Rudolf Steiner's personal moral character
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:49 pm
Subject: Rudolf Steiner's personal moral character
At 03:02 10.01.2004, Joel
wrote:
The problem is to be able to distinguish
between what we know, and what we believe and to write with that
in mind, making clear to the reader we know this distinction
in ourselves, and are not claiming to know more than we do.]
Personally, I have never claimed to know more
than I know. But I do write about things the way I understand
them to be. Disagree if you like, but saying in effect that I
should not write what I write, is bull, and your endeavor to
censor me is something you base upon semantic horseshit with
a clumsy appeal to pseudo-epistemological purity.
[Well people can call themselves jackasses,
but it doesn't make them so. Same with anthroposophist. If anyone
can call themselves an anthroposophist, then the name has no
meaning whatsoever. The question would be what does Steiner suggest
an anthroposophist is, that is if we wish to honor any meaning
he made have given to the term. The First Leading Thought is:
"Anthroposophy is a path of cognition from the spiritual
in man to the Spiritual in the Universe."
If you wish to play judge over other people
about who can and who cannot call themselves anthroposophists,
go ahead. It's awfully legalistic coming from someone calling
himself an outlaw, however. The same goes for your weird appeals
to authority.
[Well, I can understand your distress.
I am not distressed, Joel.
You have yet to provide a justification,
in terms of Steiner's epistemological works, for proclaiming
that what we read in Steiner represents "knowledge"
in the sense those works describe.
That's already been done: http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
As to Catherine's work that is on my website,
what does that have to do with anything, other then being a lame
shot on your part trying to distract the conversation from the
real subject under discussion
I don't care whether or not you choose to
consider this a distraction. Catherine MacCoun claims that Rudolf
Steiner seduced Alice Spengel, had a sexual affair with
her, dumped her, and then ridiculed and humiliated her in front
of all the other members when she complained. She portrays Rudolf
Steiner as an insentitive and cruel son of a bitch, and Alice
Spengel as a victim of Steiner's dark side.
A review by Vadim Bondar
says it all:
"The above article begins
with the image of a can of worms, and when you finish it, you'll
feel that this is what you had. The first part of the article
is filled with insults against Rudolf Steiner, none of which,
in my opinion, are in the least substantiated. But the whole
article, written by someone who may at times even pose as an
anthroposophist, is really directed against Anthroposophy and
its Society."
The author has also been suggesting that that
Rudolf Steiner "slept around" a bit, that he was sexually
involved with Ita Wegman and other women around him.
My theory concerning motive for spreading
this infamous speculation about Steiner's private life around
on the World Wide Web is that the author is competing with RS
as an occultist, and that she needs to drag him down to a common
human level with ordinary weaknesses in order not to feel overshadowed
by him. She holds the opinion that a thorough purification of
soul and spirit is not necessary for advanced Christian initiation
of Steiner's caliber, that no moral standard is needed at all
to reach Steiner's level.
For many years, you have been featuring this
piece of garbage of an article on on your website. And now you
criticize me for writing about the Asuras on the ground that
you have this "love of Steiner"! Hello?
- namely: do we as anthroposophists have
to actually know anything, or can we just be content with beliefs.
I mean Tarjei - "dirty gossip" - is that the best you
can do with regard to something written by someone who is not
here to respond.
Peter Staudemnaier is not here to respond
either. Should we never comment his attacks against RS and Anthroposophy
on this list for that reason? Like his infamous article "Anthroposophy
and Eco-Fascism"? Why should MacCoun and her articles not
be subject to the same criticism and discussions as Staudenmaier
and his articles? Can you give me one good reason, Joel?
Let's face it: Dirty gossip is what it is.
"Work on What Has Been Spoiled"
is just another public article that besmirches RS and
Anthroposophy, endorsed by yourself. Any public article about
Anthroposophy is a perfectly suitable topic for a public
anthroposophical discussion forum.
Or do you suggest that this article should
just continue to spread dirt about the movement and its founder
without comment or criticism unless the author is present? Another
piece of bull, Joel.
Sounds even more like the WC list.]
"Work on What Has Been Spoiled"
is one of PLANS favorite articles. It serves their agenda perfectly.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Dear Tarjei,
I've stuck some comments below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 19:49, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
At 03:02 10.01.2004, Joel wrote:
The problem is to be able to distinguish
between what we know, and what we believe and to write with that
in mind, making clear to the reader we know this distinction
in ourselves, and are not claiming to know more than we do.]
Personally, I have never claimed to know
more than I know. But I do write about things the way I understand
them to be. Disagree if you like, but saying in effect that I
should not write what I write, is bull, and your endeavor to
censor me is something you base upon semantic horseshit with
a clumsy appeal to pseudo-epistemological purity.
[Oh, I've never meant to suggest you shouldn't
write what you write, for certainly you are free to write whatever
you want. I only have tried to suggest that some of what you
write should be taken with a sea full of grains of salt, for
you offer opinions on matters about which you clearly can have
no knowledge. Wave your opinions about all you want, just don't
be surprised if someone bothers to suggest that they don't deserve
being paid much attention. (by the way, don't you think you can
do something more clever than "semantic bullshit" and
"pseudo-epistemological purity" - I mean those are
pretty lame as insults, and certainly doesn't make any appeal
to reason concerning the questions I actually raised.]
[Well people can call themselves jackasses,
but it doesn't make them so. Same with anthroposophist. If anyone
can call themselves an anthroposophist, then the name has no
meaning whatsoever. The question would be what does Steiner suggest
an anthroposophist is, that is if we wish to honor any meaning
he made have given to the term. The First Leading Thought is:
"Anthroposophy is a path of cognition from the spiritual
in man to the Spiritual in the Universe."
If you wish to play judge over other people
about who can and who cannot call themselves anthroposophists,
go ahead. It's awfully legalistic coming from someone calling
himself an outlaw, however. The same goes for your weird appeals
to authority.
