Re: [anthroposophy] Right thinking about reality: Ahrimanic vs. Spiritual Science
- *******Yes, that's the problem: accepting the ideas of Ahrimanic science makes it quite difficult to think in terms of spiritual science. One has to overcome the brainwashing and reach quite new ways of thinking.
>>>The cousin to brainwashing is reactivity and the inability examine something anew without the burden of old systems and concepts especially a type that falls outside the "box" of "spiritual science". I only have to point to the work of the Waldorf Critics List forum- the harsh opponents there have made mincemeat out of Anthrosophy and Waldorf by rationally and scientifically examining the "spiritual science" therein. I am not suggesting they are correct and they often take issues of context but the "science" part of "spiritual science" is very wobbly outside of these AP oriented groups. And its not a matter of semantics or right thinking (without Ahrimanic influences).*******It certainly is. These people think they know all about science and their thoughts are so filled with confidence---and Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn demolished their posturing 50 years ago. This is why they so quickly descend into vicious ad hominem attacks, because they need to defend their neurotic belief-systems. To accept what spiritual science reveals means one must question all manner of things blindly accepted hitherto.
An example: the heart is a pump. Steiner said it is not. At first sight this seems indefensible. Look into the matter, though, and you find that the blood is circulating in the developing human embryo long before any heart forms, that the heart is a VALVE, not a pump, that it is the circulation that drives the heart, not the other way around.
Now look a little further, as inventor Ralph Marinelli of Detroit did, and you enter a George Orwell world with the discovery that virtually every drawing you see of a human heart has been falsified. The very thin walls of one part which could not possibly support the pressure alleged to be in there, have been drawn ten times their actual thickness in American Heart Association drawings and literally everywhere you see a depiction. This is because the true anatomy does NOT support the theory. Few know what the reality is, and instead reproduce the 'official' drawings.
Thus a circular illusion is created, where people don't question the mecahnical theory---and if you asked them to, they would recall a false drawing they saw which appears to support the theory.
Jeff, you're welcome to criticize anthrosophical scientists and their work. But why not go on the anthropos-science list and do so, instead of here, if you want to judge what they really know and don't know?
It seems to me, from long exposure, that it's their critics whose thinking refuses to get out of the box.