Spiritual Science
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:08 pm
Subject: Spiritual Science
At 22:25 22.01.2004, Diana wrote:
Do you think the methods in "How to
Know Higher Worlds" are "science"? Are the descriptions
of ancient "Atlantis" science? Are the predictions
of future "incarnations" of our planet as "Venus"
and "Saturn" science?
Yes, Diana, the contents of the works and
topics you describe above were acquired through trained seership,.
i.e through the spiritual-scientific method. This method was
developed from the natural-scientific method by extending it
into the spiritual realm.
You may assert all you want that the natural-scientific
method cannot be extended to other fields, that its discipline
cannot be applied in areas previously left to the field of faith
and religion. You may assert that as an epistemological-philosophical
argument. But when you say that Steiner contradicted science
and spoke against it, you're gravely mistaken. Others who say
that are deliberately falsifying anhroposophically oriented spiritual
science.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:05 am
Subject: Walden as cult apologist
Walden gets in on the action and adds a few
words to the WC thread "trying to talk with anthroposophists":
Walden says:
To clarify - for those
who do no know - certain anthroposophically inclined people like
to place others who question anthroposophy into what they call
the "PLANS cult" or the "Cult of Peter" (Staudenmaier).
"Takes one to know one," my mom used to say.
Tarjei says:
Ditto.
Walden says:
When I first heard this
"PLANS Cult" stuff I thought it was a joke. As time
passed, I saw that label seemed not to be mentioned in jest.
Rather odd but there you go. As for the insults and ad hominems
- it seems to go with the territory. Seems some folks get downright
ornery and feel personally attacked when their (or Steiner's)
ideas are questioned.
It's as if one were questioning their faith. . . but that would
mean we are discussing religion, wouldn't it?
Tarjei says:
What's the difference? It's our approach to
the holy of holies: An understanding of Christ and the Gospels,
and of God as a Being of unalloyed, absolute love. This is sacred,
and every insult against it is sacrilege. Whether you call it
religion or spiritual science is totally irrelevant. Waldon seems
to be mixing the cards here, because this has nothing to do with
the dispute about the American separation of church and state
and WE in public schools and PLANS litigation about such things.
If that was all PLANS was about, it would be of minimal interest
to me. But when they disgrace and blaspheme the holy of holies
for anthroposophists, it is experienced as a personal attack.
This behavior by the PLANS-WC cult seems symptomatic of a lack
of legal arguments about the separation of religion and state
issue. If it is important for the PLANS-WC cult to establish
that Anthroposophy is a religion and not a science, they should
treat Anthroposophy as a religion all the way, in a way that
a religion deserves to be treated: With respect and honor. Otherwise,
they defeat their owm purpose with their utterly depicable and
morally bankrupt conduct.
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:15 pm
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's latest piece of wisdom
On January 25, 2004, Peter Staudenmaier wrote
a post about me on the WC list that may need a little commenting:
Tarjei (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1439)
is quoted:
If it is important for
the PLANS-WC cult to establish that Anthroposophy is a religion
and not a science, they should treat Anthroposophy as a religion
all the way, in a way that a religion deserves to be treated:
With respect and honor. Otherwise, they defeat their owm purpose
with their utterly depicable and morally bankrupt conduct.
Peter S. comments:
Taking a somewhat different
tack from Walden's, I'd say there are several things wrong with
this picture. First, on general principles: it is a very bad
idea to say that all religions as such deserve to be treated
with respect and honor. One obvious example is The Creativity
Movement, formerly the World Church of the Creator, which urges
its adherents to engage in "Racial Holy War" against
Jews and people of color. The doctrines of this religion deserve
neither respect nor honor.
What did Christopher Rocancourt posing as
'Christopher Rockefeller' say again? He said that if he asks
to borrow your necktie and promises to give it back to you but
keeps it instead, he is not a thief, but 'only' a liar. That's
how millions of dollars were lured from people in terms of "loans"
and "investments." By the same token, if you accuse
Peter Staudenmaier of saying that Anthroposophy is reminiscent
of a sect engaging in racial holy war against Jews and blacks,
you're a moron in need of better reading glasses, or you should
go back to school to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Peter Staudenmaier says no such thing here, and of course he
has no intention to create this association in the mind of his
readers. People imagining that have been smoking too much weed,
or their ramblings are only typical of anthroposophical irrationality.