[Huh?]
[Well, I can understand your distress.
I am not distressed, Joel.
You have yet to provide a justification,
in terms of Steiner's epistemological works, for proclaiming
that what we read in Steiner represents "knowledge"
in the sense those works describe.
That's already been done: http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
[I found nothing in this article justifying
the reading of texts as knowledge, as against one's own active
cognitive activity. On the contrary, especially what I read in
this article about the Philosophy of Freedom demonstrated that
you had only an intellectual understanding of the nature of this
book, not an understanding based upon practice and experience.]
As to Catherine's work that is on my website,
what does that have to do with anything, other then being a lame
shot on your part trying to distract the conversation from the
real subject under discussion
I don't care whether or not you choose
to consider this a distraction. Catherine MacCoun claims that
Rudolf Steiner seduced Alice Spengel, had a sexual affair
with her, dumped her,
[This is simply not true. Here again you play
the same kind of game as Peter S., inventing facts and then distorting
other facts on the basis of your invention.]
and then ridiculed and humiliated her in
front of all the other members when she complained. She portrays
Rudolf Steiner as an insentitive and cruel son of a bitch, and
Alice Spengel as a victim of Steiner's dark side.
[You wouldn't care to quote Catherine's article
in support of your slander of her work, I suppose. No, probably
not. No anger coming through the ethers here.]
A review by Vadim Bondar
says it all:
"The above article
begins with the image of a can of worms, and when you finish
it, you'll feel that this is what you had. The first part of
the article is filled with insults against Rudolf Steiner, none
of which, in my opinion, are in the least substantiated. But
the whole article, written by someone who may at times even pose
as an anthroposophist, is really directed against Anthroposophy
and its Society."
[What you have quoted above is just conclusions.
The whole article is simply a long rant against Catherine's essay,
which demonstrates very little knowledge of the essay, but really
on the author's antipathy toward what he doesn't like. Catherine's
essay is carefully reasoned, quotes all the parties carefully,
including Steiner, while the above cited comments offer nothing
but disagreement, an easy thing to do in any case.]
The author has also been suggesting that
that Rudolf Steiner "slept around" a bit, that he was
sexually involved with Ita Wegman and other women around
him.
[Not true, please quote where it says this,
or I am going to h ave to call you a follower of the standards
of scholarship of Peter S.]
My theory concerning motive for spreading
this infamous speculation about Steiner's private life around
on the World Wide Web is that the author is competing with RS
as an occultist, and that she needs to drag him down to a common
human level with ordinary weaknesses in order not to feel overshadowed
by him. She holds the opinion that a thorough purification of
soul and spirit is not necessary for advanced Christian initiation
of Steiner's caliber, that no moral standard is needed at all
to reach Steiner's level.
[Your theory?!?!. The whole point of this
exchange is to draw into question vain opinions.]
For many years, you have been featuring
this piece of garbage of an article on on your website. And now
you criticize me for writing about the Asuras on the ground that
you have this "love of Steiner"! Hello?
[Calling it garbage says nothing other than
that you don't like it. But then you give little evidence of
being interested in the truth in any case, and much more evidence
of liking your opinions more.]
- namely: do we as anthroposophists have
to actually know anything, or can we just be content with beliefs.
I mean Tarjei - "dirty gossip" - is that the best you
can do with regard to something written by someone who is not
here to respond.
Peter Staudemnaier is not here to respond
either. Should we never comment his attacks against RS and Anthroposophy
on this list for that reason? Like his infamous article "Anthroposophy
and Eco-Fascism"? Why should MacCoun and her articles not
be subject to the same criticism and discussions as Staudenmaier
and his articles? Can you give me one good reason, Joel?
[I don't object to criticism of Catherine's
article at all, but it has to be genuine and thoughtful, not
just a vain rant. Many indulged themselves in vain rants, but
when I offered them space, they had little to say, because when
faced with having to actually put something thoughtful and reasoned
down on paper and have their name behind it, this they could
not do.]
Let's face it: Dirty gossip is what it
is.
[No, what you have said above is dirty gossip,
and anyone who actually now reads the article (and I highly recommend
it which is why I have it on my website) will find it quite different
in character than you have described. http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/ktmc1.html
]
"Work on What Has Been Spoiled"
is just another public article that besmirches RS and
Anthroposophy, endorsed by yourself. Any public article about
Anthroposophy is a perfectly suitable topic for a public
anthroposophical discussion forum.
[The article actually raises more questions
than it suggests answers, and the questions are very legitimate.
The article's main "harm" in the eyes of most, is that
it actually suggests Steiner was a human being, who could make
mistakes, and was not necessarily a genius without flaw.
Or do you suggest that this article should
just continue to spread dirt about the movement and its founder
without comment or criticism unless the author is present? Another
piece of bull, Joel.
[Actually critics of the article were offered
the possibility of placing their remarks along side the article
and declined, mostly (as near as I could tell) because when they
had to offer their comments in a form in which one could compare
their assumptions about the article with the actual article,
they knew that they couldn't really claim it says what they want
to imply it says. Peter S., for all his other flaws, at least
pretends to quote Steiner and tries to give references, which
is what critical argument should do at the very least. Mere characterizations,
not referenced to any actual citation from the text don't amount
to anything.]
Sounds even more like the WC list.]
"Work on What Has Been Spoiled"
is one of PLANS favorite articles. It serves their agenda perfectly.
[PLANS has a lot of truth, and were it not
for the excesses of a few, they would be more effective in doing
a real service by restraining the excesses in Waldorf.]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
At 22:48 11.01.2004, Joel wrote:
Oh, I've never meant to suggest you shouldn't
write what you write, for certainly you are free to write whatever
you want. I only have tried to suggest that some of what you
write should be taken with a sea full of grains of salt,
You're free to take everything you read with
all the salt you want, Joel, but that's not what you wrote.
for you offer opinions on matters about
which you clearly can have no knowledge.
