Steiner, Kepler, Einstein, Astrology, Numerology
The following thread spins
around the questions of science, pseudo-science, superstition
and epistemology, and answering some socio-political questions
about anarchism and anarchosophy. Definition of the "Christ
Impulse." Also introducing the notorious bully "critic,"
Michael Kopp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:55:38 -0500
So Kepler's day job was as an astrologer?
<satire>Perhaps we should revise his
contributions in light of his questionable
leanings, and dealings in the occult. </satire>
e
400-Year-Old Kepler Horoscope
Found (Last updated 8:02 AM ET March 5)
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. (Reuters)
- A California researcher perusing an archive
drawer of miscellaneous documents has come across a 400-year-old
horoscope written by one of history's greatest astronomers, Johannes
Kepler.
Anthony Misch, an astronomer at the Lick Observatory
of the University of California-Santa Cruz, said Thursday his
discovery of the annotated horoscope in the school's archives
in December was a shock.
"There it was, in a cheesy little frame.
It caught my eye. It was quite clearly something much older than
other stuff that fills the archive," Misch told Reuters.
"It was very, very exciting."
Kepler, a German who lived from 1571-1630,
is famed as the discoverer of the laws of planetary orbital motion
and is widely considered to rank with Copernicus and Galileo
as one of the most important astronomers of the modern era.
Misch said that, despite his scientific grounding,
Kepler also produced horoscopes as part of his duties as court
mathematician for Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II.
The document discovered in Santa Cruz is an
astrological reading for Hans Hannibal Hutter von Hutterhofen,
an Austrian nobleman born in 1586. Inscribed in a flowery hand,
the horoscope weaves signs and symbols from the Zodiac.
The document has been authenticated by the
firm of J.A. Stargardt, autograph specialists in Berlin, Misch
said -- although he added that no one had yet been able to decipher
what Kepler's predictions actually were.
"What it means astrologically, I haven't
a clue and I don't know whether anyone else would either,"
Misch said.
But he added that Kepler's scientific research
on the motion of the planets may have given him a unique astrological
perspective for his time.
"Kepler is one of the figures who helps
to establish the modern scientific method, but at the same time
he has a foot in the medieval world view," Misch said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:17:38 -0700
On 5 Mar 99, at 10:55, Ezra Beeman wrote:
So Kepler's day job was as an astrologer?
Yeah, he was court astrologer, although he
did make statements to the effect that he did not personally
believe astrology to have value.
This is really exciting to me, to think that
an original writing of Kepler has been sitting right up the hill
at UCSC since before I attended the school.
Apparently, the document sat at an observatory
in St. Petersberg until the 1850's, when the owner of the observatory
was giving away Kepler horoscopes as gifts to visiting dignitaries.
It was purchased by the University of California in Europe around
that time, and shipped to UCSC around 1960 with a bunch of other
astronomical papers. It wasn't catalogued, though, so no one
knew it was there.
[section about formatting
editorially snipped]
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: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:54:59 +0100
Ezra Beeman wrote:
So Kepler's day job was as an astrologer?
<satire>Perhaps we should revise his contributions in light
of his questionable leanings, and dealings in the occult. </satire>
Someone told me that also Kepler said the
earth is a tetrahedron. Has anyone else heard about that?
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 23:46:55 +0000
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Someone told me that also Kepler said the earth is a tetrahedron.
Has anyone else heard about that?
Yes, but not quite -- in a nutshell, he was
trying to find a way of nesting platonic solids that would give
the correct ratios of planetary distances -- in one of his models,
earth fits on the sphere of a tetrahedron -- then he discovered
ellipses...
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 10:08:58 -0800
EZRA BEEMAN
So Kepler's day job was as an astrologer?
<satire>Perhaps we should revise his contributions in light
of his questionable leanings, and dealings in the occult. </satire>
TARJEI
Someone told me that also Kepler said the
earth is a tetrahedron. Has anyone else heard about that?
Kepler was so blinded by mysticism that he
wasted most of his productivity on a vain attempt to prove a
foregone conclusion, that the solar system was based on simple
geometric relations, "perfect" forms like tetrahedrons,
cubes, etc. He was led on by nature because his scheme sort of
fit. Sort of. Numerologists want order, not the chaos that nature
really is. But he did one brilliant thing, discover the gravitational
geometry of the elliptical orbits of the planets, and for that
we honor him. If Anthroposophists are lucky, Steiner might be
remembered for something he did that was good and true and useful,
and all the nonsense, like Kepler's (and Newton's too, he was
similarly distracted) will be forgotten. But I don't see him
showing up in surveys of history as Kepler does. Steiner didn't
do anything that significant. It's tragic such brilliant people
put so much of their energy into cracked enterprises.
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 19:34:12 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Numerologists want order, not the chaos
that nature really is.
We cannot prove that natural order is chaos.
Albert Einstein was not a numerologist, but he also could not
accept the allegation that nature consists of random coincidences,
which is a philosophical conclusion beyond the realm of orthodox
natural science.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 16:09:50 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
We cannot prove that natural order is chaos.
Albert Einstein was not a numerologist, but he also could not
accept the allegation that nature consists of random coincidences,
which is a philosophical conclusion beyond the realm of orthodox
natural science.
Einstein complained that God does not play
dice with the universe when confronted with the uncertainties
that those who built on his work were finding, but the fact that
he could not accept it doesn't mean it's not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:19:02 +0100
Dan, I already commented on your following
statement, but I would like to add one small anarchosophical
rumination.
You wrote:
Numerologists want order, not the chaos
that nature really is.
The common objection to anarchism is that
it will result in chaos, and the word "anarchy" is
normally associated with civil wars and the total absence of
law and order and discipline. If the natural world order is indeed
a chaotic one, and the spiritual world order behind it is an
illusion, then anarchism is an absurd pipe-dream. I have held
the opinion that atheism is an unsuitable world view on which
to build a realistic anarchist society, which is impossible without
the Christ Impulse. Now I realize that anarchism, which means
a society where no adults have the right to rule other adults,
can only be realized if there is a corresponding awakening in
humanity to the reality of a moral order in the universe.
In other words, the Cult of Anarchosophy (based
upon the teachings of Uncle Taz) would stand or fall on the question
whether nature is chaos and coincidence on the one hand, or harmony
and order on the other. Thank you Dan, for your valuable contribution
to the riddle of anarchosophy.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:27:16 +0100
Robert Tolz wrote:
Einstein complained that God does not play
dice with the universe when confronted with the uncertainties
that those who built on his work were finding, but the fact that
he could not accept it doesn't mean it's not true.
I did not endeavor to prove or disprove the
notion that chaos is the cause of nature and existence. My point
was that Dan Dugan wrote that it is, revealing his subjective
opinion, not an established fact. The reason for this is that
many humanists and atheists desire nature to be chaos, and because
they can't back up their wishful thinking with hard evidence,
they state it as an unquestioned objective truth.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:20:41 -0800
It seems to me nothing in nature can be chaotic
and prosper.
In the book Complexity, with the red sand
cover, the author speculates life thrives on the border between
chaos and stasis. This no man's land (damn pun) is complex. Complex
systems maintain a dynamic stability and thus viability.
Of course I am oversimplifying a great deal,
but there are another 300 odd pages in the book.
