This forum

[Federica]

We don't need to introduce forces of evil, or 'targets' of evil . . . it's simply that disciples\students of great teachers hear the message from their level of understanding . . . and either slowly over a generation or two, or quickly, the message gets lost. It's inevitable.

Well, we disagree here. We don't act as independent bubbles, we are all moving actively (or passively, or in between) in the same one sea of consciousness.

And when we don't master our thinking enough, we act under the effect of subconscious waves in this sea, and these waves are all intentional, for the best or for the worse. So the more we are letting ourselves live, without trying to control our impulses in the direction of the good, the more we let our agency open for evil forces to utilize, without us noticing it.
This can happen in and out, only occasionally, or substantially, if we are lazy, and proud, and feel superior, and don't try too much to be good and truthful.

If we remember that we are all interconnected - "all" also includes non-human higher beings, good and evil - in consciousness, it's much easier to realize.

[lorenzop]

Yes, I reckon we disagree here - even recognizing we are part of a bigger Whole - I never saw the advantage of introducing 'the devil made me do it'.
If Steiner had use of his faculties, recognizing his Society was slipping away - he could\should have done something about it - and not simple blamed it on outside forces.

[Federica]

Yes, I reckon we disagree here - even recognizing we are part of a bigger Whole - I never saw the advantage of introducing 'the devil made me do it'.
If Steiner had use of his faculties, recognizing his Society was slipping away - he could\should have done something about it - and not simple blamed it on outside forces.

This is reckless reasoning. At this rate, you can "justify" or "blame" anything in full arbitrariness. You speak as if, like a magician, you could "introduce" stuff, and that makes it true. If your process is to "introduce" statements based on whether they give you an "advantage" or not, this is the opposite of seeking truth. Seeking reality and truth isn't a negotiation. Faust knew that well.

[lorenzop]

Yes, I reckon we disagree here - even recognizing we are part of a bigger Whole - I never saw the advantage of introducing 'the devil made me do it'.
If Steiner had use of his faculties, recognizing his Society was slipping away - he could\should have done something about it - and not simple blamed it on outside forces.

This is reckless reasoning. At this rate, you can "justify" or "blame" anything in full arbitrariness. You speak as if, like a magician, you could "introduce" stuff, and that makes it true. If your process is to "introduce" statements based on whether they give you an "advantage" or not, this is the opposite of seeking truth. Seeking reality and truth isn't a negotiation. Faust knew that well.

All I introduced is recognizing an issue of concern, and choosing a course of action as remedy. Now, if I had pulled the victim card of having to contend with forces of evil and good then you'd have a complaint. I fully admit I prefer to keep things simple.

[Federica]

Yes, I reckon we disagree here - even recognizing we are part of a bigger Whole - I never saw the advantage of introducing 'the devil made me do it'.
If Steiner had use of his faculties, recognizing his Society was slipping away - he could\should have done something about it - and not simple blamed it on outside forces.

This is reckless reasoning. At this rate, you can "justify" or "blame" anything in full arbitrariness. You speak as if, like a magician, you could "introduce" stuff, and that makes it true. If your process is to "introduce" statements based on whether they give you an "advantage" or not, this is the opposite of seeking truth. Seeking reality and truth isn't a negotiation. Faust knew that well.

All I introduced is recognizing an issue of concern, and choosing a course of action as remedy.

That's not all you introduced. You also introduced a challenge to Steiner similar to the one screamed by the bypassers in Matthew 27:40:

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

[lorenzop]

This is reckless reasoning. At this rate, you can "justify" or "blame" anything in full arbitrariness. You speak as if, like a magician, you could "introduce" stuff, and that makes it true. If your process is to "introduce" statements based on whether they give you an "advantage" or not, this is the opposite of seeking truth. Seeking reality and truth isn't a negotiation. Faust knew that well.

All I introduced is recognizing an issue of concern, and choosing a course of action as remedy.

That's not all you introduced. You also introduced a challenge to Steiner similar to the one screamed by the bypassers in Matthew 27:40:

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

This point isn't really worth pursuing much further - but this is far from the Matthew reference . . . Steiner himself is making the observation, stating the challenge, and I suspect did at least to try to do something about the 'new materialism' he observed.
For me this is mostly about invoking evil spirits when things go wrong - - - If I burn my morning oatmeal or rob a convenience store, I think it's healthier to claim responsibility. It's a copout to invoke evil spirits.
This is not about whether there are evil spirits or not - it's about taking taking action or sitting back and folding.

[Federica]

All I introduced is recognizing an issue of concern, and choosing a course of action as remedy.

That's not all you introduced. You also introduced a challenge to Steiner similar to the one screamed by the bypassers in Matthew 27:40:

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

This point isn't really worth pursuing much further - but this is far from the Matthew reference . . . Steiner himself is making the observation, stating the challenge, and I suspect did at least to try to do something about the 'new materialism' he observed.
For me this is mostly about invoking evil spirits when things go wrong - - - If I burn my morning oatmeal or rob a convenience store, I think it's healthier to claim responsibility. It's a copout to invoke evil spirits.
This is not about whether there are evil spirits or not - it's about taking taking action or sitting back and folding.

The part you forget is that the evil spirits are also in us. Taking responsibility for our crimes, sins, or distractions means recognizing it and taking inner and outer action to free ourselves from those influences. When we prefer not to look and we keep living in a disjointed and disheartened everyday, then we are sitting back and folding. When we "responsibly" keep pushing through, rolling on the hamster's wheel indefinitely, we are actually spiritually sitting back and folding.

[lorenzop]

That's not all you introduced. You also introduced a challenge to Steiner similar to the one screamed by the bypassers in Matthew 27:40:

This point isn't really worth pursuing much further - but this is far from the Matthew reference . . . Steiner himself is making the observation, stating the challenge, and I suspect did at least to try to do something about the 'new materialism' he observed.
For me this is mostly about invoking evil spirits when things go wrong - - - If I burn my morning oatmeal or rob a convenience store, I think it's healthier to claim responsibility. It's a copout to invoke evil spirits.
This is not about whether there are evil spirits or not - it's about taking taking action or sitting back and folding.

The part you forget is that the evil spirits are also in us. Taking responsibility for our crimes, sins, or distractions means recognizing it and taking inner and outer action to free ourselves from those influences. When we prefer not to look and we keep living in a disjointed and disheartened everyday, then we are sitting back and folding. When we "responsibly" keep pushing through, rolling on the hamster's wheel indefinitely, we are actually spiritually sitting back and folding.

We agree then, I just happen to use phrase 'evil spirits' differently. I use 'evil spirits' in a more traditional and common manner -> malevolent supernatural beings.

[Federica]

This point isn't really worth pursuing much further - but this is far from the Matthew reference . . . Steiner himself is making the observation, stating the challenge, and I suspect did at least to try to do something about the 'new materialism' he observed.
For me this is mostly about invoking evil spirits when things go wrong - - - If I burn my morning oatmeal or rob a convenience store, I think it's healthier to claim responsibility. It's a copout to invoke evil spirits.
This is not about whether there are evil spirits or not - it's about taking taking action or sitting back and folding.

The part you forget is that the evil spirits are also in us. Taking responsibility for our crimes, sins, or distractions means recognizing it and taking inner and outer action to free ourselves from those influences. When we prefer not to look and we keep living in a disjointed and disheartened everyday, then we are sitting back and folding. When we "responsibly" keep pushing through, rolling on the hamster's wheel indefinitely, we are actually spiritually sitting back and folding.

We agree then, I just happen to use phrase 'evil spirits' differently. I use 'evil spirits' in a more traditional and common manner -> malevolent supernatural beings.

Ok, but why do you use "evil spirit" in common manner? You said that you agree that we are all immersed and living within one Whole, or a shared consciousness. If this is not to remain a purely abstract notion, shouldn't you infuse your understanding of everything with this idea, and read everything from this perspective or one shared consciousness? This also includes evil beings. So why do you have one worldview on one side (one consciousness) but then, when you think various thoughts, you revert back to a common understanding of, for example, "evil spirits"?

[lorenzop]

Ok, but why do you use "evil spirit" in common manner? You said that you agree that we are all immersed and living within one Whole, or a shared consciousness. If this is not to remain a purely abstract notion, shouldn't you infuse your understanding of everything with this idea, and read everything from this perspective or one shared consciousness? This also includes evil beings. So why do you have one worldview on one side (one consciousness) but then, when you think various thoughts, you revert back to a common understanding of, for example, "evil spirits"?

If you were to lookup the definition or use of 'evil spirits', you'd find the common use is 'sinister beings', not 'evil internal forces or inclinations', this is my point.
But I'm not sure what you're getting at above - are you suggesting that all (other apparent) beings are actually internal spirits, or are you suggesting I've said as much?
Or, are you simply opposed to using language in a 'common manner'?
Not sure what you are asking me.
What I will say is: when we use words WE NECESSARILY introduce errors in our speech . . . unless we sit in the corner and chant AUM . . . although even AUM is burdened with concessions.
BTW, for what it's worth, I neither believe nor disbelieve in 'evil spirits', either as evil beings or evil internal forces. I don't see the advantage of introducing the idea.