Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49996Re: Love of Truth (was: 'Skepticism', or a Clash of Worldviews)

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Apr 6, 2012
      A good example of the love of the lie in Staudi case is his ongoing claim that Steiner's conception and understanding of the East was 'orientalist'. This expression 'orientalism' in Steiner's day, and still in some parts of the academy today, simply meant an honest interest in the Orient. Post Edward Said's famous book of the same name in the late 70s, it acquired a new meaning of the distortion of the true reality of the Orient by narrower Western perspectives, such as that given through colonialism. This negative meaning is the one Staudi has in mind when he characterises Steiner's thought by this term. As I showed before Christmas, this is a lie. I showed then that Steiner's conception of the orient, for example of the culture of Hindu India and Buddhism, matches their own understanding, as given by their sacred literature, legends and festivals.

      In fact, it is Staudi that has the 'orientalist' perspective on the East for the reason Steiner points to in this lecture:

      "I have frequently emphasised and must here emphasise again that the life of Buddha is to be understood as the Buddhists understand it and not as it is interpreted by materialistic historians. We must first come ourselves to the recognition that Buddha became Buddha by passing through a great many incarnations; that he became first a Bodhisattva. And then having been born as the son of King Suddhodana, ascended in the 29th year of his life to the dignity of a Buddha. We must know that the ascension of the Bodhisattva to the stage of Buddha means in actual fact that such an individual has his very last incarnation on Earth in the life he lives as Buddha. When he has become a Buddha, he never returns again into an earthly body, but works in other than earthly worlds. This must be quite clear to us from the beginning. We must know for an absolute fact that the Buddha by his exaltation from Bodhisattva to Buddha rose to a cosmic dignity and does not require in the course of his further evolution ever to descend again into a physical earthly human being."

      Man in the Light of Occultism, Theosophy and Philosophy, lecture 9

      It is Staudi, not Steiner, who understands Buddha as the Buddhists do, for instance by taking account of the meaning and distinction between a Bodhisattva and a Buddha seriously: to understand the concept of a Bodhisattva requires that once take the concept of reincarnation seriously. Staudi, and his cohort on WC, have spent the best part of a decade scoffing at reincarnation. He, by his example, denigrates the underpinnings of the Buddhist world-view and, with that, the world-view itself. And he does this because his Westernising, 'Orientalist' world-view is that of positivism, scepticism, and scientism, that don't take the spiritual seriously.

      This ongoing love of the lie, that Staudi has demonstrated in so many facets of his work now, is why his body of work as a whole is unimportant, and why no 'Steiner defenders', or anyone else that takes the spiritual seriously, listens to him.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > Looking through the archives, per chance, I came across Tarjei's posting on 'Love and its Meaning in the World'. This is, in my opinion, one of the core lectures in anthroposophy, one I read soon after coming across Steiner's thought for the first time in my mid-20s. I particularly noticed this passage again, which seems so pregnant with significance for our times:
      >
      > "Wisdom steeped in love, which at once furthers the world and leads the world to Christ — this love of wisdom also excludes the lie. For the lie is the direct opposite of the actual facts and those who yield themselves lovingly to the facts are incapable of lying. The lie has its roots in egoism — always and without exception. When, through love, we have found the path to wisdom, we reach wisdom through the increasing power of self-conquest, through selfless love. Thus does man become a free personality. The evil was the sub-soil into which the light of love was able to shine; but it is love that enables us to grasp the meaning and place of evil in the world. The darkness has enabled the light to come into our ken. Only a man who is free in the real sense can become a true Christian."
      >
      > Love of wisdom (truth) is the path to truth! And love of wisdom above our own ideas of wisdom: all of us have ideas about the truth but they are often only our own partial view of the situation, influenced by our personality, upbringing, predilections and etc. Loving the truth above our idea of it allows us bit by bit to let go of such partialities. This is to accept that at the deepest levels we all suffer from Socratic ignorance and recognising this is to begin to learn. To have a love of the truth and a life dedicated to actively knowing the truth is to be a member of the intelligensia.
      >
      > What I've noticed about the WC is that no one there loves the truth. Some of them have a view of parts of the truth, that accords with their political ideals and philosophical pre-conceptions, but they are not interested in expanding that view to encompass the ever-widening, open-ended perspective that such a love reveals. So, as an example, someone like Diana apparently has a self-conception of being a literate, intelligent member of the intelligentsia (she describes herself as being, unlike the people here she denigrates, not being 'anti-intellectual'). But her philosophical perspective is, from her behaviour on WC, that of positivism and scientism, that de-values the inner life (for example, in the way she's happy to characterise the whole of the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages') and a priori dismisses the spiritual as being no more than 'people's beliefs'. She loves her conception of the truth (the egotism that Steiner refers to), that she finds comfortable and unchallenging, rather than truth itself. Hence her self-conception does not match reality and she is far from being either against 'anti-intellectualism' or a member of the intelligentsia.
      >
      > And to the extent that she proclaims her partial truth as one that is sufficiently comprehensive that it excludes, for instance, anthroposophy, she is following the love of the lie. In a recent exchange, she claimed that no one here had tried to or was interested in answering Peter Staudenmaier's arguments and that PS was 'respectful' of Steiner's ideas. These claims are both very obvious lies; no one could claim such obvious lies as truth except someone interested in their own idea of truth above truth itself. And because such a person loves their idea of truth more than truth, and so defends the distorted facts it supports, they end up loving those facts. They end up loving the lie and its expression in the world. Love of the lie, as we've seen over the years on WC, and in spades in the current 'war of world-views' being prosecuted, leads to *hatred* of the truth (as something that, subconsciously, challenges the narrower truth). As this group, as people that find value in Steiner's ideas, espouse a wider conception of truth, one beyond positivism and scientism for instance, than WC, this hatred has evidently flowed out into hatred of us, and is why Diana and co (and Staudi, in his more indirect, subtle mode) are unable to refrain from insulting us. Love or hate, that's the choice. But as to love is to let live, Tarjei's bumper sticker seems correct, and it's only an action of self-reform that could change the WC members' relationship to truth - though outsiders can and should point to the way-markers that they have found that can be a guide - and convert it to a relationship that values dispassionate love of truth above one's own partial view of it.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > I was feeling a bit glum after posting the 'war of the world-views' as
      > > I don't like war and reading the confrontation on those sites feels like
      > > I've been in one.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Tarjei
      > >
      >
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic