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

Success of anthroposophy

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    ... RB: Yes, it seemed to me that we mostly disagreed on the whole issue of the successfulness of anthroposophy . Or - to be more precise - I think we may
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 21 12:19 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      ******* OK, let's divide this up into different threads. People who want to pursue the thread of corresponances/polarities can do so there. Here, it's the question of where the anthroposophic movement is today and its 'success'.
       
       
      > RB: OK, it seems that we disagree on these issues, so I don´t know if it´s meaningful to continue the discussion. I suggest we postpone this to some later time...
      > ******* ... I'm curious why my response makes you want to drop the discussion. You said you thought Steiner wanted a powerful society with an esoteric center, and I said there is one, at the Goetheanum, and the School of Spiritual Science which anyone anywhere can join. That makes you drop the subject and just say "I disagree" with no further discussion?
      RB: Yes, it seemed to me that we mostly disagreed on the whole issue of the "successfulness of anthroposophy". Or - to be more precise - I think we may very well have agreed - but we spoke about different things and therefore spoke past each other...Here are some excerpts...

      Robert (RB) : "As I see it – mainly from an "outside" perspective – anthroposophy has not been very successful so far. You can speculate about the reasons for this. Maybe the traditional esoteric path described by Steiner (Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment…) has been too difficult, maybe anthroposophy has not let"society" in or maybe "society" has not let anthroposophy in…Or perhaps a combination of all that."

      Starman responded:  That judgement depends on what we think would be 'success'. Being known by millions of people, having lots of public discussion of it?"
       
       
      *******That to me is the main question. How do you wish to judge success? You didn't answer, really, but obviously the criteria are all-important.  It sounds like by 'successful' you mean having lots of people in our society know about it, having it heavily advertised and discussed in other words. But I pointed out we were directed not to try to convert people to anthroposophy but rather to let them find their own way to it.
       
          Moreover, you say you judge as an 'outsider'. Well, I guess that means you haven't been active in the movement--- in a school, a farm, a study group, etc. That limits the ways one can really judge. If you don't have any experience of what's going on inside it, the quality rather than the quantity.
       
         I don't think having lots and lots of people knowing who Steiner was or talking about anthroposophy is a good measure of success. There are lots of people who know who Aleister Crowley was, who Carl Jung was, who Gurdjieff was. Whatever they tried to start in this world--- even speaking as an 'outsider', how successful do you judge THAT'S been? Now, compare the number of farms, schools, medical establishments and so on that have come from Steiner's life work. I'd say he's been more successful than almost any other founder of a movement in the past century that I can think of, even just looking at it from outside.
       
         If the criteria are the percentage of the general public who know about or are participating in anthroposophy, you could say it "hasn't been successful." But I don't think that's the only or even the right criteria. It will not appeal to masses of people in our lifetimes, perhaps not for centuries, but only to a small number who will continue to grow it into the future. And it IS growing. By your criteria, I would perhaps consider the Theosophical Society unsuccessful, but not ours.
       


      RB:I did not really start this discussion. I made a few statements about it, and then suggested to start discussing about the correspondances and polarities...
       
      ******* Well, I think it's a good discussion you started, intentionally or not, as well as the other one, and the question of the inability to judge about anthroposophy because "I'm not clairvoyant so I have to take it on faith"--- on which more later, on that thread.

      Starman

      www.DrStarman.com


    • classiquepair
      I hope this isn t an exclusive conversation going on here. I ve been reading Steiner lectures (and books) for quite a while, mostly a while ago. However, I
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 22 5:09 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I hope this isn't an exclusive conversation going on here.

        I've been reading Steiner lectures (and books) for quite a while, mostly 'a while ago.' However, I have recently taken up the torch again and must say, at this later time, the pieces fit together much more snugly now.

        I always thought of Anthroposophy as the essential knowledge that once passed on in Mystery centers throughout human history. The essential point was not that the masses were aware of the esoterica, but that the traditions and information essential for a conscious evolution were kept alive in the background. Working with this material of Steiner's is very difficult and really is not suitable right now for the masses, who are engaged in all sorts of folly.

        We are pressing forward and clearly need to change, to evolve and integrate spirituality into our world view, and bring, as Dr. Steiner so wanted, science and spirit together.

        The impulse is very much alive. I look around and see newly published materials with Anthroposophical leanings (Steiner Books, Anthroposophical Press, Temple Lodge, Floris Publications, etc.) flowing out continuously and in these economically trying times, that means to me there is a strong market for such material.

        Computers (Ahrimanic as they are) and Anthroposophists seem to be at odds with one another, to a large extent, and even so, I have found quite a "Steiner" presence online!

