Who is an Anthroposophist?
A short, but boring and
braindead thread about the right to call oneself an anthroposophist.
I left it in only because I was dumb enough to participate. (A
discussion about the right to call oneself an anarchosophist
might have been far more interesting.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: 15 Apr 1999 10:32:44 -0400
I
(Luke) wrote:
It is my understanding that the only people
who are "anthroposohists" are those people who are
members of the Anthroposophical Society. Every one else is some
version of "interested in the topic of anthroposophy"
(whatever that can be). I think the only thing that a person
must do to be a member of the society is accept that there is
a place in Dornach, Swizterland called the Goetheanum where people
are engaged in the study of spiritual science. Is this correct
(or something like this)?
Tarjei
answered:
An anthroposophist is any person who accepts
that Rudolf Steiner was a bona fide clairvoyant researcher, and
that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is a legitimate
field of research.
I don't think membership to the AS is restricted
to these individuals. I could join tomorrow and I wouldn't neccessarily
have to believe this. So I think your definition is too broad
and encompasses anyone who may act on personal volition for whatever.
(and critics would have a easy job in labeling personal action
as anthroposophist actions).
My basic understanding is that you have to
be a member of the AS to be an anthroposophist. Otherwise one
is kind of a interested bystander. In maintaining the position
that the AS is the set of "all the anthroposophists",
it has the ability to protect a good name for anthroposophists
by discussing the actions of a member with that member. Otherwise
someone like, Sadam Hussein could be an anthroposophist (of his
own definition) and anything that he does could be linked to
his anthroposophical ties by anyone who wants to make that connection.
It seems like a foolish position to put your own organisation
in. Either they are not protecting against negative associations
by allowing anyone to to do anything in the name of anthroposophy
and with no redress with that individual, or they spend inordinate
amounts of time jumping up and down saying that doesn't represent
anthroposophy. Witness what is done here 45% of the time. (Another
45% of the time is making the association!
s, and the last 10% is split equally between
having good criticisms and dialog.)
The reason I ask for this clarification
is that I read alot of "anthroposophists this and that..."
But beyond this one or few clear shared touchstones "anthroposophists"
as a group are nothing else. Everything from that distinction
on is a variety of individualism.
The Anthroposophical Movement, which consists
of all anthroposophists and their influence on world culture,
is indeed comprised of a variety of individualism.
I meant "a variety of individual action
not reflecting or connected to another" if I was unclear.
Is the AM different then the AS?
Luke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:26:51 +0200
Luke Schelly wrote:
My basic understanding is that you have
to be a member of the AS to be an anthroposophist. Otherwise
one is kind of a interested bystander.
That's like saying you can't be an existentialist
or an anarchist or a communist without being a card-carrying
member of something. You're saying that I am not an anthroposophist
because I'm not a member of anything. But all anthroposophists
I have encountered, including AS members, have recognized me
as an anthroposophist. So why shouldn't you?
In maintaining the position that the AS
is the set of "all the anthroposophists",
The AS doesn't have any authority over anybody.
It's a meeting place for anthroposophical professionals who happen
to be members (doctors, teachers, scientists, etc.)
it has the ability to protect a good name
for anthroposophists by discussing the actions of a member with
that member.
Come on, don't make me sick. There is no behavioral
standard being enforced by the AS upon its members, except perhaps
someone telling tall wild tales to the media and making false
claims about his or her position within the AS - in other words,
lies and slander.
Otherwise someone like, Sadam Hussein could
be an anthroposophist (of his own definition) and anything that
he does could be linked to his anthroposophical ties by anyone
who wants to make that connection.
And nobody could stop that from happening.
Not the AS or anyone else. Freedom and independence has its price
and its risks. I, for one, am willing to pay the price for freedom.
What do you want? A Stalin structure like the Church of Scientology?
It seems like a foolish position to put
your own organisation in.
What is the alternative? Iron discipline?
Lawsuits? Threats? Controlling people, writing reports about
them?
Either they are not protecting against
negative associations by allowing anyone to to do anything in
the name of anthroposophy and with no redress with that individual,
or they spend inordinate amounts of time jumping up and down
saying that doesn't represent anthroposophy.
They have more productive things to do than
running around policing people. They're more or less anarchists
all of them, whether they know it or not. And anarchists don't
act like prison wardens.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah Stein
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:22:36 -0500
Luke wrote:
My basic understanding is that you have
to be a member of the AS to be an anthroposophist. Otherwise
one is kind of a interested bystander. In maintaining the position
that the AS is the set of "all the anthroposophists",
it has the ability to protect a good name for anthroposophists
by discussing the actions of a member with that member. Otherwise
someone like, Sadam Hussein could be an anthroposophist (of his
own definition) and anything that he does could be linked to
his anthroposophical ties by anyone who wants to make that connection.
It seems like a foolish position to put your own organisation
in. Either they are not protecting agaainst negative associations
by allowing anyone to to do anything in the name of anthroposophy
and with no redress with that individual, or they spend inordinate
amounts of time jumping up and down saying that doesn't represent
anthroposophy.
