Dear Carl,
Ordinarily I ignore some of the more blatent and outrageous statements you make, which are clearly coming from some place of either cultivated or accidental ignorance. Sometimes, however, the matter is so acute and central to the purposes of this website, that the confusions you spread have to be vigorously opposed.
For example, you speak of introspection as not real, yet (and this is surprising from one who claims to be quite familiar with PoF) you seemed not to have noticed that the subtitle to the book is: "some results of introspection following the methods of natural science".
You also in your most recent post above describe this path of PoF as intellectual. This also is not true, although it would be easier to deal with if you didn't try to act like you know everything when you write. If you were less certain in your pronouncements, it would be easier to forgive what seems to be simple ignorance rooted in a lack of experience.
PoF is actually a training of the will-in-thinking. Proceeding step by step through the book, as Steiner asks us to, we face two kinds of tasks. One task is that in order to actually understand the points being made we have to turn to introspection, because the content can't really be understood in the absence of the experience being described. So in the beginning where he wants us to ask questions about whether we can want what we want, in order to really appreciate what is being said we have to pay attention to those inner processes of soul connected to desire. Not everyone does this of course, and in skipping this step they do "intellectualize" the content of the book and miss out on the will training aspect.
The second task is kind of hierarchical in nature. Each step is a bit harder than the one before, so that the will in dealing with the subject matter (actually thinking it both as to its meaning-concept and as to the actual experience we can have of the soul - an introspection of the inner percept), this will has to apply itself with ever greater clarity and (for lack of a better term) force. Force is a difficult word to use here, because the will-in-thinking (the attention and the intention) do get stronger in a way, but this strength comes from changes in the quality of the will as expressed by the I. It is a little bit as Tom points out above in quotes from Steiner about a gymnast exercising their limbs. The will-in-thinking is a kind of spiritual limb, and by use it becomes able to do more as each chapter is fully worked out. My own experience is that the will-in-thinking so trained is actually a kind of artist of thought, a kind of sculptor.
There are also pit falls that can be experienced. The developments offered by PoF don't run in a straight line, as much as we might like. For example, once we start to become introspectively awake to the influence of feelings on the content of our thoughts, a whole other set of problems appears.
Carl, if you continue in this vein (spouting clearly outrageous and erroneous material about PoF for whatever reasons you feel justify this activity), I will be asking the community to consider asking Tom to take away your privileges to post here. This is a place of serious conversation about what is probably one of the most important books ever written in this phase of the Evolution of Consciousness, and someone who is so negative and mal-intented has to be seen as having given over something in their soul to the opponents of the advancement of human spiritual life.
That needs to be said to you for your own benefit; and, if you persist there have to be consequences (for the benefit of the naive that come here expecting - justly - some aid and illumination in their own spiritual striving. As far as I am concerned you have crossed the line already, but perhaps you are not entirely asleep and willing to admit that you actually don't know what you have been pretending to know.
still your friend,
joel
Intellectual Game
I would agree with Joel that your posts are presenting too much misinformation (according to anthroposophy anyway).
I understand that you can back your views up with probably valid intellectual arguments that may even be consistent with anthroposophy if one works through a web of thought you construct but this amounts to an intellectual game that may be fun for you but will terribly confuse others who don't have the interest or intellectual ability to play the game.
Maybe the moderators should just start making the questionable posts invisible to the public as a way to give you feedback.
Open doors
I am moderatingly keen to hold open all doors in support of anyone who comes knocking here. I am sure that readers are able to evaluate a writer who does not abide by her/his own stated principles. Active feedback obviously shows when a post does not meet with general approval. Sanctions usually signify that individuals are reaching the edge of their tolerance, and can also be used as a form of communication or education.
Carl, our exchanges seems to have run aground since your long tract, which as you promised, lost me. I do see that your suggested principle about truth being satisfactory to a group works in a different way when a group is not satisfied with your manner of expression, or what you express. Maybe it is just karma?
