This image reminds me of pictures of the Red Guard solemly holding their "little Red Books" determined to face the enemy armed with a book. I would be embarrased if some of my thinking non-anthro-based friends thought I participated in a web forum that represented its readers with graphics such as this one. The image is offensive to me because it is demeaing of the individual human who brings a book to life by investing precious effort in understanding it. Anyone who comes even near meetig life or relating to a book as this picture shows imo has a deep problem. Partisan, immature, propaganda. One hundred percent opposite to my experience of reading Steiner works.
Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 1:10pm.
You say:
I would be embarrased if some of my thinking non-anthro-based friends thought I participated in a web forum that represented its readers with graphics such as this one.
As this is a new web site no editorial guidelines have been established to screen content. The site is very open to the public so who knows what view may be expressed, especially from questionable characters like Tom Last. Anthroposophical society publications and most other Steiner related publications are heavily screened permiting only what the editor decides is "appropriate" content. Do you think editorial guidelines should be established here and if so what should they be? Or should we install an editorial board that knows what is "appropriate" content for a Philosophy of Freedom web site when they see it?
Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 1:55pm.
The web site doesn't really have an official voice or editorial opinion, rather it provides a place for individuals to express their own views so I am not sure what you (Bryn) mean when you say a forum that "represents its readers with graphics such as this". How are readers being represented? Each view posted only represents the view of the poster.
Submitted by Caryn Louise on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 8:16am.
Hello all
This is my first post although I read this site often and appreciate the discussions. The artwork is beautiful, thank you so much to the people who add colour to the day. And the cartoons! I think they are brilliant. I think this cartoon is a good take on life in general really. Possibly the irony is the bigger guy in red is a product of our own imagination and in this day and age we never sure (well me at least) have I said the right thing, am I being misunderstood, are you being misunderstood .. to quote REM 'I've said too much, I haven't said enough'..
My take on this cartoon is; the little guy is the soul and the book is the spirit - the challenge may be the little guy with his knowledgeable spirit should, in the confidence of himself, be himself hence making the external imagination eventually disappear.
Surely this is true freedom!
Well my perception as this cartoon talks straight to me and it is funny! Bryn your comments are also appreciated, hope you don't think I'm a partisan, yes might be immature, propaganda .. well .. lets start at the beginning!
Of course none of this is really serious, but just for the record so to speak...
Does not that picture depict a man in a state of sweating terror cringing behind a copy of a book in the face of domineering evil?
I find that highly uninspiring, particularly when the book in question is POF. Not only uninspiring, but downright misguided in the context of Anthroposophy.
Perhaps if the person had the book in his back pocket and was facing toward the Adversary with an intention to redeem, I would be less offended! Not much of a cartoon that way tho I admit!
"a good take on life in general"? "Kind of funny"? Where are you guys at with images?!
Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 11:22am.
Cartoons can always be seen in variouis ways. It refers to a particular section 12-12 of The Philosophy of Freedom where "external powers prevent me from doing as I will". For example: Because of my opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq he sends his secret police to arrest me and fly me to Cuba so I can be tortured at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
I would likely be terrified but would remind myself of this quote. "Not until they would enslave my spirit, drive my motives out of my head, and put their own motives in the place of mine, do they really aim at making me unfree."
I face life situations less dramatic than this where the same applies.
I'm with Bryn in my response to this cartoon. I think it is ugly and if he had read POF I think he would be looking at the scary guy out of the corner of his eye as he walks past. However, to be absolutely direct I'm also a little worried about your reaction Bryn, because you used a lot of strong emotional language which Tom, in particular, will have to reach for POF to protect himself from.
I wish that people wouldn't find other people's misfortune funny, but they do, and sometimes I do too, if I'm honest. I remember once the dog ran between two trees with a big stick in its mouth - the stick was stopped by the trees and the dog did a flip right over. The funniest bit was the look of indignation! I tried not to laught, but it was so funny.
Apart from the site itself, Tom's major contribution to our discussions and study available here is the 12 world views, and the idea that POF is about finding all possible views before making a decision, and some of these will be bound to be in confilct with our instinctive view.
So, don't think the cartoon is funny because I think the guy with the POF should be looking a bit less scared, however, I can see the point it is making which is that POF can help you cope with the horrors that jump out at you as you proceed on your journey through life.
