Observation, logic, folklore and presuppositions

[Eugene I.]

Eugene, you responded to my comments by saying:

"Well, the only anthroposophist I met so far is Cleric and Ashvin..."

So you've only come across two Anthroposophists (and that is online) and you've based your generalized claims about the movement being a cult on those two online personalities? Yikes. I'm feeling more and more relieved that I started asking you about your reasoning for all of this. Thanks for responding. My only suggestion is that IF your intention is to be an honest communicator regarding this subject, you've really need to justify your claims a little bit. As you know, I don't think it would be hard for you to show all kinds of problems with Steienr's claims on various things, but calling him a racist without saying what you mean by that, and then linking to one paper that goes out of its way to NOT call him a racist and another that equivicates...that's bad form. And that's why I'm not sure you are really interested in the complicated truth as much as being a social activist. Nothing wrong with the latter, but you can do it honestly and with a regard for the details. Plus, it would help more of the more pathologically inclined dogmatists actually give your argument a chance. The real zealots will never listen. On either side.

Speaking about generalization, it is exactly Steiner who applied generalization to the idea of ethnos and arrived at his "racist" conclusion that one ethnos can be spiritually more or less advanced compared to others. Such thing as "spiritual advancement" is not applicable to ethnos, it can only be applicable to individuals. It is such generalization of spiritual advancement to ethnos as a whole which can be called "racism". In the same ethnos we can find highly advanced and less advanced individuals in all aspects (not only spiritual). Of course the common culture and social conditioning does matter, but that has nothing to do with "ethnos" as a whole, and a capacity of individuals to develop beyond the limits of cultural conditioning is well known.

Regarding anthroposophy, the only thing I was saying is that the activity of particular anthroposophist on this particular forum is rather dogmatic and very much similar to the activity of some other cult members which I encountered before (Scientologists, Jehovah Witnesses etc). And the info I found on the internet suggested that this is a common problem among many anthroposophists. Of course this is not sufficient base to label the whole anthroposophy movement as a "cult", but the "cultic" tendency is still evident, on this forum in particular.

[AshvinP]

Eugene, you responded to my comments by saying:

"Well, the only anthroposophist I met so far is Cleric and Ashvin..."

So you've only come across two Anthroposophists (and that is online) and you've based your generalized claims about the movement being a cult on those two online personalities? Yikes. I'm feeling more and more relieved that I started asking you about your reasoning for all of this. Thanks for responding. My only suggestion is that IF your intention is to be an honest communicator regarding this subject, you've really need to justify your claims a little bit. As you know, I don't think it would be hard for you to show all kinds of problems with Steienr's claims on various things, but calling him a racist without saying what you mean by that, and then linking to one paper that goes out of its way to NOT call him a racist and another that equivicates...that's bad form. And that's why I'm not sure you are really interested in the complicated truth as much as being a social activist. Nothing wrong with the latter, but you can do it honestly and with a regard for the details. Plus, it would help more of the more pathologically inclined dogmatists actually give your argument a chance. The real zealots will never listen. On either side.

FB,

I appreciate your objectivity is considering what Eugene posted. And the following is not an invitation to shadow-dance, esp bc I am still not really sure what that means other than "become very cryptic". But do you see how what you wrote earlier is functioning in the exact same way as Eugene posting his comments and links to papers without any context? Only after you went through the links, which most people won't do, did you discover that one paper was going out of its way to NOT call Steiner a racist. So the question is, how is that any different from your earlier posts which lacked all context and didn't even provide links to anything? Just because you say, "I am not calling Steiner racist", doesn't override the fact that the ideal content of your comment was bound to be taken in exactly that same way, especially in our current times. I really hope you see what I am saying here, because this happens often and I am not sure if you are aware of it.