        It is easy to confuse "popular" with "successful."
      • robert.barnskog
        Starman, ... RB: By success I mean that established science has taken up anthroposophy or the approaches of anthroposophy to such extent that it has started to
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 22 10:20 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Starman,

          > Robert (RB) : "As I see it – mainly from an "outside" perspective – anthroposophy has not been very successful so far. You can speculate about the reasons for this. Maybe the traditional esoteric path described by Steiner (Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment…) has been too difficult, maybe anthroposophy has not let"society" in or maybe "society" has not let anthroposophy in…Or perhaps a combination of all that."
          >
          > Starman responded: That judgement depends on what we think would be 'success'. Being known by millions of people, having lots of public discussion of it?"
          >
          >
          > *******That to me is the main question. How do you wish to judge success? You didn't answer, really, but obviously the criteria are all-important. It sounds like by 'successful' you mean having lots of people in our society know about it, having it heavily advertised and discussed in other words. But I pointed out we were directed not to try to convert people to anthroposophy but rather to let them find their own way to it.



          RB: By success I mean that established science has taken up anthroposophy or the approaches of anthroposophy to such extent that it has started to do science in other ways than it did before. It´s not a question of these scientists quoting Steiner or even of striving to become cliarvoyant, but to allow their research to take new directions based on anthroposphy and similar movements. When (some time...) this happens I think large portions of society will follow, because science is really the cult (or at least the outside cult) of our times, and the business life and political life will follow its judgements on what can be seen as accepted knowledge.
          The various alternative movements of anthroposophy are wonderful, but all such movements are facing hard conditions. First of all they have to constantly do new research to stay alive, but even if they succeed in doing this they will - at least in some countries - be under heavy attack of the rest of society since they don´t have their roots in established science. For example the anthroposphical medical movement in Sweden has battles with the authorities now and then, and they are under constant danger of being forbidden due to its non-standard ways of testing its medicines and cures etc. Then there is the discussion of if only state-organized schools shall be allowed to exist or if also other schools shall be allowed. The Waldorf schools and other schools are allowed in Sweden, but if I remember correctly the authorities stopped the education of some types of Waldorf teachers, since too much of the course literature had no support in accepted science.
          So…this is what I mean. But – as I wrote before – this may very well be due to society not being interested in anthroposophy, rather than anthroposophists failing in conveying their ideas to the rest of the society. The result is the same, but let us hope that some time the time will come when the ideas of anthroposophy and other alternative movements can be taken up by science and the rest of society.
          Then there is the reverse issue, i.e. the issue of how anthroposophy is seen by the rest of society and if anything has to change in how it´s exposed to that part of society. I started to write about Sweden here, and you responded with comments about Dornach. For my part I don`t live in Switzerland, so Sweden will always be what matters, although it would of course be interesting to visit Goetheanum and all other places of interest. A lot can be said here, but I think that if anthroposophy is to survive in Sweden it has to have introductory courses for newcomers and quite a lot has to be added to the material that is presented by them (us) on the internet. Among what has to be presented – I think – is a description of what anthroposophy is and how it fits in with the whole history of mystery wisdom, that we learn so little about in School, except maybe the Greek mysteries of Olympia etc. Other things are information about the people who are active and what the interests and knowledge of each and every one is. It would also be excellent if one could find an overview of what the teachings of anthroposophy is. Preferably this shall be knowledge that the members fully understand themselves, so here the "physical knowledge" (correspondances, polarities…etc) that I wrote about is relevant, provided it has been or will be worked out. If there are members who are clairvoyant, also such material can be presented. Also if – as you say – purely spiritual research can be checked and verified by each one of us, also this can be presented.


          > Moreover, you say you judge as an 'outsider'. Well, I guess that means you haven't been active in the movement--- in a school, a farm, a study group, etc. That limits the ways one can really judge. If you don't have any experience of what's going on inside it, the quality rather than the quantity.


          RB: Yes, in terms of movements my background is in the alternative science movement and I am active in The Swedish association for new physics (http://newphys.se/) and the Institute of Ecological Technology (http://iet-community.org/). During my years there I have met many people with a spiritual view of life, a few of them anthroposophists, and I have had interesting conversations. So no, I have not been directly involved in any activity arranged by anthroposophists. Yet, I have always considered myself an anthroposophist…It is not limited to members of the anthro society, and there were anthroposophists even before Steiner was born! I think he even said that himself, correct my if I`m wrong. I have also read a lot of books and internet material, read and participated in Swedish discussion forums, and – most important – thought a great deal about it. The outsider perspective is always important, for several reasons, one of them being that it says something of how something looks from outside, which partly determines who finds their way to it.



          > RB:I did not really start this discussion. I made a few statements about it, and then suggested to start discussing about the correspondances and polarities...
          >
          > ******* Well, I think it's a good discussion you started, intentionally or not, as well as the other one, and the question of the inability to judge about anthroposophy because "I'm not clairvoyant so I have to take it on faith"--- on which more later, on that thread.


