Anthroposophy and Religion, Clairvoyance
and Initiation
The first set of dialogues
below is related to the question of how anthroposophy is related
to religion: Is anthroposophy a science, or is it a religion?
If it is a religion, does this mean that Waldorf education, biodynamic
farming, and anthroposophical medicine are all religious disciplines
based on blind faith?
The second set of dialogues
is an exchange between another anthroposophist and myself concerning
the dispute about whether or not there are "anthroposophical
initiates" in our time who have become capable of mastering
Rudolf Steiner's spiritual exercises to the point of conquering
the Guardian
of the Threshold.
(I deliberately allowed
myself to become very challenging and almost hostile in this
dialogue in order to show the critics that anthroposophists are
not brainwashed cult-followers programmed to think alike. Michael
Ronall became one of my most stauch supporters and even sent
me some interesting material by regular mail - a gesture for
which I am still grateful.)
In the the third set of
dialogues, I answer the challenges of Dan Dugan and Michael Kopp
in relation to Rudolf Steiner's initiation science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:03:41 +0100
On 1 Feb 99, at 9:31, Debra Snell wrote:
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:10:19 -0800
From: Durk Hartman Hoekstra
Please get real, Waldorf schools and Rudolf Steiner have nothing
to do with religeon. I am not surprised to see these strange
remarks made by a North American, if we don't understand it it
must be a cult such is the childish conspiracy thinking mindset
of North America. Have fun.
Durk Hartman Hoekstra
Ex pupil from the Waldorf school in The Hague, Holland.
Steve's comment:
"Wow" is right. It's unfortunate
to see such blatant prejudice exhibited by a former Waldorf student.
It could lead to the perception that Waldorf students are prone
to bigotry, which I do not believe to be true.
Durk Hartman Hoekstra is signalling a general
prejudice against all Americans. His reference to "the childish
conspiracy thinking mindset of North America" has a small
grain of validity in it, but this is annulled by his grossly
exaggerating, stereoptyping, and insulting choice of words.
This kind of anti-American prejudice is widespread
in Europe, also in Norway. It is not limited to former Waldorf
students.
As I tried to point out in an earlier post,
the word "cult" and its use is complicated and can
be confusing. Apart from the old meaning of the term (communion
with the spiritual world through festivals and rituals, meditation
and prayer etc.), it has acquired a disparaging connotation because
America today is literally plagued by a variety of cults that
practice coercion and thought- and behavior control, and use
this power to rob their victims of enormous sums of money. Some
cults lead to mass suicides when they are tracked down by law
enforcement.
On the other hand, the application of the
word "cult" is also applied to groups, institutions,
and organizations that are founded on new spiritual-religious
ideas, or occultism. the word "occultism" conjures
up all kinds of scary things that go bump in the night, enhanced
by Stephen King and Hollyweird.
Anthroposophy is probably the only movement
of its kind that is wide open to the public. All its literature
is out, and even the copyright has now expired 70 years after
Steiner's death. The only requirement to be a member of the Anthroposophical
Society is the recognition of spiritual science as a legitimate
science, meaning that Rudolf Steiner's research was rooted in
reality. This is ad cultish as it gets. I am not a member of
any organized anthroposophy, so I am under no requirement whatsoever.
That is why I have started my own cult of anarchosophy (anarchist
anthroposophy or anthroposophical anarchism) which is bewildering
and irritating to some bourgeois anthropops. I would be greatly
honored if anarchosophy be added to your lists of dangerous cults,
because that's my baby.
Durk is right when he says that Waldorf schools
have nothing to do with religion, because he is implying a more
specified meaning of the word "religion" which he does
not explain. His post is a "hit-and-run, have your fun,
haha!" - leaving a mess that I'll try clean up.
The only movement with roots in Anthroposophy
that is religious in this specified sense, is the Christian Community,
which was also known as "The Movement for Religious Renewal."
Friedrich Rittelmeyer and other Lutheran theologians came to
Steiner and asked for his assistance in establishing a renewal
of the Christian religion. Steiner gave them the rituals for
baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and funerals. Many years prior
to this, Steiner once said to Rittelmeyer: "My task is occultism,
yours is religion."
The religious approach to Anthroposophy as
exemplified in the Christian Community is based on faith, not
science. The basic idea of Anthroposophy is to approach the realm
of soul and spirit and divinity in a scientific way, working
for the reunion of science, art, and religion. This is why anthroposophists
are cultural heretics. Yes heretics. Most people don't recognize
Goethe as a scientist because of his fame as poet and playwright.
You cannot be an artist, a scientist, and a priest! Anthroposophists
think that is possible nevertheless, and that the idea has a
tremendous potential for the future.
One of the problems with criticism of Waldorf
education because of its link to religion may be illustrated
from a different angle if we consider biodynamic agriculture.
Many farmers who apply Steiner's methods know little or nothing
about Anthroposophy. All they know is the effectiveness of the
method, which prevents the soil from being depleted and the harvest
from being poisoned by pesticides and the like. (Note: I am city
boy writing this, so please excuse my lack of agricultural expertise.)
Would anyone have second thought about eating biodynamic fruits
and vegetables because the method of farming was developed by
a clairvoyant occultist? By the same token, your children will
be as little harmed by Anthroposophy by attending Waldorf school
as they will by eating biodynamic apples. Are these apples religious?
Would it be a violation of the separation of church and state
if the president ate one?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:43:52 -0700
On 1 Feb 99, at 23:03, Tarjei Straume wrote:
As I tried to point out in an earlier post,
the word "cult" and its use is complicated and can
be confusing. Apart from the old meaning of the term (communion
with the spiritual world through festivals and rituals, meditation
and prayer etc.), it has acquired a disparaging connotation because
America today is literally plagued by a variety of cults that
practice coercion and thought- and behavior control, and use
this power to rob their victims of enormous sums of money.
Oh, I wouldn't say that. It has acquired its
present connotations through its use by the news media to refer
to specific types of "thought control" religious groups,
but I wouldn't say that we're *plagued* by such groups. I personally
know no one who has ever been in that kind of a cult, although
I know quite a few who have followed offbeat religious paths.
Let's see, of the last three major incidents
involving destructive cults, one was in the U.S. (the comet suicide),
one was in Japan (the gassing of a subway) and one was in Europe.
Sounds like a world-wide problem to me.
Durk is right when he says that Waldorf
schools have nothing to do with religion, because he is implying
a more specified meaning of the word "religion" which
he does not explain. His post is a "hit-and-run, have your
fun, haha!" - leaving a mess that I'll try clean up.
. . .
The religious approach to Anthroposophy
as exemplified in the Christian Community is based on faith,
not science. The basic idea of Anthroposophy is to approach the
realm of soul and spirit and divinity in a scientific way, working
for the reunion of science, art, and religion.
Well, yes, if you define religion as a belief
system based on faith, Anthroposophy, practiced correctly, is
not a religion. But the relevant question is whether it is a
religion for purposes of the U.S. Constitution, and that question
is only relevant for purposes of determining whether it would
be lawful for Waldorf schools to be public schools. The answer
to those questions are not entirely clear, but I personally think
it would be found to be a religion, for reasons I've stated in
the past.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:22:28 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
Let's see, of the last three major incidents
involving destructive cults, one was in the U.S. (the comet suicide),
one was in Japan (the gassing of a subway) and one was in Europe.
Sounds like a world-wide problem to me.
I agree, it is a worldwide problem. What I
meant was that the emergence of cults by the dozens - some harmful,
others just bizarre - is prominent in America.
Well, yes, if you define religion as a
belief system based on faith, Anthroposophy, practiced correctly,
is not a religion. But the relevant question is whether it is
a religion for purposes of the U.S. Constitution, and that question
is only relevant for purposes of determining whether it would
be lawful for Waldorf schools to be public schools. The answer
to those questions are not entirely clear, but I personally think
it would be found to be a religion, for reasons I've stated in
the past.
If we consider the parallell I mentioned to
biodynamic agriculture, the question may be raised if it is unconstitutional
for the Department of Agriculture in the U.S. to finance, sponsor,
or in any way support the method of farming developed by Rudolf
Steiner. As long as Waldorf students are not taught to believe
in the religious aspect of Anthroposophy any more than the seeds
and plants are, they may be justifiably compared to biodynamic
carrots.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:14:05 -0500
The religious approach to Anthroposophy
as exemplified in the Christian Community is based on faith,
not science. The basic idea of Anthroposophy is to approach the
realm of soul and spirit and divinity in a scientific way, working
for the reunion of science, art, and religion.
Well, yes, if you define religion as a
belief system based on faith, Anthroposophy, practiced correctly,
is not a religion.
Could you explain more fully what you mean
by this last comment, Steve?
Robert Flannery
New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:34:44 -0700
On 1 Feb 99, at 20:14, Robert Flannery wrote:
The religious approach to Anthroposophy
as exemplified in the Christian Community is based on faith,
not science. The basic idea of Anthroposophy is to approach the
realm of soul and spirit and divinity in a scientific way, working
for the reunion of science, art, and religion.
