Thanks Mike and Tarjei for the thumbs up! Mike, I had to walk over your reply to Staudemeir s assertion. There is certainly a moral and even emotional aspectMessage 1 of 62 , Feb 1, 2004View SourceThanks Mike and Tarjei for the thumbs up!
Mike, I had to "walk over" your reply to Staudemeir's assertion. There is
certainly a moral and even emotional aspect to the consideration of any aspect of
science. However, I am certain that Dr. Steiner is more capable than any of
us of refuting anyone's assertion of his work being "unscientific". It's just a
matter of pinning the opponent down with his own definitions.
By the way - did you see the list of definitions that I just sent from
"Journal for Theoretics?"
Really read them!! Wow! think about the implications!
To repeat from the website with MY EMPHASIS!!:
Science: the field of study which tries to describe and understand the
nature of the universe in whole or part. The field of study or discipline that we
call Science is spelled with a capital "S" as it is a proper noun in this use
while science with a small "s" is the application of this discipline.
theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but
not to the point of near certainty.
universe: that which exists and in its entirety. This includes all that
exists whether it can be perceived or not.
whole: something that permeates the universe at large. e.g. gravity.
OK - so, if gravity is not sense perceptible, except by its effects, yet is
considered a scientific fact (or at least a justifiable theory), then an angel
can be considered a fit subject for scientific inquiry if, in spite of its
being supersensible (not able to be perceived) one can ascribe to it and record
phenomena that support its existence. Right?
Someone's not LIKING the word "angel" is no more a reason to discount its
scientific validity or lack of validity than someone's not liking the word
Remember those burned at the stake for the word "geocentric!"
Was down to the Steiner book store in Pasadena and found a few lectures and a few books. Wanted to share something from the lecture Geographic Medicine / TheMessage 62 of 62 , Apr 9, 2005View SourceWas down to the Steiner book store in Pasadena and found a few
lectures and a few books. Wanted to share something from the lecture
Geographic Medicine / The Secret of the Double
page: 2 - 3
"These things must be considered if we are to speak today about an
anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Anyone speaking out of
knowledge of this science knows the objections that must arise today
by the hundreds and thousands. He already knows these objections,
because doubt is felt today not only concerning the specific truths
and results of this spiritual science; there is also doubt that
knowledge of any kind can be aquired concerning the realm with which
anthroposophy occupies itself. The possibility of developing
conceptual beliefs in the soul, general conceptual beliefs about the
realm of the eternal, is certainly still ackowledged as justified by
many today; but it is generally considered something dreamy or
sentimental; to believe that a really factual knowledge can be
developed about the facts that can be drawn from the sense world
concerning the immortal and eternal in the nature of the human being.
This is particularly the case among those who believe themselves to
be forming their judgements out of the presently recognized mode of
I would like to touch very briefly on the fact that this
anthroposophically oriented spritual science has no wish to be
sectarian. It is completley misunderstood by anyone who believes that
it wishes to arise in the way some new kind of religious faith is
founded. It has no such wish. It wishes to arise today as a necesary
result of the world view brought by natural scientific developement,
a general, publicly accepted conception among the widest circles of
humanity. This natural scientific developement today supplies so many
concepts, which are in their turn the source of feelings and
sensations. It provides the concepts for the most widely held world
view. This natural scientific mode of observation sets itself the
task of examining and explaining what is yielded to the outer sense,
of examining what is acessible to human understanding by way of the
natural laws about facts given to the outer senses.
Spiritual science in the anthroposophical sense finds itself in
another position. (other than looking at things from birth, dz)And by
its point of departure it calls forth a vague opposition, opposition
without people being conscious of it; one could say that it calls
forth and unconscious oppositon, an instinctive oppostion. Such
opposition is often much more effective than the opposition that is
clearly recongized, clearly thought through. In order to arrive at
conceptions at all, an anthroposophically oriented spiritual science
must not begin now with the general hazy concepts of spirit: to
arrive at spiritual facts, it must make death its starting point. It
thereby stands from the outset, you could say, in fundamental
opposition to what is preferred today, namely to procceeding from
birth, youth, growth and the progress of developemeny. Death
encroaches upon life. And if you keep in touch with contemporary
scientific literature, you can find everywhere that the conscientious
scientist holds the view that death as such cannot be inserted in the
series of natural scientific concepts in the same sense as other
The spiritual scientist must make death his actual starting point,
death, the cessation, actually the opposite of birth. How death and
all that is related to it encroaches upon life in the widest sense is
the basic question. Death terminates what is perceptible to the
senses; death dissolves what is becoming, what is developing before
the senses. By the way that death encroaches on life, it can be
concieved of as having no part in what is working and flourishing
here in the sense world, springing forth and producing life. This is
what yeilds the opinion that nothing can be known about what is
concealed by death, as it were, cloaked by death. (within certain
limits this opinion is perfectly comprehensible, though totally
unjustifiable.) And it is actually from this corner of human feeling
that the objections rear up their heads, objections that obviously
can be broughy up against things that are results of a science esitll
still in its youth today. For spiritual science is young and for
precisely these reasons just referrred to, the spirtual scientist is
in quite a different position from that of the natural scientist,
even when speaking abouy things in the sphere of his own research.
The spiritual scientist cannot proceed in exactly the same was as the
natural scientist, who poses some fact and then proves it on grounds
by which everyone is convinced: that it can be seen. The spiritual
scientist however speaks about what cannot be percieved by the
senses. Hence, in speaking about the results of his research he is
always obliged to indicate how such results can be reached.
Those people who have not taken knowledge as something that falls
into their laps from outide, those who have wrestled with knowledge,
wrestled with truth , have always at least certain experiences at
these limits of human congnition. Here it must be noted that times
change, that the evolution of humanity undergoes changes. Not so very
long ago, the most outstanding thinkers and those struggling for
knowledge, when they stood before boundaries of this kind, thought
that one must remain there. Those of you in the audience who have
often heard me speak here know how little it is my habit to touch on
personal matters. When the personal has a connection, however, one
may venture to refer it briefly. I may say that what I have to say
about experiences of this sort at the boundaries of cognition is the
result of more than thirty years of spiritual research. And it was
more than thirty years ago that these very problems, these tasks,
these riddles that arise at the boundaries of cognition, made a
significant impression on me."
Well, that is a pretty good description of what it is like to think
past what has been given to us: instead of starting with what we can
see and know, we start at the dying point. How amazing this man was.
It is really clear from all the books that he has written and all the
lectures in print what a genius he was in the regular everyday field
of man let alone in the everyday spiritual fields undiscovered by