Would you explain what you think to be the reasonable course of action for yourself - in keeping with your own principles - when you receive feedback such as above in this thread?
I believe that many would be interested for you to explain yourself as an instance of what you are promoting on this site.
I agree with John and I
I agree with John and I don't want to shut doors on people either.
I do worry about the purpose of the site and whether Carl is working against that purpose. But like Tom and gulp are saying, perhaps this is the purpose of the site?
Carl, for my part, I would love to know what you see your purpose to be, and I particularly long to know how you understand that your purpose is supported by your style?
Sebastian
abstractions into requests
In regards to communicating with Carl:
If we ask Carl to explain anything (even if it is for him to explain something about being nice or flexible), you are likely to get his typical type of educational response. If the goal is to begin receiving communications from Carl that aren't jarring, I suggest you (it should be done individual to individual) ask that he respect specific needs that you have. For example, it might look like,
"Dear Carl, I notice that when you wrote, "I think you are failing to see a very simple point" I felt annoyed because it's kind of important for me to feel respected when I'm talking to people. Could you please avoid such phrasings in the future. I'm more likely to stick with this conversation if such comments were avoided all together and you simply moved to the next sentence. Thanks."
Carl might argue. He might say you lack courage. He might teach you why it is not anthroposophically correct to make such a request of him. He might say, "ok".....If he does not wish to try to help you meet your conversational need, you might decide to no longer respond to him. But at least he'll know exactly what he needs to do if he really wants to talk to you about something. If we evaluate Carl and theorize about why he talks the way he often does, I'm not sure we get anywhere; although, heck, I understand that somtimes theories are fun for their own sake!
Carl might provide the perfect practice field for this site to develop a new type of conversational muscle. The next time somebody comes whos tendencies are even more unattractive, we won’t even have to have conversations like these, because we will have created a culture in which people make simple and individual communication requests based on their own needs. This fits well with Chapter 14 of PoF. I’m not saying there are not other ways that provide equally new trailblaizing. Before we get too far into talking about editing Carl’s posts, I hope other viewpoints can come as well. That said, I do understand that inappropriate communication needs to be acted upon. gulp
Thinking needs out loud
I wonder why gulp makes suggestions as to what another person may or may not do. Why does gulp not wait quietly and let the person act? Is he trying to teach me something? Maybe he will offer some more insight about that some time, but if not, that feels ok because I like him already.
If I were to be participating here in order to serve my conversational needs, would that be a mite selfish?
Why ask questions when it is all right to be uninformed about other folk's business?
What are my conversational needs? In no particular order: English language, an open heart, a robust question, spirit presence, social engagement.
This needs business sounds like NVC-speak. That is not a criticism of it, but that is where I have heard such language used before. I hope that personal needs do not become confused with personal rights. They live in the realm of brotherliness.
I feel that Carl needs a good listening to. He speaks very quietly among other loud stuff that karma has stuck on Phil O'Sopher Carl.
Lux sounds like someone I would like to get to know better.
need's lost need
Even though you didn't address me directly, I'm assuming based on your track record that you won't have a problem that I'm responding. I'll say up front that I was struck odd by your post. This probably has to do with it being the first of a kind I've recieved from (not quite from, i know) you...and I read an edge into it that I can't quite put my finger on. So, this response, is in the spirit of trying to be more clear as to where I am coming from. If after reading this post you only have an increased sense of what your questions are coming from, I'll need to go back to the drawing board and I'll probably be asking to borrow your chalk.
John you asked:
I wonder why gulp makes suggestions as to what another person may or may not do. Why does gulp not wait quietly and let the person act?
