 INSIDE SCOOP Tackling the Question, How Can Smart People Believe This Junk?
I. You can unlock the mysteries of the universe. You can know the higher worlds beyond this one — the transcendent spiritual realms that are closed to our ordinary senses. You can do it by developing your powers of clairvoyance. This is Rudolf Steiner's promise. [1] It is the brass ring held aloft by his system of "spiritual science," Anthroposophy — and it is the ultimate objective of his educational system, Waldorf schooling. It is a system of radical, regimented subjectivity. Gaining access to the universe's deep secrets means becoming an "Initiate" — one who has been granted entree into the occult inner circle. Steiner affirmed that every real human being can make the grade [2], but you have to earn it. Secrets will remain locked unless you are worthy. "[E]veryone may be certain that Initiation will find him under all circumstances [i.e., initiation will be available], if he gives proof of an earnest and worthy endeavor to attain this knowledge. It is a natural law among all Initiates to withhold from no man knowledge that is due to him; but there is an equally natural law which lays down that no word of esoteric knowledge shall be imparted to anyone not qualified to receive it." [3] Steiner shows the way in his book KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, which is also available in a somewhat more accessible form under the title HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS. [4] In theory, you don't need Steiner's help — you don't need the "knowledge" any Initiate could lay on you, since it is all available within you. "We must say to ourselves: 'Within my own feelings and thoughts the highest mysteries lie concealed, but until now I have not perceived them' ... [W]e carry body, soul, and spirit about with us...." [5] A would-be clairvoyant should be able to work out the mysteries without assistance, but getting a leg up from Steiner could save some time. It's a little odd that Steiner should stress the secret nature of "esoteric knowledge" but then reveal so many of the secrets for any and all to read, the worthy and the unworthy alike — but applying reason to Steiner's pronouncements just causes trouble. [6] So, how can we "unseal the lips of an Initiate"? [7] Steiner tells us. We have to "begin with a fundamental attitude of the soul. In Spiritual Science this fundamental attitude is called the path of veneration." [8] Veneration of worthy objects and beings is surely meritorious. Venerating God is the highest virtue. But Steiner means that veneration should be extended to himself and his doctrines, without pausing to assess their worth. Like children, true seekers "have a respect that forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart, to harbour any thoughts of criticism or opposition." [9]. Critical thought, rational analysis, is taboo. (As I said, applying reason causes trouble.) "Have you ever paused outside the door of some venerated person, and have you, on this your first visit, felt a religious awe as you pressed on the handle to enter the room which for you is a holy place?" [10] If you want to enter Steiner's room, you must consider it a holy place; you must feel religious awe at the prospect of meeting the great man. In short, you must check your brains at the door: no criticism allowed. [11]  The state of mind Steiner advocated requires closing one's eyes: "The power obtained through devotion can be rendered still more effective, when the life of feeling is enriched by yet another quality. To achieve this the student learns to give himself up less and less to impressions of the outer world, and to develop instead a vivid inner life." [12] The spiritual aspirant must emphasize subjectivity and feeling rather than clear-eyed observation and thinking. One must reject the "external," including "external civilization": "Now the one thing that everyone must at once admit, is the difficulty for those involved in the external civilization of our time to advance to the knowledge of the higher worlds." [13] Most certainly, one must reject what Steiner referred to as "scientific trash" — that is, the findings of objective investigation, experimentation, and logical analysis. [14] Although Steiner called his own system "spiritual science," he abhorred real science. Let's get real for a moment. Having a "vivid inner life," a "life of feeling," is fine. It is necessary. It is even inevitable. People are awash in feelings all the time — when we have stirring dreams, or when we remember embarrassing episodes, or when we watch tear-jerking movies, to give just three commonplace examples. But does deep feeling bring us "knowledge"? The epistemological challenge for humans is to occasionally rise above the welter of our emotions to attain rationality and clarity. Steiner didn't advocate surrendering to the chaotic play of emotions, he taught that we should discipline our feelings, training them to be correct: "We should no longer need to restrain our passions because these follow the right course on their own." [15] So far, so good. All techniques of spiritual or psychological healing require self-discipline. But Steiner aims not for true mental health but for "clairvoyance" — which is delusion. [16] Steiner said that we can look inward and intuit the truth because we are, deep down, attuned to the cosmos. This is an attractive idea, appealing to our human vanity — or to our human insecurity, our desperate desire to believe that we are important in the great scheme of things. It's no accident that Steiner taught that the highest of our nonphysical bodies is the "I" or the "ego." [17] Our egos are precious to us. We want to feel affirmed, important, saved. We want to transcend our limits and our mortality. But the sheer power of these desires can easily lead us astray, as Steiner would do in the quest for psychic powers. There are three stages of Initiation, Steiner informs us: Probation, Enlightenment, and Initiation proper. ◊ During Probation, the aspirant should focus on certain physical phenomena, not trying to understand them as such, but developing the feelings they inspire. "To begin with, the attention of the soul is directed to certain events in the world that surrounds us. Such events are, on the one hand, life that is budding, growing and flourishing, and, on the other hand, all the phenomena connected with fading, decaying and withering ... Whenever [the aspirant] observes a definite kind of blooming and flourishing, he must banish everything else from his soul ... a feeling which heretofore, in a similar case, would merely have flitted through his soul, now swells out ... He must now allow this feeling to reverberate within himself...." [18] The point of such meditation is to gradually grow incorporeal "organs" that will permit clairvoyance."