You throw in coincidence, which makes me wonder
if you meant random and not chaotic. Which fits more with Einstein's
comments on probabilistic systems (the single observation is
completely random -- if I remember correctly).
Chaos is not disorder, it is a very sophisticated
order. Lorenz's 'strange attractors' are classic examples of
the hidden order in chaos. the problem, as I see it, is that
chaos is too chaotic (gimme a break) to support complex systems,
like life -- especially if the system is not robust.
One problem I have with anarchism is it must
be spontaneous, emerging on its own. Nor can it be enforced except
collectively. I am still searching for the force or property
in nature capable of bringing such a state of being into existence.
Excuse me if I discount the Christ impulse. (grin)
I think anarchy is a political singularity,
on the opposite end of the spectrum from totalitarianism and
equally as improbable.
e
Tarjei Straume wrote:
In other words, the Cult of Anarchosophy
(based upon the teachings of Uncle Taz) would stand or fall on
the question whether nature is chaos and coincidence on the one
hand, or harmony and order on the other. Thank you Dan, for your
valuable contribution to the riddle of anarchosophy.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 23:42:46 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Steiner might be remembered for something
he did that was good and true and useful, and all the nonsense,
like Kepler's (and Newton's too, he was similarly distracted)
will be forgotten.
Near the evening of his career, or of his
public mission, Rudolf Steiner was asked which of his works was
the most important. Without a moment's hesitation, he replied:
"'Philosophy of Freedom' will survive all my other works."
This should also answer your earlier question
about the "core scripture" or "core doctrine"
of anthroposophy. The entire text of this work is available online
in English at
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA004/TPOF/
It's a good idea to start with the introduction
to this book, "Wahrheit und Wissenschaft, Vorspiel einer
'Philosophie der Freihet,'" which was Steiner's doctoral
thesis on epistemology. It may serve as a refresher of the debate
about the definitions of science and pseudo-science.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:20:49 -0800
Einstein, in his God doesn't play dice quote,
was commenting on the nature of reality with respect to the apparently
probabilistic implications of quantum mechanics. He cherished
a more orderly and deterministic world view.
In fact, his equations for relativity and
gravity were principally attractive due to their elegance in
bringing order our of seemingly disparate forces, not any empirical
evidence. Same appreciation of elegance and order goes for guiding
the likes of Heisenberg (though there might have been proof to
compare against his equations, I dunno).
I agree with Bob, though, simply because a
Titan said it, does not mean it is Gospel.
e
Tolz, Robert wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
We cannot prove that natural order is chaos.
Albert Einstein was not a numerologist, but he also could not
accept the allegation that nature consists of random coincidences,
which is a philosophical conclusion beyond the realm of orthodox
natural science.
Einstein complained that God does not play
dice with the universe when confronted with the uncertainties
that those who built on his work were finding, but the fact that
he could not accept it doesn't mean it's not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:22:24 -0800
A similar question was posed to Newton, and
he stated without hesitation it would be his cosmology. Funny.
e
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dan Dugan wrote:
Steiner might be remembered for something
he did that was good and true and useful, and all the nonsense,
like Kepler's (and Newton's too, he was similarly distracted)
will be forgotten.
Near the evening of his career, or of his
public mission, Rudolf Steiner was asked which of his works was
the most important. Without a moment's hesitation, he replied:
"'Philosophy of Freedom' will survive all my other works."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:28:02 -0800
When John Forbes Nash (Nobel in Economics,
brilliant mathematician) went crazy, and roamed the halls of
Princeton scribbling message for aliens on blackboards, he was
listening to his 'special voice'.
Later, when he recovered, someone asked him
why he listened to his special voice when it was telling him
wacko things and he replied, "Because those same voices
guided my mathematics without fail." (paraphrased)
I think part of genius is madness, and it
is left for posterity to decide what stands the tests of time.
It is not often clear, especially at the time, which branches
will ultimately bear fruit.
e
Dan Dugan wrote:
It's tragic such brilliant people put so
much of their energy into cracked enterprises.
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 02:39:53 +0100
Ezra Beeman wrote:
You throw in coincidence, which makes me
wonder if you meant random and not chaotic.
By coincidence I meant blind chance, meaning
that if it could be explained, it would prove that no causative
relationships were involved.
Which fits more with Einstein's comments
on probabilistic systems (the single observation is completely
random -- if I remember correctly).
Random observation is something different,
because it is part and parcel of the scientific method of research.
Chaos is not disorder, it is a very sophisticated
order. Lorenz's 'strange attractors' are classic examples of
the hidden order in chaos. the problem, as I see it, is that
chaos is too chaotic (gimme a break) to support complex systems,
like life -- especially if the system is not robust.
Interesting, but I won't venture a comment,
since I'm not familiar with Lorenz's works.
One problem I have with anarchism is it
must be spontaneous, emerging on its own. Nor can it be enforced
except collectively.
Precisely. This is why I am uncomfortable
with applying the word "anarchist" to myself, because
anarchists, like most other political idealists, dream of "constructing"
an anarchist society. This would be a contradiction in terms,
because it would entail the enforcement of one's own ideas upon
the rest of society. This is why most anarchists, including Benjamin
Tucker, were propagandists. Propaganda is the opposite of encouraging
people to think for themselves, trusting their free judgement.
I have chosen to call myself an anarchosophist,
a word I have coined, because I am not prepared to enforce my
ideals on others, but to win the freedom for each individual
to cultivate such ideals with the view that they may influence
the future course of history. In my case, and in the case of
Jens Bjørneboe (http://www.uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anarchoslinks.html),
anarchosophy means "anarchist anthroposophy" or "anthroposophical
anarchism," but it may also mean "spiritual-philosophical
anarchism." (See http://www.uncletaz.com/anarchosophy.html.)
I am still searching for the force or property
in nature capable of bringing such a state of being into existence.
Excuse me if I discount the Christ impulse. (grin)
The "Christ Impulse" is an anthroposophical
term for the best in humanity, as exemplified by Christ when
he tells the parable about the Good Samaritan. (For an orthodox
Christian of today, this parable might be about the Good Muslim
or the Good Secular Humanist.)
I think anarchy is a political singularity,
on the opposite end of the spectrum from totalitarianism and
equally as improbable.
True. The reason why I emphasize anarchism,
apart from the fact that I am a part of it, is that Rudolf Steiner
once affirmed in a letter to Henry Mackay that he considered
himself an individualist anarchist. He was also tempted to make
his "Philosophy of Freedom" a platform for Mackay's
political ideas - a temptation he resisted.
This is important, because the record shows
that Steiner was closer to anarchism than to any other political
ideas before he developed his own "Threefold Social Order"
many years later. And the first group to assault this threefold
social theory with all means at their disposal was the fledging
Nazis, the nationalist fascists.
