People who are critical of anthroposophy sometimes accuse it of being a cult, or a cult-like religious sect. To determine whether there is any validity in this accusation, we need first of all to understand what these critics are likely to mean by the word “cult.”
According to Wikipedia, the word “cult” was originally used, not to describe a group of religionists, but the act of worship or religious ceremony. It was first used in the early 17th century, borrowed via the French culte, from Latin cultus (worship).
Today, however – at least in English – the word “cult” is understood as a derogatory term. Wikipedia goes on to say that: “In the mass media, and among average citizens, “cult” gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide. While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturally deviant, however peaceful or law abiding it may be.”
In such a context, to accuse anthroposophy of being a cult is to make a serious and potentially damaging allegation. So what is the reality – is anthroposophy “a cult-like religious sect following the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)”, as alleged by Dan Dugan (founder of PLANS and the Waldorf Critics’ website)? Or is it neither a cult nor a religion but a path of knowledge to guide the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe, as described by its founder, Rudolf Steiner?
Let us see if we can find a further definition of what constitutes a cult. There is a very useful organisation called the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), which provides information on cults, cultic groups, psychological manipulation, etc, and practical suggestions for those affected by or interested in these subjects. I presume that Dan Dugan approves of the work of ICSA, because he has published an article about anthroposophy on its website.
The ICSA says that cults usually display some or all of fifteen typical characteristics. These fifteen characteristics identified by the ICSA are shown below in bold while my comments on how anthroposophy compares with these are in italics.
1. “The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. “
Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, was undoubtedly a charismatic leader and his teachings, as set out in his lectures and books, are usually taken with great seriousness and respect by anthroposophists; but Steiner himself always insisted that no-one should take his statements as true unless they had first checked within themselves as to how they feel about such statements, eg our innate and “infallible feeling for truth must be the active principle in the verification of knowledge.” Anthroposophists who are given to quoting Steiner on all subjects rather than speaking from their own experience and knowledge are not doing what Steiner asked of them – and such behaviour does not make anthroposophy a cult, even if a few anthroposophists sometimes can give that impression.
There is an additional difficulty for anthroposophy, however, and this has been well described by Ha Vinh Tho: “On one hand everybody emphasises that it is NOT a religion but a spiritual science, but on the other hand most of the contents of anthroposophy are completely beyond any ones cognitive grasp and have to be accepted in good faith. The method presented by Steiner is indeed accessible to all, but the contents he researched are mostly far beyond anyone’s grasp who is not an initiate or a fully realised being. And there seems to be a confusion between advocating a scientific methodology of contemplative research and inquiry that includes the spiritual dimension of the human being and of the world; and upholding contents that can only be perceived by non-anthroposophists as a revelation given by an enlightened master. I have no problem with the latter, but there is no way one can present these revelations as scientific results that everyone can acknowledge.”
This is surely true. Anthroposophists (like me, for example), regard Steiner as an initiate who was able to access knowledge not available to most of us. We are willing to live with some very advanced concepts that we can’t prove, because of our sense of Steiner’s total integrity and extraordinary insight. Nevertheless, by their fruits shall ye know them; and the results of what I call “applied anthroposophy” continue to demonstrate the potential for practical solutions to current world problems that arise from the work of Steiner and many other anthroposophists in the fields of agriculture, banking, health, education and in many other areas.
2. “Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.”
Question, doubt and dissent have always been part of anthroposophy since its foundation. But since there is no set of beliefs or doctrines that members are required to adhere to, there is no possibility for any member to transgress. There are of course areas of controversy and disagreement but people are in no way prevented or discouraged from discussing their views or adopting particular positions. The word “must” does not exist in the anthroposophical vocabulary, since freedom is at the core of anthroposophy.
3. “Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).”
Meditation and the meditative path are certainly encouraged in anthroposophy, but are seen as private, individual initiatives and have nothing to do with the society. None of the other practices listed has ever had any place in anthroposophy.
4. “The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth.“
There is absolutely no dictation to members on what to wear, how to think, feel or act, who to marry etc. The concept of freedom is central to anthroposophy.
5. “The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity.”
As mentioned under (1) above, anthroposophists often regard Steiner as an initiate and anthroposophy certainly sees itself as having much to contribute towards current world problems – but there is no sense in which anthroposophists regard themselves as an elite separate from the rest of society. On the contrary, Steiner frequently made it clear how important it is for anthroposophists to be involved in the wider world, eg “Our anthroposophical movement should not be a vaguely mystical, nebulous theory-movement sought by people wishing to withdraw from life, but must be a movement by which a man {sic} introduces the spiritual with practical effect into life’s every sphere.”
6. “The group has a polarised us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.”
Anthroposophists are encouraged to ‘do’ anthroposophy, ie to be engaged and active within the world – there is no sense of us versus them.
7. “The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).”
Since Steiner’s death in 1925, there has been no ‘leader’ of anthroposophy. Each national society has a general secretary and Council who are accountable to their members and chosen by election.
8. “The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviours or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).”
Steiner was known as a man of unimpeachable moral integrity – not even his most vehement critics have ever accused him of any dishonourable behaviour. Steiner himself said that to take one step in spiritual development required three steps in moral development. To call oneself an anthroposophist while engaging in reprehensible or unethical behaviour would be simply to fail to understand anthroposophy, let alone live it. That is not to deny that some anthroposophists have failed to understand it and have fallen grievously short of what one would expect from them – one thinks for example of some individuals who were close to the Nazis in Germany or the fascists in Italy in the 1930s and 40s – but these people were notable exceptions.
9. “The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.”
This does not happen in anthroposophy – there is no peer pressure to conform and no forms of persuasion, subtle or otherwise.
10. “Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.”
None of these things is required or expected of anthroposophists, nor is there any kind of leader to whom one could be subservient.
11. “The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.”
This is certainly not the case with anthroposophy.
12. “The group is preoccupied with making money. “
This is even less the case with anthroposophy, as the difficult financial state of many anthroposophical organisations can bear witness.
13. “Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.”
There are absolutely no requirements or expectations of this kind for anthroposophists.
14. “Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialise only with other group members.”
This is absolutely not the case in anthroposophy.
15. “The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.”
People who are devoted anthroposophists naturally value their membership of the society and are loyal to it – but no anthroposophist has ever feared reprisals from other members and people are entirely free to leave membership, without any fear of reprisals, whenever they wish.
I think it is clear from the ICSA list above that anthroposophy displays none of the characteristics of a typical cult. To be fair to Dan Dugan, he has himself admitted, in an exchange with Tarjei Straume, that “I agree that as cults go, Anthroposphy is a sissy; in almost all aspects not dangerous, just a huge waste of time.” That’s about as good as we’re going to get from a Waldorf critic – and if Dan Dugan goes on record to say that anthroposophy is not much of a cult, then I think the rest of us can probably agree that it is not a cult at all.
anthropopper 
Hello Jeremy,
How delighted I am to see that the Anthropopper himself took the time and effort to answer the Cultic Index Questionnaire that I had created for the 5,000 member Steiner Facebook community in October 2013.
Here is the headline of that project:
JUST HOW MUCH OF A CULT IS ANTHROPOSOPHY?
CALCULATE ITS CULTIC INDEX (CI)!
Now Jeremy, I just tallied up your score and you achieved a resounding CI = 0.00 (on a scale of 0 to 10)
In order for you to understand your score and to see how you compared with other Anthros who took the test, please read this posting about it I made in 2014 to my craven ahrimanic slave-masters at Waldorf Critics.
(You’ll notice that I use the same ICSA list that you do, but in a more abbreviated form and some of the criteria are listed in a different order, but it’s really identical to what you have above.)
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/messages/27675
Tom
LikeLike
Hello Tom,
It’s just as well you didn’t take up market research as your profession, because you would have failed miserably. To begin what should be an impartial questionnaire with this statement:
“JUST HOW MUCH OF A CULT IS ANTHROPOSOPHY?
CALCULATE ITS CULTIC INDEX (CI)!
There is no doubt that anthroposophy is some species of religious/spiritual cult — hell, just ask the critics. They’ll tell you! ”
is surely to suggest to respondents the kind of answers you are seeking. I notice also, that in your devotion to your own Cult of Staudi, you have adopted some of his techniques in distorting original sources. This is very noticeable in your first cultic characteristic. Here is the original from ICSA:
“1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. “
And here is your rendering of that characteristic:
“1] The group is focused on a living (or dead) leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.”
You have deliberately altered that characteristic from the ICSA original so as to make it more easily applicable to anthroposophy. Not so surprising, I suppose, that a critic should wish to distort the truth, but nevertheless disappointing.
Best wishes,
Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Rudolf Steiner was very concerned that anthroposophy would not be reduced to a cult. He gained internal opponents over the years, who wanted to weight-in on what he should be doing, and talking about; especially after construction on the first Goetheanum began. 1915 was a particularly challenging year, as a potential schism attempted to form in response to his marriage to Marie von Sievers in December of 1914. He always knew, from the beginning of Lucifer-Gnosis ten years before, c. 1904, that his prescribed method of communicating spiritual truths by way of the oral tradition of lecturing, would invite the Luciferic stream right into the personality structure of his audience, and this became noteworthy to the extent that Carl Unger began to give lectures on the epistemology of spiritual science in order to encourage the listening audience to think about the knowledge being imparted with their heads, and not just their hearts. This arrangement forms the true relationship between Rudolf Steiner and Carl Unger, who stood to be the logical successor when Steiner died in 1925.
In your response to the first characteristic of the ICSA criteria for cult-status, I have to take a measured resistance to your saying:
“Anthroposophists who are given to quoting Steiner on all subjects rather than speaking from their own experience and knowledge are not doing what Steiner asked of them – and such behaviour does not make anthroposophy a cult, even if a few anthroposophists sometimes can give that impression.”
Of course, in my experience over many years, and especially with the critics who seem to revile these quotations as so much “spamming the steiner said”, I have to say that the real issue is not only correlating Steiner to the personal experience, which indeed exists for the purpose of corroborating and expanding spiritual-scientific research, but also demonstrating how ignorant certain critics are about what anthroposophical spiritual science really represents.
For example, in taking the comments to your last post, it can be shown that Steiner references were invaluable for the discussion, and yet the individual experience was the primary target and motivation for using his invaluable resource of knowledge, ref. https://anthropopper.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/my-dads-deathday/#comments
Anthroposophy will never fit the criteria of a cult, as you keenly observe, point by point. As well, Anthroposophical Medicine has been given a boon of positive acknowledgement by the National Institute of Health recently. They report studies in which patients under the care of AM professionals are either being cured of disease, or at least having cancer symptoms reduced in pain, and extending life. This is very important news.
Yet, Dan Dugan will only acknowledge that it is quackery, and that he will one day look down on the circle of hell and its quack anthro doctors. Well, this at least admits that Dan believes in Heaven, and is not entirely atheist. But it also assures that the only real cult today is the cult of personal opinion. In that respect, Dan Dugan is a mainstay for many years. Mediocrity opines, while seekers of truth and knowledge find it around every corner.
Steve
LikeLike
Yes 🙂
What can a man wrest more from life
Than that Nature, all-divine, reveal to him.
How that she causeth the firm and formed to melt into Spirit
And how what is born of the Spirit she holdest fast in form
Giordano Bruno
LikeLike
There is one question I have for anybody who calls themselves an anthroposophist: which of the daily exercises do you practice, and what have you learned from them?
Because it is usual for me when interacting with an anthoposophist that they will demand chapter and verse – that is to say, a quote from one of Rudolf Steiner’s lectures. This allows them to know that the person they are conversing with is speaking their ‘language’; the only problem is that this goes in direct contradiction to what Rudolf Steiner asked of them! Such people are more than ready to read the lectures, soak up the information, but not work things out for themselves.
LikeLike
Are you asking me Gemma? I study the lectures and the exercise involves moving my eyes from left and right. A spiritual scientist working towards Anthroposophy studies spiritual science and not Gemma’s personal view or Jeremy’s personal view (with respect Jeremy) and in the seriousness of studying spiritual science it is preferred to read and study the lectures directly instead of been distracted with subjective opinion.
Caryn
LikeLiked by 1 person
As mentioned in my comment, my question was for anybody calling themselves an anthroposophist.
In this case, what have you learned from moving your eyes from the left to the right? (Given that this is all you do, and there is no other activity related to this exercise).
What is more, I will add that I know of no exercise that Rudolf Steiner handed down, that requires one to move one’s eyes in such a way. Nor were the exercises that Rudolf Steiner detailed his own, they are part of a greater tradition, of which Rudolf Steiner was a part.
What is more, Rudolf Steiner’s ability to give lectures was solely dependent on his having practiced the very exercises that were handed down to him. In doing so, he awoke the forces from within him to employ in his incarnation.
Anthroposophy is about understanding the eternal nature of the facts that Rudolf Steiner spoke about in his lectures. However, this is not something one can learn from reading the lectures alone, an activity that requires little more than an ability to read. Such an understanding can only be brought about through activities that step beyond the lectures. It is then that the world itself will reveal what Goethe termed “God’s Holy, Open Secrets”.
The things we all see, but usually dismiss as being merely subjective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gosh you are a cheeky impertinent imp Gemma! Of course moving my eyes from left to right is not the only activity I do – I also go for long walks with my dog. Now if you excuse me there is something I need to concentrate on and I shall leave you in the good hands of none other than …. Taddy.
Caryn
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, Caryn Louise, how sweetly do you warm the “cockleberries of my heart,” as it were, and I feel ashamed that I have so far failed to acknowledge and thank you for defending my soul-spiritual entelechy against the ferocious onslaught of Jeremy’s calumny, gently rebuking him for identifying me as the wrong Judas.
With deepest love spanning at least 3 incarnations, I remain your devoted Grail Knight,
Taddy (the other Judas Apostle)
LikeLike
I’ll take that as a “no”, shall I?
Whilst walking dogs is a wholesome activity, it isn’t one of the exercises Rudolf Steiner spoke of, is it?
LikeLike
Hello Gemma,
I have found that the single Steiner exercise that I practice every day and has been the most effective for me over the decades is expressed in this single German word:
die Abstürzendenkirchenturmsübung
that is: “the Falling Church Steeple Exercise”
Judas Thaddeus, not Iscariot
LikeLike
Leider, kenn ich diese Übung nicht.
LikeLike
Hi Gemma,
Voilà! Bitte schön!
General Demands Which Every Aspirant For Occult Development Must Put To Himself (Subsidiary Exercises)
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA245/English/GuidEsot;lines=227-582
=========================================
In the fifth month, efforts should be made to develop the feeling of confronting every new experience with complete open-mindedness. The esoteric pupil must break entirely with the attitude which, in the face of something just heard or seen, exclaims: `I never heard that, or I never saw that, before; I don’t believe it — it’s an illusion.’ At every moment he must be ready to encounter and accept absolutely new experiences.
What he has hitherto recognized as being in accordance with natural law, or what he has regarded as possible, should present no obstacle to the acceptance of a new truth. Although radically expressed, it is absolutely correct that if anyone were to come to the esoteric pupil and say, ‘Since last night the steeple of such and such a church has been tilted right over’, the esotericist should leave a loophole open for the contingency of his becoming convinced that his previous knowledge of natural law could somehow be augmented by such an apparently unprecedented fact.
==========================================
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thankyou, I’d forgotten.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, having practiced this exercise for decades, what insights has it brought you?
After all, that is the point of the exercise, is it not?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
First I must note a relevant synchronicity that occurred last night as I was preparing to educate you about my Cultic Index survey
Suddenly, an email dings in from John Beck who edits the Being Human journal whose latest issue is on the topic of “Anthroposophy in the New Media.”
Look at the plug he gives you:
———————-
Facebook now claims a billion people using it every month, a world of its own almost, within the internet. In the older blog category there is Jeremy Smith’s anthropopper, whose Feb. 8th post is “No, anthroposophy is not a cult – and here’s why.” It’s an interesting and important question which Jeremy explores with care and balance. Elsewhere he gives a sensitive account of Marilyn Monroe’s engagement with the work of Rudolf Steiner. It includes the meeting between the movie star and the poet Edith Sitwell, who reported that they talked mostly about Steiner.
————————-
But also notice that John gently observes your somewhat atavistic (read Luciferic) nature in belonging to the “older blog category.”
Indeed, Jeremy, because you are so clueless about anthroposophy on Facebook, you totally missed and then of course misconstrued my CI survey which took place on the main Steiner Facebook group in October 2013.
Now please don’t feel singled out because of your atavism. Dan Dugan is also in the same category, he belonging to the “older yahoo group mailing list” category.
And just recently I chided Steven Hale here for his atavistic ways, using a colorful alliterative epithet for him.
Indeed, the only person commenting here who is a denizen of Steiner Facebook is Gemma, from whom I’d like to hear about the evolutionary (or is it devolutionary?) forces of Facebook on the growth and cultivation of anthroposophy.
LikeLike
My engagement with the Facebook Group ended over a year ago; my work there was completed. If you want to know who it was that I met, take note of my previous comment.
Anthroposophy is a very great deal more than just imbibing lectures, and too few people know that.
LikeLike
Yes, Gemma, I agree, and that is why I was inspired to forge the following descriptive epithet for Steven Hale: “Sir Steiner Spamalot.”
You and I both know, from our respective forays into the Steiner Facebook realm, that Steven would be quite quickly “cured” of his “Steiner spamming” ways!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt for one moment that someone who likes posting quotations would be put off by a group dedicated to such activities.
LikeLike
Dearest Taddy, I reply here because there is no reply on your serenade, how can I ever forget you. Your beautiful personality has kept me in joy for many years. Your devoted maiden sister Mary Caryn Louise, sighing.
