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.findingblanks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:05 am 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.
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.