Today, throughout Europe, there are street
battles being fought between young neo-Nazis and young anti-racist
anarchists. I have young friends who are constantly involved
in street fighting with Nazis and racists. I am critical of them
because they use the same brutal methods as the ones they are
fighting against, but I just want to show you all where the trenches
are and who is on what side. I condemn the use of force and violence,
but if I am forced to choose, you know where I'll be: With the
anarchists, the anti-racists, who are fighting on behalf of the
non-white population of Europe and for the right to immigrate
from Asia and Africa. We advocate racial integration, and our
ideal is a world without national borders, soldiers, police,
passports etc. The non-white population of Europe is constantly
harassed by police, by customs officers, etc. I am personally
involved in this battle on several fronts, including Norwegian
politically oriented usenets where many Nazis are actively trying
to influence public opinion openly. They are also arguing for
historical revisionism about the Holocaust. Neo-Nazism is scary,
it is a serious threat to Europe today, rooted in xenophobia
based upon ignorance and fear of people from other continents.
There are perhaps not so many anthroposophical
anarchists like myself, but I have pointed out that anthroposophists
have always preferred the political left when they vote. And
it should be quite obvious that if Rudolf Steiner had indeed
been a fascist-racist philosopher, his followers would have voted
quite differently. And I would not have been an anthroposophical
anarchist. Which is why I take these Nazi-allegations as personal
insults to my intelligence.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:08:42 +1300
Ezra Beeman said:
I agree with Bob, though, simply because
a Titan said it, does not mean it is Gospel [he was talking about
Newton, Einstein, et al]
What about applying that skepticism (Beeman
and Tolz as skeptics? wow!) to a certain Austrian mystic that
a lot of people think was another "Titan"?
Far be it for _me_ to say that Rudolf Steiner
was a "Titan".
(It's the defenders of the faith who are comparing
him to Newton and Einstein, etc., not the critics.)
But, assuming that we accept Saint Rudy into
the hall of fame of thinkers of the last 100 years, in either
philosophy or science (or his strange blend of the two) ...
And, assuming that we accept Steiner's oft-quoted
commandment not to take his word about anything he said, but
to find one's own answers ...
And, assuming we discount the disingenuous
pleas of the defenders of the faith that no-one since Steiner
has come close to understanding for themselves what the master
supposedly learned from the "higher realms" (it being
so *difficult*, you see) ...
And, absent any evidence to the contrary that
someone -- anyone, adherent or not -- has either falsified something
that Saint Rudy said, or gone beyond his thinking in some way
similar to, say, Steven Hawking's going beyond Einstein ...
Then we would have to say that Rudolf Steiner,
alone among men (we haven't _really_ elevated Saint Rudy to sainthood,
godhood, or spirithood, if you prefer, have we now?) has discovered
truths about nature which are unassailable and beyond our wildest
imaginings. And which outstrip all the other Titans.
Assuming all that (and I'm sure the defenders
of the faith will find some reason NOT to agree with all my assumptions,
or even any of them) ...
Then why is Saint Rudy just a footnote in
history? Why isn't his name up there with Newton's and Einstein's?
Or Martin Luther's and Goethe's?
We've had almost a hundred years of Saint
Rudy's cult -- and that's what it has remained. A cult of smallish
proportions devoted to a brilliant, but insubstantial and inconsequential
thinker, compared to the historical greatness of all these other
figures.
Can it be that it's just that all the rest
of the world is simply too thick to see that Saint Rudy had all
the answers? Or that there is a conspiracy of all the rest of
us outside the cult -- who really know that Saint Rudy was right,
and fear that we're so wrong we'd lose our own status (or sanity)
if Rudy's greatness was acknowledged -- to continue to keep Rudy
in the dark (no pun intended)?.
Rudolf Steiner's adherents disingenuously
claim they're not slavish devotees. Yet none has shaken the "Titan"'s
perch, or even attacked it.
Far from it: while they argue amonst themselves
about interpretation, or become "anarchosophists",
none attacks the fundamental ideas of Saint Rudy himself. Every
new book by a Steiner scholar (and there are plenty -- see Amazon
or Barnes and Noble) simply adds to the "interpretation"
of Steiner, reaffirming his inerrancy and greatness.
No _new knowledge_ of the Universe, no new
physical laws, no new principles, no new understanding, come
from these books and the works of Steiner adherents like Arthur
Zajonc or Ralph Marinelli or Jacques Benveniste.
At least none that is accepted by the rest
of the world, outside the cult of Saint Rudy.
Science is different. Nobody is revered as
having had all the answers. Science doesn't even claim that it
_will_ eventually have all the answers.[*]
Even Steven Hawking, in his recent television
series, "Steven Hawking's Universe", which comes as
close as anyone yet to a TOE (Theory Of Eveything) closed the
final episode with the words "It could be that in a few
years we will have a complete theory [of everything] confirmed
by experiment. That will be a remarkable achievement, perhaps
the ultimate triumph of science. But knowing HOW the Universe
works is not enough to tell us WHY it exists. To find the answer
to that question would be to know the mind of God."[**]
That doesn't sound like the hubris that anti-science,
new-age cultists (read:medieval occult supernaturalist throwbacks)
-- including Saint Rudy and his followers -- accuse science of
being guilty of.
In fact, it seems to me that Rudolf Steiner,
and his following, are far more hubristic.
Let me say again that this does not bother
me at all, personally. People should be free to believe what
they want to believe.
But if they make claims for what they believe,
if they want others (except the credulous, gullible or weak who
need a faith) to agree, and they wish to teach these claims as
fact to others in such places as state public schools, they have
to be able to demonstrate emperical evidence,.
(Don't let's get into the tireless argument
that there is no way to demonstrate or experiment with the Big
Bang. There's a hell of a lot more evidence for the Big Bang
than there is for Steiner's spiritual creation views. Which is
to say, some, as opposed to none at all.)
Let me say again that my only problem with
the existence of the cult of Saint Rudy is that it hides its
true nature from prospective customers of its educational arm,
Steiner or Waldorf schools, and that it duplicitously, stealthily
inculcates Saint Rudy's belief system into unsuspecting children.
And it is spreading its pseudo-scientific
mumbo jumbo into the public schools of this country and the U.S.,
which has a Constitutional guarantee of freedom from religion.
(I am saddened that in this country, according to a poll, a majority
of people want religion back in public primary schools, at least.)
Rudy might be right. So might any of the zillions
of others who have posited supernatural beings to explain existence.
But they can't all be right. Why should it be Steiner? And if
he is right, then how come he isn't recognised by other philosophers,
religionists, and theologians as belonging in the forefront of
their lot?
One could wish that adherents and defenders
of the faith of Saint Rudy (and his educational system) could
apply Ezra's and Bob's skepticism of science's Titans to Rudolf
Steiner and his pronouncements and his pedagogy.
Rudolf Steiner: footnote in the history of
science; footnote in the history of philosophy; footnote in the
history of religion; footnote in the history of education.
------------------------
* Well, I _have_ said that I think that science
will eventually be able to answer all questions about the physical
nature of the Universe. I've never claimed science would be able
to answer the "why" question, or even the question
"what came before what is now". For those answers,
I turn not to personality cults around spiritualists, and a belief
in the supernatural, or even to a personal god, but to the great
science fiction writers, like Isaac Asimov.
For those of a curious bent who would like
to approach an atheistic view of the end of the Universe -- or
its beginning -- I refer you to Asimov's short stories, "The
Last Question" (maybe the Universe IS a computer) and "The
Last Answer" (maybe it's run by a malicious one that looks
like God). The Last Question was written in 1956, and Asimov
always considered it his finest work, and, never modest, perhaps
the best SF short story anyone ever wrote. The Last Answer was
written in 1980. Finding them might be difficult, unless you're
an SF collector. Let me know if you want the citations.
