Anthroposophy for Dummies

[AshvinP]

I have a short note to share, and this thread, coming up to the top of the list just now, seems perfect for this purpose.
Question: should we attempt to tweak Anthroposophy, to make it more usable for "dummies", to the point that we alter the translation of Steiner's work, trying to make it more convenient, and to avoid confusion?

I have just noticed a recent comment on the "Anthroposophy" FB goup, by Andrew Linnell, suggesting precisely that, and that the Rudolf Steiner Archive should implement "cleanups" in this perspective. I hope it's clear why I couldn't leave that suggestion unreplied. Here you can see comment and reply (if you are a member of the group). I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well, if not on the FB group, then here in the thread.

To preserve the spirit of Anthroposophy, wrong, detrimental, entitled thoughts like these should be opposed as clearly and as strongly as possible.


I also want to quote OMA's daily meditation for today:

Thanks for bringing attention to this FB group, Federica! For some reason, it didn't occur to me to join before. I see the karmic entanglement with Linnell continues and has gone to the next level

I can see both of your perspectives on the issue pretty clearly. At this point, I lean toward your position because of the slippery slope argument. It's not that big of a deal for readers to distinguish what sort of time period Steiner is referring to based on the context, regardless if it is called "epoch" or "age". And a switch from "epoch" to "age" in this context wouldn't be a big deal either, IMO, but if taken as a general 'cleanup' program for the Archive, it could certainly lead to detrimental alterations of the lectures/translations.

Needless to say, I don't think Linnell suggested such a sweeping program or made the suggestion at issue with any malintent (not saying you are ascribing that to him either). I certainly don't think it is an issue to have such thoughts and express them publicly, asking for feedback. We should never be afraid that we are 'breaking divine laws' by simply having thoughts and expressing them, as long as we remain open to the feedback and the possibility that our thoughts were misguided.

Ashvin, There's nothing fun in this story. I can't believe you don't see that one position is morally right, and the other one is the manipulative intention to make Steiner lectures an instrument of one's own wishes of influence and agenda. One feels entitled, from a position of 'power', to put pressure on the Archive to arbitrarily rationalize what Steiner wrote and replace a word with another, systematically! (yes that was the exact suggestion), that they do a "huge cleanup job", since Steiner (poor him) "uses different expressions to refer to the same period of time", so this is a problem. And nobody seems to bother! I will copy the posts here, so everyone can see. If it's against the FB group rules, they can try to expel me. The suggestion not only lacks any imaginable ground, it is also plain dangerous. These things should not be minimized. Also note: there were no request for feedback whatsoever.

Federica, when you wrote - " I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well" - I didn't think that meant, "tell me my position is morally right and his position is manipulative, or I will be indignant".

I have no problem with your responses to him on FB, which are measured and well-reasoned, but I think your characterization of the whole thing here is unhelpful. It's interesting that OMA's quote focuses on how we should fear breaking the Divine laws, not how we should set ourselves up as the final arbiters of those laws and declare any perceived violators as dangerous enemies of the group (whatever the group happens to be). Through the deeds of Christ, those laws also include charity, generosity, and forgiveness.

Linnell obviously posted that, not as a decree to bully anyone into changing the translation, but to express his opinion on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that free thought and expression. It may not be wise or artful or whatever, but then others like you are free to comment on it and engage in reasonable discussion. I doubt anyone is even thinking of banning you for that. What is dangerous, I think, is if we become so untrusting and suspicious of others within a community of spiritual seekers, because there is already an overflow of that disposition in the general culture. We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.

[Federica]

Thanks for bringing attention to this FB group, Federica! For some reason, it didn't occur to me to join before. I see the karmic entanglement with Linnell continues and has gone to the next level

I can see both of your perspectives on the issue pretty clearly. At this point, I lean toward your position because of the slippery slope argument. It's not that big of a deal for readers to distinguish what sort of time period Steiner is referring to based on the context, regardless if it is called "epoch" or "age". And a switch from "epoch" to "age" in this context wouldn't be a big deal either, IMO, but if taken as a general 'cleanup' program for the Archive, it could certainly lead to detrimental alterations of the lectures/translations.