Submitted by patri (not verified) on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 11:18am.
The tall ugly guy in red with the big teeth represents our inner demons and fears; the little guy in the green shirt in the face of his inner fears is nearly falling over, he holds up his PoF as if it will save him, Ha, what will the outcome really be? He better read that darn book instead of just holding it up. Darn the holes in his soul - so to speak.
Submitted by Jay Harms on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 3:03pm.
Nothing inspires participation more than controversy!!
I love it.
Anyway - here's my 2 cents.
I don't have a problem at all with the cartoon.
It's obviously not meant to be taken literally since we don't (at least I don't) live in a world where menacing people in red robes try to scare us (eat us? What is that guy, a Death Eater or what?)
The idea that this cartoon is meant to promote the physical use of the book as some sort of protective talisman is preposterous.
And since it's not meant to be taken literally, in what metaphorical sense can we understand it?
Rudolf Steiner says in How to Know Higher Worlds that meditation on certain texts is essential for the student of spiritual science (Ch 1).
The purpose of this meditation (my understanding) is to set up certain currents in the ether body that are conducive to the person's right evolution.
Steiner also says in Occult Science that a study of the Philosophy of Freedom will yield 'the most beautiful fruit in all times to come' (or something to that effect).
He also said that working over The Philosophy has a purifying (cathartic) effect on the astral body, which is necessary for spiritual perception. (Gospel of John lecture cycle)
The point is that it does make a big difference what you read - and Steiner has clearly stated that reading certain works (not just his own) have almost magical effects. Just look at some of the things he has said about the Gospel of John...
In this sense I don't think Tom's cartoon is outlandish or inappropriate - rather I would say that something like this follows directly from some of Steiner's own statements.
This cartoon could be interpreted as an imagination of The Philosophy's protective effect on one's emotions (or soul or astral body or whatever kind of terminology you want to use) - an effect which any serious student of this book will have experienced.
As far as I'm concerned this cartoon gets two thumbs up.
And in the words of the drill sergeant from the movie 'Stripes'
"Sorry folks"?!! That makes you sound like some methodist minister. Or Cliff Richard. (Come on laugh at yourself Bryn!!)
PoF is like a Steiner Bible then is it? - a sacrosanct text beyond the realms of light hearted engagement?
Bring your "thinking non-anthro based friends" in to meet us. I'm sure we could benefit from how serious they all are. We could maybe work out what cartoons would be suitable or appropriate.
Or maybe no cartoons would be really suitable or appropriate is the point you are making. Cus we are going to have to get strict control, and tighten up if we are to protect PoF from all the immature ridiculers. Just like those frightened fundamentalist Muslims did if i remember.....offended about cartoons....up in arms they were.....
I don't think a formal editorial policy is necessary. But I do think that the images that emblazon this site should be chosen with the understanding in mind that they function as meaning condensing symbols that speak to the unconscious. No post facto allegorizing by insiders about what an image "really means in this context" will change that immediate impact.
This is a "consciousness" site. I think we should be wary of splashing lurid symbls of ourselves (us as readers of pof on the pof site) cringing behind "Our Book." That is the ONE image and possibly only image, by which we could misrepresent PoF and the consciousness behind it, to the world.
Passing point: The eyecatching reds and purples of this particular graphic make it even more of a badge, hence more potentially significant as a front-page definer of the site.
Feel free to comment back to me, but I am happy to let this drop now ...with all good-will.
Submitted by Jay Harms on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 7:54am.
If readers are going to be so damned stupid as to make a sweeping judgment from one silly little cartoon I doubt they would get much out of this site anyway.
Submitted by Tom Last on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 8:58am.
You make a good point about images influencing the subconscious. The great thing about creativity is that you can add design considerations yet still get your intended results. I will examine future image ideas from the perspective of subconscious image influence.
I have to work from that perspective all the time because on the internet readers jump from web site to web site making quick subconscious decisions. When someone new arrives at this Philosophy of Freedom site they will usually unconsciously decide in less than a second whether to stay or bounce to another site. I have web statistics to monitor this behavior and adjust the front page to catch their attention with the hope of getting them to stay long enough to make a conscious decision.
Submitted by Simon Cohen on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 10:47am.
Hi Bryn,
As people are 'getting at you' a bit I thought I'd voice a little sympathy! I've generally liked Tom's cartoons and found them both subtle and funny and initially didn't think this image was by Tom as I thought it a bit 'out of style'. The image of PoF readers being unsung heroes who are crushed by the Leviathan forces of corporate thought is a little one dimensional I suppose. Perhps it is more acurate to see a bit of both, in varying proportions, in all of us.
We live in an image drowned culture (which I feel negates the value of visual art -whoops there goes my hobby horse!) and our psyches have a job processing the whole thing so we do have to be awake to this. I'm glad you have raised the issue, though and would be interested to know more of your concerns on a personal feeling level as your reaction was fairly strong and decisive.
Submitted by Caryn Louise on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 6:34am.
Mind you when I said external imagination it does sound off the wall! But if we are gentle people the cartoon and the words are relevant. That’s why, I think, it makes a good cartoon.
Stand back and perceive the way this conversation has been dealt with at a personal level. Also look at the way we have grappled to get at the learning that can be obtained. Bryn's original message was rational and emotional and two strands developed from that, one emotional and personal, the other rational and trying to find learning.
Do you remember the cartoon of a bookshelf with only one book on it - POF. That makes us feel good because it makes us feel like we are the ones who are touching the truth. To any one outside who is fed up of "this way to the truth" claims that cartoon could have been very off-putting. I think that Bryn was looking at the "whole" with his analysis of the cartoon above. Having said that, this is a POF web site and in a sense we all belong to it, so what is wrong with having in-jokes... I think the question has to be asked, what is the purpose of this site? If it is to bring people towards POF so that it can become a part of their lives, then the cartoons are probably, on balance, a bit risky. If however, this site is a club for POF fans, then they are fine. Of course, there are shades in between and other possibilities altogether.
Ooo dear. Sorry folks, Don't like this graphic at all!
This image reminds me of pictures of the Red Guard solemly holding their "little Red Books" determined to face the enemy armed with a book. I would be embarrased if some of my thinking non-anthro-based friends thought I participated in a web forum that represented its readers with graphics such as this one. The image is offensive to me because it is demeaing of the individual human who brings a book to life by investing precious effort in understanding it. Anyone who comes even near meetig life or relating to a book as this picture shows imo has a deep problem. Partisan, immature, propaganda. One hundred percent opposite to my experience of reading Steiner works.
Love and criticism
Bryn
editorial guidelines
You say:
As this is a new web site no editorial guidelines have been established to screen content. The site is very open to the public so who knows what view may be expressed, especially from questionable characters like Tom Last. Anthroposophical society publications and most other Steiner related publications are heavily screened permiting only what the editor decides is "appropriate" content. Do you think editorial guidelines should be established here and if so what should they be? Or should we install an editorial board that knows what is "appropriate" content for a Philosophy of Freedom web site when they see it?
no editorial opinion, just individual opinion
The web site doesn't really have an official voice or editorial opinion, rather it provides a place for individuals to express their own views so I am not sure what you (Bryn) mean when you say a forum that "represents its readers with graphics such as this". How are readers being represented? Each view posted only represents the view of the poster.
OK
Fair enough Bryn, I don't have a problem with it personally. I thought it was kind of funny...
It is funny
Hello all
This is my first post although I read this site often and appreciate the discussions. The artwork is beautiful, thank you so much to the people who add colour to the day. And the cartoons! I think they are brilliant. I think this cartoon is a good take on life in general really. Possibly the irony is the bigger guy in red is a product of our own imagination and in this day and age we never sure (well me at least) have I said the right thing, am I being misunderstood, are you being misunderstood .. to quote REM 'I've said too much, I haven't said enough'..
My take on this cartoon is; the little guy is the soul and the book is the spirit - the challenge may be the little guy with his knowledgeable spirit should, in the confidence of himself, be himself hence making the external imagination eventually disappear.
Surely this is true freedom!
Well my perception as this cartoon talks straight to me and it is funny! Bryn your comments are also appreciated, hope you don't think I'm a partisan, yes might be immature, propaganda .. well .. lets start at the beginning!
Thanks for a great site.
Caryn
South Africa
I don't get you guys at all!
Of course none of this is really serious, but just for the record so to speak...
Does not that picture depict a man in a state of sweating terror cringing behind a copy of a book in the face of domineering evil?
I find that highly uninspiring, particularly when the book in question is POF. Not only uninspiring, but downright misguided in the context of Anthroposophy.
Perhaps if the person had the book in his back pocket and was facing toward the Adversary with an intention to redeem, I would be less offended! Not much of a cartoon that way tho I admit!
"a good take on life in general"? "Kind of funny"? Where are you guys at with images?!
Love Bryn
The cartoon refers to a particular section
Cartoons can always be seen in variouis ways. It refers to a particular section 12-12 of The Philosophy of Freedom where "external powers prevent me from doing as I will". For example: Because of my opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq he sends his secret police to arrest me and fly me to Cuba so I can be tortured at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
I would likely be terrified but would remind myself of this quote. "Not until they would enslave my spirit, drive my motives out of my head, and put their own motives in the place of mine, do they really aim at making me unfree."
I face life situations less dramatic than this where the same applies.
I'm with Bryn in my
I'm with Bryn in my response to this cartoon. I think it is ugly and if he had read POF I think he would be looking at the scary guy out of the corner of his eye as he walks past. However, to be absolutely direct I'm also a little worried about your reaction Bryn, because you used a lot of strong emotional language which Tom, in particular, will have to reach for POF to protect himself from.
I wish that people wouldn't find other people's misfortune funny, but they do, and sometimes I do too, if I'm honest. I remember once the dog ran between two trees with a big stick in its mouth - the stick was stopped by the trees and the dog did a flip right over. The funniest bit was the look of indignation! I tried not to laught, but it was so funny.
Apart from the site itself, Tom's major contribution to our discussions and study available here is the 12 world views, and the idea that POF is about finding all possible views before making a decision, and some of these will be bound to be in confilct with our instinctive view.
So, don't think the cartoon is funny because I think the guy with the POF should be looking a bit less scared, however, I can see the point it is making which is that POF can help you cope with the horrors that jump out at you as you proceed on your journey through life.
Strength, warmth and light in Freedom,
Sebastian
PoF from falling over
The tall ugly guy in red with the big teeth represents our inner demons and fears; the little guy in the green shirt in the face of his inner fears is nearly falling over, he holds up his PoF as if it will save him, Ha, what will the outcome really be? He better read that darn book instead of just holding it up. Darn the holes in his soul - so to speak.
Cheers,
patri
POF as Talisman? NOT!!!
Nothing inspires participation more than controversy!!
I love it.
Anyway - here's my 2 cents.
I don't have a problem at all with the cartoon.
It's obviously not meant to be taken literally since we don't (at least I don't) live in a world where menacing people in red robes try to scare us (eat us? What is that guy, a Death Eater or what?)
The idea that this cartoon is meant to promote the physical use of the book as some sort of protective talisman is preposterous.
And since it's not meant to be taken literally, in what metaphorical sense can we understand it?
Rudolf Steiner says in How to Know Higher Worlds that meditation on certain texts is essential for the student of spiritual science (Ch 1).
The purpose of this meditation (my understanding) is to set up certain currents in the ether body that are conducive to the person's right evolution.
Steiner also says in Occult Science that a study of the Philosophy of Freedom will yield 'the most beautiful fruit in all times to come' (or something to that effect).
He also said that working over The Philosophy has a purifying (cathartic) effect on the astral body, which is necessary for spiritual perception. (Gospel of John lecture cycle)
The point is that it does make a big difference what you read - and Steiner has clearly stated that reading certain works (not just his own) have almost magical effects. Just look at some of the things he has said about the Gospel of John...
In this sense I don't think Tom's cartoon is outlandish or inappropriate - rather I would say that something like this follows directly from some of Steiner's own statements.
This cartoon could be interpreted as an imagination of The Philosophy's protective effect on one's emotions (or soul or astral body or whatever kind of terminology you want to use) - an effect which any serious student of this book will have experienced.
As far as I'm concerned this cartoon gets two thumbs up.
And in the words of the drill sergeant from the movie 'Stripes'
"Lighten up, Frances"
Don't make fun of our Steiner Bible!
Hey Bryn
"Sorry folks"?!! That makes you sound like some methodist minister. Or Cliff Richard. (Come on laugh at yourself Bryn!!)
PoF is like a Steiner Bible then is it? - a sacrosanct text beyond the realms of light hearted engagement?