** Science's next challenge, after it has
found the TOE, and tested it empirically, will be to explain
... God. I do hope Hawking will devote some time to explaining
God before he becomes one ... or at least justifying that final
remark.
--------------------------
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
Ezra Beeman wrote:
Einstein, in his God doesn't play dice
quote, was commenting on the nature of reality with respect to
the apparently probabilistic implications of quantum mechanics.
He cherished a more orderly and deterministic world view.
In fact, his equations for relativity and
gravity were principally attractive due to their elegance in
bringing order our of seemingly disparate forces, not any empirical
evidence. Same appreciation of elegance and order goes for guiding
the likes of Heisenberg (though there might have been proof to
compare against his equations, I dunno).
I agree with Bob, though, simply because
a Titan said it, does not mean it is Gospel.
e
Tolz, Robert wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
We cannot prove that natural order is chaos. Albert Einstein
was not a numerologist, but he also could not accept the allegation
that nature consists of random coincidences, which is a philosophical
conclusion beyond the realm of orthodox natural science.
Einstein complained that God does not play
dice with the universe when confronted with the uncertainties
that those who built on his work were finding, but the fact that
he could not accept it doesn't mean it's not true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:21:59 +1300
Ezra Beeman says:
When John Forbes Nash (Nobel in Economics,
brilliant mathematician) went crazy, and roamed the halls of
Princeton scribbling message for aliens on blackboards, he was
listening to his 'special voice'. Later, when he recovered, someone
asked him why he listened to his special voice when it was telling
him wacko things and he replied, "Because those same voices
guided my mathematics without fail." (paraphrased) I think
part of genius is madness, and it is left for posterity to decide
what stands the tests of time. It is not often clear, especially
at the time, which branches will ultimately bear fruit.
e
Dan Dugan wrote:
It's tragic such brilliant people put so
much of their energy into cracked enterprises.
-Dan Dugan
It's good to hear a defender of the faith
implying (by association) that Steiner was at least partially
mad.
But unfortunately, none of the ideas that
he had came from a _rational_ mind. They all came from what he
claimed was a "higher plane". Either that's true, or
he _was_ as mad as Ezra's example.
Rudolf Steiner's theses are untestable.
The test of time is irrelevant when there
is no evidence.
Few scientific discoveries have had to wait
as long as Steiner's thought to even begin to be tested, much
less validated.
In fact, it seems that nobody outside the
cult of Steiner is interested. (The `scientists' who seem to
be interested, like Zajonc and Benveniste, don't qualify, because
they're part of the cult.)
Seems to me that 70-100 years of advancement
of real science has left Steiner in the dust of history.
The only people who will keep his flame alive
are his acolytes, who want to believe in a spirit world.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 01:21:59 -0800
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
In other words, the Cult of Anarchosophy
(based upon the teachings of Uncle Taz) would stand or fall on
the question whether nature is chaos and coincidence on the one
hand, or harmony and order on the other. Thank you Dan, for your
valuable contribution to the riddle of anarchosophy.
Fall it must, then. If the solar system were
designed by a master geometer/clockmaker, as Kepler would have
it, we'd have a total eclipse every new moon! Wouldn't that be
neat! But the universe isn't neat; its sloppiness speaks eloquently
of random/chaotic processes. For another example, look at evolution.
A "designer" wouldn't build every creature on variations
of the same plan, and carry along the baggage of so many "mistakes."
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:05:21 EST
Dan Dugan wrote (referring to Steiner):
It's tragic such brilliant people put so much of their energy
into cracked enterprises
I am not sure exactly what you mean by "cracked",
Dan, but I believe that the enterprises (I might have chosen
another word - rather negative in England) are not faulty, or
at least weren't when Steiner was here to have a say.
What has happened since might be a different
story, but I believe Steiner would have been mortified if his
"enterprises" had not developed since his death in
1925. It brings me back to the point that someone made about
some anthroposophists being "better" than Steiner.
I still cannot see how anyone can believe that, critics or anthroposophists.
We are all different, but I cannot say that I am "better"
than Dan, or Stephen or Ezra or Alan or Tarjei or Sune... well
you get my drift!
But since I believe that Steiner had faculties
which I do not have, namely to "see" spiritually, I
would tend to respect what he said, trying to "believe"
it for myself, by experiment, thought etc, to the best of my
ability!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:23:12 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
It's good to hear a defender of the faith
implying (by association) that Steiner was at least partially
mad.
This reminds me of something I heard as a
ten year old from my uncle - my father's brother, who was a lensmann
(sheriff) in a Telemark district. I lived with him for a couple
of years following my parents' divorce. He had experienced a
homicide case where a man had killed his friend under the influence
of alcohol, believing that his friend was the Devil. This, of
course, was madness. He had looked at his friend and actually
"seen" the Devil. So he killed him.
My uncle explained to me that my own mother
suffered from precisely the same madness, because she said she
had experienced demons. (This is similar to the madness of Martin
Luther, who once hurled an ink bottle at the Devil. The ink spot
on the wall after Luther is still being touched up as a tourist
attraction in Germany.) The only reason why my mother wouldn't
kill anybody in spite of her madness, my uncle explained, was
that she was kind.
When I challenged my uncle's allegation that
my mother was mad, he told me that everybody who sees or hears
things that "normal people" don't see and hear, is
mad. It's that simple. I repeated to my mother what my uncle
had said about her. Naturally, she was furious. I said he didn't
mean any harm, because he had said she was kind. She said, "It
doesn't matter if he thinks I'm kind as long as he has no respect
for me!"
My uncle also concluded that Rudolf Steiner
was mad after I told him about his ideas. But so was Martin Luther,
which would make all Lutherans and other Protestant Christians
as mad as anthroposophists. We are all one big mad family.
But unfortunately, none of the ideas that
he had came from a _rational_ mind. They all came from what he
claimed was a "higher plane". Either that's true, or
he _was_ as mad as Ezra's example.
He was mad. And so was Moses and Muhammed,
and the apostles Paul and John. And so are all Christians and
Muslims and religious Jews.
Rudolf Steiner's theses are untestable.
Are you referring to his doctoral thesis,
"Truth and Science"?
The test of time is irrelevant when there
is no evidence.
I agree. "The test of time" is an
empty phraze used by fundamentalists to "prove" the
inerrancy of the Bible.
Few scientific discoveries have had to
wait as long as Steiner's thought to even begin to be tested,
much less validated.
I think it's irrelevant whether or not the
spiritual science of Steiner is tested by the orthodox natural
science of the day. His non-metaphysical epistemology on the
other hand, may influence the definition of science and knowledge
in the future.
In fact, it seems that nobody outside the
cult of Steiner is interested.
This WC list testifies to the opposite.
(The `scientists' who seem to be interested,
like Zajonc and Benveniste, don't qualify, because they're part
of the cult.)
I think it's a great honor to be disqualified
in a case like this.
Seems to me that 70-100 years of advancement of real science
has left Steiner in the dust of history.
Then what are we discussing on this list,
and why?
The only people who will keep his flame alive are his acolytes,
who want to believe in a spirit world.
The colony of the mad people who beget mad
children and send them to mad teachers. A pity we haven't been
sterilized.
