Re: [anthroposophy] anti-anthroposophy of the dogmatists
- rlloyd@... writes:
> I agree with you on this; it is a most perplexing situation. Nowhere and
> at no time in my 30+ years in anthroposophy - and in any of my other
> spiritual associations during that time - have I encountered such peculiar
> opinions as Starman voices here on this list.
Listen and learn, my dogmatic friend.
******I can imagine anyone hearing Steiner's original thinking and saying, Gee, I've been reading for 30 years and I've ever heard anything of this sort so it can't be true. Ever hear of something called the 6 preparatory exercises? One is called Openness. To new things.
> I have gone to some trouble to check Starman's credentials, as given on
> his website. As far as I can tell at this point, it seems to check out.
> most of the people on this list. So he can certainly speak as an
What the hell does THAT mean? Next you will be telling us that
Christed Jesus is not to be believed because he wasn't a certified
member of the Pharisees.
*******It just shows the mentality, Ron. I got one 'friendly' post from this guy, seeking info about me in order to try to discredit me personally. Then he went back into showing his true self. Pretty repugnant. Fortunately, I'd already seen his tirades against other people. Appointing themselves arbiters of what everyone else will be allowed to think is natural to some: they just do it habitually. Freedom of expression is out of the question to them. They're the type that makes the Society unbearable, but fortunately they leave it quickly because everyone won't follow them.
Steiner was right about this prohibition of freedom in thinking emanating mainly from the US. I know others will see through them quickly so they don't need attention. My opposition is only aroused when they pretend to be using anthroposophy to back up their intolerant opinions. I want to make clear these are not anthroposophists.
Obviously some people have some big lack in their lives and want to fill it by writing venomous poision pen letters on the internet when they keep losing the debate of ideas.
> Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to enjoy the diversity and anticipate learningYeah, sure...uh huh...right on, right on.
> something from someone with a well-informed alternate point of view.
> But the whole problem with Starman derives from his adversarial attitude -
> an attitude which is not necessary, an adoption of which prevents __from
> the outset__ any resolution of the difficult matters often under
"Dis is it 'Lizebeth...I'm comin home honey" (Fred Sanford grabs his heart
in utter incredulity as Steven adversarially decries Starman's adversarial attitude)
******Yes, I'm sure it's amusing to readers that these angry folks ascribe 'adversarial' attitudes only to their opponents.
> This, to a very large extent, is a high-class group of people......."Yes, quite," he says patting (not wiping) the bouillabaisse from his goatee.
*****Why do I suspect 'high-class' means 'agreeing with me'?
> Starman and sidekick Ron are right on one thing.......
Steven,....... I was under the impression that Starman was MY sidekick?
(elbow, elbow, jab, jab :-)
******Well, who's got top billing?
Ron and I don't agree on a lot of things. We just both agree on opposition to the lock-step regimentation of thinking perpetuated by this attempt to pervert anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy means free creative thinking about the world and life. It can't be regimented.
To anyone new to it, these things where people have a political bias and then try to use Steiner to back up their prejudices have nothing to do with anthroposophy.
- Final version as submitted - with the wrong date - is appended below.
Apologies to Daniel Bernard. I know I have failed him in not making the text
more understandable. The implications contained are not yet fully clear to
me and so the words cannot but be misty.
In writing RP2 I spent some days considering Joksu's Monads I post on 30th
"This First Secret can be called Father. And what will the manifestation be
like? The best possible, "Ideal Living Picture" of the coming evolution,
"First" Universal Cosmic Christ! This Cosmic Christ is then "reflected" or
"echoed" in the various Solar Logoses; it is like the great "I AM"
resounding and creating itself "across the universe". .... etc
This was in relation to <4> paragraph 2, below "In the beginning
willingness, the possibility of all knowledge and all content, is alone with
itself in its own comprehensive substance from which to make the world.
Putting forth its own ceaseless willingness many willingnesses are created."
I ended up removing the phrase "became his own son" from <6> so as not to
confuse the non-manifesting Father with willingness itself. Since
willingness is manifest then it is Christ and Christ is the creator rather
than the Father who retains his place as the unmoved mover.
Having sent the presentation I then turned to read the Celestial
Hierarchies. (It was not an act of arrogance not to read them first but
because reading and thinking have become rather different things for me,
requiring different kinds of effort, and the three times I tried to read I
could not bear it. So I decided to write first and then compare. Reading
still occurs in the fore-brain whereas thinking, though still in the head,
is no longer so specifically located but there is an accompanying sensation
over both parietal lobes equally. Hence the question about the brain and the
sky.) How disappointed I was. There was nothing like the content I had
expected. The penny dropped immediately. Dionysius was a man living in the
age when human consciousness had not yet evolved to intelligence but was
still striving for it. Intellect was Spirit for him whereas for us
spirituality is of the nature of the will.
The relegation of Truth to the second hierarchy reveals this most clearly.
