Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

[Jim Cross]

There isn't really any possibility of conversation with somebody who is crazy.

And that is the very credo of us-vs-them is it not? Each side pointing out that the other side is crazy, and can't be trusted.

They say "you' don't have to imagine a conspiracy" then literally spout a conspiracy theory about everyone being chipped. One of the key Internet memes about the vaccine, of course, is that a vaccine puts a chip into you.

No-one intended that there is some bad-guy conspiracy to ensure everyone being chipped, and Elon Musk is not considered part of such a 'conspiracy' with neuralink (no need to sneak it into a vaccine, they're already eagerly lining up on Wall Street, fists full of dollars), but actually just another brilliant myth-of-the-machine advocate, who is surely well-intentioned—how great to be able to turn on the smartphone with one's thoughts! But as always there is the huge potential for abuse of the technology, when your thoughts are now in the cyber-age database. Who needs self-inquiry anymore as a guide? The Machine will guide the way ... just like the Tower of Babel.

Anyway, I'm with CE, and while I don't find trepidation to be very helpful, one should be skeptical about any oh-so-comforting certainty about the ramifications of the myth of the machine as trusted guide and driver, or counter claims that it is on the road to dystopian hell, while in both cases the integral-mode ideation that will find the sanative balance takes a back seat.

Yeah, Jim's quote doesn't mention anything about the chip coming via vaccine, but he read that into it anyway. I wonder if people even notice they are engaged in this projecting anymore... I suppose not, otherwise they likely wouldn't be doing it.

It is really frightening how saying we are moving towards digital monitoring is dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" when it has already happened, for all intents and purposes. It shows how little people are actually paying attention to what goes on around them.

Right. But why bring up chips and digital passports at all in the discussion of the pandemic?

You don't have to mention about chips in the vaccine. The audience already knows about the chips in the vaccine.

It is really frightening how saying we are moving towards digital monitoring is dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" when it has already happened, for all intents and purposes. It shows how little people are actually paying attention to what goes on around them.

As I said, there are legitimate issues about this but these guys are shoehorning the issue into a discussion about the pandemic. It is all about a worldview that wants everything to conform to a particular narrative so public health measures at a time when millions are dying from a disease have to fit the narrative too.

They say:

this is simply the march towards uh mark zuckerberg's metaverse it's uh it's the march towards the world that silicon valley are very very openly trying to take us towards

As they stream their conversation on YouTube owned by Google that is undoubtedly tracking every click of every viewer. Oh, the irony! Maybe we should have stopped with CDs?

Later they grouse about industrial agriculture. I wonder do they grow their own food. Should we have stopped with oxen and plow?

[AshvinP]

And that is the very credo of us-vs-them is it not? Each side pointing out that the other side is crazy, and can't be trusted.


No-one intended that there is some bad-guy conspiracy to ensure everyone being chipped, and Elon Musk is not considered part of such a 'conspiracy' with neuralink (no need to sneak it into a vaccine, they're already eagerly lining up on Wall Street, fists full of dollars), but actually just another brilliant myth-of-the-machine advocate, who is surely well-intentioned—how great to be able to turn on the smartphone with one's thoughts! But as always there is the huge potential for abuse of the technology, when your thoughts are now in the cyber-age database. Who needs self-inquiry anymore as a guide? The Machine will guide the way ... just like the Tower of Babel.

Anyway, I'm with CE, and while I don't find trepidation to be very helpful, one should be skeptical about any oh-so-comforting certainty about the ramifications of the myth of the machine as trusted guide and driver, or counter claims that it is on the road to dystopian hell, while in both cases the integral-mode ideation that will find the sanative balance takes a back seat.

Yeah, Jim's quote doesn't mention anything about the chip coming via vaccine, but he read that into it anyway. I wonder if people even notice they are engaged in this projecting anymore... I suppose not, otherwise they likely wouldn't be doing it.

It is really frightening how saying we are moving towards digital monitoring is dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" when it has already happened, for all intents and purposes. It shows how little people are actually paying attention to what goes on around them.

Right. But why bring up chips and digital passports at all in the discussion of the pandemic?

You don't have to mention about chips in the vaccine. The audience already knows about the chips in the vaccine.

It is really frightening how saying we are moving towards digital monitoring is dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" when it has already happened, for all intents and purposes. It shows how little people are actually paying attention to what goes on around them.

As I said, there are legitimate issues about this but these guys are shoehorning the issue into a discussion about the pandemic. It is all about a worldview that wants everything to conform to a particular narrative so public health measures at a time when millions are dying from a disease have to fit the narrative too.

They say:

this is simply the march towards uh mark zuckerberg's metaverse it's uh it's the march towards the world that silicon valley are very very openly trying to take us towards

As they stream their conversation on YouTube owned by Google that is undoubtedly tracking every click of every viewer. Oh, the irony! Maybe we should have stopped with CDs?

Later they grouse about industrial agriculture. I wonder do they grow their own food. Should we have stopped with oxen and plow?

Well I agree their 'solution' to talk about it and point the finger everywhere but themselves is less than useless. That's what all who ignore a spiritual reality immanent to our own are forced to do, because the evil (and good) within is perceived as minimal, insubstantial, and remote from events in the world.