Needless to say, I don't think Linnell suggested such a sweeping program or made the suggestion at issue with any malintent (not saying you are ascribing that to him either). I certainly don't think it is an issue to have such thoughts and express them publicly, asking for feedback. We should never be afraid that we are 'breaking divine laws' by simply having thoughts and expressing them, as long as we remain open to the feedback and the possibility that our thoughts were misguided.

Ashvin, There's nothing fun in this story. I can't believe you don't see that one position is morally right, and the other one is the manipulative intention to make Steiner lectures an instrument of one's own wishes of influence and agenda. One feels entitled, from a position of 'power', to put pressure on the Archive to arbitrarily rationalize what Steiner wrote and replace a word with another, systematically! (yes that was the exact suggestion), that they do a "huge cleanup job", since Steiner (poor him) "uses different expressions to refer to the same period of time", so this is a problem. And nobody seems to bother! I will copy the posts here, so everyone can see. If it's against the FB group rules, they can try to expel me. The suggestion not only lacks any imaginable ground, it is also plain dangerous. These things should not be minimized. Also note: there were no request for feedback whatsoever.

Federica, when you wrote - " I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well" - I didn't think that meant, "tell me my position is morally right and his position is manipulative, or I will be indignant".

I have no problem with your responses to him on FB, which are measured and well-reasoned, but I think your characterization of the whole thing here is unhelpful. It's interesting that OMA's quote focuses on how we should fear breaking the Divine laws, not how we should set ourselves up as the final arbiters of those laws and declare any perceived violators as dangerous enemies of the group (whatever the group happens to be). Through the deeds of Christ, those laws also include charity, generosity, and forgiveness.

Linnell obviously posted that, not as a decree to bully anyone into changing the translation, but to express his opinion on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that free thought and expression. It may not be wise or artful or whatever, but then others like you are free to comment on it and engage in reasonable discussion. I doubt anyone is even thinking of banning you for that. What is dangerous, I think, is if we become so untrusting and suspicious of others within a community of spiritual seekers, because there is already an overflow of that disposition in the general culture. We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.

I’m not indignant, Ashvin, because I trust the divine will. Those who are meant to realize what I am pointing to, see it. Of course, even objectively reckless opinions can be expressed in a free group. The problem arises when such opinions come from someone in the role of President of a branch of the Anthroposophical Society, and the opinion is complemented with a call to action and a tag to the RS Archive (“that would be a huge cleanup job”). Obviously, this unduly exerts objective pressure on the Archive, that lives on donations. There is an evident conflict of interest here, Ashvin. The power of influence given by the title is unduly leveraged to promote personal, unsubstantiated opinions. Whoever cannot see these facts, is naive. And whoever is putting blinders on one’s eyes and only sees “free opinions” is irresponsible.

I absolutely agree that, as you say: “We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.” The reason for my OMA quote was precisely to say that we don’t need to fear public opinion when we call out an undue abuse of influence, like I am doing here. We don’t need any tribal factions, but we absolutely need to take responsibility and openly defend the spirit of Anthroposophy, as it is continually at risk of being compromised.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, There's nothing fun in this story. I can't believe you don't see that one position is morally right, and the other one is the manipulative intention to make Steiner lectures an instrument of one's own wishes of influence and agenda. One feels entitled, from a position of 'power', to put pressure on the Archive to arbitrarily rationalize what Steiner wrote and replace a word with another, systematically! (yes that was the exact suggestion), that they do a "huge cleanup job", since Steiner (poor him) "uses different expressions to refer to the same period of time", so this is a problem. And nobody seems to bother! I will copy the posts here, so everyone can see. If it's against the FB group rules, they can try to expel me. The suggestion not only lacks any imaginable ground, it is also plain dangerous. These things should not be minimized. Also note: there were no request for feedback whatsoever.

Federica, when you wrote - " I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well" - I didn't think that meant, "tell me my position is morally right and his position is manipulative, or I will be indignant".