[J]ust as natural forces build out of living matter the eyes and ears of the physical body, so will organs of clairvoyance build themselves from the feelings and thoughts thus evoked. A quite different form of feeling is connected with growth and expansion, and another equally definite with fading and decaying ... Both these feelings are forces which, when duly cultivated and developed to ever-increasing intensity, lead to the most significant spiritual results. A new world is opened to the student ... The soul-world, the so-called astral plane, begins to dawn on him."[19] You feel your way to development of "organs of clairvoyance" and knowledge of the "soul-world." But viewed rationally, the process Steiner advocates is indistinguishable from self-hypnosis and fantasization. The spiritual realm may exist, but clairvoyance and organs of clairvoyance do not. ◊ The occult view of "Enlightenment" is almost diametrically opposite of the rational view. In the real world, the Enlightenment was an intellectual stage in the 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason. It gave rise to the culture and governmental structures of the modern Western world. Steiner's view is firmly in the opposite, cultic camp. For him, "Enlightenment" is a state of mind in which "The spiritual world ... becomes light" — i.e., knowable, no longer dark as it is even during Probation. [20] To reach occult enlightenment, one has to flex incorporeal organs and undertake exercises such as staring at stones and animals: "Spiritual Science describes that which, for clairvoyant organs, flows from the stone, as 'blue', or 'blue-red'; and that which is felt as coming from the animal as 'red' and 'red-yellow.'" [21] Steiner puts the colors in quotation marks to stress that the words he is using don't really apply — he speaks of red, yellow, dark, light, but the words he chooses are inadequate: "[T]he words 'dark' and 'light', as well as the other expressions used, do but approximately describe what is meant. This cannot be otherwise, if ordinary language is used, for this language was created to suit physical conditions." [22] This is a typical occultist ploy: As we move toward higher subjects, words start to become unreliable — the keepers of the secrets can't really say what they mean. Spiritual truths are well-nigh ineffable. Hocus-pocus and mystification are emphasized instead, with the obvious purpose of flimflamming the gullible. Oddly enough, "ordinary language" is sufficient for the Holy Bible, yet Steiner finds such language inadequate for his needs, which must be lofty indeed. ◊ "Initiation is the highest stage of an esoteric training concerning which it is possible to give indications in a book intended for the general public." [23] Initiation lets one enter the "Temple of Higher Cognition (Wisdom) ... Only now do we begin to understand the world properly." [24] The Initiate has great clairvoyant power — but, as the quotations here suggest, s/he still has a long way to go to reach spiritual apotheosis. The Initiate "begins" to understand things, but there are many further stages of spiritual progress lying ahead, stages that can't be revealed to "the general public" (i.e., you and me). This is somewhat disappointing but more or less par for the course. The Initiate passes through a series of trials that lead to successive spiritual advancements. After the first trial, for instance, s/he can begin to read "a particular system of writing ... This occult script is inscribed forever in the occult world. Once the soul has attained spiritual perception, the script is revealed to it." [25] Steiner and other mystics sometimes refer to this occult writing as the Akashic Record, a celestial storehouse of knowledge. [26] Steiner claimed to have access to the Record, which accounts for his near-omniscience. The Initiate can proceed along the spiritual path independently, but to speed the journey, Steiner suggests making use of more-advanced sages (such as, presumably, himself — he's the one who's kindly telling us all this). "[W]e shall be more likely to reach our goal if we follow the instructions of experienced esoteric researchers, who are proficient in deciphering the hidden script." [27] Reliance on even so great a guide as Steiner has it limits, however. The Initiate's third trial "is without any tangible, distinct goal. Everything is up to us. We find ourselves in a situation where nothing moves us to act. We must each find our own way, by ourselves and out of ourselves." [28] Clairvoyance, ultimately, is a private communion. Some of the results of Initiation are a little surprising. [29] I have mentioned organs of clairvoyance. Our incorporeal bodies turn out to have a number of similar organs, which are associated with — but distinct from — the organs of our physical bodies. Our nonphysical organs become increasingly well defined and potent as we make spiritual progress. "The further [sic] we advance, the more regularly structured our soul organism becomes ... To the clairvoyant it [the nonphysical body] looks like an independent body, containing certain organs. These organs ... may be seen spiritually in the following areas of the physical body: the first, between the eyes; the second, near the larynx; the third, in the region of the heart; the fourth, in the neighborhood of the pit of the stomach or solar plexus; the fifth and sixth, in the lower abdomen or reproductive organs ... [E]sotericists call these formations chakras (wheels) or 'lotus flowers' ... One of the first things to occur when an esoteric student begins practicing the exercises [concentrating on stones and animals, etc.] is that the light of the lotus flowers intensifies; later the flowers will also begin to rotate. When this happens, it means that a person is beginning to have the ability to see clairvoyantly ... The organ in the vicinity of the larynx has sixteen 'petals' or 'spokes'; the one near the heart, twelve; and the one near the solar plexus, ten." [30] II. That's