This is exactly the position traditional,
Torah-observant Judaism has been in ever since the Reform movement
began, and erroneously kept the name Judaism. And now, so-called
"Orthodox" Jews must spend too much of their time defending
and defining Torah-true Judaism. (At least when the Protestants
split from Catholicism, they had the consideration to call themselves
Protestants, and not "Protestant Catholics." Thus Catholics,
as far as I've heard -- correct me if I'm wrong -- don't have
to have debates about "who is a Catholic?")
I don't know if this unfortunate situation
can be avoided, even if there is a "Society" whose
membership is intended to be an exclusive roster of all faithful
adherents... There will always be those who don't join, but do
believe, and those who do join, but don't accept all of the "tenets,"
and those who would misuse or abuse the name of the Society,
whether willfully or carelessly.
Respectfully,
Sarah
*****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:31:20 -0400
Sarah points out:
This is exactly the position traditional,
Torah-observant Judaism has been in ever since the Reform movement
began, and erroneously kept the name Judaism. And now, so-called
"Orthodox" Jews must spend too much of their time defending
and defining Torah-true Judaism. (At least when the Protestants
split from Catholicism, they had the consideration to call themselves
Protestants, and not "Protestant Catholics." Thus Catholics,
as far as I've heard -- correct me if I'm wrong -- don't have
to have debates about "who is a Catholic?")
Oh, indeed they do!
Catholics are split over such issues as abortion,
birth control, marriage for the priesthood, and ordination of
women. Thus, you can hear of such a thing as a "pro-choice
Catholic".
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: who is an anthroposophist
Date: 15 Apr 1999 21:23:53 -0400
I posted
it is my understanding that the only people
who are "anthroposohists" are those people who are
members of the Anthroposophical Society. Every one else is some
version of "interested in the topic of anthroposophy"
(whatever that can be). I think the only thing that a person
must do to be a member of the society is accept that there is
a place in Dornach, Swizterland called the Goetheanum where people
are engaged in the study of spiritual science. Is this correct
(or something like this)?
Bruce
responded:
Something like that, yes! But I reckon
there are lots of other organisations where "members"
are not necessarily card-carrying. I honestly do not know whether
Religions qualify, but sports certainly do: I am a tennis-player,
but I do not have a card to say so. I am a scientist - maybe
if all scientists had to carry a membership card then we would
be able to decide whether Steiner really was a card carrying
scientist or not. I am a teacher..... when I go abroad with a
class I carry a card to prove it!
But "members" aren't official members,
they are non-members interested in the same stuff without being
a member.(possibly virtually indistinguishable except that they
are not members of the association of official members)
You don't have to be a member of anything
to be a tennis player but you do have to be a professional player
to be a member of the Prof. Tennis Players Association. For example,
a lunatic runs out and bashes someone with a tennis racket screaming
"i'm a prof. tennis player and you are all gonna get it!"
So when the media (or the prof. tennis critics) come knocking
on their door to find out why prof tennis players are so violent,
the PTPA can point to their books and say "he's not on our
list of members so, eventhough that guy screams what he wants,
he's not one of us".
The same applies to the AS. It (the AS) can't
restrict anyone from believing or understanding or having interest
in any or all things anthroposophical, but they can and should
(I think) protect the good name that represents their association.
The interesting thing is the RS set up such
a simple and easy criteria for membership, which has a small
nod to responsibility (acknowledging consciously an association
with others) while leaving great freedom of movement for individual
positions on the content of the discussions within the society.
Luke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: 15 Apr 1999 22:52:18 -0400
I, Luke Schelly, wrote:
My basic understanding is that you have
to be a member of the AS to be an anthroposophist. Otherwise
one is kind of a interested bystander.
TS
That's like saying you can't be an existentialist
or an anarchist or a communist without being a card-carrying
member of something.
LS
Are you suggesting that if I said you were
not a part of my family, you would argue with me? If there are
no defining elements of existentialism, anarchism or communism,
I couldn't say that you *are* one of any of those either. At
some point you just become a "Tarjei", at once everything
and nothing.
TS
You're saying that I am not an anthroposophist
because I'm not a member of anything.
LS
I guess (in my mind) I am saying that since
you are not a member of the AS, you are not an anthroposophist.
Although, a part from that one small distinction you seem to
be indistinquishable from an anthroposophist. But, to me, since
that is the only thing that delineates an anthroposphist from
anyone else, it may be small but not it is not insignificant.
TS
But all anthroposophists I have encountered,
including AS members, have recognize me as an anthroposophist.
So why shouldn't you?
Because I define anthroposphists as those
who are members of the AS.
LS
In maintaining the position that the AS
is the set of "all the anthroposophists",
TS
The AS doesn't have any authority over
anybody.
LS
But it ("it" being the group of
people that are in association) does have responsibility to its
own members.
TS
It's a meeting place for anthroposophical
professionals who happen to be members (doctors, teachers, scientists,
etc.)
LS
Small point of clarification, the Goetheanum
is the place, the AS is an intentional association of people.
it has the ability to protect a good name
for anthroposophists by discussing the actions of a member with
that member.
TS
Come on, don't make me sick. There is no
behavioral standard being enforced by the AS upon its members,
except perhaps someone telling tall wild tales to the media and
making false claims about his or her position within the AS -
in other words, lies and slander.
LS
First of all Tarjei you can ratchet down the
rhetoric for me. (I like waldorf schools and anthroposophists
and anthroposophist-like people, but i'm not an anthroposphist)
The only behavioral standard that I imagine
would be in place (imposed by each individual upon themself)
might be to treat each other as one would when one was part of
an intentional association. TMM that would be having sympathy
and respect for each other and acknowledging the responsibility
that in some way, each represents all the others.
Otherwise someone like, Sadam Hussein could
be an anthroposophist (of his own definition) and anything that
he does could be linked to his anthroposophical ties by anyone
who wants to make that connection.
TS
And nobody could stop that from happening.
Not the AS or anyone else. Freedom and independence has its price
and its risks. I, for one, am willing to pay the price for freedom.
seems more like a morass. When the anti-anthro
people start after you because "you associate with the same
stuff as Saddam" (not really) you have to eventually define
what is and what isn't anthro. to release yourself and anthro.
from the slander. Seems Back-ass-ward. Besides then you look
like an apologist, or at least that will be the first line of
rebuttal (ad nauseum into what this list looks like)
TS
What do you want? A Stalin structure like
the Church of Scientology?
LS
Personally i want to have breakfast in bed
every day and my own sauna at home. Seriously, I would want to
be part of an association of people that have a mutual sense
of respect and sympathy for our individual natures while also
balancing our individuality with a responsibilty to each other
as a group with a shared intention.
It seems like a foolish position to put
your own organisation in.
TS
What is the alternative? Iron discipline?
Lawsuits? Threats? Controlling people, writing reports about
them?
LS
Damn Tarjei you sure do gravitate to the repressive
expressions rhetoric quick. How about an agreement of mutual
respect?
Either they are not protecting agaainst
negative associations by allowing anyone to to do anything in
the name of anthroposophy and with no redress with that individual,
or they spend inordinate amounts of time jumping up and down
saying that doesn't represent anthroposophy.
TS
They have more productive things to do
than running around policing people.
LS
You seem to spend alot of time here on this
list having to explain and delineate the fine distinctions and
general accusations.
TS
They're more or less anarchists all of
them, whether they know it or not.
LS
That's really nice of you to say Tarj. What
if "they" (AS members I take it) are offended at being
called anarchists? Are you now the arbitor of who is and isn't
what?
TS
And anarchists don't act like prison wardens.
LS
I don't know Tarjei, you do seem to have an
ease with placing people in "cells" (boxes, pigeon
holes). (I know it is not as good a backhanded compliment as
Micheal Kopp could do but I'm still young and learning)
Cheers to you Tarjei
Luke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:36:17 EDT
There are so many threads going on this issue
that I am not citing anyone.
In 1984 I chose to sign a piece of paper and
became a Member of the Anthroposophical Society. I paid a sub,
which was voluntary but encouraged.
Rather later I decided to support my local
group and sent them a sub too - in return I got a newsletter.
I now live in Germany, but I still get the
newsletters from the AS in GB and the local group to which I
then belonged. I now pay nothing. I COULD transfer to the General
Anthroposophical Society, or to Germany.
Before 1984 I would have also called myself
an anthroposophist, even though I had not signed on the dotted
line. A spiritual organisation should have its roots in physical
membership, but the GAS does not ban people from calling themselves
anthroposophists who are not members.
I would also call myself a socialist, but
I was only for a short time a card carrying member of the university
Soc Soc!
My question to Tarjei and Luke is: where is
this thread going? Is this helping anyone at all, and has it
anything to do with waldorf-critics?
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:02:50 +0200
Bruce wrote:
My question to Tarjei and Luke is: where is this thread going?
Is this helping anyone at all, and has it anything to do with
waldorf-critics?
In my opinion, this thread is pure nonsense
as it is. We should teminate it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Who is an anthroposophist?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:17:09 +0200
I wrote:
But all anthroposophists I have encountered,
including AS members, have recognize me as an anthroposophist.
So why shouldn't you?
Luke wrote:
Because I define anthroposphists as those who are members
of the AS.
I'm involved in too many threads as it is,
taking up too much of my time. This is the dumbest.
The End
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: For Tarj
Date: 16 Apr 1999 14:13:15 -0400
I'm involved in too many threads as it
is, taking up too much of my time. This is the dumbest.
The End
I love you too Tarj.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: For Tarj
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:40:13 +0200
I'm involved in too many threads as it
is, taking up too much of my time. This is the dumbest.
The End
I love you too Tarj.
Welcome to my fan club.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"