344 replies to this topic

[Armen]

Why starting to post one by one, when neither you nor me are interested to converse? You have already your mind set, so as I... I am not interested to enter in an athymological war of what a word mean or doesn't, and I am sure that neither are you.

Because you seemed interested when you posted some totaly incorrect stuff about Steiner without any base. That would amount to me saying that Jasper is a lunatic in my first post without knowing him. I don't aquire my information from Google because there are lot of politicizes opinions and propaganda. I said I am going to read Jasper and I am giong to read his actual works. In you turn you base your statements on a popular American anti-European propaganda notion that all German phylosophers were Nazies or served as a base for that. You seemed interested when you defamated Steiner but when you saw that your information is not sufficient you lost your interest.

Believe in any one you want, if you believe some crackpot that was telepaticaly communicating with the invisible inhabitants of the invisible Atlantis so be it.

This is a layman's talk...

[DominO]

Because you seemed interested when you posted some totaly incorrect stuff about Steiner without any base. That would amount to me saying that Jasper is a lunatic in my first post without knowing him. I don't aquire my information from Google because there are lot of politicizes opinions and propaganda. I said I am going to read Jasper and I am giong to read his actual works. In you turn you base your statements on a popular American anti-European propaganda notion that all German phylosophers were Nazies or served as a base for that. You seemed interested when you defamated Steiner but when you saw that your information is not sufficient you lost your interest.
This is a layman's talk...

Do you realise what what you say has no sense?

Steiner works are all over the web, it is his writtings, not what it is said about him... so in this cases google is a very good ressources... I have access to two virtuallibraries from the web, and abstracts... and this is only what I have from the web...

I know from Steiner because of my research of the root of NAZIsm, I havn't just learned about him now... the only thing I can say is that the only propagandising is the pro-Steiner side whom release "reports" after "reports" to justify his position and explain why he is not racist.

And I never claimed that German philosophers are all NAZI, to the contrary, many of the great philosophers were Germans, one of my favoured Kant, was German, Jaspers that I reffered recently is as well....

I will just stop here, the rest is just pointless.

[Armen]

The Story of My Life
By Rudolf Steiner

http://wn.elib.com/S...A028_index.html

All this I shared vitally – the soul-life of a woman, her beautiful devotion to her sons, the life of the family within a wide circle of kinsmen and acquaintances. But for this reason things did not move without difficulty. The family was Jewish. In their views they were quite free from any sectarian or racial narrowness, but the head of the family, to whom I was deeply attached, felt a certain sensitiveness to any expression by a Gentile in regard to the Jews. The flame of anti-Semitism which had sprung up at that time had caused this feeling.

Now, I took a keen interest in the struggle which the Germans in Austria were then carrying on in behalf of their national existence. I was also led to occupy myself with the historical and the social position of the Jews. Especially earnest did this activity of mine become after the appearance of Hamerling's Homunculus. This eminent German poet was considered by a great part of the journalists as an anti-Semite on account of this work; indeed, he was claimed by the German national anti-Semites as one of their own. This disturbed me very little; but I wrote a paper on the Homunculus in which, as I thought, I expressed myself quite objectively in regard to the Jews. The man in whose home I lived, and who was my friend, took this to be a special form of anti-Semitism. Not in the least did his friendly feeling for me suffer on that account, but he was affected with a profound distress. When he had read the paper, he faced me, his heart torn by innermost sorrow, and said to me: “What you wrote in this in regard to the Jews cannot be explained in a friendly sense; but this is not what hurts me, but the fact that you could have had the experiences in regard to us which induced you to write thus only through your close relationship with us and our friends.” He was mistaken: for I had formed my opinions altogether from a spiritual and historic survey; nothing personal had entered into my judgment. He could not see the thing in this way. His reply to my explanations was: “No, the man who teaches my children is, after this paper, no ‘friend of the Jews.’” He could not be induced to change. Not for a moment did he think that my relation ship to the family ought to be altered. This he looked upon as something necessary. Still less could I make this matter the occasion for a change; for I looked upon the teaching of his sons as a task which destiny had brought to me. But neither of us could do otherwise than think that a tragic thread had been woven into this relationship. To all this was added the fact that many of my friends had taken on from their national struggle a tinge of anti-Semitism in their view of the Jews. They did not view sympathetically my holding a post in a Jewish family; and the head of this family saw in my friendly mingling with such persons only a confirmation of the impression which he had received from my paper.

