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 Supreme Being within Anthroposophy? What would be Ultimate Reality within this worldview? These various spiritual beings?

John

=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:29:14 +0200

John Morehead wrote:

Is there a concept of a Supreme Being within Anthroposophy? What would be Ultimate Reality within this worldview? These various spiritual beings?

If you by "supreme" mean allmighty and all-knowing, the answer is no. But personal, yes. Very much so.

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: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 06:49:49

At 10:00 PM 4/29/99 -0400, you wrote:

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.

If I simply "know" different aspects of myself, and if all is still only one then this is still a denial of a distinct knower and a thing known. There are many fine philosophical critiques of pantheistic monism which point out such weaknesses (and not just by Christians).

John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650

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

From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:35:31 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead [mailto:morehead@mail2.quiknet.com]

[Bob Tolz]

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.

[John Morehead]

If I simply "know" different aspects of myself, and if all is still only one then this is srill a denial of a distinct knower and a thing known.

No, it's not a denial at all. You can have a distinct knower and thing known on one level, while at the same time having all being part of and integrated into the whole.

If I look into a bowl of alphabet soup and examine it at a reductionistic/micro level, I'll see an "A" here and a "Q" there. When I eat it, it's just soup.

I'm not trying to argue with you from a philosophical point of view. I'm describing personal experience.

Normal thinking activity, in my own experience, is relatively restricted to the subject-observing-the-object type of dichotomy. This reaffirms a sense of separation of the observer from the subject of observation.

It's when one learns to quiet down the incessant noise of the mind that other modes of observation which are less dualistic kick in. In that relative quiet, one starts recognizing that we are not quite as separate from everything else as seems to be the case when we're obsessing over our own personal thoughts, emotions, security, opinions, identity, problems, objectives, etc.

The mind is a wonderful tool, but using it as a battering ram to push through something it's not "designed" for is pretty futile. That's why philosophical discourse on this subject is useful but limited. We run the risk, in philosophizing about these subjects, of limiting ourselves to mental gymnastics, when the proof of the pudding is in real life application.

Bob Tolz

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

From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 09:05:23 -0700

On 30 Apr 99, at 17:29, Tarjei Straume wrote:

John Morehead wrote:

Is there a concept of a Supreme Being within Anthroposophy? What would be Ultimate Reality within this worldview? These various spiritual beings?

If you by "supreme" mean allmighty and all-knowing, the answer is no. But personal, yes. Very much so.

I'm interested in this question too, Tarjei, and I don't think you've answered it.

"Supreme" does not necessarily mean allmighty and all-knowing, but it would refer to a being having supremacy over all other spiritual beings.

In other words, at the apex of the Anthroposophical pantheon of angels, archangels, and other spiritual beings, is there one that sits above the rest?

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: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 20:31:11

At 04:20 PM 4/29/99 -0700, you wrote:

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.

A naturalistic worldview would incorporate a belief in a subjective and relative basis for ethics, not absolute and objective, although you can find some naturalists who do believe in the existence of some sort of objective moral values as mere brute givens within the fabric of the universe through the evolutionary process. I don't find the argument for this compelling, but that is there view.

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.

Some might hold this, but that would be to make the is/ought fallacy. That is, to move from what simply is to what ought to be. A descriptive account of how things are does not necessarily translate into a prescriptive morality.

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?

But then again, if everything is one, there is no duality and no basis for making any distinctions, let alone those between alleged good and bad moral choices. Each person is left to determine for themselves what values there are, if any.

I appreciate they opportunity to further clarify my statments on metaethical arguments. Initially, I was responding causually to a post on the foundation for ethics within a general occultic worldview and not necessarily Anthroposophy. Again, I appreciate the chance for comment and do not wish to bog the list down (again) with metaphysical questions outside of the specific focus of this list.

John Morehead

=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:53:43 +0200

Steve Premo wrote:

On 30 Apr 99, at 17:29, Tarjei Straume wrote:

John Morehead wrote:

Is there a concept of a Supreme Being within Anthroposophy? What would be Ultimate Reality within this worldview? These various spiritual beings?

If you by "supreme" mean allmighty and all-knowing, the answer is no. But personal, yes. Very much so.

I'm interested in this question too, Tarjei, and I don't think you've answered it.