Well, yes, if you define religion as a
belief system based on faith, Anthroposophy, practiced correctly,
is not a religion.
Could you explain more fully what you mean
by this last comment, Steve?
Sure. I see Robert Tolz was confused by this
as well.
A number of people on this list have defined
religion as any belief system based on faith. On this basis we
have heard arguments that science is a religion, and, presumably,
such institutions as the international monetary system would
also be a religion.
But according to some folks, including, I
believe, Joel Wendt, anthroposophy is not so much a belief system
as it is a method of investigation. According to Wendt (unless
I'm misunderstanding him), a true anthroposophist would never
accept anything on faith, but would only accept Steiner's teachings
to the extent that the anthroposophist could verify them through
his own spiritual research.
If that is the case, Anthroposophy would not
be a religion under the definition above, that is, it would not
be a belief system based on faith.
Now, I don't think the courts would use that
definition of a religion, so this really has nothing to do with
whether Anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the constitution.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:28:20 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
Sure. I see Robert Tolz was confused by
this as well.
The riddle of art, science, religion, and
occultism in relation to Anthroposophy, and the question of Waldorf
education in relation to religion and the U.S. constitution,
is probably confusing to most people, including me. We should
keep this thread alive, because its title is truly inspiring.
Waldorf education is not a religion, and to
the best of my knowledge, Waldorf students are not taught a religion.
I have read very little about pedagogy by Steiner but a lot about
religion, so I'll take it from there. And since my main confusion
arises from my lack of expertise on the American constitution,
I'll explain a few things about the situation in Norway.
Norway has a state church, a so-called Evangelical-Lutheran
state church. It's as much a part of the state as the armed forces,
the parliament, and the monarchy. The Norwegian constitution
demands that the king, who is also the ultimate chief of the
armed forces, is a member of the state church, and that two thirds
of the parliament, the Storting, are members of this church.
The authors of the constitution obviously meant that the politicians
should be *believers* in church doctrine, which is far from the
case today.
Norwegian public schools teach a religion:
the religion of the Evangelical-Lutheran state church. When I
grew up in the fifties and sixties, I attended public schools
in various parts of Norway. These schools were administered by
*Kirke og Undervisningsdepartementet* which means The Church
and Education Department. Christianity, as the subject was called,
was part of the curriculum for twelve consecutive years.
Though many teachers were personal Christians,
there was no indoctrination. Everyone was free to express his
or her opinion. Some students kept calling it nonsense, and sometimes
we had lively debates in class, especially between the atheists
and the professed Christians. I had just started to read Steiner
back then, but when I only once mentioned something in Christianity
class that I had learned from Anthroposophy, it was interrupted
in mid-sentence and unanimously dismissed by teacher and students
alike because moving from faith to knowledge was a violation
of religion. That was how I discovered at the tender age of 16-17
that I was a cultural heretic.
What I had become was an anarchosophist, though
I didn't find the right word for it until thirty years later.
There was a famous and notorious anarchosophist in Norway back
then: The author, poet, philosopher, anthroposophist, anarchist,
and former Waldorf teacher Jens
Bjørneboe. He was a rebel who spoke up for the outcasts
in society, the prisoners, prostitutes, junkies, etc. and exposed
police brutality and ice cold abuse of bureaucratic and administrative
power. I didn't read many of his books, but when he was interviewed
on television, I discovered that he was thinking very much like
me, and it was through him that I discovered Bakunin, Kropotkin,
and Emma Goldman. (It was only much later that I read about Rudolf
Steiner's anarchist connections and sympathies in the 1890's.)
Jens Bjørneboe was active in the establishment
of the first Norwegian Waldorf school, to rescue the kids from
a public school system he viewed as abusive and destructive,
to a life-friendly, constructive, loving and creative alternative.
And this was the basic sentiment and motive among Waldorf parents
and teachers in the early days in Norway at the beginning of
the fifties. (I did not become a part of this, but I was lucky
with my public school teachers.)
A number of people on this list have defined
religion as any belief system based on faith. On this basis we
have heard arguments that science is a religion, and, presumably,
such institutions as the international monetary system would
also be a religion.
The argument that science is a religion is
unclear and misconstrued. It is for some people I encountered
on talk.origins, who
say that the default philosophy of science is agnosticism. For
others it is atheism. My argument is that natural science has
no such default philosophical position; it is completely neutral.
But an atheist who sees in natural science the 'proof' of his
philosophy, is using science as a religion. That would monopolize
science for atheists, however. Natural science is like mathematics,
and mathematics is not a religion.
But according to some folks, including,
I believe, Joel Wendt, anthroposophy is not so much a belief
system as it is a method of investigation. According to Wendt
(unless I'm misunderstanding him), a true anthroposophist would
never accept anything on faith, but would only accept Steiner's
teachings to the extent that the anthroposophist could verify
them through his own spiritual research.
Anthroposophists should be aware that they
are treading on very thin ice here. Rudolf Steiner did say that
nothing should be accepted on authority, that the passion for
authority was a big problem for our age. He encouraged his listeners
and readers to investigate for themselves. He wrote books with
detailed instructions on how to achieve such abilities - instructions
that are very demanding, especially preparatory moral-ethical
purification.
To do one's "own spiritual research"
is a phraze we should use with great caution, because this research
is also called "initiation science." Anthroposophists
cannot verify the results of Steiner's occult investigations
by doing similar investigations. Such results, or postulations
or theories or alleged facts or whatever you choose to call them,
must be thought through and matched against those observations
of which one is capable. It entails using "sense-free thinking,"
where one may discover evidence that may be compared to intellectual
proof. But I have yet to meet or hear about an anthroposophist
capable of following up Steiner's spiritual research. Some individuals
are beginning to make such claims, but they are deluding themselves.
For this reason, the allegation that anthroposophy
is a religion must be accepted to a certain degree, because it
constitutes what an outsider has the perfect right to call faith
in Rudolf Steiner's exceptional abilities, plus the faith that
such abilities may also be evolved and disciplined by others
to the point where spiritual-scientific research can be conducted.
And by this very same token, the acceptance of spiritual science
as a legitimate science may be called an act of faith, but this
is still only one side of the coin.
The other side of the coin is this: From an
anthroposophical point of view, a definition of faith is best
exemplified in Martin Luther. He was a soul of the old school,
of the old Roman cultural epoch, who could not relate to science
and intellectuality. To Luther, the heliocentric astronomy of
Copernicus and Galileo was devillish nonsense. He felt, with
justification, that seducing spirits would increasingly threaten
humanity through intellectuality, through physical science which
he did not understand. Against this threat he encouraged faith.
To Luther, faith was a real power, the kind of power spoken of
by Christ that will move mountains and so on.
Rudolf Steiner argued that this kind of faith
was rapidly weakening in humanity during the 19th and 20th centuries,
and it would continue to weaken. It must be replaced by knowledge.
We must use the intellect not only to explore the external world
through natural science and through the invention of technology,
but also to gain a firm grasp of spiritual reality. So from this
side of the coin, I would have to refute the charge that Anthroposophy
is a religion based on faith.
The issue is complicated, and that is the
reason for the length of this post. I hope it clears up a few
things.
Now, I don't think the courts would use
that definition of a religion, so this really has nothing to
do with whether Anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the
constitution.
I don't envy the judges.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:03:17 -0500
Hello Critics and Criticized:
New to the list, appreciating much that I
read here. Actually, not as new as I intended to be, because
it turns out that yesterday I inadvertently broadcast an email
meant for only one recipient -- my apologies to the rest of you.
I'm just getting the hang of this technology; I have a wood-burning
modem.
Among the voices I appreciate is that of Tarjei,
especially for his precept and repeated examples of suspending
judgment until one has examined evidence for the validity of
a given claim.
For example, in a post today he advises employing
"great caution" in saying that one is doing "one's
own spiritual research." Yet in the next paragraph I read
that:
Anthroposophists cannot verify the results
of Steiner's occult investigations by doing similar investigations.
[snip]
Some individuals are beginning to make
such claims, but they are deluding themselves.
Dear Tarjei: How do you know this?
On a related topic: having been away for three
weeks over Christmas, I fear I may have missed contributions
to the thread of attributing biological effects to a rapid study
of The Philosophy of Freedom. If anyone has retained copies of
contributions after December 18 and would email them to me directly,
I'd be grateful.
Cordially, MRx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:48:58 +0100
I wrote:
Anthroposophists cannot verify the results
of Steiner's occult investigations by doing similar investigations.
[snip]
Some individuals are beginning to make
such claims, but they are deluding themselves.
MRx wrote:
Dear Tarjei: How do you know this?
