The following is my response to a recent article by Eugene Schwartz entitled “Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea”, which is Eugene’s response to an article by the renowned anthroposophist Sergei Prokofieff, who wrote a remarkable article entitled “The Being of the Internet”, in which he argued that the digital media are carriers of such darkness that they are unredeemable. The following will make the most sense if Eugene’s article (and ideally Prokofieff’s as well) is read first, but can still stand on its own as my opinion.
Eugene has written a timely and well-considered article. As someone who has “grown up” (at the time of this writing I’m currently 33) watching and participating fully in the birth of the internet (I had an email address years before the world wide web existed), I am disheartened when anthroposophists shy away from what I consider to be an important task: the appropriate usage of these new kinds of technology.
By appropriate, I mean utilizing the technology as a means of furthering a progressive human development. Of course what constitutes “progressive” or “development” can be hotly debated, but for me this involves not just empowering people through providing access to information of an esoteric nature that they might not otherwise have, but in providing the context for the shared creation of meaning in ways that are dynamically capable of leading towards real transformation.
The ahrimanic nature of the internet lies primarily in the way that supports the decontextualization of meaning-making from the soul lives of its human participants. It allows us to abstract too easily, to decontextualize parts of ourselves in ways that challenge a healthy development. But at the same time the internet is the potential carrier of both luciferic impulses (getting willfully lost in online environments, expressions of rage, rampant self-satisfaction seeking opportunities, etc.) and Christ impulses as well.
As always, the Christ-like impulses are a bit more subtle, a little less oriented towards appearing with a particular veneer, but no less powerful for all that. I am speaking of how the internet is used to help bring groups of people together in ways that fosters both community and action, and which promote love and change. This occurs not merely through sharing information, but in the literal creation of an in-between space which can be filled with the soul-activity and spirit-light of individual wills. This, I think, is what it looks like to “redeem” the internet. It happens when people are given tools to become active participants in the dynamic creation of meaning that fosters transformation and love.
The challenge, as with the bringing into one’s heart of any Christ impulse, is that it occurs not by default, and not by control, but through a conscious surrendering of one’s will to a higher will, which is experienced both as a suffering and a redemption. Ahriman, I imagine, would like us to use the internet to manipulate and control so that we forget the much greater power available through this kind of conscious suffering, while Lucifer would be happy if we continued to use the internet to satisfy our desires and create infinite personalities for ourselves.
The alchemists understood that nothing could go untransformed if the magnum opus is to be achieved. Their saying “As above, so below; as below, so above” was not an academic one about correlation; it meant that in order to reach the highest potential available to us, we had to transform our lowest aspects. This applied too to the outer world: nothing could ultimately go unredeemed, and if we ever decide to “write off” some aspect of reality as beyond hope, beyond action, and beyond transformation, then the forces of darkness will claim a victory.
We must work together to build the world we wish to live in. It is a horrible mistake to try and divorce technology from morality, and to claim that “it’s all in how it is used.” Some technologies are more evil than others, but the internet is not an atomic bomb. The development of the internet, although beginning as a defense-oriented technology (not incidentally as a technology to help counter the potential effects of nuclear weapons), almost immediately was taken up and used for other means; primarily education. There are countless ways in which both the development and usage of the internet fosters healthy development of human beings–in ways not completely without strings, of course, but also not in ways that make its usage “unredeemable.”
What we cannot do is let the regressive impulses have their way with the internet and co-opt the minds and souls of human beings for their own uses without a Michaelic challenge, a challenge for the creation of spirit-based groups of individuals (which are different than just ‘groups’), a challenge to permeate the spiritual spaces of the internet with transformed will, with conscious sacrifice, with love of transformation and a transformation of love.
Saying that your brain “sees” is just as sensible as saying that your knee “sees.”
Act in order to know.
Stated simply: all that we know and are: vicious circles and virtuous circles.
Projection is perception.
To know yourself, change.
To know the other, change your interaction with the other.
It takes two to know one.
Cybernetics is the science of wisdom circles.
Gravity is a thing invented by Isaac Newton to explain things which otherwise require harder thinking.
Self-esteem is a thing invented by psychologists to explain things which otherwise require harder thinking
I love things complexly because they are complex.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
The problems of today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.