This was for me the most significant discovery of the writing. Though I had
seen RS write similar things here I rediscovered it for myself, realised a
Best Wishes to All
KARL JASPERS FORUM
Part 2: Cosmology
by Maurice McCarthy
20th December 2003, posted
This is a continuation of 55-C79 placed here because of its content which is
pertinent to Prof. Leslie's recent book (1) and his long term interest in
cosmology and cosmogenesis (2). I have tried to deliver this article as a
stand-alone submission. Though I do not expect it to be acceptable to either
party, in itself it bridges the evident gap between Prof. Müller and Prof.
Leslie's views as discussed in the commentaries to this TA.
0-D is the proposition that the origin of knowledge is an undefined content
confronted by an indefinable activity. Consideration of this stand-off leads
to the law of explanation, that the content can only be understandable if it
is inherently structured by the act, i.e.
c + a => k iff c = f(a) .......... E
("an action 'a' upon a content 'c' yields explanation ('k' for knowledge)
if, and only if, the content is a function of the act." 55-C79) and this
implies that if there is a world then 'a', the act of knowledge, is the
world creator. Strictly speaking all language or symbol or art form used to
characterise 'c' and 'a' is erroneous - but we must use words to
communicate. 'c' is best described as a meaningless and therefore
qualitatively homogenised manifold when compared to the distinguished
manifold which we have in everyday perception. 'a' is more difficult as we
cannot rightly yet distinguish thinking and perceiving, the only two ways in
which we know anything. "Act of knowledge" is too abstract, it gives nothing
to hold onto, and "Active mind" now has a too-differentiated a meaning or
has manifold implications but in "willingness to understand" we have a vague
but singular term and this singularity is necessary because there are no
reasons why it should be a one or more than one, except that by E it must
exist without relation to any other because it precedes 'c'. It is the
hyper-singular and hyper-manifold, the One of Parmenides combined with the
Flow of Heraclitus in an unchanging movement of its own willingness, and it
is that which structures one and many into definite beings. So far as it is
possible to justify the branding or characterisation of that which is
inherently beyond all then this is attempted next.
In the case of human knowledge the equation E becomes subjectively qualified
or 'a' must reduce itself to distinctively human
c + a.h => k iff c = f(a.h) ..... H
Human consciousness is a reductive phenomenon, in an anti-materialist sense
of those words. Human reality, however its independence is constituted, is
therefore always in correspondence to human consciousness. The same remark
would apply to any being's reality. This, then, is a justification of the
term "willingness to understand", or simply "willingness" as I shall call
it, as a label for the act of knowledge - because our world content analyses
to an undifferentiated, meaningless manifold then the corresponding activity
is willingness. This willingness is so accepting that it imposes no
preconceived values before understanding.
If the content confronting human willingness is a reality then
c = reality = f(a.h) = truth and percept
This states the correspondence theory of truth. Truth is a consciously
created structure or function, whereas percepts are unconsciously structured
by us (according to the subjectivity of our nature) so that they, at first,
present themselves to our minds as simply given. Without this division
knowledge, as we experience it, could not occur. The conscious human act of
knowing reality is to re-create its inherent truth thereby restoring the
wholeness of reality, that which our subjectivity tore into two pieces by
the act of perception. Perception does not yield reality on its own. What
distinguishes different perceptual activities is what they eliminate from
willingness. Human consciousness, the state of our possessing knowledge, is
necessarily a dual phenomenon.
Another profound implication of H is that it is impossible to know that to
which we are not genuinely related so that there may be percepts to which
there is no explanation. (This is a reversal of my previous opinion.) On the
other hand knowledge is illimitable because every new percept or concept
adds to it.
The task of this submission to the forum is begin from 'a', from
willingness, and allow it to lead us it to 'a.h' or human intelligence as we
would recognise it in our everyday lives. We have a known beginning in the
analytic necessity of willingness and a 'known' ending in everyday
experience, a spatio-temporal world filled with perceptual content.
In the beginning willingness, the possibility of all knowledge and all
content, is alone with itself in its own comprehensive substance from which
to make the world. Putting forth its own ceaseless willingness many
willingnesses are created. Each is distinguished and has the others for
content. Unlike the original content of E, or H for humanity, these contents
are auto-relational and are so because in the very core of each, in their
utmost being, is the willingness to accept content. Each knows the others so
immediately and so completely their knowledge is absolute, so that the only
word to describe it is "love". In their absolute knowledge thinking and
perceiving have not separated but instead there is conperceptuality or
intuition. They just know immediately and fully. Their relation is of
absolute harmony. Yet in this divine realm all relations are necessarily
beings and beings are all conscious relationals simply because it is the
realm of conperceptuality. Therefore harmony is the second class of
existence. The relation between love and harmony objectifies their ground as
the class of beings which is will. The seat of god is the product of love
With breath-taking drama we are plunged into the Celestial Hierarchies of
Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (3). As if by magic a religio-philosophic
speculation of a kind unpopular in the scientific community for centuries is
thrust upon us. Yet either these beings exist as the preconditions of human
intelligence or else humanity can never know ultimate answers (0-D as the
root of *all* knowledge has failed) and we must retreat into pragmatism for
ever more. Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?