The problem for this particular breed of critics
is as follows: They argue that Anthroposophy is a religion for
their own political-judicial reasons. If we say it's a religion,
they say it isn't. Or if it is, it's not a religion worthy of
any respect, and another excellent example of a so-called religion
not deserving respect is the above-mentioned "Creativity
Movement". These critics won't accept Anthroposophy as a
science either, of course, and they think the art is crappy.
So when Anthroposophy is neither a religion, a science, nor an
art, all they can say is that it's a piece of shit. So they've
waged a holy war against this piece of shit and devoted much
of their lives to it. For what?
Peter S. continues:
Second, even for less aggressively
violent religions, public discourse in a secular society depends
on the opportunity to criticize and reject, or support and affirm,
specific religious beliefs when these beliefs are made public.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing particular examples of
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and so forth, when these
examples have been put forward by their adherents for public
consideration.
Third, the demand for blanket respect and honor misconstrues
existing arguments about anthroposophy's religious nature (which
are in any case not unanimously shared by the "WC cult"),
and is moreover obviously incompatible with the self-conception
of many anthroposophists that they are engaged in science. A
few lines earlier in the same message that Walden quoted, we
read that for some anthroposophists, religion and science are
in fact the same thing:
Just for the record: Peter S. appears to have
great faith in his own clairvoyant faculties if he is conceited
enough to imagine that he has any inkling of others' self-conception,
especially among anthroposophists. And if anthroposophists have
demanded anything of Peter S. and his cohorts, these demands
should be quoted. Anthroposophists are not only quite accustomed
to have their understanding of the Gospel ridiculed and blasphemed
by people who can see no distinction between the Easter Bunny
and the Risen One; anthroposophists are also aware that the endurance
of such blasphemy and ridicule is an important aspect of the
Christian initiation path called "The Crowning of the Thorns":
"And they stripped him, and put on him
a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns,
they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and
they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail,
King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed,
and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him,
they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him,
and led him away to crucify him." - Matthew 27:28-31
"Father, forgive them; for they know
not what they do." - Luke 23:34
[Tarjei]
What's the difference?
It's our approach to the holy of holies: An understanding of
Christ and the Gospels, and of God as a Being of unalloyed, absolute
love. This is sacred, and every insult against it is sacrilege.
Whether you call it religion or spiritual science is totally
irrelevant.
[Peter S]
This is a remarkable instance
of self-misrecognition.
Again, Peter Staudenmaier's faith in his clairvoyant
faculties are quite astounding. His trust in his own ability
to see how I actually cognize my own "I" is a rare
case of exceptionally arrogant conceit.
If anthroposophy were a
science, it would demand public scrutiny and welcome critique
and refutation of its central claims, it would encourage skepticism
and rigorous doubt, state its own conditions of falsifiability,
and treat its tenets as hypotheses subject to constant modification
by others. All of these things, of course, have been adamantly
rejected by anthroposophists on this list and elsewhere, who
do indeed consider their own beliefs to be exempt from the standards
of public discourse, and who occasionally become apoplectic when
non-anthroposophists decline to grant them this exemption.
Like I said, this breed of critics will not
accept Anthroposophy as a religion, an art, or a science, but
only as a piece of shit. With this view, it's amazing how much
time they like to spend in the sewer, even celebrating anniversaries
of how long they've been knee-deep in it.
Which brings us back to
the chronic difficulties involved in trying to talk with anthroposophists...
Sacreligious greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
When you approach anthroposophists with the
pre-conceived notion that you know their self-cognition better
than they know it themselves, your chronic communication difficulties
are indeed understandable.
And God bless you,
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:13 pm
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier's standards
Peter S:
If anthroposophy were a
science, it would demand public scrutiny and welcome critique
and refutation of its central claims, it would encourage skepticism
and rigorous doubt, state its own conditions of falsifiability,
and treat its tenets as hypotheses subject to constant modification
by others. All of these things, of course, have been adamantly
rejected by anthroposophists on this list and elsewhere, who
do indeed consider their own beliefs to be exempt from the standards
of public discourse, and who occasionally become apoplectic when
non-anthroposophists decline to grant them this exemption.
Mike:
Here we have a boat load of Peter S's "standards" with
which he sets out to destroy the basic premise that Anthroposophy
is a science. First off, as I understand it, Anthroposophy is
not "a science." Anthroposophy is the hypotheses (from
my perspective) that Steiner left us, that resulted from his
own claimed research into what he called "the spiritual
worlds." From the methods and results of his personal research
he coined the phrase "Spiritual Science."