Still, our own complicity doesn't mean they are wrong about the clear patterns and trends. Every large scale government policy finds a way to shoehorn in the interests of big corporations and corrupt politicians. Just look at all the pork stuffed into the "Covid relief" legislation. It's automatic standard operating procedure and it's naive to think this 'golden' opportunity for enhancing the surveillance state will not be utilized by the same corrupt people. It's all perfectly rational and justified from their perspective- "why let a crisis go to waste?" And what's really scary is how quickly we will sacrifice individual sovereignty for perceived "safety", without any thought of the medium to long-term consequences of such a bargain. If we think these expanded powers will be rolled back after the virus dies out, then we have learned nothing from recent history.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Neither did they say what we should do,. Nor did I see any acknowledgement of any value to any public health measures. A nuanced discussion would be looking at different kinds of health measures and have discussion of pluses and minuses. Do we close schools even though children do usually become very ill?? How many days should people quarantine after exposure? Who shouldn't take the vaccines? How do we handle the immuno-compromised who may still be susceptible after vaccination? Where should masks be required? That is what a nuanced discussion would be like. It would acknowledge both sides of the arguments.

Surely they are well aware that those discussions need to be had, and are being had, and like most they may well have opinions pro or con, which may or may not be valid, but that was not the focus of their discussion, so why would they focus on that aspect? If I wanted to hear or read about the discussion you're focused on, I can just turn to the Globe and Mail articles and comments section, and join in there, whereas discussions like CE and PK had are utterly absent there, and why I'm commenting here and not there, and also wondering why you aren't commenting there, or the NYT, rather than here. Just because the focus of their discussion was not focused on what you feel it should be focused on instead, doesn't invalidate the focus of their discussion—a focus that I've suggested that this forum elaborate upon, but no-one seems much interested in that.

The mindset at work here is one that is reflexively anti-science, anti-modernity. There isn't any nuance whatsoever. The only understanding they are seeking is an understanding of their own and others anti-science position. It is also a mindset that wants to fit everything into the same narrative. The narrative is that the modern world is bad and getting worse.

I can only repeat that we seemed to have heard very different conversations, as being one who is not 'anti-science', if that was what they were advocating, I'd have not taken them seriously.

[Jim Cross]

Neither did they say what we should do,. Nor did I see any acknowledgement of any value to any public health measures. A nuanced discussion would be looking at different kinds of health measures and have discussion of pluses and minuses. Do we close schools even though children do usually become very ill?? How many days should people quarantine after exposure? Who shouldn't take the vaccines? How do we handle the immuno-compromised who may still be susceptible after vaccination? Where should masks be required? That is what a nuanced discussion would be like. It would acknowledge both sides of the arguments.

Surely they are well aware that those discussions need to be had, and are being had, and like most they may well have opinions pro or con, which may or may not be valid, but that was not the focus of their discussion, so why would they focus on that aspect? If I wanted to hear or read about the discussion you're focused on, I can just turn to the Globe and Mail articles and comments section, and join in there, whereas discussions like CE and PK had are utterly absent there, and why I'm commenting here and not there, and also wondering why you aren't commenting there, or the NYT, rather than here. Just because the focus of their discussion was not focused on what you feel it should be focused on instead, doesn't invalidate the focus of their discussion—a focus that I've suggested that this forum elaborate upon, but no-one seems much interested in that.

The mindset at work here is one that is reflexively anti-science, anti-modernity. There isn't any nuance whatsoever. The only understanding they are seeking is an understanding of their own and others anti-science position. It is also a mindset that wants to fit everything into the same narrative. The narrative is that the modern world is bad and getting worse.

I can only repeat that we seemed to have heard very different conversations, as being one who is not 'anti-science', if that were what they were advocating, I'd have not taken them seriously.

If you are interested in the march to the machine, I am definitely interested in discussing it. Just disconnect it from the pandemic. I would give it better than even odds we will become the Borg. But what does it do to the spiritual evolution argument if we become the Borg?

Probably a different topic.

[Lou Gold]

AND ... by virtue of the synchronicity now available via the internet, please listen to the poem that just arrived in my email.

"Vaccinated" by Jericho Brown

Jericho Brown is the author of The Tradition (Copper Canyon Press, 2019), winner of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry. The recipient of awards and fellowships from the Whiting Foundation, Guggenheim Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts, he is the Director of the Creative Writing Program at Emory University in Atlanta, where he lives.

[Jim Cross]

Still, our own complicity doesn't mean they are wrong about the clear patterns and trends.

They may be right about the trends but they are intellectually lazy.

You need to start with a balanced perspective. Find the good along with the bad. The choices are not simple and then you have to find ways to change the trend.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If you are interested in the march to the machine, I am definitely interested in discussing it. Just disconnect it from the pandemic. I would give it better than even odds we will become the Borg. But what does it do to the spiritual evolution argument if we become the Borg?

Probably a different topic.