          RB: OK, that´s good to hear. Bye for now…

          //Robert B.
        • Durward Starman
          I ve been reading Steiner lectures (and books) for quite a while, mostly a while ago. However, I have recently taken up the torch again and must say, at this
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 22 4:42 PM
          • 0 Attachment


            I've been reading Steiner lectures (and books) for quite a while, mostly 'a while ago.' However, I have recently taken up the torch again and must say, at this later time, the pieces fit together much more snugly now.

            I always thought of Anthroposophy as the essential knowledge that once passed on in Mystery centers throughout human history. The essential point was not that the masses were aware of the esoterica, but that the traditions and information essential for a conscious evolution were kept alive in the background. Working with this material of Steiner's is very difficult and really is not suitable right now for the masses, who are engaged in all sorts of folly.

            We are pressing forward and clearly need to change, to evolve and integrate spirituality into our world view, and bring, as Dr. Steiner so wanted, science and spirit together.

            The impulse is very much alive. I look around and see newly published materials with Anthroposophical leanings (Steiner Books, Anthroposophical Press, Temple Lodge, Floris Publications, etc.) flowing out continuously and in these economically trying times, that means to me there is a strong market for such material.

            Computers (Ahrimanic as they are) and Anthroposophists seem to be at odds with one another, to a large extent, and even so, I have found quite a "Steiner" presence online!

            It is easy to confuse "popular" with "successful."


            *******I agree, and I'll add that it appears that anthroposophists in the past 10 or 15 years seem to have gotten out of the anti-technology frame of mind that made us appear so silly. The staging of the mystery plays at the Goetheanum used computer technology to do the lighting and all of the audience was given wireless headsets that could be set to hear the German dialogue in either English or French. And since our little group started online over 10 years ago, there has been an explosion anthroposophical presence on the Internet.
             
            -starman
          • Durward Starman
            Robert (RB) : As I see it – mainly from an outside perspective – anthroposophy has not been very successful so far. ... RB: By success I mean that
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 22 5:16 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Robert (RB) : "As I see it – mainly from an "outside" perspective – anthroposophy has not been very successful so far.
              > Starman responded: That judgement depends on what we think would be 'success'.... How do you wish to judge success?

              RB: By success I mean that established science has taken up anthroposophy or the approaches of anthroposophy to such extent that it has started to do science in other ways than it did before. ..When (some time...) this happens I think large portions of society will follow, because science is really the cult (or at least the outside cult) of our times, and the business life and political life will follow its judgements on what can be seen as accepted knowledge.

              ******* I think that anthroposophy is going to make any headway in science LAST of all, because scientists are most seriously enwrapped in the delusionary paradigm of the modern world. Take three questions as examples: is the sun hot, is the interior of the Earth hot, and did living creatures evolve by simple random genetic change? Your typical scientist will explain that absolutely he knows the sun is hot, he knows the interior of the earth is, and he can recite the Darwinian gospel chapter and verse. However, any thinking person can point out that no one has been to the sun and so cannot have direct first-hand knowledge, likewise no one has been more than 5 miles into the interior of the earth, and no one was around to see how ancient life forms came into existence, and no advanced lifeforms can be changed into others in the laboratory so there is no experimental verification. Any thinking person has the right to doubt inferential knowledge and theories. In the scientific community, exercise that right and the masters of its dogma will end your career.
               
                 Fortunately, people will make choices about how they want their children to be raised, for instance, regardless of what all the scientists in the world have to say. Otherwise all religious schools would've vanished already. People likewise if they have cancer will try nontraditional treatments even if 1000 Nobel Prize winners tell them they can't possibly work. So I think anthroposophy will make its way among ordinary people long before the brainwashed scientists with their illusion of certainty.



              >>The various alternative movements of anthroposophy are wonderful, but all such movements are facing hard conditions. First of all they have to constantly do new research to stay alive, but even if they succeed in doing this they will - at least in some countries - be under heavy attack of the rest of society since they don´t have their roots in established science...
               
              ******* I don't see the anthroposophical movement as under attack, simply because the vast majority of people have never heard of it. In the past half-century, the only attacks I can recall were when the Lyndon LaRouche movement found out a lot of our members started the Green Party in Germany and started spreading rumors about this weird cult. However, since the LaRouche people were themselves a weird cult, few listened. ;-> And then there's this fellow Dan Dugan who hates the Waldorf schools because they rejected his kids going there.
               
                 The early Christians had the Christ Spirit working through them, and just let it do so while living and working in relative obscurity, having their meetings in underground catacombs, appearing to be such an inconsequential thing that the Roman Empire paid no attention to them. In three centuries they conquered it. There is an advantage to not being advertised and talked about everywhere by people who would have very little likelihood of understanding you!
               
