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

The future of spiritual science and other alternative disciplines

Expand Messages
  • elfuncle
    As an initial point of reference, I would cite the quote from Friedrich Rittelmeyer s book, Rudolf Steiner Enters My Life ,
    Message 1 of 39 , Mar 29, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      As an initial point of reference, I would cite the quote from Friedrich Rittelmeyer's book, Rudolf Steiner Enters My Life , which adorns the front page of this forum.
      " 'Do you really think that Anthroposophy will succeed in becoming more than a strong impulse in our civilisation? Do you think it can really strike through as new culture?' - He became amazingly serious. 'If humanity does not accept what is now being offered, it will have to wait for another hundred years,' he said. He seemed to be deeply moved. It was not merely emotion, but something like the thunder of the Judgment. He said no more. Never before or since have I seen how the soul of a whole age can tremble in one man."
      These words were spoken in 1915, and as 2015 is approaching, it has been my theory for quite some time that if anthroposophy is going mainstream on the world stage, bringing about a major epistemological cultural paradigm shift because of historical and evolutionary inevitability and necessity -- if it is indeed the case that because a century has passed since this impulse was suppressed and ignored by the mainstream, it can no longer be held back, this explains why extreme hostility to the movement has arisen during the past couple of decades in a new form (compared to fascist and religious opposition of the 1920's), with increasing fervor in certain quarters.

      On the other hand, I have always been skeptical about anthroposophy becoming popular in the mainstream culture, because apart from the purely scientific aspects of it and some of its cosmology, its core world view rests upon the fundamental premise that all existence arises out of suffering. And this is one message humanity does not want to hear. And by "humanity" I mean, of course, the entertainment and infotainment consuming masses, the majority. So if anthroposophy goes mainstram, I have always suspected it will be a watered-down version where the above-mentioned fundamental premise is surgically removed from the body of knowledge.

      But in spite of all this, a paradigm shift related to anthroposophy and similar modern movements arising from 19th century occultism are inevitably coming, and the question is how this will influence present-day institutions, schools and universities and so on.

      The present-day paradigm shift, which seems to be in an early stage at the moment, may be comparable to the seventeenth century, when the philosophies and sciences of the Enlightenment replaced the medieval Scholastic disciplines that held monopoly in the universities. Because the universities were dominated by Aristotelian physics, Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy, and Scholasticism, considering everything else heresy, those who pursued modern science, especially Isaac Newton and other Cartesians, were forced to create new, independent institutions. The Royal Society of London was founded in 1660 and granted a Royal Charter by King Charles II. It is characteristic that progressive movements were often sponsored or spearheaded by royalty and gentry -- not only in science, but also in social movements like anarchism.

      So at that time, new independent institutions were established independent of the universities. Today, we have a similar situation with a wide range of studies, disciplines, and practices ranging from alternative medicine and biodynamic agriculture to various aspects of anthroposophy, which entails renewed interest in Lemuria and Atlantis and so on, not to mention instances of new clairvoyance, especially in so-called psychic children.

      The study of anthroposophy per se and explorations and experimentation related to it are primarily pursued in anthroposophically oriented institutions or totally independently of any organization. To the extent that alternative medicine, for instance, is organized, it is often sponsored by royalty, especially British royalty. When univiersities show an interest in taking up New Age type of studies, hard core skeptics and materialists show signs of shock and alarm, and as time goes by we're likely to hear a lot more and ever louder protests of this nature.

      But there are obvious reasons for this development, namely that the new spirituality is beginning to replace the materialistic scientism that has taken such a strong hold of mainstream culture beginning in the seventeenth century and especially since the 1840's. This scientism has become so pervasive and domineering that empirical experience is being swamped by it. The individual is incessantly bombarded with propaganda claiming that researchers in neurology, anthropology, psychology, statistics and so on know and understand a lot more about our own empirical life experiences than what we know and understand ourselves, that the individual has absolutely no authority with regard to his or her own consciousness. Consciousness is basically a set of illusions, and the sciences can define, analyze and explain every single one of them. Brain surgeons have established that the 'I' experience is nothing but a neurology-induced illusion.

      Many aspects of the empirical, phenomenological and existential philosophies of the twentieth century arose as reactions to this tendency, but the trend has become even stronger and ordinary modern philosophy is incapable of counteracting it. Only spiritual science can do that. And it's coming. The paradigm shift is happening. If that wasn't the case, there probably wouldn't be any fierce hostility.

      Sorry to disappoint fellow forum members, but I don't have the time or wish to engage in discussions about this topic or any other, and just in case I should repeat some of this in my blog, the comments have been disabled for the same reason. So those who may want to discuss anything I've written today or in the distant past, may do so among themselves, or they may write to the Man in the Moon, whether he be Lucifer or Yahve; perhaps they're both on the Moon. For the address, ask your local angel.