That's just the same presumptious arrogant
shit you throw around to a lot of people here. Personally, I
pay no attention to it, and this is one of the extremely rare
times I even bother to comment on it.
Wave your opinions about all you want,
just don't be surprised if someone bothers to suggest that they
don't deserve being paid much attention.
You're free to pay attention and not pay attention
to anything you like, but it's very irritating to see you tell
others what they should or should not pay attention to. That's
why I ignore most of your posts.
If you wish to play judge over other people
about who can and who cannot call themselves anthroposophists,
go ahead. It's awfully legalistic coming from someone calling
himself an outlaw, however. The same goes for your weird appeals
to authority.
[Huh?]
When a self-professed outlaw like yourself
writes, "what gives you the authority to tell such a horror
story?" and sign off with "shivering regards",
it's as if Billy the Kid should suddenly have been crying out
for the sheriff and the preacher because someone had spooked
him with a horror story.
You have yet to provide a justification,
in terms of Steiner's epistemological works, for proclaiming
that what we read in Steiner represents "knowledge"
in the sense those works describe.
That's already been done: http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
[I found nothing in this article justifying
the reading of texts as knowledge, as against one's own active
cognitive activity.
Who cares?
On the contrary, especially what I read
in this article about the Philosophy of Freedom demonstrated
that you had only an intellectual understanding of the nature
of this book, not an understanding based upon practice and experience.]
I don't think I'm the only one who realizes
that the only person who understands anything at all is Joel
Wendt, and that the rest of us should get our notebooks to sit
down and learn from him.
I don't care whether or not you choose
to consider this a distraction. Catherine MacCoun claims that
Rudolf Steiner seduced Alice Spengel, had a sexual affair
with her, dumped her,
[This is simply not true. Here again you
play the same kind of game as Peter S., inventing facts and then
distorting other facts on the basis of your invention.]
The sexual affair was supposed to have been
with Ita Wegman; sorry about getting it mixed up. Steiner's relationship
to Spengel according to the article concerned was sado-masochistic
with sexual-occult undertones:
The shadow is a Jungian concept,
for which the simplest definition is: everything that the self
wishes not to be. The characteristics Steiner attributes to Alice
in his various public remarks--vanity, grandiosity, illogic,
melancholy, over-solidified imagination and sexual repression-are
a description of what Steiner wanted very much not to be.
The ferocity with which he
abuses her suggests a sadomasochistic dimension to their relationship
of which neither seems to be aware. Please don't take that in
what Steiner would call a "smutty" way, for I am not
implying repressed sexual anything. On a psychic level, sadomasochism
is a state of polarization in which one partner takes a path
of descent, the other a path of ascent. As the submissive goes
down into the dark, irrational, death-oriented underground of
the subconscious, the dominant ascends to blazing heights of
clarity, precision and control. The temporary objectification
or casting-out of the inferior element fills him with vitality
and strength. It's called "dominant euphoria."
From your webpage, http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/ktmc1.html
A review by Vadim Bondar
says it all:
"The above article
begins with the image of a can of worms, and when you finish
it, you'll feel that this is what you had. The first part of
the article is filled with insults against Rudolf Steiner, none
of which, in my opinion, are in the least substantiated. But
the whole article, written by someone who may at times even pose
as an anthroposophist, is really directed against Anthroposophy
and its Society."
[What you have quoted above is just conclusions.
Yes, and a pretty accurate one too.
The whole article is simply a long rant
against Catherine's essay, which demonstrates very little knowledge
of the essay, but really on the author's antipathy toward what
he doesn't like. Catherine's essay is carefully reasoned, quotes
all the parties carefully, including Steiner, while the above
cited comments offer nothing but disagreement, an easy thing
to do in any case.]
There is nothing wrong with the quotes themselves;
it's the way they are used and the theories and interpretations
offered. Like I told Diana Winters: How quotes are perceived
depends upon how they are presented.
The author has also been suggesting that
that Rudolf Steiner "slept around" a bit, that he was
sexually involved with Ita Wegman and other women around
him.
[Not true, please quote where it says this,
or I am going to h ave to call you a follower of the standards
of scholarship of Peter S.]
This was indicated elsewhere, but I should
not paraphrase or quote non-published material. The same goes
for the snips here.
The article actually raises more questions
than it suggests answers, and the questions are very legitimate.
The article's main "harm" in the eyes of most, is that
it actually suggests Steiner was a human being,
It suggests that he was cruel and insensitive
with sadistic tendencies.
who could make mistakes, and was not necessarily
a genius without flaw.
The accusations contained in this article
imply a lot more than his being mistaken and human and having
flaws.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:18 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Dear Tarjei,
Wow, I had forgotten what a hot issue this
is! I wasn't going to comment, though, until I read this:
My theory concerning motive for spreading
this infamous speculation about Steiner's private life around
on the World Wide Web is that the author is competing with RS
as an occultist, and that she needs to drag him down to a common
human level with ordinary weaknesses in order not to feel overshadowed
by him. She holds the opinion that a thorough purification of
soul and spirit is not necessary for advanced Christian initiation
of Steiner's caliber, that no moral standard is needed at all
to reach Steiner's level.
You speculate that she needs to "drag
him down to a common human level with ordinary weknesses"?
That's ridiculous. He was already human.
In this regard I like Kuhlewind's point of
view, which I've often quoted. "A person may be a great
initiate while meditating, but possibly not while tying his shoe."
That makes more sense to me than contemplating Saint Steiner.
Steiner himself said that, while it is possible for a person
to become perfect in a modern day incarnation, it would be a
mistake to do so. It would be premature and would have the effect
of lifting them out of the planned evolution that is still to
come.
I don't understand why regarding Steiner as
a person who may have had a human imperfection or two seems so
awful. In fact, I would submit that it is necessary to entertain
the possibility if one is to consider Catherine's article without
bias.
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:19 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
At 06:18 13.01.2004, Jerry wrote:
In this regard I like Kuhlewind's point
of view, which I've often quoted. "A person may be a great
initiate while meditating, but possibly not while tying his shoe."
That makes more sense to me than contemplating Saint Steiner.
I see. In other words, in order to knock Steiner
off his sainthood and make him more "human" to your
liking, you must ascribe to him a streak of cruelty and make
him into a sadist, practicing some kind of occult sado-masochism
with young females.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jan
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
At 06:18 13.01.2004, Jerry wrote:
In this regard I like Kuhlewind's point
of view, which I've often quoted. "A person may be a great
initiate while meditating, but possibly not while tying his shoe."
That makes more sense to me than contemplating Saint Steiner.
Why is being ‘human’ so often equated
with what is actually sub human unrefined astral detritus? Could
such a man, as portrayed in the essay in question, possibly have
revealed ‘The Fifth Gospel’ to name but one of his
many unique spiritual contributions to the evolution of humanity?
Jan
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:35 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
At 06:18 13.01.2004, Jerry wrote:
In this regard I like Kuhlewind's point
of view, which I've often quoted. "A person may be a great
initiate while meditating, but possibly not while tying his shoe."
That makes more sense to me than contemplating Saint Steiner.
Why is being ‘human’ so often
equated with what is actually sub human unrefined astral detritus?
Could such a man, as portrayed in the essay in question, possibly
have revealed ‘The Fifth Gospel’ to name but one of
his many unique spiritual contributions to the evolution of humanity?
Jan
Yes, Jan. I absolutely think that could be
the case. And what do you say about Steiner mentioning that it
would not be good for anyone to make themselves perfect? Think
I made it up? May I also ask what it is specifically that you
term "unrefined astral detritus"?
Do you term it as such because, had Steiner been guilty of any
of the things Catherine wrote about, his work should have been
immediately discarded? The idea that Steiner had to be perfect
to be able to do what he did is, in my opinion, a bit naive and
not very realistic.
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:23 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Dear Tarjei,
At 06:18 13.01.2004, Jerry wrote:
In this regard I like Kuhlewind's point
of view, which I've often quoted. "A person may be a great
initiate while meditating, but possibly not while tying his shoe."
That makes more sense to me than contemplating Saint Steiner.
Tarjei responded:
I see. In other words, in order to knock
Steiner off his sainthood and make him more "human"
to your liking, you must ascribe to him a streak of cruelty and
make him into a sadist, practicing some kind of occult sado-masochism
with young females.
Not at all, but I don't automatically dismiss
it as impossible. And when did I say that saying that makes him
more to my liking? That just isn't true. Tarjei, if you look
back through history there have been all kinds of questionable
goings on associated with people who were otherwise greatly inspired
or even saintly. Even the ancient philosophers were known to
indulge rather openly in homosexuality, and I recall reading
a reference that Plato or Socrates made to the pleasures of a
young boy. I'm not trying to stir anything up in saying this,
just to point out the fact that those of great inspiration are
not necessarily "good boys" all the time. I don't make
the claim you suggest about Steiner--I don't think he was a sadist
but he might have done something mean. Who hasn't? I think Catherine's
speculations could be correct, and that's all she ever tried
to get anyone to think about. Consider the possibility that Steiner
may have had some human failings. Not to condemn. Even if it
could be proven that some of these events did occur, I don't
think they are condemnable offenses. Do you?
There are example after example of great men
and women who had plenty of human failings in other areas. Martin
Luther King is one, and if I'm not mistaken, Ghandi is another.
In fact, other than Mother Teresa, there aren't many who haven't
been known to err humanly at times. All the heros on this Earth
except One have had feet of clay. Why is that so hard to accept?
Does it somehow diminish their accomplishments?
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:29 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Tarjei:
I see. In other words, in order to knock
Steiner off his sainthood and make him more "human"
to your liking, you must ascribe to him a streak of cruelty and
make him into a sadist, practicing some kind of occult sado-masochism
with young females.
Jerry:
Not at all, but I don't automatically dismiss
it as impossible.
I see.
And when did I say that saying that makes
him more to my liking? That just isn't true. Tarjei, if you look
back through history there have been all kinds of questionable
goings on associated with people who were otherwise greatly inspired
or even saintly. Even the ancient philosophers were known to
indulge rather openly in homosexuality, and I recall reading
a reference that Plato or Socrates made to the pleasures of a
young boy.
If you choose to spin or defend wild tales
about Rudolf Steiner on the basis of biographies of Plato and
Napoleon and what have you, that's your prerogative. It's a logic
pursued by most ultra-rationalists, atheists, skeptics. Materialists.
Peter Staudenmaier would probably agree with you wholeheartedly.
I'm not trying to stir anything up in saying
this, just to point out the fact that those of great inspiration
are not necessarily "good boys" all the time. I don't
make the claim you suggest about Steiner--I don't think he was
a sadist but he might have done something mean. Who hasn't?
A great many people in the history of the
earth didn't do anything mean, Jerry. Start with Saint Francis
of Assissi, and please note: This guy was indeed a SAINT. You
don't believe in saints. Fair enough, but you're stretching it
when supporting a piece of speculative gossip on that basis.
I think Catherine's speculations could
be correct, and that's all she ever tried to get anyone to think
about. Consider the possibility that Steiner may have had some
human failings. Not to condemn. Even if it could be proven that
some of these events did occur, I don't think they are condemnable
offenses. Do you?
The so-called human failings ascribed to Steiner
in the article we're talking about are much more than that.
There are example after example of great
men and women who had plenty of human failings in other areas.
Martin Luther King is one, and if I'm not mistaken, Ghandi is
another. In fact, other than Mother Teresa, there aren't many
who haven't been known to err humanly at times. All the heros
on this Earth except One have had feet of clay. Why is that so
hard to accept? Does it somehow diminish their accomplishments?