LikeLike
Hello Tom,
Whether I’m clueless or not I will leave others to judge but I am a subscriber to both “Anthroposophy” and “Answering Ahriman” Facebook groups. I don’t often write anything there, as frankly, I’ve got too many other things to do; and in my experience FB is a bit of a displacement activity for more urgent business. But anthroposophy generally has been very slow in waking up to the communication potential of social media, which I think tells us something about the age profile of anthroposophists, and perhaps about our uncertainties regarding technology generally.
Best wishes,
Jeremy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, Jeremy, I stand corrected! And I apologize to you for ever thinking you were clueless about Facebook. You see in my zeal to goad someone here who really *IS* clueless about FB (i.e. Steven Hale) I perhaps engaged in “guilt by association” to tar you with the same brush.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
It appears that you have really hit a nerve on WC. Both Dan Dugan and Pete Karaiskos are taking you on, you Limey Devil, you!
Here is Pete K’s latest
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/messages/30856
LikeLike
Hello Tom,
Thank you for pointing out to me the discussion on WC. I think what I must do for my next post is to write on the theme of Steiner Waldorf schools and the accusations of cult-like behaviour.
Best wishes,
Jeremy
LikeLike
Yes, indeed, Jeremy, Pete K certainly throws down the gauntlet for you with this comment:
————————–
“The Waldorf Way” as it’s called now – which is the missionary arm of Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools are definitely a cult-like environment which many have described on my own blogs.
Whether or not an individual Anthroposophist plays “Steiner says” is irrelevant to me. In Waldorf environments, everyone plays “Steiner says” and that’s what’s important – and something Jeremy can’t honestly deny.
Steiner’s lectures are the bible for Waldorf education and are required reading for new and seasoned Waldorf teachers. When the cultic index is applied to Waldorf environments, almost every single criteria is met.
Sadly, Jeremy is trying some slight-of-hand here. [sleight-of-hand] Either that, or he has confused Waldorf Critics with Anthroposophy Critics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Tom,
While you’re waiting for my next post on Waldorf Schools and allegations of cult-like behaviour, you and colleagues on WC might like to read this interview with Angie Browne, the principal of the Steiner Academy Bristol:
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/angie-browne/
Happy Reading!
Jeremy
LikeLike
OMG, Jeremy, that is wonderful! Priceless even! How can Waldorf education be racist when it has a black school principal? I love it!
But wait there’s more! I can’t believe my trolling good fortune here! I just found this article from 2013 about the Bristol Steiner School, and it used to be a chocolate factory!!!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Ex-chocolate-factory-set-new-Bristol-Steiner/story-19979911-detail/story.html
Look at the evolutionary advance! The first Waldorf school was in a cigarette factory; now this modern British school is in a chocolate factory
But now Tabloid Tommy is well nigh hyperventilating! Jeremy, do you realize the racial implications of having a black woman principal at a school that was once a chocolate factory??? Yeeeeee-Hawwwww!!! Am I ever going to have fun with this one!
Axolotl! I’ve just been inspired to re-christen the school. Are you ready for it, Jeremy?
The Willie Wonka Waldorf School in Bristol!!!
Oh, and don’t forget this nice welcome to the new principal Angie
http://www.steineracademybristol.org.uk/news/2013/10/welcome-our-new-principal/
And finally Jeremy, to help with your research for your coming article, do look through this British Waldorf Critics blog of Helen, which mentions Angie and the Bristol Academy, but does not play on the racial angle.
http://stopsteinerinstroud.com/2015/01/25/academies-are-different/
LikeLike
Hi Jeremy,
Margaret Sachs has weighed in on the Pete K. comments that Tom referred to before, and she gives further evidence of how much some parents find fault with the whole Waldorf environment, at least here in America, and especially the private Waldorf School in Northridge, California, Highland Hall, which is over sixty years old. It is quite interesting that the complaints come from the parents for the most part, and never from the student. She gives further comments here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/messages/30857
My experience of the WC critics, which is a parental vetting system against the educational principles founded by Rudolf Steiner, is that all of the parents involved had ample opportunity to be informed of the nature and special curriculum opportunities afforded by a Waldorf education. They obviously accepted these principles and enrolled their child in the program. Later circumstances caused dissension with the program, which has various reasons not necessarily related to the actual pedagogy of Waldorf.
Rudolf Steiner, of course, is to blame. From one single Waldorf school that he was able to form and nurture for six years, with ample evidence of his deep concern for its success over these years, ref., The Faculty Meetings, 2 volumes, he has been much maligned through these very faculty meetings themselves. Supposedly, he used these meetings to inculcate anthroposophy into the curriculum at every opportunity.
Yet, when it was shown to these WC folks that Steiner had also been encouraged by an invitation of the Department of Education, Basle, to give lectures on his new educational program, ref, The Renewal of Education, April/May 1920, which gives the complete outline of the system, they rejected this as well. Steiner herein gives a masterful presentation of the whole program, and he proves how the science of the spirit knows the child in its formative years, from birth to age seven, seven to fourteen, and fourteen to eighteen, which yields the next three years into adult status.
You may need some help with your next posting, but only because it will serve to “kick the pricks” of the WC underbelly, which has already been gone over from the American side. With your expertise and knowledge, we may actually fight the good fight this time, and always guided by the Michael Impulse.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
An acquaintance was telling me her friend’s daughter went to a Waldorf High School here in SA and in the structuring of the year’s curriculum they do the Math syllabus first, for the entire month or so they work only on Math, once this is done they move onto the English syllabus and only English is studied and so on, concentrating on one subject at a time, they complete the curriculum with learners who are certain in each subject.
This makes good sense instead of interspersing the subjects together i.e. one hour of Math, one hour of English, half an hour of Biology before break etc. as the regular schools do.
Caryn
LikeLike
The core of the Waldorf curriculum is taught in the manner you describe, which is called the “Main Lesson”. I’ll add that many children remember things because they happened during one or other main lesson, even when grown up! The impact goes way beyond mere teaching!
In many schools, the subsidiary lessons (such as maths, English and so-on) will follow the theme of the main lesson too, thus augmenting it.
LikeLike
Gemma, it does sounds like a good approach where, besides the love for learning is instilled, the understanding and appreciation for the content is taken up.
Caryn
(Can’t reply directly under your reply because there is no reply button)
LikeLike
Doctor Steiner knew a thing or two about teaching kids, not because he had any, but because he knew what humanity needs.
If there’s one thing I can say of Waldorf Schools in Germany, Denmark, Holland and the UK, they all have the same atmosphere. Even the chat in the staff rooms had the same quality. I can think of two schools in one city in the UK which had atmospheres that were as chalk is to cheese.
LikeLike
Yes he did, in the development of the child. There is a tendency now days to cram young children with every subject possible plus music, language etc.before the change of teeth. This can only but dampen down the love for learning so by the time they reach high school they sick of it. The schools overseas must be so well established. Besides the Waldorf Schools here we have the government schools which are overflowing and the private schools which cost a fortune (now days at least) and although the private schools are established they still follow the all subjects in one day routine.
Did not quite understand the as chalk to cheese reference!
Caryn
LikeLike
The imposition of intellectual knowledge on the un-developed mind of a child that still has their milk teeth does more than dampen down their love of learning. It literally impairs their future health.
The very manner of a mainstream school, where the teacher issues the knowledge and the child is then told if they have repeated the information correctly has the profoundest implications for today’s society.
Now to be fair, Rudolf Steiner spoke of the authority of the teacher, for that very authority is employed not in casting information before his serfs, but in listening to those he has charge of that he may determine what it is they are all ready to learn. This employs the “three day rhythm” which is extraordinarily effective when it comes to teaching (and I employ it in my writing too). The result is a class of children who respect their teacher not because he forces them to, but because they know he has bent his knowledge to their tender needs.
As to the chalk and the cheese, the manner in which the education was undertaken at those two state schools was entirely the matter for the head teacher. They determined everything, and hence the two schools had markedly different styles. A waldorf school in Pforzheim had the same welcoming atmosphere as the school in King’s Langley. (I will add that most German Waldorf schools are too large, with three parallel classes).
LikeLike
I totally agree with you on the parrot approach, I could not have said it better Gemma. Especially when the teacher is not that well educated him or herself which is often the case.
I have been contemplating the Mind Soul for the past couple of days and how it pertains to Willing whereas today it is categorized as everything to do with intelligence. When we “call up before our minds” we are willing perception. Thus it is an inward activity which starts with feeling which becomes willing. A very sensitive process especially for a child.
LikeLike
The issue here is not to educate the child’s will as such; that is a very adult affair. One may only exercise the will, as it were.
However, most adults today remain stunted (if I might phrase it in such a way) because they have no clear way to determine for themselves what they want to do in any given situation. Those who have been taught to base their ideas on evidence are usually the worst at this, because it all depends on the evidence and not the person’s own perceptions as such.
In strict anthroposophical terms a decision requires three things:
Firstly, it needs to be recognized as a decision that needs taking. (Pretty obvious, but it does need stating).
Secondly, the person needs to determine if the outcome of the decision is going to be worth the effort of bringing that outcome about.
Thirdly, the person needs to act on this.