probably a sufficient sample of Steiner's wisdom on the subject of initiation. If you want to learn more about how to set your lotuses glowing and spinning, you can read Steiner's book. For now, I'd like to turn the discussion back to a subject I raised earlier. The path of initiation Steiner presents must strike most rational people as ludicrous: clairvoyance, occult script, lotuses, and the rest of it. As I said, if you want to enter Steiner's room, you need to check your brains at the door. And yet some Anthroposophists and Waldorf faculty members, people who believe Steiner, are actually quite smart. How can this be? How can smart people possibly subscribe to such a loony set of doctrines? [31] The answer is multilayered. Steiner addressed some of the most significant questions facing mankind, questions that any thoughtful person must find compelling: What is the structure of the universe? What is the meaning of life? Does God exist? What does the future hold? Moreover, Steiner was both highly intelligent and highly educated, possessing a doctoral degree and having edited the "scientific" works of Goethe. [32] His credentials have impressed many, including luminaries such as Saul Bellow — who dabbled in Anthroposophy before coming to his senses and heading for the exits. [33] Compared to other mystics, Steiner seemed coherent. His work, dense and often opaque, was nonetheless well-crafted and well-presented when compared with the impenetrable gibberish penned by such competitors as Helena Blavatsky. [34] Steiner was encyclopedic, expressing opinions on an awesomely large number of topics — architecture, art, education, medicine, psychology, science, you name it. He sprinkled his lectures with references to many philosophers, scientists, scholars, and religious figures, whose measure he had presumably taken. Steiner was, in short, impressive. Puzzling out his meaning, attempting to comprehend both the details and broad contours of his teachings, presents an intellectual challenge that some very smart folks have found appealing. It is possible to study Steiner for a long time before penetrating to the void at the heart of his professed sagacity. All intellectuals yearn for knowledge, and most intellectuals are familiar with the gratification of knowing (or thinking they know) more than others. Steiner claimed extraordinary sweeps of knowledge for himself, and he offered such sweeps to his apostles. Most particularly, he offered esoteric "knowledge," occult "knowledge," mystery "knowledge." Curiosity, the search for what is hidden, is a deep human motive — indeed, it may be a primary motive for all creatures possessing brains. [35] For smart folks, this motive is especially strong, so the allure of special, secret keys to universal mysteries can be all the more bewitching for them. But this very bewitchment can, clearly, lead seekers far astray. Few smart people are satisfied simply taking others' words for things — they want to think for themselves, reaching their own conclusions. Steiner allowed for independent investigation and research by his followers. Calling his doctrines "spiritual science," he urged Anthroposophists to develop their own powers of clairvoyance, to make their own explorations of the "higher worlds." Most spiritualistic systems require faith, sometimes blind faith, from their adherents. Initiation, in most traditions, means entering secret fraternities where one memorizes and forever conceals arcane lore. As we have seen, there are elements of this in Steiner's doctrines. Indeed, believing much of what Steiner said calls for considerable credulity. But Steiner held open the attractive possibility that his teachings could be objectively confirmed and even improved upon — operating autonomously, Anthroposophists can make their own spiritual discoveries. For this reason, Steiner argued, Anthroposophy is not a religion. [36] All of this has appeal to at least some subsets of intellectuals. The question becomes, however, whether smart Anthroposophists are — despite their intelligence — simply deceiving themselves. [37] Any system of "thought" that locates cognition not in the brain but in "organs of clairvoyance" must invite such suspicions. The Anthroposophical advocacy of imagination and intuition, which can cut the mind loose from any secure anchors, only intensifies the problem — it is possible, after all, to imagine or intuit almost anything. [38] The "intellectual" work performed by Anthroposophists suggests that, at the least, these thinkers often substitute rationalization for reasoning. ◊Anthroposophists strive mightily, for instance, to justify Steiner's teachings, even when those teachings are manifestly wrong. Thus, they try to defend Steiner's assertion that the planets don't orbit the Sun, and that the heart is not a pump. [39] ◊Some strive to justify anthroposophical medicine [40], or to find sense in the astrological bases of biodynamic farming [41], or to affirm Steiner's conception of the "whole child" (innate memories of past lives, three nonphysical bodies, twelve senses, and so on) [42]. ◊Some write learned books such as WHO WROTE BACON? [43], a literary study that relies on Steiner to figure out whether Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works or whether both Bacon and Shakespeare were spiritually manipulated by a more hidden power, and AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT [44], which distorts the work of Emerson, Melville, and other American authors, to make their work seem consistent with Anthroposophy. ◊Other Anthroposophical scholars pore over Steiner's works to assemble gullible dissertations such as THE FUTURE OH HUMANITY AND OF THE EARTH AS FORESEEN BY RUDOLF STEINER [45], and MAN AND WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY [46]. The credulity of many Anthroposophists brings to mind the case of Theosophist E. L. Gardner who, deceived by some trick photographs purporting to show fairies (pixies, imps), wrote a book hailing this "proof" of the spirit realm: FAIRIES - The Cottingley Photographs and Their Sequel. [47] Gardner's work parallels that of other smart guys who were fooled by the same phony photos, such as Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote a book fully as silly as Gardner's': THE COMING OF THE FAIRIES. [48] Conan Doyle's reputation never recovered, whereas Steiner — who also affirmed the existence of