I have no problem with your responses to him on FB, which are measured and well-reasoned, but I think your characterization of the whole thing here is unhelpful. It's interesting that OMA's quote focuses on how we should fear breaking the Divine laws, not how we should set ourselves up as the final arbiters of those laws and declare any perceived violators as dangerous enemies of the group (whatever the group happens to be). Through the deeds of Christ, those laws also include charity, generosity, and forgiveness.

Linnell obviously posted that, not as a decree to bully anyone into changing the translation, but to express his opinion on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that free thought and expression. It may not be wise or artful or whatever, but then others like you are free to comment on it and engage in reasonable discussion. I doubt anyone is even thinking of banning you for that. What is dangerous, I think, is if we become so untrusting and suspicious of others within a community of spiritual seekers, because there is already an overflow of that disposition in the general culture. We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.

I’m not indignant, Ashvin, because I trust the divine will. Those who are meant to realize what I am pointing to, see it. Of course, even objectively reckless opinions can be expressed in a free group. The problem arises when such opinions come from someone in the role of President of a branch of the Anthroposophical Society, and the opinion is complemented with a call to action and a tag to the RS Archive (“that would be a huge cleanup job”). Obviously, this unduly exerts objective pressure on the Archive, that lives on donations. There is an evident conflict of interest here, Ashvin. The power of influence given by the title is unduly leveraged to promote personal, unsubstantiated opinions. Whoever cannot see these facts, is naive. And whoever is putting blinders on one’s eyes and only sees “free opinions” is irresponsible.

I absolutely agree that, as you say: “We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.” The reason for my OMA quote was precisely to say that we don’t need to fear public opinion when we call out an undue abuse of influence, like I am doing here. We don’t need any tribal factions, but we absolutely need to take responsibility and openly defend the spirit of Anthroposophy, as it is continually at risk of being compromised.

Alright, Federica, I suppose that I am not meant to realize it yet, so we can agree to disagree on this one.

At least we seem to agree to on the negative prospect of AI-reduced renditions of PoF. Personally, I think that is something to be really concerned about. It's not the malicious agenda of some particular person like the FB poster, of course, but the habits of thinking (or non-thinking) that are spreading quickly into all domains of society. People have now created AI bots that simulate historical philosophers to endlessly interact with old ideas and arguments. I also came across this one recently - https://chat.openai.com/g/g-juQEAPRkP-g ... ning-dummy

Where is this heading and what can we do to counter it in a redemptive way?

[Federica]

Federica, when you wrote - " I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well" - I didn't think that meant, "tell me my position is morally right and his position is manipulative, or I will be indignant".

I have no problem with your responses to him on FB, which are measured and well-reasoned, but I think your characterization of the whole thing here is unhelpful. It's interesting that OMA's quote focuses on how we should fear breaking the Divine laws, not how we should set ourselves up as the final arbiters of those laws and declare any perceived violators as dangerous enemies of the group (whatever the group happens to be). Through the deeds of Christ, those laws also include charity, generosity, and forgiveness.

Linnell obviously posted that, not as a decree to bully anyone into changing the translation, but to express his opinion on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that free thought and expression. It may not be wise or artful or whatever, but then others like you are free to comment on it and engage in reasonable discussion. I doubt anyone is even thinking of banning you for that. What is dangerous, I think, is if we become so untrusting and suspicious of others within a community of spiritual seekers, because there is already an overflow of that disposition in the general culture. We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.

I’m not indignant, Ashvin, because I trust the divine will. Those who are meant to realize what I am pointing to, see it. Of course, even objectively reckless opinions can be expressed in a free group. The problem arises when such opinions come from someone in the role of President of a branch of the Anthroposophical Society, and the opinion is complemented with a call to action and a tag to the RS Archive (“that would be a huge cleanup job”). Obviously, this unduly exerts objective pressure on the Archive, that lives on donations. There is an evident conflict of interest here, Ashvin. The power of influence given by the title is unduly leveraged to promote personal, unsubstantiated opinions. Whoever cannot see these facts, is naive. And whoever is putting blinders on one’s eyes and only sees “free opinions” is irresponsible.