Thinking – Feeling – Willing.
The problem with the mainstream schools is that they teach only thinking (answers to questions) and willing (exercise and games).
The Waldorf approach is quite different in that it teaches through the feeling realm, which allows the child to develop their own values, for themselves. Telling a child that they are right or wrong goes against this, and it is for this reason that the mainstream schools stunt the ability to think a decision through.
The most important thing we can do is to keep these three elements clear and distinct from each other (in anthro terminology, it’s called ‘clarity’.)
Mainstream education confuses either thinking and feeling, or feeling and the will.
LikeLike
No it is not a matter of educating the will as willing is movement which has its roots in an inward activity.
Thinking is thought to be purely a brain function whereas the function of the brain is an instrument that enables the thought to be organized and coordinated.
Thinking pertains to the consciousness soul, the capacity to form ideas and understanding.
Feeling pertains to the sentient soul and may be likened to an ‘inner lightening up’ for thinking.
Willing pertains to the intellectual soul which enables movement and gives us permanence of knowledge for perception.
Thinking works as a regulator between movement and feeling
Thus-
Feeling through to Thinking through to Willing
They are indeed and must be separate functions but they do interpenetrate each other to function as a whole … clarity as you have said.
Caryn
LikeLike
Thanks for the discussion yesterday Gemma.
If we were to discuss educating the will we would be talking about the mastery of the ego, wholly a self mastering process and, as you rightly said, an (on-going) adult process. I am thinking how perception arises from an inner activity to an outer impression and this is what needs nurturing instead of been bombarded with external impressions. This is, feeling to thinking to willing should be developed within and lead to without and not without to within.
In concordance with what you explained – the imposition of intellectual knowledge upon a young child.
Thinking is thought to be purely a brain function whereas the function of the brain is an instrument that enables the thought to be organized and coordinated.
Thinking pertains to the consciousness soul, the capacity to form ideas and understanding.
Feeling pertains to the sentient soul and may be likened to an ‘inner lightening up’ for thinking.
Willing pertains to the intellectual soul which enables movement and gives a permanence of knowledge for perception.
Thinking works as a regulator between movement and feeling.
Thus-
Feeling through to Thinking through to Willing
They are indeed separate functions but they interpenetrate each other to produce what you have aptly called “clarity”.
Therefore:
Feeling becomes before thinking i.e. with – “the person needs to determine if the outcome of the decision is going to be worth the effort of bringing that outcome about” is a Feeling.
Thinking is recognizing the decision to be taken.
Willing the decision.
Comments always appreciated Gemma
Caryn
LikeLike
Two posts for the same reply 🙂 Sorry about this (caryn’s computer world!) I replied late last night but it did not go through and thought there may be a cut off time but seeing it had not gone through this morning I thought it through a bit more and reposted.
Caryn
LikeLike
Thankyou for your detailed response.
I want to ask you a question: can you feel something you are unaware of?
My point in asking this is because one has to be aware of something in order to feel it (otherwise it’s lost in the subconscious, isn’t it?). Hence thinking (that is to say, perception) comes before one’s ability to sense it – at least if one is going to act on it consciously and as a free deed. After that one comes to the evaluation, where the various layers of the soul become engaged in reflection; the consciousness soul looks to the future and wonders “what will the consequences be” (and it is important to note that those who are unaware of consequences are only working out of the intellectual soul – which we developed in the Fourth Epoch).
Clarity is the ability to discern thinking, feeling and willing in any situation. Naturally, one can also reverse this, which allows one to form the kind of question that the consciousness soul can dwell on. It also allows one to determine what a person was thinking when they did something…
The level I work publicly is the work aimed at the unveiling of one’s subconscious. This in itself will lead to clarity, the starting point of the Path Outwards, and eventually to take the first steps on the Christian Initiation.
LikeLike
Gemma wrote:
“There is one question I have for anybody who calls themselves an anthroposophist: which of the daily exercises do you practice, and what have you learned from them? Because it is usual for me when interacting with an anthoposophist that they will demand chapter and verse – that is to say, a quote from one of Rudolf Steiner’s lectures. This allows them to know that the person they are conversing with is speaking their ‘language’; the only problem is that this goes in direct contradiction to what Rudolf Steiner asked of them! Such people are more than ready to read the lectures, soak up the information, but not work things out for themselves.”
This sounds more like a stereotype, Gemma, from a perceived judgment, rather than the actual matter of using precise reference to augment the personal research in order to advance spiritual-scientific knowledge. Are you acquainted with the eightfold path of righteousness, which Steiner invoked, and which advocates right judgment? If so, why then begin by challenging honest spirit-seekers with what amounts to an admonishment of their efforts? There is one daily exercise, and several exercises that refer to the months of the year. In 1912, Steiner added 52 exercises for the weeks of the year.
Then, of course, we have the path of veneration, or devotion to truth and knowledge, which forms the crux of KOHW, and also advocates three moral steps for every one step in higher knowledge. So, what it is it with you in terms of the daily exercises? I see that you knew nothing about the precursory “falling steeple” exercise, so what represents the daily exercises for you?
Steiner also advanced all of this in 1924 with the four stanzas of the Foundation Stone Meditation, which also encouraged certain ‘prayers arising from the depths’, which can reasonably be related to these:
1) The Lord’s Prayer
2) The Twenty-Third Psalm
3) The Prologue to the Gospel of St. John
Asking Tom what he has gotten out of decades of invoking the “fallen steeple” exercise is a really good question, which will likely be ignored, as already indicated. You see, this very exercise is the one that serves to invite that a possible future gnosis is already waiting to be discerned.
One example is the Eighth Sphere, which exists, but is conveniently given a false explanation. The “fallen steeple” exercise exists to admit an alternative explanation, which is hard to accept, and which is why it is an exercise; an exercise in discipline.
LikeLike
If there is one thing I have learned in this life, it is that development comes as a result of accepting the challenges one is faced with. It is with this in mind that I challenge people, and those who are truly dedicated to self-development will understand the forthrightness of my speaking. Not only that, they will have the self awareness to see this as me taking a risk with a relationship that I treasure.
Inspiration, as you will be well aware, always comes from outside – be it outside oneself, or be it from outside one’s usual patterns of thinking. It is perfectly reasonable to defend oneself against this, because of course it isn’t nice, is it?
Only… why defend oneself against the very thing that can lead to the widening of one’s own perceptions?
PS. What have you gained from your studies of the weekly verses for the year?
LikeLike
Gemma wrote:
“Inspiration, as you will be well aware, always comes from outside – be it outside oneself, or be it from outside one’s usual patterns of thinking. It is perfectly reasonable to defend oneself against this, because of course it isn’t nice, is it.”
Inspiration is now an interior function, borne of the Intellectual Soul, which accompanies Imagination on one side, and Intuition on the other. What were once functions coming from outside are now ours to behold and express, yet intelligence is continually begin destroyed and renewed. Thinking stands as the result. Yet, inspiration needs to acquaint with intuition, which is of the Consciousness Soul, else it dissipates through this destructive process, and weakens as a soul force. This is because the soul organs have matured from their underpinnings in the three bodies, i.e., astral, etheric, physical. This is why dementia occurs without the cultivation of intuition. Inspiration rightfully leads to this unless bankrupted by a strictly materialistic thinking, which abounds in our world today, and why the jeopardy of annihilation of intellectual forces exists as a very real threat, and actuality.
The 52 verses for the soul is a way to keep thinking alive and tending from inspiration to intuition on a continuing basis. They work with the cycle of the year on the rhythm of seven days. Each verse, beginning on Sunday, should be committed to memory on that day, and then made a part of the weekly contemplation as if being breathed with enhanced awareness. Two other times should the verse be specifically recited during the week, e.g. Wednesday, Friday, and this serves to impose the trinity into the rhythm of the seven days. Very effective.
LikeLike
Perhaps you use the words in a different way to me; these are terms, which must be understood not as a word that leads to other words, but as images.
As to the weekly verses, what have you learned from practicing them?
LikeLike
==========================================================
But now Tabloid Tommy is well nigh hyperventilating! Jeremy, do you realize the racial implications of having a black woman principal at a school that was once a chocolate factory??? Yeeeeee-Hawwwww!!! Am I ever going to have fun with this one!
==========================================================
A good reporter should verify sources rather than relying on old google news. Yet, tabloid journalism is rather yellow, and the ink is smudged right off the press; such is the need to publish distorted news entirely for sensationalistic value. Will our intrepid reporter do the right thing and retract?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Matthias,_Bristol
LikeLike
Steven Hale, what part of “Tabloid Tommy” do you not understand? As ace provocateur and sometime smut-purveyor for the Akasha Tabloid, why should I let Ahrimanic facts get in the way of a great Luciferic narrative? (You and Jeremy certainly don’t when it comes to your assessments, say, of Peter Staudenmaier’s work, but I digress.)