King and Ghandi were not initiates. They may
have been heroes, but they were not seers reading the Akasha.
In order to penetrate to the holy of holies, i.e. viewing the
Gospel Events, an exceptionally purified state of soul and spirit
is required. MacCoun denies this vehemently, portraying this
Christian, right-handed occultism as something independent of
morality; in effect, something amoral.
MacCoun has stated unequivocally that she
is Steiner's peer, and that she is qualified to both critique
his work and to advance it.
She has also said that any of us who do not
consider ourselves to be Steiner's peers should know that she
does not consider us to be her peers. (There seems to be a parallel
here to Joel's attitude.)
MacCoun's position was that if Steiner had
failed to produce a peer, then he had failed utterly, because,
it is the mission of every esoteric teacher to prepare the way
for those who will surpass the teacher. She seems to have stated
by declaring herself Steiner's peer, that she was somehow absolving
him from his failure.
In defending Sprengel and Goesch she referred
to them as the underdogs and was very clear about reiterating
that Steiner had been wrong "to have attacked them",
and considered that by writing the article she was "dismissing
past slanders and restoring Goesch and Sprengel to a position
of equal footing"; "restoring their reputations".
She also made a declaration of intent that she would show, in
the future, by placing Goesch, Sprengel and Steiner on equal
footing, the relevance the 1915 incident had in what was wrong
in the AS today, and what might be done to correct the problems
of the AS today.
Goesch, Sprengel and Steiner on equal footing
- they're all peers and equals in achievement and abilities and
so on. Goesch and Sprengel and Steiner and MacCoun.
If you can't match Steiner's achievements
and abilities, you're ipso facto no match for MacCoun either.
Achieving sainthood in the moral department, however, is so extremely
hard that we just skip it. And while we're at it, we might as
well say that Steiner skipped it too.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:40 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Dear Tarjei,
I'm almost with you this time--not necessarily
in complete agreement, but your arguments are coming together
and I'm seeing a bit more logic in your point of view. Bear with
me if you will. I freely admit to thick headedness, but I try
to make up for it with persistence.
Having said that there are also still a couple
of areas where you're not being fair. The first is here:
Jerry:
And when did I say that saying that makes
him more to my liking? That just isn't true. Tarjei, if you look
back through history there have been all kinds of questionable
goings on associated with people who were otherwise greatly inspired
or even saintly. Even the ancient philosophers were known to
indulge rather openly in homosexuality, and I recall reading
a reference that Plato or Socrates made to the pleasures of a
young boy.
Tarjei:
If you choose to spin or defend wild tales
about Rudolf Steiner on the basis of biographies of Plato and
Napoleon and what have you, that's your prerogative. It's a logic
pursued by most ultra-rationalists, atheists, skeptics. Materialists.
Peter Staudenmaier would probably agree with you wholeheartedly.
Jerry:
I have neither spun or defended wild tales
about Steiner. All I said was that I didn't rule out the possibility.
There's quite a gulf between what I said and what you attribute
to me, and I'd like to ask why?
Jerry:
I'm not trying to stir anything up in saying
this, just to point out the fact that those of great inspiration
are not necessarily "good boys" all the time. I don't
make the claim you suggest about Steiner--I don't think he was
a sadist but he might have done something mean. Who hasn't?
Tarjei:
A great many people in the history of the
earth didn't do anything mean, Jerry. Start with Saint Francis
of Assissi, and please note: This guy was indeed a SAINT. You
don't believe in saints. Fair enough, but you're stretching it
when supporting a piece of speculative gossip on that basis.
This is even worse! I have NEVER said that
I don't believe in saints! You can disagree with me--passionately,
if you will--but this is putting words in my mouth, and I don't
see how you could justify it.
Then you go on to say that I support a piece
of speculative gossip. Seeing as how your verbal English skills
surpass my own, I have a hard time understanding why you would
do this. I know you feel strongly about the matter, but I don't
think you help your case by twisting my words, and you certainly
don't make headway in converting me to your point of view when
you do that.
If I were to take a similar cheap shot against
you, I'd say that you're doing to me what Dan Dugan does to people.
I won't, though, because I know it isn't true. You're nothing
like Dan Dugan, and it would get me nowhere trying to score verbal
points just because I might be able to build a flimsy case for
it.
Jerry:
I think Catherine's speculations could
be correct, and that's all she ever tried to get anyone to think
about. Consider the possibility that Steiner may have had some
human failings. Not to condemn. Even if it could be proven that
some of these events did occur, I don't think they are condemnable
offenses. Do you?
Tarjei:
The so-called human failings ascribed to
Steiner in the article we're talking about are much more than
that.
Jerry:
Now we're getting somewhere. Will you explain
why you say that?
Jerry
There are example after example of great
men and women who had plenty of human failings in other areas.
Martin Luther King is one, and if I'm not mistaken, Ghandi is
another. In fact, other than Mother Teresa, there aren't many
who haven't been known to err humanly at times. All the heros
on this Earth except One have had feet of clay. Why is that so
hard to accept? Does it somehow diminish their accomplishments?
Tarjei:
King and Ghandi were not initiates. They
may have been heroes, but they were not seers reading the Akasha.
Jerry:
These are two of the greatest men of the twentieth
century, and not just because they were brave or motivated. I
believe both were greatly inspired, and am surprised that you
would brush that away so casually. Do you do that because of
these men's well known human failings? I would consider that
a great error, if so.
Tarjei:
In order to penetrate to the holy of holies,
i.e. viewing the Gospel Events, an exceptionally purified state
of soul and spirit is required. MacCoun denies this vehemently,
portraying this Christian, right-handed occultism as something
independent of morality; in effect, something amoral.
MacCoun has stated unequivocally that she
is Steiner's peer, and that she is qualified to both critique
his work and to advance it.
She has also said that any of us who do
not consider ourselves to be Steiner's peers should know that
she does not consider us to be her peers. (There seems to be
a parallel here to Joel's attitude.)
