of a good and an
evil, which would also posit duality. Maybe you could help us
non-Anthroposophists understand how Steiner and Anthroposophy
differs from the broader New Age movement's thinking here.
And you must be unaware that scholars of
religion routinely classify Anthroposphy as a New Age religion.
This classification is justified from a
certain point of view, but it is an over-simplification by closer
analysis, demonstrated by your failure to make the distinction
in question.
We'll you're assuming those who make the classification
are making the same alleged error that I am. J. Gordon Melton
includes Anthroposophy in his _New Age Encyclopedia_ and I don't
believe he does so by touching on Anthroposophy's ethical views
whatsoever.
You obviously have no understanding at
all of anthroposophical monism. The dualities of day and night,
ebb and flow etc. exist within the monistic, empirical reality,
never outside it. Your statement that "no epistemological
or moral distinctions are even possible because all is one"
is pure, unadulterated nonsense - especially when applied to
anthroposophy.
OK. If the dualities of day and night, ebb
and flow, etc. exist within the monistic reality, then it is
still one in essence and not a duality. If the distinctions you
recognize are not indicative of duality, then are they illusory
or temporary manifestations of the one? What it seems like your
saying is, "Yes all is one, but we recognize dualities,
but this is explained as being part of the one." So it sounds
like your saying you affirm monism by incorporating duality within
monism which is contradictory.
"Higher logic" is an expression
I used to describe "sense-free thinking", spiritualized
thinking. A disciplined thinking of this kind, however, must
grow out of sense-bound logic. Thank you for showing me a perfect
specimen of "lower logic", which may be classified
as sense-bound irrationality. The paradox of "lower logic"
seems to be that it is a sense-dependent thinking that does not
make sense.
I can always count on a jab in the form of
a personal attack from you, Tarjei. :) I'll let the readers of
our posts history determine just who exemplifies lower logic
and irrationality. To many Waldorf critics it is the higher logic
and spiritual science of Anthroposophy which makes no sense whatsoever.
I would think that the defendants in the California Waldorf case
would make better use of lower logic (rather than so-called higher
logic) if they want to have a chance at winning the case.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:43:24 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume [mailto:tastraum@online.no]
[John Morehead]
There may be some differences, but if Anthroposophy
incorporates a belief in monism, then no epistemological or moral
distinctions are even possible because all is one. Making knowledge
and moral judgements requires duality.
[Tarjei Straume]
You obviously have no understanding at
all of anthroposophical monism. The dualities of day and night,
ebb and flow etc. exist within the monistic, empirical reality,
never outside it. Your statement that "no epistemological
or moral distinctions are even possible because all is one"
is pure, unadulterated nonsense - especially when applied to
anthroposophy.
Actually, that's the point I was headed for
in my recent post to John, and I don't think this is an area
of contemplation which is exclusive to anthroposophy. "Monism,"
as I think John understands it, is not inconsistent with "duality."
They coexist.
One can think in terms of mathematical set
theory which many of us learned in school. Iced coffee and hot
coffee are both part of the larger set of "coffee."
Any set of items is subsumed in a larger universe.
No matter how many times you might want to break everything down
in reductionistic terms, all the smaller categories and cubby-holes
belong to the entire universe of such categories. If that ultimate,
larger universe is John's "monism," then all the dualities
that ever were, are or will be are subsumed within it and exist
at the same time.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:17:43 -0700
On 29 Apr 99, at 12:43, Tolz, Robert wrote:
If that ultimate, larger universe is John's
"monism," then all the dualities that ever were, are
or will be are subsumed within it and exist at the same time.
Yes, but we still need John to define "monism"
and "duality." By "monism," he may be referring
to a belief that everything is part of God, and by "duality,"
he may be referring to, say, God and Satan, which may both be
part of "that ultimate, larger universe," but that
does not mean that the "ultimate, larger universe"
is God.
I'm eagerly awaiting John's clarification
on this.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:47:29
At 10:17 AM 4/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
Yes, but we still need John to define "monism"
and "duality." By "monism," he may be referring
to a belief that everything is part of God, and by "duality,"
he may be referring to, say, God and Satan, which may both be
part of "that ultimate, larger universe," but that
does not mean that the "ultimate, larger universe"
is God.
I'm defining monism as it is usually understood
by various religious movements where not only is all one, but
this oneness is an impersonal divinity. Any perceived divisions
or separations between ourselves and this divine Cosmic Consciousness
(or whatever it is called) is ultimately illusory. Thus, we must
seek an altered state of consciousness to realize that we are
not separated from the one. As Eastern pantheistic monists would
say, "Atman is Brahman," or the individual soul is
in reality the supreme Soul of the cosmos.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:20:06 -0700
On 29 Apr 99, at 13:31, John & Wendy Morehead
wrote:
At 08:32 AM 4/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
I'm no religious scholar, and I'm curious
what you mean by "duality." Could you explain?
