| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 714.1 | Steiner spoke of four bodies... | SSDEVO::ACKLEY | Aslan | Tue Apr 26 1988 17:41 | 18 |
|
Rudolf Steiner said there are four bodies;
1) Physical
2) Etheric (plants + animals have this body with map of cell structure.
This body might be what Kirlean photography looks at?)
3) Emotional or Astral (common to animals and humans, is the home
of all emotions.)
4) Ego (spiritual body, on this planet it is unique to humans.)
Bodies 2,3 + 4 are all non-material bodies that can have a separate
existence apart from the body, although I believe he said the etheric
body disintegrates after death. Astral travelling is said to be
the 3 + 4 bodies together, leaving the 1 + 2 behind in bed (or
wherever).
Alan.
|
| 714.2 | Common Sense Where Have You Flown? | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Wed Apr 27 1988 01:26 | 8 |
| It is a sad commentary that western man has always sought to "fragment"
his essence. One readily see this in the educational system where
science is taught separately from philosophy and, history divorced
from any other possible tie that might bind it to the whole. It
is the great and marvelous intergration of body, mind and soul that
should be understood and harmonized instead of what one see's in
futile attempts to rend asunder what God ordained to be as one.
Why? To what end . . .
|
| 714.3 | closed minded rejection <> common sense | SSDEVO::ACKLEY | Aslan | Wed Apr 27 1988 02:03 | 30 |
|
RE: .2 ( BORIKN::Esposito )
Well, the foot and the hand are both part of the whole, but
shouldn't we be able to differentiate between the two? The
different organs are *clearly* separate in function, and there's
no point in pretending there are no boundaries in there. There
*are* boundaries.
Steiner said that the etheric body evolved when mineral matter
evolved into plants. The emotional body evolved when plants evolved
into animals, and the ego body when humankind evolved from animals.
So each serves a separate and distinct function, like the different
lobes of the brain have distinct functions, or like the different
organs have distinct functions.
This is a conceptual model, which is used to enhance our
understanding of the whole. The model is used to categorize
and illuminate observable *facts*. You may not agree with
the model, but don't hide your head in the sand and claim that
people shouldn't differentiate between things just because they
are connected or part of a larger whole.
I am a little offended by your reply, since you seem to be
saying that I, or Meridith, or Rudolf Steiner, or anyone who
else who sees some meaning in these ideas is lacking in 'common
sense'. I think you are being closed minded, and are rejecting
ideas you have not properly considered and do not understand.
Alan.
|
| 714.4 | offense-taking banned in wee small hours... | ULTRA::LARU | peace, love, and the blues | Wed Apr 27 1988 02:56 | 10 |
| re .3...
oh no!! another offense taken. it seems like only a few hours since
somebody else took offense. better check the moonwatch in 672.13
and see what's going on...
gee guys, let's get down and do the lighten-up... after all, is
life a puzzle to be solved or a game to be played and enjoyed???
slap-happy bruce
|
| 714.5 | and furthermore... | USACSB::OPERATOR_CB | | Wed Apr 27 1988 02:57 | 12 |
|
re:2
yea right, we have done our homework on this one. How bout the
"Trinity" and arnt we made in Gods image? (comming from your reality)
and are we not to worship him with body, and mind, and soul???
seems like separations have already been made by an authority a
bit higher than you? if He is wrong you better straighten things
out with him now! boy! is he gonna be surprised that he has been
wrong all this time!!!!!
anyway,... (click back to my reality)
fey mouse
|
| 714.6 | where are my glasses??????? | USACSB::OPERATOR_CB | | Wed Apr 27 1988 06:22 | 40 |
|
re: .0
thoughts based on experiance
1) focused/clarity two causes... a)your eyes are closed
b)looking at to many things
at once.
please note that people tend to say "b" is the cause
since it is hard to "see" if ones eyes are closed. (self
deception).
2) clarity is easy to attain if you want it...however the method
i use and am now starting again is sort of wacky and
not adviseable even to idiots like myself.
it sort of like getting on a rollercoaster (by freewill)
and then suddenly remembering..."OH SH*T I HATE ROLLER-
COASTERS!" and "I JUST ATE A WHOLE PIZZA AND THE BEER
I DRANK IS STARTING TO GIVE MR SPINS, AND I THINK THE
CHOCOLATE CANDY I ATE WAS REALLY EX-LAX, MY ALERGIES
WONT LET ME STOP SNEEZING, AND I THINK I HAVE A FEAVER!!!"