[Armen]

I know from Steiner because of my research of the root of NAZIsm, I havn't just learned about him now... the only thing I can say is that the only propagandising is the pro-Steiner side whom release "reports" after "reports" to justify his position and explain why he is not racist.

Well, what do you expect? If some anti-Steiner people release "reports" propagandizing that he is a Nazi, the pro-Steinerians are going to release reports that he is not. Isn't this self-evident? Or you expect them to shut up?

[Sasun]

Well, what do you expect? If some anti-Steiner people release "reports" propagandizing that he is a Nazi, the pro-Steinerians are going to release reports that he is not. Isn't this self-evident? Or you expect them to shut up?

No, people who have anything to do with religion, theology, spirituality have to be slandered, thrown mud at, accused of all crimes and immorality by men with little knowledge and big egos without any base or proof. They have no right to defend themselves against lies.

[DominO]

No, people who have anything to do with religion, theology, spirituality have to be slandered, thrown mud at, accused of all crimes and immorality by men with little knowledge and big egos without any base or proof. They have no right to defend themselves against lies.

It can be the other way around, just because it is religion, some big egos will try to discredit the opposition. But in this cases Steiner deffenders were the one opening the trap that made them fall in what they have set. The critics first have not really raised Steiner racism.

I don't know how anyone can deny Steiner being a racist, in the true sense of the term, and as well as his lack of consistancy and contradiction that is so MUCH OBVIOUS!!! While he claims to be anti-racist and say how race has no value in modern times he maintains the cycle of reincarnation of the the souls starting by Black Africans having the most impure souls of men and ending with Aryanism.

The most disgusting is that a good portion of anthroposophists still believe in this soul evolution.

It is very easy to shut the critics up by claiming they have big egos and talk of ignorance, but in this cases like many other cases of charlatanism, you won't find from the pro side printing those materials from the others that bring controversy and expose their true intentions... more particularly the anthroposophists reincarnation order theory that start with the Blacks and end with Aryanism.

It is as well funny that Steiner weird ideas and beliefs are never brought out...

Do you or Armen believe that Steiner was talking with the invisible peoples of Invisible Atlantis?

[Armen]

But in this cases Steiner deffenders were the one opening the trap that made them fall in what they have set. The critics first have not really raised Steiner racism.

How silly of them. They open a trap and they get there. Oh, these stupid steinerians...And the opposition didn't bring the Steiner being a Nazi issue because they were so nice, right? The waited until steinerians set the trap and got there.

I don't know how anyone can deny Steiner being a racist, in the true sense of the term, and as well as his lack of consistancy and contradiction that is so MUCH OBVIOUS!!!

This sounds like a Church dogma. There is a god, bible says that. You're nothing different.

While he claims to be anti-racist and say how race has no value in modern times he maintains the cycle of reincarnation of the the souls starting by Black Africans having the most impure souls of men and ending with Aryanism.

You are misinformed.

The most disgusting is that a good portion of anthroposophists still believe in this soul evolution.

How is this disgusting?

It is very easy to shut the critics up by claiming they have big egos and talk of ignorance, but in this cases like many other cases of charlatanism, you won't find from the pro side printing those materials from the others that bring controversy and expose their true intentions... more particularly the anthroposophists reincarnation order theory that start with the Blacks and end with Aryanism.

Who is shuting you up?! Was there a critique in what you said. A baseles claim that Steiner is a Nazi is a critique?

It is as well funny that Steiner weird ideas and beliefs are never brought out...

Why don't you post them.

Do you or Armen believe that Steiner was talking with the invisible peoples of Invisible Atlantis?

Do you believe that there is soul?

Edited by ArmenSarg, 24 September 2004 - 11:56 PM.

[DominO]

Oh man, I give up... as I said believe what you want.

[DominO]

Do you believe that there is soul?

Oh, I have missed that one.

I seak knowledge not belief. Matter represent a little fraction in total emptiness... our body is already a soul. So no, I do not believe in the soul compleatly independent from the body. It is not possible for one to be self-aware without the process of observing, ... which mean a medium like the brain is a prerequist.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that I am a physcalist materialist... I am not, matter and consciousness are in constant relation, and the interaction between the observer and the observed is what creat self-awarness... this interaction could happen for eternity...