MacCoun's position was that if Steiner
had failed to produce a peer, then he had failed utterly, because,
it is the mission of every esoteric teacher to prepare the way
for those who will surpass the teacher. She seems to have stated
by declaring herself Steiner's peer, that she was somehow absolving
him from his failure.
In defending Sprengel and Goesch she referred
to them as the underdogs and was very clear about reiterating
that Steiner had been wrong "to have attacked them",
and considered that by writing the article she was "dismissing
past slanders and restoring Goesch and Sprengel to a position
of equal footing"; "restoring their reputations".
She also made a declaration of intent that she would show, in
the future, by placing Goesch, Sprengel and Steiner on equal
footing, the relevance the 1915 incident had in what was wrong
in the AS today, and what might be done to correct the problems
of the AS today.
Jerry:
Okay, the forgoing lays out your beef pretty
well, and I think I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure
we can find a meeting of minds if you are convinced that a highly
inspired person has to be perfect, however, because the understanding
that that isn't true is fundamental to my point of view. I can
respect yours on that basis, however.
It's much easier for me when I don't feel
as though you're calling me an idiot for believing as I do. I'd
actually like to think that my position makes sense, and if you
can explain an error in my thinking I'm absolutely willing to
consider the possibility.
Steiner often admonishes his reader to test
for him/herself the validity of his research. He didn't do that,
in my opinion, in spite of the fact that he knew there was no
one among them capable of doing so. On the contrary, most all
of us have the abilty to do it if we approach the task with a
measure of good will and sound reasoning. If we can bring ourselves
to truly consider the possibility of even the most outrageous
arguments, we're close to being able to make those sort of judgements.
Tarjei:
Goesch, Sprengel and Steiner on equal footing
- they're all peers and equals in achievement and abilities and
so on. Goesch and Sprengel and Steiner and MacCoun.
Jerry:
I don't recall anyone saying this. Peers in
acheivement and abilities? I think Catherine said in so many
words that she thought we are all capable of doing similarly
to Steiner, (in fact Steiner said that, too), but I do not believe
she said that anyone was equal as you have characterised it.
Tarjei:
If you can't match Steiner's achievements
and abilities, you're ipso facto no match for MacCoun either.
Achieving sainthood in the moral department, however, is so extremely
hard that we just skip it. And while we're at it, we might as
well say that Steiner skipped it too.
Jerry:
I understand a little better what drives your
sarcasm, Tarjei, but to what end? I'm willing to grant you the
goodwill to consider your position even though I might otherwise
feel somewhat insulted by some of your responses. Are you really
so convinced of Catherine's nefarious motivations that the best
reaction is condemnation? And what of my own? I don't guess there's
really any way I can prove it to you, but my agenda is certainly
not to do damage to the AS, Steiner or his legacy, or to you.
One difficulty seems to lie in what we consider to be damaging.
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: Jan
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:13 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
On 15/1/04 6:35 am, J. Gardner wrote:
Yes, Jan. I absolutely think that could
be the case. And what do you say about Steiner mentioning that
it would not be good for anyone to make themselves perfect? Think
I made it up? May I also ask what it is specifically that you
term "unrefined astral detritus"?
Do you term it as such because, had Steiner
been guilty of any of the things Catherine wrote about, his work
should have been immediately discarded? The idea that Steiner
had to be perfect to be able to do what he did is, in my opinion,
a bit naive and not very realistic.
Jerry
Hello Jerry,
I have never maintained that Steiner was perfect, just that he
was not sadomasochistic. I would describe such tendencies in
anyone as unrefined astral detritus, in an Initiate, practiced
occultly, I would say it partook of grey if not black magic.
Had Steiner been ‘guilty of the things Catherine wrote about’
I do not think that his work, as we have it, would have existed.
Jan
[Continued
in another thread]
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:16 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Dear Jan,
I've asked you for details on your reasons for believing as you
do, but you've just gone into more detail about your beliefs
themselves. In describing sadomasochistic tendencies as astras
detritus, please explain to me what way of thinking qualifies
as sadomasochistic tendencies and what specifically about them
makes them astral detritus. Then I would be interested to know
why you think this would have prevented Steiner from achieving
what he did.
Your statements are nowhere near specific enough, and don't have
the necessary supporting details to qualify as spiritual science.
Furthermore I don't think they'd stand up if you attempted to
make them so. I may be wrong, though.
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:37 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
At 04:40 16.01.2004, Jerry wrote:
Jerry:
I have neither spun or defended wild tales
about Steiner. All I said was that I didn't rule out the possibility.
To spell it out: You don't rule out the possibility
of Steiner having a kinky-occult sado-masochistic relationship
to Sprengel, which makes him a hypocrite with regard to everything
he taught.
There's quite a gulf between what I said
and what you attribute to me, and I'd like to ask why?
I apologize if I have attributed to you views
that you have not expressed.
This is even worse! I have NEVER said that
I don't believe in saints!
No, but you suggested that it was a mistake
to think that Steiner was one, and for that reason, it would
be reasonable to accept the possibility of his being a cruel
sadist instead.
You can disagree with me--passionately,
if you will--but this is putting words in my mouth, and I don't
see how you could justify it.
Explain it in your own words then - not why
Steiner was human and erred and slipped and had an occasional
outburst, but why it's reasonable to assume that he may have
been a cruel sadist.
Then you go on to say that I support a
piece of speculative gossip.
You don't support it? Again, I apologize for
misunderstanding.
Seeing as how your verbal English skills
surpass my own, I have a hard time understanding why you would
do this.
It may be the other way around, Jerry. I live
in a non-English speaking country and don't speak the language
on a daily basis, so perhaps I have misunderstood you.
I know you feel strongly about the matter,
but I don't think you help your case by twisting my words, and
you certainly don't make headway in converting me to your point
of view when you do that.
Again, I'm sorry. It was not intended.