The high degree of right-handed, Christian
initiation possessed by Rudolf Steiner is only possible when
certain rules are strictly adhered to. The claims I was referring
to were made publicly with nothing whatsoever to back it up -
a blatant violation of such rules. We will probably see more
of this phenomenon from eccentric individuals who mix Anthroposophy
with all kinds of magical books and New Age bullshit. Anyone
truly acquiring anything close to the path outlined by Rudolf
Steiner would be silent about his or her personal spiritual achievement,
not brag about it in public. Such lack of self-discipline alone
proves that it is hogwash.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 00:10:25 -0500
Dear Tarjei:
Thanks for the cheers.
I'm cheered to be responded to, but I still
don't quite get it, sorry. Please bear with me; also with my
learning to wield the snip & paste techniques efficiently.
Here's what I got from Tarjei:
[Tarjei] wrote:
Anthroposophists cannot verify the results
of Steiner's occult investigations by doing similar investigations.
[snip]
Some individuals are beginning to make
such claims, but they are deluding themselves.
MRx wrote:
Dear Tarjei: How do you know this?
[Tarjei responds:]
The high degree of right-handed, Christian
initiation possessed by Rudolf Steiner is only possible when
certain rules are strictly adhered to. The claims I was referring
to were made publicly with nothing whatsoever to back it up -
a blatant violation of such rules. We will probably see more
of this phenomenon from eccentric individuals who mix Anthroposophy
with all kinds of magical books and New Age bullshit. Anyone
truly acquiring anything close to the path outlined by Rudolf
Steiner would be silent about his or her personal spiritual achievement,
not brag about it in public. Such lack of self-discipline alone
proves that it is hogwash.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
SO: In response to my post asking how does
Tarjei know that:
A) [as Tarjei wrote:] Anthroposophists
cannot verify the results of Steiner's occult investigations
by doing similar investigations.
and
B) Some individuals are beginning to make
such claims, but they are deluding themselves
Tarjei has responded [omitting the barnyard
scatology, biodynamic or otherwise]:
The [can we
snip for the sake of simplicity?] initiation possessed by
Rudolf Steiner is only possible when certain rules are strictly
adhered to.
That much I got.
He amplifies the second of his two assertions
that I quoted in my post cited above, namely, that Some individuals
are beginning to make such claims, but they are deluding themselves
by saying that he has in mind specific false claims by particular
self-deluded claimants. If he is referring ONLY to specific claims,
his nothing whatsoever to back it up is all he needs in
order to refute these particular claimants' claims to necessary
validity; case closed in regard to these PARTICULAR, unsupported-by-evidence
claims.
But I had understood Tarjei to mean that ANYONE
who makes such claims is deluding him/herself. And I fear that
that IS what he meant, because although I understand that he
(or anyone) might disprove certain claims of certain individuals,
or at least show that they are not or cannot be true; but I still
don't see how we know that Anthroposphists cannot verify the
results of Steiner's occult investigations by doing similar investigations.
I thought that was Steiner's own claim!
His response to my questioning of his FIRST
assertion, namely that Anyone truly acquiring anything close
to the path outlined by Rudolf Steiner would be silent about
his or her personal spiritual achievement appears to be refuted
by the fact that making claims publicly is exactly what Rudolf
Steiner did; I don't see how that can be a violation of the rules
he adhered to.
Rudolf Steiner was not "silent about
his spiritual achievment." My reading of your post was that
self-delusion is NECESSARILY the basis for "investigations
similar to Rudolf Steiner's occult investigations," and
that reading is supported by the first sentence I asked about,
which says "anthroposphists" [not "some"]
"CANNOT [not "do not"] verify the results of Steiner's
occult investigations by doing similar investigations."
So, I ask again how Tarjei knows A) &
B) above; or, put another way: Can someone else fulfill the conditions
Rudolf Steiner fulfilled; are not those conditions at least compatible
with, if they do not actually mandate, publicicizing them (the
way Rudolf Steiner did); and if your answer to any of that is
"No," how do you; how can I, know that?
And although subscribers to this list would
seem not to need to have pointed out to them that eccentric
individuals can and have produced true claims, I point it
out just the same.
Cheers to you (all) too, and hoping to "get
it" soon, with your help /MRx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 07:14:04 +0100
MRx wrote:
But I had understood Tarjei to mean that
ANYONE who makes such claims is deluding him/herself. And I fear
that that IS what he meant, because although I understand that
he(or anyone) might disprove certain claims of certain individuals,
or at least show that they are not or cannot be true; but I still
don't see how we know that "Anthroposphists cannot verify
the results of Steiner's occult investigations by doing similar
investigations." I thought that was Steiner's own
claim!
To take your last point first: I have always
had the impression that Rudolf Steiner may have overestimated
his contemporaries. There is little doubt that he was let down
by them when he was besieged by public smear campaigns and slander,
and the Anthroposohical Society was literally infested with crippling
sectarian tendencies. I think his expectations may have been
too high.
Secondly, I am sure that all the subscribers
to this list, particularly the Waldorf critics, would be delighted
if you introduced us all to a few contemporary anthroposophical
initiates who can check the akashic record in order to correct
certain transcripts from der Doktor. What I am especially interested
in having researched anew is the incarnation of Lucifer in China
in the third millennium B.C, which Steiner says "is extraordinarily
difficult to follow up, even with the science of seership, of
initiation." A good challenge for starters.
His response to my questioning of his FIRST assertion, namely
that "Anyone truly acquiring anything close to the path
outlined by Rudolf Steiner would be silent about his or her personal
spiritual achievement" appears to be refuted by the fact
that making claims publicly is exactly what Rudolf Steiner did;
I don't see how that can be a violation of the rules he adhered
to.
Rudolf Steiner was not "silent about his spiritual achievment."
For forty years Rudolf Steiner was silent
about his clairvoyant experiences. He had to reach a very advanced
level of preparation before he was able to commence his public
mission. Before this mission was made possible, he wondered if
he would have to remain silent for the rest of his life.
My reading of your post was that self-delusion
is NECESSARILY the basis for "investigations similar to
Rudolf Steiner's occult investigations," and that reading
is supported by the first sentence I asked about, which says
"anthroposphists" [not "some"] "CANNOT
[not "do not"] verify the results of Steiner's occult
investigations by doing similar investigations."
No, they cannot demonstrate self-dependent
occult research of Steiner's caliber if challenged to do so by
critics and skeptics. Let the critics ask the challenging questions
about spiritual science. Do the contemporary spiritual researchers
you have in mind, and to whom you will hopefully introduce us
on this list, possess the tools of investigation, the spiritual
organs of perception, applied by Rudolf Steiner?
So, I ask again how Tarjei knows A) & B) above; or, put
another way: Can someone else fulfill the conditions Rudolf Steiner
fulfilled; are not those conditions at least compatible with,
if they do not actually mandate, publicicizing them (the way
Rudolf Steiner did); and if your answer to any of that is "No,"
how do you; how can I, know that?
The point is not what may see the light of
day in the future, perhaps even in the very near future. Prove
me wrong *today*, MRx. We are all waiting.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 23:05:10 -0500
[editorial snip relating
to another thread]
Now to the topic of the brief and by all indications
moribund exchange that MRx has recently had with Tarjei:
You (Tarjei) respond to the second of my two
questions
(Ie, How do you know that Anthroposophists
cannot [["cannot" is the operative word here--MRx]]
verify the results of Steiner's occult investigations by doing
similar investigations. I thought that was Steiner's own claim!
by saying that you have
always had the impression that Rudolf Steiner
may have overestimated his contemporaries... I think his expectations
may have been too high.
MRx now replies:
1) An "impression" does not constitute
knowledge.
Your two "may have"s do not add
up to "cannot."
What I read your saying HERE is that you suspect
that Steiner was mistaken; to which opinion you are of course
entitled, nor, as I best can gather, are you unique in this respect;
but I had asked not for your "impression" about what
Rudolf Steiner "MAY have" expected, but rather how
you KNOW what "Anthroposophists [or anyone else -- MRx]
CANNOT" do.
If you do not see the difference between these
two types of statement, or if the difference is not important
to you, then I suggest we just let it go and pick up again on
some other topic that interests us in compatible ways.
2) Concerning your demand that I produce initiates
to "check the akashic record" for you: You forget,
or failed to understand in the first place, that I simply asked
how YOU know what limits bind OTHER people's knowledge (see above).
The burden of proof for that assertion of yours is on YOU, not
on anyone else. Eg, If I were to claim that it is impossible
for a human being fly from Norway to New York in eight minutes,
or impossible for you to know without empirical research what
color shirt I am wearing now, or impossible for you to eat ten
marshmellows in four seconds, your failure to demonstrate any
of these feats, or to produce someone who can, does not prove
my assertion correct. That logical fallacy is termed "argument
by absence of proof."