Well, in the context of the CE/PK discussion they feel the that march-of-the-machine is inextricable from its paradigmatic response to any given crisis, and in this case they discussed it through the prism of the Covid crisis, but could have been through the prism of some other crisis, e.g. the climate crisis. But yeah, we don't have to focus on any given crisis, as there are surely many to choose from.

[Lou Gold]

My interest here is not the virus per se but the so-called "prism," which suggests that we have entered an era of accelerated novelty known as 'paradigm change' or 'phase shift' or 'great initiation' or whatever descriptor you favor. If novelty is truly the new normal, then so will be uncertainty, which is the handmaiden of the new birth. The challenge is to hold a calm balance rather than a culture war. The promise of the child is great and so are the tricks and traps of inevitable domestication, peer acceptance/rejection, personal ontological security/insecurity, etc. In future times, one's comfort with mask-wearing (for example) may boil down to whatever the child is taught now. IF covid follows a flu-like pattern it will settle into a culturally accepted normal including substantial vax and protection, sizable non-compliance and less political saliency. I'm not minimizing the risks, challenges and dangers but instead suggesting a general trend into more and more novel uncertainties. Personally, I've been focusing on how to comfortably hold/accept the Great Mysteriousness AND be aware of the time-honored aphorism, "Trust in Allah and tie up your camel."

[AshvinP]

Neither did they say what we should do,. Nor did I see any acknowledgement of any value to any public health measures. A nuanced discussion would be looking at different kinds of health measures and have discussion of pluses and minuses. Do we close schools even though children do usually become very ill?? How many days should people quarantine after exposure? Who shouldn't take the vaccines? How do we handle the immuno-compromised who may still be susceptible after vaccination? Where should masks be required? That is what a nuanced discussion would be like. It would acknowledge both sides of the arguments.

Surely they are well aware that those discussions need to be had, and are being had, and like most they may well have opinions pro or con, which may or may not be valid, but that was not the focus of their discussion, so why would they focus on that aspect? If I wanted to hear or read about the discussion you're focused on, I can just turn to the Globe and Mail articles and comments section, and join in there, whereas discussions like CE and PK had are utterly absent there, and why I'm commenting here and not there, and also wondering why you aren't commenting there, or the NYT, rather than here. Just because the focus of their discussion was not focused on what you feel it should be focused on instead, doesn't invalidate the focus of their discussion—a focus that I've suggested that this forum elaborate upon, but no-one seems much interested in that.

The mindset at work here is one that is reflexively anti-science, anti-modernity. There isn't any nuance whatsoever. The only understanding they are seeking is an understanding of their own and others anti-science position. It is also a mindset that wants to fit everything into the same narrative. The narrative is that the modern world is bad and getting worse.

I can only repeat that we seemed to have heard very different conversations, as being one who is not 'anti-science', if that were what they were advocating, I'd have not taken them seriously.

If you are interested in the march to the machine, I am definitely interested in discussing it. Just disconnect it from the pandemic. I would give it better than even odds we will become the Borg. But what does it do to the spiritual evolution argument if we become the Borg?

Probably a different topic.

With every understanding of evolution, we find the concept of adapting via 'mutation' (of consciousness) or going 'extinct'. Ideational evolution also shows how what we call 'dying' is not essentially different from becoming unconscious. And ideational evolution with reincarnation shows there is evolution between death and rebirth, i.e. no fundamental discontinuity. So going 'extinct' is falling into deep unconscious mode, which is the image of the Borg. But we also know in evolutionary theory that evolution also occurs through extinction. Materialist evolution says extinct species are dead and gone, nothing of them lives on. Not so under ideational evolutionary theory. Those who live on will be responsible for the redemption of those 'left behind'.

[Jim Cross]

If you are interested in the march to the machine, I am definitely interested in discussing it. Just disconnect it from the pandemic. I would give it better than even odds we will become the Borg. But what does it do to the spiritual evolution argument if we become the Borg?

Probably a different topic.

Well, in the context of the CE/PK discussion they feel the that march-of-the-machine is inextricable from its paradigmatic response to any given crisis, and in this case they discussed it through the prism of the Covid crisis, but could have been through the prism of some other crisis, e.g. the climate crisis. But yeah, we don't have to focus on any given crisis, as there are surely many to choose from.

I'm glad you have provided this perspective.

Technology is what makes humans unique on this planet. We have made it and we in turn have been made by it. In theory, we should be able to control it but in practice we seldom can. We frequently discover unforeseen, negative consequences of it. At any rate, we can't simply throw it aside unless you're prepared to justify billions of deaths. We may not live by bread alone but we aren't going to live long without bread. I can't believe it is a bad thing that most infants survive to become adults, that much of the world's knowledge is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, that we live in houses. that we can be vaccinated against potentially fatal disease, or that we have a world distribution system that allows me to eat Chilean cherries in the winter. I'm in favor of keeping most of the technology but understanding and managing the downsides.

So you can't stop the march of the machine. The machine may stop itself if we mess up badly enough but, otherwise, it will keep going through crises after crises. Some day we will end up in a different place. That place may be the Borg world or it may be a world of Bodhisattvas. I would prefer the latter so I would be interested in hearing good ideas on how to get there from where we are that are more than magical thinking.