Mad greetings from
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:09:18 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
Then why is Saint Rudy just a footnote
in history? Why isn't his name up there with Newton's and Einstein's?
Or Martin Luther's and Goethe's?
Perhaps because the works of Saint Rudy are
for those who prefer to read them in quiet, undisturbed. And
perhaps because the unknown status of Saint Rudy may prevent
people like yourself from refusing employment to anthropops or
subjecting them to public ridicule.
Far from it: while they argue amonst themselves
about interpretation, or become "anarchosophists",
none attacks the fundamental ideas of Saint Rudy himself.
If I did not find myself in agreement with
the fundamental ideas of Saint Rudy, I would more or less ignore
them and concentrate instead on more constructive ideas. There
would be no point for me to attack a set of ideas and then incorporate
them in my anarchosophy.
Every new book by a Steiner scholar (and
there are plenty -- see Amazon or Barnes and Noble) simply adds
to the "interpretation" of Steiner, reaffirming his
inerrancy and greatness.
No _new knowledge_ of the Universe, no new physical laws, no
new principles, no new understanding, come from these books and
the works of Steiner adherents like Arthur Zajonc or Ralph Marinelli
or Jacques Benveniste.
At least none that is accepted by the rest of the world, outside
the cult of Saint Rudy.
That is fine with us. As long as the cult
of Saint Rudy is not banned by law, as long as our children are
not forcefully removed from our Waldorf schools and placed in
state institutions, and as long as we may have our cult in peace,
we are quite satisfied.
Science is different. Nobody is revered as having had all the
answers. Science doesn't even claim that it _will_ eventually
have all the answers.[*]
If anthroposophically oriented spiritual science
has made such a claim (that it will have "all the answers"),
please give us an exact reference to this.
Even Steven Hawking, in his recent television series, "Steven
Hawking's Universe", which comes as close as anyone yet
to a TOE (Theory Of Eveything) closed the final episode with
the words "It could be that in a few years we will have
a complete theory [of everything] confirmed by experiment. That
will be a remarkable achievement, perhaps the ultimate triumph
of science. But knowing HOW the Universe works is not enough
to tell us WHY it exists. To find the answer to that question
would be to know the mind of God."[**]
Again, please give us an exact reference where
Steiner claims to know *everything.*
That doesn't sound like the hubris that anti-science, new-age
cultists (read:medieval occult supernaturalist throwbacks) --
including Saint Rudy and his followers -- accuse science of being
guilty of.
In fact, it seems to me that Rudolf Steiner, and his following,
are far more hubristic.
Let me say again that this does not bother me at all, personally.
People should be free to believe what they want to believe.
But if they make claims for what they believe, if they want others
(except the credulous, gullible or weak who need a faith) to
agree, and they wish to teach these claims as fact to others
in such places as state public schools, they have to be able
to demonstrate emperical evidence.
I don't think Waldorf education was intended
to be public schools under state control, so you have a point
there. But in the same breath, you are calling millions of Christians,
Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Theosphists, and Anthroposophists "the
credulous, gullible or weak who need a faith." Your chronic
propensity to personal attacks against individuals and groups
who do not share your atheism testifies, I think, to a deep-rooted
insecurity about your own convictions.
(Don't let's get into the tireless argument that there is no
way to demonstrate or experiment with the Big Bang. There's a
hell of a lot more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for
Steiner's spiritual creation views. Which is to say, some, as
opposed to none at all.)
The ultimate origin of the universe and of
life cannot be proven in the strict natural-scientific sense,
only conjectured and guessed at. And which theory you find more
credible based upon evidence presented to you, is significantly
influenced by subjective preference.
Let me say again that my only problem with the existence of the
cult of Saint Rudy is that it hides its true nature from prospective
customers of its educational arm, Steiner or Waldorf schools,
and that it duplicitously, stealthily inculcates Saint Rudy's
belief system into unsuspecting children.
The Waldorf teachers on this list have repeatedly
explained that religious beliefs and anthroposophical principles
are not taught to students.
And it is spreading its pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo into the
public schools of this country and the U.S., which has a Constitutional
guarantee of freedom from religion. (I am saddened that in this
country, according to a poll, a majority of people want religion
back in public primary schools, at least.)
With the high rate of violence and crime in
the U.S., I can understand that.
Rudy might be right. So might any of the zillions of others who
have posited supernatural beings to explain existence. But they
can't all be right. Why should it be Steiner? And if he is right,
then how come he isn't recognised by other philosophers, religionists,
and theologians as belonging in the forefront of their lot?
If he had been recognized as such, the Western
culture would have been characterized as anthroposophical. It
would have been your nightmare.
One could wish that adherents and defenders of the faith of Saint
Rudy (and his educational system) could apply Ezra's and Bob's
skepticism of science's Titans to Rudolf Steiner and his pronouncements
and his pedagogy.
Rudolf Steiner: footnote in the history of science; footnote
in the history of philosophy; footnote in the history of religion;
footnote in the history of education.
Exactly. So you may just relax. Saint Rudy
is not coming to get you after all.
------------------------
* Well, I _have_ said that I think that science will eventually
be able to answer all questions about the physical nature of
the Universe. I've never claimed science would be able to answer
the "why" question, or even the question "what
came before what is now". For those answers, I turn not
to personality cults around spiritualists, and a belief in the
supernatural, or even to a personal god, but to the great science
fiction writers, like Isaac Asimov.
That figures. Asimov was also very snotty
and arrogant about religion and spirituality, with disparaging
and insulting remarks about believers almost identical to yours.
You seem to have learned a great deal from him.
For those of a curious bent who would like to approach an atheistic
view of the end of the Universe -- or its beginning -- I refer
you to Asimov's short stories, "The Last Question"
(maybe the Universe IS a computer) and "The Last Answer"
(maybe it's run by a malicious one that looks like God). The
Last Question was written in 1956, and Asimov always considered
it his finest work, and, never modest, perhaps the best SF short
story anyone ever wrote. The Last Answer was written in 1980.
Finding them might be difficult, unless you're an SF collector.
Let me know if you want the citations.
It seems to me that your ideal world is populated
by atheists and that you might like to embark upon a crusade
to achieve this end.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 08:11:47 EST
In einer eMail vom 07.03.99 11:13:38 (MEZ)
Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt Michael Kopp:
In fact, it seems that nobody outside the
cult of Steiner is interested. (The `scientists' who seem to
be interested, like Zajonc and Benveniste, don't qualify, because
they're part of the cult.)
Maybe there is something waiting just around
the corner to make you want to eat your words!
Seems to me that 70-100 years of advancement
of real science has left Steiner in the dust of history.
then why is it necessary for you guys to keep
attacking the poor chap?
The only people who will keep his flame
alive are his acolytes, who want to believe in a spirit world.
Whether you (Michael) believe is a Spirit
World or not doesn't cause it to exist or not! And there are
millions of people who never heard of Steiner who believe there
is a Spirit World!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:23:49 +0000
Michael Kopp wrote:
Well, I _have_ said that I think that science
will eventually be able to answer all questions about the physical
nature of the Universe.