               
               
              >>For example the anthroposphical medical movement in Sweden has battles with the authorities now and then, and they are under constant danger of being forbidden due to its non-standard ways of testing its medicines and cures etc. Then there is the discussion of if only state-organized schools shall be allowed to exist or if also other schools shall be allowed. The Waldorf schools and other schools are allowed in Sweden, but if I remember correctly the authorities stopped the education of some types of Waldorf teachers, since too much of the course literature had no support in accepted science...
               
              ******* There is a danger currently with the European Union bureaucracy developing a list of approved medicines which would be the only ones that can circulate in Europe, and of course our homeopathic medicines might be left off it. The society in Europe is aware of this danger and working against it. I'll look up that information about the petition that is circulating and post it here.
                 As far as private schools being shut down because of some scientists saying they're not "scientific" enough, I think that's an absurd fear. People don't have THAT much blind faith in science--- the entire "postmodern" movement is based on repudiating the idea that our Western civilization has the sole method of determining truth, and this is largely the opinion of the educated classes today, that no one has a monopoly on truth. They like to hear scientists' opinions about technical things, but do not turn to them for advice about cultural matters, personal choices, etc. Of course the government has the power to do lots of harm, but it does not listen exclusively to scientists about every subject but rather to the entire population in a democracy.
               

               >>I started to write about Sweden here, and you responded with comments about Dornach. For my part I don`t live in Switzerland, so Sweden will always be what matters, although it would of course be interesting to visit Goetheanum and all other places of interest...
               
              ******* I wasn't talking about the local society in Switzerland, but about the center and heart of our movement, the Goetheanum with its various sections for education, science, agriculture etc., which anyone really getting into anthroposophy anywhere would want to connect with, and I think wouldn't really be able to make a judgment about where our movement is today without seeing. Every Waldorf school is in contact with it, every medical institution. And it is a thriving community of artists and scientists, arguably the most advanced one of our movement. You can see the vitality of our anthroposophical movement there and form the truest judgment of how it's doing in several ways.
               
              -starman
               


               
            • robert.barnskog
              ... RB: You may be right, who knows. The future will give the answer. For my part I believe that as private citizens we have a lot of different worldviews
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 24 4:35 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > RB: By success I mean that established science has taken up anthroposophy or the approaches of anthroposophy to such extent that it has started to do science in other ways than it did before. ..When (some time...) this happens I think large portions of society will follow, because science is really the cult (or at least the outside cult) of our times, and the business life and political life will follow its judgements on what can be seen as accepted knowledge.
                >
                > ******* I think that anthroposophy is going to make any headway in science LAST of all, because scientists are most seriously enwrapped in the delusionary paradigm of the modern world. Take three questions as examples: is the sun hot, is the interior of the Earth hot, and did living creatures evolve by simple random genetic change? Your typical scientist will explain that absolutely he knows the sun is hot, he knows the interior of the earth is, and he can recite the Darwinian gospel chapter and verse. However, any thinking person can point out that no one has been to the sun and so cannot have direct first-hand knowledge, likewise no one has been more than 5 miles into the interior of the earth, and no one was around to see how ancient life forms came into existence, and no advanced lifeforms can be changed into others in the laboratory so there is no experimental verification. Any thinking person has the right to doubt inferential knowledge and theories. In the scientific community, exercise that right and the masters of its dogma will end your career.


                RB: You may be right, who knows. The future will give the answer. For my part I believe that as private citizens we have a lot of different worldviews (generally without thinking so much, remember your Edison quote), and these worldviews are probably more in a favor of a balanced outlook on life, even a spiritual outlook, than is the case for scientists. However, when we act within the infrastructure of society, I think that generally the result will be that we conform to what is "scientifically accepted" and act accordingly. For instance I can`t believe that the municipality of Linköping where I live, would create a section for homeopathy within its health care structure, even if 2/3 of those in charge were for it, as long as the scientific community says it´s absolute nonsense. The Swedish government will not sponsor research into cold fusion, as long as science has its present attitude towards it. And so on…For the business life I think it´s similar, although here you can after all find many alternative products also.
                Regarding your three questions: For the hotness of the sun, I´m only aware of Steiner and Viktor Schauberger saying that it´s not hot. So I guess followers in their tradition are open for the sun not being hot, whereas the vast majority of people would consider it uttermost nonsense that the sun would not be hot…Something similar goes for the earth and its interior. For the issue of Darwinism, it´s likely that people in general think differently than the scientists generally does. The same goes for issues like if they believe in reincarnation, or if they believe in some higher power.


                > Fortunately, people will make choices about how they want their children to be raised, for instance, regardless of what all the scientists in the world have to say. Otherwise all religious schools would've vanished already. People likewise if they have cancer will try nontraditional treatments even if 1000 Nobel Prize winners tell them they can't possibly work. So I think anthroposophy will make its way among ordinary people long before the brainwashed scientists with their illusion of certainty.