So I think that this is not "a science" by whatever
"standard" Mr. Peter S. chooses to conveniently apply,
so as to come to his own conclusions about Anthroposophy. For
me it is "Spiritual Science" and it is a very personal
endeavor, similar to the idea of soul science (psychology). Peter
S's "standards", applied to individuals, in the field
of psychology would, in my opinion, drive most of us insane.
Can you imagine demanding "public scrutiny" and welcoming
"critique and refutation, skepticism and rigorous doubt"
as standards in the field of psychology? One important standard
that Peter S. seems to leave out here, I think, is compassion.
And that, I think, is the ultimate goal of doing personal "spiritual
scientific research" -- to come to an understanding and
experience of compassion, or Love.
I realize that I am moralizing this question a bit, but to me
it is a question of morality. And that (morality) for me is also
a personal endeavor, that is not subject to other peoples "standards."
For a so called anarchist, he seems to abide by allot of "standards."
-- "standards of public discourse", standard conceptions
of what "a science" is, and also his infamous "standard
conceptions of racism."
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:54 am
Subject: Spiritual Science
In answer to the following quote by Mr. Peter
Staudemeir and other like minded critics of Dr. Rudolf Steiner
and the results of his spiritual scientific investigations known
as Anthropsophy:
I have stated previously that Waldorf Education
is not a Science per se. It is more closely akin to Alchemy,
a process of transformation of substance. Waldof Education is
an Art and as such, it is work arising from the information given
to us by Anthroposophy, also known as Spiritual Science.
There are others who can better explain the
nature of Anthroposophy as a Science than I, but I can, out of
personal understanding, respond to Mr. Staudermeier's accusation
thus:
Peter S:
If anthroposophy were a
science, it would demand public scrutiny and welcome critique
and refutation of its central claims,
Anthroposophy does demand and expect public
scrutiny and it welcomes critique and refutation of its central
claims. At the same time, it expects that any individual who
wishes to scrutinize, critique or refute the information it contains
will be willing and able to read and study the material directly
from the source given and apply the same level of thought and
scientific approach as that from which the material has been
developed. In other words, first the person needs to read the
material directly, not just second hand sources; second, the
person needs to follow the steps given by which Rudolf Steiner
directly stated he did his investigations and obtained the results
of those investigations and; third, the person must have the
ability to critique and refute (if necessary) the results of
Spiritual Scientific investigations by the scientific method
of reproducing the conditions of inquiry and achieving a different
result.
Scrutiny, critique and refutation by anyone
who begins with such foregone and immovable conclusions as:
"It is all so mystical, it can't be science."
"Metaphysics is not verifiable." (in other words -
Kantian philosophy - there is "something out there"
but we cannot know anything about it.)
"Steiner was a racist and therefore any scientific information
that he has given is tainted and wrong out of hand."
"I only believe in what I can see, hear and piss on."
(Can you see, hear and piss on electriciy, magnetism, gravity,
etc.? Or does one have to study these "supersensible"
forces solely through their demonstrable effects?)
must be discounted from the outset. These
kinds of critiques have nothing to do with any recognizable process
of scientific inquiry and thus are not worth the Anthroposophist's
time in discussing or debating.
Rudolf Steiner not only encouraged open minded
skepticism, but he went so far as to insist that none of his
work could be understood or implemented properly by anyone who
did not follow the same steps of investigation to arrive at the
information on his or her own. Rudolf Steiner was a Doctor of
Natural Science and a recognized scientist and researcher of
his day. Much of his work has already been verified in the laboratory
and in practical application. Much has yet to be worked with
fully by others.
it would encourage skepticism
and rigorous doubt, state its own conditions of falsifiability,
and treat its tenets as hypotheses subject to constant modification
by others.
Rudolf Steiner specifically encouraged and
promoted OPEN MINDED, which is the same as scientific, skepticism
in regard to all information and the source of that information
contained in Anthroposophy. The conditions of falsifiability
in regard to the purely "scientific" work such as the
study of human development, sensitive crystallization, anthroposophical
medicine and bio-dynamic farming methods (among others) are the
same as those found in the same disciplines elsewhere - the study
and testing of methods, materials and results of applications.