If I were to take a similar cheap shot
against you, I'd say that you're doing to me what Dan Dugan does
to people.
Now I think you're exaggerating my misunderstanding
a little and making too much of it.
I won't, though, because I know it isn't
true. You're nothing like Dan Dugan, and it would get me nowhere
trying to score verbal points just because I might be able to
build a flimsy case for it.
Frankly, I'd love to do a Dan Dugan by saying
that the "Cult of Catherine" is based on a lot of crap,
and that her cult following needs to be busted for moral bankruptcy.
(Are you reading me, Dan?)
Tarjei:
The so-called human failings ascribed to
Steiner in the article we're talking about are much more than
that.
Jerry:
Now we're getting somewhere. Will you explain
why you say that?
I think I already have. No point going around
in circles.
Jerry:
I understand a little better what drives
your sarcasm, Tarjei, but>to what end? I'm willing to grant
you the goodwill to consider your position even though I might
otherwise feel somewhat insulted by some of your responses.
I have apologized repeatedly in this post,
but i don't understand how I have insulted you so terribly, Jerry.
I've been getting at MacCoun and her article, not you.
Are you really so convinced of Catherine's
nefarious motivations that the best reaction is condemnation?
Absolutely not. The best reaction is analysis
and exposure. I know this may sound like DD and PS, but so be
it.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: J. Gardner
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:04 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
Dear Tarjei,
Thanks for your reassurances. I would love
to find a place of understanding between us with respect to this
discussion, as it's been an outstanding issue for several years.
As a pacifist at heart, knowing that we're not going to come
to blows over it is an important consideration.
Now, let me get back to needling you.<g>
You write:
I have apologized repeatedly in this post,
but i don't understand how I have insulted you so terribly, Jerry.
I've been getting at MacCoun and her article, not you.
This is maybe a bit off topic, but let me
take a moment to explain, and I'll do that with an example. A
few days ago I wrote:
In this regard I like Kuhlewind's
point of view, which I've often quoted. "A person may be
a great initiate while meditating, but possibly not while tying
his shoe." That makes more sense to me than contemplating
Saint Steiner.
To which you responded:
I see. In other words,
in order to knock Steiner off his sainthood and make him more
"human" to your liking, you must ascribe to him a streak
of cruelty and make him into a sadist, practicing some kind of
occult sado-masochism with young females.
I write in essence that an initiate may be
so within a limited context, outside of which he or she would
be more appropriately regarded otherwise. That's what it meant
to me. But in your response, 1) I am implicitly guilty of working
to knock Steiner off his sainthood and make him more human, 2)
I have ascribed to him a streak of cruelty, and 3) I have branded
him a sadist and 4) I accuse him of practicing occult sadomasochism
with young females.
Let me remind you that my stated premise was
only that I was willing to consider Catherine's scenario as a
possibility. I did not say that I thought any particular speculation
was fact. Let me hasten to add that I'm not looking for appologies,
just understanding and a little good will.
In truth I am probably guilty of #1, although
even though I will grant that Steiner may be worthy of being
called a saint. This is an important point, though, that I'd
like to say a bit more about. Actually I have a lot more to say
about it.
A little more than a year ago, an article
by Dr. Bruce Kirchoff appeared in the newletter of the anthroposophical
society in america, titled, The three jewels of Buddhism in
relation to Anthroposophy. (It was reprinted in the Southern
Cross Review, and can still be found at http://www.southerncrossreview.org/16/kirchoff.htm.)
Bruce Kirchoff is very active in the North
Carolina branch, which must be one of the most active brances
in the US. His article begins:
"When one listens carefully
to what is said by Anthroposophists, one hears three assumptions
that play themselves out in many ways. These assumptions concern
the roles of teachers, teachings, and communities in the harmonious
functioning of the group of people following the teachings of
Rudolf Steiner. Every spiritual movement or religion has had
to face similar challenges. We can gain insight into how to cope
with these assumptions through a study of how other movements
have dealt with them. The three jewels of Buddhism (Buddha, dharma,
sangha) provide a particularly useful framework in which to explore
the roles of teachers, teachings, and communities in our spiritual
striving.
"The first assumption
that is common in Anthroposophy has two forms, an older and a
newer. The older form states that that no one has attained higher
knowledge following the path outlined by Steiner. My shorthand
for this assumption is "There has been no attainment."
This assumption was particularly strong in the decades preceding
the end of the millennium. As the millennium approached, it became
increasingly difficult to maintain this assumption. It became
clear that at least some people had attained something by following
this path. At least some intercourse with the spiritual worlds
was taking place. As this became increasingly apparent, the first
form of the assumption began to wane, and a second form began
to take its place. In this form, the assumption reads, "there
is something to attain," with the sub-text "we have
not reached this attainment." That is, though we begin to
see signs of spiritual perception in our peers, we know that
these perceptions are not the true perception of which Steiner
speaks. We may have attained something, but it is not "the
real thing." This assumption assures us that we still have
a long road to travel."
This is a really, very important point. The
rest of the article is none the less so, but it wouldn't do to
copy the whole thing here. My point is twofold, and the first
is of primary importance. If the AS is to go forward in a way
that remains meaningful to members rather than succumbing to
slow decay, it (it's members) needs to wake up to the realities
presented in this article. Secondly it's an illustration of what
I regard as the central message of Catherine's article. Many
would argue vehemently that there is no relationship between
what Catherine wrote and what is contained in Kirchoff's essay,
and on the surface that's true. I would counter that the details
of Catherine's article are reletively unimportant because her
real message is almost the same as Kirchoff's. Unfortunately
we've never been able to arrive at the point of that realization
in any of our discussions of the matter.
The AS has been so hung up on Steiner's achievements
that it has tended to deny that of anyone else, and in fact has
on occaision sought to exclude people who claim otherwise. It's
not healthy to be so reverent of Steiner that you become fixated
upon him, unable to make a move of your own. In a very abreviated
nutshell, that's what I think has happened.