                RB: OK, we will see…


                >
                >
                > >>The various alternative movements of anthroposophy are wonderful, but all such movements are facing hard conditions. First of all they have to constantly do new research to stay alive, but even if they succeed in doing this they will - at least in some countries - be under heavy attack of the rest of society since they don´t have their roots in established science...
                >
                > ******* I don't see the anthroposophical movement as under attack, simply because the vast majority of people have never heard of it. In the past half-century, the only attacks I can recall were when the Lyndon LaRouche movement found out a lot of our members started the Green Party in Germany and started spreading rumors about this weird cult. However, since the LaRouche people were themselves a weird cult, few listened. ;-> And then there's this fellow Dan Dugan who hates the Waldorf schools because they rejected his kids going there.


                RB: No, it was not a good expression from my side to say the movement was under attack! From the skeptic community all such movements are of course under verbal and written attack, but this is after all a small part of society, and we can hope they will not get the upper hand of it. In order to learn how they reasoned I once subscribed for a year to their magazine "Folkvett", that they issue in Sweden. I remember that one issue of it focused on anthro medicine, with a picture of medieval witchcraft on the cover…


                > The early Christians had the Christ Spirit working through them, and just let it do so while living and working in relative obscurity, having their meetings in underground catacombs, appearing to be such an inconsequential thing that the Roman Empire paid no attention to them. In three centuries they conquered it. There is an advantage to not being advertised and talked about everywhere by people who would have very little likelihood of understanding you!


                RB: Well, who won really? The Christians or the empire? A draw perhaps…Yes, there is an advantage to not being advertised and talked about everywhere by people who would have very little likelihood of understanding you! AND it´s an advantage if the right people find their way to you and feel at home there…I have no clear answers, I try to come up with ideas, and the ideas with personal knowledge, the courses, what should be published on the web etc, were just my best guess.


                >
                > ******* There is a danger currently with the European Union bureaucracy developing a list of approved medicines which would be the only ones that can circulate in Europe, and of course our homeopathic medicines might be left off it. The society in Europe is aware of this danger and working against it. I'll look up that information about the petition that is circulating and post it here.
                > As far as private schools being shut down because of some scientists saying they're not "scientific" enough, I think that's an absurd fear. People don't have THAT much blind faith in science--- the entire "postmodern" movement is based on repudiating the idea that our Western civilization has the sole method of determining truth, and this is largely the opinion of the educated classes today, that no one has a monopoly on truth. They like to hear scientists' opinions about technical things, but do not turn to them for advice about cultural matters, personal choices, etc. Of course the government has the power to do lots of harm, but it does not listen exclusively to scientists about every subject but rather to the entire population in a democracy.


                RB: No I don´t think private schools are to be shut down either, but there is a debate on if they are good or bad. I don´t think it´s primarily about Waldorf Schools. Some people are terrified about what is really taught in Christian or Islamic schools of a more fundamentalist character. They really want to make sure that the Darwinian paradigm is taught and not Creationism etc. The decision to stop the Waldorf teacher education was taken by Stockholm university in 2008, although that decision may have changed since. I have not followed the issue since then. Here is an announcement in one newspaper that I found when I searched on the web (in Swedish…) http://www.dagen.se/dagen/article.aspx?id=156947.
                >

                > ******* I wasn't talking about the local society in Switzerland,


                RB: No, neither was I.


                > but about the center and heart of our movement, the Goetheanum with its various sections for education, science, agriculture etc., which anyone really getting into anthroposophy anywhere would want to connect with, and I think wouldn't really be able to make a judgment about where our movement is today without seeing.


                RB: Yes, and it would be even better if I had written a doctoral dissertation about the anthroposophic movement, before speaking about it…Yet, people seldom does that much research on things before speaking about them. Would it not be sad if ordinary people were not allowed to speak about things, without having perfect knowledge, provided they want to help or understand and not just provoke?
                So – what do you mean? Are you shutting out me – your discussion partner – from further discussion, because I did not visit Goetheanum?

                // Robert B.
              • robert.barnskog
                Hello Classiquepair, ... RB: No, you are most welcome… ... RB: Yes, so did also I. And still does… The essential point was not that the masses were aware
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 24 5:05 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Classiquepair,

                  >
                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "classiquepair" <classiquepair@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I hope this isn't an exclusive conversation going on here.


                  RB: No, you are most welcome…



                  > I've been reading Steiner lectures (and books) for quite a while, mostly 'a while ago.' However, I have recently taken up the torch again and must say, at this later time, the pieces fit together much more snugly now.
                  >
                  > I always thought of Anthroposophy as the essential knowledge that once passed on in Mystery centers throughout human history.


                  RB: Yes, so did also I. And still does…




                  The essential point was not that the masses were aware of the esoterica, but that the traditions and information essential for a conscious evolution were kept alive in the background. Working with this material of Steiner's is very difficult and really is not suitable right now for the masses, who are engaged in all sorts of folly.