The short answer: I make suggestions. And respond to them. The longer one: Imagine a room full of people about sit down and watch their favorite sporting event. Over the years you've noticed- along with most of the group- that people are often fighting with Mark because of the kinds of things he says when he is cheering for his team; the way he cheers tends to upset many people. Nobody has ever been happy with the arguements. In fact, the group spends time forming theories about as to why Mark cheers the way he does, asking Mark to explain his way of cheering and calling him names as well. You've noticed that it helps when Mark is addressed in such and such a way. You are with your friends and you share what you've noticed as a suggestion. One of your friends then asks you why you made that suggestion. He says, "Why did you not wait quietly and let me just act?" It the first time in your friendship this friend has ever addressed you like that (even in the third person). It feels strange, like maybe he didn't feel all that great about your suggestion, but it's not like he said that....he just asked why you offered a suggestion....You feel a twinge of guilt/shame; was it not appropriate to offer your observations and suggestions? Were your suggestions themselves out of line or bossy? You might go back and read them to see if the come across as bossy or too directive. How do you respond to your friends question when you don't know if he is tweaqued by you? You could just ask.
John, does my suggestion that it might help the problem if we address Carl individually, letting him know what works and doesn't work for us bother you? If so, I can change the style of the suggestion and still retain the clairty I get from it, I think. Or, if you are bothered/frustrated by the content of my suggestion (suggesting that people specify to carl how they would like him to address them), could you let me know more. If it is just the fact of making any suggestion that others might try that rubs you wrong, I'd like to know that as well. I meant no offense or wrong rubbing. I just happen to think there is hope in the Carl situation and that it might involve us sharing our observations and suggestions. There is talk of banning him and I don't want to move too slowly on this; perhaps my rush is adding to what you are asking about. I do have feelings about banning and such; no, I have wishes and values associated with banning; so I just want to offer other types of suggestions. I'll keep trying to make clear that they are merely suggestions...
Then you said:
Is he trying to teach me something? Maybe he will offer some more insight about that some time, but if not, that feels ok because I like him already.
Hey this might be an example of the problem I was calling the "Teacher Vibe" thing. Tom did not like that phrase, so I might find a better phrase soon. But it probably does sound like my suggestion is a teaching. It kind of is, I confess. But, man, let me tell you something. It's a lesson that you've been teaching me as well, by example. I would not mind if you offered, explicitly, suggestions about how people might talk to Carl. I would not take that as you judging my way or saying you have the only way. I feel my suggestions might be coming across as THE only way. I might sound way too preachy to you. Yuck. I want to find a way to share my thoughts on this topic that don't do the "teacher vibe"; I bet it would help if rather than suggest others try the direct approach I had just shared my experience with that approach and left it at that.
So the above potion of this post is kind of my more personal response to your post; I'm mainly wanting to know if I've upset/annoyed you. Or perhaps you are just curious about the sort of meta reasons I am offering suggestions about the Carl fuss. People are talking about kicking him off.
But now I think this post turns less personal and more just interested in the idea of what you say. You asked:
If I were to be participating here in order to serve my conversational needs, would that be a mite selfish?
I think the word "need" is probably going to need to be thrown out. I'm starting to get the impression that you and I use that word in very different ways. Let me try to show you how exactly I've been using "need"; I am ready to use a different word if it will helps.
Let's say that for whatever reasons I'm very shy and get emotional (actually a bit afraid) when people make comments about my intelligence. I'm talking with somebody online named Ben who has been saying things to me like, "I don't think you're thinking about this hard enough, gulp", "gulp, your sloppy thinking is making it hard to teach you things" and "Somtimes your thougths, gulp, sound like you haven't ever read a book of philosophy.".....
Ok, so I have a need to feel respected a safe in conversation. For some reason (I might not even know; when I feel my intelligence is being judged harshly, I get this odd anxiety).......Ben has been making these statements to me, so I decide to share my needs (values/helpers/personal wishes). In the past I thought it was Ben's responsibility to just "talk right" and would have blamed my emotional reactions on him.
"Ben, I've noticed when you said (and i could show him exactly what words I mean), I felt anxious and a little mad. I think this is because my needs (value, helpers) to feel respected and emotionally safe in conversations isn't being met right now. I'm wondering if you would be willing to not make comments on my intelligence as we talk. That would help me stay connected to you, which is also important for me here." If the first part sounds too sappy, I might just leave in the last two sentences:
I'm wondering if you would be willing to not make comments on my intelligence as we talk. That would help me stay connected to you, which is also important for me here.