fairies [49] — is still taken seriously, at least in some circles. Intelligence is not a perfect guard against trickery and foolishness. Anyone who believes that real thinking does not occur in the brain may have difficulty disciplining the brain, a necessary skill if one is to think straight. [50] All human beings have an inborn tendency toward certain forms of self-deception, including — according to neurological research — an innate predisposition to believe in the supernatural. [51] This predisposition does not prove about the supernatural realm; it only means that our brains are wired in such a way that we are inclined toward interpreting the world spiritualistically. Supernatural beliefs feel right to us — we "intuit" such beliefs without demanding clear evidence to support them. Anthroposophists make themselves particularly prone to this sort of mental malfunction by failing to recognize that intuitions are unreliable and clairvoyance is a sham. [52] How does the malfunction occur? Why do we intuit spiritual presences and "realities"? According cognitive psychologists, we think about physical objects differently than we think about psychological objects (i.e., creatures with minds). A block of wood is just a physical lump, in our view — we generally don't see anything magical about it. But we feel very differently about living creatures, beings that have minds. We tend to forget that such creatures are themselves physical, and that their feelings and thoughts are produced by a physical object called a brain. Instead, we tend to think that feelings and thoughts exist separately from the brains that produce them and the bodies that experience them. This leads us to feel that minds are not bound to bodies, and therefore the notion of bodiless "souls" feels right to us. [53] From the concept of bodiless souls, obviously, it is easy to jump to the idea that entirely nonphysical beings exist, beings that have no physical bodies at all but that are wholly spiritual. In Steiner's doctrines, such beings include a vast array of "gods." Steiner never offers any evidence that these gods exist. Instead, he relies on our innate willingness to believe in them. And a great many of us, including some very smart people, are quite willing to believe despite the absence of proof. Another way to look at this: Because we know that minds have intentions, it feels right to us to believe that most events and objects result from someone's intentions. We are inclined to think that things were planned, they didn't just happen. If the world exists, then it must have been intended — it is a "creation" — which means that there must have been a "creator." We may know, in our rational brains, that some things happen by accident. We may even know that, according to science, it is possible that the universe itself came into existence for no perceptible reason — maybe it just happened. We are capable of thinking such thoughts, but they feel unnatural to us. It is much easier for us to accept our innate predisposition to assume there must be purpose and intention behind everything. [54]  In sum, neurological science suggests that a belief system like Anthroposophy is built on illusions that are caused by the way our minds naturally, but imperfectly, function. III. Let's shift our focus, slightly, to think about magic. [56] Not wanting to feel helpless in the face of a universe that may be indifferent or even hostile to us, we convince ourselves that we have access to special powers that can protect us. We can use spells, incantations, clairvoyance, invocations, and so forth, to bring various spiritual beings over to our side. During the long course of human evolution, individuals who had such feelings about the "spirit realm" were empowered by them — they gained an evolutionary advantage from them, they were brave enough to carry on. So they survived and handed down the brain circuitry leading to such feelings. As a result, their descendants were born with a predisposition toward such feelings. Generation after generation, this predisposition became more and more deeply embedded in us — that is, our brains wound up with wiring that leads almost all of us, including the brightest among us, to incline toward superstition rather than plain sense. So where does this leave us today? The only thing we can conclude about our bias in favor of supernatural beliefs is that it has been useful to us. Perhaps we should affirm this usefulness and continue embracing magic. But this becomes more and more difficult as science advances and we learn ever more about how the universe actually functions. A dissonance is set up, a strain between our emotional needs and the objective knowledge that gradually has accumulated in our brains. Turning backwards, to magic and superstition, becomes increasingly difficult to justify — we increasingly see it for what it is, the affirmation of ignorance. One particular implication of all this involves our children. Raising the young in an atmosphere of mysticism — such as the occultism underlying Waldorf education as conceived by Steiner — means leading them badly astray. Waldorf schools may provide an emotionally comforting retreat from the harsh, real world. The schools may swaddle children in mental blankets of attractive color and pattern. But surely the truest satisfactions, and the best preparation for life, can be found in a compassionate, moral, and reasonable introduction to reality, not in a retreat from reality. We must find out salvation in truth, not seek it vainly in delusion. One still larger implication also needs to be faced. If there is no rational reason to accept Anthroposophy, the same argument might be applied to all other supernatural systems, including orthodox religions. This is worth considering in our most solemn and reverent meditations. But we needn't reject all religion in order to see the problems inherent in Steiner's doctrines. My purpose is not to assail any mainstream faith. If you are a devout adherent of such a faith, your beliefs are a matter between you and your God — no one else should attempt to intrude on them. So I would simply say this. An important distinction can be drawn between established religion, on the one hand, and superstition, occultism, and hocus-pocus, on the other. Steiner's doctrines distinctly fall into the latter category. If great faiths such as Judaism and Christianity do not arise from human self-deception, heretical creeds like Anthroposophy almost certainly do. [57]