[Martin_]

The obvious irony in all this is that in considering the view that some races are in any way spiritually lagging behind, what are we to make of it when one of the forum members, who quotes Steiner's PoF frequently as an example of how thinking can be spiritually transfigured, would be, according to some anachronistic non-transfigured ethos, considered to belong in the former category. It's all so incongruous that we're still trying to have some coherent dialogos that can in some way reconcile the inherent non sequitur upon which it's based, while not breaking out in laughter. Surely thinking has at least reached a point that it can see the absurdity in this?

True indeed. The fact is, skin color is never mentioned as a cause of spiritual lagging by Steiner and in his framework, as Elyosha expressed, all is responsible for all.

Then how would you resolve the following (translated) quote from Steiner?

One can only understand history and all of social life, including today’s
social life, if one pays attention to people’s racial characteristics. And one
can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one first
examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the color of their skin.

(Staudenmaier: Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, p17 (Eugene's 2nd link))

[Jim Cross]

The obvious irony in all this is that in considering the view that some races are in any way spiritually lagging behind, what are we to make of it when one of the forum members, who quotes Steiner's PoF frequently as an example of how thinking can be spiritually transfigured, would be, according to some anachronistic non-transfigured ethos, considered to belong in the former category. It's all so incongruous that we're still trying to have some coherent dialogos that can in some way reconcile the inherent non sequitur upon which it's based, while not breaking out in laughter. Surely thinking has at least reached a point that it can see the absurdity in this?

True indeed. The fact is, skin color is never mentioned as a cause of spiritual lagging by Steiner and in his framework, as Elyosha expressed, all is responsible for all.

Then how would you resolve the following (translated) quote from Steiner?

One can only understand history and all of social life, including today’s
social life, if one pays attention to people’s racial characteristics. And one
can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one first
examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the color of their skin.

(Staudenmaier: Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, p17 (Eugene's 2nd link))

Seems racist to me.

I could probably overlook it as a product of European thinking of the time except the Steinerists want us to think that the old man was infallible.

It is one thing to read Steiner, maybe gain some insights and ideas, but another thing to slavishly quote everything he writes as prophetic and correct. Then it becomes unhealthy and cultish. This is probably why BK wants to keep his distance from it.

No doubt there are some here who believe themselves to be reincarnations of teachers specifically brought to humanity at this time to educate us. A free thinking forum may not be the best place for someone who is already sure about everything.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It is one thing to read Steiner, maybe gain some insights and ideas, but another thing to slavishly quote everything he writes as prophetic and correct. Then it becomes unhealthy and cultish. This is probably why BK wants to keep his distance from it.

Fair enough ... For what's it's worth, in a 'last' impression of Steiner, as I really have little to add to the bemusing mix of impressions offered here, is that those impressions are born of what was a bemusing enigma of a man, who at once could be both utterly brilliant, and deeply fallible, you know, like the folks in this forum, and untold others. And with that, I'll leave y'all to decode the enigma, while I create a new sub-forum related to another such enigma of a man, its namesake.

[Ben Iscatus]

It is one thing to read Steiner, maybe gain some insights and ideas, but another thing to slavishly quote everything he writes as prophetic and correct. Then it becomes unhealthy and cultish. This is probably why BK wants to keep his distance from it.

That made me laugh, Jim! The idea of BK embracing Steiner - it's just impossible. BK likes things tight and evidential. There's so much in Steiner that is far from that. Elementals, for instance - thoughts producing them. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying almost nobody thinks that way now and that nobody can demonstrate the truth of it to anyone else. BK wants to be taken seriously in the modern world, he wants to convert people from physicalism . Can you imagine what sort a field day rampant physicalists would have if he started talking about all the elementals he was releasing every day?

[Jim Cross]

It is one thing to read Steiner, maybe gain some insights and ideas, but another thing to slavishly quote everything he writes as prophetic and correct. Then it becomes unhealthy and cultish. This is probably why BK wants to keep his distance from it.

That made me laugh, Jim! The idea of BK embracing Steiner - it's just impossible. BK likes things tight and evidential. There's so much in Steiner that is far from that. Elementals, for instance - thoughts producing them. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying almost nobody thinks that way now and that nobody can demonstrate the truth of it to anyone else. BK wants to be taken seriously in the modern world, he wants to convert people from physicalism . Can you imagine what sort a field day rampant physicalists would have if he started talking about all the elementals he was releasing every day?