Granted. You guys are full of questions, aren't you? And one-liners won't do, huh? You know, John's threefold question looks exactly like some of those formulated by the workers at the Goethanum when Steiner said something like, "Greetings everybody; do you have a question today?" The question, or questions, would be asked, and Steiner would answer by talking for an hour or two.

"Supreme" does not necessarily mean allmighty and all-knowing, but it would refer to a being having supremacy over all other spiritual beings.

Thanks for the clarification-reminder; I needed that.

In other words, at the apex of the Anthroposophical pantheon of angels, archangels, and other spiritual beings, is there one that sits above the rest?

Huh, heavy. Complicated. Intricate. You know how it is with natural science - there is so much to learn and understand, and you end up feeling that you've barely scratched the surface. Spiritual science is just as complicated and demanding. I can answer some of this question of yours on the basis of my own flawed comprehension of the topic, but there are aspects of this that I still don't understand, that I haven't come to terms with. We're talking about the spiritual hierarchies. (I guess that's what you mean by "pantheon".)

I'll start with a simple answer to your question before I try to explain some more detail: Anthroposophy is a Christ-centered cosmology, and from the vantage point of humanity, the Risen Christ is the closest you can get to a supreme being.

In the Matthew Gospel, after the Sermon on the Mount, most translations read:

For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Matt. 7:29)

The word rendered as "authority" is "Exusiai", which is the Greek name for what the Hebrews called "Elohim." This signifies a specific rank of spiritual beings, a hierarchy. According to the Masonic Temple Legend, there were seven Elohim Spirits who created our solar systen. One of these Elohim, Yahve or Jehovah, appropriated the control of the Earth-evolution so to speak, and united himself with the moon. This is why also Helena Blavatsky spoke of him as a moon god. The other six Elohim united themselves with the sun. The supreme sun god was the Christ, the being who was recognized as such by the pre-Christian pagan cults. After divine intervention in earth-evolution through the Mystery of Golgotha in Palestine, Christ united himself with the earth. In this sense, the earth itself is the body of Christ, so that every time we eat and drink, we participate in a holy communion by consuming the products of Christ's body.

I don't remember the names of all the hierarchies (it's been many years since I studied this), but the lowest is the mineral kingdom (the youngest), then the plant kingdom, followed by the animal kingdom and then the human kingdom (sorry Steve). As the Bible says, man was created a little lower than the angels, so the angels belong to the rank immediately above man, followed by the archangels, then the archai, or time spirits (Yom in Hebrew), and then the Elohim, or Spirits of Form (I think). At the very top we find the eldest and highest hierarcies, the Cherubim and the Seraphim. There are higher and older ranks than these, but they do not influence our evolution directly.

These terms, or names, for the hierarchies, with the exception of some brief references to Greek and Hebrew above, belong to the esoteric-Christian tradition. The same ranks of beings have different names in various cultures and traditions; there are Sanscrit names in Hinduism. Helena Blavatsky used a lot of Sancrit terms. Steiner did the same in the beginning because he was speaking to theosophists, but later he coined expressions more suitable to Western languages. (One of the notable exceptions is the word "karma".)

Rudolf Steiner did not command any comtemporary foreign languages, so all translating and interpreting was done by Marie von Sivers. He did however take the trouble to learn the ancient classical languages Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Sanscrit (or most of these).

I know that this probably won't make you much wiser about spiritual hierarchies according to anthroposophy, but it is a very complicated and comprehensive topic.

When it comes to the question about whether or not there is something called simply God as a Supreme Being, with the possible attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, this subject is addressed in one of my absolute favorite lectures by Rudolf Steiner, entitled "Love and its Meaning in the World," and available on my website at

http://www.uncletaz.com/lovemeaning.html

I find this lecture deeply moving, because it focuses upon the selfless love of humanity by Christ in connection with the Mystery of Golgotha. Steiner explains that as a result of the Fall, or the Temptation, man came under the influence of Lucifer, and later under the World Prince, also known as Ahriman or Satan. Lucifer gave us the primeval, pagan wisdom; Ahriman gave us the intellect. It is man's task to capture the wisdom and the intellect from these powers without being seduced by them, and give these gifts to Christ-Michael (to be as clever as serpents and as harmless as doves, as Christ himself put it).

