25472Re: Steiner on Steiner
- May 2, 2006--- In email@example.com, dottie zold
> I'm imagining that the way our teachers nature friend
> interacted with him as the emmesary, which then led to
> the Master, is how the CC Church works its services
> out in a way as well as the readers of First Class.
> It is said that they work to be devoid of personality
> so that something can come in and speak in a certain
> manner when they are in those roles. And it seems that
> our teacher set it up in this manner according to how
> it happened for him. I had never heard that he said
> the other had said a thing without enthusiasm which
> then created a lot in another.
> I think when we speak of Master are we talking about
> Christian Rosenkruez? It would seem we are if the
> letter M is used as a name.
These notes for Schure are important to be given here, now; right as
we are again experiencing the critical viewpoint of a materialist.
Now, whether this materialist sides with Kant and believes that
a 'ding-an-sich' actually exists behind the world of sense
perception and logical cognition, or is a strict logical empiricist
like Hume, who greatly influenced Kant, is not the point. Either
will do quite well for a materialist.
The point is that these notes to Schure give a very lucid and
rational description of Rudolf Steiner's own path of development
from three aspects. (1) is the philosophical or epistemological
path which I am transcribing now, and contains a very important
final summation that serves to set the path of anthroposophical
spiritual science; (2) gives the psychological aspect centered on
the rosicrucian path; and (3) is the cosmological or evolutionary
aspect in a certain brief detail.
So, by September of 1907 Steiner's system has developed to a well-
integrated trinity of philosophical-psychological-cosmological
proportions, and thus very cogent for the uptake. My interest in
presenting this biographical sketch concerns this cogency, as well
as the fact that it helps to embellish Steiner's autobiography,
which terminates before the midpoint of that year, 1907. And, of
course, to demonstrate that spiritual science is a study that people
strive for because they choose to do so, just as there are those
that don't. It's a personal thing; something that resides in the
soul of the aspirant. And some critics don't even believe in a
soul, or a spirit in man because it's not outwardly visible to their
critical eye of angular representation.
- << Previous post in topic