I believe in an eternel life, without the existance of a soul. There are infinit universes, and the "me" existed before this one, and will exist afterward in other multiverses, where the connection building the me will arrise. Only my present existance is a prove(which is a lot stronger than evidences, see my 7 certainty principles somewhere in ths forum ) that the possibility of my existance is possible, and since this possibility exist, and that there are no restrictions for this possibility to happen again... it will happen again, a direct continuation or any other possible way.

The soul is as restrictive as the materialist notion... so I oppose both.

[Armen]

Oh, I have missed that one.

I seak knowledge not belief. Matter represent a little fraction in total emptiness... our body is already a soul. So no, I do not believe in the soul compleatly independent from the body. It is not possible for one to be self-aware without the process of observing, ... which mean a medium like the brain is a prerequist.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that I am a physcalist materialist... I am not, matter and consciousness are in constant relation, and the interaction between the observer and the observed is what creat self-awarness... this interaction could happen for eternity...

I believe in an eternel life, without the existance of a soul. There are infinit universes, and the "me" existed before this one, and will exist afterward in other multiverses, where the connection building the me will arrise. Only my present existance is a prove(which is a lot stronger than evidences, see my 7 certainty principles somewhere in ths forum ) that the possibility of my existance is possible, and since this possibility exist, and that there are no restrictions for this possibility to happen again... it will happen again, a direct continuation or any other possible way.

The soul is as restrictive as the materialist notion... so I oppose both.

Knowledge does not necessarily has to be physical. It is not requried for knowledge to be a piece of materia stored in our brain. Knowledge is not defined like that. Or, more correctly, it can also be defined otherwise. So, the beliefe in soul can also become a knowledge of soul. The medium called brain that is required for observation of physical and mental processes can also be developed in spiritual sense, which brings to supersensibility. Hence, the famous scientific fact that human brain uses only small % of its abilities - I would add here - the physical ones.

In your third pharagraph you practicaly described how soul exists and then rejected it. This is confusing.

I agree with your last statement. However, it is the human speech and that makes the idea of "soul" restrictive. In physical world humans need subconscious limits and borders for everything for the brain to register it. However, this does not mean that soul is in fact resticted because its origianal source is independent and free.

[MosJan]

ehh es xerj mardun hangist togheq eli vayyyyy
astvats el ban & gorts chuni ....


H astvats Papik jan dzeri het es yekor shabatva LOto ###### Email kanes Plz.

[DominO]

Knowledge does not necessarily has to be physical. It is not requried for knowledge to be a piece of materia stored in our brain. Knowledge is not defined like that. Or, more correctly, it can also be defined otherwise. So, the beliefe in soul can also become a knowledge of soul. The medium called brain that is required for observation of physical and mental processes can also be developed in spiritual sense, which brings to supersensibility. Hence, the famous scientific fact that human brain uses only small % of its abilities - I would add here - the physical ones.

In your third pharagraph you practicaly described how soul exists and then rejected it. This is confusing.

I agree with your last statement. However, it is the human speech and  that makes the idea of "soul" restrictive. In physical world humans need subconscious limits and borders for everything for the brain to register it. However, this does not mean that soul is in fact resticted because its origianal source is independent and free.

I think you did not understand my point.

I said that if there was to be a soul, our body is already a soul from one aspect of the definition that people give to a soul. "Matter" is already on the limits of the existance, between emptiness to something. Matter is Qualia, Qualia is matter, what you call "soul" is just a property of matter, and matter is a property of this so-called soul. On the other hand, what make me conclude that there is no soul is one of the properties given to the soul, which make it idenpendent from matter... I do reject that theses... there is no reason, absolutly no reason for that to be the cases, and it is as well illogical.

Read a little more about the Qualia here.

http://www.qualia-manifesto.com/

What you call knowledge outside the brain, is the interaction there is between that system and a conscious mind.

[Azat]

Thoth, FYI, your replies and welcome in this thread was most likely the reason for me sticking around!

ahhhhhh crap. you mean if it was not for Thoth's response I could have been the king of HyeForum?

[Sasun]

I need a good argument for this statement:

"If God is all good then why did God create so much evil."

Considering:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent.

It has to be a very direct and brief counterstatement. My brain is not functioning. Can you guys come up with something?

To give a short answer, you must read Advaita philosophy.

[Ludwig9]

For something to be self-aware, it must observe something... a god alone can not be self-aware.

Why not ?

[Sasun]

- No Thoth I did not say that. In fact what I said was diametrically the opposite.

- The Bible and Wisdom
http://wn.elib.com/S...bWis_index.html

Thoth, could I ask you to read the following link and give me your opinion. I understand that this sounds strange because it is lengthy, but please do that.
I sincerely want to know what you think of it. If you read it, do not just go through it, read every sentence and in the end remember all the pharagraphs and the links between them.

Armen, I read the article a few weeks ago. Very interesting, and confirms what I have believed reading eastern authors. By the way, yoga is another name for spiritual science. I thought Steiner is just an intellectual. It appears he is quite well versed in spiritual practice. I don't know how advanced he is, but he seems quite advanced to me. Need to read more. One thing that is important - key to spiritual science are concentration and meditation. This is the same in yoga. Intellectual knowledge is no knowledge compared to what meditation can reveal. The authors of the Bible surely practiced some form of meditation. A person who meditates can be in tune with the authors and easily undersand what was meant by the symbolism and other things that seem unclear or contradictory to a purely intellectual reader.

Edited by Sasun, 19 October 2004 - 05:13 PM.

[Armen]

Armen, I read the article a few weeks ago. Very interesting, and confirms what I have believed reading eastern authors. By the way, yoga is another name for spiritual science. I thought Steiner is just an intellectual. It appears he is quite well versed in spiritual practice. I don't know how advanced he is, but he seems quite advanced to me. Need to read more. One thing that is important - key to spiritual science are concentration and meditation. This is the same in yoga. Intellectual knowledge is no knowledge compared to what meditation can reveal. The authors of the Bible surely practiced some form of meditation. A person who meditates can be in tune with the authors and easily undersand what was meant by the symbolism and other things that seem unclear or contradictory to a purely intellectual reader.

I totaly agree with you.

I would like to envite your attention to the following parts. In my view, the most interesting example of wrongfully judged occurences he brings is the example of Aristotel. He says that Aristotel, who was the ultimate authority for all natural scientists in the middle ages, claimed that human nerve system receives its impulses from the heart. When the scientists in the middle ages found out that this claim is false they had reasons to doubt Aristotel's many thoughts. However, Steiner brings the example of a scientist from the middle ages who writes that although Aristotel's claim is false from scientific point of view, he still feels as if his nerves recieve the imulses from the heart. Don't you feel like that even now?

The second thing I like is this quote about Euclid's Geometry:

Let us take for sake of example an old book — Euclid's Geometry. Anyone who understands something of Geometry to-day will understand this book. But one would of course only place reliance on someone who had really studied Geometry to-day. When such a man comes to Euclid he will recognise his teachings to be true. In the same sense a man who approaches the Bible with philological knowledge only can never be a real ‘Authority.’ Only a man who is able to create the wisdom from out of his own being can be a real Authority on the Bible.

Edited by Armen, 19 October 2004 - 11:34 PM.

[DominO]

Why not ?

Close your eyes, your ears and any sources stimulating any of your 5 senses, try thinking of nothing... after you do that come here and ask this question again.

[DominO]

I don't know how advanced he is, but he seems quite advanced to me.

So accoding to you, one must start hallucinating telepatical communications with people from a land that the existance is mythological for others, or believing in aryanism and the superiority of some "races" to be considered "advanced"?

Shall I equal the word advanced to psychosis?

[Sasun]

I would like to envite your attention to the following parts. In my view, the most interesting example of wrongfully judged occurences he brings is the example of Aristotel. He says that Aristotel, who was the ultimate authority for all natural scientists in the middle ages, claimed that human nerve system receives its impulses from the heart. When the scientists in the middle ages found out that this claim is false they had reasons to doubt Aristotel's many thoughts. However, Steiner brings the example of a scientist from the middle ages who writes that although Aristotel's claim is false from scientific point of view, he still feels as if his nerves recieve the imulses from the heart. Don't you feel like that even now? 

I don't myself feel per se where the impulses of the nerve system come from. I think they come from sense organs and the brain, but I myself don't feel. On the other, maybe Aristotle meant something else by the impulses, maybe he meant life forces?

The second thing I like is this quote about Euclid's Geometry:

Yes, that seems like a very simple explanation, but a lot of people seem to not understand it.