Many Anthroposophists consider themselves to be hardheaded realists, dispassionate investigators of the spiritual realm. But the tools they employ in these investigations have no power. Like Steiner, they "look" inward, employing imagination, intuition, and — if they can develop it (they can't) — clairvoyance. Any resulting "visions" or "insights" they attain arise almost certainly from the unconscious layers of their brains, from their yearning psyches, not from the objective, real universe. They gaze within and see what they want to see, which often may be scarcely distinguishable from what Steiner told them to see. The spiritual "investigations" conducted by Anthroposophists are, in the end, indistinguishable from fantasy.
◊◊◊◊ AFTERWORD Not all teachers at all Waldorf schools are full-fledged Anthroposophists. But many are. "As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling." — Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 118. If you are considering a Waldorf school for your children, bear in mind that you may be entrusting a portion of the children's education and well-being to self-deceiving believers in clairvoyance. The three stages of initiation — probation, enlightenment, initiation — are actually a hierarchy of delusion. The "higher" a seeker thinks s/he is, the more deluded. A Waldorf teacher who thinks s/he is truly an Initiate, possessing clairvoyant powers, is disconnected from reality. Students given into such a person's care may suffer in direct proportion. — Roger Rawlings One of the amazing fairy photos. [James Randi, FLIM-FLAM (Prometheus Books, 1982), p. 12.] Waldorf-style wet-on-wet paintings courtesy of PLANS [http://waldorfcritics.org/] For statements Steiner made about magic and witchcraft, please use this link: "Magic". For information of how brain chemistry may affect spiritualistic belief, please use this link: "Dopamine". Many of Steiner's doctrines contain elements that are little more than superstition. For an overview, see "Superstition" ◊◊◊◊ ENDNOTES [1] Other mystics have made the same promise, of course. Indeed, Steiner adopted many of his teachings from others. See my essay "Steiner's 'Science'". Steiner placed two distinct "higher worlds" above us: the astral plane or the soul world, and above it the spirit world. However, he also said that there are many divisions and subdivisions as well as additional realms higher than those he described for us: “The [spiritual] Beings, the spiritual Hierarchies, their correspondences with the zodiacal constellations ... all this is presented in detail in the chapter on the evolution of the world in the book OCCULT SCIENCE — An Outline, and we can now understand the deeper reasons for that chapter having been written in the way it has. [Steiner himself wrote that book, so it was "written the way it has" because he wrote it that way. But as usual, Steiner was claiming that he was compelled to faithfully describe the occult truth, which is hidden from virtually everyone but himself.] It describes the Macrocosm as it should be described. Any real description must go back to the spiritual Beings. I tried in the book OCCULT SCIENCE to give guiding lines for the right kind of description of the World of Spirit — the world entered when there has been an actual ascent into the Macrocosm. [The Macrocosm is the cosmos; each of us humans is a Microcosm or miniature version of the cosmos.]
“This ascent into the Macrocosm can of course proceed to still higher stages, for the Macrocosm has by no means been exhaustively portrayed by what has here been said. Man can ascend into even higher worlds; but it becomes more and more difficult to convey any idea of these worlds. The higher the ascent, the more difficult this becomes.” [Rudolf Steiner, MACROCOSM AND MICROCOSM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1985), pp. 110-111.] [2] Deplorably, Steiner taught that some people aren't really human beings. See my essay "Steiner's Bile. [3] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Rudolf Steiner Publishing Company, 1944), pp. 8-9. [4] Rudolf Steiner, HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS (Anthroposophic Press, 1994). Also see Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT SCIENCE - An Outline (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1979), chapter 5, "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, Concerning Initiation." Steiner taught that more than one path can lead to spiritual enlightenment. See Rudolf Steiner, START NOW! (SteinerBooks, 2004): You'll find chapters on "The Rosicrucian Path," "The Christian-Gnostic Path," etc. These paths are distinct, yet they intersect, and Steiner aimed to incorporate them all in his own master system. [5] HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, p. 55. [6] Steiner staked out a middle ground, revealing some bits of esoteric "knowledge," withholding others. Less circumspect was Theosophist Helena Blavatsky, whose mighty tome THE SECRET DOCTRINE (Theosophical University Press, reprint edition, 1999) fills two hefty volumes. Many secrets were less secret by the time she finished writing. Steiner's counterpart is OCCULT SCIENCE - An Outline, which spills many beans. See the essay "Everything" at this Web site. [7] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 9. [8] Ibid., p. 9. [9] Ibid., p. 10. Steiner says this attitude begins, for fortunate people, in childhood. It then extends into the adult years: "What was once a childish veneration of persons, becomes, later, a veneration for truth and knowledge. Experience teaches that they can best hold their head erect, who have learnt to venerate where veneration is due; and veneration is always due when it flows from the depths of the heart." [Ibid., p. 10.] Don't think; feel, from the hear. But if you start by foreswearing critical thought and feeling veneration instead, then you cannot know whether whether the object of your veneration is "due" such veneration. You have posited it, you have let it flow out of your heart without allowing your brain to interfere. Far from respecting knowledge, in other words, you have forsworn it. You may venerate an object that merits veneration, or you may venerate something that deserves no such reverence. Indeed, you may very easily persuade yourself that the things you want to venerate