The vast majority of human beings dislike and even dread all notions with which they are not familiar. Hence it comes about, that at their first appearance, innovators have always been divided as fools and madmen.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Art is a lie that helps us to realize the truth.
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry is painting that speaks.
The fascinating thing, is not to show the source of light, but the effect of light.
Like an ability or a muscle, hearing your inner wisdom is strengthened by doing it.
Good art is not what it looks like, but what it does to us.
That homo has a brain no more entitles him to assume he knows how he thinks than possession of a liver entitles him to assume that he knows how he metabolizes.
No system adapts to the changing: it can adapt only to what is constant.
Truth is a process, not a result.
Respect that which is more complicated than our ability to know.
The world is self-verifying.
Intuition, rather than being that which is dependent upon something unique to myself, is rather precisely that which I cannot claim as my own.
All of nature begins to whisper its secrets to us through its sounds. Sounds that were previously incomprehensible to our soul now become the meaningful language of nature.
Love extends beyond the bounds of family to all human beings and is changed into vivifying, creative, transmuting power.
What would the World be like if Newton had asked ‘Why does the tree grow up?’ as opposed to ‘Why does the apple fall down.’?
Every claim transforms when seen from a higher order level of organization.
Creativity should not be too linked to personal desire, because the deepest source of creativity is–in the end–always found beyond the part of ourselves that initiates desire.
Passionate inquiry _IS_ creative inquiry.
Passion dissolves categoricals.
Play is the new metaphor of our time.
Honor thy error.
If you ain’t makin’ mistakes, you ain’t tryin’.
Chaos is the breakdown of order… or it is order of an infinitely high degree.
Don’t ask what the word means, ask how it is used.
Is the chaos the breakdown of order, or is the order a breakdown of chaos?
There is no psychology; there is only biography and autobiography.
The unconscious does not have the ability to negate.
Perform your vision.
Writing is a great mystery, because you submit yourself to the gods and you are played.
What is the question behind the question?
Alchemy never died.
The looking is subjective; the finding is objective.
What I cannot create, I do not understand.
Since we are meaning-making creatures, any theory of meaning we concoct must be a tacit theory about who we are.
The limits of the imagination are unimaginable.
Education is basically a moral relationship between persons devoted to truth.
As with the body, so with the world experienced by it.
Can we let go of our attachment to being “right” and explore what’s left?
While we see ourselves as using knowledge, it may be more accurate to say that what we know is using us: We are drawn into responding to all that occurs around us.
Positions, then, are defended in an adversarial style because the positions are the spaces occupied by the self–the self IS its positions. [And then one’s] positions become impositions.
The labels and ideas that structure experience will naturally also shape and guide our questioning. But recognized as labels and ideas, they lose their power to confine the range of inquiry, and instead become elements available for investigation.
The attitude we adopt in carrying out our investigation shape the attributes we find in the world we investigate.
Knowing limits as limits, we know them also as knowledge. Aware of the mind as the one that affirms limits, we can ask whether mind too is knowledge. If so, knowledge becomes freely available in a previously unsuspected way. Self-sufficient, self-reliant, and dynamic, the mind expresses knowledge not as content but as capacity.
It’s not about the said; it’s about the SAYING. It’s not about the movement, it’s about the MOVING!
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.
Metaphors are what thought is all about. We use metaphor consciously or unconsciously, all the time, so it is a matter of mental hygiene to take responsibility for these metaphors, to look at them carefully, to see how meanings slide form one to the other. Any metaphor is double-sided .. offering both new insight and new confusion. The solution is to take responsibility for the choice of metaphors, to savor them and ponder their suggestions. Above all to live with many and take no one metaphor as absolute. A metaphor goes on generating ideas and question, so that a metaphorical approach to the world is endlessly fertile and involves constant learning. A good metaphor continues to instruct.
Rigor and imagination: the two great contraries of mental process, either of which by itself is lethal. Rigor alone is paralytic death, but imagination alone is insanity.
Set aside visions of the larger whole, and even of the parts, and embody the patterns in between.
The purpose of art is to lay bare the questions which have been hidden by the answers.
A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.
You don’t know what you are doing until you first get lost in the doing of it.
Lost can be good if you dance it.
Question: If the Ouroborus was on fire, and he ate his tail, would he get heartburn?
As we are, so we know. As our knowing forms, such is our becoming.