I absolutely agree that, as you say: “We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.” The reason for my OMA quote was precisely to say that we don’t need to fear public opinion when we call out an undue abuse of influence, like I am doing here. We don’t need any tribal factions, but we absolutely need to take responsibility and openly defend the spirit of Anthroposophy, as it is continually at risk of being compromised.

Alright, Federica, I suppose that I am not meant to realize it yet, so we can agree to disagree on this one.

At least we seem to agree to on the negative prospect of AI-reduced renditions of PoF. Personally, I think that is something to be really concerned about. It's not the malicious agenda of some particular person like the FB poster, of course, but the habits of thinking (or non-thinking) that are spreading quickly into all domains of society. People have now created AI bots that simulate historical philosophers to endlessly interact with old ideas and arguments. I also came across this one recently - https://chat.openai.com/g/g-juQEAPRkP-g ... ning-dummy

Where is this heading and what can we do to counter it in a redemptive way?

It's heading to a situation where the only digital RS Archive available will be AI-augmented. So the proto-transhumanist will be finally redempt. It doesn't look like you're in a position to do much to counter that, Ashvin. Just keep jousting with Eugene.

[Federica]

Hi everyone, is anyone able to give suggestions or advice with regards to this section from Steiner's "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" titled Control of Thoughts and Feelings? Here is the relevant passage below. If you don't want to read all of it, just skip to the part I have highlighted in bold because that is what I am addressing.

Once the student has found the beginnings of spiritual vision by means of such exercises, he may proceed to the contemplation of man himself. Simple phenomena of human life must first be chosen. But before making any attempt in this direction it is imperative for the student to strive for the absolute purity of his moral character. He must banish all through of ever using knowledge gained in this way for his own personal benefit. He must be convinced that he would never, under any circumstances, avail himself in an evil sense of any power he may gain over his fellow-creatures. For this reason, all who seek to discover through personal vision the secrets in human nature must follow the golden rule of true spiritual science. This golden rule is as follows: For every one step that you take in the pursuit of higher knowledge, take three steps in the perfection of your own character. If this rule is observed, such exercise as the following may be attempted:

Recall to mind some person whom you may have observed when he was filled with desire for some object. Direct your attention to this desire. It is best to recall to memory that moment when the desire was at its height, and it was still uncertain whether the object of the desire would be attained. And now fill your mind with this recollection, and reflect on what you can thus observe. Maintain the utmost inner tranquility. Make the greatest possible effort to be blind and deaf to everything that may be going on around you, and take special heed that through the conception thus evoked a feeling should awaken in your soul. Allow this feeling to rise in your soul like a cloud on the cloudless horizon. As a rule, of course, your reflection will be interrupted, because the person whom it concerns was not observed in this particular state of soul for a sufficient length of time. The attempt will most likely fail hundreds and hundreds of times. It is just a question of not losing patience. After many attempts you will succeed in experiencing a feeling In your soul corresponding to the state of soul of the person observed, and you will begin to notice that through this feeling a power grows in your soul that leads to spiritual insight into the state of soul of the other. A picture experienced as luminous appears in your field of vision. This spiritually luminous picture is the so-called astral embodiment of the desire observed in that soul. Again the impression of this picture may be described as flame-like, yellowish-red in the center, and reddish-blue or lilac at the edges. Much depends on treating such spiritual experiences with great delicacy. The best thing is not to speak to anyone about them except to your teacher, if you have one. Attempted descriptions of such experiences in inappropriate words usually only lead to gross self-deception. Ordinary terms are employed which are not intended for such things, and are therefore too gross and clumsy. The consequence is that in the attempt to clothe the experience in words we are misled into blending the actual experience with all kinds of fantastic delusions. Here again is another important rule for the student: know how to observe silence concerning your spiritual experiences. Yes, observe silence even toward yourself. Do not attempt to clothe in words what you contemplate in the spirit, or to pore over it with clumsy intellect. Lend yourself freely and without reservation to these spiritual impressions, and do not disturb them by reflecting and pondering over them too much. For you must remember that your reasoning faculties are, to begin with, by no means equal to your new experience. You have acquired these reasoning faculties in a life hitherto confined to the physical world of the senses; the faculties you are now acquiring transcend this world. Do not try, therefore, to apply to the new and higher perceptions the standard of the old. Only he who has gained some certainty and steadiness in the observation of inner experiences can speak about them, and thereby stimulate his fellow-men.

The exercise just described may be supplemented by the following: Direct your attention in the same way upon a person to whom the fulfillment of some wish, the gratification of some desire, has been granted. If the same rules and precautions be adopted as in the previous instance, spiritual insight will once more be attained. A spiritual insight will once more be attained. A spiritual flame-form will be distinguished, creating an impression of yellow in the center and green at the edges.

By such observation of his fellow-creatures, the student may easily lapse into a moral fault. He may become cold-hearted. Every conceivable effort must be made to prevent this. Such observation should only be practiced by one who has already risen to the level on which complete certainty is found that thoughts are real things. He will then no longer allow himself to think of his fellow-men in a way that is incompatible with the highest reverence for human dignity and human liberty. The thought that a human being could be merely an object of observation must never for a moment be entertained. Self-education must see to it that this insight into human nature should go hand in hand with an unlimited respect for the personal privilege of each individual, and with the recognition of the sacred and inviolable nature of that which dwells in each human being. A feeling of reverential awe must fill us, even in our recollections.

What are some steps I can take to develop or deepen feelings of respect and reverence, as Steiner is describing? Presumably it would be helpful to have those feelings whilst doing the seed/plant exercise he described earlier in the same chapter?
And I know at the start of the book he kept emphasising that it is important to develop respect or reverence for the higher knowledge and beings (I think gratitude is another important feeling as well), which for sure is important.
I suppose it would help to make sure I develop those feelings towards my own inner self first? Like how I've noticed when I develop compassion towards my self for a fault or a personal issue, the compassion flows easily towards my fellow-man who have the same issue in themselves. So that same 'law' I'm sure would apply for the respect and reverence.

I am trying my best to keep working on my personal process (self-development) because I feel that is very important for connecting consciously with Spirit. Plus, Steiner was stressing that over and over, so that is another reason I am taking it seriously.

If anyone has advice or suggestions for this please let me know.

Hi Luke,

Take the following as simply the impressions of another one on the path of spiritual development. By the way, when I was reading How to Know the Higher Worlds, I jotted down a sort of colorful summary, for orientation among the many steps and exercises. You are currently at the orange steps. When you get there, I especially recomment you have a look at the summary of the last part of the book, that I left out from my summary and Cleric covered, here.

I agree with you that gratitude is a fundamental feeling to cultivate, it's part of the 'pre-requisites' mentioned by Steiner at the beginning of the book. In my experience, gratitude is the natural foundation of every moment of introspection/meditation, and to some extent an ever-present background of conscious experience in general. I work at making this ever-present feeling of gratitude more solidly present in every moment of the day. I am also reminded of a quote I recently read from Meister Eckhart: "If the only prayer you ever say is ‘Thank You’, that is enough". I thought I read that in a post by Ashvin, but I'm not finding it here.

For my part (but I hope others will comment on this point too) I am hesitant about the idea of developing feelings of reverence for human dignity starting from compassion for one's own faults, then extending that compassion to others who suffer from similar faults or situations. Because the perception of oneself is a particularly critical aspect that needs to change quite radically through development, I doubt it can be the primary source to tap into for developing that sense of integrity and respect. I would say it's more through the gratitude for the access to development that is continually made possible for us despite our faults that one can make contact with that heart-understanding. Then it can be deepened by actually taking the responsibility-opportunity to make something out of this chance, actively and continuously, getting one's head out of a day-by-day experience of life, that mainy "goes with the flow". It's like a door is continually kept open for us, and we can deepen our heart-understanding by recognizing the incredible chance, as consciously and constantly as possible, and then by actually stepping across that passage. So I would say, in my experience, that feeling of reverence and respect comes as a consequence, or reverberation, of the humble attempts of progression along the path, rather than through self-compassion, or through a direct attempt to sharpen that particular feeling.

