Spiritual Science and its Steiner
- Since neither of us are scientists, and I for one do not pretend to be one, I will move on to subjects less combative and filled with defensive bias. We could go on and on in dissecting the nature and present value of AP butt the main issue for me is: we were left with a spiritual lifejacket that does not fit all and never will. I will continue to use what is available but I cannot become a true believer or defender of poor communication style, obscurity, orarrogance.The only problem I have with your general positions and that of some others is respect of others. There is a constant dismissal of others in science or any other field that does not match AP standards or world view. I believe there is purpose and meaning in all human activities even though it may be simple or conventional or "materialistic" in nature. This is understandable as I read Steiner at times as he fought back and sometimes ridiculed and dismissed opponents or scientists of his time. As in selections in From Lucifer to Limestone (I am reading now- questions and answers from workers to Steiner.) he tends to dismiss anyone outside the circle of his knowledge as fools or ignorant of the "truth". Unfortunately I cannot be so bold and confident. And we can see at times here some taking on the mantle of this attitude. The raw truth is: unless one knows from full direct experience of a fact as found in AP, one does not "know" anything but is intuiting. We can talk about the ethers or orgone all day but unless one has direct sensory experience (on a daily basis) of its nature, one does not know about their properties. This carries over to all areas occult investigation. My only concern is striving for a genuine spiritual scientific attitude- assume and judge nothing; speculate little; and be patient for knowledge and inspiration.Jeff----- Original Message -----From: DRStarman2001@...Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 12:13 PMSubject: Re: [anthroposophy] spaceships and Atlantis and Steiner and the Devil in disguise>>I don't know what science you are reading but whether one calls it morphogenetic fields or formative forces or ethers, 99% of all scientists have dismissed this concept outright because the Morley experiments with ethers etc...<<
*******I could care less what 99% of scientists think, as could anyone who thinks for himself. Truth is not decided by majority vote. They dismiss morphogenetic fields without ever looking into them, or sensitive crystallization, or radionics, all for the same reason---because they follow the herd. Once the herd starts accepting them, say in the twenty-first century (as the germ theory of disease, continental drift or acupuncture were not accepted in the nineteenth but are now), they'll accept it all too.
>>>my argument with those using scientific methods and thinking.. My point is: you can't use conventional science in one case and then move against it in another case...
*******You are making the all-too-common mistake of confusing SCIENCE (that is, reasoning from observation, the process of thinking) with what C.S. Lewis called 'Scientism' (the recitation of the present-day theories of science, of 'what experts have concluded'). Anyone can use the former without agreeing in the slightest with the latter. In fact the only thing true science knows is that the latter WILL change. No one is forbidden from reasoning because his thoughts come to a different conclusion using the methods of science. Do you think one must either think only along their lines, or else throw out thinking altogether? Bull.
>>If an object cannot travel at high speeds and not burn up according to our understanding of the present laws of physics (your argument first), so be it. But then one can not jump over the fence and support borderline science as in Sheldrake's work or in the Lehrs. Or maybe you can.<<
******You obviously don't even know what that work consists of, only that the laws of physics cited in the former instance are accepted while those in the latter are not. I can indeed use both because I know both. There is no comparison with people who, if you point a microphone in their face and ask them about Reich or Sheldrake or Levity, will say it's all poppycock even though they're hearing about it for the first time from you (and incidentally, thereby showing they are NOT really scientists: for as Michael Faraday put it, "Nothing is impossible in science: there are only probabilities".)
Final correction of fact: the Michaelson-Morley experiment did not disprove Steiner's ethers. It disproved the idea of a SINGLE and STATIONARY ether---which the mobile and changeable ethers definitely are NOT.
List owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.