Ah well, this is known 'in the trade' (philosophy
of science trade, that is) as the "Pickwick syndrome"
(read your Dickens if you can't see why) -- however, there is
no evidence, be it empirical, logical or philosophical that science,
any science, is in a position to offer this sort of promissory
note. This belief is as great a leap of faith as is the adherence
to any religious teaching or spiritual philosophy. (And, of course,
it is not falsifiable so it's not even a scientific statement)
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:42:42 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume
The "Christ Impulse" is an anthroposophical
term for the best in humanity, as exemplified by Christ when
he tells the parable about the Good Samaritan. (For an orthodox
Christian of today, this parable might be about the Good Muslim
or the Good Secular Humanist.)
If the term really addresses a concept as
non-religious as what you describe, anthroposophists really ought
to search out some other words than "Christ Impulse."
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:57:35 +0100
Robert Tolz wrote:
If the term really addresses a concept
as non-religious as what you describe, anthroposophists really
ought to search out some other words than "Christ Impulse."
I did not say that the concept is non-religious.
And if anthroposophy should be stripped of its religious-spiritual
vocabulary, my interest in it would be considerably reduced.
A secularization of anthroposophy would impoverish it.
When I say that the Christ Impulse is an anthroposophical
term for the best in humanity, what is meant thereby is that
the highest in man is his or her spark of divinity. That is very
religious indeed, especially because it is a referral to the
influence of the Risen One, the Christ Being. If anyone be offended
by that, so be it. I, for one, will not be silenced or censored
or edited.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:28:00 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume [mailto:[email protected]]
Robert Tolz wrote:
If the term really addresses a concept
as non-religious as what you describe, anthroposophists really
ought to search out some other words than "Christ Impulse."
I did not say that the concept is non-religious.
And if anthroposophy should be stripped of its religious-spiritual
vocabulary, my interest in it would be considerably reduced.
A secularization of anthroposophy would impoverish it.
When I say that the Christ Impulse is an anthroposophical term
for the best in humanity, what is meant thereby is that the highest
in man is his or her spark of divinity. That is very religious
indeed, especially because it is a referral to the influence
of the Risen One, the Christ Being. If anyone be offended by
that, so be it. I, for one, will not be silenced or censored
or edited.
Now we're getting somewhere.
I can relate to the "spark of divinity"
within each person. It's a lot more universal than "Christ
Impulse."
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:19:26 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp [mailto:[email protected]]
What about applying that skepticism (Beeman and Tolz as skeptics?
wow!)
Michael,
I would encourage you to refine your thinking
about who is a skeptic and who is not, and about who is a blind
believer and who is not. Just because I don't agree with much
(perhaps most) of what you say does not mean that I think in
the same way as all those with whom you disagree. You have sometimes
referred to me as a "Defender of the Faith." From my
point of view, I think of myself more as a "Waldorf Critic
Critic." I think that even you will agree with me that it's
wrong-minded thinking to follow the motto of "If you're
not with me, you're against me," as well as "The enemy
of my enemy is my friend."
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 22:38:19 +0100
I wrote:
In other words, the Cult of Anarchosophy
(based upon the teachings of Uncle Taz) would stand or fall on
the question whether nature is chaos and coincidence on the one
hand, or harmony and order on the other. Thank you Dan, for your
valuable contribution to the riddle of anarchosophy.
Dan Dugan wrote:
Fall it must, then. If the solar system
were designed by a master geometer/clockmaker, as Kepler would
have it, we'd have a total eclipse every new moon! Wouldn't that
be neat! But the universe isn't neat; its sloppiness speaks eloquently
of random/chaotic processes. For another example, look at evolution.
A "designer" wouldn't build every creature on variations
of the same plan, and carry along the baggage of so many "mistakes."
Your arguments are based upon the assumption
that every theistic cosmology is a monotheistic one. In a universe
teeming with life, it isn't that simple. The point is, though,
that the absence of what you would define as the symptoms of
a single, lonesome creator, does not prove your atheism. When
you state your atheism as a proven fact, you are practicing pseudo-science
and quackery.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:54:51 -0800
Why de - bate when you can fa - bri -cate!
e
Michael Kopp wrote:
(It's the defenders of the faith who are
comparing him to Newton and Einstein, etc., not the critics.)
This is non-sequitor from my post. I was not
comparing anyone to anything. So the rest of your post necessarily
follows its own peculiarly tortured logic.
Furthermore, I have not read a single sentence
written by RS (unless you count verse included in WE) and am
therefor not very likely to speak of him in particular. Often
RS is discussed in a particular context and the conclusions drawn
do not follow from that context. I think you mistake my deconstruction
of the argument (or some element of it) for defending RS the
man or his body of work. This is not so and indicates little
more than your own propensity for assumption. Indeed, it is your
greatest device.
e
PS For the record, TOE is a misnomer. It is
only a theory uniting the very large (gravity) and very small
forces (strong, weak etc), nothing more and nothing less. It
is absolutely NOT a theory of everything. I prefer the alternative
GUT or Grand Unifying Theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 01:42:02 -0700
Your are right that we should not rate people,
and I feel my comment on being a better person than Steiner was
overstated. The point is that Anthroposophists idealize Steiner.
There is no willingness to see him as having relative strengths
and weaknesses as we all do. This idealization makes it hard
for those of us outside of the movement to feel comfortable with
those aspects that are objectionable, be it the Aryan race business,
the heart is not a pump, aspects of his character, what have
you. Following this list reinforces my impression that most Anthroposophists
will defend to the death anything that Steiner has ever said
or believed. The open conflicts amoung you seem to be based more
on disagreements over what Steiner said or meant, never on whether
it is true or not. The "doktor gesagt" thing you criticize,
seems to be a matter of excessive referencing of Steiner not
of any substancial questioning of Steiner. But I may be wrong.
So I am curious. Is there an Anthroposophist on this list who
has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from you.
(if there are any such posts in the archives let me know).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:15:30 EST
In einer eMail vom 08.03.99 21:00:25 (MEZ)
Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt Alan S. Fine MD:
Is there an Anthroposophist on this list
who has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from
you. (if there are any such posts in the archives let me know).
Can I rest on this one Alan? I need to go
to bed, and to do justice to this would need a bit of brain -
maybe someone else will get there first! Unfortunately, due to
illness at the school, I will be REALLY unable to contribute
much for the rest of this week, but if I am inspired... we'll
see.
In brief - I don`t believe everything says,
but IMHO he has said very little of substance which is wrong,
even though he has often contradicted himself. IMHO the spiritual
matters he addresses are so difficult to understand that it is
not possible to say that something is wrong (or right). Reincarnation
is something that Steiner clearly promotes. I believe him: I
cannot, materially, prove it!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:13:41 +0100
Alan S. Fine wrote:
Your are right that we should not rate
people, and I feel my comment on being a better person than Steiner
was overstated.
Alan, you deserve a great deal of credit for
your ability to self-correct your earlier statements or opinions;
this is not the first time I have seen this from you. We could
all learn from that, myself included.
The point is that Anthroposophists idealize
Steiner.
That is true, but I don't see anything wrong
with idealizing Steiner as long as it is based upon a critical
evaluation of the man. What may be confusing to "an outsider,"
i.e. someone who has not studied Steiner's works and also reached
the personal conclusion that he was truthful about the spiritual
world, is that the admirers, or idealizers of Steiner vary in
their degree of critical thinking. I believe it's a superstition
of sorts that a critical approach must, ipso facto, entail the
discovery of faults and weaknesses. The other factor is that
on this list, Rudolf Steiner is subjected to unfair attacks from
misinformed critics, which keeps the "defenders of the faith"
busy trying to correct disinformation about anthroposophy and
its founder.