So Steverino, I am happy that you set me straight about the building finally settled on for the Steiner Academy Bristol. I am well aware that they didn’t choose the chocolate factory, but they could have, and that’s all that matter to a Akasha Tabloid “reporter” like me. Have you no Imagination, sir? (Gemma keeps asking you that question, as well! ;-))
So here is the only Ahrimanic fact that matters to me in the saga of the Steiner Academy Bristol choosing a location
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Ex-chocolate-factory-set-new-Bristol-Steiner/story-19979911-detail/story.html
The former Elizabeth Shaw chocolate factory in Easton is understood to be the school’s first-choice location.
So, you see, I have nothing to retract, Steve. Instead I will creatively insert somewhere an “almost”
Wait, I can alliterate even more. Thank you so much for this correction, Steve! Now I can call the school:
The Wannabee Willy Wonka Waldorf School
LikeLike
Right now I am imagining a worm who has wormed his way out of something 😉
As well, your justification for your reporting style causes you to lose all credibility. No one can, or will, take you seriously on this subject. To say that you knew the chocolate factory wasn’t used is quite disingenuous, as anyone can see. It is your own racial bias that is clearly in evidence.
LikeLike
The difficulty, of course, is that we’re communicating in a word-oriented venue, and especially one in which brevity is appreciated, which I already violate too often. To cast in pictures is why Steiner gave so many long lectures, and was also able to draw frequently. Click on my name and you will find a place where we can cast our images.
LikeLike
It shouldn’t be that hard to describe your experiences from practicing the verses, should it?
I will admit that I do have a little difficulty in fully grasping the content of your comments; however, that is a matter of time, allowing me to apply my mind to the way in which you express yourself.
LikeLike
Describe for me the difficulty in grasping the content of my comments? Of course, for “fully grasping” what more would be required? Are you familiar with, and possibly use the Divine Syllogism? It leads very forcefully towards truth and knowledge. Anything can be tapped into with it. For example, you are one of the few people to mention the Eighth Sphere on your blog posts. That is one of the reasons I wanted to say something more about it. I was very encouraged.
LikeLike
All I meant was that your style is unfamiliar to me.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
My Steiner Internet Rabble-Rousing campaign has been officially launched with this comment to Helen Saunders on her “Stop Steiner in Stroud” blog. It is awaiting moderation, but I’m sure she will pass it and then the fun and fireworks will begin! Stay tuned for some juicy WC postings!
Taddy Tom (formerly Turncoat, but now Generalissimo)
———————-
http://stopsteinerinstroud.com/2015/01/25/academies-are-different/
Hello Helen,
Jeremy Smith is a former information officer for SWSF and he cultivates a blog called “Anthropopper.” Recently, he posted about Anthroposophy not being a cult, and for a future article there, he plans to address – and of course soundly refute — the cultic aspects of Waldorf education.
[link to Anthropopper]
In that regard, he mentioned Angie Browne, the principal of Steiner Academy Bristol, and provided this recent newspaper profile of her
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/angie-browne/
Obviously, his reason for highlighting her is that, in his mind, it completely disproves the charge that Steiner education is racist because the principal of Bristol Academy is a black woman.
So I am curious why you or other commenters here have not yet made any reference to Steiner’s racial teachings in the light of her being principal at this particular school.
Best regards,
Tom Mellett
Los Angeles, CA
LikeLike
Tom – watch your step. I find your comments above remarkably obtuse and offensive. I’ve barred you from this blog before when you become too boisterous. Carry on in this vein and the barring will be permanent.
Jeremy
LikeLike
Well OK, Jeremy, that’s fine with me. But isn’t it a bit like closing the barn door after the horse (OK, horse’s ass :-)) escapes?
LikeLike
OK, Jeremy, I apologize for being too boisterous on your blog. However, I would like to clarify that my boisterousness on your blog is neither obtuse or offensive.
Please realize that what is obtuse and offensive to you is the way I reported on you to Helen Saunders, who is the counterpart of Dan Dugan in the UK. While in the “enemy camp” like that, of course I will be “trash-talking” you to them. But then they in turn will trash talk you — of which offensiveness I will duly bring to the attention of the Anthropopper.
Consider it my version of. . . Shuttle Diplomacy!
And also, Jeremy, please do not lose sight of the prime maxim of Public Relations: “The only thing worse than BAD publicity is NO publicity.”
LikeLike
Not for the first time, Tom, you’ve misunderstood me. I don’t object at all to the rough-and-tumble of the expression of differing points of view on this blog – it comes with the territory. Nor do I mind your agent provocateur role in stirring up Helen Saunders. In fact, I wish more of the WC people would come here to express their views instead of muttering among themselves on the Yahoo list, because I’m interested in worthwhile dialogue and discussion, even if it’s unlikely that there is going to be much meeting of minds. No, what I object to and what I found truly offensive was your suggestion that I had posted a link to the interview with Angie Brown because she is black. Of course not! The reason the interview was so interesting is because the Steiner Academy Bristol is taxpayer-funded and because, along with the other three publicly-funded Steiner academy schools, it is bringing Steiner Waldorf education into the UK’s pluralistic educational mainstream. If you had read my other blog posts on Steiner Waldorf education with any care, you might have noticed my contention that some of the independent Steiner schools in the UK have some shortcomings due to their inadequate leadership and management arrangements. My impression is that this may be even more the case in some of the AWSNA schools in the USA. My hope and expectation is that the publicly-funded schools will be much stronger in terms of leadership and management and will become examples of good practice – and through being part of the wider educational culture in this country they may also play a role in improving state school provision generally. I’m surprised that I have to spell this out, which is why I have called you obtuse! But thank you for your apology.
Jeremy
LikeLike
Gemma wrote:
“All I meant was that your style is unfamiliar to me.”
Well, I must admit that your style baffles me. You question but take no questions. You need to know how exercises feel rather than the technique. My emphasis will always take the objective posture because it is the subjective self that needs to be overcome. I tried to converse with you on your blog and was quickly dismissed. Our respective styles might have gotten to know each other, which was my idea. Alas, no chance, which is why I wonder. Just like now with a few brief questions to see if you can tolerate them. Apparently not. Baffling.
LikeLike
The subjective self does not need to be overcome: it needs to be understood. If you overcome your subjective self, you say to yourself that the colour you see as blue is only blue because somebody else has told you it is blue.
This may sound like a paradox, but it is not. The colour blue, like a rose, would be blue, whatever it might be called. “A rose would smell as sweet by any other name”.
Your subjective experience of blue is an absolute. That is to say, your experience of blue is the same as anybody else’s. Subject and object have become one. It is essential to understand this if one is to progress, and it was for this reason that I made my blog private, because it is only open to those who have developed certain abilities, if I can put it in such a way.
In short, a subjective experience is as valid as any other.
LikeLike
Of course the subjective self needs to be understood, but it can only truly do so by overcoming its present limitation, which is a matter of consciousness. What I had in mind is the fact that the subjective part of the self is also the relatively unconscious part wherein the dark forces of the Will reside. Its polarity exists in Thinking, which is fully conscious but only at the level of the mineral kingdom in its most lifeless form, which is in the physical world. Between Thinking, which represents the Objective Self because it is conscious, and its polar opposite, Willing, which represents the Subjective Self because it is unconscious, is Feeling, which forms the rhythmic part of these three soul members. As such, the Feeling Soul bears the subconscious forces both upward into the head, and downward to the limbs, and once this is made an entirely conscious process, then overall Consciousness is increased. This overcoming of the present limited self by efforts to be objective is of the nature of a kind of ‘forgetting’ of the petty little individual person, and looking at the world through the eyes of true objectivity. Spiritual Science leads in this direction in every respect.
I likely had this approach as my theme when contacting you about a nice diagram you presented in which Thinking-Feeling-Willing are shown as entirely independent, yet integrative functions. I suspect your unfamiliarity with a comment I made might have caused inconvenience or discomfort, which is very common, but it was also an invitation to discuss openly, whether public or private be the format.
This extract gives further emphasis on how the subjective self must grow into objectivity as a new yoga process; one that focuses on the Will; the least conscious part of our being. The lecture contains priceless diagrams, and should be considered one of Steiner’s very most important and practical.
“When our sense processes will become ensouled again, we shall have established a crossing point, and in this crossing point we shall take hold of the human will that streams up, out of the third stratum of consciousness. Then we shall, at the same time, have the subjective-objective element for which Goethe was longing so very much. We shall have the possibility of grasping, in a sensitive way, the peculiar nature of the sense process of man in its relation to the outer world. Man’s conceptions are very coarse and clumsy, indeed, which maintain that the outer world merely acts upon us and we, in turn, merely react upon it. In reality, there takes place a soul process from the outside toward the inside, which is taken hold of by the deeply subconscious, inner soul process, so that the two processes overlap. From outside, cosmic thoughts work into us, from inside, humanity’s will works outward. Humanity’s will and cosmic thought cross in this crossing point, just as the objective and the subjective element once crossed in the breath. We must learn to feel how our will works through our eyes and how the activity of the senses delicately mingles with the passivity, bringing about the crossing of cosmic thoughts and humanity’s will. We must develop this new Yoga will. Then something will be imparted to us that is of like nature to that which was imparted to human beings in the breathing process three millennia ago. Our comprehension must become must more soul-like, much more spiritual.”
