Today all opinions pass through the internet. It is todays vehicle for communication. Each day I am on the internet listening to what people are saying. Waldorf schools are increasing coming under attack for its association with the "wacky" spiritual science of Rudolf Steiner. If you want to scare people with Steiner quotes about Lemuria, two devils, two Jesus children etc. it is easy to do. The opponents point to the religious cult of the Anthroposophical Society and the foolish faith-based belief system called anthroposophy to attack the public funding of Waldorf schools in the USA, UK, and Australia.
I advocate emphasizing that the core of anthroposophy and Waldorf is The Philosophy of Freedom which is independent of any group, dogma, or faith-based belief system. While Steiner's far out sounding clairvoyant readings are the focal point of a world wide attack on Steiner and Waldorf education the Philosophy of Freedom remains untouched by public criticism and instead finds even respect in the general public discussion.
When I warn anthroposophists of these growing attacks they are first usually surprised because they don't spend much time online so are uninformed. Then they say, "who cares". It is a smugness that implies that in the future the public will be turning back to the language of theosophy and ancient Eastern spiritual theory with its astral and etheric bodies and realize the anthroposophists were right all along.
Why would history move backward into the past? The medium of theosophy and its language was an appropriate vehicle in Germany 100 years ago. Steiner's work will be confirmed in the future, but likely using a new language appropriate for the culture. In contrast, the language of The Philosophy of Freedom is accepted today and should be for a long time.
Steiner recognized the limited life of his other books and lectures while he said the Philosophy of Freedom, which is about the fundamentals of knowing intended to make us all spiritual scientists rather than merely Steiner devotees, would endure.
Steve Sagarin of Barrington Waldorf high school in Massachusetts posted these thoughts on his blog about understanding a term like "spiritual science".
We may swoon with delight or crinkle our noses in disgust at the term "spiritual science," but we should know its origins before we embrace or discount it.
If your daughter told you she was studying humanities in college could you imagine having the same reactions? "Geisteswissenschaft," literally, "spiritual science," refers in German universities to what we call the humanities. It's that simple.
Some claim that Husserl and Steiner, among others, use the term in a "new way," but I would argue that, if anything, they're actually reclaiming its older sense. That is, they aim to understand literature, philosophy, history--the humanities--as clearly and objectively as natural scientists aim to understand the natural world.
Whether or not they succeed, whether or not we agree with their method or findings, this was their project. Owen Barfield sometimes described his work in history and philosophy as aiming at a "science of meaning." I believe this is exactly what Steiner meant by spiritual science, and what we (used to) mean when we studied the humanities.
What are the alternatives to a science of meaning ("science" derives from Latin for "knowledge")? Accept the universe as meaningless? Teach that we each "create our own meaning"? I know it's wimpy not to accept these hard "truths," but, of course, they're not truths, they're assumptions. And I will hold them as such--possibilities not demonstrated--while I pursue the humanities.
I really appreciate and
I really appreciate and agree with the point you are making in this post, Tom. You put it very well. Thanks. I would take it a tiny step further by including the language of PoF as something that must not go backwards. Why would we go back to metaphors and linguistic conventions that were only appropriate for short period of time in a very specific cultural atmosphere? Just as the public will eventually find ways to increasingly talk about non-local phenomena of consciousness (not in the terms Steiner used; and not the perceptions either, of course), the pubic is slowly learning to speak from the intuition of cognition in appropriate- and context specific- ways.
I'm not saying this out of a big beef with you because you've made clear recently that you are most interested in hearing how individuals find ways to express their experience, perhaps using the text of PoF as their guide.
I guess I just feel an urgency in communicating with those who appreciate PoF (a small number), to emphasize that there is no reason we should expect the text of that book to be the catalyst for its message. It was for most of us, certainly. Yet, hopefully, our path into PoF has shown us exactly why we should not expect that book to be were people are heading for their starting points. For some it will still be the initial inspiration, but a healthy anthroposophical stream will rely less and less on having people read about notions such a pure percepts and attaching concepts to percepts and all that. In fact, I think we can reasonably say that it is as unuseful to try to convince people of starting with so-called pure-percepts as it is asking them to believe that on the night of their birthday they are in closest contact with their gaurdian angel. Although, the latter can at least be theoretically observable, whereas the former is a contradiction in terms.