Having heroes is a natural part of being human.
When we are young, we may look up to musicians or movie stars
or police heroes or top athletes - whoever looks good to us and
whom we might wish to emulate if we could. As we grow older,
we develop an eye for achievers in our respective professions
or favorite interests, people we can learn from and perhaps try
to compete with. In the spiritual realm, we look up to people
whose character and understanding touches our insides so to speak.
We seek people of wisdom, dead or alive, though literature or
in person. We are attracted to those who are treading a path
we would like to tread ourselves, and who may have discovered
life-wisdom in a form that appeals to our own philosophical and
spiritual inclinations. For some people, it may be Isaac Asimov
or Carl Sagan. For others, it may be Billy Graham or Maharishi.
For me, it is Mahatma Gandhi and Rudolf Steiner. I have many
other heroes, but these are the two greatest I can think of who
lived in the twentieth century. They both possessed what I admire
most in human beings.
There is no willingness to see him as having
relative strengths and weaknesses as we all do.
Some people may lack that willingness, but
I don't. But like many other anthroposophists, I have come to
the conclusion that Rudolf Steiner was an extraordinary human
being whose personal character and ethos literally towered above
the average. You may dismiss this statement of mine as evidence
of my lacking the willingness or ability to approach Steiner
critically. But it is not so. At first I read Steiner extensively
in my late teens; during the years that followed, I tried many
different churches and theologies and paths and cults. I returned
to Steiner because I was on the verge of becoming an orthodox
Christian in America through the influence of close friends.
I had studied the entire Bible and read a lot of theology and
history. "Something" depressed me about the orthodox
Christian trap, from which Buddhism and Hinduism were viewed
as evil inventions by the Devil. What really did it was when
I was told that Gandhi wouldn't get into heaven. So I went to
the library and picked up on Steiner's lectures. I hadn't read
him in a long time, so the first few days went slow. But I had
to plow through everything relating to the Bible and the Gospels
in particular in order to come straight about the Christianity
that I had always carried within me. At this point I also joined
a local anthroposophical study group in Houston to get to know
people who were thinking the way I did.
When you read the works of Steiner year after
year, you become increasingly curious about the man himself.
So I read his autobiography and biographies written by others,
historical notes, history. And William Shakespeare, who, in my
opinion, was an initiate like Steiner, but who got away with
it because of his art, where he could speak through any character
of his choice.
Oh yes, I have been critical of Steiner, and
I still am. But my criticism has been silenced so often by new
discoveries about him, and a deeper understanding. Because if
you want to get at the truth, at reality, you have to apply your
critical thinking to yourself and to Steiner alike when you investigate.
And so many times I have found out that my criticism of Steiner
was based upon insufficient data, or upon a surface-reading.
This is why I am less apt to openly express criticism of Steiner
that is not thoroughly purged in thought than I was before.
This idealization makes it hard for those
of us outside of the movement to feel comfortable with those
aspects that are objectionable, be it the Aryan race business,
the heart is not a pump, aspects of his character, what have
you.
That is perfectly understandable. The only
thing I am concerned about is that some people may be led by
their discomfort with anthroposophy and with Steiner to spread
slanderous lies publicly in good faith. And then you get things
like, "Heard of Rudolf Steiner?" - "Oh yeah, that
Aryan supremacist mystic who prompted the Holocaust with his
lectures in Germany. I saw that on TV. And there's a lot of people
believing that stuff, and they have those Waldorf schools all
over the place, some sort of occult satanic Hitler Jugend. Scary
shit."
Following this list reinforces my impression
that most Anthroposophists will defend to the death anything
that Steiner has ever said or believed. The open conflicts amoung
you seem to be based more on disagreements over what Steiner
said or meant, never on whether it is true or not. The "doktor
gesagt" thing you criticize, seems to be a matter of excessive
referencing of Steiner not of any substancial questioning of
Steiner.
A very valid point. The der-Doktor-hat-gesagt
syndrome has been a problem, but not a very big one I think,
because most anthroposophists have been alert to it all along.
The point is this: When you have arrived at the position where
you regard Steiner's statements about the spiritual world as
true, and you are convinced that he did have the ability to conduct
occult investigations by reading the akashic record through time
travels so to speak, the standards (from this position) to ascertain
whether or not something he said is true, are of a more difficult
character than say, Clinton's statements about Bosnia. Besides,
questioning is not synonymous with fault-finding.
But I may be wrong. So I am curious. Is
there an Anthroposophist on this list who has a criticism of
Steiner, however small? Let us hear from you.
My weightiest criticism of Steiner is that
he may have overestimated his contemporaries, expecting that
anyone could emulate his talents and abilities, at least to a
certain extent, by reading and doing his suggested exercises.
He may also have underestimated his occult opposition, which
caused him a premature death and exploded in the rise of the
Third Reich. He did warn against catastrophe, but he was always
the optimist, especially before the first world war, when he
saw the twentieth century as a great spiritual awakening for
humanity and the return of Christ in the etheric.
As an anarchist, I am puzzled about Steiner's
privately counselling young people to serve in the military and
go to war, even though he criticized that war most severely.
Even more of an enigma to me has been the statements about blacks
posted on the PLANS website. I had only seen one comment like
this before that had caught my attention, where he said half
in jest that someone was said to look like a Negro, but that
he didn't think so be because he had always thought this someone
had a sympathetic face. Suggesting that Steiner did not think
about black people, whom he never met, as sympathetic.
Still, I think that the critics are drawing
the wrong conclusions from this. Rudolf Steiner had a heart of
gold, and I am thoroughly convinced that he would have spoken
differently about black people if he had lectured to an audience
in Africa or if there had been black Germans to meet him personally,
rather than speaking about them in the abstract and in absentia.
Because his entire teaching is saturated with anti-racism, with
egalitarianism and universal brotherhood, and with encouragements
to racial integration.
This does not mean that I am incapable of
criticizing Rudolf Steiner, but when faced with hostile critics
I am moved to the position of preventing Steiner's disparaging
remarks about blacks to be blown out of all proportions and then
matched with a nazified interpretation of the theosophical-anthroposophical
view of racial evolutiion. This is how half-truths are made into
blatant lies.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:43:04 -0500
Is there an Anthroposophist on this list
who has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from
you.
I don't like his second wife, especially the
way she writes.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sune Nordwall
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:57:25 +0100
Alan wrote:
Your are right that we should not rate people, and I feel
my comment on being a better person than Steiner was overstated.
The point is that Anthroposophists idealize Steiner. There is
no willingness to see him as having relative strengths and weaknesses
as we all do.
...
So I am curious. Is there an Anthroposophist on this list who
has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from you.
Personally I found it VERY difficult to not
be deeply impressed on reading Steiner by the width, depth and
honesty I experienced in his description of the spiritual roots
of man and the world and the essence of what it meant to be human
and the respect for almost the persons (except for Woodrow Wilson)
he described in history, making _everyone_ of them interesting.
If you don´t study him deeply out of
anger or specifically to find fault with him, I think it is rather
common to have this impression and experience.