Duality simply means "more than one."
By contrast, monism would imply that ultimately all is one basic
essence or reality, and the perceived distinctions (of duality)
are ultimately illusory or at least a temporary manifestation
of the one.
Thanks for defining these terms.
In a prior post, I expressed the opinion
that "moral relativism" is a belief in morality which
does not flow from hard and fast rules laid down in scripture.
But perhaps that is not what you mean at all.
Moral relativism is the opposite of an
absolute, objective morality, wherein objective moral values
exist independent of the individual and which are absolute for
differing individuals and cultures. In other words, morality
is not merely created by the individual subjectively and relative
only to that individual.
Folks other than monists can believe in moral
relativism or moral absolutism, right? For example, atheists
who would be considered dualists, and might believe that morality
is situational, i.e., that a particular type of act, such as
lying, might be moral in one situation and immoral in another,
depending on the effect it has.
Other atheists might believe that through
reason, objective moral standards can emerge, and ethical values
and principles may be discovered which are applicable across
cultures and to all individuals. These are values and principles
that are universally important to maintenance of a just society.
By the same token, a monist might believe
that the inner soul of every person is part of one true reality
or cosmic consciousness, and that all physical reality is an
illusion. But we live in that illusion, and are not normally
able to experience that oneness, and to live in that illusion
referred to as the "real world," we must follow certain
rules. These rules could be relative or absolute, could they
not?
So it seems to me that the monist, like the
atheist, could be either a moral relativist or a moral absolutist.
Or am I missing something?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:20:24 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
You may refer me to Steiner's writings,
which I do not have access to relative to this particular question,
but could you please briefly explain how Anthroposophy, a monistic
and occultic worldview, philosophically avoids moral and epistemological
relativism? I'm not asking you to post a lengthy Steiner quote,
and I'm not asking for a cop out on my own research, a simply
argument or syllogism would suffice.
If a basic answer to your question is not
covered in my recent post "Anthroposophy
as a Science, not a Religion," you'll just have to read
"Philosophy of Freedom" (originally translated as "Philosophy
of Spiritual Activity" at Steiner's request), preferably
preceded by "Truth and Science". (My English version
has the title "Truth and Knowledge", but the original
title reads "Wahrheit und Wissenschaft".)
If all is one, then it would seem impossible
to posit the existence of an objective knowner and a fact to
be known, which would imply duality. Likewise, it would be impossible
to posit the existence of a good and an evil, which would also
posit duality.
Monism does not blur or remove the dualities
that you mention. It simply means that all things, physical and
spiritual, are within the reach of empirical experience. Good
and evil, for example, are both empirical experiences and therefore
part of monistic reality.
Maybe you could help us non-Anthroposophists
understand how Steiner and Anthroposophy differs from the broader
New Age movement's thinking here.
New Age covers quite a broad spectrum, but
the monism you're referring to may be connected with the kind
of Hinduism that denies the existence of the physical, saying
that all is one and all is spirit. I have heard many people say
there is no such a thing as evil. Mary Baker Eddy, for instance,
(Christian Science), said there was no such thing as illness;
it was all psycho-somatic.
And you must be unaware that scholars of
religion routinely classify Anthroposphy as a New Age religion.
This classification is justified from a
certain point of view, but it is an over-simplification by closer
analysis, demonstrated by your failure to make the distinction
in question.
We'll you're assuming those who make the
classification are making the same alleged error that I am. J.
Gordon Melton includes Anthroposophy in his _New Age Encyclopedia_
and I don't believe he does so by touching on Anthroposophy's
ethical views whatsoever.
If J. Gordon Melton has written in his encyclopedia
that anthroposophy is morally and epistemologically relativistic,
the error is his, not yours.
OK. If the dualities of day and night,
ebb and flow, etc. exist within the monistic reality, then it
is still one in essence and not a duality. If the distinctions
you recognize are not indicative of duality, then are they illusory
or temporary manifestations of the one? What it seems like your
saying is, "Yes all is one, but we recognize dualities,
but this is explained as being part of the one." So it sounds
like your saying you affirm monism by incorporating duality within
monism which is contradictory.
Yet it is so. Dualities, or polarities, are
all around us in our physical existence. Up and down for instance.
If these were not distinguished, we wouldn't be able to move
around and orient ourselves. But what epistemology and cognition
is concerned, the approach taken in goethean science is monistic,
i.e. abstractions attributed to something unknown are not considered
parts of reality. Epistemological monism has nothing to do with
blurring or ignoring contrasts or opposites like up and down,
light and darkness, left and right and so on.
"Higher logic" is an expression
I used to describe "sense-free thinking", spiritualized
thinking. A disciplined thinking of this kind, however, must
grow out of sense-bound logic. Thank you for showing me a perfect
specimen of "lower logic", which may be classified
as sense-bound irrationality. The paradox of "lower logic"
seems to be that it is a sense-dependent thinking that does not
make sense.