On the other hand this orthogonal development, since it descends to
perceptible spatio-temporal experience or reality, should (and does,
eventually) end up by leading to observable and measurable predictions. Some
may be observable this century. If this did not happen then it fails to meet
the standards we are accustomed to in our finest knowledge and therefore it
should be rightly dismissed as fantastic and idle.
To call willingness the creator is one sense an error. Time has not yet come
into being. It is better to use Plotinus's word "emanator". Nor does the
emanator know anything. It is almost an insult to think that the emanator
needs to know anything. If their were something foreign or mysterious in any
way to the emanator it would be, in a sense, its equal. Hyper-ignorant and
beyond knowledge willingness emanates beings whose very existence is
absolute knowledge of each other in their most essential ground, which is
willingness itself. There is one condition which would allow the emanator to
become a knower - namely if it descended itself, became its own one-begotten
and in this manner joined each of the ranks of being in turn in order to
know their condition through their own experiences.
Notice here that, by H, since there is no human consciousness, not even
anything resembling it, then it is utterly impossible for us to know whether
or not these beings have had a temporal development such as we have. If they
did have one then it has no relation whatever to our own experience and it
is in theory, in principle, only possible for us to know that which conforms
The divine classes are the great constants of the universe. The fates, the
lords of karma who ensure reharmonisation of discordance. The beings below
them are "contained" by their nature so that these lower but sublime beings
are a condition upon the existence of the divine something like the lower
orders of nature are conditions upon our own being. Living in a material
world demands that we accomodate ourselves to it, so too the divine ranks
accomodate what is not quite of their own nature as the graded intensity of
the chain of being descends toward the human.
Just as there was no necessity for the first emanations to occur so too
there is no necessity for the divine hierarchies to emanate further. They
can emanate because their essence is that of the original willingness. It is
by the same grace that they do so. The expression or emanation of absolute
knowledge is wisdom. The beings of wisdom form the next class of being. The
great difference at these sublime levels is that harmony is lost.
Harmony cracks into reciprocation so that relation begins to separate from
being. This constitutes the origin of truth in the sense we are familiar
with. Truth actually is the relation between the beings of wisdom, hence
their name. Equally the origins of perception, as distinct from conception
are here. In this sublime separation of matter and form it is possible for
design and intelligence to begin to appear too. Intelligence, "choosing
between", of beings or realisation of their relations is akin to design, the
projection of relation into a matter. The image of the emanator as a whole
(headed by willingness, with a heart of love and a life of harmony in a body
or seat of divine will) is beyond any need of design but has the grace to
allow all things to live in its warmth. For their function of dominating
design the beings of wisdom are called the celestial house-masters.
Wisdom has been placed into the cosmos, into the order of what is, and the
reciprocation between its beings subtends all alteration and change as such.
The beings of movement form the next rank of existence. With movement time
is in its first conception. As these beings strive to greater truth and
harmony they form a condition upon the divine classes who cannot bear
disharmony in what *is* only through they themselves. Law and necessity
equally make their appearance. The beings of movement constitute the good,
the striving for truth, and also here are the roots evil as disharmony
deepens. Evil is not evil to the divine but only to us. Evil is disharmony
from a lower, more subjective point of view - one which does not see that
the emanator gave rise to both what is called good and what is called evil.
This lower view has no grip on divine harmony.
As disharmony increases the relations between beings become more and more
tenuous until they become related only by their separation, which means by
space itself. Wisdom combined with time gives rise to space in the same
movement as it grants full independence to beings. This is reality or
thinghood and its independence is the power of form. The irreducibility of
all perceptual form and the measurability forms comes back to these beings
prior to any emanation of matter. The beings of form are the realisation of
the beautiful and the ugly.
Having reached spatio-temporal reality filled with perception and
independent, objective being we can easily see human-like being in the
"space", or better the counterspace, between here and now. The cosmos does
not call for explanation but, rather, the willingness to explain calls
forth the cosmos. Thus objective reality proceeds from the subjective and
not vice versa. We just got things the wrong way around.
We have not reached humanity as such but only the first beginnings of
humanity and there is still a huge gap to descend to matter and coordinate
to temporal development. At this point I elect to break off because it is a
suitable occasion to produce a systematic presentation of the forms of
(1) Infinite Minds by John Leslie, OUP 2001. For an introductory preamble
(2) Leslie, John, "Cosmology and Theology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 1998 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Summer 2003
Edition has a dynamic content so this is the permanent archive:
(3) There is an English translation of the Celestial Hierarchies in the
archive of Arthur Versluis's electronic journal "Esoterica" at:
This e-mail message may contain privileged/confidential information.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the indicated
addressee (or responsible for delivery to such a person)
you shall neither read nor retain this message, copy or distribute it to
anyone, or use this e-mail for any other purpose. In such cases, please
destroy the message immediately and notify the sender by return e-mail.