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

Re: Success of anthroposophy

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Aug 24, 2010
    • 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 2 of 12 , Aug 24, 2010
      • 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 3 of 12 , Aug 25, 2010
        • 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 4 of 12 , Aug 27, 2010
          • 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.