Understanding Steiner's Philosophy

[Federica]

It seems that MS may not share the same critique as Ashton based on the following comment and the fact that he liked my response. Whether he is willing to state that clearly, however, may be another story

Yes, let's see how it turns out.

Thanks, I have posted my comment on the Substack thread, with the change you suggested:

https://substack.com/@exsuperantia/note ... medium=web

[Federica]

I suppose the two takeaways of this discussion for me are:

1. The proponents of Steiner's racism have no idea of what they are doing. They are not interested in understanding Steiner's worldview, but because they live the academic life, they pretend they can judge him with authority. They do damage with their publishing.

2. The Anthroposophical Society treats Steiner like a racist, by censoring his supposedly racist words. This is a serious moral fault in my view. The world needs a new Anthroposophical Society. This one is becoming inoperable, like a corrupted file.

[AshvinP]

1. The proponents of Steiner's racism have no idea of what they are doing. They are not interested in understanding Steiner's worldview, but because they live the academic life, they pretend they can judge him with authority. They do damage with their publishing.

Agreed, this certainly seems to be the case. Unfortunately, such people are becoming the self-appointed mediators of Anthroposophy for many people today. If one wants to explore what the latter is about, most likely they will go through something like the Urphanomen group. From the perspective of MS, Ashton, et al., these racial issues are simply marginal aspects that can be placed off to the side, while retaining the core of Steiner's outlook. What they don't realize is how it is a core misorientation to the latter, which shapes their views on the former. FB is a little more forthright in this respect because he tries to imply how the racial issues are a symptom of a much deeper problem in Steiner's entire methodology and the resulting 'revelations' of spiritual science. If one isn't willing to admit the possibility that such a misorientation to the methodology exists, then there is simply no chance of finding the proper orientation.

Here are the last two comments with Ashton from a few days ago:

"My claim was not that Steiner’s theorizing merely reflected biological essentialism, but a spiritual caricature of it (e.g., white skin permits the Christ impulse to actualize most fully). I also said he’s inconsistent, there’s no one theory to fit his statements because they don’t cohere and I don’t think it’s an epistemic virtue in this case."


"I think that I have generally understood the claim, Ashton, but to avoid being presumptuous, let me ask a question to clarify. You have often characterized what Steiner is doing as "theorizing". What exactly do you mean by this?

For example, we could imagine his inner process was something like: "The esoteric wisdom traditions clearly tell us that there is spiritual significance of race and skin color, that these biophysical qualities differentiated through the evolutionary process. I have also noticed from my own observations that there are clear differences in disposition, temperament, capacities, and so on, between individuals with different skin colors. Therefore, I need to take these traditions and observations and fit them into my modern spiritual evolutionary framework about how the Christ impulse is gradually incarnating into humanity." At this point, he begins drawing on the scientific understanding of his time and intellectually piecing together how blood, skin color, and so on, can fit into the overall spiritual evolutionary view. In this process, sometimes he is inconsistent and fits those things into the spiritual evolutionary framework in different (perhaps even contradictory) ways.

Does this resemble what you have in mind by "theorizing"? If not, perhaps you can elaborate on what kind of inner process you believe resulted in those particular observations."

[Federica]

1. The proponents of Steiner's racism have no idea of what they are doing. They are not interested in understanding Steiner's worldview, but because they live the academic life, they pretend they can judge him with authority. They do damage with their publishing.

Agreed, this certainly seems to be the case. Unfortunately, such people are becoming the self-appointed mediators of Anthroposophy for many people today. If one wants to explore what the latter is about, most likely they will go through something like the Urphanomen group. From the perspective of MS, Ashton, et al., these racial issues are simply marginal aspects that can be placed off to the side, while retaining the core of Steiner's outlook. What they don't realize is how it is a core misorientation to the latter, which shapes their views on the former. FB is a little more forthright in this respect because he tries to imply how the racial issues are a symptom of a much deeper problem in Steiner's entire methodology and the resulting 'revelations' of spiritual science. If one isn't willing to admit the possibility that such a misorientation to the methodology exists, then there is simply no chance of finding the proper orientation.

Here are the last two comments with Ashton from a few days ago:

"My claim was not that Steiner’s theorizing merely reflected biological essentialism, but a spiritual caricature of it (e.g., white skin permits the Christ impulse to actualize most fully). I also said he’s inconsistent, there’s no one theory to fit his statements because they don’t cohere and I don’t think it’s an epistemic virtue in this case."


"I think that I have generally understood the claim, Ashton, but to avoid being presumptuous, let me ask a question to clarify. You have often characterized what Steiner is doing as "theorizing". What exactly do you mean by this?

For example, we could imagine his inner process was something like: "The esoteric wisdom traditions clearly tell us that there is spiritual significance of race and skin color, that these biophysical qualities differentiated through the evolutionary process. I have also noticed from my own observations that there are clear differences in disposition, temperament, capacities, and so on, between individuals with different skin colors. Therefore, I need to take these traditions and observations and fit them into my modern spiritual evolutionary framework about how the Christ impulse is gradually incarnating into humanity." At this point, he begins drawing on the scientific understanding of his time and intellectually piecing together how blood, skin color, and so on, can fit into the overall spiritual evolutionary view. In this process, sometimes he is inconsistent and fits those things into the spiritual evolutionary framework in different (perhaps even contradictory) ways.

Does this resemble what you have in mind by "theorizing"? If not, perhaps you can elaborate on what kind of inner process you believe resulted in those particular observations."

Yes, not surprising that Urphänomen is letting the comments fall. Part of the reason is that they are entangled in the academic framework, which clearly puts some major constraints on them, even in the case we wanted to suppose full openness and willingness to go to the bottom of the question.