I can always count on a jab in the form
of a personal attack from you, Tarjei. :) I'll let the readers
of our posts history determine just who exemplifies lower logic
and irrationality. To many Waldorf critics it is the higher logic
and spiritual science of Anthroposophy which makes no sense whatsoever.
I would think that the defendants in the California Waldorf case
would make better use of lower logic (rather than so-called higher
logic) if they want to have a chance at winning the case.
Best of luck in the court room then. I simply
wanted to demonstrate that your earlier allegation concerning
the irrational contradictions in my logic - which was also a
judgement against the mental capacities of all anthroposophical
Catholics and Christian Buddhists - can easily go both ways.
And the constant chiding by various critics of my endeavor to
explain "higher logic" led me to the conclusion that
there might be an opposite pole to this higher logic - as part
of a *duality*. And the answer I found was - "lower logic".
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:25:10 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
I'm defining monism as it is usually understood by various religious
movements where not only is all one, but this oneness is an impersonal
divinity.
For the record, the idea of any impersonal
divinity is totally alien to anthroposophy. A close look at Steiner's
Christology will testify that angels, archangels, archai, elohim
and so on are ranks of beings with very personal attributes.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: apology to John Morehead
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:40:27 +0200
John,
I apologize for my intellectual fun with "lower
logic" at your expense. I did not intend to insult your
intelligence, but I freely admit that this may have been a shot
below the belt on my part. (Wow, that does sound contradictory,
doesn't it?)
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: apology to John Morehead
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 06:43:29
At 01:40 AM 4/30/99 +0200, you wrote:
John,
I apologize for my intellectual fun with "lower logic"
at your expense. I did not intend to insult your intelligence,
but I freely admit that this may have been a shot below the belt
on my part. (Wow, that does sound contradictory, doesn't it?)
I *really* appreciate this, Tarjei. I have
no problem with us being hard hitting over these important issues
with which we disagree. I just hope we can *both* work at not
getting personal. I'll try to keep check on my end.
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:40:21 -0700
On 30 Apr 99, at 1:20, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Monism does not blur or remove the dualities
that you mention. It simply means that all things, physical and
spiritual, are within the reach of empirical experience.
This is clear from your post on science and
religion, and it is also clear that this is not what John means
by monism at all.
I think you've shown that Anthroposophy is
not monistic in the sense that John uses the term.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:00:19 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
I'm defining monism as it is usually understood
by various religious movements where not only is all one, but
this oneness is an impersonal divinity.
I am more inclined to accept an impersonal
divinity than a personal one who both judges and punishes. To
me, that's a more appropriate answer to Job and the sorrow that
exists in the world. This does not prevent a personal relationship
with that divinity.
Any perceived divisions or separations
between ourselves and this divine Cosmic Consciousness (or whatever
it is called) is ultimately illusory.
I agree with that, but it doesn't mean that
our normal everyday reality is illusory. Daily life is quite
real, and not something to be escaped from.
Thus, we must seek an altered state of
consciousness to realize that we are not separated from the one.
Not true. It is not necessary to seek an altered
state of consciousness to recognize the connection between the
human and the divine or even the union of the human with the
divine. It can and ought to be realized in the small details
and acts of everyday life. The most essential thing is for an
indiviudal to stop thinking he's the center of the universe.
It's a Copernican revolution on a different level.
Knowledge requires both an objective knower,
and some objective thing that is known. But if all is one, and
to take it a step further, all is divine, then true knowledge
is impossible since their is no duality, no knower and the known.
a simply argument or syllogism would suffice.
If all is one, then it would seem impossible to posit the existence
of an objective knowner and a fact to be known, which would imply
duality.
I think you're being entirely too mental here,
too reductionistic, arguing from definitions and little boxes
that have very little to do with reality. Try this on for size,
John.
You would consider yourself all "one,"
wouldn't you? The fact that you are an indivisible whole does
not prevent your mind or consciousness from becoming the objective
"knower" from time to time by examining some part of
yourself (e.g., your navel, your habits, your relationships,
etc.)
Your own ability to take a dualistic vantage
point, being both the object and the subject at the same time,
is an example which disproves your theory that it's "impossible"
for all to be one, and duality to exist at the same time.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 06:41:37
At 01:25 AM 4/30/99 +0200, you wrote:
John Morehead wrote:
I'm defining monism as it is usually understood
by various religious movements where not only is all one, but
this oneness is an impersonal divinity.
For the record, the idea of any impersonal
divinity is totally alien to anthroposophy. A close look at Steiner's
Christology will testify that angels, archangels, archai, elohim
and so on are ranks of beings with very personal attributes.
Is there a concept of a