Michael and the New Yoga of Will, 30 November 1919, lecture six
LikeLike
Steve Hale, I quote:
That is as maybe, more important in our present circumstances – that of our modern world – is to bear witness to the nature of our subconscious.For if you have ever tried to deal with it, you will know that it is a shy beast and it will elude you at every turn. As yet you have not demonstrated the faintest capacity to deal with this in the way you write; all you have done so far is to employ the terminology.
Indeed so: the question is how can one increase one’s consciousness?. Anything you can imagine lies within your conscious abilities. For one cannot increase one’s overall consciousness without one essential task.
This may be the case in others; how, specifically, would you be able to tell from my writing, that this was the case?
It isn’t hard, but it does take practice to know the signs. In order to know the signs, one must step beyond mere terminology and into the realm of the free concept. This allows one to describe the terminology without having to refer to it directly because the concept is understood rather than the existence of the term is known.
There is a concept employed by the psychologists called ‘projection’; what’s more, it is very common. It is also the key to understanding one’s own subconscious. Now, there is a very special feeling that comes over one if one realizes that one is projecting onto another person. Furthermore, it cannot be felt online, only face to face.
However, the realization of what one is doing oneself gives one the ability to see when a person is doing this to you, and online too, for the tricks are the same. It is important to note that the speaker cannot be aware of what they are doing! The subconscious is paradoxical in fullest expression of the word.
Engaging in this activity allows one to perceive something that one previously could not. Thus, it helps to broaden the consciousness to the point where one comes to realize when a person is able to work with free concepts – and when they are not.
LikeLike
Dear Jeremy,
Early morning rising, and yet I feel a kind of Spring movement in you, which is willing to take on the “Steiner No Stroud” coalition that Tom is proposing. It will involve a keen and dedicated effort, which is what was needed to dismantle the WC brigade, which is nothing more than a mere site today, with its poor and pathetic memories. Steiner-Stroud is really the same situation, which needs to be challenged, although why you would want to is really the question. You have very adequately indicated what a Steiner curriculum could and does mean in the public sector. It represents the best and most viable alternative to any public or other private school alternative.
Now Tom has already made his imprint here, and has cudgeled his rather obtuse viewpoint that an African-British woman as principal of a Steiner school must be a specific ploy designed to show some kind of non-racist viewpoint, when in actuality all Steiner schools advocate racism, even if they don’t know it and espouse Steiner’s system of evolutionary race formation. Well, he is the proverbial ‘straw man’, clutching at straws so much that he has to resort to eating his own dishonest words, as previously shown. When in need he exorts his guru, Peter Staudenmaier, who soothes him with thank you’s for bringing up Sigmund Rascher, who just happened to be one of the bad apples of the NSDAP, although he hated anthroposophy.
In short, Steiner-Bristol is not located in any reformatted ‘chocolate factory’ , but actually is located on the campus of the University of West England, which is equally a good location.
Steve
LikeLike
Relative to what I said about “what was needed to dismantle the WC brigade, which is nothing more than a mere site today, with its poor and pathetic memories”, here is a good example of how little these people have to talk about today. It concerns Einstein being acknowledge by Barack Obama, our outgoing ‘Prez of the U.S.’
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/waldorf-critics/conversations/messages/30860
The much larger issue is the looming threat that Ahriman-in-the-flesh just might become our next president, i.e., Donald Trump. His campaign is much like the reality show he had, and is now being enacted in the political arena. Sadly, much of the American people are too stupid and ‘dumbed down’ to see it. So, unless a much fairer wind begins to stream into the environs of the west, and makes these people see reason, this guy, who has already alienated the entire European continent, and which despises him, will become the next big dictator of the world. And his message is already making itself clear; his way or the highway, folks of the world.
This is a disaster in the making, and I’m sure my international friends, Jeremy, Caryn, and Gemma, all have their similar reservations for this clown of the virtual domain that now becomes the pseudo-reality which suits Ahriman perfectly. I only hope he gets a better hairpiece; one worthy of the Office 😉
Steve
LikeLike
Although it is none of my business (directly that is) I think, from what I have seen on the news, Donald Trump is great! I have always thought a country should be run as efficiently as a business and with Donald Trump you have no doubt this will be the case. Even with the understanding politics (the sphere of legal representation) is a separate sphere from the economic sphere I reckon Donald Trump will do the best for America – after all America is the economic centre (just as the UK is the political centre) and with a good legal representation I reckon it’s a good wicket.
Caryn
PS: Please can Barack Obama come and be our president now? (and then Trump when he’s done!)
LikeLike
Caryn,
What you have to understand is that Donald Trump has actually spoken the Ahrimanic invocation since last August. In every respect, it is his considered opinion that the world which is already ruled by the United States needs to be further ruled for a kind of total democracy with worldwide implications.
You said:
Although it is none of my business (directly that is) I think, from what I have seen on the news, Donald Trump is great! I have always thought a country should be run as efficiently as a business and with Donald Trump you have no doubt this will be the case. Even with the understanding politics (the sphere of legal representation) is a separate sphere from the economic sphere I reckon Donald Trump will do the best for America – after all America is the economic centre (just as the UK is the political centre) and with a good legal representation I reckon it’s a good wicket.
Caryn
PS: Please can Barack Obama come and be our president now? (and then Trump when he’s done!)
Caryn, this man is the incarnation of ahriman, and if you don’t see it, then it only means how pathetic SA is in its governance, and how much you look for a stronger push from a loftier source. Neither Obama or Trump will ever get it for you. Even the EU has rebuked this man, which is why I also asked Jeremy and Gemma, who live in England, and the Netherlands, respectively.
Steve
LikeLike
Caryn and Steve,
I’ve let these comments through re Trump and Obama, despite being off-topic, because it seems quite possible that Trump is a an ahrimanic figurehead – but I would prefer any future comments to emerge from the original post!
With thanks,
Jeremy
LikeLike
Well Jeremy, why not sum up this blog post with the very real possibility that an American asshole just might become the next POTUS, which makes Europe quiver in the wake of what it could mean. If Trump is elected POTUS his goal is to decimate the already weak EU, and then take the whole world over. Do you want that? Caryn thinks it’s a good thing, but some of us here in the USA are fighting against it. We want the true democracy, even if it has to be run by an old man; a socialist. Whatever it takes, we want to keep the EU intact.
Does that make sense? Now, end this thread, kind sir.
Steve
LikeLike
Caryn wrote:
“Two posts for the same reply 🙂 Sorry about this (caryn’s computer world!) I replied late last night but it did not go through and thought there may be a cut off time but seeing it had not gone through this morning I thought it through a bit more and reposted.”
Caryn, I liked very much your rejoinder to the first post, it was a refresher with enhancements, which you have duly acknowledged. Everything increases with further thought, although I still don’t know how to find the reply button in order to place this comment where it should belong. Sorry. Did you find he way?
Steve
LikeLike
Hi Steve, thanks also for your considerations – I’m reading through now. The reply button is a thing! What I noticed works is if there is no reply button under the comment you want to reply to – reply on the first reply button at the top of the particular discussion you want to reply to and your reply goes to the last comment of that conversation.
Caryn
LikeLike
Gemma wrote:
“As yet you have not demonstrated the faintest capacity to deal with this in the way you write; all you have done so far is to employ the terminology.”
This is nonsense. You have no idea at all of what I know and do, and practice. No matter how much detail of explanation is given, you will only call it terminology. Well, it is much more than terminology, yet a point comes wherein communications with others, if they take place, must convey something of the nature of the work toward self development. This has been attempted here, and yet, I still have heard nothing from you about your praxis or exercises. Are you above reproach, because I would never say that you have not demonstrated the faintest capacity, blah blah blah.
That is utterly rude, and not worth another consideration. I tried in all good will to join your little private coven, and show style, and you rejected it. This conversation is over.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
Now how many times have I heard this from those whose actions are as clear as day, whether written or acted?
I will add that had you taken due note of the things written in my now private blog, and had you the capacity to see what was written there, you would have been able to see what I knew, for I told all.
The visitors to that blog do have that capacity, and frequently tell me of any inaccuracy.
If you wish this conversation to be over, so be it, but you must seek elsewhere for the challenges you will then want to avoid.
LikeLike
Gemma, may I ask you a personal and serious question – are you on any medication or similar substance at the moment?
Caryn
LikeLike
Dear Caryn, Gemma and Steve,
I think you are now far off the original topic of this post and have gone into territory that is probably best discussed via private emails. Please let me know if you would like me to pass on your email addresses to one another so that you can continue your conversations in private.
Best wishes,
Jeremy
LikeLike
Caryn, no. When you understand the true nature of drugs, in an anthroposophical manner, you will realize how detrimental they are to one’s striving. It is always a wonder to me that people who do not strive see others as being on drugs*. A little work and no little patience would prove to you that drugs are not necessary.
(*Most psychiatric drugs are some form of tranquilzer.)
