Great question, John.  But deceptively difficult, I think….

It’s too easy if we say what makes Anthroposophy different conceptually.  Then we just point to the fact that no other spiritual streams has Steiner’s books.  I understand you aren’t asking that….

Before we ask about the goop of grammer, let’s just dive in: I think a good place to look for what distinguishes anthroposophy would be to ask if we can see it at work….

We would not say anthroposophists are more creative than the norm. I don’t think.

Would we say that anthroposophists think more critically than other streams (any stream will have those who think cleary and those who fuzz like me)?  My reading of other main streams suggests a wide overlap…

Would we say that anthroposophists have avoided more of the traps of other streams? Gulp. No…

Would we say that anthroposophists cultivate discernable states of consciousness….?that gets really tricky.  I’m sure every stream would say they are entering different kinds of important states….and that might be true…

Do anthroposophists think differently? Do they care about things in a qualitatively  different manner?  Read all the books by scientists who are Buddhists or Jainists (I understand that the conceptual systems are vastly different) or the biological ideas associated with other folks interested in Goethean type morphology…Can we say that anthroposophy is different……

Where is anthroposophy?  That is where I need to start.  I bet it’s ultimately in the same place you are looking for the experience of inversion. 

I’m not too dumb. I know there are groups with cards that say the holders are anthroposophists. But I need something more. I know there are talks to go to and ways to meditate that come from sanctioned books…

But is there an anthroposophy (an actual thing) that we can point to and share?  Grammar makes it too easy because it lets us say, “What makes anthroposophy distinct”  It makes it sound like, “what makes my shirt distinct?” 

Chomsky’s favorite example of how syntax can make things appear meaningful (colorless green ideas sleep furiously)….I don’t think anybody would argue about the poetry and the evocative nature of the sentence; it could even be useful to say such things to stimulate the imagination. But if somebody asks us “what makes red’s sadness distinct from blue’s?”  It’s hard to know how we are relating language to experience….

“Anthroposophy” as something we can refer to….and distinguish?

This gets to Jay’s earlier question about what makes an anthroposophist an anthoroposophists…

Thanks for letting me think outloud…My response:

No clue at all!!!!!

But my hunch is that it is relatively easy to make grammatical distinctions on this question…but not so easy to know what we mean…..I’ll be watching this thread with interest….But I won’t be annoying everybody with, But what does that really MEAN…”

my other hunch: anthroposophy is distinct in that it is western consciousness's willingness to coginitively engage with its utterly unique form of suffering....

Dear Friends,

Rudolf Steiner actually answers this question in precisely the place he should have.  At the end of his life, he wrote Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts, and the very first phrase of the very first thought begins: "Anthroposophy is...".  The only difficulty comes when the next words are translated into English.  Perhaps some German speakers here can provide some illumination.  In the meant time, I'll parse out the problem as I have come to understand it.

Here's the first sentence of Leading Thought #1, in the George and Mary Adams translation: "Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe."  That's apparently quite plain in its meaning, until when I was in a discussion group in Fair Oaks, California in 1984, where a German speaker said that the term "knowledge" was not an accurate translation of the the German term Erkentnis or or Erkennen (I don't have a German edition of the text, so again someone will have to provide the missing piece).  This gentleman went on to say that the problem is that "knowledge" is a kind of passive term, and that many seemed to think the study of Anthroposophy was about study itself (reading Steiner and so forth).  However, the term erkentnis (probably spelled wrong by me) refers to something more active inwardly, and he suggested that instead of knowledge the proper English word should be: cognition.  Thus: "Anthroposophy is a path of cognition...".

This then brings us to Steiner's epistemological works, A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, and The Philosophy of Freedom, for these places are where the new "cognition" is taught.

Now from my own reading, observation and thinking, I have put together the following ideas in regard to this.

Only in the present phase of the evolution of consciousness has the capacity for this "new" cognition arisen in human beings.  It is entirely modern in its nature.  So, for example, we have Coleridge in England and Emerson in America having an instinctive relationship to this new capacity, which they described as best they could, and which stands behind the "how" of thinking that allows them to express their individual genius.   Yet, it was Steiner who saw the need to first understand it in himself, and this in a way that wove our understanding of this capacity into harmony with the underlying spirit of the age: natural science.  So then we get the sub-title to the book PoF: "some results of introspection following the methods of natural science".

Many people in our society and movement believe that it is Steiner's clairvoyance that is the basis for Anthroposophy.  In this they are mistaken.  It is only when Steiner takes his spiritual experience into his soul through the mediating lens of the new cognition that we get what he often called: "anthroposophical spiritual science".  What makes the content of spiritual science (the books and lectures) "anthroposophical" is the particular act of cognition by which the percepts (the spiritual experiences) are joinged to concepts, i.e. the new cognition.

Further, in Occult Science Steiner made clear that the new cognition (the achievement of the goal of PoF) did not lead directly to clairvoyance, but instead led the thinker to an experience of the world of spirit as a world of thought.  He also says in the same paragraphs (end of Chapter Five in Occult Science) that while Knowledge of Higher Worlds can lead to spiritual experience, the path of PoF does this in a way that is more sure and more exact.  KHoW leads indirectly through the sense world, but only PoF lead directly through the spiritual world of our own inwardness.

Another way I see this:

The Creator gave us the potential for certain capacities through the evolution of consciousness.  But we have to will them into manifestation, for it is part of our evolution to develop the necessary inner will forces.  The I has to become strengthened (the I is the will), and PoF is the challenge to modern humanity for the development of this special capacity only now available.  Were anthroposophists to only teach this (after succeeding in reaching the goal of PoF), we could give nothing more to humanity of any importance.  At the same time, like any "science" it really only demonstrates itself in application.  We learn the new cognition not for ourselves, but as a service.  We need to not only know inwardly PoF, but to apply this new capacity to questions of Life.

There is a lot more that could (and should) be said, but that takes of off into the realm of an much needed honest assessment of how well the society and movement are doing with respect to actually knowing and practicing the new cognition.

joel

Bob Marley's song Exodus comes to mind  - 'We know where we going and we know where we from ...' 

"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe."

I think "living knowledge" works, even though it probably isn't quite the same.  The knowledge is a mobile knowledge, a knowledge that travels.

Joel, your experience and extrapolations chime with mine but I think you hit sticky mud when you hope to provide an honest assessment of the society and movement. Kristina’s comments here http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/2258#comment-4577 are very pertinent. As soon as you embark on the honest assessment you commit to a process that won’t go anywhere and by so doing you prevent yourself from moving yourself forward. And if that happens then you aren’t helping to move the world forward either.

Dear Sebastian,

In my experience knowledge is the product, cognition the producing cause.  As to the Society, here is a link to something I had to write for the local branch, because people were putting forward a book that is so one-sided as to be dangerous in the ignorance it produces.  People really have no idea how far the Society is from where it must begin to be if it wishes not to fail entirely to bring Anthroposophy into the New Millennium.

http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/counter-silicon.html

joel

 
 
Anthroposophy is a path of [cognising], to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a need of the heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge anthroposophy who finds in it what he himself in his own inner life feels impelled to seek. Hence only they can be anthroposophists who feel certain questions on the nature of man and the universe as an elemental need of life, just as one feels hunger and thirst. (GA26 Anthroposophical Leading Thought #1, Candlemas Day 1924)
 
The term “Anthroposophy” should really be understood as synonymous with “Sophia,” meaning the content of consciousness, the soul attitude and experience that make a man a full-fledged human being. The right interpretation of “Anthroposophy” is not “the wisdom of man,” but rather “the consciousness of one's humanity.” In other words, the reversing of the will, the experiencing of knowledge, and one's participation in the time's destiny, should all aim at giving the soul a certain direction of consciousness, a “Sophia.” (GA257 Awakening to Community L1, 13 February 1923)
 
Nevertheless, the question what is anthroposophy must be answered; for it has been put before us by the whole situation of our time. The well-known “Oxford Dictionary” has given under the title “Anthroposophy” a definition which, by men who knew something about the matter, was felt to be thoroughly unsatisfactory; one of these addressed Rudolf Steiner personally, begging him to give for this dictionary a definition of what anthroposophy is. And Rudolf Steiner wrote down in English: “Anthroposophy is a knowledge produced by the Higher Self in man.” This is an explanation given for the public, for men who want to be informed in using a dictionary. From this definition it follows that anthroposophy is not a dogma or a science in the ordinary sense, but one for the production of which deeper lying forces of knowledge are to be called up. (What is Anthroposophy: Dr Carl Unger)
[Note on the above lecture by Carl Unger by Marie Steiner: … the murderous bullets struck him at the moment when, in Nurnberg, he approached the desk to give that lecture which, now printed, is lying before us.]
 
I feel that is good that we do not become too comfortable sitting on the formulations of Rudolf Steiner. It is interesting that he addresses anthroposophical feeling life at Candlemas in 1924. Perhaps we can say that anthroposophy is a path of spiritual inquiry undertaken in order to further Earthly evolution. 
 
Now what are the essentials for this task?
 
 

At this point in my view is that beyond the present day normality and materialistic consumerism is a species that is in need of balance, Being few have the urge to seek past what is laid out for the many to adopt as truth, from the multitude may spawn minds that seek to fill some inner urge of longing, knowing intuitivly that more than meets the eye is at work, and find within a means of aiding the great scheme.

A mind free of falsehood and selfish desire would seem essential, sincere devotion to a rhythm of application and exercises to activate the latent faculties beyond the five sense perception, not to gain, but to give service in ways of wisdom that a multi angled perception would observe from overhead to carrie out actions working for all in divine plan.

For those who are not content with making money and attempting to fill desires, that wear away and seek the next item that will give temporary happiness, or to stagnate with pacifying the mind glued to pointless entertainments.

Those who pave a road for others to look at there journey and find an opening in the iron gate, that are not dubious methods and indoctrination, that give a key to the gates opening, and point in a direction that we must walk ourselves to find ourSelves.

I may have swayed, but I can say I am glad that Steiner took the time and effort to leave those after something of a true treasure, if we seek such.

Thank you Lux for this wonderful statement about finding the gate to something more than egoistic pursuits. I feel very much in tune with what you have written.

On reading Joel's post again, it occurs to me that anthroposophy only meets our personal needs in the sense that it answers what the world is asking of us as a responsible individual.

 PS: on further thought, perhaps it is not that the world asks us, rather it is our own sense of loving responsibility that perceives the world situation and questions it.