[AshvinP]

I suppose it would help to make sure I develop those feelings towards my own inner self first? Like how I've noticed when I develop compassion towards my self for a fault or a personal issue, the compassion flows easily towards my fellow-man who have the same issue in themselves. So that same 'law' I'm sure would apply for the respect and reverence.

I am trying my best to keep working on my personal process (self-development) because I feel that is very important for connecting consciously with Spirit. Plus, Steiner was stressing that over and over, so that is another reason I am taking it seriously.

If anyone has advice or suggestions for this please let me know.

Luke,

On the question above, I think a healthy degree of 'self-love' is important. But we only need to be clear that 'love' is not indulgence of lower qualities. Unfortunately, that is very often how modern people express what they imagine to be 'love' - they endlessly indulge the lower qualities of other people and themselves, saying, "it's OK to have these faults, that's just who we are and we should love ourselves as we are". It is much more healthy if we love our inner self as a mother loves her child, or a great teacher loves her student, wanting only to see their highest potential be reached in a relatively harmonious way. We desire that our imaginative, inspired, and intuitive children be reborn within us so we reach our higher potential in complete freedom. I say "reborn" because these higher forces are actually what made us stand upright, start speaking, and start thinking in our early childhood, but of course that happened without our conscious participation, in unfreedom. Now we can rediscover those forces within us and bring them forth in freedom, for the benefit of not only ourselves but also the Whole.

It is very helpful to pray that our faults be forgiven because we also forgive the faults of others. In other words, our asking for forgiveness and love is justified because we also show forgiveness and love to our fellow beings (of course we don't just say this, but also put it into practice). We recognize that if we remain stuck in past feelings of shame, regret, frustration, disappointment, etc. towards our inner being, we will never have the opportunity to bring forth our inner children and thereby work for the higher potential of all humanity. As long as our self-love is rooted in our concrete insights of spiritual evolution and our high ideals for humanity, then it should be quite helpful to move forward.

[Federica]

I’m not indignant, Ashvin, because I trust the divine will. Those who are meant to realize what I am pointing to, see it. Of course, even objectively reckless opinions can be expressed in a free group. The problem arises when such opinions come from someone in the role of President of a branch of the Anthroposophical Society, and the opinion is complemented with a call to action and a tag to the RS Archive (“that would be a huge cleanup job”). Obviously, this unduly exerts objective pressure on the Archive, that lives on donations. There is an evident conflict of interest here, Ashvin. The power of influence given by the title is unduly leveraged to promote personal, unsubstantiated opinions. Whoever cannot see these facts, is naive. And whoever is putting blinders on one’s eyes and only sees “free opinions” is irresponsible.

I absolutely agree that, as you say: “We don't need any more tribal factions or group in-fighting, and we don't need any more fear of expressing one's thoughts freely.” The reason for my OMA quote was precisely to say that we don’t need to fear public opinion when we call out an undue abuse of influence, like I am doing here. We don’t need any tribal factions, but we absolutely need to take responsibility and openly defend the spirit of Anthroposophy, as it is continually at risk of being compromised.

Alright, Federica, I suppose that I am not meant to realize it yet, so we can agree to disagree on this one.

At least we seem to agree to on the negative prospect of AI-reduced renditions of PoF. Personally, I think that is something to be really concerned about. It's not the malicious agenda of some particular person like the FB poster, of course, but the habits of thinking (or non-thinking) that are spreading quickly into all domains of society. People have now created AI bots that simulate historical philosophers to endlessly interact with old ideas and arguments. I also came across this one recently - https://chat.openai.com/g/g-juQEAPRkP-g ... ning-dummy

Where is this heading and what can we do to counter it in a redemptive way?

It's heading to a situation where the only digital RS Archive available will be AI-augmented. So the proto-transhumanist will be finally redempt. It doesn't look like you're in a position to do much to counter that, Ashvin. Just keep jousting with Eugene.