It is precisely because Steiner's achievements
are so outstanding that we have the problem. Understandable,
too, because who wants to stand up and place their own work up
for comparison to that of a saint? Steiner recognized that that
could be a problem, and often admonished people to form their
own opinions of what he said; to do their own work. Most have
not done so on more than a superficial level though, because
they don't feel qualified, and that's a major error. Again I'll
ask, would Steiner have told us to do so even if we were incapable?
Christ, too, told us to "test the spirits."
There's much, much more to be said on this
topic, but I think that's enough for the moment.
Jerry
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:14 am
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner's personal moral character
Jerry wrote:
Secondly it's an illustration of what I regard as the central
message of Catherine's article. Many would argue vehemently that
there is no relationship between what Catherine wrote and what
is contained in Kirchoff's essay, and on the surface that's true.
I would counter that the details of Catherine's article are reletively
unimportant because her real message is almost the same as Kirchoff's.
Unfortunately we've never been able to arrive at the point of
that realization in any of our discussions of the matter.
Dear Jerry,
Can you or do you understand that some people
seem to read into Catherines words that Steiner was a masochist?
I do not read this. I get it more like you do in a way. But can
you see where Tarjei and many others feel she has maligned him
in this sense? Do you get she was saying he was a sadomasachist?
Looking at the fact that Steiner said we must
always hold a miniscule thought that a thing could be possibly
true even if everything we seem to know would point otherwise
I seem to be on the same page as you. And I do not believe that
means one is in agreement with Catherines paper. Along this line
Steiner also recommended reading books that did not agree with
his understanding and said that these serve ones ongoing search
for spiritual/mental growth. I do not hold that Catherines paper
is a good intuation (new word:) of the purported incident, considering
all we know about Dr. Steiner, although I think it is her right
to look upon the subject. I find she leaned heavily on the side
of the 'underdogs' and that was her undoing in that particular
paper. I also think if things hadn't gotten off to such a bad
start regarding her personal reason for writing this paper we
might have had a good chance at having a solid debate regarding
how she came to such a conclusion that seems way off its mark
in accordance to reality in my opinion.
And Tarjei, I do not think that wonderful
little episode you presented as Steiner not being perfect shows
that to be true, only that he is human.
Gotta run,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:42 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Rudolf Steiner's personal
moral character
I wrote:
I see. In other words, in order to knock
Steiner off his sainthood and make him more "human"
to your liking, you must ascribe to him a streak of cruelty and
make him into a sadist, practicing some kind of occult sado-masochism
with young females.
Jerry wrote:
I write in essence that an initiate may
be so within a limited context, outside of which he or she would
be more appropriately regarded otherwise. That's what it meant
to me.
OK. An initiate may be a cruel sadist within
a limited context. I agree with that. An initiate may also be
a cruel sadist within an _unlimted_ context as far as I'm concerned.
But in your response, 1) I am implicitly
guilty of working to knock Steiner off his sainthood and make
him more human,
Forget the word "guilty." Nobody
is on trial here. Nobody is going to be punished. This is not
a court of law.
Many would argue vehemently that there
is no relationship between what Catherine wrote and what is contained
in Kirchoff's essay, and on the surface that's true. I would
counter that the details of Catherine's article are reletively
unimportant because her real message is almost the same as Kirchoff's.
What you're saying is that Catherine MacCoun
and Bruce Kirchoff' have something in common regarding the inertia
of the AS; that they would both like to see achievers, new leading
clairvoyants and initiates, take over after Rudolf Steiner. I
can understand that, but I don't see how it makes their "real
messages" almost the same. And if I should argue anything
vehemently here, it would be that the details in Catherine's
article are certainly not of "relative unimportance."
As a matter of fact, I don't see how they make sense in the context
of the noble purpose you describe, because the very ignobility
of these details corrupt the central message in my opinion.
Unfortunately we've never been able to
arrive at the point of that realization in any of our discussions
of the matter.
The AS has been so hung up on Steiner's
achievements that it has tended to deny that of anyone else,
and in fact has on occaision sought to exclude people who claim
otherwise. It's not healthy to be so reverent of Steiner that
you become fixated upon him, unable to make a move of your own.
In a very abreviated nutshell, that's what I think has happened.
The problem you describe here is still no
excuse to portray Rudolf Steiner as a cruel sadist. On the contrary,
it makes the smear look like an act of desperation: iconoclasm
for the sake of iconoclasm at any cost and by any means.
It is precisely because Steiner's achievements
are so outstanding that we have the problem. Understandable,
too, because who wants to stand up and place their own work up
for comparison to that of a saint?
I'm inclined to say, 'I rest my case' here,
Jerry. Steiner's sainthood is the problem, so tear him down from
his pedestal, not to show that he is human, but that he
is an authority-abusing son of a bitch like any other cult leader.
The problem is that when Steiner is torn down
in that way, he is also made a liar and a hypocrite with regard
to the very premises of the Michaelic path of initiation he describes.
There are other paths, of course, but the path described and
recommended by Steiner is based upon moral purity, self-sacrificing
love, a catharsis that cleanses impurities and remnants of petty
selfishness. This does lead to sainthood, and sainthood becomes
a condition necessary for higher achievements in terms of cognition.
A saint has not ceased to be human; on the contrary, a saint
is more human than a non-saint, because it is the attainment
of sainthood that makes us truly human.
Steiner recognized that that could be a
problem, and often admonished people to form their own opinions
of what he said; to do their own work. Most have not done so
on more than a superficial level though, because they don't feel
qualified, and that's a major error. Again I'll ask, would Steiner
have told us to do so even if we were incapable? Christ, too,
told us to "test the spirits."
This is very true, Jerry, but it has nothing
to do with the preposterous allegation that Rudolf Steiner was
a cruel sadist and a power-abusing son of a bitch "at times,"
and that this ignoble behavior made him "human like the
rest of us."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