I am lucky to live in a community in which the Waldorf school is being run by a group of teachers who feel it is their responsibility to stay closer to their own experiential principals than to spout mental pictures they have cultivated from Steiner's lexicon. This makes it tricky in terms of being recognized as a "true" Waldorf school, but there is something much more alive in the community discourse.
I take hope in seeing all the ways Waldorfian principals are being absorbed into regular educational models.
Science of meaning is good, Tom
I like all that is said here Tom.
My recent dialoges with so called philosopher experts in academia shows that they adapt what ever language you may use to what ever accomodates their point of view. They do not listen creatively.
Conversly in theology departments the language of Theosophy goes down fine! You can say anything you want there. No guarantee of course that anyone understands of course.
Science of meaning. Good phrase.
Love
Bryn
That's an interesting
That's an interesting observation! I guess it makes a lot of sense that theology folks wouldn't really care about that; as long as they are working with mental pictures that satisfy whatever basic metaphysical framework they already subscribe to there is nothing to fine tune...
thanks
"They [so called philosopher experts] do not listen creatively"
Since you listen creatively, you might learn to ask questions creatively - then your listeners might change their attitude to you and listen creatively?
Questioning creativly.
I think I already know how to question creatively. Its part and parcel of listening. The issue is whether and how much to do it.
It is interesting that you suggest this questioning technique in order that my listners might change their atitude toward me.This is nowhere an intention I express in my post.
I think listening with intention to persuade via questioning is a potentially intrusive technique. I might do it once in a conversation but it can be perceived as an agressive stance and pisses people off in no time.
I have to say I sense that I know my conversation partner (CP) often even a bit better than s/he does herself . PoF and Anthroposophy make you like that. The key IMO is to lead silently from the front. One can gently amplify the CP's position if they look like they could stand it. If not; Keep listening I say, whatever nonsense they come out with. Challenge and question are so close as to be often indistinguishable in the heat of conversation.
I think questions are at their most creative when you ask them of yourself.
Homunculus
My listeners have the wrong attitude to me?
Homunculus, who needs listeners, seems to be rather confused:
"It is interesting that you suggest this questioning technique in order that my listners [sic] might change their atitude toward me. This is nowhere an intention I express in my post."
The other contributor who spoke of creative questioning responded to the following posting by someone who also neded listeners:
"My recent dialoges with so called philosopher experts in academia shows that they adapt what ever language you may use to what ever accomodates their point of view. They do not listen creatively."
Steve Sagarin's so simple!
Humanities is plural, spiritual science singular.
No quotation of Husserl offered - just name-dropping.
Isn't the science of meaning called semantics? Since when is semantics philosophy?
As far as Owen Barfield goes - Mr. Sagarin doesn't bother after name dropping Husserl to ask if Barfield have any idea of Husserl or any German or Austrian philosopher at all?
Mr. Sagarin, whose problem are persons who "crinkle their noses when they hear "spiritual science" - but doesn't explain more than to claim the word "science" is connected to the Latin word for "knowledge".
Barfield and Husserl
Barfield can be read, and why should someone have to quote them in order for you to trust such a reference. This list is not a fast intellectual food place! Barfield is one of the premire thinkers of the 20th Century, is well known in the humanities, far better known that Steiner. Yet, in truth Barfield remains a "student" of Rudolf Steiner, which he became in his early youth and continued until his death. I was present at Rudolf Steiner College in 1987 when Barfield was asked if there was a book he read of Steiner's repeatedly more than any other, and he said: "A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, the least read most important book Steiner ever wrote."
Get off your &(*(& and go read Barfield's Poetic Diction: a study in meaning. Barfield, by the way, was an Inkling, one of four or five in the beginning that met regularly at Oxford during the early '30's and beyond, and included J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inklings
As to Husserl, go this this link for an amazing essay by an anthroposophist: http://www.asnyc.org/aiaen/NfM-Overset.htm *** Its called Spiritual Beings Dwell in the Ground of Propostions: Brentano, Husserl and Steiner on the Content of Thought. The essay is precisely about meaning, and is fully rooted in an introspective phenomenology of our inner life. Excellent stimulation for students of PoF. S t r e t c h e s y o u r m i n d.
*** for some reason this link doesn't work right, but if you remove the terms that follow Overset.htm from your browser and then reclick you should get to the correct page.
Unfair treatment and inflammatory troll manner
The contributor who objected that no quotations or sources were given in connected with the claim about Husserl and Steiner is justified - his expectation is usual procedure in serious discussion.
