Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:44 pmI can concede how the OP can be taken in a problematic way, and apologize for not being more clear about the intention. So for the record, it was not the intention to be anti-Steiner—notwithstanding I don't expect that every idea he had must be right—but just a curiosity about why Steiner would envision that take on vaccines. The intention was more an epistemological inquiry into how to distinguish between false beliefs and so-called occult knowledge of spiritual forces that impact upon the corporeal construct, and no different really than curiously questioning what Steiner claimed to know about Atlantis. For that reason, any comments that want to steer the discussion into a debate to either refute or support the rationale current anti-vaxer arguments are using against vaccines, will be discouraged and/or deleted.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:18 pmAs Cleric said before, the same holds for the "vaccines will be developed to kill the human soul" assertion of Steiner recounted in the video. I get what you mean in terms of using that video as a means for us to add this context in for others, so I apologize if I misjudged your intentions earlier. It's not at all the way I would go about it, as I presume many people are still confused by what exactly Steiner is talking about, and Ben and Eugene's typical projections and antipathy-fueled comments don't help clear up the confusion at all, but I suppose some helpful discussion can still come of it.
This question has been answered in various ways by Cleric, but let me try one variation out here.
We need to start over from scratch to answer your question. We need to have a clear understanding of what "science" is, for example, and why our modern conceptions of it are so flawed. Some people will refuse to engage in such an inquiry out of sheer principle - the principle that what they already "know for certain" is how the world actually is and must always be. More importantly, they cling to the principle that the reasons why we know what we know are unimportant. We prize our "certain" knowledge so much that we don't even stop to think about how we have never actually experienced any of those claims made by modern science that we have the utmost confidence in. Who here has run the QM experiments that establish "quantum entanglement", "wave-particle duality", "quantum decoherence", "uncertainty principle", etc.? Who here even knows someone directly who has run such experiments or published the papers with the results? Not many, if any, I presume.
So should we abandon all such conclusions? Yes and no. We should view them with a skeptical mind until we have at least established to ourselves why our skepticism is not warranted. What are we doing when we read about or listen to or watch these QM conclusions and determine they are valid? Clearly we are not running the experiments and observing the results ourselves. What we are doing is purely ideal - we are taking ideal concepts, abstracted out from an underlying Reality which is clearly more richly qualitative than mathematical equations or concepts about the mathematical equations, and testing them against our Reason and what other ideal constellations we have reasoned through. It is all occurring within our own minds, there are no sense-perceptions involved whatsoever. Is this a fallible process? Yes, most definitely, which is why eventually direct sense-experience is needed. But, until then, do we just have to throw our hands up and say, "I can't have any confidence in QM conclusions because I have not experienced the results myself?". No, that is equally as absurd and stultifying as thinking we know those conclusions for certain.
Why can't this logic above be applied to the "occult knowledge" of spiritual tradition? Is there any principle reason why that knowledge is different in kind from QM conclusions? Is it because the QM conclusions come to us from "reputable sources" who give us all the information we need to reason them through? I highly doubt that - not a single person has ever approached me with all the concrete arguments I need to understand QM and its conclusions, let alone someone I consider beyond reproach. But even if that were the case, what does it mean for someone to be "reputable" source of information? That is again something we conclude by reasoning through how well their logic holds together in a purely ideal sense. We don't go behind their back double-checking every sensory fact they have observed to make their arguments. So, all that considered, is Cleric not one of these reputable sources, or Steiner, or anyone else for that matter? Perhaps, but we need to reason to ourselves why that is the case - if we find, after reflection, that we are not going through that process, then we know our subconscious prejudices are really at work in the formation of our conclusions and/or our unwillingness to commit to any conclusions whatsoever.