I am also not surprised that you remain silent on my second takeaway, likely for the reason that you are yourself becoming entangled in the framework of the Anthroposophical Society, therefore your freedom is now limited by such cultural and relational constraints. I am not expecting a reply on that, I do understand things. But I also do want to point this out.

In this connection it's really impressive to realize to which extent Steiner throughout his life was able to spread his science in the outer world without compromising with this or that academic, cultural, political, or social structure.

[AshvinP]

I am also not surprised that you remain silent on my second takeaway, likely for the reason that you are yourself becoming entangled in the framework of the Anthroposophical Society, therefore your freedom is now limited but such cultural and relational constraints. I am not expecting a reply on that, I do understand things. But I also do want to point this out.

The bait won't be taken, Federica

I hope you don't get too distracted and obsessed with these other people and what they are doing. I only focus on them from time to time as a means of highlighting the inner dynamics that can help us orient to what Steiner was doing. In other words, it shouldn't be about becoming self-righteous defenders of 'pure Anthroposophy', fighting all our perceived enemies, and funneling more and more time into corresponding feelings and thoughts. Then we end up doing the exact same thing as those perceived enemies without realizing it.

In any case, let's get back to Cleric's essays and the truly fruitful inner work!

[Federica]

I am also not surprised that you remain silent on my second takeaway, likely for the reason that you are yourself becoming entangled in the framework of the Anthroposophical Society, therefore your freedom is now limited but such cultural and relational constraints. I am not expecting a reply on that, I do understand things. But I also do want to point this out.

The bait won't be taken, Federica

I hope you don't get too distracted and obsessed with these other people and what they are doing. I only focus on them from time to time as a means of highlighting the inner dynamics that can help us orient to what Steiner was doing. In other words, it shouldn't be about becoming self-righteous defenders of 'pure Anthroposophy', fighting all our perceived enemies, and funneling more and more time into corresponding feelings and thoughts. Then we end up doing the exact same thing as those perceived enemies without realizing it.

In any case, let's get back to Cleric's essays and the truly fruitful inner work!

It's a bit disappointing that you are unwilling to take my objective remark - you disagree with the censorship - seriously and objectively. I often sugarcoat things in everyday life, but I don't consider it very good or respectful to sugarcoat things with fellow students or proponents of spiritual science (or however else you prefer to call what we try to be here) so I don't. Other than that, you imagine me much more unfortunate than I am. But yes, let's go back to Cleric´s essay.

[AshvinP]

It's a bit disappointing that you are unwilling to take my objective remark - you disagree with the censorship - seriously and objectively. I often sugarcoat things in everyday life, but I don't consider it very good or respectful to sugarcoat things with fellow students or proponents of spiritual science (or however else you prefer to call what we try to be here) so I don't. Other than that, you imagine me much more unfortunate than I am. But yes, let's go back to Cleric´s essay.

I suppose you are correct that I cannot take this - "likely for the reason that you are yourself becoming entangled in the framework of the Anthroposophical Society, therefore your freedom is now limited but such cultural and relational constraints" - seriously and objectively, as someone interested in spiritual scientific inquiry. It doesn't sound like something that is rooted in any concrete observations or serious contemplation, but more like a random dart thrown in my general 'soul direction' with the hope that it sticks somewhere to form the basis of an intellectual argument with you, where our picture-in-picture mental flow can go through the usual motions of speculating on X, Y, Z reasons why you are "right" or "wrong", which will devolve into the usual misunderstandings, confusions, frustrations, irritations, and so on with 100% certainty. What I take seriously and objectively is this subconscious tendency that is steering the primary flow from the background. I desire to deflect any such comments away from that inertial momentum and toward redirecting attention to that primary flow.

[Federica]

It's a bit disappointing that you are unwilling to take my objective remark - you disagree with the censorship - seriously and objectively. I often sugarcoat things in everyday life, but I don't consider it very good or respectful to sugarcoat things with fellow students or proponents of spiritual science (or however else you prefer to call what we try to be here) so I don't. Other than that, you imagine me much more unfortunate than I am. But yes, let's go back to Cleric´s essay.

I suppose you are correct that I cannot take this - "likely for the reason that you are yourself becoming entangled in the framework of the Anthroposophical Society, therefore your freedom is now limited but such cultural and relational constraints" - seriously and objectively, as someone interested in spiritual scientific inquiry. It doesn't sound like something that is rooted in any concrete observations or serious contemplation, but more like a random dart thrown in my general 'soul direction' with the hope that it sticks somewhere to form the basis of an intellectual argument with you, where our picture-in-picture mental flow can go through the usual motions of speculating on X, Y, Z reasons why you are "right" or "wrong", which will devolve into the usual misunderstandings, confusions, frustrations, irritations, and so on with 100% certainty. What I take seriously and objectively is this subconscious tendency that is steering the primary flow from the background. I desire to deflect any such comments away from that inertial momentum and toward redirecting attention to that primary flow.

You are a bit all over the place with your diagnoses. First I was obsessed with invisible enemies, now it turns out I'm dying for having an intellectual argument with you. My takeaway post didn't call for any reply. You are the one who decided for some reason to add an agreeing comment on one of the two interconnected halves, leaving an odd silence with regard to the other half - despite the fact that you too disagree with the censorship, as you told MS. Is it for just no reason that you omitted that half? Ok, we can say it's for no reason. I am only tired by these situations, but I point them out still, because I think it's useful, in the big scheme of things, although unpleasant. I do see it's too unpleasant for you. So let's say it was a coincidence, and I will begin to omit or sugarcoat things with you, since this is what you ask for.