Exactly; While I'm critical often of BK, at least I believe he is attempting to be scientific and evidential. Probably Steiner himself would be a different person in this century but I don't think the Steinerists are willing to acknowledge that. Pronouncements from the Mountain aren't enough to persuade me but a lot of people fall for this sort of stuff all the time.

[Eugene I.]

I also think that presenting Steiner's views in a dogmatic way (like Ashvin and Cleric do on this forum) is actually counterproductive and a disservice to Steiner's ideas. I find many of his ideas quite relevant and valuable, such as the intrinsic nature of meanings and values in consciousness/thinking that can be cognized through intuitive and imaginative high-level cognition (even though these ideas seem to be not his original ones and mostly come from his predecessors like Goethe and Hagel). But presenting his teachings in an "ultimate truth" dogmatic and cultic way only makes people more reluctant to seriously look at them and accept them.

I also admit that I personally overreact to certain symptoms of cults and sectarianism because of my past "karmic" experiences with communism (which is a perfect example of a cult with all its features) and some religious/spiritual cults that I happened to be involved in the past. I know how destructive and harmful they can be. Definitely and fortunately anthroposophy is far from being a destructive cult. But I still know from experience how any sort of cultic and dogmatic mentality can be impeding and even detrimental to individual and group spiritual/social development.

[AshvinP]

It is one thing to read Steiner, maybe gain some insights and ideas, but another thing to slavishly quote everything he writes as prophetic and correct. Then it becomes unhealthy and cultish. This is probably why BK wants to keep his distance from it.

That made me laugh, Jim! The idea of BK embracing Steiner - it's just impossible. BK likes things tight and evidential. There's so much in Steiner that is far from that. Elementals, for instance - thoughts producing them. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying almost nobody thinks that way now and that nobody can demonstrate the truth of it to anyone else. BK wants to be taken seriously in the modern world, he wants to convert people from physicalism . Can you imagine what sort a field day rampant physicalists would have if he started talking about all the elementals he was releasing every day?

Exactly; While I'm critical often of BK, at least I believe he is attempting to be scientific and evidential. Probably Steiner himself would be a different person in this century but I don't think the Steinerists are willing to acknowledge that. Pronouncements from the Mountain aren't enough to persuade me but a lot of people fall for this sort of stuff all the time.

Let's be honest, you guys simply don't read anything Steiner writes. If I asked you to summarize his main work, Philosophy of Freedom, which contains absolutely no specific spiritual claims, you wouldn't be able to do it. And that's after we have summarized it for you so many times here. Ben, your last comment to me on the other thread showed you still don't even know what he is on about with his phenomenology of perception-cognition. And Jim straight up admitted he never reads anything Steiner writes or we write about Steiner. So why do you two even pretend like you are familiar with his work in the above comments? Why not just say, "I don't like Western esoteric spirituality or spiritually-informed science, so I don't read or try to understand anything Steiner writes".

We won't think any less of you if you admit a lack of interest in these things. You (ben) posted a great and hilarious mock essay. Why not just stick with that until you decide, if ever, to read Steiner? I really don't get why people feel like they will be looked down upon if they admit they haven't read and, therefore, don't understand these things. Take a page from Lou, who is honest about his own lack of interest in philosophy. Eugene went 9+ months before finally admitting he had never read PoF before criticizing the hell out of it and pretending to understand what Steiner claims in it (he thought it was full of spiritual claims). He still won't admit it. There's no need to go down that path and create confusion for months on end. Just stick with and put some enthusiasm into what you know, to generate discussion, and we will continue doing the same.

[Jim Cross]

Ashvin,

My view of Steiner is taken directly from your quotes. See Eugene's point about counter-productivity.

Lack of interest in Steiner isn't the same as lack of interest in philosophy.