A subspecies of the NEW version of your claim
is that only Rudolf Steiner could read the Akashic Record. You
haven't told me how you know that, just that it's part of your
general "impression" that Rudolf Steiner was mistaken
in expecting others to do the kind of research he did. Your original,
much more general claim had covered, by absence of specification,
ALL "occult investiagations," ie, ANY results described
in Rudolf Steiner's book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its
Attainment. So you disagree with Steiner; that's okay by me,
and okay by many others. It still doesn't tell me how you know
what you claim to know.
3) In your earlier post you had written:
Anyone truly acquiring anything close to
the path outlined by Rudolf Steiner would be silent about his
or her personal spiritual achievement
and I had responded by writing that this statement
appears to be refuted by the fact that
making claims publicly is exactly what Rudolf Steiner did; I
don't see how that can be a violation of the rules he adhered
to.... Rudolf Steiner was not "silent about his spiritual
achievment."
In your latest post you seem to agree with
the uncontroversial point that for the latter half of his adult
life Rudolf Steiner was NOT silent about his clairvoyant experiences.
QED. Hardly a coup, but here as elsewhere, I take what I can
get. (What's the fuss about? This list wouldn't exist if Rudolf
Steiner had decided to remain silent for the rest of his life.
If somone OTHER than Tarjei can enlighten me on what's at issue
here, I'd be grateful.)
Your next point reiterates that others cannot
demonstrate self-dependent occult research of Steiner's caliber.
Tarjei: You confuse "cannot" and
"do not." I see that you have not addressed the difference
(but I do NOT know that you CANNOT address the difference). To
say, for example, that Tarjei does not own eight dogs is not
to say that Tarjei CANNOT own eight dogs. (I'm sorry this is
so tedious, and I'm prepared to let it go -- in a minute.)
You close by writing: The point is not
what may see the light of day in the future, perhaps even in
the very near future. Prove me wrong *today*, MRx. We are all
waiting.
MY points are TWO:
1) Distinguishing (today) between knowledge
and opinion is a prerequisite for intellectual discourse.
2) Distinguishing what YOU have not been exposed
to from what CANNOT possibly exist is another such prerequisite.
(Example: Rudolf Steiner was "silent about his occult investigations"
at age, say, 33. You would not have been justified then in saying
he COULD not have had them. [By the way, on the one hand you
demand a public forum for any claim to occult investigation;
on the other you say that publicizing ("bragging")
invalidates any claim to occult investigation; with defenses
like this, Anthroposophy doesn't need critics. I say that spiritual
investigation can be unpublicized (eg, for the first forty years
of Rudolf Steiner's life) or publicized (the last twenty or so
years). Seems kinda obvious, but sometimes the obvious is what
most needs attention.]
Finally, it is not necessary for anyone else
to prove [your claim that YOU know what others can and
cannot know] wrong *today*. It's enough to show that you
have not proven YOUR claim. But I am not saying that you CANNOT
prove your claim. I'm saying that I cannot prove your claim,
and that you HAVE not proven your claim.
I'm curious, list-subscribers: How does one
escape such a discussion without giving the appearance either
of intellectual cowardice or the appearance of arrogance, in
the event that my friend (unfacetiously meant) Tarjei, or someone
else, responds with what she or he thinks is a challenge and
I do not think is a challenge? Here's my attempt:
Unless someone else on the list expresses
an interest in this epistemological thread, I propose that we
retire the conversation, or restrict it to email between us --
so long as we both want to keep it up.
My apologies to all for having dragged this
out. My main interest here, and on this list generally, is to
examine the claim to a special kind of "living thinking"
attributed to Rudolf Steiner by his students, as I suspect this
claim is at the basis of ALL the controversy we've seen on this
list. During my search, as I've tried to show throughout the
above, I'll take good old fallacy-free "dead thinking"
over guilt-by-free-association any day of the week. I hope I
have not offended anyone, least of all my correspondant Tarjei,
who has provoked me, albeit more fleetingly than I had hoped,
to think. (If I do not respond promptly to any posts, it may
be due to my irregular schedule.)
With kind regards, /MRx (aka Michael Ronall
in New York)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:34:29 +0100
[editorial snip relating
to another thread]
You (Tarjei) respond to the second of my
two questions
(Ie, How do you know that "Anthroposophists
cannot [["cannot" is the operative word here--MRx]]
verify the results of Steiner's occult investigations by doing
similar investigations." I thought that was Steiner's own
claim!
by saying that you have
always had the impression that Rudolf Steiner
may have overestimated his contemporaries... I think his expectations
may have been too high.
MRx now replies:
1) An "impression" does not constitute knowledge.
Your two "may have"s do not add up to "cannot."
You're twisting it. When I take the position
of the critic and say, "Prove to me that spiritual science
is a legitimate science just like biology or physics," one
can point to Steiner's occult research and its results, and to
the results of natural science, and make comparisons. But what
is generally understood by the scientific method is that more
than one person can conduct a given experiment. There are many
experiments in the occult realm conducted by Steiner, postulated
as objective facts, proven facts, that are difficult for a critic
to swallow
What I read your saying HERE is that you suspect that Steiner
was mistaken; to which opinion you are of course entitled, nor,
as I best can gather, are you unique in this respect; but I had
asked not for your "impression" about what Rudolf Steiner
"MAY have" expected, but rather how you KNOW what "Anthroposophists
[or anyone else -- MRx] CANNOT" do.
In the context at hand, what I said was accurate.
Anthroposophists *cannot* meet the challenge from the critics
by denying that a considerable part of anthroposophical lore,
or knowledge, is based exclusively upon Rudolf Steiner's postulations.
He may have acquired this knowledge by the scientific method
in the spiritual realm, but the objection raised by critics on
this point deserves credit. That was my point, and it is fruitless
to to avoid it by poking holes in the semantic ramifications
of the word "cannot," or how I compose my sentences.
If you do not see the difference between these two types of
statement, or if the difference is not important to you, then
I suggest we just let it go and pick up again on some other topic
that interests us in compatible ways.
This semantic bullshit is only sidetracking
the issue. Intellectual gymnastics.
2) Concerning your demand that I produce
initiates to "check the akashic record" for you: You
forget, or failed to understand in the first place, that I simply
asked how YOU know what limits bind OTHER people's knowledge
(see above).
I have not mentioned anything about the limitations
of anyone's knowledge. (Strike One.) I do not wish to discuss
epistemology at this point.
The burden of proof for that assertion
of yours is on YOU, not on anyone else.
Nonsense. You are asking me to prove a statement
I have not made. Besides, to quote RS: When intellectual proof
is applied outside the realm of natural science (the only place
where it is valid), anything can be proven as well as its opposite.
I suggest you look for a different playmate to test this out.
Eg, If I were to claim that it is impossible
for a human being fly from Norway to New York in eight minutes,
or impossible for you to know without empirical research what
color shirt I am wearing now, or impossible for you to eat ten
marshmellows in four seconds, your failure to demonstrate any
of these feats, or to produce someone who can, does not prove
my assertion correct. That logical fallacy is termed "argument
by absence of proof."
Have I said anything about what is impossible?
(Strike Two.) Again, you are sidetracking the issue with semantic
games.
A subspecies of the NEW version of your claim
What the hell do you mean by "subspecies
of the new version of my claim"? (No please don't answer
that. I'm too old for juvenile intellectual gymnastics.)
is that only Rudolf Steiner could read
the Akashic Record.
Blavatsky and others read the Akashik Record,
but only Steiner did so in the name of science by applying the
scientific method.
You haven't told me how you know that,
just that it's part of your general "impression" that
Rudolf Steiner was mistaken in expecting others to do the kind
of research he did.
Again, you're twisting my statements with
your game-playing. I did not say that Steiner was mistaken in
expecting others to do the kind of research he did. I said he
may have overestimated his contemporaries, meaning that he may
perhaps have hoped for this kind of advanced spiritual research
to be followed up by others in the 20th century. This is speculation
of course, but there is no point in twisting it further.
Your original, much more general claim
had covered, by absence of specification, ALL "occult investiagations,"
ie, ANY results described in Rudolf Steiner's book Knowledge
of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. So you disagree with
Steiner; that's okay by me, and okay by many others. It still
doesn't tell me how you know what you claim to know.
I have not made any specific claims to knowledge.
(Strike Three.)
3) In your earlier post you had written:
Anyone truly acquiring anything close to
the path outlined by Rudolf Steiner would be silent about his
or her personal spiritual achievement
and I had responded by writing that this
statement
appears to be refuted by the fact that
making claims publicly is exactly what Rudolf Steiner did; I
don't see how that can be a violation of the rules he adhered
to.... Rudolf Steiner was not "silent about his spiritual
achievment."
In your latest post you seem to agree with
the uncontroversial point that for the latter half of his adult
life Rudolf Steiner was NOT silent about his clairvoyant experiences.
QED. Hardly a coup, but here as elsewhere, I take what I can
get. (What's the fuss about? This list wouldn't exist if Rudolf
Steiner had decided to "remain silent for the rest of his
life." If somone OTHER than Tarjei can enlighten me on what's
at issue here, I'd be grateful.)
Some of this is covered in Steiner's autobiography
where he ponders the question, "Must I remain silent?"
You obviously don't understand this aspect of occultism and its
links to the tradition of secrecy in most occult organizations,
and the specific laws that apply to public dissemination of occult
knowledge. A further pursuit of this subject would be off-topic
for this list.
[intellectual semantic masturbation snipped]
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: WOW!
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:19:39 +0100
I apologize to MRx if I came down on him too
hard in this thread. If he had asked me to clarify a certain
statement rather than going for a semantic gladiator sport, I
would have responded more benignly, and briefly.
Tue, 2 Feb 1999 I wrote:
To do one's 'own spiritual research"
is a phraze we should use with great caution, because this research
is also called "initiation science." Anthroposophists
cannot verify the results of Steiner's occult investigations
by doing similar investigations.
This could have been formulated better and
more precisely by me, I admit. It is however modified by my next
statement in the same post:
For this reason, the allegation that anthroposophy
is a religion must be accepted to a certain degree, because it
constitutes what an outsider has the perfect right to call faith
in Rudolf Steiner's exceptional abilities, plus the faith that
such abilities may also be evolved and disciplined by others
to the point where spiritual-scientific research can be conducted.
From this it should be clear that I do not
deny that Steiner's occult research may be followed up by others.
I am simply urging great caution in making any claims in this
direction, and I am saying that this provides for a valid objection
from a critic's point of view. I have heard anthroposophists
respond rather poorly when such issues are debated.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:02:21 -0800
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
Blavatsky and others read the Akashik Record,
but only Steiner did so in the name of science by applying the
scientific method.
In name only, IMHO, but saying something doesn't
make it true. Please explain how Steiner applied scientific method
to reading "the Akashic record."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:05:53 +0100
I wrote:
Blavatsky and others read the Akashik Record,
but only Steiner did so in the name of science by applying the
scientific method.
Dan Dugan wrote:
In name only, IMHO, but saying something doesn't make it true.
What is truth, and what is reality?
Please explain how Steiner applied scientific
method to reading "the Akashic record."
Rudolf Steiner extended the application of
the scientific method to the spiritual realm. That is why one
of the biographies written about him - the name of the author
eludes me - is entitled "Scientist of the Invisible."
Steiner's scientific approach to the Akashic
Record is best dealt with in "Geheimwissensschaft im Umriss"
(GA 13), translated as "An Outline of Occult Science."
A newer translation, "An Outline of Esoteric Science,"
is available for mail order purchase at
http://www.anthropress.org/
The book may also be available at your local
library. (The Los Angeles library used to have a very good stock
of theosophical and anthroposophical literature in the old days.)
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:42:36 -0800
Tarjei Straume, you quoted me,
Please explain how Steiner applied scientific
method to reading "the Akashic record."
And you replied:
Rudolf Steiner extended the application
of the scientific method to the spiritual realm. That is why
one of the biographies written about him - the name of the author
eludes me - is entitled "Scientist of the Invisible."
Steiner's scientific approach to the Akashic Record is best dealt
with in "Geheimwissensschaft im Umriss" (GA 13), translated
as "An Outline of Occult Science."
I've read it, every page. Please explain in
your own words how Steiner applied scientific method to reading
"the Akashic record."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 06:27:58 EST
In einer eMail vom 06.02.99 04:59:22 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
That is why one of the biographies written
about him - the name of the author eludes me - is entitled "Scientist
of the Invisible."
A Scientist of the Invisible - A P Shepherd
- First published 1954 (SBN 340 01752 X) by Hodder & Stoughton
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:33:07 +0100
Tarjei Straume, you quoted me,
Please explain how Steiner applied scientific
method to reading "the Akashic record."
And you replied:
Rudolf Steiner extended the application
of the scientific method to the spiritual realm. That is why
one of the biographies written about him - the name of the author
eludes me - is entitled "Scientist of the Invisible."
Steiner's scientific approach to the Akashic
Record is best dealt with in "Geheimwissensschaft im Umriss"
(GA 13), translated as "An Outline of Occult Science."
I've read it, every page. Please explain
in your own words how Steiner applied scientific method to reading
"the Akashic record."
-Dan Dugan
As you probably know, Helena Blavatsky was
reading the Akashic Record by means of atavistic clairvoyance.
This meant that her consciousness was reduced during the reading,
when she was in a trance-like state. She did however possess
an exceptionally good memory for such things, which enabled her
to publish many details. Blavatsky's approach to the Akashic
Record was of a kind that was commonly accepted by the theosophists,
who with varying degrees of success, failure, and delusion, tried
to emulate her. Their methods included spiritualism, hypnotism,
crystal balls, etc.
Rudolf Steiner, on the other hand, had schooled
himself in the natural sciences, and he had managed to approach
the Akashic Record by means of the natural-scientific discipline.
What this means is that when Steiner crossed the threshold of
dreamless sleep, where most of us lose consciousness, he had
attained a level of initiation that made it possible to enter
this realm fully alert. That is why he also called it "initiation
science." In this alert state it is possible to observe
phenomena objectively and scientifically, checking and double-checking,
taking different approaches and paths and match the results.
This is not possible when receiving impressions from the outside
in a state of trance, like Blavatsky did.
Rudolf Steiner discouraged the methods of
obtaining spiritual wisdom that were practiced by the theosophists.
But Annie Besant, head of the Theosophical Society, believed
that Rudolf Steiner's approach was impossible, and this probably
contributed to the events that led to the separation of Theosophy
and Anthroposophy.
Rudolf Steiner's introduction to the Akashic
Record, in the preface to the book "Aus der Akasha-Chronik"
which he wrote in 1904, includes the following:
"Today I am still
obliged to remain silent about the sources of the information
given here. One who knows anything at all about such sources
will understand why this has to be so. But events can occur which
will make a breaking of this silence possible very soon. How
much of the knowledge hidden within the theosophical movement
may gradually be communicated, depends entirely on the attitude
of our contemporaries."
This enigmatic secrecy and caution by Steiner
puzzled me for a ling time, because this is, as mentioned before,
the first book I read by him. The gravity of the matter may however
be glimpsed if we consider the fact that active opposition to
Steiner was initiated after the lecture cycle "From Jesus
to Christ," where some specific occult knowledge was given
out that was desired from certain quarters to be kept hidden
from the public.
What spiritual science means to the anthroposophist,
is that divine-spiritual subject matters such as the Gospels
of the New Testament are made comprehensible to the scientifically
oriented intellect and not only to the life of feeling, which
is the case with religious faith. What this means for me personally
is that without Anthroposophy, I would not have found it possible
to be a Christian. Rudolf Steiner has shown me how to find the
Christ without compromising the scientific intellect.
You may call it pseudo-science, and you may
call it weird, and you may announce your disbelief in everything
that Anthroposophy stands for. But I do believe that I deserve
respect, and that my reality has the same right to recognition
as anybody else's without being showered with arrogant and bigoted
labels like nit-witted mumbo jumbo and the like. Anthroposophy
does not deserve to be slandered like some kind of disease, and
my idealism, which includes my view of evolution and history
that I have adopted to a very great extent from Steiner and Blavatsky
and Hinduism, should not be subjected to mudslinging through
charges of Nazism. I take those allegations very personally.
My father was one of the heroes of Telemark
in the resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of Norway
during World War II, and my mother was arrested and incarcerated
by the Nazis in this country for the "crime" of being
an American citizen. As an anarchist, I belong to the number
one target group for the neo-Nazis, their prime enemy. So what
are you trying to tell me? That I have been a Nazi-racist all
along?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:32:46 +1300
Tarjei Straume says:
[Dan DUGAN said:]
Tarjei Straume, you quoted me,
Please explain how Steiner applied scientific
method to reading "the Akashic record."
And you replied:
Rudolf Steiner extended the application
of the scientific method to the spiritual realm. That is why
one of the biographies written about him - the name of the author
eludes me - is entitled "Scientist of the Invisible."
Steiner's scientific approach to the Akashic Record is best dealt
with in "Geheimwissensschaft im Umriss" (GA 13), translated
as "An Outline of Occult Science."
I've read it, every page. Please explain
in your own words how Steiner applied scientific method to reading
"the Akashic record."
-Dan Dugan
STRAUME:
[Snip Blavatsky's imagination...]
Rudolf Steiner, on the other hand, had
schooled himself in the natural sciences, and he had managed
to approach the Akashic Record by means of the natural-scientific
discipline. What this means is that when Steiner crossed the
threshold of dreamless sleep, where most of us lose consciousness,
he had attained a level of initiation that made it possible to
enter this realm fully alert. That is why he also called it "initiation
science." In this alert state it is possible to observe
phenomena objectively and scientifically, checking and double-checking,
taking different approaches and paths and match the results.
This is not possible when receiving impressions from the outside
in a state of trance, like Blavatsky did.
