Seeking the Truth
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:24 pm
Subject: seeking the truth, was: understanding rabid denial
Dear JoAnn,
I was there, but have little concrete memory
of the discussion other than the fact that someone (who apparently
was Malcolm) was willing to disagree, but not willing to stand
behind this disagreement strongly enough to offer this material
to be published on my website along side Catherine's article.
As to whether he proved anything or not, my memory is of not
being satisfied with what was said, and that the main reason
I was not satisfied was what I would call the "quoting out
of context" syndrome, by which a critic takes a small part
of the meaning of a writing, restates it, and then argues against
the out of context restatement.
Catherine's essay had a number of issues,
and again, if memory serves, Malcolm had a rather narrow focus
(as did Targei), such that the most essential questions (regardless
of Catherine's version of the answer) get lost in the noise.
Also, if memory serves, the discussion took
place in a forum where Catherine did not participate, which basically
means the author's "defense" to the criticism remains
unavailable.
Are there public archives, or do you have
this discussion archived? I'd be glad to revisit the matter.
As a simple point of logic, however, whether
Malcolm succeeded or not has nothing whatsoever to do with Targei's
or Andrea's remarks. Nor, by the way, with the underlying basic
question of whether we treat Steiner's product in the way he
wanted it treated, or do we give it an authoritative weight that
effectively lames our own development as independent and spiritually
free thinkers.
Also I am not saying Catherine is unaccountable,
only that if someone wants to call her to account (as with Steiner)
they should have their facts straight and their emotions and
antipathies well disciplined. Please keep in mind I have not
defended her (something I couldn't do in any event), but rather
have simply asked that we honor the effort and the work the essay
represents as a whole, for to my view (for whatever value one
wishes to give to it) the underlying problems, of "authority"
and our own spiritual freedom, are far more important than trivial
remarks that take much offense at those who see a human being
in Steiner instead of some remote and unreachable Master of the
Spiritual Cosmos.
For example, after over 25 years of meeting
those who style themselves as "anthroposophists", I
am still saddened by the "worship" of Steiner's lectures,
and the related failure to understand one's own soul life sufficiently
(via the practicum of the epistemology) to appreciate why the
mere reading a text does not lead to knowledge, but only to belief.
I was dismayed many years ago when this became
clear to me, and I remain convinced that of all the troubles
that exist today with bringing Steiner's legacy forward, this
(in the paragraph immediately above) is the dominant (or leading)
cause of problems in the Society and in the Movements. This is
why the WCList sees us as mere believers instead of as "scientists",
and this is why when parents in Waldorf have questions of meaning,
they receive such clearly poor answers. Too many teachers are
true believers, and don't know their own soul life well enough
to appreciate the social consequences to which this lack of rigor
and discipline necessarily leads.
Steiner did not foster a "belief system",
but rather a path of knowledge. Only as knowledge can Anthroposophy
participate in the transformation of scientific materialism,
and then participate in healing the effects of the resulting
social Darwinism. As a belief system anthroposophy is completely
impotent before the Opposition, and useless to the Hierarchies
of Light.
As Harvey wrote privately to me recently,
we each have to pull our sword out of the rock, before we can
wield it.
j.
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 12:41, Jo Ann Schwartz
wrote:
--- Joel Wendt wrote:
Oh come off it Targei. The question is
not the words, but what Steiner did. The question is not what
Catherine wrote, but what Steiner did. Catherine says he mistreated
a woman in his remarks about her in his lectures. This is a question
of fact - did he or did he not.
All I have done is have the essay on my
website, for which act you berate me. You don't know what he
said in those lectures. When you care to quote what he said (which
is the real factual issue), then we can talk about whether Catherine
was a gossip or not. Your asserting it does not make it so.
Dear Joel,
So, Rudolf Steiner can be held accountable
for what he said in a lecture but Catherine MacCoun can NOT be
held accountable for what she said in an essay?
I believe you were not only present for,
but also participated in, the extensive discussion of this subject
on Anthroposophical Views in 1999 during which Malcolm Ian Gardner
showed that Catherine's interpretation of events was incorrect,
complete with extensive quotes from the relevant lectures, which
had (at that time) only recently appeared in English. If quoting
from the lectures did not convince you then, why should one believe
that quoting from the lectures will convince you now?
Musing on just the facts, ma'am, just the
facts,
JoAnn
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth
In a message dated 2/10/2004 6:31:38 PM Eastern
Standard Time, hermit writes:
For example, after over 25 years of meeting
those who style themselves as "anthroposophists", I
am still saddened by the "worship" of Steiner's lectures,
and the related failure to understand one's own soul life sufficiently
(via the practicum of the epistemology) to appreciate why the
mere reading a text does not lead to knowledge, but only to belief.