Rudolf Steiner stated often in working with other people directly,
that he could give a basic direction or "indication"
on certain questions, but that others (usually meaning the person
asking the question) would need to do the work involved in putting
the information to the test and developing its application. There
were many people who were students of his who did and who are
still doing exactly that. Rudolf Steiner expected
all who worked with his "hypotheses" to first acertain
their credibility; then to observe the conditions into which and under which they wished to apply them;
and develop each application in the way appropriate to the objectively
verifiable and observable phenomena that they were studying.
This methodology was expected to be followed in every discipline
from architecture to speech development to movement therapy to
farming and more. Not only did he expect those who would seek
to understand and apply the information that he gave to acquire
it for themselves, his very style of delivery made it impossible
to follow his indications without doing the work
first. His lectures and books are intellectually challenging
and even when a suggestion is "apparently" simple,
one finds it no easy task to put the information into practical
application. Everything needs to be thought through independently
and, in most cases, put into practice under changing world and
individual conditions and circumstances. Independent and flexible
thought is the only way that any student can approach and work
with Rudolf Steiner's "indications."
In subjects that are less defined as "scientific"
and more along the lines of "artistic" and/ or "theological",
an open minded observer who reads Rudolf Steiners work on these
subjects and who either applies his techniques or observes those
who do, there is still a certain scientific verifiability. For
example, an in depth study of Rudolf Steiner's watercolor painting
techniques will not only produce an appreciation of the beauty
and results of his techniques, but an understanding in depth
of Goethean Color Theory, which is still under investigation
by "mainstream" scientists today in terms of the wave
and particle theories of light. Such contemporary
investigations by "mainstream" researchers have not
yet reached a definite conclusion as to the objective nature
of light and color.
In the field of education, methods and techniques
put into practice from Rudolf Steiner's investigation into the
nature and development of the human being are not able to be
tested in SHORT time periods, but, as in any other educational
philosophy or methodology, results are long term and highly subject
to a wide range of variables. Data that has been collected so
far has focused very much on intellectual achievements at the
pre-adult level, such as college entrance examinations and acceptances.
However, there is some inherent difficulty in assessing the "value"
of such issues such as artistic development, "character"
development and personal psychological integration. These kinds
of research issues will require long term, sociological methods
of investigation and assessment and as such, are not yet available
for analysis. On the other hand, much study and comparison can
be done and has been done between Rudolf Steiner's educational philosophy and other educational philosophies
such as Piaget, Montessori and the current state systems in practice.
Such studies must take into consideration the sociological and
political climate and community that each type of education is
practicing in; the range of economic and intellectual backgrounds
of the school parents; and the resources available to the practitioners
in terms of time, money, assistance and their own level of education
and experience. Comparisons may be made of parental and student
satisfaction, community and personal problem solving techniques
and general levels of competence - intellectual, artistic and
practical. Perhaps not enough study has been done so far in the
past 80 years, but such studies would be and are welcomed by
the entire Waldorf School network.
Such a study would, I am certain, reveal that
while there were many commonalities of method and perspective,
much has changed and been adapted in Waldorf Education to fit
the range of geographical locations of the schools worldwide
and the cultural differences that the children of the end of
the century must learn to live with versus those apparent at
the beginning of the twentieth century.
All of these things, of
course, have been adamantly rejected by anthroposophists on this
list and elsewhere, who do indeed consider their own beliefs
to be exempt from the standards of public discourse, and who
occasionally become apoplectic when non-anthroposophists decline
to grant them this exemption.
I can readily imagine a certain amount of
frustration and the expression of that frustration arising in
students of Rudolf Steiner who try to discuss the information
contained in Anthroposophy with people who already have forgone
conclusions such as I mention above. However, anyone is welcome
to discuss Anthroposophy both as a "world view" and
in its many individual applications who has followed the outlined
steps above. To re-iterate:
1. Has read material on a particular subject
from primary sources as well as any material that is expressly
stated by the author as being a necessary requisite to understanding
the material being presented.
2. Has followed carefully and honestly any outlined steps that
the author states are necessary to producing the given result.
3. Has demonstrated the ability to use the methods and the intention
of reproducing the results of scientific and/ or spiritual scientific
investigation if at all possible.
If these three factors are demonstrated, then
all data obtained (whether in accordance with or at a divergence
to the original data given by Rudolf Steiner) must be taken into
the strictest and most serious consideration. The student of
Anthroposophy must be ready to examine all new data and incorporate
it where applicable or replace the original data where necessary.
All serious students of Rudolf Steiner should, by inference,
already be involved in investigations of their own based on the
scientific methodology outlined above.
It is my opinion that in following the research
steps outlined above, a sincere investigator will either be able
to concur with the results of Rudolf Steiner's investigations,
or (better yet) be able to augment and expand them and
develop new data and applications that may replace
whatever is outdated while using the original as a guideline.
Any other approach to such investigations
is not to be taken seriously, as it would not be by definition
either scientific, objectively verifiable or ethically honest.
Christine Natale
February 1, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science
Great post, Christine! Beautiful work!
Tarjei
At 15:54 01.02.2004, you wrote:
In answer to the following quote by Mr.
Peter Staudemeir and other like minded critics of Dr. Rudolf
Steiner and the results of his spiritual scientific investigations
known as Anthropsophy:
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science
Thank you soooooooo much Christine! Absolutely!
Truth and Love
Mike
Great post, Christine! Beautiful work!
Tarjei
At 15:54 01.02.2004, you wrote:
In answer to the following quote by Mr.
Peter Staudemeir and other like minded critics of Dr. Rudolf
Steiner and the results of his spiritual scientific investigations
known as Anthropsophy:
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science
Thanks Mike and Tarjei for the thumbs up!
Mike, I had to "walk over" your
reply to Staudemeir's assertion. There is certainly a moral and
even emotional aspect to the consideration of any aspect of science.
However, I am certain that Dr. Steiner is more capable than any
of us of refuting anyone's assertion of his work being "unscientific".
It's just a matter of pinning the opponent down with his own
definitions.
By the way - did you see the list of definitions
that I just sent from "Journal for Theoretics?"
Really read them!! Wow! think about the implications!
To repeat from the website with MY EMPHASIS!!:
Science: the field of study which tries to
describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or
part. The field of study or discipline that we call Science is
spelled with a capital "S" as it is a proper noun in
this use while science with a small "s" is the application
of this discipline.
theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses
which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty.
universe: that which exists and in its entirety.
This includes all that exists whether it can be perceived or
not.
whole: something that permeates the universe
at large. e.g. gravity.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
OK - so, if gravity is not sense perceptible,
except by its effects, yet is considered a scientific fact (or
at least a justifiable theory), then an angel can be considered
a fit subject for scientific inquiry if, in spite of its being
supersensible (not able to be perceived) one can ascribe to it
and record phenomena that support its existence. Right?
Someone's not LIKING the word "angel"
is no more a reason to discount its scientific validity or lack
of validity than someone's not liking the word "gravity."
Remember those burned at the stake for the
word "geocentric!"
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science
Christine:
Mike, I had to "walk over" your
reply to Staudemeir's assertion. There is certainly a moral and
even emotional aspect to the consideration of any aspect of science.
However, I am certain that Dr. Steiner is more capable than any
of us of refuting anyone's assertion of his work being "unscientific".
It's just a matter of pinning the opponent down with his own
definitions.
Mike:
Christine, you can walk over my replies any
time. I have to trust my instinks, along with the fact that I
still have allot to learn.
Thanks so much again!
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science
Christine:
OK - so, if gravity is not sense perceptible,
except by its effects, yet is considered a scientific fact (or
at least a justifiable theory), then an angel can be considered
a fit subject for scientific inquiry if, in spite of its being
supersensible (not able to be perceived) one can ascribe to it
and record phenomena that support its existence. Right?
Someone's not LIKING the word "angel"
is no more a reason to discount its scientific validity or lack
of validity than someone's not liking the word "gravity."
Remember those burned at the stake for
the word "geocentric!"
Daniel:
Well, there you have hit the nail on the head:
"The _facts_ of contemporary
work [modern science] fully confirm this [anthroposophical] view.
It is only misled opinions regarding these facts which deny this
and presume that spiritual science and natural science contradict
each other. This contradiction, however, does not really exist." - Rudolf Steiner, Lecture of January 11th, 1916,
from GA 35. In English: Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy."
Rudolf Steiner Press, Sussex, 1992.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 1:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science
Christine wrote:
(Can you see, hear and piss on electriciy,
magnetism, gravity, etc.? Or does one have to study these "supersensible"
forces solely through their demonstrable effects?)
Well that was an amazing post. Excellent work
Christine, excellent.
Very cool,
Dottie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