It is the weave of the context that holds a complexity that cannot be stripped to a singular agent.
I am the observed relation between myself and observing myself.
‘I’ is a relator (and representor) of infinite order.
Objects and events are not primary experiences. ‘Objects’ and ‘Events’ are representations of relations.
An organism is its own ultimate object.
Terminal representations (descriptions) made by an organism are manifest in its movements; consequently, the logical structure of descriptions arises from the logical structure of movements.
The real beginning of mentality is the birthplace of error, and herewith truth.
Information and its utilization are inseparable constituting one single process.
The information associated with a description depends on an observer’s ability to draw inferences from this description.
Change’ presupposes invariance and ‘invariance’ change.
Act always so as to increase the number of choices.
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.
Cause and effect act in webs, not chains.
Ideas are differences that are immanent in the pathways in which they circulate.
What I distinguish distinguishes what I can distinguish.
Differences differentiate my differentiating.
Our distinctions, if not subject to the hands of divine play, may lead us toward creating paralyzing towers of Babel or overly simplistic mouse traps for trying to catch what matters most. In other words our ideas need a hug. There is nothing in their logic that matters. Logic is not logical in my heart. What matters is whether our ideas, distinctions, and chit chat have love and n/om, that is, are embraced in a more encompassing courtship. Even what I write is silly and misses the mark, but I am trying to point to something that accentuates living rather than re-figuring. I am saluting the use of words as incantations and evocations to liberate a theology of play and a biology of hugging. Our reason is to be kissed by the gods.
I never believed in trying to do anything. Whatever I set out to do I found I had already accomplished.
Rest not! Life is sweeping by; go dare before you die. / Something mighty and sublime, leave behind to conquer time.
Fresh activity is the only means of overcoming adversity.
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
Beauty is everywhere a welcome guest.
A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.
Boldness has genius, power and magic. Engage, and the mind grows heated. Begin, and the work will be completed.
Colours are light’s suffering and joy.
The moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way.
The dangers of life are infinite, and among them is safety.
Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Begin it now.
Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men.
For a man to achieve all that is demanded of him he must regard himself as greater than he is.
Experience is only half of experience.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking
One never goes so far as when one doesn’t know where one is going.
This is the highest wisdom that I own: freedom and life are earned by those alone who conquer them each day anew.
Everything in the world may be endured except continual prosperity.
Without haste, but without rest.
A man doesn’t learn to understand anything unless he loves it.
I would like to suggest that we analyze a philosophy not just for its correctness or consistency, but for its underlying metaphors, the degree of consciousness in their employment, the psychological needs met by the philosophy, its psychological distance from body, place, and world, and its consequences for how we live on this planet.
Creative transformation will reinvent the question, the questioner, and all those participating and/or reading the research.
Every fact is accompanied by the cutting edge of an epistemological knife, the wielding of which makes worlds.
Every action embodies an epistemology. An essential aspect of transformation involves awakening to the implied epistemological distinctions that are hidden within our will.
The teaching of moral development is not the same as the impulse for such development.
Cognition can never fully encompass the nature of its own activity in a description.
We do not tell stories only: we are stories.
What is present in thinking is always already changing the thought.
Questions are just assumptions that haven’t put on their pants yet.
Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation.
All truth is absolutely relative; all truth is relatively absolute, including this one.
Distinction is also always relation at a higher level.
Without work, play is nothing, but if there is work, play is higher than work.
A paradox is always a promise of a further step.
Circularity is the destiny of any epistemology.
It is not because of compulsion from a reality outside the soul that one forms a mathematical or mechanical picture of the world, but rather because one has given shape in one’s soul to mathematical and mechanical pictures and thus opened an inner source of illumination for what manifests in the outer world in a mathematical and mechanical way.
All the qualities of the physical world exist through the interrelations of things to each other. What Moleschott says is correct for physical existence: “All existence is an existence through qualities. But there is no quality that does not exist through a relation.” Just as everything of a soul nature contains something in itself by which it points to something outside itself, so conversely, a physical thing is so constituted that it is what it is through the relation to it of something outer.
That alone is fixed and certain that is subject to change.
To be real is to be in relation.
Every action embodies an epistemology.
Any logical move is only “a move” by virtue of the distinction that it is an enactment of.
Distinction is the form of thinking; thinking is the enacting of the form of distinction.
Logic gives mathematics the ability to be true, but it is thinking which creates logic.
Living thinking explicates its implying; thoughting only implies its implying.
The fundamental pattern is the unity of the distinction between itself and unity.
Reason is a stage thinking creates for its own acting.
It is only we who can objectify our own consciousness. This should tell you something.
A concept is precisely what appears when the thinking that produces it ceases.
The “I” is the participatory event of its own coming-into-being through recursive distinction of itself.
In the “I” is the experience of the direct union of the “I’s” epistemological knowing of itself with its ontological becoming of itself.
The “I” is that place in experience where knowing and being are directly united: the epistemological content of the experience is simultaneously the realization of the “I’s” actuality, and the ontological actuality of the “I” is nothing other than the knowing of this fact.
We can only escape epistemology by being ignorant of the fact that we cannot escape epistemology.
Thinking is the activity of distinction; distinction is the activity of thinking.
How we know our knowing involves more than knowing.
Every knowing is simultaneously an unknowing. Every revealing is simultaneously a veiling.
Thinking is self-obfuscating.
The laws of nature _are_ the objects of nature.
We can change our knowing by changing our being; we can change our being by changing our knowing.
Distinction is also always relation at a higher level.
Thinking’s self-reflection IS transformation.
When thinking sleeps, objects appear.
Tautologies say nothing; Paradoxes say everything.
…to design a “computer” which computes color, shape and all that thing, which are new dimensions generated by the corpus by a series of wired-in paradoxes, which will resolve them in such a fashion that these dimensions are created. We always begin with dimension. When a dimension is created, we may have the paradox in the computation. But before you have that dimension, you have to come up with a paradox. This is of course the paradox of the first injunction. And so on and so forth; I mean, all these things come about directly by taking the paradoxes seriously and using them as a generating principle of new dimensions.
Thingness is a subset of relatedness.
The reason for reason always lies beyond mere reason.
In its knowing, epistemology always exceeds what it knows.
Every action embodies an epistemology.
How we know limits reality, and reality limits what we know.
The epistemology of difference is an ontology of evolution; the ontology of evolution is the epistemology of difference.
All polarities are also unities.
There is no distinction given by the senses alone; senses themseleves do not distiguish. The senses are what thinking makes of itself in distinguishing. The senses follow thinking. This phrase is meant both epistemologically and ontologically. But the senses are in a recursion with thinking; thinking also follows the senses.
Thinking discovers itself to be a two-fold activity at its most fundamental level: it IS what unifies the distinctions it MAKES.
Transformation becomes possible when a process cannot carry itself forward within the already-existing mode of its integration with the whole.
The stopping of a process is its continued implying at a new level.
The whole is newly whole by virtue of the part created from it.
The only valid move for the ‘undifferentiated-all-one’ is self-differentiation.
A man doesn’t learn to understand anything unless he loves it.
Comments
8 responses to “A response to: “Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea” – Can Digital Media be Redeemed?”
Joel A. Wendt
Seth, … this redemption need of digital media is why I started my work on creating videos for youtube. After a couple of years thinking about it (I am hopelessly phlegmatic), I finally got my production going, and it has accelerated during the period of the Holy Nights. Produced four videos three days ago, four more two days ago, and five yesterday (Dec 31st.). The response, while small, has all been very positive. My channel there is: "Joel 232001" (be sure to put the space in, if you go to visit). These things can grow as you know, so what will be happening a year from now is "who knows?". As to Prokofieff, well my comments on him can be found here: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/Prokofieffbookreview.h… I'm glad to hear Eugene S. made a reply to Profofieff's latent and erroneous judgmentalism, and inability to actually think organically etc. Joel
Joel,
Thanks for pointing out your channel… I'll check it out!
Svetlana
Prokofieff in writing such an essay has given us material to meditate and ponder over and even though he
has expressed an opinion or the thread of his thinking, it is not nessesary to close the question revealed in this writing. A practicing alchemist would try to keep the question open!!!!!!! Or even try to create his own question giving us another facet to ponder etc. The question of what the being of the internet will morph into in the future, and our relationship to it is a very important one which can be easily trivialised in a few paragraphs of commentry. There are some things which just can't be explored and nurtured in this virtual box.
Svetlana
Svetlana,
Thanks for reading and commenting. To address your concern, I guess I am uncertain as to what makes you feel like the question is closed… In fact, I am in complete agreement that the question must continually be re-asked (otherwise it's no question at all, just a mere curiosity). Circumstances continually change, and our questions–if they are asked over and over–will necessarily shift and change as well, revealing new facets and letting others fall away.
But the whole thrust of my post is not about what the internet will morph into in the future, but what we do with it now. You are completely correct that "some things just can't be explored and nurtured in this virtual box." It would be ridiculous to try and squeeze all of what is potentially available for human experience into any virtual environment–but nobody is doing that here. :-)
The thrust of the post is meant to be a call to 'do what can be done' — in the present — to use the technology of the internet in Michaelic ways, and that it is a mistake to abandon the internet as "irredeemable" without making the effort to penetrate its activity with our own transformed wills. This means–right now, in this very conversation!–that we must work towards a higher impulse, and not fall into the patterns of objectification and judgment of the other, the little power struggles which are anathema to the Christ-being, because they dissolve "the space between", and keep both Ahriman and Lucifer happy.
The challenge to the soul is direct; it calls for a certain suffering. But it is a suffering that bears with it an inner steadfastness and awakeness, a suffering that has the potential to become a healing salve. What will happen if we–individually and collectively–shirk this task? What will fill these spaces when we remove the ability to manifest Love within them?
Svetlana
Arapacana,
Did you write the above commentry 'A response to…." ? Are you Seth?
If so, my concern is that Prokofieff gave his question very carefully, supported by a specific methodology, in a particular context, and your response is completely out of this context. You mention esoteric information in your above commentry but there is no such thing as esoteric information, but there is esoteric knowledge learned in the context of living in a human community unmediated by machines.
Virtual reality is a contructed machine reality, not a created (organic) actuality that incorporates the whole universe (there is a very subtle difference) and in my opinion to imbue a machineic reality with love is a missunderstanding and misuse of the creative quality of the Christ-impuls. Humanities future is in co-creating the Christ/love stream and in this action we redeem others. The question of redemtion is a very deep mystery that can only be approached in a specific mood of soul. Steiner's lecture on the Knights Templar might be helpful to this question.
I appreciate your efforts, I only hope my feedback is helpful to you. If not just let it go, keep working
and good luck.
Svetlana
[…] The following post is prompted by discussion of a recent response I made concerning two essays: the first by Sergei Prokofieff, entitled "The Being of the Internet", in which he argued that the digital media are carriers of such darkness that they are unredeemable, and the second, a reply to Prokofieff, in an article by Eugene Schwartz entitled "Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea", The reader will likely get more out of the following if both the original essays are read, as well as my original post. […]
[…] the internet is both ahrimanic and luciferic 2010 January 13 tags: ahriman, internet, technology by zooey I just knew it all along (although perhaps I forgot about the Christ and his Impulses?), but I have had the satisfaction of discovering that my instinct has already been corroborated by other independent sources, this blog! […]
[…] The following post is prompted by discussion of a recent response I made concerning two essays: the first by Sergei Prokofieff, entitled “The Being of the Internet”, in which he argued that the digital media are carriers of such darkness that they are unredeemable, and the second, a reply to Prokofieff, in an article by Eugene Schwartz entitled “Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea”, The reader will likely get more out of the following if both the original essays are read, as well as my original post. […]
The following is my response to a recent article by Eugene Schwartz entitled “Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea”, which is Eugene’s response to an article by the renowned anthroposophist Sergei Prokofieff, who wrote a remarkable article entitled “The Being of the Internet”, in which he argued that the digital media are carriers of such darkness that they are unredeemable. The following will make the most sense if Eugene’s article (and ideally Prokofieff’s as well) is read first, but can still stand on its own as my opinion.
Comments
8 responses to “A response to: “Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea” – Can Digital Media be Redeemed?”
Seth, … this redemption need of digital media is why I started my work on creating videos for youtube. After a couple of years thinking about it (I am hopelessly phlegmatic), I finally got my production going, and it has accelerated during the period of the Holy Nights. Produced four videos three days ago, four more two days ago, and five yesterday (Dec 31st.). The response, while small, has all been very positive. My channel there is: "Joel 232001" (be sure to put the space in, if you go to visit). These things can grow as you know, so what will be happening a year from now is "who knows?". As to Prokofieff, well my comments on him can be found here: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/Prokofieffbookreview.h… I'm glad to hear Eugene S. made a reply to Profofieff's latent and erroneous judgmentalism, and inability to actually think organically etc. Joel
Joel,
Thanks for pointing out your channel… I'll check it out!
Prokofieff in writing such an essay has given us material to meditate and ponder over and even though he
has expressed an opinion or the thread of his thinking, it is not nessesary to close the question revealed in this writing. A practicing alchemist would try to keep the question open!!!!!!! Or even try to create his own question giving us another facet to ponder etc. The question of what the being of the internet will morph into in the future, and our relationship to it is a very important one which can be easily trivialised in a few paragraphs of commentry. There are some things which just can't be explored and nurtured in this virtual box.
Svetlana
Svetlana,
Thanks for reading and commenting. To address your concern, I guess I am uncertain as to what makes you feel like the question is closed… In fact, I am in complete agreement that the question must continually be re-asked (otherwise it's no question at all, just a mere curiosity). Circumstances continually change, and our questions–if they are asked over and over–will necessarily shift and change as well, revealing new facets and letting others fall away.
But the whole thrust of my post is not about what the internet will morph into in the future, but what we do with it now. You are completely correct that "some things just can't be explored and nurtured in this virtual box." It would be ridiculous to try and squeeze all of what is potentially available for human experience into any virtual environment–but nobody is doing that here. :-)
The thrust of the post is meant to be a call to 'do what can be done' — in the present — to use the technology of the internet in Michaelic ways, and that it is a mistake to abandon the internet as "irredeemable" without making the effort to penetrate its activity with our own transformed wills. This means–right now, in this very conversation!–that we must work towards a higher impulse, and not fall into the patterns of objectification and judgment of the other, the little power struggles which are anathema to the Christ-being, because they dissolve "the space between", and keep both Ahriman and Lucifer happy.
The challenge to the soul is direct; it calls for a certain suffering. But it is a suffering that bears with it an inner steadfastness and awakeness, a suffering that has the potential to become a healing salve. What will happen if we–individually and collectively–shirk this task? What will fill these spaces when we remove the ability to manifest Love within them?
Arapacana,
Did you write the above commentry 'A response to…." ? Are you Seth?
If so, my concern is that Prokofieff gave his question very carefully, supported by a specific methodology, in a particular context, and your response is completely out of this context. You mention esoteric information in your above commentry but there is no such thing as esoteric information, but there is esoteric knowledge learned in the context of living in a human community unmediated by machines.
Virtual reality is a contructed machine reality, not a created (organic) actuality that incorporates the whole universe (there is a very subtle difference) and in my opinion to imbue a machineic reality with love is a missunderstanding and misuse of the creative quality of the Christ-impuls. Humanities future is in co-creating the Christ/love stream and in this action we redeem others. The question of redemtion is a very deep mystery that can only be approached in a specific mood of soul. Steiner's lecture on the Knights Templar might be helpful to this question.
I appreciate your efforts, I only hope my feedback is helpful to you. If not just let it go, keep working
and good luck.
Svetlana
[…] The following post is prompted by discussion of a recent response I made concerning two essays: the first by Sergei Prokofieff, entitled "The Being of the Internet", in which he argued that the digital media are carriers of such darkness that they are unredeemable, and the second, a reply to Prokofieff, in an article by Eugene Schwartz entitled "Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea", The reader will likely get more out of the following if both the original essays are read, as well as my original post. […]
[…] the internet is both ahrimanic and luciferic 2010 January 13 tags: ahriman, internet, technology by zooey I just knew it all along (although perhaps I forgot about the Christ and his Impulses?), but I have had the satisfaction of discovering that my instinct has already been corroborated by other independent sources, this blog! […]
[…] The following post is prompted by discussion of a recent response I made concerning two essays: the first by Sergei Prokofieff, entitled “The Being of the Internet”, in which he argued that the digital media are carriers of such darkness that they are unredeemable, and the second, a reply to Prokofieff, in an article by Eugene Schwartz entitled “Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education: The Web as Will and Idea”, The reader will likely get more out of the following if both the original essays are read, as well as my original post. […]