The other contributor doesn't answer to the question if Barfield was acquainted with Husserl or his associates and sounds like a salesman. I find his contribution abrasive and offensive and don't now why the website administrator tolerates such primitive language.
just one option
You most likely will find that your current way of expressing yourself won't get you far here. I say that without one ounce of judement regarding your style.
You may have no interested in adjusting and you may be offended by my even suggeting such a thing. I'd be happy to give you more direct feedback if you are interested. You can contact me privately as well.
Again, I don't know your intention, so you may very well be working to elicit the exact response you get.
Jeff
For Jeff
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
unfair?
Dear Anonymous,
My five children all went through a stage where they were concerned with fairness. In developmental psychology this is called "latency" (it goes from about 9 until the onset of adolescence). One does run into adults who never get over this need however. The world isn't fair, and will never be fair, for its real operating principles are far more sophisticated. One of these operating principles, in terms of genuine intellectual (spiritual) discussion, is that one takes the trouble to read sources and not just make comments with an attitude of "shooting from the lip", believing that one's personal antipathies are viable.
You, Anonymous, continue to demonstrate laziness, as if this discussion list should revolve around your needs for "fair" treatment, which seem to require that you be spoon fed something that in this age anyone with five minutes and some computer literacy can obtain in a few keystrokes. All I did was Google "Owen Barfield Husserl" and got mutltiple hits from the start.
glad to offend you,
joel
DNFTT
DNFTT
This is probably the same
This is probably the same person who the administration kicked off the website two years ago(the one before Carol)- just too many similarities. While I objected to his/her being kicked off the site, I certainly remember why it became an issue in the first place.
I also think there is a chance that Aspergers might very well be at play. Either way, there's a block.
"This is probably the same" - Bullying becomes Mobbing
Bullying is defined as repeated, harming mistreatment of a person (the target) by one or more perpetrators. The mistreatment can be verbal behaviour that intimidates, threatens, or sabotages the target. In bullying, the problem is understood as the toxic individual. The bully is guilty of intentional, planned abuse of others.
Mobbing sees the core problem as ganging up to demonize a single target. One person is singled out as undesirable by a group.
Bullying behaviours also tend to be more overt and include aggressive verbal and physical attacks.
In mobbing, the attacks are more insidious.
what is it called when one
what is it called when one person singles out a group?
on another note, something I saw tonight in a film reminded me of how much fun it can be to slow down and let all of that slide into perspective. The harmonic to that is to simply recognize the difference between letting things go and that's important....
No wonder this website doesn't flourish
No one person singled out any group except that person who posted what it means to bully or to mob. But you can't fool me, because I know you didn't miss his or her point - you are the mobber, Jeffrey! It's really incredible and shocking to read what you wrote about that person. With the language you and your buddy use, you would be at once banned from another website. Obviously, you belong to a group who run this website so you behave as you want.
Yeh, the lack of respect
Yeh, the lack of respect here for visitors reminds me of my visits to events held by the "Anthroposophical Society". It's realy not different - there's a group which runs the show and doesn't want to be out of power. But that's how it is almost everywhere, right? Anywhere you go, you have to play by the rules enforced by the powerful, right?
agreed. mostly. If you go
agreed. mostly. If you go through the history of this website you will be able to find many examples of how visitors are treated very kindly. VERY kindly. But, yea, some people would get in fights. I didn't fight- because I actually like these people very much- but I annoyed some people by constantly finding odd ways to say why PoF is being misunderstood in some ways that freeze it.
But the mean people were not many. When this sight was generating more conversation, you'd see how brilliantly people were treated. The snarky comments mostly came when somebody felt they were not being considered the leader in a particular context. But even most of those people would come back kindly.
I certainly agree with what you said at the very end.
on the contrary!
no, you are wrong, my friend!! I've been kicked off this website more than once. Never for using fowl language, but for not sticking to the topic in the correct way. But I've slowly learned to avoid such a fate and it is worth it because this is a very well made website and offers great opportunities to brainstorm and dialog.
Oh my!!! What did I say about that person???? I'm going to go back now and carefully read what I said about that person and I promise I will apologies for each and every cruel thing I said about him. I simply don't remember saying anything mean. But let me go check!
Thanks!!!
so far
so far I can not find the cruel things I was said to have said about the person. I supported the person. I said I thought the person did not need to be kicked off. I even offered the person support in communicating on the website. I even stated that my support was not to imply that the person is communicated poorly. I have even stated that I myself was often in need of such help. I like that person. But that person has simply formulated a method of communication that isn't the best match for the kind of communication that works here. That is not suggesting anything cruel about that person or this website. It's just about how things fit.
But I also can no longer tell when I am talking to that person or when I am talking to other anonymous people, so I am going to cut down on my communications with anonymous when it gets too confusing. Like it is now!! But please know that I have not intended to offend in my attempts to support. I'm just not good at navigating the more vague edges of the more cloaked corners of cyber-space...
Jeff
What a wonderful link,
What a wonderful link, Joel. Thanks very much.
I appreciate that Hicks looks closely at the terminologies of the three great researchers. He clearly cares very much about the natural and organic link between their work and it's always a joy to see somebody who can articulate such matters with such clarity.
And of course I appreciate his providing references. I think he did a brilliant job of contextualizing his report. Mr. Hicks's paper should stand as a very strong example of philosophical analysis from within (and almost outside) the anthroposophical tradition. I look forward to seeing what else he has written.
It would be such a wonderful sign if those who are philosophically oriented in the anthropop movement would embrace such papers as Mr. Hicks. Such an embrace would be a very productive deed for many reasons, not the least of which would be the catalyzing effect it would have on the appropriate evolution of PoF in terms natural and effective to the modern mind. I won't hold my breath for such an embrace, which is why I would predict that a paper like this will become more highly valued retrospectively as a good indicator the current anthro moment's inherent limitations.
Along with my respect and deep appreciation for the paper, I would have liked to see Mr. Hicks demonstrate a bit more phenomenological sensitivity to the explication process itself. He recapitulates a gesture that Steiner made in his earliest attempts to research and articulate his core intuition. There seems to be a lack of awareness as to the ways in which Mr. Hick's own presuppositions are shaping what he finds as supposed essences. I agree very much with his early and well stated intention to stay close to the "flow and ebb" of our experience. And, like Steiner, Hicks does a wonderful job justifying the use of figurative language (although, ironically, if he stayed faithful to this necessity, my concerns would have been obviated). In the very same sentence in which Hicks strongly implores that we stay with the directly encountered flow of our experience, he also begins embedding the effects of his already post-cognized schemas. Steiner was working hard to resist this intellecual tendency before his death and explicitly stated that future researchers would find better ways of achieving it (this was referred to each time Steiner spoke of his own failure to articulate his epistemological research later in his life).
For anybody who already shares the same conceptually embedded effects with Mr. Hicks, my concern will necessarily appear to be nit picking.
However, I think I can show (not here) that my conerns are much more than nit picking. I also think I can show why I consider Mr. Hick's work to be wonderful.
As to the former, I would wish to point out that there is a fundamental (and inherently neutral) gesture of the intellecutual soul that is always in a creative dynamic with the fundamental gesture of the consciousness soul. It is possible for somebody to be increasingly gaining access to higher (more subtle/deeper/wider/more intricate) perceptual/conceptual aspects of being while still primarily standing within the framework of the intellectual soul's center of gravity. A person in this situation will begin providing strong and accurate critisisms of various kinds of limits associated with empirical and philosophical methodologies centered within the intellectual soul's primary frames, BUT these criticisims will be voiced using, primarily, langauge and perceptual frames that still contain the intellectual soul's primary stamp/landscape. We see this in young Steiner's repreated insistence that his epistemology must begin in an imagination of pure percepts (he abandoned this insistence later in life when he was grappling for new ways to express his starting point). We also see it in Mr. Hick's immediate embedding of constructs like "the sense of I AM". There is nothing wrong or necessarily inaccurate about posing such a construct, however I think it can be shown that it is indeed an already formulated construct (as used by Hicks) and, therefore, contains the fingerprint of many potentially unnecessary and/or unuseful presuppositions.
The anecdote to this kind of intellectual usurption, is to actually stay with one's ongoing experiencing and developing a method of research that creates new kinds of concepts (reflecting a more "pure" consciousness soul gesture) which allow a process of direct reference to pre-articulated experiencing without sneaking in the effects of already held constructs. We can never (and should NOT hope to) avoid the use of symbols, but we can develop a method that accounts for the changes that symbolizing (of all kinds: non verbal as well as verbal) draw out of and press into our experience. In Anthroposophy- A Fragment Steiner claims he failed to successfully achieve this end. I think he did, however, take massive steps forward in book. In fact, I love that book precisely because one can observe Steiner trying to cut across the powerful inertia of the intellectual soul and shape a new kind of concept.
In my opinion Mr. Hicks has taken important steps forward within the philosophical arm of the anthroposophical movement (as have other researchers) and his paper exemplifies also the point at which Anthroposophy can fully begin its expression on the other side of of the intellectual/consiousness soul abyss....if, and only if, we learn to begin from the ongoing flow of experience rather than an embedded construct. It is the opportunity to fashion new kinds of concepts that reflect and carry foward human experiencing along with providing a method to show the way conceptualizing is already in interaction with one's insights (formulations/findings/articulations...)
"(not here)"
"However, I think I can show (not here) that my conerns are much more than nit picking." If you'd be more happy to give Mr. Hicks more direct feedback than here, you can contact Mr. Hicks privately: shicks@berwicksd.org It would be wonderful if both you and Mr. Hicks could exchange here and show your concerns are much more than nit picking here.
dialog with Mr. Hicks might
dialog with Mr. Hicks might be wonderful, however it would be impossible to "show" non-nit picking for somebody who's needs determine such a perception. and exhausting!!!
Thanks for the info!
Jeff
p.s. by the way, "not here" was meant as a way of respecting the reader's intelligence.
Respecting the reader's intelligence
Here is again (the above data was subsequently darkened to make it almost illegible) the Email address of Scott Hicks which can be easily found in Internet:
Groups and Branches List
Scott E. Hicks shicks@berwicksd.org.
Rudolf Steiner Study Circle. HONESDALE. PA. 18431. (570)253-3748.
Steiner, Bardon, Ramon(d) Lull(y) and the Cosmic Script
One can receive a copy of this text by contacting me at shicks@berwicksd.org or 570-356-7685 or 214 5th St., Catawissa, PA, 17820.
Rudolf Steiner Archive Open Forum
Subject: Re: Books of Rudolf Steiner (ebooks) where to find. Author: Scott Hicks. Mail Address: shicks@berwicksd.org
that's exactly what I
that's exactly what I meant! thanks very much.
privately: shicks@berwicksd.org
What's the point of blackening out the Email address of Hicks? Who did that?
regarding anonymous comments...
Please recall that this is a blog post, copied to another blog post. I have a blog precisely in order to post things that have not been scrubbed to a scholarly, footnoted finish.
Semantics is the study of language meaning, which I would say--and I believe Barfield would say--differs from a study of meaning itself. And I don't believe I claimed or implied that it is philosophy, nor am I concerned with whether or not it (or Husserl's work, or Steiner's work, or Barfield's work) "is" philosophy. I don't believe labelling such an inquiry is relevant.
In linking Barfield through Steiner to Husserl, I take responsibility for the train of thought and am not concerned to know--it's not relevant--whether or not Barfield himself knew of Husserl's work.
My problem is not only those who crinkle; it's also with those who swoon! I am confident of my position when I am criticized by fundamentalists within the walls of Waldorf education and also, from the other side, by the critics of Waldorf education.
The point is not the reaction, the point is to understand the meaning of the phrase, "spiritual science." Most Americans, in my experience, simply don't know that this phrase has different connotations in German and is more common than we know.
It's true that humanities is plural and spiritual science is singular. In German, it's more common to refer to Geisteswissenschaften in the plural, but it's more common to see it in the singular than it would be to see a study in English referred to as a "humanity." Such are the vagaries of translation.
Thanks Steve for your
Thanks Steve for your comment. Here is a link to Steve's blog, What is Education: http://www.ssagarin.blogspot.com
Blog introduction
"The distance between an education for a job in the real world and an education that aims to help students become as fully human as possible seems immense. I spend a lot of time thinking about this and other issues of teaching and learning. Here's some of what I think."
goethenum staff
do goethenun exist conteporaraly upto now ,. if so from my candid opinion goethenun do like to be concerened to their themselves ,. the anarchy was for them and by them ,. we can say goethenum are mushroom for all people in these universe ??
well perhaps their social mores and snob is adjust them but according to another nits of hints from my queer friend when i tossed the question about goethenum he replied me back by saying goethenum lack moribund vitae ,.,,.,.,.i would like to ask any person from the goethe down city to give me more cressy remarks over my querry
Post new comment