Christ is the Supreme Being for man, he is God. But in the lecture referred to, Steiner points out that God is pure love - not supreme power, and not supreme wisdom. Here is the relevant passage:

"Besides love there are two other powers in the world. How do they compare with love? The one is strength, might; the second is wisdom. In regard to strength or might we can speak of degrees: weaker, stronger, or absolute might - omnipotence. The same applies to wisdom, for there are stages on the path to omniscience. It will not do to speak in the same way of degrees of love. What is universal love, love for all beings? In the case of love we cannot speak of enhancement as we can speak of enhancement of knowledge into omniscience or of might into omnipotence, by virtue of which we attain greater perfection of our own being. Love for a few or for many beings has nothing to do with our own perfecting. Love for everything that lives cannot be compared with omnipotence; the concept of magnitude, or of enhancement, cannot rightly be applied to love. Can the attribute of omnipotence be ascribed to the Divine Being who lives and weaves through the world? Contentions born of feeling must here be silent: were God omnipotent, he would be responsible for everything that happens and there would be no human freedom. If man can be free, then certainly there can be no Divine omnipotence.

"Is the Godhead omniscient? As man's highest goal is likeness to God, our striving must be in the direction of omniscience. Is omniscience, then, the supreme treasure? If it is, a vast chasm must forever yawn between man and God. At every moment man would have to be aware of this chasm if God possessed the supreme treasure of omniscience for himself and withheld it from man. The all-encompassing attribute of the Godhead is not omnipotence, neither is it omniscience, but it is love - the attribute in respect of which no enhancement is possible. God is uttermost love, unalloyed love, is born as it were out of love, is the very substance and essence of love. God is pure love, not supreme wisdom, not supreme might. God has retained love for himself but has shared wisdom and might with Lucifer and Ahriman. He has shared wisdom with Lucifer and might with Ahriman, in order that man may become free, in order that under the influence of wisdom he may make progress.

"If we try to discover the source of whatever is creative we come to love; love is the ground, the foundation of everything that lives. It is by a different impulse in evolution that beings are led to become wiser and more powerful. Progress is attained through wisdom and strength.. Study of the course taken by the evolution of humanity shows us how the development of wisdom and strength is subject to change: there is progressive evolution and then the Christ Impulse which once poured into mankind through the Mystery of Golgotha. Love did not, therefore, come into the world by degrees; love streamed into mankind as a gift of the Godhead, in complete, perfect wholeness. But man can receive the Impulse into himself gradually. The Divine Impulse of love as we need it in earthly life is an impulse that came once and forever.

"True love is not capable of diminution or amplification. Its nature is quite different from that of wisdom and might. Love wakens no expectations for the future; it is payment of debts incurred in the past. And such was the Mystery of Golgotha in the world's evolution. Did the Godhead, then, owe any debt to humanity?

"Lucifer's influence brought into humanity a certain element in consequence of which something that man had previously possessed was withdrawn from him. This new element led to a descent, a descent countered by the Mystery of Golgotha which made possible the payment of all debts. The Impulse of Golgotha was not given in order that the sins we have committed in evolution may be removed from us, but in order that what crept into humanity through Lucifer should be given its counterweight.

"Let us imagine that there is a man who knows nothing of the name of Jesus Christ, nothing of what is communicated in the Gospels, but that he understands the radical difference between the nature of wisdom and might and that of love. Such a man, even though he knows nothing of the Mystery of Golgotha, is a Christian in the truest sense. A man who knows that love is there for the paying of debts and brings no profit for the future, is a true Christian. To understand the nature of love - that is to be a Christian! Theosophy alone, Spiritual Science alone, with its teachings of karma and reincarnation, can make us into great egoists unless the impulse of love, the Christ Impulse, is added; only so can we acquire the power to overcome the egoism that may be generated by Spiritual Science. The balance is established by an understanding of the Christ Impulse. Spiritual Science is given to the world today because it is necessary for humanity, but in it lies the great danger that - if it is cultivated without the Christ Impulse, without the impulse of love - men will only increase their egoism, will actually breed egoism that lasts even beyond death. From this the conclusion must not be drawn that we should not cultivate Spiritual Science; rather we must learn to realize that understanding of the essential nature of love is an integral part of 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.

[An exchange with Kopp continues from this post in another thread.]

[There is also a thread with a response from (name removed by request).]

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

From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: (Fwd) RE: Occultism
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:41:43 -0700

Thanks, Tarjei, this is fascinating stuff!