Bring your "thinking non-anthro based friends" in to meet us. I'm sure we could benefit from how serious they all are. We could maybe work out what cartoons would be suitable or appropriate.
Or maybe no cartoons would be really suitable or appropriate is the point you are making. Cus we are going to have to get strict control, and tighten up if we are to protect PoF from all the immature ridiculers. Just like those frightened fundamentalist Muslims did if i remember.....offended about cartoons....up in arms they were.....
Ian (Sunbear)
Images are iconic on a site like this.
I don't think a formal editorial policy is necessary. But I do think that the images that emblazon this site should be chosen with the understanding in mind that they function as meaning condensing symbols that speak to the unconscious. No post facto allegorizing by insiders about what an image "really means in this context" will change that immediate impact.
This is a "consciousness" site. I think we should be wary of splashing lurid symbls of ourselves (us as readers of pof on the pof site) cringing behind "Our Book." That is the ONE image and possibly only image, by which we could misrepresent PoF and the consciousness behind it, to the world.
Passing point: The eyecatching reds and purples of this particular graphic make it even more of a badge, hence more potentially significant as a front-page definer of the site.
Feel free to comment back to me, but I am happy to let this drop now ...with all good-will.
Love
Bryn
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
If readers are going to be so damned stupid as to make a sweeping judgment from one silly little cartoon I doubt they would get much out of this site anyway.
subconscious influence
You make a good point about images influencing the subconscious. The great thing about creativity is that you can add design considerations yet still get your intended results. I will examine future image ideas from the perspective of subconscious image influence.
I have to work from that perspective all the time because on the internet readers jump from web site to web site making quick subconscious decisions. When someone new arrives at this Philosophy of Freedom site they will usually unconsciously decide in less than a second whether to stay or bounce to another site. I have web statistics to monitor this behavior and adjust the front page to catch their attention with the hope of getting them to stay long enough to make a conscious decision.
Sympathy with any provisional underdog
Hi Bryn,
As people are 'getting at you' a bit I thought I'd voice a little sympathy! I've generally liked Tom's cartoons and found them both subtle and funny and initially didn't think this image was by Tom as I thought it a bit 'out of style'. The image of PoF readers being unsung heroes who are crushed by the Leviathan forces of corporate thought is a little one dimensional I suppose. Perhps it is more acurate to see a bit of both, in varying proportions, in all of us.
We live in an image drowned culture (which I feel negates the value of visual art -whoops there goes my hobby horse!) and our psyches have a job processing the whole thing so we do have to be awake to this. I'm glad you have raised the issue, though and would be interested to know more of your concerns on a personal feeling level as your reaction was fairly strong and decisive.
Good Wishes,
Simon
in passing... That was both
in passing... That was both your hobby horses Simon: "the Leviathan forces of corporate thought "
;-)
S.
um
Mind you when I said external imagination it does sound off the wall! But if we are gentle people the cartoon and the words are relevant. That’s why, I think, it makes a good cartoon.
Best regards to all
Caryn
Descartes Before the Horse
I got more of a laugh from the comments about this cartoon than the cartoon, so, on a lighter note a Descarte Joke:
Putting Descartes Before the Horse
Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks, "Can I get you a drink?"
Descartes replies, "I think not."
--and he disappears.
Three Thumbs Up
Three thumbs up for that one!
Stand back and perceive the
Stand back and perceive the way this conversation has been dealt with at a personal level. Also look at the way we have grappled to get at the learning that can be obtained. Bryn's original message was rational and emotional and two strands developed from that, one emotional and personal, the other rational and trying to find learning.
The real thing...
S.
Out of the Question
I suppose it's out of the question to post that cartoon about Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan now...?
What is the purpose of this site?
Do you remember the cartoon of a bookshelf with only one book on it - POF. That makes us feel good because it makes us feel like we are the ones who are touching the truth. To any one outside who is fed up of "this way to the truth" claims that cartoon could have been very off-putting. I think that Bryn was looking at the "whole" with his analysis of the cartoon above. Having said that, this is a POF web site and in a sense we all belong to it, so what is wrong with having in-jokes... I think the question has to be asked, what is the purpose of this site? If it is to bring people towards POF so that it can become a part of their lives, then the cartoons are probably, on balance, a bit risky. If however, this site is a club for POF fans, then they are fine. Of course, there are shades in between and other possibilities altogether.
Post new comment