So, I don't need to say "need". It's just the little tag that helps me go inside and notice what criteria I'm asking for when I have certain emotional reactions in social situations. I don't think it is selfish to bring these up when things are blocked in social interaction. In fact, my experience has been that when blocks happen (with groups or individuals) it can be very helpful for people to dip into their values and needs and look at the role those are playing. But you might be asking about selfishness in a way that I haven't responded to here.
I'm going to go back to that post you sent to Carl (way back) in which you told him exactly what you needed in order to have a conversation with him. Do you remember that? John, in my opinion one of the reasons you and Carl were able to go the way you did was related to you sharing your desires/needs/values that needed to be met in order to talk to Carl. I'm suggesting that others who are having problems might try what you did. I'll find that post and see how you put it. I remember when I read it, my heart sang. I wasn't thinking NVC. I just noticed how clearly you distinguished what you needed and asked directly for it. It had not an inch of blame towards Carl. I'm aiming for conversation with Carl that moves in your direction.
I'm not sure what you meant by:
Why ask questions when it is all right to be uninformed about other folk's business?
I'm not suggesting we ask Carl his needs. I'm suggesting it might help to let him knows ours (individually).
And you shared:
What are my conversational needs? In no particular order: English language, an open heart, a robust question, spirit presence, social engagement.
So if you and I ever had a problem between us, it might help me to hear you unpack what "social engagement" means to you. If we had a problem it might help to know that you don't feel socially engaged with another if they make to many teachy suggestions, that, to you, "social engagement" has something to do with letting people find their own way without ordering them around. But that's only if we have a problem dancing together. If you and I get stuck, I'll probably be helped by what specifically I could do to meet the list you shared.
and then you said:
This needs business sounds like NVC-speak. That is not a criticism of it, but that is where I have heard such language used before. I hope that personal needs do not become confused with personal rights. They live in the realm of brotherliness.
Are you unclear that I am "stealing" from NVC; we talked about it before, so I assumed you knew this. Yes, the words "needs" and "requests" are used in NVC and NVC claims that feelings are functioning in the context of individual needs or values or wishes or desires...I know you've had a fairly awful experience with people who "use" NVC. I feel I might be stepping into past trauma. Let's find new words to get at our points, if that is the case!!!
gulp
meta moment: John, it's more important to me that you and I have clarity between us then that I get my way with words. I've written a probably too long response because I'm hoping that I can eliminate any practice that is unnecessarily crunching on you. I'll be a little worried until I can tell that I'm making better sense to you on this topic. But worried is a fine thing, I know.
Effort and computers
Gulp, I just spent half an hour responding to all your points in detail, then my browser spontaneously refreshed and I lost the lot. I cannot bear to recreate it all at the moment. My stomach feels like the lift just went into freefall on the fiftieth floor. Sorry, it’s not going to come back. This is the last time I type into the comment box, I promise.
I have no issue or problems with your posts here gulp. I do not get crunched or annoyed by your posts. I just tried a stream of conscious post, as I had nothing else to say and I did not feel that posting nothing was the thing to do. The questions were all directed at myself and did not need an answer from myself, or anyone. They were just a bunch of uncertainties. Sorry that uncertainty seems to be infectious over the internet.
I am going to reboot the computer. Gulp do I need to do the whole thing over again for you? I appreciate your kindness in not wanting to ruffle feathers, but mine are not easily ruffled, even by Carl, only by elemental software jokers.
