Observation, logic, folklore and presuppositions

[findingblanks]

"FB claims to care about context but provides NONE of it in his posts. He is not explaining even a single thing about how Steiner envisons..."

Actually, I think most people here will disagree with you. I've not only provided the EXACT AND FULL lecture, I've quoted it multiple times and allowed context, not just hitting the power words.

Also, I've repeated in my own words exactly how Steiner is being consistent and not evasive. I bet Soul will even tell you that I've provided plenty of context for us to see that Rudolf Steiner was not being vague when he explained why it would be at least 1,500 years before non-white people could have the chance to integrate with the Christ. I even said I would sent the entire lecture to anybody who asked if they didn't want to request it from the library. Two people have privately contacted me with this request. I won't speculate or introduce a shadow element as to why Ashvin can't seem to track this. I imagine it could simply be that he is very busy. And he does often honestly acknowledge that he is very new to Steiner. But I do think he's read Steiner's lecture that explain's in great details what 'white humanity's' mission is .

[findingblanks]

Tom: Rudolf Steiner once said, "In this modern time all people have equal capacity to fully incorporate The Christ" (not real quote)
Gary: Ah, that's interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

........

Tom: Rudolf Steiner said that non-white skin only appears where the Christ can't enter.
Gary: OH MY GOD YOU GIVE NO CONTEXT. YOU JUST ATTACK.
Tom: Oh, here's the lecture. Steiner goes into detail as to why he believes this.
Gary: No, you can't be trusted. Also, you aren't clairvoyant.
Tom: Oh boy.

[AshvinP]

"This whole thread has become reminiscent of recent political campagins where the lowest common denominator criticisms are the loudest."

I do not notice many people not screaming and being specific. But we can cherry-pick when and how to engage. And, more to the point, we also explain why we refuse to engage. If somebody feels everybody is screaming and shouting and not being reasonable, sure, they might not wish to chat.

But I see at least four people who have been speaking specifically and without making profoundly dark claims about anybody in the conversation or even about Steiner himself.

You ignored the most important criticism, which is the lack of context in everything you post here. You already know this spiritual evolutionary context so it should be very easy for you to provide it. I am talking about the overarching ideas which make sense of any particular lecture here or there. Quoting an entire lecture still gives ZERO context for that overarching framework. So if you continue failing to provide it, then it's clear you are doing that on purpose to mislead people.

[findingblanks]

Soul, may I request that we not allow somebody to blatantly lie repeatedly? As you know, I'm fully comfortable with Ashvin shouting dark things about how he sees my inner life. I never have asked him to be stopped, paused or put in 'timeout'.

But when I have repeatedly shared the entire lecture, told how it can be found, quoted it at length (rather than merely summarize it), I don't think it is okay for Ashvin to simply state that I have done none of those things .It isn't personal, but I think one norm that must be maintained is speaking about obvious facts on the ground. As you know, if I had not shared the lecture and he asked, I would have done as much as possible to find it or I would prefaced my comments as being my memory of something.

Anyway, over the years I've found that a certain kind of person tends to abandon this conversation via few basic moves. One is to simply shout that there is no context being given. If that is demonstrably and repeatedly untrue, I think we might do well to assume it is being said for other reasons than merely hoping to read the lecture and discuss our understandings of it.

I'm also very happy if you need to keep your hands off this. I just noticed that Ashvin is now on the 'no context' train. Do I really need to name the lecture and offer to email it to him for the nth time?

[findingblanks]

For those who don't want to change the topic, let's step back.

I created this post and you can go back and see the bare bone structure of my interest.

So, everybody here has fully agreed that Steiner was wrong when he explained his opinion that red causes a bull to go crazy.

My opinion is that he is also wrong when he explains his opinion that non-white people can not integrate with The Christ. I shared the name of the lecture and where to find it (or just privately contact me). I shared large quotes that give a fuller context than me merely rephrasing Steiner's specific claims.

I bet 98% of the people in this forum are okay with talking about their own observations regarding bull or people with different skin colors.