                  RB: One thing has changed from the old times, and that is – obviously – that the spiritual powers are said to have allowed a certain amount of esoteric knowledge to be made public and that this was done via Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindel, and perhaps others about the time of transition from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century. Still, it is of course possible to – as in olden times – do a lot of good work, without speaking one word of esoterics…However, today, the esoterics has been made public, and it´s not so easy to change that now.
                  I never recall I wrote about speaking to the masses…Rather to the 5% that think in Starmans Edison quote.


                  >
                  > We are pressing forward and clearly need to change, to evolve and integrate spirituality into our world view, and bring, as Dr. Steiner so wanted, science and spirit together.


                  RB: Yes, sooner or later we will need it. There are moral forces in all this, that our society need.


                  >
                  > Computers (Ahrimanic as they are) and Anthroposophists seem to be at odds with one another, to a large extent, and even so, I have found quite a "Steiner" presence online!


                  RB: Yes, this is not an issue that I`m worried about, maybe one would have been in the past. Today we are so much surrounded by computers and other technology, so it´s not easy for any movement to avoid them, even if they wanted. There are other dangers for spiritual movements, but we can discuss them some other time.


                  // Robert B., from Sweden
                • classiquepair
                  Hi Robert. And thank you for your comments. I am finding your discussion with Starman interesting now that I realize you aren t so much on the attack. Coming
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 24 11:09 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Robert.

                    And thank you for your comments. I am finding your discussion with Starman interesting now that I realize you aren't so much on the attack. Coming in stating that the movement we are here in which to share and discuss...has failed...doesn't exactly open a environment of warmth. But as your comments evolve, it is clear that you really are looking for something and want to know if perhaps Steiner has something to offer.

                    I live in the U.S.A. and in my area, it is challenging to find spiritually sympathetic souls. I'm sure they are around, but just not so visible. America is going through some challenging times right now and unfortunately all of this has a dramatic affect on quite a large portion of the world. In fact, it is partly because of these severe challenges that has brought me back to Anthroposophy.

                    Please keep sharing your thoughts, and I'm particularly interested in what you have read and are reading. I have that Adams book you mentioned but have not jumped in. It's been on my shelf for a very long time and I don't know why I didn't get into it (and it does have quite a bit of other unread books to keep it company) but your discussion about the concave growth patterns of plants perked my interest. I don't know if you have access to this book (the one I'm about to name), but more interesting discussions on the etheric world and growth patterns is "Toward a Phenomenology of the Etheric World," a collection of seven different essays by various authors. I had this silly notion long ago that if I studied these books that with only observation skills I would be able to detect certain truths about the etheric world.

                    Thanks again.
                  • robert.barnskog
                    Hi Classiquepair, ... RB: Why would I be on attack? Of course it can be argued if you should express yourself as I did in my first message, but I thought
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 24 1:37 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Classiquepair,

                      > And thank you for your comments. I am finding your discussion with Starman interesting now that I realize you aren't so much on the attack. Coming in stating that the movement we are here in which to share and discuss...has failed...doesn't exactly open a environment of warmth. But as your comments evolve, it is clear that you really are looking for something and want to know if perhaps Steiner has something to offer.


                      RB: Why would I be on attack? Of course it can be argued if you should express yourself as I did in my first message, but I thought people nowadays were not so sensitive, and it was allowed to "swear in the church" (as we say in Sweden). After all, you can find much worse expressions, about anthroposophy and all other things of our culture, including sacred things, when you surf on the web. Even from anthroposophists themselves. Then – remember –that I tried to stop this conversation two times, but Starman continued and then I can`t just walk away…
                      Of course Steiner has something to offer! That I have not doubted the last 10 years…Yes I was looking for a discussion forum. We used to have several in Sweden before, but they all seems to have been shut down. Then it would perhaps also be interesting to be active in a group within a spiritual movement, and here I can`t so far come up with anything better than anthroposphy. However, I`m also in the other movements I spoke about (Newphys, IET) so we will see what happens…


                      > I live in the U.S.A. and in my area, it is challenging to find spiritually sympathetic souls. I'm sure they are around, but just not so visible.


                      RB: Yes, I also think so.

                      >
                      > Please keep sharing your thoughts, and I'm particularly interested in what you have read and are reading.


                      RB: In the field of anthroposophy I have read several of the basic Steiner books, generally more than one time. "How to attain knowledge of higher worlds", "Theosophy", "Occult science", "The philosophy of freedom", and quite a few lecture cycles, that you can find on the Steiner e-lib. Also his biography, "The story of my life". Of other authors "Chronicle of the Living Christ" by Robert Powell, a book on biography work by several authors, and other books that I can´t remember now…
                      In the field of "anthroposophical natural science" I have read the three science courses (warmth, light, astronomy) and the agricultural course by Steiner. Also for example "Man and matter" by Lehrs, "Space and counterspace" by N.Thomas, "The vortex of life" by Edwards, "Sensitive chaos" by Schwenk, "The rediscovery of color" by Proskauer. Then there are also some on the shelf also for me…"Science between space and counterspace", "Sunspace".
                      I also read a lot of the material on the web, including "critical" material, for example a lot of the writings by Joel Wendt, who is quite critical.