-you get the idea- of course you cant get off
the ride till its over and jumping off while it is in
motion has definate drawbacks.
i do not wish to stray off the subject so i shall not
go into the gory details too much except yes i have
had "Experiances" and still have thoughts from time
to time. i myself am putrifying (sniff sniff...oh that
was what smelt...) for the reasons of clarity (sort
of sounds like sisters of charity) but remember where
you are and how you got there befor you attempt to get
out.
fey mouse
|
| 714.7 | My .02EC | SCOPE::PAINTER | | Wed Apr 27 1988 12:59 | 27 |
|
On Re.2 (Esposito)...and other replies
I guess I didn't see the reply in .2 as attacking .1, but rather
supporting it in a way (though the author hasn't replied yet and
I stand corrected if this is not the case).
A chain will break at the weakest link, and therefore it is important
to identify the links....all the while keeping in mind that it is
part of the greater chain of individual links.
The science vs. philosophy schism is a valid concern - even moreso
after I read the article by astronaut Edgar Mitchell in the latest
issue of "New Age Journal" last night. But I don't see how this
can be applied to the base note since it seems like the integration
of humans to the elements is already there (a kind of "now that
we're here" approach) and therefore I view .2 as a side commentary
more than anything else (and very close to my own view on that
particular topic of science vs. philosophy/theology/etc., I might
add).
BTW, anyone wishing to read a copy of the article I just mentioned,
send a note to me directly. It was quite good.
Just my thoughts.
Cindy
|
| 714.8 | Bio 101 | DECWET::MITCHELL | Art imitates life imitates TV | Wed Apr 27 1988 16:54 | 9 |
| RE: .3
> into animals, and the ego body when humankind evolved from animals.
<
Please inform Mr. Steiner that humans are still very much animals.
John M.
|
| 714.9 | definitions and hand waving | SSDEVO::ACKLEY | Aslan | Wed Apr 27 1988 23:44 | 16 |
| RE: .8 (John M.)
Well, I agree that we are animals, but we are more than that
too, since we humans have discovered or been granted a new form
of intelligence, and with it we have invented stupidity. In this
we have attained unique proportions that in my opinion makes us
deserve our own separate classification to keep our bad reputation
from rubbing off on the innocent animals.
It's all just definitions and hand waving. The boundaries
will shift if the definitions change, but we humans need our
categories, don't we? Steiner said the difference between
animals and humans is "ego", which as we all know is often
synonomous with stupidity.
Alan.
|
| 714.10 | | DECWET::MITCHELL | Art imitates life imitates TV | Thu Apr 28 1988 16:48 | 6 |
| RE: .9 (Alan)
Your first paragraph is priceless!
John M.
|
| 714.11 | RE 714.9 | DICKNS::KLAES | It's not the real Grail?! | Thu Apr 28 1988 16:55 | 5 |
| If animals are so "innocent", why be ashamed to say humans are
animals? Maybe if we said "mammals" you'd feel better?
Larry
|
| 714.12 | An Intellectual Olive Branch | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Mon May 02 1988 19:39 | 30 |
| Alan:
I apologize if I came across a bit "<>" . . .
My position is best expressed by maxim's such as;
"The Sum Of All The Parts Are Equal To The Whole."
* * *
"I don't pretend to understand the universe - it's a great deal
bigger than I am . . . . People ought to be modester."
Thomas Carlyle, quoted in D.A. Wilson and
D. Wilson McArthur, Carlyle in Old Age.
* * *
I will add that the greatest most treasured gift we can ever possess
is the right of free thought and expression. The essence of pure
democracy is based on this right. It is with this in mind that the
great enigma of why the citadel of "free thought and free expression"
ancient Athens put such a one to death as Socrates? This specific
is dealt with in a new book by Stone, "The Trial of Socrates".
No offence
Regards,
Richard
|
| 714.13 | Take A Load Off | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Mon May 02 1988 22:23 | 21 |
| Brother Bruce:
At last the "Slap Happy" voice of reason ring's out over and through
the Ethernet!
Nothing sadder than people that take themselves too seriously.
"He gave man speech, and speech created thought,
Which is the measure of the universe."
-Percy Bysshe Shelly, Prometheus Unbound
"Reason is God's crowning gift to man."
-Sophocles, Antigone
If everyone agreed with everyone else I'd say it would be the end
of civilization as we know it or you'd have a Moscow address.
Regards,
Richard
|
| 714.14 | Some More Homework | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Mon May 02 1988 23:21 | 21 |
| Dear Fey Mouse:
I thought about your reply . . . and since you mention the "Trinity"
and allude to the nature of God and that we are indeed made in His
image; have you never read . . . "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God
is ONE Lord:" Deut.6:4.
The God-Head is not fragmented, the Trinity is the unified
manifestation of ONE God. Three in ONE.
Body, mind and soul and a spirit! A man a woman.
Seems clear to me.
Regards,
Richard
P.S. I am new Noter snd it's nice to share . . . I was a Phiolosophy
major back in College.
|
| 714.15 | return to normalicy | USACSB::OPERATOR_CB | | Tue May 03 1988 03:10 | 31 |
|
re:14 Mr. Esposito
seems clear to me too. ;-)
one God one head. But... in various parts of the bible (and
other books) different aspects of God were stressed, be it the
sacrificial god, the spirit god, the destroyer god, a seemingly
feminin god ect. This is not done Biblicly to imply that God is
schitzo (no comments please) but is done (i feel/believe) for us
to examin more closely the majesty and complexity of the different
aspects of God and the overall greatness of the whole.
this is how i percieve the use of four body parts and other
techniques<sp?> that concentrate on one aspect of ourselves at a
time. It helps people to understand the complexity of what makes
them up.
Both "systems" help us to understand the subject of intrest,
or at least help us to comprehend that what we are attempting to
understand is beyond "normal" understanding and comprehension.
i do see a problem with this that you may be hinting at and
that is...if one dwells more on the parts than the complete
system confusion/delusion can result.
sincerly,
Craig (3=1)
P.S. fey mouse is dead (owl got him ;-))
P.S.S. i never has tooken filosofie for i is going to college four
Powiticill Siance.
|
| 714.16 | Condolences To The Family Of The Fey Moiuser | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Wed May 04 1988 01:30 | 12 |
| Craig:
I agree with you!
Sorry about "Fey Mouse".
Philosophy was interesting in that in trying to understand the thoughts
of others one better understands his own.
Regards,
Richard
|
| 714.17 | Cindy Understands Me | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Wed May 04 1988 01:44 | 7 |
| Cindy:
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree.
Regards from the Sunny Caribbean,
Richard
|
| 714.18 | The Real Difference | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Wed May 04 1988 01:57 | 10 |
| The real difference between animals and man is something far more
profound than a concept of "Ego" (which in and of itself is not
necessarily bad)
It is the presence of "Free Will". Man alone can choose his path while
animals live out their lives according to a predisposed pattern.z
Regards,
Richard
|
| 714.19 | whats the dif? | USACSB::OPERATOR_CB | | Wed May 04 1988 04:02 | 44 |
|
RE: .18
Question. Do the "animals" consider their lives as a pre-disposed
pattern? and do they recognize that their are other possible patterns?
i dont think so.
Man also has a pre-disposed pattern of sociological habits ect.
You go to work, work for money, pay bills, drive on a certain side
of the road, go a certain speed, talk and act only in sociologically
acceptable ways, spell words in one way all the tyme. ;-) ect.
if he "truly" uses his free will and perhaps alters or breaks out
of this predisposed pattern of accepted sociological behavior he
will be an object of neg-sanctions and concern from the rest of
society. Perhaps corrected, ostrasized<sp?>, and sometimes getting
killed is the result of not going with the flow?
if an animal differs in behavior from the rest of the group/pack
it is corrected when young. if older it is cast out of the flock
or sometimes killed for its strangeness.
if cast out (in both cases) it will die unless the "free choice"
it has made is better suited to the enviornment in wich it lives
than the accepted ways of the majority. but this leads to another
subject.
"Free will" is a term used by a society to describe choices that
are allowable choices within a society.
A wolf can chose to eat any lamb he wishes as long as he eats a
lamb. If he starts eating plants ect (reguardless of why ect) he
will be shunned by the others who do not comprehend his behavior.
I could give a human example but unfortunately it would result
in readers shunning me since they may not comprehend my behavior.
whats the dif??
craig brown
|
| 714.20 | RE 714.19 | DICKNS::KLAES | Know Future | Wed May 04 1988 10:44 | 9 |
| There is a theory that while humanity does have "free will",
whatever we do has already been planned out by Someone or Something
beyond our sphere of comprehension.
So in effect, you can sit down or stand up if you so wish, but
whatever you decide to do has already been "planned" for you to do.
Larry
|