So, as the person who started a conversation of what happens when smart peole say things that you think are clearly wrong, I am happy to remind us at this point that nothing super dramatic has really happened. That Steiner could be brilliant is wonderful. It's also just fine that he had some major baises and was able to make observational and cognitive errors. Both can be wonderful and true and very interesting.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Soul, may I request that we not allow somebody to blatantly lie repeatedly? As you know, I'm fully comfortable with Ashvin shouting dark things about how he sees my inner life. I never have asked him to be stopped, paused or put in 'timeout'.

Here's some context from this mod ... As a parent I was disinclined to intervene in the squabbling of offspring and/or their friends (unless bodily blows or blatant cruelty was happening), trusting that they best work it out for themselves, and learn from that process however suffering-prone it tended to be. And as it turned out, that is what usually happened. Of course here I'm bound by some house rules/guidelines, and while bodily blows aren't a concern, certainly making cruel or derogatory accusations and remarks in the tit-for-tat taunting and baiting is not something I'm inclined to tolerate. But of course this can be somewhat subjective, as remarks that some have said to others are taken as 'attacks', when similar remarks are directed my way, I don't feel attacked at all. Nonetheless, I will once again request that we enter into this in the spirit of trusting that participants are acting in good faith, and that there's always a lesson to be learned from one another and in so doing trust that each will respond in kind. However, if from my admittedly less than perfect perspective, I feel that the line has been crossed and I have to intervene, and/or take action to prevent those lines from being crossed again, then so be it.

[AshvinP]

Soul, may I request that we not allow somebody to blatantly lie repeatedly? As you know, I'm fully comfortable with Ashvin shouting dark things about how he sees my inner life. I never have asked him to be stopped, paused or put in 'timeout'.

But when I have repeatedly shared the entire lecture, told how it can be found, quoted it at length (rather than merely summarize it), I don't think it is okay for Ashvin to simply state that I have done none of those things .It isn't personal, but I think one norm that must be maintained is speaking about obvious facts on the ground. As you know, if I had not shared the lecture and he asked, I would have done as much as possible to find it or I would prefaced my comments as being my memory of something.

Anyway, over the years I've found that a certain kind of person tends to abandon this conversation via few basic moves. One is to simply shout that there is no context being given. If that is demonstrably and repeatedly untrue, I think we might do well to assume it is being said for other reasons than merely hoping to read the lecture and discuss our understandings of it.

I'm also very happy if you need to keep your hands off this. I just noticed that Ashvin is now on the 'no context' train. Do I really need to name the lecture and offer to email it to him for the nth time?

FB,

What is so hard to understand about the plain English I am using? I don't care about the lectures. I am asking you to have some intellectual integrity and provide the spiritual evolutionary context which is obviously needed to make sense of anything Steiner writes, especially relating to the Christ impulse as it unfolds going forward, which is what you have been misrepresenting most recently. Instead of calling for my censorship, just provide what you should be providing without my reminders anyway. Cleric has written it out many times here, and I have done it more briefly as well, so you can just search our comments if you don't want to type it out. I would do it but I am busy and I don't think it's my responsility to provide the context for your claims here. Here are some hints via Barfield, in case you have somehow forgotten the whole spiritual system at work according to Steiner.

(it won't let me use the bigger, more clear versions from Barfield's website, but they are all here - https://www.owenbarfield.org/)

[findingblanks]

Ashvin I'll respond to you in our other thread. Seems more relevant to that conversation.

[findingblanks]

Thanks, Soul. Okay, in that spirit I will offer to share more information about where to find Steiner's lecture about white humanity's mission. Privately message me if you want to read it. I have quoted extensively from it.

And to be clear. I do not think Steiner was being inconsistent at all. Just wrong on that topic.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin I'll respond to you in our other thread. Seems more relevant to that conversation.

No, it's relevant here, because here is where you made all the assertions without spiritual evolutionary context. I won't be responding on the other thread, so please just provide that context here. Explain the spiritual evolutionary progression so that people can at least know what you are even referring to by "absorption of the Christ". Do you think that is self-evident for anyone not familiar with Steiner? Of course not. So spare us the drama and just put forth some actual helpful informaton.

As Cleric pointed out, most people on this thread don't even seem to understand what is meant by "spiritual activity" or "spiritual reality". And I am saying you have done absolutely nothing to provide that underlying context for them before or while also posting your isolated excerpts and lectures.