the internet is both ahrimanic and luciferic

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 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.

The blogger claims that the internet can be redeemed (and disapproves of the all too wide-spread negative attitude toward the internet among anthroposophists). Well, that’s reassuring. But it isn’t necessarily an easy process, it must be done “through a conscious surrendering of one’s will to a higher will, which is experienced both as a suffering and a redemption.” Ahriman and Lucifer, not too surprisingly, have different ideas about the use of the internet. Ahriman wants it to be used for manipulation and control, and wishes that people forget the “greater powers”. Lucifer, on the other hand, “would be happy if we continued to use the internet to satisfy our desires and create infinite personalities for ourselves.” (The latter part of the sentence makes me laugh: do people not know how good some anthroposophists are at creating new personalities to satisfy their desires!)

12 thoughts on “the internet is both ahrimanic and luciferic

  1. Goodness this is self-referential. You refer to a blog that is a response to someone making a response to someone else’s response to an anthroposophical interpretation of the internet (analysing with deadly seriousness ideas which left Rudolf Steiner languishing in a side-ward of history) and tell us that your blog is cited as a source!

    All I can say is: how turgid religion sounds. And esoteric sects that are quasi-religious, which appear in the above mentioned post (someone’s, I forget whose) to rely on Catholicism for their central themes of sin and redemption, submission and suffering, are even more elaborately cumbersome and bizarre.

    These last two posts of yours confirm that we all need our own blog so that we can go away and comment on what was said about us (or our blog) on someone else’s blog and damn well have the last word.

  2. No, I the only one who cited my blog was myself — it was a self-referential narcissistic all the way around way of sourcing, and then I just pulled in someone else’s blog (commenting on yet other sources) in the middle so as not to appear too ego-maniac*!!! ;)

    *https://zooey.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/waldorf-parents-and-contradictions/#comment-1293

    Yes, and then we’ll just delete other people’s post, unless they confirm our opinions. There’s nothing more satisfying than having the last word, especially in a round-about sourcing-linking-referring circus. In the end we shall be supporting our own arguments through an eternal spiral movement. At least all our opponents will get dizzy and jump the ship in despair. They’ll think they’re heading into the bermuda triangle of sailing spirals (and this could invoke feelings of fears in the bravest of men).

    Well, now I need to jump off this ship of madness and foolishness!

  3. Ha! I shall have the last word here while you run to throw up over the edge of your own ever-expanding universe – leaving you with this thought:

  4. Wow!! You and Ahriman (and YouTube)! This is where the ahrimanic impulses lead us, to a world where people can almost effortlessly prove their points and (attempt to) have the last word by embedding an obviously ahrimanic kiddie video. This is truly a world in the hands of Ahriman. Or the paws of cats. Depending on your spiritual worldview.

  5. Ah, maybe I should link to the beginning of this blog-post, so that no one has the last word. It would be like a song:

    Or possibly a symbol of a serpent, eating its own fairytale… what do you think? (rhetorical question)

  6. Oh oh! Like the goetheanum serpent which almost bites its own tail — but only almost! (In Ahern’s book, he uses the serpent to, sort of, tie it all together.) The serpent doesn’t actually reach the tail. Considering that you almost linked to the top of the post, we’ve (well, you have) symbolically represented the goetheanum serpent in an ahrimanic manner (you know, digital information, compressed, repressed, upset — stuff Prokofieff doesn’t approve of)!

    This is very exciting!

  7. Oh yes! So true!

    Speaking of which, I found a little more canineosophy stuff among my emails, maybe I should blog it, if the world is ready.

    Dog is another name for the Canine Impulse which permeates all of cosmos — the heavens and the earth and the hierarchies. We should perhaps pay a bit more attention to the zoo of beings which populate — visibly and invisibly — the universe. Not just the Cat Forces, there’s lots more.

    But maybe not now.

  8. Absolutely not. Now we should move on, in a circular direction, crossing one foot over the other, faster and faster, like a couple of whirling … you must know the phrase: ‘there’s not room to swing a cat in here?’ like that, only metaphorically of course for health and safety reasons. You understand.

  9. Let’s live in the metaphors. It’s so much funnier. Also, in reality, I doubt I could maintain direction and an upright position after so much circling, whirling and swirling. My head isn’t safety approved for such adventures. And it would be very dangerous, too, because we might trip and fall on the metaphorical cats. The problem is, if we stay withing the metaphor, can we still trip on the cats? Like ahrimanic mind cats? They do get in everywhere these cat forces. I’m sure they could thwart a whole metaphor with there presence.

Comments are closed.