 THE SEMI-STEINER DICTIONARY This dictionary is based on two others: THE STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PSYCHIC, MYSTIC, OCCULT (Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1973) and THE NEW STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PARANORMAL (Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1980). (The latter also refers to itself as THE NEW DICTIONARY OF THE PARANORMAL, PSYCHIC, MYSTIC, OCCULT, and is essentially a revision and enlargement of the 1973 dictionary.) Both books are primarily the work of George Riland. I have also taken some guidance from — but have not quoted — ANTHROPOSOPHY A-Z, by Henk van Oort (Sophia Books, 2011). The two SteinerBooks dictionaries are not exclusively lexicons of Anthroposophical/Waldorf terms; they include entries from Theosophy and other "supernatural sciences" in addition to Anthroposophical terms. Thus, they aim to outline the broad realms of spiritualism, mysticism, the paranormal, and the occult, which may be looked on as the context of Anthroposophy. That aim, then, is also my aim in the SEMI-STEINER DICTIONARY.
Although many of the definitions in the Steinerbooks dictionaries take us well outside the limits of Anthroposophy, all the entries are presumably of at least provisional interest to Anthroposophists, given that the book was issued by Rudolf Steiner Publications. If nothing else, terms from systems other than Anthroposophy help Anthroposophists — and us — to locate Anthroposophy within the range of spiritualistic, mystical, and occult systems. The SteinerBooks dictionaries have far more about mediums, seances, and controls (spiritualism) than is to be found in Anthroposophy, and some of the topics mentioned in the dictionaries are wholly absent from Steiner's teachings — flying saucers, for instance. On the other hand, the SteinerBooks dictionaries omit much that is important in Anthroposophy. I have added some clarifications and corrections, and I have pointed out some omitted Anthroposophical terms. All of my interpolations appear within brackets. Be forewarned: The SteinerBooks dictionaries contain numerous errors, and I have let a few go so you can get the flavor of the books (there is sound evidence of flying saucers and photographic evidence of fairies...) Moreover, if you are primarily interested in Waldorf education rather than the occultism that underlies it, you will find little of immediate value here. For a more focused, reliable, and complete discussion of Anthroposophy and Waldorf education, see The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia. — Roger Rawlings Format: Terms to be defined are shown in bold type. Definitions excerpted from the SteinerBooks dictionaries are placed within quotations marks. Anything I have added is placed within brackets. Thus, the following is taken from the SteinerBooks dictionaries: emerald "Considered an important aid to healing, and used in divination." And the following is a contribution of mine: [abyss Region separating physical reality from spiritual reality. - See The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.] Definitions quoted from THE STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PSYCHIC, MYSTIC, OCCULT, published in 1973, are marked "73". Thus, an entry marked "73 p. 12" is taken from page 12 of THE STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PSYCHIC, MYSTIC, OCCULT. Definitions quoted from THE NEW STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PARANORMAL, published in 1980, are marked "80". Thus, an entry marked "80 p. 27" is taken from page 27 of THE NEW STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PARANORMAL. These links will take you to various sections of the SEMI-STEINER DICTIONARY:  [R. R., 2011, inspired by the work of William Wilson.] Some large questions hover over the SteinerBooks dictionaries. Many of the entries describe spiritual beings, spiritual "facts," and spiritual powers that are not found in Anthroposophy. Why are these things absent from Anthroposophy? If these things are true, then Anthroposophy must be a faulty description of reality, omitting much that should be included. On the other hand, if many of these things are false — if these beings, "facts," and powers do not exist — then we should wonder whether the same problem applies Anthroposophical doctrines: Perhaps they, too, are false. Indeed, most rational people will incline to this conclusion. Where, we should ask, is the evidence for any of the beliefs outlined by the SteinerBooks dictionaries? The dictionaries often refer to data and evidence, but they generally supply none. We arrive, then, at some overarching questions. Aren't the SteinerBooks dictionaries, in the end, catalogs of human fantasies and delusions? Aside from certain religious doctrines that many readers will affirm, aren't the contents of these dictionaries mainly the products of ancient ignorance (such as various forms of divination) and modern deception (such as the "phenomena" produced during seances)? In other words, aren't these dictionaries crammed with absurdities? Most rational people will incline to this conclusion. ◊◊◊ But, to avoid undue haste, let's step back and approach these matters from a different angle. Let's concentrate on the similarities between Anthroposophy and other occult/mystical/spiritual systems, and let's ask ourselves whether these similarities should persuade us to accept one or another of these systems. Many systems share Anthroposophy's belief in the Sun God, for instance. Most of them use other names for the Sun God, and their particular doctrines about the Sun God may be incompatible with Anthroposophical doctrines, but surely the widespread agreement about the existence of the Sun God counts as a form of confirmation for Anthroposophy. Right? Likewise, many systems are, like Anthroposophy, polytheistic; many systems agree that there are numerous spiritual beings arrayed in hierarchies; many agree that the stars and planets exert astrological forces on human beings; many agree with the concept of reincarnation; many agree that ghosts, spectres, demons, and other dark powers exist; and so forth. All of this must count as confirming Anthroposophy. Right? Unfortunately, no. It really makes no difference how many people believe in something. Unless somebody comes up with clear, firm evidence for the existence of that thing, the belief in that thing remains only a belief. Let's say, for instance, that you are absolutely convinced that the jungles of the Earth contain pink, levitating elephants. And let's say that after extensive research, you determine that many other people share this belief, more or less. Maybe some people refer to reddish, floating pachyderms, while others affirm the reality of rosy, flying mastodons. Still, all of you agree that the world really does