                      >I have that Adams book you mentioned but have not jumped in. It's been on my shelf for a very long time and I don't know why I didn't get into it (and it does have quite a bit of other unread books to keep it company) but your discussion about the concave growth patterns of plants perked my interest. I don't know if you have access to this book (the one I'm about to name), but more interesting discussions on the etheric world and growth patterns is "Toward a Phenomenology of the Etheric World," a collection of seven different essays by various authors. I had this silly notion long ago that if I studied these books that with only observation skills I would be able to detect certain truths about the etheric world.


                      RB: No , never heard about it. Sounds interesting though…
                      I believe you can detect certain truths about the etheric world with only observation skills…Probably we all do that all the time, but we just don`t know if they have to do with the etheric or something else…If you want you can start a new thread for this. It also has some relation to "How do we know anthro is true", that Starman started. Does it not…?

                      // Robert B.
                    • classiquepair
                      Hi. Thanks for sharing your reading list. You certainly have plunged in deeply. I ll be interested in following your conversations. I am not a scientist.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 24 2:54 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi.

                        Thanks for sharing your reading list. You certainly have plunged in deeply. I'll be interested in following your conversations. I am not a scientist. However, the topic interests me. Actually, I am coming in from another angle, from art (music specifically.)

                        I am particularly interested in human interactions with the elemental and higher worlds, and right now am working through the book that Starman suggested. Quite good. I read it years ago but it is definitely making more 'sense' now.
                      • Durward Starman
                        Regarding your three questions: For the hotness of the sun, I´m only aware of Steiner and Viktor Schauberger saying that it´s not hot. So I guess followers
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 25 9:17 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Regarding your three questions: For the hotness of the sun, I´m only aware of Steiner and Viktor Schauberger saying that it´s not hot. So I guess followers in their tradition are open for the sun not being hot, whereas the vast majority of people would consider it uttermost nonsense that the sun would not be hot…Something similar goes for the earth and its interior. For the issue of Darwinism, it´s likely that people in general think differently than the scientists generally does...
                           
                           
                          ******* I chose those examples because they showed the dogmatism of so-called science when they are challenged. First, magnetism decreases in the presence of heat; yet we are told that the interior of the earth is hot and ALSO the center of a powerful magnetic field. The same goes for our sun. The contradiction is ignored. Moreover, sunspots appear darker because they are cooler than the rest of the sun's surface, and they are also the source of strong magnetic fields. If you look closely at any photographs of sunspots, it is obvious that they are holes, openings to the interior. The clear conclusion is that the surface of the sun is hot, but the interior cannot be.
                               There is a greater point than this however, which is simply that no one has physically been more than 5 miles into the 8000-mile thick earth, and no one has yet been even near to, much less inside, the sun. Therefore in the absence of direct knowledge a multitude of theories should be allowed, because they are all inferences from evidence, which could be a house of cards that is collapsed by other evidence in the future: but the current traitors to science who call themselves scientists don't allow any such thing, no debate. That's because they have manufactured a dogma to replace the Catholic Church's dogma, giving people false certainty to earn a living; it's much easier to see their dogmatism with the whole question of evolution theory, which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory and so seen firsthand, nor was anyone around to observe what happened thousands of years ago
                           





                          > > ******* There is a danger currently with the European Union bureaucracy developing a list of approved medicines which would be the only ones that can circulate in Europe, and of course our homeopathic medicines might be left off it. The society in Europe is aware of this danger and working against it. I'll look up that information about the petition that is circulating and post it here.
                           
                          *******It is ELIANT, at www.eliant.eu.
                           


                          > ******* I wasn't talking about the local society in Switzerland,

                          RB: No, neither was I.

                          > but about the center and heart of our movement, the Goetheanum with its various sections for education, science, agriculture etc., which anyone really getting into anthroposophy anywhere would want to connect with, and I think wouldn't really be able to make a judgment about where our movement is today without seeing.

                          RB: Yes, and it would be even better if I had written a doctoral dissertation about the anthroposophic movement, before speaking about it…Yet, people seldom does that much research on things before speaking about them. Would it not be sad if ordinary people were not allowed to speak about things, without having perfect knowledge, provided they want to help or understand and not just provoke?
                          So – what do you mean? Are you shutting out me – your discussion partner – from further discussion, because I did not visit Goetheanum?

                          *******Not at all, I was responding to you saying that whatever goes on there is irrelevant to your experience in Sweden. I'm saying it is not because every major anthroposophical activity coordinates with the center of our movement, and if you want to judge how effective a worldwide movement is, you have to look at it worldwide.
                           