exist (when they may not; they may be imaginary) and you may persuade yourself that these things are divine (when they may not be; they may simply be subjective objects of your desire). In fact, what Steiner has described is indistinguishable from self-hypnosis. [10] Ibid., p. 10. [11] Steiner disparaged the brain. "[T]he brain and nerve system have nothing at all to do with actual cognition...." [Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 60.] Actual cognition, according to Steiner, comes from clairvoyance, which operates from "organs of clairvoyance," as we will see. Of course, brainy people may follow Steiner or other mystics — I will discuss this seeming paradox later in this essay. Steiner sometimes affirmed the value of ordinary intelligence and even intellect, but these were not, for him, real thinking. [12] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 14. Attaining knowledge, making good decisions, pursuing wisdom — these require us to discipline our emotions. Steiner acknowledged this, although with a twist. He urged spiritual seekers to cultivate the "life of feeling," channeling feelings in the "right" direction. The goal is a form of dispassionate equanimity (e.g., HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, p. 178). But, in Steiner's doctrines, this is not a matter of cool reasonableness. Rather, feeling remains crucial. Intuition and love beckon as evolutionary fulfillments (see, e.g., OCCULT SCIENCE, p. 311). Love is undeniably an ultimate perfection, but the point to note here is that feeling — as a sort of objectified subjectivity — remains central to the esoteric approach Steiner championed. Steiner argued that, to find truth, one must aim for a state of consciousness in which "thinking ceases." [Rudolf Steiner, MEDITATION UND KONZENTRATION {Meditation and Concentration} (Dornach, 1935), p. 33.] One should "give himself up to his feelings." [Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS. HOW IT IS ACHIEVED (London, 1969), p. 49]. One should "try not to receive these insights in a sober-minded and intellectual way, but to let the exaltation of the ideas bring you to all emotional experiences that are possible." [Rudolf Steiner, DIE STUFEN DER HOHEREN ERKENNINIS (Dornach, 1931), p. 66.] For more on this, see http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html . [13] Ibid., p. 11. [14] Rudolf Steiner, THE RENEWAL OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 94. For Steiner's views on science, see "Steiner's 'Science'". [15] HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, p. 129. [16] There is virtually no evidence that clairvoyance exists or is possible. See my essays "Steiner's 'Science' and "Clues". Here is the summary presented in a leading psychology textbook: "After thousands of experiments, a reproducible ESP phenomenon has never been discovered, nor has any individual convincingly demonstrated a psychic ability. [Sic — I did not add the italics.] A National Research Council investigation of ESP similarly concluded that 'the best evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist' (Druckman & Swets, 1988) ... Why then are so many people predisposed to believe that ESP, which should be testable by science, exists? In part, such beliefs may stem from understandable misperceptions, misinterpretations, and selective recall. But some people also have an unsatisfied hunger for wonderment, an itch to experience the magical." [David G. Myers, PSYCHOLOGY (Worth Publishers, 2004), pp. 260-261.] Myers' conclusion surely applies to many — or perhaps all — Anthroposophists. For ESP (extrasensory perception), read clairvoyance. Steiner often spoke of the "supersensory," which is akin to the "extrasensory." [17] Steiner repeatedly asserted the existence of nonphysical bodies, an idea he borrowed from Theosophy. "Everyone possesses a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, and an ego...." [Rudolf Steiner, INVESTIGATIONS INTO OCCULTISM SHOWING ITS PRACTICAL VALUE IN DAILY LIFE (Kessinger, 1996 — reproduction of 1920 edition), p. 51.] The ego or "I" is the highest of the human "bodies." Steiner placed great significance on the sense of individual identity, "I". Sometimes his statements on this subject are strikingly laughable, e.g. "'I am an I only to myself; to every other being I am a you, and every other being is a you to me.'" [OCCULT SCIENCE, p. 49] But he was serious. "[T]hose religious faiths which have consciously maintained their connection with the supersensible [i.e., occult] wisdom speak of the I as the Unutterable Name of God" — the God within. [Ibid., pp. 49-50.] [18] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 27. [19] Ibid., p. 28. [20] Ibid., p. 36. [21] Ibid., p. 36. [22] Ibid., p. 36. [23] Ibid., p. 50. [24] HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, p. 80. [25] Ibid., p. 72. [26] Steiner often spoke of the Akashic Record — e.g., "This is merely the beginning, a very elementary beginning, of gradually learning to read the Akashic Record." [Rudolf Steiner, THE EFFECTS OF ESOTERIC DEVELOPMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 76.] The Record is also sometimes called the Akashic Chronicle or the Akasha Chronicle. Akasha is said to be a universal ether; the occult script is written on it. The result is an utterly complete universal register. "Rudolf Steiner ... was able to develop his spiritual faculties so that he could read what is usually called the 'Akasha Chronicle,' an occult 'script' in which is inscribed, so to speak, all that has ever happened in the history of the universe." [Stewart C. Easton, MAN AND WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 1989), p. 22.] [27] HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, pp 72-73. [28] Ibid., p. 78. [29] See KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, the chapter "Some Results of Initiation." [30] HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, pp. 109-111. By glowing, rotating, wheels, and flowers, of course, Steiner didn't exactly mean glowing, rotating, wheels, and flowers. He had great difficulty with language. It's worth noting that, in KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, no quotation marks are put around terms such as "lotus." In general, older editions of Steiner's work, while less accessible, present his views with fewer equivocations. Steiner prescribed many exercises intended to lead toward toward spiritual progress. See, e.g., START NOW!, pp. 109-118, "The Six Essential Exercises." [31] A few notes are in order. ◊Smart people aren't necessarily right, of course. When two smarties disagree about something, at least one of them is probably wrong. ◊The same applies to high-powered intellectuals (eggheads, highbrows, chrome domes), perhaps in spades. Eggheads often weave intricate theories that have no connection to reality. ◊How can we account for Steiner's innumerable errors? Perhaps, an egghead, he gave his honest opinions about things, and he just happened to be mistaken, over and over. Another possibility is that he was insane: His spiritualistic visions were hallucinations springing from a deranged mind. Still a third possibility is that Steiner was quite sane but also quite dishonest — he lied — he peddled fantasies in order to earn a following and a livelihood. ◊My own guess is that the answer can be found behind door #3. [32] See my essay "Steiner's 'Science'". [33] Bellow studied Steiner, for a while. But he recoiled from Steiner's radical mysticism: "Bellow was no mystic. Like Citrine [a character in Bellow's novel HUMBOLDT'S GIFT], he was skeptical of Steiner's more outlandish notions ... '[O]rgans of spiritual perception' or the strange mingling of Abraham with Zarathustra ... It was all too much for me.'" [James Atlas, BELLOW: A Biography (Random House, 2000), p. 437.] [34] Steiner praises Blavatsky in some of his work, but he also says that she made mistakes that he — harrumph — corrects. See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY: AN EYEWITNESS VIEW OF OCCULT HISTORY (Anthroposophic Press, 2001). [35] According to neuroscientist Dr. Jaak Panksepp, "SEEKING" [sic] is "the basic impulse to search, investigate, and make sense of the environment ... [It may be a] generalized platform for the expression of many of the basic emotional processes ... It is the one system that helps animals anticipate all types of rewards." [Panksepp, quoted in Temple Grandin, ANIMALS MAKE US HUMAN (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009), pp. 6-7.] [36] See my essay "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?" [37] Anthroposophists may be deceived both by their own mistaken notions and by the false leads offered by their guru, Steiner. Humans often prefer to be deceived. "'There's a counterintuitive motivation not to detect lies, or we would have become much better at it,' said Angela Grossman, an assistant professor or psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. 'But you may not really want to know that the dinner you just cooked stinks, or even that your spouse is cheating on you." [Natalie Angier, "A Highly Evolved Propensity for Deceit," THE NEW YORK TIMES, Dec. 28, 2008, nytimes.com.] We often prefer lies when they are more comforting than the truth. "It turns out that we only want the truth sometimes. What we need is trust, even if that means we are certain to be betrayed." [Neely Tucker, "The Truth About Lies," WASHINGTON POST NATIONAL WEEKLY EDITION, Feb. 23-March 1, 2009, p. 11.] A set of fantasies, such as Anthroposophy, may feed our desire for spiritual reassurance, trust, and comfort, but it may hinge on betrayal, even self-betrayal. [38] Steiner taught that imagination and its associated "faculties" need to be schooled and sharpened. But this hardly resolves the problem of relying on unreliable and/or nonexistent forms of "cognition." Instead of any old clairvoyance, Steiner advocated "exact clairvoyance" — a disciplined form of clairvoyance that would confirm the findings of his own psychic powers. But there cannot be an exact form of a faculty that does not exist, nor can inherently unreliable forms of thought be made trustworthy. [39] See "Steiner's Blunders" at this Web site. [40] See "Steiner's Quackery" at this site. [41] See my essay "Biodynamics". [42] See "Thinking Cap" and "Unenlightened" at this site. [43] Richard Ramsbotham, WHO WROTE BACON? (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004). [44] John Fentress Gardner, AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT (Lindisfarne Press, 1992). The third appendix of Gardner's book deals with "Rudolf Steiner's extensive and immensely fruitful research." This "research" consists of Steiner's clairvoyant visions. After striving all his adult life to follow Steiner's instructions to attain similar clairvoyant powers, Gardner ultimately gave up, defeated. He turned, then, to charismatic Christianity. (Disclosure: I knew Gardner. My knowledge of his final years is based, in part, on personal observations and correspondence.) Perhaps other spiritual seekers will have better luck developing clairvoyant powers. But the odds are clearly slim. Remember the National Research Council's conclusion that "the best evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist." [PSYCHOLOGY, p. 260] Or, as the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA PUTS IT: "Research in parapsychology ... has yet to provide conclusive support for the existence of clairvoyance." ["clairvoyance." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2009. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 18 Mar. 2009] These are cautiously worded reports of scientific findings. In plain English: Clairvoyance is bunk. [45] Richard Seddon, THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY AND THE EARTH AS FORESEEN BY RUDOLF STEINER (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2002). [46] Stewart C. Easton, MAN AND WORLD IN THE LIGHT OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 1989) — see the previous reference to Easton's book, above. If we descend to the level of short pamphlets and booklets, a whole universe of bizarre Anthroposophical writings opens. One of my favorites: Franz E. Winkler, M.D., "Our Obligation to Rudolf Steiner in the Spirit of Easter" (Whittier Books, 1955). Our "obligation" to Steiner. Mull that over. Disclosure: I was acquainted with Dr. Winkler, who had responsibility for the spiritual welfare of many students and teachers at the Waldorf school I attended. He was very smart, and he claimed to be scientific. Yet his conception of knowledge ultimately boiled down to "we have learned to believe Rudolf Steiner's teachings." [Ibid., p. 11.] Another intriguing pamphlet is Laurens van der Post, "Intuition, Intellect and the Racial Question" (Myrin Institute, 