Hi, John
The only reason I would need to read your long lost post would be if it contained stuff that would help me get back in with you; but your post here makes that unnecessary. It would only be my intellectual interest in the detail of your reply that would have me wanting it now. I'll go into the Akashic and see what I can find.
gulp
off the hook
You are a gentleman, gulp. My deeply sincere thanks.
ooops
point of fact:
i, gulp, was a bit of a hypocrite...or better put: I see the role I played in making my own bed of confusion. I was all confused/worried by what I called the "edge" in your third-person-about-gulp-post, John. But now I see what I did: after reading your post and sebastian's post in which you each addressed Carl with a question as to how his theory would view people's sour response to his communication, I posted my suggestions that it might do us all well to avoid asking Carl for explainations and, rather, just tell him how we want our conversations to be.......I failed to say that I had just read your posts.......I'm not saying that is what accounted for how I took the style and tone of your gulp-post to be, John, but I now see that it could have played an implicit role at least....
I think the reason I did not mention your names is because I was afraid it would look too oppositional. The irony! Enough said: I know you aren't looking for more on this, but when I saw how i wrote my suggestions post, things made more sense for me......
Speaking of third person:
Yea, Lux seems pretty great. gulp
trigger happy and true
I'm not commenting on the content of the educational material you provide for Carl in your post, Joel. I'm commenting because you bring up a point that I hope continues being discussed. Not in terms of Carl, but in a more general sense that we can, obviously, then apply to any type of post/communicaiton. Perhaps, I should care less about the site (which I can't control) and just speak from my own needs.
I'm all for talking about banning somebody from the site who is chronically creating an uncomfortable environment and who shows no indication of responding to freedback. I am not comfortable at all in banning somebody who simply talks out of his or her ass. I'm glad you bring up the point of consequences and I just one to be one voice in, hopefully, many that begins to share thougths and feelings. It would be important for me to really tease apart and distinguish between what it means that we will encounter strong disagreements on the site and what it means that we will encounter inappropriate communications. In terms of the former, I believe a relatively healthy website will be just fine. In terms of the later, I'm hoping there can be a robust conversation that continues to grow as to how we address each other.
But I know that personally, I'll be happy as more people share specifics about their thougths, feelings and wishes on this topic...gulp
Savvy
I am not defending one angle or another, but I have noticed this topic since my arrival. Also let it be known I have not read all of PoF yet. That being said I might give an outside view on this.
Anyone with a reputation, in front of others may respond in defensive or offensive ways when confronted in front of the group, unless they barrier within a shield of sorts that must be passed to effect the innermost depths. Initial private notification behind the public eye may counter any mechanisms of protection.
Usually there are guidlines and rules set for appropriate posting, now misinformation should be corrected, especially in a source of serious subject matter. Also I would hope that anyone sincere about Anthroposophy would be truthful, if not one would be roleplaying or in a clouded state likely.
For me if I Know something, then I understand it and can express my view plainly (as I can) for the mundane and subjectively for the experiences that transcend language. Disagrement can reveal alot when it pushes for further elaboration, and those who rather argue, usually are fanatically protecting adopted notions and have not the capability to explain the very thing which they push the issue upon.
If one does not respond to articulate discussion aimed at the standpoint of there actions (or words), then it may appear dubious if not respectivly answered
Putting ones belief's in question test the integrity it seems.
For me and possibly many, the start of stepping out the single file line of the masses was kindled in the realization that I did not know, knowing I did not know laid the first step toward ever Knowing.
Excuse me if I made a uninformed reply, it may be an outside view, only written in honest intention.
Clear and savvy
Dear Lux,
Much thanks for jumping in here and sharing your experience and understanding of what has been going on here at the PoF website since you joined. It is important for yourself and others to state their point of view as its makes it easier for the overall discussions.
Like you I would also hope that anyone sincere about anthroposophy would also be truthful.
Best regards,
Patri
Thanks Lux, It's sounds
Thanks Lux,
It's sounds like you are a believer in in putting one's beliefs out there and letting the dialog reveal what it reveals.
I like what you say about the power of not knowing. It seems like many conflicts happen simply because somebody needs to make their point so air tight. And the corrolary might be the liberation that comes in acknowledging how clueless we can be even about things we know quite a bit about.....