                          Starman 

                        • robert.barnskog
                          ... Regarding your three questions: For the hotness of the sun, I´m only aware of Steiner and Viktor Schauberger saying that it´s not hot. So I guess
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 27 3:24 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            : [steiner] Re: Success of anthroposophy

                            Regarding your three questions: For the hotness of the sun, I´m only aware of Steiner and Viktor Schauberger saying that it´s not hot. So I guess followers in their tradition are open for the sun not being hot, whereas the vast majority of people would consider it uttermost nonsense that the sun would not be hot…Something similar goes for the earth and its interior. For the issue of Darwinism, it´s likely that people in general think differently than the scientists generally does...


                            ******* I chose those examples because they showed the dogmatism of so-called science when they are challenged.



                            RB: I understood what you meant. I just felt for writing something about it…You are right that our modern culture has never made any physical visit to the interior of the sun or the earth and that – obviously – it were not there to look when the developments of the organisms took place. Science is using extrapolations in time and space, and when you do this you have to be very careful and also allow different theories as long as everything is not proved beyond a doubt.



                            First, magnetism decreases in the presence of heat; yet we are told that the interior of the earth is hot and ALSO the center of a powerful magnetic field. The same goes for our sun. The contradiction is ignored. Moreover, sunspots appear darker because they are cooler than the rest of the sun's surface, and they are also the source of strong magnetic fields. If you look closely at any photographs of sunspots, it is obvious that they are holes, openings to the interior. The clear conclusion is that the surface of the sun is hot, but the interior cannot be.
                            There is a greater point than this however, which is simply that no one has physically been more than 5 miles into the 8000-mile thick earth, and no one has yet been even near to, much less inside, the sun. Therefore in the absence of direct knowledge a multitude of theories should be allowed, because they are all inferences from evidence, which could be a house of cards that is collapsed by other evidence in the future: but the current traitors to science who call themselves scientists don't allow any such thing, no debate. That's because they have manufactured a dogma to replace the Catholic Church's dogma, giving people false certainty to earn a living; it's much easier to see their dogmatism with the whole question of evolution theory, which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory and so seen firsthand, nor was anyone around to observe what happened thousands of years ago



                            RB: OK, I will think about what you said here next time I think about these scientific issue.





                            > but about the center and heart of our movement, the Goetheanum with its various sections for education, science, agriculture etc., which anyone really getting into anthroposophy anywhere would want to connect with, and I think wouldn't really be able to make a judgment about where our movement is today without seeing.

                            RB: Yes, and it would be even better if I had written a doctoral dissertation about the anthroposophic movement, before speaking about it…Yet, people seldom does that much research on things before speaking about them. Would it not be sad if ordinary people were not allowed to speak about things, without having perfect knowledge, provided they want to help or understand and not just provoke?
                            So – what do you mean? Are you shutting out me – your discussion partner – from further discussion, because I did not visit Goetheanum?

                            *******Not at all, I was responding to you saying that whatever goes on there is irrelevant to your experience in Sweden. I'm saying it is not because every major anthroposophical activity coordinates with the center of our movement, and if you want to judge how effective a worldwide movement is, you have to look at it worldwide.



                            RB: OK, good. Maybe I did not express myself clearly when I wrote about Sweden. I meant that for me the local esoteric work in Sweden is most important – since I live here. If – some day – I will become active in such a movement – be it anthroposophy, theosophy, a Rosicrucian order or something else – then what matters for me will be how it has developed itself here. When JUDGING a movement in total you have to look worldwide, so here I agree with you.

                            For my part I chose in my previous message to define success in terms of if an alternative movement had been assimilated by culture, i.e. by science, by the citizens, by the political administration etc. Then you can argue about in which order these comes…I made my guess on it, and you did yours. Are there any successful movements of these kinds? Well, in the past I come to think of e.g. democratic (voting rights etc) movements, women-rights movements etc, and in the last 50-60 years the environmental movement. Young people today can easily believe that the issues of environmental protection has always been on the political agendas (at least as something to strive for), but this is not the case. I once read a book (in Swedish) called "the forgotten environmental debate", where you can read that there was in the 50´s – 60´s still a debate on if these things were something to take seriously, or if they were just hindrances of the technological evolution…Today this issue is assimilated in several western countries, but then there is – of course – other (moral) problems with this, that holds the progress back.

                            This is how I defined success, but it is – of course – a play of words, or at least a matter of definitions. A agree – at least as seen from outside – that anthroposophy has been much more successful than theosophy, Crowley, Gurdieff or what it now was that you mentioned…Than it can be argued if something more has to come for its future development. For my part I think I have said the most of what I can say from outside without going too much into speculations. I leave, however, the field free for other contributions on this topic, and maybe they will come.

                            // Robert B.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.