I want to attract attention to some facts. Everyone can decide for oneself what these facts indicate. This is Linnell’s last reply in the previously mentioned FB thread:

I showed GA 159 as a clear example of the problem that causes such confusion. There is a booklet that was available called "Preparing for the Sixth Epoch." In the lecture, RS used "Kulturepoche", but the title became merely "Epoch". I recognize that what I am asking is a large burden. If RSarchive had infinite resources, this would be a useful project to at least put in editor remarks about "cultural epoch" and "cultural age" and to ensure that "cultural epoch" is never shortened to just "epoch".

The above was written despite, in my reply just preceding it, I showed that GA 159 June 15, 1915 was already in line with what Linnell requires that the Archive do. As anyone can check, the lecture today features the requested expression “culture-epoch”, 72 times. This was the case before the above was written, as I pointed out and linked to in the thread, before the above was written.

This is one fact. Another fact I want to attract attention to is the language of the post.

[AshvinP]

Alright, Federica, I suppose that I am not meant to realize it yet, so we can agree to disagree on this one.

At least we seem to agree to on the negative prospect of AI-reduced renditions of PoF. Personally, I think that is something to be really concerned about. It's not the malicious agenda of some particular person like the FB poster, of course, but the habits of thinking (or non-thinking) that are spreading quickly into all domains of society. People have now created AI bots that simulate historical philosophers to endlessly interact with old ideas and arguments. I also came across this one recently - https://chat.openai.com/g/g-juQEAPRkP-g ... ning-dummy

Where is this heading and what can we do to counter it in a redemptive way?

It's heading to a situation where the only digital RS Archive available will be AI-augmented. So the proto-transhumanist will be finally redempt. It doesn't look like you're in a position to do much to counter that, Ashvin. Just keep jousting with Eugene.

I want to attract attention to some facts. Everyone can decide for oneself what these facts indicate. This is Linnell’s last reply in the previously mentioned FB thread:

I showed GA 159 as a clear example of the problem that causes such confusion. There is a booklet that was available called "Preparing for the Sixth Epoch." In the lecture, RS used "Kulturepoche", but the title became merely "Epoch". I recognize that what I am asking is a large burden. If RSarchive had infinite resources, this would be a useful project to at least put in editor remarks about "cultural epoch" and "cultural age" and to ensure that "cultural epoch" is never shortened to just "epoch".

The above was written despite, in my reply just preceding it, I showed that GA 159 June 15, 1915 was already in line with what Linnell requires that the Archive do. As anyone can check, the lecture today features the requested expression “culture-epoch”, 72 times. This was the case before the above was written, as I pointed out and linked to in the thread, before the above was written.

This is one fact. Another fact I want to attract attention to is the language of the post.

What is also a fact is that people are consistently getting confused on this topic, thinking 'fifth epoch', for ex., refers to our current 5th PA age, rather than the PA epoch as a whole, or similar types of confusion. There is an example right on that same thread, which is what prompted his comment that you are responding to.

Andrew Linnell thank you I read it today. I'm familiar with the catastrophes at the end of the Lemurian and Atlantean times. And the one coming up at the end of the post Atlantean 7th cultural period. But why would there be cataclysms at the end of our 5th cultural age? There weren't any particular cataclysms at the end of the previous 4 ages. So why would there be one now? How would it come about? I may have missed something in the GA though.

Hugo Stekelenburg Ah, perhaps this is an example of the confusion that reigns on cultural ages and epochs? There is no catastrophe of this scale until the end of this fifth Epoch (about 7800 CE). In general, cataclysms are not needed between cultural ages. We did have the Black Plague at the end of the 4th Cultural Age however.

Andrew Linnell I think in the part that the author of this post quoted (i.e. Margrit), the word epoch consistently refers to the 6th phase of this Earth evolution, i.e. after the War of all against all. It is a bit confusing to the reader, as RS says, quote: " This sixth epoch will see the development of brotherhood among men, clairvoyance and creative power." Isn't this also what will happen in our 6th Cultural age of our current Post Atlantean epoch? Furthermore there were some more disasters that happened around the transitions between the cultural ages. At the end of the Persian age: massive death of people worldwide when the Kali Yuga Set in. At the end of the Graeco-Roman age, in the 12th century BC there was chaos, war and much disruption in the Mediterranean Basin after the volcano eruption at Santorini > the Minoan civilisation collapsed. Written about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../1177_B.C.:_The_Year...

