Anthroposophy is still a relatively young movement. It could look quite different a century from now. It is also possible that anthroposophy may eventually
Message 1 of 6
, Jan 20, 2012
"Anthroposophy is still a relatively young movement. It could look quite different a century from now. It is also possible that anthroposophy may eventually transition from an esoteric to an exoteric form of spirituality."
( -- Peter Staudenmaier, Sugarland, Jan 19, 2012)
The curious thing is that the Sugar Cherubs come face to face with concepts, words, expressions, imagery, that they are not capable of comprehending in spite of their knowledge, erudition, and intelligence, and in spite of their long years of having read Steiner -- more so than many anthroposophists, in fact. They lack the capacity to bring about the right "thought forms" to comprehend the content of Rudolf Steiner's books and lectures.
As we all know, Peter Staudenmaier has been raging against "esotericists" incessantly for a long time now, repeating the same childish insults over and over, that they are uninterested in education and learning, hostile to and ignorant of scholarship, refuse to read history, superstitious and bigoted and impossible to communicate with and so on. These repetitive and monotonous attacks are so banal and low-brow that the polemical style he has depended upon from the start, loses its edge and becomes boring.
Staudenmaier's problem, and possibly the source of his frustration, is that he doesn't know what the word "esoteric" means, nor the word "exoteric" (obvious from this Quote of the Week)-- and this is a guy who is so good with words! It also became transparent when he initiated a long series of debates about epistemology (because some anthroposophist playing the role of the "defender of the faith" court jester had brought it up) that he has no clue about what epistemology is either, and this is an academic! He went on and on about "esoteric epistemology" which makes no sense anyway, and everything he said about this "esoteric epistemology" was dilettantish and amateurish at best. And because he is indeed the Pied Piper (as Dottie once called him) of the Sugar Cherubs (the label of affection inspired by our Lovathon towards them), although full of peanut butter (Dottie again), one can expect that their academic analysis of "Theosophy of the Rosicrucian" (headed by Diana Winters) will be totally meaningless.
It's an interesting phenomenon that these people are actually spending decade after decade to debunk a philosophy they simply do not share. If we look at it from the point of view that they're on a mission to warn the world from the grave danger of occultism/anthroposophy -- or esotericism, which seems to be Peter Staudenmaier's preferred expression-- it might make sense, but they're not exactly the types to sacrifice themselves for a cause bigger than themselves, in an altruistic, philanthropic sort of way. It looks more like an obsession. It's a major full time leisure activity outside work or school for at least the hardcore handful, like Dan Dugan who has been at it for a quarter century now, listing "philosophy wars" as his favorite hobby.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.