Michael KOPP says:
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone,
Steiner or otherwise, can "enter" some supernatural
realm through dreaming. There is no evidence of anything supernatural.
It sounds to me like what Steiner may have
been experiencing (if he didn't just make all this stuff up wholesale
out of his imagination, which is an equal possibility in my view)
what brain scientists now call "lucid dreaming", in
which the dreamer has a higher level of consciousness than in
ordinary dreaming. In this state, the dreamer may in fact _direct_
the course of dreams.
So it is likely that Steiner, having a belief
in (or pretending to have a belief in) this "Akashic record",
could use his lucid dreaming experiences, which he directed himself,
like a movie director, to bolster his claims of communication
with the supernatural.
Steiner's writings of his "reading of
the Akashic record", like all his other "spiritual
science", are, to me, either self-delusion or fraud. Because
of the absence of any evidence at all, other than the words of
the guru, I cannot give any credence to any of Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy (SWA) where it refers to the supernatural.
(This is not to say that I don't appreciate
a few of Steiner's insights and innovations in education -- but
these are few and far between, and don't carry enough weight
to bear the rest of the mumbo jumbo on my kids or myself.)
[Snip]
STRAUME:
You may call it pseudo-science, and you
may call it weird, and you may announce your disbelief in everything
that Anthroposophy stands for. But I do believe that I deserve
respect, and that my reality has the same right to recognition
as anybody else's without being sowered with arrogant and bigoted
labels like nit-witted mumbo jumbo and the like. Anthroposophy
does not deserve to be slandered like some kind of disease, and
my idealism, which includes my view of evolution and history
that I have adopted to a very great extent from Steiner and Blavatsky
and Hinduism, should not be subjected to mudslinging through
charges of Nazism. I take those allegations very personally.
KOPP:
I've addressed in another post this matter
of respect for Mr Straume (and any other believer) and respect
for their beliefs.
I fail to see how the critical, skeptical
arguments of those on this list can be construed as personal
attacks on Mr Straume.
As to slandering Steiner or Anthroposophy:
Mr Straume has a fairly narrow view of what constitutes slander,
if he thinks that the criticism found here is slander. Steiner,
Waldorf and Anthroposophy were consigned to the heap of all spiritualistic
world views by most scholars and scientists.
They are only enjoying a renascence now because
of the poor science educations of today's generations of people
who look to the `new age' for supernatural answers to questions
that have already been answered by science, or are yet unanswerable.
This is part of an anti-scientific trend science
has brought upon itself by not properly educating the public
on the true nature of scientific thought and progress, and the
difference between pure science and applied technology. While
the latter has been misused by society, and the former is not
blameless, in general science has warned of the dangers of its
misuse. However, people love to hate that which they do not understand;
and love to embrace that which promises attractive, fanciful
answers to our questions about life, the Universe ... and everything.
STRAUME:
My father was one of the heroes of Telemark
in the resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of Norway
during World War II, and my mother was arrested and incarcerated
by the Nazis in this country for the "crime" of being
an American citizen. As an anarchist, I belong to the number
one target group for the neo-Nazis, their prime enemy. So what
are you trying to tell me? That I have been a Nazi-racist all
along?
KOPP:
Excuse me? Can you point to anything said
by anyone here which in any way impugns you in such a way?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:05:55 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone,
Steiner or otherwise, can "enter" some supernatural
realm through dreaming. There is no evidence of anything supernatural.
To you, there no evidence of the supernatural.
To others, there is. It is interesting that you mentioned dreaming,
because the initiatory technique in question consists of entering
a different realm in full consciousness equivalent to waking
consciousness. But when we sleep, dreaming or not, we leave our
physical bodies and dwell in the realm that you say does not
exist.
It sounds to me like what Steiner may have been experiencing
(if he didn't just make all this stuff up wholesale out of his
imagination, which is an equal possibility in my view) what brain
scientists now call "lucid dreaming", in which the
dreamer has a higher level of consciousness than in ordinary
dreaming. In this state, the dreamer may in fact _direct_ the
course of dreams.
The scientists you are referring to could
be the brain surgeons in California who announced in a Newsweek
cover story a few years ago that the human ego, or "I,"
is pure illusion resulting from certain chemical processes in
the brain. That could bring us right back to the fatalistic conclusion
held by some in the opium dens of Calcutta, namely that that
life itself is an illusion. This conclusion is reached by two
opposing paths, however. The Indian opium smoker has learned
that the physical world is maya, illusion, and cognizing no spiritual
reality, he finds all existence to be the figment of his imagination.
The American brain surgeon, on the other hand, has fallen victim
to naive realism by believing that nothing exists beyond what
can be verified by our five senses or recorded by instruments
and technology, which is an extension of these senses.
So it is likely that Steiner, having a belief in (or pretending
to have a belief in) this "Akashic record", could use
his lucid dreaming experiences, which he directed himself, like
a movie director, to bolster his claims of communication with
the supernatural.
If that is the theory you prefer and that
fits your understanding of reality, it's fine with me, except
that we obviously mean different things by the word "dreaming."
Steiner's writings of his "reading of the Akashic record",
like all his other "spiritual science", are, to me,
either self-delusion or fraud. Because of the absence of any
evidence at all, other than the words of the guru, I cannot give
any credence to any of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA)
where it refers to the supernatural.
Nobody is asking you to change your opinions
or points of view.
(This is not to say that I don't appreciate a few of Steiner's
insights and innovations in education -- but these are few and
far between, and don't carry enough weight to bear the rest of
the mumbo jumbo on my kids or myself.)
I think you should teach and raise your kids
the way that you believe is right, and you should find a school
where you have a better mutual understanding with the teachers.
<snip>
As to slandering Steiner or Anthroposophy:
Mr Straume has a fairly narrow view of what constitutes slander,
if he thinks that the criticism found here is slander. Steiner,
Waldorf and Anthroposophy were consigned to the heap of all spiritualistic
world views by most scholars and scientists.
Slander has to do with personal moral character,
not how one approaches science.
They are only enjoying a renascence now because of the poor science
educations of today's generations of people who look to the `new
age' for supernatural answers to questions that have already
been answered by science, or are yet unanswerable.
I think it is a little deeper than that. Religious
faith no longer meets the spiritual needs of as many people now
as, say, a few hundred years ago. Our cognition of reality has
become increasingly dominated by our logical intellect that we
use in science and mathematics. If faith conflicts with reason,
we are compelled to surrender to the latter unless we succeed
in suspending it somehow. In other words, people feel a longing
for religious truth, but they trust their reasoning intellect
more than their feelings, and traditional religion is presented
in mythical pictures that appeal to feeling only. the movement
called New Age covers a very broad spectrum, and people are searching
for cosmologies and theologies that make sense to them and can
stand the test of critical thinking.
This is part of an anti-scientific trend science has brought
upon itself by not properly educating the public on the true
nature of scientific thought and progress, and the difference
between pure science and applied technology. While the latter
has been misused by society, and the former is not blameless,
in general science has warned of the dangers of its misuse.
You mean that scientists have issued warnings
of course. Science does no such thing. (Semantic drivel I admit.)
However, people love to hate that which
they do not understand; and love to embrace that which promises
attractive, fanciful answers to our questions about life, the
Universe ... and everything.
You just took the words out of my ..... I
guess keyboard is the right word under the circumstances.
STRAUME:
My father was one of the heroes of Telemark
in the resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of Norway
during World War II, and my mother was arrested and incarcerated
by the Nazis in this country for the "crime" of being
an American citizen. As an anarchist, I belong to the number
one target group for the neo-Nazis, their prime enemy. So what
are you trying to tell me? That I have been a Nazi-racist all
along?
KOPP:
Excuse me? Can you point to anything said
by anyone here which in any way impugns you in such a way?
I was referring to the link that is trying
to be made between Anthroposophy and "Aryan Theosophy"
(and Ariosophy). (I understand it has been debated on this list
prior to my joining it, and I recently saw a reference to it
by Dan Dugan in his posted reply to a Waldorf man in the Bay
area.) My view of evolutionary epochs would, according to this
line of reasoning, make me an Aryan racist. Perhaps I have been
too counter-provocative.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:29:47 -0800
Tarjei Straume, you quoted me (Dan Dugan),
Please explain how Steiner applied scientific
method to reading "the Akashic record."
And you replied:
Rudolf Steiner extended the application
of the scientific method to the spiritual realm. That is why
one of the biographies written about him - the name of the author
eludes me - is entitled "Scientist of the Invisible."
Steiner's scientific approach to the Akashic Record is best dealt
with in "Geheimwissensschaft im Umriss" (GA 13), translated
as "An Outline of Occult Science."
DUGAN
I've read it, every page. Please explain
in your own words how Steiner applied scientific method to reading
"the Akashic record."
TARJEI
As you probably know, Helena Blavatsky
was reading the Akashic Record by means of atavistic clairvoyance.
This meant that her consciousness was reduced during the reading,
when she was in a trance-like state. She did however possess
an exceptionally good memory for such things, which enabled her
to publish many details. Blavatsky's approach to the Akashic
Record was of a kind that was commonly accepted by the theosophists,
who with varying degrees of success, failure, and delusion, tried
to emulate her. Their methods included spiritualism, hypnotism,
crystal balls, etc.
I don't accept these assertions as fact. Blavatsky
was successful as a cult leader because she could convince people
that preposterous claims like "reading the Akashic Record"
were true. We are in the realm of faith, not science.
Rudolf Steiner, on the other hand, had
schooled himself in the natural sciences, and he had managed
to approach the Akashic Record by means of the natural-scientific
discipline. What this means is that when Steiner crossed the
threshold of dreamless sleep, where most of us lose consciousness,
he had attained a level of initiation that made it possible to
enter this realm fully alert. That is why he also called it "initiation
science." In this alert state it is possible to observe
phenomena objectively and scientifically, checking and double-checking,
taking different approaches and paths and match the results.
This is not possible when receiving impressions from the outside
in a state of trance, like Blavatsky did.
So Steiner learned the guru game from Blavatsky,
and then took his devotees off in his own direction. People in
real science don't accept that "initiation science"
leads to objective observation. Quite the contrary, if you look
at the results, like Anthroposophical Medicine, you can see that
Steiner's techniques lead people -away- from useful knowledge
about the world. It takes a religious or cult-like structure
for people to take nonsense like this seriously. In the world
of science such pretensions are irrelevant.
Rudolf Steiner discouraged the methods
of obtaining spiritual wisdom that were practiced by the theosophists.
But Annie Besant, head of the Theosophical Society, believed
that Rudolf Steiner's approach was impossible, and this probably
contributed to the events that led to the separation of Theosophy
and Anthroposophy.
Rudolf Steiner's introduction to the Akashic Record, in the preface
to the book "Aus der Akasha-Chronik" which he wrote
in 1904, includes the following:
"Today I am still
obliged to remain silent about the sources of the information
given here. One who knows anything at all about such sources
will understand why this has to be so. But events can occur which
will make a breaking of this silence possible very soon. How
much of the knowledge hidden within the theosophical movement
may gradually be communicated, depends entirely on the attitude
of our contemporaries."
This enigmatic secrecy and caution by Steiner puzzled me for
a long time, because this is, as mentioned before, the first
book I read by him. The gravity of the matter may however be
glimpsed if we consider the fact that active opposition to Steiner
was initiated after the lecture cycle "From Jesus to Christ,"
where some specific occult knowledge was given out that was desired
from certain quarters to be kept hidden from the public.
Occultists love to pretend that their "knowledge"
is important, and dangerous in the wrong hands. Note the construction:
"One who knows anything at all about such sources will understand..."
This is a classic guru trick.
What spiritual science means to the anthroposophist,
is that divine-spiritual subject matters such as the Gospels
of the New Testament are made comprehensible to the scientifically
oriented intellect and not only to the life of feeling, which
is the case with religious faith. What this means for me personally
is that without Anthroposophy, I would not have found it possible
to be a Christian. Rudolf Steiner has shown me how to find the
Christ without compromising the scientific intellect.
OK, maybe for you believing that there were
two Christ children and two Marys satisfies your "scientific
intellect." Steiner's best trick was inducing people believe
that conclusions drawn purely from "the life of feeling"
were "comprehensible to the scientifically oriented intellect."
You may call it pseudo-science, and you
may call it weird, and you may announce your disbelief in everything
that Anthroposophy stands for.
I'm sure we share belief in many of the good
things that Anthroposophy stands for; motherhood, apple pie...
But I do believe that I deserve respect,
and that my reality has the same right to recognition as anybody
else's without being showered with arrogant and bigoted labels
like nit-witted mumbo jumbo and the like.
Sorry, Tarjei, but I can respect you and in
the same sentence tell you that your "reality" is a
ridiculous fantasy. All people deserve respect, but all ideas
aren't equal.
Anthroposophy does not deserve to be slandered
like some kind of disease, and my idealism, which includes my
view of evolution and history that I have adopted to a very great
extent from Steiner and Blavatsky and Hinduism, should not be
subjected to mudslinging through charges of Nazism. I take those
allegations very personally.
Anthroposophy richly deserves to be exposed
as the religious doctrine that it is. You're welcome to practice
it with your Anthroposophical friends, but to the degree that
you promulgate it falsely in the world as "science,"
"medicine," and "education," you're going
to have to take your knocks.
What I point out, Tarjei, is that the theory
of evolution of humanity from Atlantis that Blavatsky elaborated
(from popular fiction) and Steiner developed further as "spiritual
science," formed a suitable part of the foundation of Nazi
mythology. See Alfred Rosenberg. This theory is not only wrong,
contradicted by all of the historical sciences like archaeology
and geology, but it is racist, in its description of races as
stages of development. Steiner's history is not only wrong, and
racist, but it has been forever contaminated by its subsequent
incorporation by Nazi ideologists (a tradition still carried
on by a small group of neo-Nazi Anthroposophists today). The
right thing would be to repudiate it.
My father was one of the heroes of Telemark
in the resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of Norway
during World War II, and my mother was arrested and incarcerated
by the Nazis in this country for the "crime" of being
an American citizen. As an anarchist, I belong to the number
one target group for the neo-Nazis, their prime enemy. So what
are you trying to tell me? That I have been a Nazi-racist all
along?
My dad fought in the Pacific. What I'm telling
you is that this belief system is religion, not science, and
because of its racism, it is distasteful.
-Dan Dugan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:37:05 +0100
I wrote:
As you probably know, Helena Blavatsky
was reading the Akashic Record by means of atavistic clairvoyance.
This meant that her consciousness was reduced during the reading,
when she was in a trance-like state. She did however possess
an exceptionally good memory for such things, which enabled her
to publish many details. Blavatsky's approach to the Akashic
Record was of a kind that was commonly accepted by the theosophists,
who with varying degrees of success, failure, and delusion, tried
to emulate her. Their methods included spiritualism, hypnotism,
crystal balls, etc.
Dan Dugan wrote:
I don't accept these assertions as fact. Blavatsky was successful
as a cult leader because she could convince people that preposterous
claims like "reading the Akashic Record" were true.
We are in the realm of faith, not science.
You are not only saying that we are in the
realm of faith. You are also implying that Blavatsky was deceitful
and dishonest.
I wrote:
Rudolf Steiner, on the other hand, had
schooled himself in the natural sciences, and he had managed
to approach the Akashic Record by means of the natural-scientific
discipline. What this means is that when Steiner crossed the
threshold of dreamless sleep, where most of us lose consciousness,
he had attained a level of initiation that made it possible to
enter this realm fully alert. That is why he also called it "initiation
science." In this alert state it is possible to observe
phenomena objectively and scientifically, checking and double-checking,
taking different approaches and paths and match the results.
This is not possible when receiving impressions from the outside
in a state of trance, like Blavatsky did.
So Steiner learned the guru game from Blavatsky,
and then took his devotees off in his own direction.
Steiner did not "play" Blavatsky's
"game." His approach was very different from hers.
People in real science don't accept that
"initiation science" leads to objective observation.
By "real science" you mean orthodox
science, perhaps because nothing else is real to *you.* But there
are also many qualified orthodox scientists who do accept Steiner's
claims. For this reason, it is misleading to suggest as you do
that *everybody* in orthodox science rejects Steiner's spiritual
science.
Quite the contrary, if you look at the
results, like Anthroposophical Medicine, you can see that Steiner's
techniques lead people -away- from useful knowledge about the
world.
What you call "useful knowledge about
the world" I understand to be orthodox science. Steiner
added extra knowledge to this, spiritual knowledge, but his techniques
do not lead away from material reality. What anthroposophical
medicine is concerned, it is simply a matter of adding useful
knowledge to other useful knowledge.
It takes a religious or cult-like structure
for people to take nonsense like this seriously.
No it doesn't. All it takes is the publishing
of solid explanations and arguments. Most unaffiliated anthroposophists
are influenced by books alone, not by any organizational structure.
In the world of science such pretensions
are irrelevant.
It is not pretension of make-believe. Anyone
is free to reject the claim of spiritual science to be science,
but it is not based upon lies, dishonesty, and deceit.
I wrote:
Rudolf Steiner discouraged the methods
of obtaining spiritual wisdom that were practiced by the theosophists.
But Annie Besant, head of the Theosophical Society, believed
that Rudolf Steiner's approach was impossible, and this probably
contributed to the events that led to the separation of Theosophy
and Anthroposophy.
Rudolf Steiner's introduction to the Akashic Record, in the preface
to the book "Aus der Akasha-Chronik" which he wrote
in 1904, includes the following:
"Today I am still
obliged to remain silent about the sources of the information
given here. One who knows anything at all about such sources
will understand why this has to be so. But events can occur which
will make a breaking of this silence possible very soon. How
much of the knowledge hidden within the theosophical movement
may gradually be communicated, depends entirely on the attitude
of our contemporaries."