Hugo Stekelenburg Hence my concern for confusion by students of Steiner. Brotherhood (Philadelphia) is to happen between 3573 and 5733 CE. Its peak will be just after the midpoint. It will not be all humans who attain this type of brotherhood. The period 3573-5733 is not an "Epoch" such as Lemuria, but a "Cultural-Epoch" or, as RS often used, "Cultural Age".

The point is that it is reasonable to assume with even a minimal degree of charitable approach, Linnell comes across this same sort of confusion quite often as someone intimately involved in the Anthroposophical society (unlike us). Also, in the comment you quoted, Linnell referred to the title of the booklet as another example of a source of confusion, which is actually very misleading since it is about the 6th PA age. Finally, the fact that the archive editors changed the GA 159 translation from the one Linnell quoted with just "epoch" to the current one with "culture-epoch", shows that it has been a problem in the translations and one they thought was worth addressing! And he finally concedes that what he suggests is a large 'burden' and would be useful IF the archive had infinite resources, only to address the specific confusion of making "cultural epoch" into just "epoch". These are also facts we can attend to before suspecting malicious agendas and waging our intra-community battles.

But since I don't see how further haggling over this topic can possibly lead to posts that help us or others orient toward the important inner work to be done, and will more likely create unnecessary inner obstacles, I will bow out after this comment.

[AshvinP]

At least we seem to agree to on the negative prospect of AI-reduced renditions of PoF. Personally, I think that is something to be really concerned about. It's not the malicious agenda of some particular person like the FB poster, of course, but the habits of thinking (or non-thinking) that are spreading quickly into all domains of society. People have now created AI bots that simulate historical philosophers to endlessly interact with old ideas and arguments. I also came across this one recently - https://chat.openai.com/g/g-juQEAPRkP-g ... ning-dummy

Where is this heading and what can we do to counter it in a redemptive way?

After seeing an additional comment on this post:

Mathieu Zehraoui
Interesting, i'm interested in the continuation of this
Is it possible to work out a model that takes the whole book, refines the formulas to build a kind of PoF-Style-GPT that would answer with the same kind of efficient prose to any inquiry ? That would be practical

It does occur to me that these types of efforts are inevitable, so there is little use in complaining about them or trying to prevent them. Instead, the above actually makes more sense, although I think it would take more creativity than simply 'refining the formulas'. In fact, an AI trained on the posts of this forum that elucidate the core of PoF (and there many such posts on this thread alone) could serve this function well. Each answer could be supported by a quote from PoF and point towards the inner experience of thinking activity, maybe even suggesting exercises to approach the 'exceptional state'. I think these are the kinds of redemptive efforts needed in the face of inevitable developments.

[Federica]

But since I don't see how further haggling over this topic can possibly lead to posts that help us or others orient toward the important inner work to be done, and will more likely create unnecessary inner obstacles, I will bow out after this comment.

Yes, good decision. One can wonder why, before bowing out, you thought you would add your list of announced facts, that actually turned out to be your list of opinions. To those opinions, I repeat: inaccurate translations are one thing, and should be cosidered and corrected on a case-by-case basis, but systematic correction of Steiner's own original choice of vocabulary - under pretext that he referred to same periods with different terms across his work, and that needs amendment - is nothing but dangerous censorship and distorsion.


The convenience of the reader has no role to play whatsoever in altering the original text as it is made available to the English-speaking public. FULL STOP.

I would like to suggest that the word "epoch" be replaced with "cultural age" throughout this quote (and throughout the entire translation). It has been very confusing for many which time period is meant in some lecture cycles based on different terminology used. RS himself sometimes used "cultural-epoch" (or at least it was recorded as such) and other times used "cultural-age". In geological terminology, an Epoch is much greater than an Age. I think we should follow this for it to be a Spiritual Science. Thus, it would be "Lemurian Epoch" and "Atlantean Epoch" which contain seven cultural ages. Today these "cultural ages" are 2160 years long. It would be a huge cleanup job - @Rudolf Steiner Archive.