[comment about formatting editorially snipped]

On 30 Apr 99, at 22:53, Tarjei Straume wrote:

The word rendered as "authority" is "Exusiai", which is the Greek name for what the Hebrews called "Elohim." This signifies a specific rank of spiritual beings, a hierarchy. According to the Masonic Temple Legend, there were seven Elohim Spirits who created our solar systen. One of these Elohim, Yahve or Jehovah, appropriated the control of the Earth-evolution so to speak, and united himself with the moon. The supreme sun god was the Chris

So Christ is one of the Elohim, as is Jehovah, right?

As the Bible says, man was created a little lower than the angels, so the angels belong to the rank immediately above man, followed by the archangels, then the archai, or time spirits (Yom in Hebrew), and then the Elohim, or Spirits of Form (I think). At the very top we find the eldest and highest hierarcies, the Cherubim and the Seraphim. There are higher and older ranks than these, but they do not influence our evolution directly.

So the Cherubim and Seraphim are higher in rank that Christ or Jehovah, and there are higher ranks still. Interesting.

When it comes to the question about whether or not there is something called simply God as a Supreme Being, with the possible attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, this subject is addressed in one of my absolute favorite lectures by Rudolf Steiner, entitled "Love and its Meaning in the World,"

Good stuff. Thanks!

I think Rudy and I agree on love, although all that other stuff strains my credulity a bit. I like hearing about it, though. Don't take this the wrong way, but it appeals to me as a science fiction buff.

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: (Fwd) RE: Occultism
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 01:09:47 +0200

Steve Premo wrote:

Thanks, Tarjei, this is fascinating stuff!

[comment about formatting editorially snipped]

So Christ is one of the Elohim, as is Jehovah, right?

Yes. But this is something I'm still struggling with. Many anthroposophists have combined these theosophical-anthroposophical concepts with traditional theology like the trinity and the like; this may be typical among anthropops with Catholic backgrounds. Topics such as this are lively discussed on religious newsgroups, and there are soooo many angles on them.

A lot of things can be confusing here - perhaps especially for those who are heavily into theology. My original Christian understanding as a child was that Jehovah was Jesus Christ's daddy, and that this was "the Father" who had sent him and to whom he was returning after his mission on Earth. But there are always new riddles and questions popping up here. In his book "Rudolf Steiner Enters My Life," the Lutheran theologian Friedrich Rittelmeyer tells us that he approached Steiner with the suggestion that in the John Gospel, "the Father" was a euphemism for death. Steiner looked at him with suprise and said: "Have you really discovered that? I had to go a much longer route before arriving at the same conclusion."

So the Cherubim and Seraphim are higher in rank that Christ or Jehovah, and there are higher ranks still. Interesting.

That is the way I have understood it. Any corrections from other anthropops might be helpful here.

In traditional Christian theology, the hierarchies are simply called ranks of angels and placed underneath the Father God or the Trinity. Spiritual science shouldn't be swallowed raw, I think, but be utilized as a resource to understand one's own living relationship to the spiritual. So it's quite possible to "mix" a little Steiner with a theology if it helps you understand it better. (Personally, I have gradually abandoned traditional Christian theology and chosen total independence from any organized religion.)

I think Rudy and I agree on love, although all that other stuff strains my credulity a bit.

Some of it was way out of context, like his references to the relationship between love and debt owed to the past. Just like we are indebted to our parents in a way that we cannot repay them, we are even more so indebted to our creators. And the the more highly developed a person becomes, the more deeply does he recognize his debt, and the more love will he have. Because the only way we can respond to the recognition of being indebted, is to act out of love toward all living creatures.

I like hearing about it, though. Don't take this the wrong way, but it appeals to me as a science fiction buff.

Science fiction can be great. I used to love Star Trek. And Spock always struck me as an initiate of sorts. He was such a delightful mystery. No wonder that there were trekkies out there who actually believed that Leonard Nimoy came from another planet.

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: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Steiner; not "New Age guru"
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 00:58:24 +0200

Steve Premo wrote:

Thanks, Tarjei, this is fascinating stuff!
...

Tarjei:

As the Bible says, man was created a little lower than the angels, so the angels belong to the rank immediately above man, followed by the archangels, then the archai, or time spirits (Yom in Hebrew), and then the Elohim, or Spirits of Form (I think). At the very top we find the eldest and highest hierarcies, the Cherubim and the Seraphim. There are higher and older ranks than these, but they do not influence our evolution directly.

So the Cherubim and Seraphim are higher in rank that Christ or Jehovah, and there are higher ranks still. Interesting.

(Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones.) Steiner developed extensively the view and understanding of Thomas Aquinas on "the nine choirs of angels" (see for example http://www.raphael.net/ and http://www.meretelk.com/apage/Choirangels.html), who in turn had made it his task in life to show that the natural science as developed and summarized by Aristotle did _not_ contradict Christianity.

With anthroposophy, Steiner did in modern time a very similar thing as Thomas during the Middle Ages, in showing how natural science in its essence did not contradict, but could be reconciled with a spiritual understanding that encompassed and did justice both to the pre-Christian and the Christian mysteries.

As for Christ, as I remember it, Steiner pointed to even deeper aspects of his complex origin and nature, that I have not delved into yet.

Steve:

I think Rudy and I agree on love, although all that other stuff strains my credulity a bit. I like hearing about it, though. Don't take this the wrong way, but it appeals to me as a science fiction buff.

I loved science fiction as a youngster. Later I found anthroposophy beat all science fiction as it also, as I see it, leads to a profound understanding of at least some central aspects of the essence of the origin of humanity and of human striving through history.

And even leading into an understanding of the pattern of the EC/EU-process, as I have tried to show in an article on my home page.

My _personal_ opinion is: Anthroposophy beats most other perspectives in the possibilities it opens for a deeper understanding of man and the world, if you succeed somehow to avoid falling into the possible social clefts in relation to some of the - to you - strange and strong personalities also attracted to it.

I have personally found nothing that compares to it.

To the future, I´m rather convinced Steiner will be ranked in the same group of personalities as Aristotle and Thomas in their importance for humanity, contributing to especially one of the four/five central perspectives on the world.

As I see it, if you understand one of the three personalities, you basically also understand the other two. Understanding Steiner as a "New Age guru" completely misses the point. He stands in the row of historical personalities from Aristotle and Thomas, more than from Böhme and Blavatsky.

It is (almost) completely possible to put him in perspective, I think.

Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society

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

From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Occultism
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 09:30:09 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead [mailto:morehead@mail2.quiknet.com]

A naturalistic worldview would incorporate a belief in a subjective and relative basis for ethics, not absolute and objective,

[snip]

A descriptive account of how things are does not necessarily translate into a prescriptive morality.

Your comments imply an external basis for ethics, imposed on the individual by someone else who has made the decision for him, is preferable. I find that in itself objectionable and an imposition on the freedom of the individual. That dogma contains within it the seeds of distrust of the individual and tends to result in authoritarian relationships.

But then again, if everything is one, there is no duality and no basis for making any distinctions, let alone those between alleged good and bad moral choices.

I've indicated in prior posts that in actual practice, duality does not disappear. One must always be applying one's discernment to make choices and judgments.

Each person is left to determine for themselves what values there are, if any.

I think that's better than having someone accept values by blind faith. Not having an external prescription for ethics and morality doesn't leave people at sea without a compass. There's loads of cultural pressures to dissuade against complete disintegration.

Bob Tolz

[This exchange continues in another thread.]

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

From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Steiner; not "New Age guru"
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 12:42:12 -0700

STEVE PREMO

So the Cherubim and Seraphim are higher in rank that Christ or Jehovah, and there are higher ranks still. Interesting.

SUNE NORDWALL

(Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones.) Steiner developed extensively the view and understanding of Thomas Aquinas on "the nine choirs of angels" (see for example http://www.raphael.net/ and http://www.meretelk.com/apage/Choirangels.html), who in turn had made it his task in life to show that the natural science as developed and summarizedby Aristotle did _not_ contradict Christianity.

With anthroposophy, Steiner did in modern time a very similar thing as Thomas during the Middle Ages, in showing how natural science in its essence did not contradict, but could be reconciled with a spiritual understanding that encompassed and did justice both to the pre-Christian and the Christian mysteries.

Didn't Steiner claim to have been Thomas Aquinas in an earlier life?

-Dan Dugan

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Steiner; not "New Age guru"
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 09:34:23 +0200

Dan Dugan wrote:

Didn't Steiner claim to have been Thomas Aquinas in an earlier life?

Steiner made no claims whatsoever about his former incarnations. He refused to discuss them or to answer questions about them. The assumption in question (about Aquinas) has been deduced from private correspondence between RS and Ita Wegman discovered after his death.

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.

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

 

The Uncle Taz "WC Posts"

Tarjei's "WC files"

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind