: [steiner] Re: Success of anthroposophy
Regarding your three questions: For the hotness of the sun, I´m only aware of Steiner and Viktor Schauberger saying that it´s not hot. So I guess followers in their tradition are open for the sun not being hot, whereas the vast majority of people would consider it uttermost nonsense that the sun would not be hot
Something similar goes for the earth and its interior. For the issue of Darwinism, it´s likely that people in general think differently than the scientists generally does...
******* I chose those examples because they showed the dogmatism of so-called science when they are challenged.
RB: I understood what you meant. I just felt for writing something about it
You are right that our modern culture has never made any physical visit to the interior of the sun or the earth and that obviously it were not there to look when the developments of the organisms took place. Science is using extrapolations in time and space, and when you do this you have to be very careful and also allow different theories as long as everything is not proved beyond a doubt.
First, magnetism decreases in the presence of heat; yet we are told that the interior of the earth is hot and ALSO the center of a powerful magnetic field. The same goes for our sun. The contradiction is ignored. Moreover, sunspots appear darker because they are cooler than the rest of the sun's surface, and they are also the source of strong magnetic fields. If you look closely at any photographs of sunspots, it is obvious that they are holes, openings to the interior. The clear conclusion is that the surface of the sun is hot, but the interior cannot be.
There is a greater point than this however, which is simply that no one has physically been more than 5 miles into the 8000-mile thick earth, and no one has yet been even near to, much less inside, the sun. Therefore in the absence of direct knowledge a multitude of theories should be allowed, because they are all inferences from evidence, which could be a house of cards that is collapsed by other evidence in the future: but the current traitors to science who call themselves scientists don't allow any such thing, no debate. That's because they have manufactured a dogma to replace the Catholic Church's dogma, giving people false certainty to earn a living; it's much easier to see their dogmatism with the whole question of evolution theory, which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory and so seen firsthand, nor was anyone around to observe what happened thousands of years ago
RB: OK, I will think about what you said here next time I think about these scientific issue.
> but about the center and heart of our movement, the Goetheanum with its various sections for education, science, agriculture etc., which anyone really getting into anthroposophy anywhere would want to connect with, and I think wouldn't really be able to make a judgment about where our movement is today without seeing.
RB: Yes, and it would be even better if I had written a doctoral dissertation about the anthroposophic movement, before speaking about it
Yet, people seldom does that much research on things before speaking about them. Would it not be sad if ordinary people were not allowed to speak about things, without having perfect knowledge, provided they want to help or understand and not just provoke?
So what do you mean? Are you shutting out me your discussion partner from further discussion, because I did not visit Goetheanum?
*******Not at all, I was responding to you saying that whatever goes on there is irrelevant to your experience in Sweden. I'm saying it is not because every major anthroposophical activity coordinates with the center of our movement, and if you want to judge how effective a worldwide movement is, you have to look at it worldwide.
RB: OK, good. Maybe I did not express myself clearly when I wrote about Sweden. I meant that for me the local esoteric work in Sweden is most important since I live here. If some day I will become active in such a movement be it anthroposophy, theosophy, a Rosicrucian order or something else then what matters for me will be how it has developed itself here. When JUDGING a movement in total you have to look worldwide, so here I agree with you.
For my part I chose in my previous message to define success in terms of if an alternative movement had been assimilated by culture, i.e. by science, by the citizens, by the political administration etc. Then you can argue about in which order these comes
I made my guess on it, and you did yours. Are there any successful movements of these kinds? Well, in the past I come to think of e.g. democratic (voting rights etc) movements, women-rights movements etc, and in the last 50-60 years the environmental movement. Young people today can easily believe that the issues of environmental protection has always been on the political agendas (at least as something to strive for), but this is not the case. I once read a book (in Swedish) called "the forgotten environmental debate", where you can read that there was in the 50´s 60´s still a debate on if these things were something to take seriously, or if they were just hindrances of the technological evolution
Today this issue is assimilated in several western countries, but then there is of course other (moral) problems with this, that holds the progress back.
This is how I defined success, but it is of course a play of words, or at least a matter of definitions. A agree at least as seen from outside that anthroposophy has been much more successful than theosophy, Crowley, Gurdieff or what it now was that you mentioned
Than it can be argued if something more has to come for its future development. For my part I think I have said the most of what I can say from outside without going too much into speculations. I leave, however, the field free for other contributions on this topic, and maybe they will come.
// Robert B.