      Tarjei
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      It seems to me that the key here is in the word see , meaning that by Jesus s intervention - and his own faith - the blind man was able to see spiritually,
      Message 39 of 39 , Apr 4 8:36 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        It seems to me that the key here is in the word "see", meaning that by Jesus's intervention - and his own faith - the blind man was able to see spiritually, become intitiated. btw, where it reads "Lord", the Greek could also mean "sir".
        Frank
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@..." <cinnamon94@...> wrote:
        >
        > So what are you thinking here, Val? Not really a "game" right? Just straight-up analysis/interpretation right? And then we discuss what is said?
        >
        > I should be able to send something tomorrow. I think people should also reflect on whatever "tools" they felt they were using in writing up their statement and if they can place their standpoint within a particular niche.
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@> wrote:
        > >
        > > What about if anyone interested offers their thoughts and/or judgments?
        > > Here's my selection for an esoteric text:
        > > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:1-41&version=KJV
        > > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:1-41&version=KJV>
        > > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:1-41&version=KJV>
        > > Val
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@"
        > > <cinnamon94@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Ok then. I'm game if Tarjei is. This version might be called something
        > > like "devil's advocate," although that doesn't seem appropriate. Anyway,
        > > as long as some reference materials are allowed I think I could play the
        > > part of the esotericist. I'd be interested to know, even with consulting
        > > reference materials, how much I would miss. I vote you as the judge
        > > Frank. Unless you want to provide the reading selection.
        > > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
        > > fts.trasla@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > No, I did not think it was a joke or trouble; my suggestion was also
        > > serious.
        > > > > Frank
        > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@"
        > > <cinnamon94@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I think perhaps you are assuming that my intention was to make
        > > some kind of joke or stir up trouble? It was not. Honestly played, the
        > > structure of the proposed game opens up those areas of contention and
        > > misunderstanding that exist "in between the lines." But, since the goal
        > > of the game is to reach zero those differences can be noted and, for
        > > lack of a better term, "absolved" by the players if they collectively
        > > wish to do so.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > In your suggestion, (with me being the esotericist and Tarjei
        > > being the non) we'd have no choice but to act from an image of "the
        > > other," elaborating on stereotypes along the way. This, in my view,
        > > would be playing the game from the darkside and would not be a very nice
        > > game to play.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas
        > > Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I ain't playing BUT...YOU cinnamon, after revealing your name,
        > > should play the esotericist and Tarjei the non. Why? When I first
        > > encountered anthroposophy because my kid went to a Waldorf schools, and
        > > as I gradually began to read some things, I occasionally discussed it
        > > with a business colleague (non-esotericist) and he'd say: "That's
        > > nonsense"; and I'd go: "Yeah, but..." until I found myself defending it.
        > > > > > > Frank
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@"
        > > <cinnamon94@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I thought maybe. Anyone else?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160"
        > > <wdenval@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > I am, as always cinnamon, game.-Val
        > > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "cinnamon94@"
        > > > > > > > > <cinnamon94@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting, Val.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Since its Friday and all, I wonder if it might be fun to
        > > play a game
        > > > > > > > > of "Stump the Non-esotericist." To play the game you need
        > > at least one
        > > > > > > > > non-esotericist player, about 3 "judges" and a moderate
        > > length passage
        > > > > > > > > from an esoteric work. The passage is presented to the
        > > non-esotericist
        > > > > > > > > and then this person explains what is being said by
        > > summarizing
        > > > > > > > > sentences singularly or as small groups of sentences. Points
        > > are awarded
        > > > > > > > > by the judges for any statements matching theirs and points
        > > are deducted
        > > > > > > > > for missing, wrong or incomplete explanations. The
        > > non-esotericist can
        > > > > > > > > make up deducted points by playing the game again and again.
        > > The goal,
        > > > > > > > > of course, is to reach 0. In light of the goal, the judges
        > > may also
        > > > > > > > > award points for good sportsmanship, congeniality,
        > > cleverness, humor,
        > > > > > > > > etc. The non-esotericist may ask for a gift of points or
        > > even decline a
        > > > > > > > > gift of points.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > I'm willing to be the non-esotericist player. Anyone else
        > > want to
        > > > > > > > > play?
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160"
        > > wdenval@
        > > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > "By means of Anthroposophy — as we shall see more
        > > and more
        > > > > > > > > clearly
        > > > > > > > > > > — all splitting-up will cease. Therefore it is now
        > > just the
        > > > > > > > > right
        > > > > > > > > > > time to know the Folk-souls, because Anthroposophy is
        > > here to teach
        > > > > > > > > us
        > > > > > > > > > > not to place them in opposition to one another, but to
        > > call upon
        > > > > > > > > them to
        > > > > > > > > > > work in harmonious co-operation. The better we
        > > understand this, the
        > > > > > > > > > > better Anthroposophists we shall be. This should be the
        > > note on
        > > > > > > > > which,
        > > > > > > > > > > for the present, these lectures close. For finally the
        > > knowledge we
        > > > > > > > > > > gather must really work in our feelings and our
        > > thinking, and in our
        > > > > > > > > > > anthroposophical idea. The more we live up to this the
        > > better
        > > > > > > > > > > Anthroposophists we are."
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA121/English/APC1929/19100617p01.html
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA121/English/APC1929/19100617p01.html\
        > > \
        > > > > > > > > \
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.