Lux, would you be willing to say anything about where you, personally, draw the line? What kind of behavior/communication goes too far in your opinion. At what point would you like to see our moderators making posts invisible? And what are the situations in which you think banning somebody is the appropriate response? I would like to see all the main contributors address this. I've shared my feelings, but will be more specific as we continue. Thanks, Lux, very much! gulp
Point of action
When a group of honest thinkers gather to discuss in depth topics, ones who disrupt the group should be consulted and determine why they are here and the essence of the intention behind ones words. It seems we can learn from the words of children at times, also those who contradict, only when we let the impression free of our preconceptions, likes and dislikes.
Derogatory comments, slander and falsehood are signs from the projector of such, and should be dealt with. If someone is merely posting their view and it differs from anothers, would it confuse the unsavvy to the topic at hand? Following that post may be the points of interest to the groups aim of the fallacy being drawn out with the explanation.
I have not read all the post that lead up to this thread, but maybe they should be collected and reviewed.
Personally I always rather solve it and be mature Humans without people being kicked.
One definite thing is communication, if no response is given then it may appear as intentional willed disturbance of people, doing a great thing, thinking.
Hi Lux, Here is the thread
Hi Lux,
Here is the thread this one comes from http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/2342
Thanks for your viewpoint of the situation. At the moment Carl can't reply because admin has stopped him posting while everyone has a think.
If you read the whole thread then and would like to share your view then please do, it would be very interesting to hear.
Thanks,
Sebastian
View
From reading that thread it seems that to truthfully discern I would need to be one who has read both books and applied them to speak from experience and not merely parroting blindly based on assumptions that this or that sounds like what the reader would think is correct, If I am ever wrong and shown why, I would be a fool to not correct my own fallacy.
Yet I have read How to Know Higher worlds(more than once), and currently am reading the Philosophy of Freedom for the first time.
I do feel that observing ones thoughts matters profoundly, and must agree that self observance of inner structure (beliefs) is needed to strip away adopted notions that may cloud clarity. For me inner speculation led to disposal of what was programmed in this incarnation to divert my thoughts from what matters beyond selfish desires, and I still have work to do.
I have always thought about thought and emotion, to a lesser degree than now, after reading.
One example I used to say: Aunt sallie calls you crying, and tells you uncle jimmy died in a automobile crash. You know your aunt and uncle well and were close to them, Your aunt would never say this unless it was true.These are words from a phone, yet the acceptance of them creates the emotion as if you knew from personal experience, because you believed the words.
Now people are told by elders and teachers how it is (in there view), and to be successful you need to do this. Generations of family may have gone to church and push it on you to not question, just have faith, after some research it seemed that Christ Jesus was using parable to direct the lost to a higher consciousness. After I seen that, the annoited one bringer of the word= Christ /Christos, it seemed that the blockage of the word to the lost would make the blocker the anti-christ, yet maybe I am mistaken.
When the "authority" said the world was flat, those who contradicted this theory may face death, what in humans creates the fanatical need to protect a view that is not even truthfully known by there own first hand experience?
Brutal Self honesty IS the only way I see to break the semblance!
Reading the first few chapters of PoF, I must say it's a grand book, also how in the world is this not mainstream, Steiner should be well known, the only reason that appears is that some group wants it to be hard to find, the bookstores around here do not even carry much Steiner material, and say they cannot even order PoF.
Well likely a difference will be shown through my words here after I wrap my mind around this book. Only then will I be able to better view these issues. I read slow, but I have too, I would rather understand to the best of my ability than memorize or just say I read this or that.
Very intersting Lux. The
Very intersting Lux. The study pages of this site contain the worm-cast output from the work done on the earlier chapters.
There are many possible reasons why POF isn't mainstream... perhaps one is that Steiner makes fun of his comtemporaries throughout, this may have offended people who respected these contemporaries (influential supporters). That is a very human reason.
Another might be that after writing POF Steiner went on a huge journey in to Spiritual Science which many who can appreciate POF find ridiculous.
I wonder if sometimes the fact that the output of POF is introspection and the students work in this regard can not be ticked off as correct by a teacher means that teaching POF is very difficult. The student has to assess their own work, which is challenging when one is used to the encouragement of normal education.