To see his weaknesses can be very difficult
and take much effort to put him into context in relation to other
personalities in history and do his justice in both his strengths
and weaknesses, as he can be so overwhelming to study.
Yet, I don´t think _many_ anthroposophists
of especially natural scientific inclination have found it difficult
to be diplomatically critical of Steiner on many points, even
though they don´t express their views in any public form,
not to unnecessarily create difficulties for those tring to something
good in the world on the basis of anthroposophy, as it can be
enough difficult also without this criticism.
Personally I find it difficult to see how
his in many instances polemic way of critizising different aspects
of modern natural science has continued to influence people interested
in natural scientific problems on the basis of anthroposophy.
To these often polemic statements belong -
how he describes the heart, totally looking away from its character
as a muscle, the type of tissue otherwise associated with the
will, - his polarized description of the relation between the
organism and the cell, with the "cell principle" as
something that when its takes precedence over the "organism
principle" leads to cancer, - the roots of important parts
of genetics in decadent mysteries of Atlantis and - the doing
of experiments only as a sort of compromise because other people
demand it.
He also was not only an expert on physics
making for example seemingly obvious mistakes as when he describes
the objectivity of coloured shadows, making someone in the audience
look at only the shadow through a tube without seeing the surrounding
coloured area, asking the person if he does not see the colour
and the person in question according to the stenographed lecture
does not object.
His comments on the cell, cell biology and
genetics I find make it very difficult to approach the subjects
with a real, positive interest, to discover for example one of
the possible aspects of what he meant when he suggested that
cell biology be taught in relation to astronomy, one of his many
provoking and puzzling suggestions that I have described one
possible aspect of at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/cosmcell.htm
as I understand it.
It also makes it difficult to note out of
an anthroposophical background how for example the human genome,
normally described as consisting of 23 pairs of chromosomes,
stands out in a somewhat other light and leads to possible unexpected
new viewpoints when you also see that it consists of 24 different
types of chromosomes.
I think letting your undertanding of Steiner
as a prophet fade somewhat and more start looking at him as a
creative and often strongly original investigator into different
problem, with all the problems and possible mistakes that also
puts you before, is what makes him really interesting.
Looking at the world with the eyes of an investigator,
open to new perspectives on what you think you know about the
world, I find him to be really inspiring as someone provoking
you to consider once again and think trough what you once have
learnt.
This is my perspective on the description
by Steiner of the heartpointing to a possible new perspective
on the description by Aristotle of the heart or his interesting
and original description of 12 sense qualities, seen in relation
to the 12 thought categories described by Kant.
Of course Steiner, like all humans, had weaknesses.
Yet, what really impresses me, is what I experience as his passionate
dedication to the truth, viewed from spiritual perspective and
his his understanding of man in this perspective.
Regards,
Sune
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 06:01:48 +0000
Alan S. Fine MD wrote of Dr Steiner:
There is no willingness to see him as having
relative strengths and weaknesses as we all do.
This is plainly incorrect. Not only do (some)
anthropops note that Steiner erred at times, but so did Steiner
himself -- a case of "coloured" shadows which turned
out not to be coloured springs to mind as an example of the latter.
Whilst it is true that *some* anthropops take
Steiner as infallible gospel, to generalise from the specific
is plainly an illogical form of argumentation and the existence
of even a single counter-example falsifies the entire allegation
Alan makes above.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:58:47 -0700
that's not Steiner
Is there an Anthroposophist on this list
who has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from
you.
I don't like his second wife, especially
the way she writes.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 22:43:01 -0500
Alan Fine says:
that's not Steiner
with reference to my answer to his earlier
question:
Is there an Anthroposophist on this list
who has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from
you.
I don't like his second wife, especially
the way she writes.
I stand corrected.
I don't like his taste in women.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:05:40 -0700
now I think we're getting somewhere.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Flannery
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Alan Fine says:
that's not Steiner
with reference to my answer to his earlier
question:
Is there an Anthroposophist on this list
who has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from
you.
I don't like his second wife, especially
the way she writes.
I stand corrected.
I don't like his taste in women.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: So much for Eliptical Orbits
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:20:29 -0700
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
Is there an Anthroposophist on this list
who has a criticism of Steiner, however small? Let us hear from
you.
Robert Flannery responded:
I don't like his second wife, especially
the way she writes.
and Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
that's not Steiner
No, but you've gotta admit, it's a pretty
funny response. Made me laugh, anyway. :)
Stephen W. Premo, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: The Christ Impulse (was: RE: So much for Eliptical Orbits)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 18:43:29 +0100
Robert Tolz wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere.
I can relate to the "spark of divinity" within each
person. It's a lot more universal than "Christ Impulse."
The two expressions are still not quite interchangeable,
though they would be equally offensive to certain hostile atheists.
What separates anthroposophy from theosophy and other occult
streams is its emphasis on the Mystery of Golgotha.
If I had to attach a traditional religious
label on 'anthroposophically oriented spiritual science' I would
have to call it 'Buddhist Christianity' or 'Christian Buddhism'.
Yet Steiner's contribution to Christian theology is frequently
referred to as 'Christology' rather than 'Christianity'.
The term 'Christology' is also an indicator
of Steiner's thoroughly Christ-centered cosmology. He claimed
that our account of time (years) since the birth of Christ was
very appropriate because 'the Mystery of Golgotha' was the central,
the pivotal, and the most awe-inspiring supernatural event in
the entire evolution of the earth: A sacrifice by the the most
exalted of beings, the Sun-God or the Sun-Spirit, who was worshipped
in various pre-Christian cults ('cult' meaning 'holy communion
with the spiritual world', of course), incarnated in the body
of Jesus of Nazareth in order to redeem mankind, to enable man's
gradual reunion with the gods through the course of future incarnations.
This 'Mystery of Golgotha', which is defined
by the events recorded in the Gospels, beginning with the Betrayal
and ending with the Ascension, - this was, according to Rudolf
Steiner, an act of unconditional love and the most profound mystery
of all time. In his analysis of history, Steiner traces the effects
of the Mystery of Golgotha on humanity, which he calls 'the Christ-impulse'.
By this 'Christ-impulse' is meant the evolution of compassion,
love, tolerance, the capacity for individual self-sacrifice,
and the emergence of new ideals such as 'Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity'. In other words, all the noblest, purest and dearest
capacities of the human soul that are evolving on earth, are,
according to Steiner, the fruits of the Christ-impulse, regardless
of which particular religion or philosophy an individual may
confess to.
In addition, Rudolf Steiner also claimed that
all healing forces in nature, everything that contributes to
health in plants, animals and humans, combatting and healing
illesses, beneficial advances in the art and science of medicine
etc., proceed from the Christ Being, or 'the Risen One', because
this Christ Being is also the creator of our existence.
It should be obvious from the above that Steiner's
cosmology was very Christ-centered indeed, and thoroughly Christian,
though he is shunned and condemned by orthodox theologians because
of his support of the reincarnation-idea and his positive views
on pre-Christian Mystery-religions (paganism).
By the same token, it should be understood
that it is quite natural for anthropops like myself to speak
about the Christ Impulse as a specific force in nature and in
history, and about the divine spark as a reflection of the Christ
Impulse in the individual human being.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"