contain big airborne palish reddish animals with trunks and tusks and huge floppy ears. So, therefore, your belief is confirmed. You are right. Right? No. The only way to prove that pink, levitating elephants exist is to produce one. Bring us one. Let us see it, and examine it, and photograph it. If you do this, then no matter how many people laughed at you before, you win. You were right. You are right. You have proven your case. Bravo. But if neither you nor anyone else ever produces a real, live, flying/floating/levitating elephant/pachyderm/mastodon, the existence of such animals will remain unproven. Moreover, because the belief in such animals is so strange, violating the known laws of physics (levitation?), the presumption will have to be that, in all probability, no such animals exist. Indeed, one tentative but compelling conclusion will have to be that, in discussing pink, levitating elephants, we are not really talking about zoology — rather, we are talking about human psychology. What is it about the human psyche that leads people to have delusions about pink, levitating elephants? What do these delusions tell us about ourselves, and what should we do to straighten out our heads? Widespread delusions tell us nothing about the real, objective world. Nor do they confirm one another. Widespread delusions potentially tell us about our own needs, desires, wants, and dreams. As such, they may be very instructive. But they do not give us anything that we should mistake for reality. I have been using a fairly straightforward example, a physical phenomenon. Either flying pink elephants exist in the real world or they don't, and the required proof — show us one of these elephants — is obvious. Things gets trickier when we turn our attention to matters of the spirit. Producing firm evidence for spiritual subjects is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This should make us extremely humble and tentative when speaking of such subjects. But Anthroposophists tend to speak with grave certainty about their spiritual doctrines (and of course they are not alone in doing this). They profess to know things that they almost surely cannot know. They claim to "know" through clairvoyance. But this is a delusion, and the utter hollowness of their claims is revealed by their reliance on a nonexistent faculty. [See "Clairvoyance".] So we arrive again in the realm of psychology. We humans tend to be most dogmatic and "sure" precisely on the subjects where we should be most tentative. Why do we do this to ourselves, deceiving ourselves in the matters that are most important to us? Our desires, our needs, indeed our very insecurities lead us to affirm most definitely those things that we really, truly wish were true — and then we suppress the knowledge that we are wishing and we claim instead that we are describing a reality about which we have no doubts. Not all people of faith behave this way. Many are deeply thoughtful and humble, recognizing that the spirit realm may be quite beyond human comprehension. Consider an analogy: You cannot teach a dog algebra. The concepts of algebra are utterly beyond the limits of canine comprehension. In the same way, the ultimate truths about the universe may lie beyond the limits of human comprehension. I hope this is not the case. The astonishing progress made in physics, by Einstein and other towering geniuses, suggests that we may yet come to grasp the deepest mysteries.* But one of the most troubling characteristics of Anthroposophy is that its adherents profess such certain knowledge about things that may be quite beyond them, things that may be impossible to probe, things that indeed may not exist (hierarchies of gods, gods dwelling on distant planets, good gods waging wars on bad gods...). Rudolf Steiner did not claim to be omniscient, but he came close, describing the spirit worlds and the distant past and the distant future in great detail (without, however, producing any evidence). And Steiner's followers tend to express a similar unfounded certitude — if not in their own powers of spiritual investigation, then in his. And that, ultimately, is a giveaway. People who profess certain knowledge about things that cannot be known with such certainty, are inadvertently admitting that, really, they know nothing of the sort. ◊◊◊ The SteinerBooks dictionaries are essentially credulous. Some entries indicate that various beliefs and practices are false or have receded into the distant past, but most indicate a strong desire to believe. Thus, some entries stress the universality of various beliefs and images (such as the witch flying on a broomstick or similar object), as if this, in itself, tells us something important about objective reality. Sometimes, indeed, the books openly express belief (there is good evidence for flying saucers, for instance, and photographic evidence of fairies**). The dictionaries often indicate that phenomena encountered in seances are real, and they say that adequate measures are often taken to prevent trickery by mediums. Likewise, the books affirm the work of mystics, occultists, and parapsychological "investigators" such as Joseph Rhine. A professor at Duke University, Rhine conducted a number of experiments that, he claimed, proved the existence of ESP and other psychic powers. Many people were swayed by his reports, although eventually his work was almost totally debunked. In the NEW STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PARANORMAL, his work is essentially endorsed. "[H]e set up the epoch-making laboratory in parapsychology at Duke University ... Rhine's work in telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and kinesis was immensely impressive to a large number of psychologists ... [I]t has been the persistence of his interest despite the array of criticism, the success of his efforts to attract outstanding colleagues, and the radically challenging nature of his results that have played a remarkable part in making parapsychology a major adjunct of contemporary psychology and an enlightening subject to Americans and much of the literate world." [pp. 245-246.] If there was some possible justification for such statements in 1980, that justification has long since collapsed. * Physicists are not necessarily atheists. Some believe in God. But others, such as Stephen Hawking, insist that physics explains the universe so deeply — and will proceed to even greater profundity — that we have no need to posit the existence of any spiritual powers. **In some instances, beliefs expressed in the 1973 dictionary are toned down in the 1980 edition. Thus, the latter book is far more circumspect about fairies.  The publisher sometimes promoted THE STEINERBOOKS DICTIONARY OF THE PSYCHIC, MYSTIC, OCCULT under a somewhat more succinct title: THE STEINER DICTIONARY OF THE PSYCHIC, MYSTIC, OCCULT. |