1964). Van der Post was not an Anthroposophist but a fellow traveler, published by the Myrin Institute, which was, at that time, essentially an Anthroposophical lecture forum. Disclosure: Van der Post was a sometime visitor at my Waldorf school, where he was much admired. Van der Post gained fame as a "defender" of African Bushmen. In his pamphlet, he credits Bushmen with primitive clairvoyant powers (p. 16) and an intuitive connection with natural forces (pp. 18-19). This racial patronization is hard to justify, but it was accepted as enlightened thinking by many Anthroposophists, since it parallels Steiner's own racial teachings. Unfortunately, Van der Post actually knew almost nothing about Bushmen. His authorized biographer reluctantly came to the conclusion that van der Post was a liar — he had not spent the time he claimed among the Bushmen, nor had he been admitted to their councils. See J.D.F. Jones, TELLER OF MANY TALES (Carroll & Graf, 2001). The pamphlet containing van der Post's lecture also includes an excerpt from Anthroposophist Werner Glas's "The Waldorf School Approach to History." It deals largely with astrology. Glas's other publications include "An Analytical Study of the Rhetorical Thought of Rudolf Steiner with Some Implications for the Teaching of Speech" (Wayne State University, 1977). It is another example of intelligence expended to little good effect. [47] Edward L. Gardner, FAIRIES - The Cottingley Photographs and Their Sequel (Theosophical Publishing House, 1945). The photos were made beginning in 1917. Gardner became aware of them soon afterwards and quickly championed them. Toward the end of their lives — after Gardner himself was dead — the photographers admitted that the pictures are fake. No one today, accustomed to special effects, is likely to mistake the photos for anything but what they are, crude fabrications. For an interesting discussion, see James Randi, FLIM-FLAM! (Prometheus Books, 1982), chapter 2, "Fairies at the Foot of the Garden." There are also reports at skepdic.com and wikipedia.org. [48] Arthur Conan Doyle, THE COMING OF THE FAIRIES (Forgotten Books, 2007) — reprint of a 1922 edition. Yes, that Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was so brilliant, people thought Conan Doyle must be, too. Perhaps he was. But this didn't prevent him from making a fool of himself. "Even [some] spiritualists joined in criticizing Conan Doyle's article "The Evidence for Fairies," published in The Strand Magazine in 1921, and his subsequent book THE COMING OF THE FAIRIES (1922), in which he voiced support for the claim that two young girls, Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths, had photographed actual fairies that they had seen in the Yorkshire village of Cottingley." [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (2009). In ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online.] The critics did not include Edward L. Gardner. [49] Steiner did not, as far as I know, endorse the Cottingley photos. Instead, he taught that fairies, gnomes, and other such creatures exist in the form of "elemental beings." See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995). [50] The exercises Steiner prescribed are aimed primarily at spiritual faculties rather than that coarse, physical organ, the brain. [51] See, e.g., Paul Bloom, "Is God an Accident?", THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, December, 2005, p. 105, theatlantic.com, and Robin Marantz Henig, "Darwin's God," THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, March 4, 2007, at www.nytimes.com , especially the discussion of "byproduct theory." Do we have a predisposition to believe in the supernatural because God wants us to know of His existence? Are our intuitions of spiritual presences God's signs to us? Perhaps — but we have little reason to think so. If God wanted us to know Him, he could employ far more persuasive signs — undeniable signs, if He saw fit. Thus, instead of equipping us with doubtful inklings that are belied by the very senses he chose to give us, He could make Himself perceptible to those senses — visible or audible. Lacking such clear demonstrations, all we know about our predispositions is that we have them — we do not know if they are correct or purposeful. And, in fact, there's reason to think they are not. [52] For more on the Anthroposophical view of intuition, imagination, etc., see "Thinking Cap", "Steiner's 'Science'", and "Everything". [53] We are inclined to find "spirit" even in places where we know perfectly well it does not exist. MIT graduate students working on robots are sometimes so spooked by the apparently human qualities of their own creations that they cover the machines' "eyes." "They couldn't stand the way [a robot] seemed to gaze ... at them. These humans are as sophisticated about robots as anyone on earth ... [but] 'We're programmed biologically to respond to certain sorts of things' ... It's not about how the machine works. It's about how humans are wired." [THE WASHINGTON POST WEEKLY EDITION (May 14-20, 2007, pp. 9-10).] The students know that the robots are not alive; they know that the robots do not have minds or souls. But they can't prevent themselves from feeling the opposite. [54] Randomness is generally repugnant to humans, yet it is a basic characteristic of reality. For example, the primary law in the branch of physics called quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principal. [See, e.g., "uncertainty principle." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2009. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 11 Feb. 2009] Likewise, a whole new branch of science has arisen studying the chaos or unpredictability found throughout nature. [See, e.g., "chaos theory." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2009. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 11 Feb. 2009.] [55] Nicholas Wade, "A Mind Still Prescient After All These Years" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 10, 2009), p. D4). [56] See, e.g., Benedict Carey, "Do You Believe in Magic?", THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007, D1. [57] If you want your child to receive a Christian education, a Waldorf school is the wrong place for him or her. Anthroposophy is heretical. See my essay "Was He Christian?" Likewise, Jewish parents should consider Steiner's anti-Semitism. See "Steiner's Blunders". |