Jeremy, no thankyou; Steve knows the address of my public website, albeit that he doesn’t bother to darken its metaphorical doors. Perhaps you need to have a post discussing the subconscious?
LikeLike
Please understand that I very much appreciate all conversations and insights as long as the element of premature judgment is also absent. This is a function of the “free concept” as well, in my opinion.
I was very enthused by your blog, but was denied access almost immediately for reasons still to be known. I tried to get acquainted but you would not allow it. End of story. Except this: We all have a unique personality and its ways of communicating. Anthro terminology is specially prepared for study and recitation, which is why I employ it. It serves to sculpt the concepts of the Consciousness Soul, which the Intellectual Soul, or Mind, so desperately needs in our time. This cultural-educational imperative extends over the whole world in bringing humanity together in conscious freedom. Yes, even the mysterious subconscious stands to be illuminated through anthroposophy – the language of the Consciousness, or Spiritual, Soul.
LikeLike
Steve Hale,
I thought you had stopped this conversation, and as to your being blocked, you did visit my public blog last night. There is little I speak of on my private blog that is not published openly.
There are differences however, such as not dealing with the likes of 911 and other outstanding issues that entertain the passive mind. It’s why the internet is full of websites about 911 that nobody bothers to read.
Can we leave it at that? You can leave a comment on my public blog if you feel like it, just as Caryn can, because I cannot respond to her as my comment wasn’t published. Sorry, Jeremy, that probably means you can’t publish this one either… I’ll just have to respond publicly on my own turf.
LikeLike
So, let us return to the topic, which is a broad one to say the least.
In the post it says:
In my now long-distant participation on the FB group, questioning was largely down to questioning the source of the person’s thoughts. That is to say, what did Rudolf Steiner say about this issue and can the appropriate paragraph be produced so as to assertain that person’s ability to be an anthroposophist.
Two moderators of the group, both in public and in private openly spoke of my being a dissenter – largely because I would express my own opinion and not back it up with the obligatory quotation.
Is this how an anthroposophist behaves? Certainly it is not how they are supposed to behave if item 2 is to have any meaning.
I want to go a little further with this, because if a chapter and verse is demanded as if one were an undergraduate, the demander is doing two things.
Firstly, in asking for chapter and verse, they are stating openly that they have chosen someone to be their authority – in other words, they have a guru. This mindset is part and parcel of the Intellectual soul – and belongs to the epoch just passed.
Secondly: in demanding someone produce chapter and verse implies that the demander does not respect the other; it means that either the other person supply the required evidence (and thus become a vassal of the guru) or they will be ostracized. When the demander holds a position of authority, the latter action becomes easy, and one moderator of the group went to no small effort to humiliate me in the public sphere that was the FB Group.
Is this the character of anthroposophy today?
My question is this: just how many people do anthroposophy today?
How many people practice the evening Rückschau, leave alone anything more demanding??? Practicing the Rückschau should bring one several pertinent facts – facts in the manner in which Rudolf Steiner spoke of such things – that will bring one a step further on the path of awakening.
With so many people thinking that anthroposophy is all about reading, is it any surprise that it isn’t living up to the expectations Rudolf Steiner had for it?
Because this is the point: most of the activities I see are not those of someone who is striving for any kind of clarity; they are striving for the very things the society was set up to counter. It should come as no surprise that Rudolf Steiner spoke of how in a future incarnation, he would have to stand against the society and not for it.
As a codicil, the Goetheanum had two cupolas, each of which emulated the human skull, in that they were spheres. If one inverts the fused bone that is our skull, it does not become a sphere, but a crunkled uneven shape. If you then think of what the skull-bones do for us, and then consider the function that a bone has when turned inside out, you will understand the nature of the challenge Rudolf Steiner set for the society with their new building.
LikeLike
Gosh Gemma, no wonder you take such an aversive stance on the Steiner quotes. Yet, it is not at all such a strict regime in the real world of spiritual science, and its research. I have steered entirely away from FB for years, even as I get harangued by certain people for my “dinosaur tendencies” in not advancing into the greater world of internet interactions.
You give the best example possible for why I refuse to join FB with this:
“In my now long-distant participation on the FB group, questioning was largely down to questioning the source of the person’s thoughts. That is to say, what did Rudolf Steiner say about this issue and can the appropriate paragraph be produced so as to ascertain that person’s ability to be an anthroposophist.”
Then, you ask:
“Is this the character of anthroposophy today?”
Answer: Rest assured, no it is not. True Anthroposophy exists much in the manner you have been experiencing here on this blog of the Anthropopper. Yet, in all humility, please let me say that I feel that you may have come in already armed with the attitude indicated above. And it is this attitude that represents the so-called “cult” which condemns anthroposophy as conforming to a strict model and standard of chapter/verse recitation. This, indeed, was your experience, but is not to be extrapolated for the larger theatre of work herein. It was merely a large group of Facebook subscribers under one or two moderators with a particular proclivity for the ‘Steiner saids’.
Now, if we go back to where you came in on a previous thread, it was all about how the thinking of the heart arises out of the astral-etheric confluence that takes place around the age of fourteen. Remember? Well, this is a true fact, even as the external evidence would find it not in existence. And this is the very real and palpable challenge of spiritual science today; how to prove facts that have no evidential repeatability factor working according to external science.
This is the paradox, and I’m sure you understand the rationale from your own blog postings. The real cult is the cult of external science, which would make illusion into reality, even if only one acceptable in a kind of ‘virtual sense’. The internet forms a huge tool of effectiveness in this quest to dupe the minds of the masses into the dementia that exists as the outcome if reality is not grasped by what spiritual science contains as clarity of concepts related entirely to the spirit.
I liked your blog posting on dementia, which is a very big subject for spiritual science research. It gives good pointers, and subtle distinctions, which I appreciate, even as I write from a more directly objective standpoint. You see, I saw and felt the complementarity, and this was one good example:
Thanks for steering back to the main topic, which is worth further review.
Steve
LikeLike
Steve Hale,
when you say:
This is what I look for in people who can truly think. There are various postings on my blog that approach this problem from the external, visual point of view. The ones that deal with the conceptual realities are better veiled. That doesn’t mean they’re not there, it only means that a person has to reason things out for themselves if they are to understand the point I wish to make.
Firstly, the problem with external science (as you term it) is that it is, as you say, largely an illusion. It is a very important question if you are looking for the kind of fact that is based on repeatable evidence. This might interest you:
Anthroposophical facts are a little different, for they are the kind that cannot be proven. My point is that when I speak with people, I’m not looking at what they say, I’m looking for whether they can reason things out for themselves. Being able to reason something out for oneself – as I did with my understanding of the subconscious – is key to being able to deal with the challenges posed by Rudolf Steiner.
Yet for all their illusory appearance, Anthroposophical facts are there for all to see; but most people dismiss them with a wave of their hand. It’s all too ordinary. That in itself is the challenge. The change of teeth – a landmark in the Waldorf schools – goes barely noticed in the Mainstream schools. Yet the quality of the child changes remarkably, just as they change at age ten. Yes, I’ve done it, and I’ve seen it.
As to dementia – which is as off-topic as a school in Stroud (there’s a good one in Nailworth, by the way) – how can one prove it? Yet the demand for proof forgets that evidential proof needs to be demonstrable. The great thing about dementia is that you don’t know it’s happening to you: it’s a living forgetting. And you can’t prove forgetting, can you?
LikeLike
Hello Jeremy and Steve!
Exciting news! It’s “game-on” in Stroud! Helen Saunders just approved my comment.
http://stopsteinerinstroud.com/2015/01/25/academies-are-different/
So now you two crusading Grail Knights can do cyber battle with the infidels over there.
Jeremy, you can immediately set about setting Helen straight regarding my obtuseness, and,
Steve, you can now revel in a new battle arena because I sense Helen is a much fairer moderator than Dan Dugan.
(She’s British you know, and you know how much more civilized those Brits are than us Amis. I mean, just consider what Rudolf Steiner said about Woodrow Wilson if you need any proof.)
Taddy Ho!
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Just to let you know, Tom’s post over on “Stop Steiner in Stroud” has finally made its appearance, and it seems that no one wants to touch it with a ten foot pole. Why? As we both have correctly seen, it reeks of the very racism that Tom wants to make plain to Helen and her group of Steiner naysayers.
http://stopsteinerinstroud.com/2015/01/25/academies-are-different/
Sadly, but only for Tom, his attempt to ‘let the fireworks begin’ has likely fused out due to its expected repulsive effects, even among these.
Steve
LikeLike
Gemma, please try to understand that I appreciate every morsel and crumb I can get off the table while the dogs lick at my sores. Yes, I look at your blog, and have some wonderful things to say about it. I apologize for making comments too soon.
Here is what you just said:
“I thought you had stopped this conversation, and as to your being blocked, you did visit my public blog last night. There is little I speak of on my private blog that is not published openly. There are differences however, such as not dealing with the likes of 911 and other outstanding issues that entertain the passive mind. It’s why the internet is full of websites about 911 that nobody bothers to read. Can we leave it at that? You can leave a comment on my public blog if you feel like it, just as Caryn can, because I cannot respond to her as my comment wasn’t published. Sorry, Jeremy, that probably means you can’t publish this one either… I’ll just have to respond publicly on my own turf.”
The reason I was perturbed is your comment that I had no clue, or faintest capacity, which causes me to shut off any further consideration of what you said. As well, you sunk into the typical business of taking lines out of sentences just to fit your perceived viewpoint. This is a very cultic tactic used by the critics, and you used it yourself. Now, try explaining that?
Please try to keep context within context. It only helps the cause of explanation.
Steve
LikeLike
The Will is the least conscious part of our being, which places it in the digestive-metabolic system, represented by the Limbs (arms and legs), with arms at the heart-region and legs tending to the ground. This forms the perfect balance, just as right hand over left, and right leg crossing left leg is the perfect mode for early morning prayers.
Now, the so-called “new yoga of will” is contained in this lecture, and nowhere else in any Steiner discourse. He often made this case, i.e., one time and no further. It was meant to make an imprint for a special study.
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/MissMich/19191130p01.html
Thus, if taken in hand, this lecture becomes a dynamic moving device. This is what it contains. Thinking is the objective loop because it is conscious in the world of material forms. Willing is the subjective (lower) loop because it metabolizes and makes the energy for the conscious awareness in the head. Yet, the head is continuously experiencing the forces of death, and this is what makes us conscious of our world, and its situation, but only because the Feeling Soul, marked by the X in the middle, serves to resolve both loops. This is the upsurging process of respiration and circulation, which also tends down in order to make the process complete.
Anyone who walks on their thoughts, whether with dogs or without, knows that this is the working principle. Just ask Kant or Schopenhauer what it means for the philosopher to need to walk.
More contemporaneously, just ask Steve or Caryn, who both take long walks and silently wonder about it all. How does the horizontal become erect is a really profound consideration. As well, how does the garden grow?
Steve
LikeLike
Steve,
I will attempt to keep this on topic.
There is not one of us who can see our own subconscious. You can appreciate that this is a very good reason why evidential scientists avoid the subject and (for example) speak of dementia as a ‘disease’. The thorny issue is this: how can one see what one cannot see? How can one be aware of what one is doing, but is unaware of doing?
I will add that with a good few years of practicing the very things I demand of others, I can tell when I am being ‘mirrored’. I will add that it is not a pleasant feeling, indeed, that again is a challenge we must all meet.
That means that I am conscious of the things you speak of.
I will explain: most people I meet have the remotest idea that they have a subconscious, leave alone know how deal with it. Is it surprising that you should tar me with that same brush?
After all, it’s highly unlikely that you’ve ever met anybody who can deal with their subconscious…
… which is my answer to you. If I take one line out of a paragraph, it is for one specific reason, something that I wish to highlight. Not only that, it is a fully conscious act.
You will understand that most people act out of their sympathies and their antipathies (the Intellectual Soul that sees things in a ‘moonlike’ manner*), and their choice of sentences will reflect this. Now take someone who knows themselves well enough to say “ah, this is only pleasing to me” – and then think “what is more important, me or them?” That gives me a context to play with that cannot be the result of the “if-or” intellectual soul.
When most people lack this, their motives will be very different from mine.
You should understand that a cult is made of those people who all sympathize with each other, and have a mutual antipathy to outsiders. It was this kind of thinking that led to the bun-fight at the Goethanum in 1935: they thought they all agreed, until a little awareness crept in and it dawned on them that there were two cults not just one and the antipathies reared their ugly heads. (I will add that I haven’t studied the details, but it is an example of how cults destroy themselves and disintegrate into particles).
(*BD gardeners should grasp this concept – just think of silver).
LikeLike
Gemma wrote (in relation to sharing e-mail addresses):
“Jeremy, no thank you; Steve knows the address of my public website, albeit that he doesn’t bother to darken its metaphorical doors. Perhaps you need to have a post discussing the subconscious?”
I know that both Gemma and Caryn have my email, and I would like to have Gemma’s because she is the one who seems to insist that I am doing something subversive to her. I am not, and I know that Caryn will uphold this. She knows me, and knows how much I have but one purpose, even if it is simply scraping up the crumbs in the hope. I often have to wait a long time, and wonder about expectation as a result. Should we allow expectation, or is it a useless waste of time?
Steve
LikeLike
Hello Steve,
If Gemma would like to pass on her email address, I hope she will get in touch with you directly.
Best wishes, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy, I think it is important to state this:
“she is the one who seems to insist that I am doing something subversive to her”
This is NOT what I think. I do not know where he’s dreamed this up, but as assumptions go, it’s a big one. Perhaps – as is the way with the subconscious, he’s seeing his own reflection?
I will add that – like the people who cannot get their heads around Steiner Schools – the issues of consciousness are subtle: as subtle as seeing the changes that occur in a ten year old child. If someone cannot see what I can see clearly, then, quite clearly, they have not done their exercises.
I think it is high time for Steve Hale to start his own blog where those who wish to can post comments, just as they can on mine.
LikeLike
I have a blog which goes back to 2009, and what makes it a refreshing place is that anyone can write any time of the day and not have to wait for moderator approval. It functions in real-time and warp-speed, and trusts that the submitter has something valid and worthwhile to say.
Thus, the “high time for Steve Hale” is already here, and even already offered for those that might be interested in not only posting comments, but also submitting original pieces with rich-text, diagrams, photos, etc. As well, we have a comprehensive archive of files, and images to support.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sardisian_approach/info
Either send me your e-mail and I will invite you, or subscribe yourself at the above. It is as easy as it gets. It’s private but only because of attacks by the Waldorf Critics, which forced me to take it off its original public listing.
Steve
LikeLike
Thankyou, Steve. I am sure that, like me, writing a blog and communicating with those who comment on it is a reward in and of itself.
I have learned a great deal from the feedback I have received from those who have read my posts.
LikeLike
Gemma,
I have also learned a great deal from feedback over the years, but not a lot from yours. Maybe one day you will accord by giving us a real look, and then we can assess what it takes.
Here it is again:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sardisian_approach/info
Come look, or not. It shows the path from the subconscious to the conscious if that helps. Please join.
Steve
LikeLike
Hi All,
Thanks for exploring the possibility of Anthroposophy being a cult. I agree with the layout Jeremy has written on anthroposophy but I wonder if you’ve considered other aspects of what makes a cult, a cult. Surely antrhoposophy is a cult but the question could then be: how much of a legitimate cult is anthroposophy?
I’ve met a few great anthropsophists that have nothing to do with the official anthro structure because they consider it a cult that does not open its doors to their work because it is not subject to their interference with it and that is sufficient of an ingredient to place some weight on the fact that the official stream of anthroposophy has strong characteristics of cult behaviour. As long as those in its inner circle wish to have greater power than others to decide on what is and what is not anthroposophy and are willing to reject other people or their work because it doesn’t seem to adjust to their own no less subjective views, then we are talking about cult behaviour. Surely there are certain guidelines that would leave some work out of Anthroposophic creations but in general, it was Steiner himself who asked people to be creative, trust their own self and fly with it in whatever they were working on. What I’ve seen is that most every anthoposophist circle that I’ve connected with, is eager to cut people’s wings off if they are not tied to the mainstream understanding of anthroposophy and “that mainstream” seems to hold to the same hierarchy structures present in most every organisation with a clan structure. Steiner repeatedly stated the need to move away from the clan mentality because it acts against the evolution not only of the members of any organisation but of mankind.
One of the steps that is needed, is the objective understanding of basic realities such as what working for LIFE implies, independent of who works for it, allowing individuals to take a second place in the picture while at the same time acknowledging the capacity of everyone participating to work for the well being of the whole.
The individual is great in the scheme of Life because it is acknowledged that he or she is LIFE itself and the consciousness with which they stand up to protect and regenerate it, is valued but establishing hierarchy positions to determine that a few can become obstacles to the progress of some, keeps anthroposophy within a clan system that cannot allow it to advance and in as much as that is so, it is a cult acting against its own impulse.
Should you ban this article because it stands in opposition to your understanding, you will immediately confirm how much of a cult anthropsophy is. We do not know each other so you could understand that I am in no way personally trying to oppose you but that we do need to look deeper into what Steiner aimed and what his followers have and are achieving and be as critical of our selves as he was, so that we can continue to move ahead.
LikeLike
Hello, i run the Reddit community r/anthroposophy (2k+ members) and i was just wondering if you could copy-and-paste this post onto that community, it has quite incredible google search rankings and this article is great, this could genuinely impact many people just stumbling into Anthroposophy and would be a very good resource.
If you don’t know how to do it i can make the post and credit you, or we can figure something out. If you don’t want to that’s okay too.
Let me know if you have any questions or anything.
LikeLike
Thank you, qw. I’m not familiar with Reddit but I’d be very happy for you to post the article on the Reddit anthroposophy community. All good wishes, Jeremy
LikeLiked by 1 person