It's exciting to hear of your journey.
S-)
Perfecting Anthroposophy
Thanks Sebastian, Lux - it is astounding to me in one way why Steiner is still considered as being "on the fringe". But I think in another way the wonderful lecture by an Anthroposophist from the 1980s Tom has just posted here http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/2353 includes a passage drawn from Steiner's Autobiography which gives a possible key:
He [Steiner] began to search for other people who were at odds with their world. Berlin was full of avant-garde artists and revolutionaries, people seeking alternatives, convinced that a new age must be coming. Berlin was full of cranks, in fact. Steiner was editing an avant-garde magazine, involved in theatre groups, producing plays, and getting to know people in all kinds of radical movements. He became a teacher and lecturer at one of the first schools for working people in Berlin at the end of the last [ 19th ] century. There he was enormously popular: the working people found him, as a personality, quite different to what they were used to, and he began to draw very large audiences for his courses in history, philosophy, natural history and public speaking. But he would not ally himself with any definite political party interests and his employment at the school, which was dominated by the radical left, was eventually ended. Inwardly, he was still asking himself, with growing urgency: Must I keep silent about my spiritual perceptions and experiences? These reached far beyond anything he had included in his courses hitherto. Then he gave a talk about Goethe's fairy tale, The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily. The theme of this is really a search for a bridge between material and spiritual realities. This attracted the interest of some Theosophists. The Theosophical movement, founded in the late 1870s, embodied a kind of spiritual radicalism. It pioneered the rediscovery of Eastern philosophy and spirituality. Here were people with questions to which Steiner could speak more directly. At the same time, this lost him the ear of many who had hitherto regarded him as a promising, radical but still orthodox, scholar. This came to a head when he was asked to address the Giordano Bruno society. Giordano Bruno was a heretic who was burned at the stake by the church in 1600, and the society was dedicated to free thinking. Nevertheless, when Steiner spoke in his lecture about the need to include in our thoughts the invisible worlds to which people in the past had access, and then mentioned the Theosophical movement, the whole audience started to freeze. Afterwards there was no applause, and he was not invited back. The word went round: 'Steiner has become a Theosophist.'
It is clear to me that Steiner could have been really, really successful if he had chosen to remain just a "promising, radical but still orthodox, scholar". But he makes it clear that he could not keep silent. This decision I think meant that he had to cross an invisible line that meant he could never be part of the establishment. He had to choose his own path, no matter what because the alternative was to continue to work from within the "establishment" but pay the huge price of remaining silent about what was closest to his own heart, to his own life's path.
I for one am grateful that he crossed the line in the way he did. From within the establishment he would have been constrained to give only hints, vague intimations and flowery inspiring descriptions of his view on moral, social and philosophical issues in general terms. At best, as a philosopher something like Nietzsche I think he could have written radical, semi-poetical philosophical texts which were a kind of general call to awakening. As it is, we have a body of work which is second to none in many many areas of human life, despite the fact that many people find it ridiculous. It's far from perfect but it awaits each of us to find it and contribute to its perfecting.
Rudi looking to the future
Hi Lux,
I think Rudolf Steiner understood that his life's work, which he termed Anthroposophia, was a great seed for the future. I doubt he expected that his life's work would be understood in his own time or even sometime soon after his death, but understood what he was imparting into our earthly world, through the help of Anthroposophia and the Spiritual World, was a spiritual impulse for the future. Perhaps now is the time for it to really begin to flourish in the world. It is, of course, up to us if it succeeds well or succeeds on a limited basis. He is counting on us.
Best to you.
Cheers,
Patri
I can see where..
Hello, thanks for discussing things,
I can see where Steiner could have lost the establishment and mainstream support, even these days only few can fathom a reality of spirit that can be personallly experienced.
It seems it is up to us, and I would think many productive figures could rise anew from Anthroposophy applied, to do great things.
That's what I
That's what I think.
Actions speak louder than words...