This enigmatic secrecy and caution by Steiner puzzled me for
a long time, because this is, as mentioned before, the first
book I read by him. The gravity of the matter may however be
glimpsed if we consider the fact that active opposition to Steiner
was initiated after the lecture cycle "From Jesus to Christ,"
where some specific occult knowledge was given out that was desired
from certain quarters to be kept hidden from the public.
Dan Dugan wrote:
Occultists love to pretend that their "knowledge" is
important, and dangerous in the wrong hands. Note the construction:
"One who knows anything at all about such sources will understand..."
This is a classic guru trick.
Just because you refuse to accept something
as truthful, does not mean that it is based upon trickery and
deceit and dishonesty. And a guru in Hinduism is not a trickster,
a deceiver, and a liar. Do you hold that opinion about all religions?
Was Jesus Christ a shrewd and conniving deceitful trickster when
he turned water into wine, healed the sick, and rose from the
dead?
I wrote:
What spiritual science means to the anthroposophist,
is that divine-spiritual subject matters such as the Gospels
of the New Testament are made comprehensible to the scientifically
oriented intellect and not only to the life of feeling, which
is the case with religious faith. What this means for me personally
is that without Anthroposophy, I would not have found it possible
to be a Christian. Rudolf Steiner has shown me how to find the
Christ without compromising the scientific intellect.
OK, maybe for you believing that there
were two Christ children and two Marys satisfies your "scientific
intellect."
It does. Orthodox theologians have always
had a big problem with reconciling the Luke and Matthew gospels
what the ancestry of Jesus is concerned. I have not yet seen
an explanation that makes better sense than that of Steiner.
Steiner's best trick was inducing people
believe that conclusions drawn purely from "the life of
feeling" were "comprehensible to the scientifically
oriented intellect."
You obviously need to read more anthroposophy
before you can say anything about the interrelationship of thinking,
feeling, and willing. Steiner pointed out that traditional religious
faith appealed almost exclusively to the light of feeling, and
that it was also necessary to make it understandable in the life
of thought. So your above statement us untrue and misleading.
I'm sure we share belief in many of the
good things that Anthroposophy stands for; motherhood, apple
pie...
Anthroposophy has never stood for motherhood
or apple pie.
Sorry, Tarjei, but I can respect you and
in the same sentence tell you that your "reality" is
a ridiculous fantasy. All people deserve respect, but all ideas
aren't equal.
You don't only say that my reality is ridiculous
fantasy. You're saying that my ridiculous fantasies, that I view
as realities, proceed from conniving trickery and deliberate
lies.
Anthroposophy richly deserves to be exposed
as the religious doctrine that it is.
You are not exposing it, Dan. You are distorting,
falsifying, slandering and maligning it.
You're welcome to practice it with your
Anthroposophical friends, but to the degree that you promulgate
it falsely in the world as "science," "medicine,"
and "education," you're going to have to take your
knocks.
In other words, Waldorf education is *falsely*
called so? It is not education at all?
What I point out, Tarjei, is that the theory of evolution of
humanity from Atlantis that Blavatsky elaborated (from popular
fiction) and Steiner developed further as "spiritual science,"
formed a suitable part of the foundation of Nazi mythology. See
Alfred Rosenberg.
Several other leading Nazis distorted orthodox
Christianity. So does the Ku Klux Klan. According to your logic,
Christianity is a Nazi religion.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was also
important to the Nazis. And so was Nietzsche. So Darwin and Nietzsche
were also Nazis?
This theory is not only wrong, contradicted
by all of the historical sciences >like archaeology and geology,
That is not true. Even Thor Heyerdahl has
conceded that the story about Atlantis cannot be excluded as
one of the possibilities. Scientists are divided on this issue.
Please quote your gurus and site their conclusive evidence.
but it is racist, in its description of
races as stages of development.
If the very description of human races and
their evolution is racist, so be it. I'm a racist. Put that in
your notebook.
Steiner's history is not only wrong, and
racist, but it has been forever contaminated by its subsequent
incorporation by Nazi ideologists
In that case, Darwin, Nietzsche, Christianity,
and Feng-Shui (the Chinese origin of Nazi geomancy) have also
been "forever contaminated by its subsequent incorporation
by Nazi ideologists." By this line of logic, there will
be little left that hasn't been forever contaminated by the Nazis.
<snip>
What I'm telling you is that this belief
system is religion, not science, and because of its racism, it
is distasteful.
What if it is the truth? What is *your* truth
about evolution, about Christianity, and so on? Who are *your*
gurus? And what makes them less distasteful?
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:25:26 +0100
I skipped the following remark by Dan Dugan.
On second thought, it should also be responded to:
Steiner's history is not only wrong, and
racist, but it has been forever contaminated by its subsequent
incorporation by Nazi ideologists (a tradition still carried
on by a small group of neo-Nazi Anthroposophists today). The
right thing would be to repudiate it.
Your anthroposophical neo-Nazis (who ipso
facto cannot be regarded as anthroposophists) are far outnumbered
by Christian and atheist neo-Nazis, Darwinist neo-Nazis, etc.
Again, you are clinging to the logic that Jesus Christ was a
Nazi because of Ku Klux Klan.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:12:25 -0700
On 26 Feb 99, at 12:37, Tarjei Straume wrote:
By "real science" you mean orthodox
science, perhaps because nothing else is real to *you.* But there
are also many qualified orthodox scientists who do accept Steiner's
claims.
Well, since Steiner claimed to be a scientist,
and since he made such profound pronouncements on various subjects
that are the subject of mainstream scientific inquiry, I would
expect mainstream college-level science texts to refer to Steiner's
scientific research and conclusions. If he's not mentioned in
mainstream scientific texts, I would say that his contribution
to science is not so great as you seem to think, and that your
statement that "many qualified orthodox scientists"
accept his claims is not accurate.
It might be more accurate to say that a few
fringe mainstream scientists with an interest in the occult have
accepted Steiner's claims.
However great Steiner's contributions may
have been to 20th century occult philosophy, I doubt you'd find
any references to him in mainstream science texts. If you know
otherwise, though, please enlighten me.
That is not true. Even Thor Heyerdahl has
conceded that the story about Atlantis cannot be excluded as
one of the possibilities. Scientists are divided on this issue.
Again, if scientists are divided on the issue
of Atlantis, I would expect to see it mentioned in college-level
texts on paleo-geology as a serious possibility. If you know
of any mainstream science texts which mention Atlantis, please
let us know.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:15:49 -0700
On 26 Feb 99, at 12:37, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Just because you refuse to accept something
as truthful, does not mean that it is based upon trickery and
deceit and dishonesty. And a guru in Hinduism is not a trickster,
a deceiver, and a liar. Do you hold that opinion about all religions?
Was Jesus Christ a shrewd and conniving deceitful trickster when
he turned water into wine, healed the sick, and rose from the
dead?
I wrote:
What spiritual science means to the anthroposophist,
is that divine-spiritual subject matters such as the Gospels
of the New Testament are made comprehensible to the scientifically
oriented intellect and not only to the life of feeling, which
is the case with religious faith. What this means for me personally
is that without Anthroposophy, I would not have found it possible
to be a Christian. Rudolf Steiner has shown me how to find the
Christ without compromising the scientific intellect.
OK, maybe for you believing that there
were two Christ children and two Marys satisfies your "scientific
intellect."
It does. Orthodox theologians have always
had a big problem with reconciling the Luke and Matthew gospels
what the ancestry of Jesus is concerned. I have not yet seen
an explanation that makes better sense than that of Steiner.
Your post strengthens my impression that Anthroposophy
is essentially a theological and philosophical, rather than scientific,
pursuit.
After all, theology is often a logical, intellectual
pursuit.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:23:20 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
Your post strengthens my impression that
Anthroposophy is essentially a theological and philosophical,
rather than scientific, pursuit.
After all, theology is often a logical, intellectual pursuit.
The reason why my posts strengthen that impression
is that I focus on the aspects of anthroposophy with which I
am most at home. I cannot speak for all aspects of anthroposophy,
and I try to be careful not to enter fields, especially within
science and pedagogy, for which I have not been trained. By your
logic, anthroposophy is the same as anarchism because of my anarchosophical
posts.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:41:15 +0100
Steve, I have already commented your following
remark, but I wish to take this comment one step further:
Your post strengthens my impression that
Anthroposophy is essentially a theological and philosophical,
rather than scientific, pursuit.
If my posts had been your posts, they might
have strengthened my impression that you have pursued theology
and philosophy more than science. I would not have concluded
that Americans, or humanists, or Buddhists, or whatever group
you may be a part of, pursue philosophy in favor of science.
But that is how you stereotype anthroposophists.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"