Soul has a very specific stance/orientation/attitude/reaction towards me when I mention Steiner but don't quote Steiner. And I often do that. But he is cherry picking because I quoted Steiner probably over three dozen times in the conversation in which Steiner became the main topic. I don't get credit for the quotes
Seriously, though it is a fact that when I think about and talk about Steiner, there are things I remember very well (from over the last 25 years of my study) and there are things that I remember a specific nugget but don't remember which book (I've owned over 200 compilations of lectures and books from Steiner over the last 25 years), and there are elements that are very murky and vague.
I think this is natural. I know for a fact that it doesn't annoy everybody. But I also know for a fact that this does annoy some. And Soul probably would say he isn't annoyed. He might say he is just 'aware' that there are times I mention Steiner but don't know which book contains the content I'm referring to.
Soul said:
"I do have to wonder about why you resort to all these cryptic references. First we have those unprovided, unspecified points that Steiner told with French physicists. Then the mention of twin psychics who shall remain nameless, even though there's a good chance we know who they are, in which case why the suspense? Now there's a book that you feel is a must-read for m_m_m, which you want to share with him, while keeping it from the rest of us. Clearly this is a deliberate pattern, the intention of which seems highly dubious. Is there some reasonable point to it that I'm missing?"
I fully understand why there are some Steiner online groups in which there are very focused rules about the conversation. They pick a lecture cycle or topic and they say you can not comment on anything you think Steiner talked about unless you have the quotations at hand.
I respect that!
But unless I missed something, this discussion group is like people enjoying time on a porch and chatting. In fact, Soul has an entire category of conversations that do have strict rules of engagement.
Soul may or may not know that Steiner never stopped lecturing from about the year 1899 onwards. I bet Soul might not know that Anthroposophical Press often changes not only the name of the lecture cycles, but changes the lectures themselves; they will decide that a batch of other lectures can be sold and have a theme that people will find interesting.
And, yes, they sometimes yank certain lectures out of the public view. LIke lecture GA174b.
But here's the fun part.
Imagine you have spent twenty years reading the novels of a writer who wrote on average about five 500 page novels a year. You have loved these novels. They are filled with a massive ammount of intertwining ideas and stories and theories.
You are in a discussion with other people who have some connection to some of these novels.
You say, "Oh, I was in a book club 18 years ago where we compared the story-lines about molecule-failure with the story lines dealing with the lost keys of Onion. It was interesting because I remember you could start to see how the author was able to balance the descriptions in a way that really drew out the more dynamic aspects of each. It was cool. Anybody come across stuff related to that?"
It is hard for me to imagine a group of people who are simply enjoying a discussion would say be upset if you couldn't remember which of the 200 novels these themes were in. Or that your attempts to find out would elicit eye rolls because you haven't yet provided the page numbers.
But Shadow Dancing is very important. So when your friends roll their eyes. Or when you hear their voice get tight. Or when they command you to do something right after you bring up a topic or respond to something they wonderfully said..... don't just get annoyed. It's fine to get annoyed, sure. But you can also recognize that despite what they say on the surface (You should converse differently...Tell us which pages....Oh, sure, you can't remember...) they are also being very vulnerable and asking you to notice what is behind the words.
You might respond to their reactions in a way that is annoying. But maybe you can also somehow express that you understand their annoyance at you.
Sure, most of them won't care about this. They will insist that their surface communication is all they care about. And you can probably assure them that the same goes for you, it's just that your surface include a tiny bit of the depth of the dance itself.
And that you (I) can't dance very well.
To those who send me private messages, please consider now and then letting the wider group know why you appreciate this weird stuff. Now and then one of you pipes up and I think it is helpful even beyond my little old worried ego
I imagine we are about to hear crickets!