I was dismayed many years ago when this
became clear to me, and I remain convinced that of all the troubles
that exist today with bringing Steiner's legacy forward, this
(in the paragraph immediately above) is the dominant (or leading)
cause of problems in the Society and in the Movements. This is
why the WCList sees us as mere believers instead of as "scientists",
and this is why when parents in Waldorf have questions of meaning,
they receive such clearly poor answers. Too many teachers are
true believers, and don't know their own soul life well enough
to appreciate the social consequences to which this lack of rigor
and discipline necessarily leads.
Joel, have you read some of the stuff that
I have been writing in response to "questions" whether
veiled attacks or not?? I am certainly trying to make an effort
to respond to our critics "in kind" and I am certain
that most questions can be very well answered as such. Daniel
has done a great job also, as have others. As I said recently,
it can be difficult for those "in the field" to take
the time to do the research necessary to field some tough questions,
but it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't put much thought
into what they are doing - it just takes time and focus to formulate
good answers and sometimes it is wise not to attempt to answer
certain questions if one hasn't the time and resources to do
it well. Partial or unsupported answers can cause more trouble
than no answer at all.
Again, I say, as I said to the WC, that I
deeply resent the widespread labeling of Waldorf Teachers as
"believers" or unquestioning followers of hearsay.
I haven't known anyone like that personally and if there are
such, I am quite certain they are exceptions rather than the
rule.
Since the work of Rudolf Steiner is so wide
and varied, sometimes one has to save the "deep delving"
for a particular niche that one is working in and sometimes give
agreement to other fields simply on the strength of the fact
that what you have learned for yourself
so far would give credence to the idea that he has given objective
value in other areas. I am not a Eurythmist, but I don't have
to take the four year course to have experienced something of
value in it or to have a basic understanding of its principles
and potential as an art form.
Every Waldorf teacher may not be able to give
you a detailed explanation of sensitive crystallization, but
that doesn't mean he or she doesn't know VOLUMES about fairy
tales or the Middle Ages. And it doesn't mean that he or she
won't know volumes about Organic Chemistry when the time comes
to teach it.
I still hear in the above excerpt from your
e-mail the quality of judgement that allows you to believe that
you know who does and who does not understand Steiner via "...the
related failure to understand one's own soul life sufficiently..."
If you want to give specific examples of things
that people have said or done (respecfully, given that those
people may not be present in the discussion) that show a lack
of understanding of some information that Rudolf Steiner has
presented and discuss why such statements or even behaviour contradicts
his writings or lectures, then fine. But blanket generalizations
like the one you have given us are egotistical in the extreme.
Rudolf Steiner himself would NEVER have
said "that person does not agree with me because he or she
does not understand his or her own soul life sufficiently."
Or even worse, "that person agrees with me ONLY becaus he
or she does not understand his or her own soul life sufficiently."
What he might have said and did say in other contexts was something
like," I can understand why this person (always specific
references) says (or said) or does (or did) thus and so, because
certain impulses (always specific references) are very observable
as being a part of his or her soul nature." These kinds
of statement, examples of which can be most clearly found in
the Karmic Relationships lectures, are not given as judgements
of those individuals, but only to assist those listening to develop
their own capacities for objective observation, mostly of themselves.
To begin to be able to discern patterns of behavior, ideas and
"soul capacities" and to be able to approach human
biography with even greater compassion and openness, not because
of some wishy-washy lovey dovey feeling, but because everything
in human history and the development of
mankind as a whole MAKES SENSE - it begins to fit, to weave discernable
patterns. And being able to begin to recognize those patterns
with clear, everyday powers of thought helps the individual to
begin to see the threads which weave in and out of his or her
life more clearly.
Thank goodness that Steiner never spoke with
the kind of judgmentalism that you frequently do. I would certainly
be an avid member of an Anthro-Critics group if he had.
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth
Dear Christina,
I can fully understand your point of view.
It would help if you could understand mine.
There is nothing judgmental about it, I am
simply stating observable facts.
Many anthroposophists do not take the admonition
to "know thyself" to heart. To a large degree this
is understandable because it is seldom taught. What is mostly
taught is the acquisition of a degree of skill using the material
in the lectures and books - one reads and then creates mental
representations, which become an aspect of memory. As memory,
in its widest sense, these mental representations become part
of our world view - we look at something and our inner activity
is a gesture that calls forth the relevant mental representation
from memory.
This act of calling forth a self created mental
representation (based upon the reading of a text) from memory
is not "thinking", but "remembering". Nor
is such a mental representation an accurate reflection of the
spiritual reality - it only "represents", that is "stands
in for" the text. Steiner gives lectures, thereby creating
various imaginations, and we read and create mental representations.
The Steiner created imaginations are not spiritual reality (at
best they are accurate maps), and the self created mental representations
are a further dilution (a map of a map) of what originally lived
in the imaginations created by the spiritual researcher.
It is possible to give rather remarkable lectures
based upon the manipulation of memory pictures of self created
mental representations, which are then to the listener of these
lectures a further dilution (a new map created out of parts of
maps of maps). All the same, each dilution draws further and
further away from spiritual reality, and becomes, to the I-am
of the listener, not knowledge but an elaborate system of beliefs.
This is frequently what we get when we listen to a "wonderful"
lecture by a leading anthroposophist - a beautiful map of maps
of maps.
The healing counter to this getting lost in
maps of maps of maps lies in the fact that we do frequently confront
reality, whether in sense experience or in self observation.
A Waldorf teacher is faced with students, a parent with children,
a doctor with patients, and a farmer with the land and sky and
all the various forms of life.
The question is what goes on in the consciousness
of someone who reads Steiner books, when they confront reality.
Do they "think", or do they live in the memories of
mental representations. Because "thinking" is not well
taught (you have to understand it to teach it), and playing with
maps of maps of maps is more frequently taught, conscious "thinkers"
develop a "sense" for the difference as that appears
in speaking and writing.
A person living in mental representations
has a certain kind of blindness, and also other characteristics
that mark them in their speaking and writing. Many people do
both - that is they sometimes think and somethings live in their
beliefs. Frequently, however, their thinking remains semi-conscious,
and this as well appears in the phenomena of their speaking and
writing, usually in the form of a kind of inability to distinguish
the two. Once we know the difference in ourselves with clarity,
the difference in others is obvious. Knowledge comes from thinking,
and beliefs from memory.
There is a wonderful movie called Dogma, by
Kevin Smith. In it is some dialog about the difference for religious
people between a belief and an idea. When we think we have ideas,
and when we live in memory we have beliefs. The film makes clear
that wars are fought over beliefs (but not ideas), and one such
war is going on today on the WCList, with a certain amount of
leakage onto this list.
One of the main problems with mental representations
that live in memory is that they arise frequently in the mind
without any effort of will on our part. In fact, the more full
of Steiner lectures we are, the more these somewhat independent
memory pictures have a life of their own in our minds. When we
read lectures over and over again, we do something akin to what
makes an "obsession" - that is we reinforce through
repetition the memory picture, and it grows stronger and stronger
the more we do this. Steiner speaks of this problem in The Philosophy
of Freedom when he describes how it is possible to become "captured
by the concept". When we live strongly in a belief system
(it fills our memory and from there determines our world view),
the I-am is not spiritually free.
A person who is not spiritually free in this
way tends to dogmatism and sectarianism. These two characteristics
are widespread in the Society and the Movement. Dogmatism is
characterized by a fixed view of something (only X is true),
and sectarianism by a kind of social collective adhesion (us
vs. them).
The potential for this spiritual freedom is
something new for humanity. It is not surprising then that the
Society and Movement have had such a hard time manifesting it.
For the I-am to learn to free itself inwardly from the socially
reinforced mental habit of clinging to mental representations
lodged in memory is not easy. This is the sword in the stone
problem. Our thinking, our sword, is lodged in the stone of fixed
views held in the memory matrix.
To the extent that the stone has been created
out of maps of maps of maps derived from Steiner lectures, this
has the effect of killing the legacy of Steiner, which really
only can live when we pull the sword out of the stone and learn
how to use it ourselves in the vast and remarkable world that
lies within. Only after learning how to use it there (use the
sword to reduce to a compost of sawdust the beam in our own eye),
have we any business offering as a service to others to help
with their mote.
In 1933, or thereabouts, the Society and Movement
felt the presence of a remarkably gifted individual, who they
rejected (Valentin Tomberg). Since then other remarkable individuals
have appeared in the Movement and Society, and it is clear that
real talent of this nature does not rise to the top (as it should),
witness the current Vorstand.
In the main this rejection of gift is due
to the fixed adherence to certain views. Mind compares what the
gifted person is offering, and since this doesn't match with
the "belief", it is impossible for the offering to
be received. [by the way I am using the term "gift"
here to refer to talent created in a particular I-am by the Divine
itself] Thus the Society and Movement suffer from a kind of sclerotic
dysfunction (the beliefs become "hardened" over time).
One of the characteristics of "thinking"
is its feminine aspect, its "receptivity". It lays
itself open to receive, and sacrifices its own fixed nature constantly
in order that "life" may flow toward it. It is what
we don't know (by an act of will) that lets us learn.
For the last decade of the 20th Century, various
gifts were gently knocking on the door of the Movement, minds
in which the sword had been removed from the stone. But these
minds, open to life, with its fluidic and flame-like nature,
could only be rejected because the Steiner lecture-obsessed minds
within the Society and Movement lacked any receptive ability.
What this means is that at the moment - at
the beginning of the 21st Century - the legacy of Steiner cannot
be carried within the Movement or Society, but only outside of
it, in other kinds of activities. Spirit goes where it wills,
and where it can be received. It does not reside in books, in
memory, or in the worship of false idols such as "great
initiates".
warm regards,
joel
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth, was:
understanding rabid denial
At 00:24 11.02.2004, Joel wrote:
For example, after over 25 years of meeting
those who style themselves as "anthroposophists", I
am still saddened by the "worship" of Steiner's lectures,
and the related failure to understand one's own soul life sufficiently
(via the practicum of the epistemology) to appreciate why the
mere reading a text does not lead to knowledge, but only to belief.
Regardless of how well you have understood
Steiner's epistemology, the fact remains that you'll run into
difficulties if you deny that your "knowledge" about
life on Atlantis, or on the Moon, is based upon belief. It may
have been science to Rudolf Steiner, but is it science to you?
I was dismayed many years ago when this
became clear to me, and I remain convinced that of all the troubles
that exist today with bringing Steiner's legacy forward, this
(in the paragraph immediately above) is the dominant (or leading)
cause of problems in the Society and in the Movements. This is
why the WCList sees us as mere believers instead of as "scientists",
and this is why when parents in Waldorf have questions of meaning,
they receive such clearly poor answers.
You seem to imply that you consider yourself
a scientist, and not a believer in anything. In other words,
if you know something to be true that RS knew to be true, it's
because you've investigated it clairvoyantly just like he did,
and seen it for yourself. And the problem with the WC list is
that anthroposophists like myself have admitted that belief
in Steiner's honesty and truthfulness is the basis for many of
our notions, and that we cannot claim on behalf of ourselves
that this "knowledge" is based upon scientific affirmation,
am I right?
Too many teachers are true believers, and
don't know their own soul life well enough to appreciate the
social consequences to which this lack of rigor and discipline
necessarily leads.
I don't know if I understand you correctly,
but it looks as if you see an urgent need for iconoclasm what
Rudolf Steiner is concerned, for the purpose of putting an end
to this lecture-worship among Waldorf teachers, into whose soul
lives your insight is impressive - derived, no doubt, from scientific
investigations. So in order to rescue the Anthroposophical Society
from remaining stuck in the quicksand of blind faith in the unquestioned
authority of Steiner, MacCoun's sado-masochism story might do
some of the trick?
Steiner did not foster a "belief system",
but rather a path of knowledge. Only as knowledge can Anthroposophy
participate in the transformation of scientific materialism,
and then participate in healing the effects of the resulting
social Darwinism. As a belief system anthroposophy is completely
impotent before the Opposition, and useless to the Hierarchies
of Light.
Basically, RS said the same thing. But the
only thing you can do about it is to stop believing and
start knowing and investigating. You can't make anyone
else do that. You can't control the actions, thoughts, or paths
of other people, whether they call themselves anthroposophists
or not.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth, was:
understanding rabid denial
Dear Targei,
I've made some comments below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 13:17, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
At 00:24 11.02.2004, Joel wrote:
For example, after over 25 years of meeting
those who style themselves as "anthroposophists", I
am still saddened by the "worship" of Steiner's lectures,
and the related failure to understand one's own soul life sufficiently
(via the practicum of the epistemology) to appreciate why the
mere reading a text does not lead to knowledge, but only to belief.
Regardless of how well you have understood
Steiner's epistemology, the fact remains that you'll run into
difficulties if you deny that your "knowledge" about
life on Atlantis, or on the Moon, is based upon belief. It may
have been science to Rudolf Steiner, but is it science to you?
[This could start an excellent discussion.
When we read a Steiner text, how to we make it our own, particularly
if its contents are references to concepts for which we have
no related percepts (or using the vocabulary of Theory of Knowledge,
thoughts without the related experience)? Now personally I am
not much interested in life on Atlantis or on the Moon (unless
I wanted to read science fiction, which has far better authors
than Steiner creating it).
When I first came to anthroposophy I was fascinated
by all the material in the lectures, but after a time they did
not scratch my particular itch, so I mostly lost interest. The
epistemology was more fascinating because I could behold in my
own soul, in a very immediate fashion, what was there described.
But stuff about Buddha on Mars, well it was vaguely interesting,
but my American Soul wanted to know what the heck I could do
with the information.
Eventually, as I looked around inside the
soul, I discovered the distinctions described (among many others)
between thinking, belief and memory. I also noticed that a "belief"
seemed something like an "object" in the soul, somewhat
like the sense world as "objects" in it. So mental
representations, concepts and ideas all slowly became self evident
"objects" of internal observation, each connected to
various kinds of my own activity - that is my will had certain
effects in this inner landscape.
I also observed how "feelings" produced
effects, so that liking and disliking (antipathy and sympathy),
which seemed to arrive from the realm of the unconscious in the
soul, lead thinking in a certain way, especially if my I-am did
not actively guide it with conscious will. I also learned to
distinguish different kinds of "feelings", for example
"emotions", which might be said to be instinctive (fear,
anger), and moods of soul (reverence), which could be "cultivated",
that is "willed".
At a certain point what St. Paul writes about
in I Corinthians 13 about charity, faith and hope began to light
up inside me, because these were clearly "cultivatable"
feelings (moods of soul), and when cultivated had an effect upon
the qualitative nature of mental representations, concepts and
ideas.
But more powerful than all that was "moral
intention", wherein Steiner's discussion in PoF about freedom,
moral imagination, and the freely chosen duty began to appear
in my soul as experiences. A thought content could then be observed
to be clearly the product (in its qualitative nature) of my cultivated
moral intention. Later I began to distinguish, as regards the
activity of will here, a difference between intention and attention
- the former being self chosen purpose and the latter the willed
focus upon the object about which I "thought" (mostly
in my case this involved attempts to create a Goetheanistic social
science).
All of this learning was over time turned
again to the question of the lectures of Steiner. Now that I
had some practical experience in mastery of the soul, what does
it mean to read a text? Out of this understanding, which had
taken many years to appreciate, I wrote my essay on the epistemological
swampland of the anthroposophical movement.
In the latter part of that essay I discussed
how this problem worked itself out in practice in teachers, doctors
and so forth. Here is what I wrote:
"Addendum: It may occur
to the reader to wonder what do Waldorf teachers, or anthroposophical
doctors do, for example, who study anthroposophy and make use
of the many indications that Steiner has given. What is the nature
of their knowledge?
"Again, it depends upon
the individual soul relationship to the concepts, the degree
to which that individual soul is awake inwardly, and the nature
of that soul's practice of epistemological discipline. In both
the above cases, as well as other callings of a like nature,
the soul can make a clear distinction between what Steiner has
directed it to pay attention to and the actual phenomena of experience.
"For example, the doctor
is encouraged to see behind the various degrees of health and
illness, which each patient brings to him or her, the activity
of the subtle bodies, i.e., the etheric, the astral and the warmth
or ego body. The experience generated by treating the patients
with these ideas in mind creates the constant possibility of
confirming the given indications. The same is true of the teacher,
who will see, in the phenomena presented by the children, evidence
confirming all that material about development and so forth which
has been previously studied. As well, each discipline is directed
to be awake to the intuitions formed inwardly in response to
these sense phenomena; intuitions which are themselves an inward
experience-phenomena, towards which one can have an objective
and free relationship (i.e. philosophically disciplined).
"This is also true for
those of us who do not answer a professional anthroposophical
calling. We know children, we follow the health and illness cycles
within ourselves and within our families, and there is no reason
not to make practical use of all the indications Steiner has
provided over the many years of his life's work. But to do this
in a truly anthroposophical way, we need to be awake to what
is knowledge, and what, in reality, is an act of faith.
"An act of faith is not
a bad thing. All that Spiritual Science really calls for is for
us to know the difference between the two and when we act on
the basis of one, and not the other.
"Science orients itself
in the world through the application of doubt, even Spiritual
Science. Science says, this is what I know objectively, and this
is how I came to know it. Religion orients itself in the world
through the application of faith. "Blessed are they who
have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29.
"The healthy soul can
(and should) contain both impulses, and be awake to and know
the differences. They are not a contradiction, but rather complete
and compliment each other. In fact, we could say that the art
(imaginative core) of soul life is to integrate and unite the
impulses toward science (reason) and religion (devotion)."]
[Joel:]
I was dismayed many years ago when this
became clear to me, and I remain convinced that of all the troubles
that exist today with bringing Steiner's legacy forward, this
(in the paragraph immediately above) is the dominant (or leading)
cause of problems in the Society and in the Movements. This is
why the WCList sees us as mere believers instead of as "scientists",
and this is why when parents in Waldorf have questions of meaning,
they receive such clearly poor answers.
[Tarjei:]
You seem to imply that you consider yourself
a scientist, and not a believer in anything. In other words,
if you know something to be true that RS knew to be true, it's
because you've investigated it clairvoyantly just like he did,
and seen it for yourself. And the problem with the WC list is
that anthroposophists like myself have admitted that belief
in Steiner's honesty and truthfulness is the basis for many of
our notions, and that we cannot claim on behalf of ourselves
that this "knowledge" is based upon scientific affirmation,
am I right?
[You are putting words in my mouth here, always
something to be cautious about doing. I have carefully investigated
(and am still investigating) two things: my own soul life, and
the social world. When I speak with anthroposophists, who want
to use the vocabulary of Steiner, such as Lucifer, Ahriman, and
the Asuras, I can relate to that having read many lectures, but
I try to only speak of what I know, either having observed something
within, or in the social world. People can believe what they
want, I just don't want to call a world view based upon "beliefs",
anthroposophical. And, as a life long student of social life,
it is observable that when people exchange views just how "emotional"
they get over the collision of "beliefs", as opposed
to ideas.
I also notice that some anthroposophists like
to throw around the word "clairvoyantly", as if that
was some kind of magic talisman. Usually it is used by people
who don't have a clue what it means as experience. Having had
Imaginations, Inspirations, and Intuitions, in the sense that
Steiner used those terms, I have no trouble assuring you that
the word "clairvoyance" hardly touches the matter.
At the same time, since it has not been my "work" to
pursue "spiritual research", I seldom offer those insights,
trusting Steiner's admonitions in True and False Paths regarding
holding back for many years the sharing of the product of one's
inner experiences.
I am not claiming (god what an awful term)
to be an initiate (another word becoming more and more useless).
I would prefer the term: faithful thinker. Following on Emerson,
I "trust" what is developing in me as a thinker, and
I have faith in the relationship of that willed heart thinking
as a means of meeting and knowing the Divine - faith which is
occasionally confirmed by experience.]
Too many teachers are true believers, and
don't know their own soul life well enough to appreciate the
social consequences to which this lack of rigor and discipline
necessarily leads.
I don't know if I understand you correctly,
but it looks as if you see an urgent need for iconoclasm what
Rudolf Steiner is concerned, for the purpose of putting an end
to this lecture-worship among Waldorf teachers, into whose soul
lives your insight is impressive - derived, no doubt, from scientific
investigations. So in order to rescue the Anthroposophical Society
from remaining stuck in the quicksand of blind faith in the unquestioned
authority of Steiner, MacCoun's sado-masochism story might do
some of the trick?
[You really betray yourself by the constant
references to Catherine's work, as if somehow by trashing that
you somehow throw some mud on me. You really should examine more
carefully this activity on your part.
I'd love to help the AS renew itself, but
I also know from life that such help has to be wanted, and there
is little evidence that the main institutional forces even think
such a need (renewal) exists. The problem comes from another
direction.
My researches into the social reveal that
we are in a transition from one form of civilization to another.
This transition seems to be coupled with "environmental"
consequences. No longer believing in "magic", modern
humanity doesn't appreciate that a rise in immorality has ripple
effects upon the material understructure (the Earth). The worse
our moral perturbations get, the more unstable the Planetary
environment. The linkages can be found in Quantum Mechanics theory,
but those folks don't know how to expand properly the scale from
the micro to the Macro.
If humanity doesn't take more of a "hand"
in this metamorphosis of civilizations, the environmental effects
will be greater. Ben-Aharon's and N. Perlas's work on threefolding
and civil society represents the best possible way of dampening
the perturbations (our need is for more consciousness soul activity).
The AS was created with this crisis in mind, it appears, but
much could not be stated by Steiner (an affront to our freedom
was at issue), and could only be discovered by our practicing
the proper inner disciplines.
So it is not so much Waldorf that I'd like
to reform, but rather the underlying thought pattern which treats
Steiner's indications on education as a formula that can be applied
without "thinking". Applied that way, such activity
just increases the imbalances (e.g. the WCList and the flow from
that list onto this list which is becoming very excessive). Consciousness
Soul thinking is infused with moral imagination, itself something
not all that hard to do (its what I talk about when I speak to
people about Moral Grace). This thinking needs no "beliefs",
and therefore does not lead to "wars".]
Steiner did not foster a "belief system",
but rather a path of knowledge. Only as knowledge can Anthroposophy
participate in the transformation of scientific materialism,
and then participate in healing the effects of the resulting
social Darwinism. As a belief system anthroposophy is completely
impotent before the Opposition, and useless to the Hierarchies
of Light.
Basically, RS said the same thing. But
the only thing you can do about it is to stop believing
and start knowing and investigating. You can't make anyone
else do that. You can't control the actions, thoughts, or paths
of other people, whether they call themselves anthroposophists
or not.
[Why would I want to control anything? All
any of us can do is shine the light of the truth that we have
acquired in life. Sometimes, however, we don't shine light, we
shine darkness, which is why "beliefs" (dead thoughts)
lead to dogmatism and sectarianism, and conflict is the social
result.]
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Joel Wendt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth, was:
understanding rabid denial
At 00:53 12.02.2004, Joel wrote:
When we read a Steiner text, how to we
make it our own, particularly if its contents are references
to concepts for which we have no related percepts (or using the
vocabulary of Theory of Knowledge, thoughts without the related
experience)?
One of the benefits of reading about Old Saturn,
for instance, is that we have to create for ourselves images
that have no counterparts in the external physical world nor
in ordinary memory. Thie contributes to the awakening of sense-free
thinking.
Now personally I am not much interested
in life on Atlantis or on the Moon (unless I wanted to read science
fiction, which has far better authors than Steiner creating it).
Science fiction is fantasy, fabrication. So
you regard what RS calls spiritual facts and realities, based
upon his science of seership, as fantasy?
You seem to imply that you consider yourself
a scientist, and not a believer in anything. In other words,
if you know something to be true that RS knew to be true, it's
because you've investigated it clairvoyantly just like he did,
and seen it for yourself. And the problem with the WC list is
that anthroposophists like myself have admitted that belief
in Steiner's honesty and truthfulness is the basis for many of
our notions, and that we cannot claim on behalf of ourselves
that this "knowledge" is based upon scientific affirmation,
am I right?
[You are putting words in my mouth here,
Wrong. I am giving a summary of the impression
I'm left with after reading your texts here, asking if I got
it right. Don't you see the question mark at the end of the last
sentence?
always something to be cautious about doing.
I suggest you save those admonitions for your
private students or your personal congregation.
People can believe what they want, I just
don't want to call a world view based upon "beliefs",
anthroposophical. And, as a life long student of social life,
it is observable that when people exchange views just how "emotional"
they get over the collision of "beliefs", as opposed
to ideas.
Semantic drivel. People fight passionately
over colliding ideas too, and a belief and an idea may often
be synonymous.
I also notice that some anthroposophists
like to throw around the word "clairvoyantly", as if
that was some kind of magic talisman. Usually it is used by people
who don't have a clue what it means as experience. Having had
Imaginations, Inspirations, and Intuitions, in the sense that
Steiner used those terms, I have no trouble assuring you that
the word "clairvoyance" hardly touches the matter.
You probably have very good reasons to be
condescending towards mere believers then, surrrounded as you
are by so many profane ignoramuses.
At the same time, since it has not been
my "work" to pursue "spiritual research",
I seldom offer those insights, trusting Steiner's admonitions
in True and False Paths regarding holding back for many years
the sharing of the product of one's inner experiences.
Got to be quite a product. Can't wait. Apart
from "looking around inside the soul", this product
doesn't involve the secret of the Resurrection body, Lemuria
or Atlantis or life on the Old Sun? (Sorry, I shouldn't have
asked.)
[You really betray yourself by the constant
references to Catherine's work, as if somehow by trashing that
you somehow throw some mud on me.
On the contrary. When challenged to defend
MacCoun's article, you immediately repeat that uncritical worship
of St. Rudy and his lectures needs to be overcome to save the
mission of the AS, as if iconoclasm is the purpose of the article.
You really should examine more carefully
this activity on your part.
Another admonition for your private students
or your personal congregation, of which I have no ambitions to
be a member.
I'd love to help the AS renew itself, but
I also know from life that such help has to be wanted, and there
is little evidence that the main institutional forces even think
such a need (renewal) exists. The problem comes from another
direction.
If you "know from life that such help
has to be wanted," why then do you keep telling so many
people on this list how to think, how to meditate, how to pray,
what soul activity within themselves they should examine more
closely and so on, when they have not asked for it?
So it is not so much Waldorf that I'd like
to reform, but rather the underlying thought pattern which treats
Steiner's indications on education as a formula that can be applied
without "thinking".
So you're a reformer of thought patterns?
Is that your science?
[Why would I want to control anything?
Take your own advice: You really should examine
more carefully this activity on your part.
All any of us can do is shine the light
of the truth that we have acquired in life. Sometimes, however,
we don't shine light, we shine darkness, which is why "beliefs"
(dead thoughts) lead to dogmatism and sectarianism, and conflict
is the social result.]
Many beliefs are very much alive and do not
lead to dogmatism. Idealists out in the field saving lives among
earthquakes and flying bullets are full of such beliefs.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sophia
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth, was:
understanding rabid denial
Dear Joel,
You wrote:
(e.g. the WCList and the flow from that
list onto this list which is becoming very excessive).
The security of this list is not at stake,
although your concern is noted and appreciated.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind
you all of the list rules: Free speech reigns and any topic goes,
and the only restricted item is list management:
http://www.geocities.com/anarchosophia/listrules.html
"List management is off-topic.
Anything goes here what topics related to anthroposophy is concerned,
and literature and movies and politics or whatever, but please
don't start threads about list management."
You're welcome to counsel other subscribers
about what to post, but you will probably receive more cordial
responses if they have asked for it first.
Faithfully,
Sophia (moderator)
http://www.geocities.com/anarchosophia/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] seeking the truth, was:
understanding rabid denial
Dear Targei,
Not being interested in continuing what seems
very unlike "conversation", and more like "debate"
(one of the reasons I have no interest anymore in P.S. and the
WCList), I'll leave you the last word (which I expect is not
what is below, but rather some reply to this, which I will not
be answering).
warm regards,
joel
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 23:16, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
At 00:53 12.02.2004, Joel wrote:
When we read a Steiner text, how to we
make it our own, particularly if its contents are references
to concepts for which we have no related percepts (or using the
vocabulary of Theory of Knowledge, thoughts without the related
experience)?
One of the benefits of reading about Old
Saturn, for instance, is that we have to create for ourselves
images that have no counterparts in the external physical world
nor in ordinary memory. Thie contributes to the awakening of
sense-free thinking.
Now personally I am not much interested
in life on Atlantis or on the Moon (unless I wanted to read science
fiction, which has far better authors than Steiner creating it).
Science fiction is fantasy, fabrication.
So you regard what RS calls spiritual facts and realities, based
upon his science of seership, as fantasy?
You seem to imply that you consider yourself
a scientist, and not a believer in anything. In other words,
if you know something to be true that RS knew to be true, it's
because you've investigated it clairvoyantly just like he did,
and seen it for yourself. And the problem with the WC list is
that anthroposophists like myself have admitted that belief
in Steiner's honesty and truthfulness is the basis for many of
our notions, and that we cannot claim on behalf of ourselves
that this "knowledge" is based upon scientific affirmation,
am I right?
[You are putting words in my mouth here,
Wrong. I am giving a summary of the impression
I'm left with after reading your texts here, asking if I got
it right. Don't you see the question mark at the end of the last
sentence?
always something to be cautious about doing.
I suggest you save those admonitions for
your private students or your personal congregation.
People can believe what they want, I just
don't want to call a world view based upon "beliefs",
anthroposophical. And, as a life long student of social life,
it is observable that when people exchange views just how "emotional"
they get over the collision of "beliefs", as opposed
to ideas.
Semantic drivel. People fight passionately
over colliding ideas too, and a belief and an idea may often
be synonymous.
I also notice that some anthroposophists
like to throw around the word "clairvoyantly", as if
that was some kind of magic talisman. Usually it is used by people
who don't have a clue what it means as experience. Having had
Imaginations, Inspirations, and Intuitions, in the sense that
Steiner used those terms, I have no trouble assuring you that
the word "clairvoyance" hardly touches the matter.
You probably have very good reasons to
be condescending towards mere believers then, surrrounded as
you are by so many profane ignoramuses.
At the same time, since it has not been
my "work" to pursue "spiritual research",
I seldom offer those insights, trusting Steiner's admonitions
in True and False Paths regarding holding back for many years
the sharing of the product of one's inner experiences.
Got to be quite a product. Can't wait.
Apart from "looking around inside the soul", this product
doesn't involve the secret of the Resurrection body, Lemuria
or Atlantis or life on the Old Sun? (Sorry, I shouldn't have
asked.)
[You really betray yourself by the constant
references to Catherine's work, as if somehow by trashing that
you somehow throw some mud on me.
On the contrary. When challenged to defend
MacCoun's article, you immediately repeat that uncritical worship
of St. Rudy and his lectures needs to be overcome to save the
mission of the AS, as if iconoclasm is the purpose of the article.
You really should examine more carefully
this activity on your part.
Another admonition for your private students
or your personal congregation, of which I have no ambitions to
be a member.
I'd love to help the AS renew itself, but
I also know from life that such help has to be wanted, and there
is little evidence that the main institutional forces even think
such a need (renewal) exists. The problem comes from another
direction.
If you "know from life that such help
has to be wanted," why then do you keep telling so many
people on this list how to think, how to meditate, how to pray,
what soul activity within themselves they should examine more
closely and so on, when they have not asked for it?
So it is not so much Waldorf that I'd like
to reform, but rather the underlying thought pattern which treats
Steiner's indications on education as a formula that can be applied
without "thinking".
So you're a reformer of thought patterns?
Is that your science?
[Why would I want to control anything?
Take your own advice: You really should
examine more carefully this activity on your part.
All any of us can do is shine the light
of the truth that we have acquired in life. Sometimes, however,
we don't shine light, we shine darkness, which is why "beliefs"
(dead thoughts) lead to dogmatism and sectarianism, and conflict
is the social result.]
Many beliefs are very much alive and do
not lead to dogmatism. Idealists out in the field saving lives
among earthquakes and flying bullets are full of such beliefs.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Joel Wendt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
