“Let now these intimations come   

To claim their rightful place,   

Supplanting thinking’s power....”   

— Rudolf Steiner [1] 

 “You will injure children 

if you educate them rationally....” 

— Rudolf Steiner [2] 

  

THINKING CAP

Non-Rational “Thought” at Waldorf Schools

I.

Rudolf Steiner taught that true cognition is not a matter of brainwork but, rather, of spiritual awareness.  He said that there are several ways for an individual to gain knowledge, including some that function while one is dreaming or asleep. [3] Deep knowledge of the spirit world becomes available when one develops the necessary “organs” for 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....” [4] When Waldorf teachers speak of developing children’s intuitive or imaginative faculties, they are aiming at Steiner’s non-rational modes of thought. Here’s how the Anthroposophist headmaster at my old Waldorf school put it: “The task of a truly liberal education ... must be to revive and train intuitive faculties, in a modern way, to take their place beside the intellectual.” [5] 

Steiner affirmed the need to master intellectual thought. But, as the epigraphs above indicate, he also taught that rational thought should yield to paranormal perception — mystical “intimations” should supplant thinking, and children should be shielded from rational education. Let me again quote my old headmaster. He wrote the following about teachers at conventional secular schools: “Their training has not led them to appreciate that within each of its facts the apparent world conceals many levels of truth....” [6] Properly trained teachers at Waldorf schools don’t make that mistake: They always direct attention away from the “apparent world” — that is, the world we can see with our eyes and think about with our rational brains — to many deeply concealed, esoteric “levels of truth.” They have their eyes on what lies beyond, in other words. The question becomes, then, whether what they focus on is real.

For Anthroposophists, the best thinking is experienced or felt — it is more akin to emotion than to cool, rational conceptualizing. Steiner said that true understanding comes only through "spiritual cognition, spiritual perception, spiritual feeling." [7] Truth is something you feel. But felt "thinking" often leads to mystification rather than to clarity. Among the "truths" Anthroposophists feel are these: Nothing in the physical world is as it seems; what we see around us isn’t what it is — it is something else, something more, or something less. Maya or illusion prevails. There are layers upon layers of hidden deeps. The Anthroposophical solution is to feel one’s way past appearances by opening outwards through imagination or clairvoyance (in Anthroposophy, these terms are sometimes synonymous). According to Steiner: “I must emphasize this again and again, that the saying ‘the world is Maya’ is so vitally important.” [8] And “Essentially, people today have no inkling of how people looked out into the universe in ancient times when human beings still possessed an instinctive clairvoyance.... If we want to be fully human, however, we must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again....” [9] Notice how clairvoyance and imagination flow together in Steiner’s words.

Anthroposophists claim that intellect is not neglected at Waldorf schools, it is simply nurtured in a different way. According to Anthroposophist A. C. Harwood, “In spite of — or rather, because of — the attention paid to the realms of feeling and will, thinking receives a stronger development in a Waldorf school than elsewhere.” [10] According to Steiner, children pass through three stages of development, which he said recapitulate stages of human evolution. The stages are described this way by Harwood: “During the first seven years a child approaches his environment through the activity of his will. What he sees he must manipulate.” [11] During the second seven years, “the inward life of feeling” is paramount. [12] The third seven-year period finally produces the dawning of “intellectual thought.” [13]

The claim that Waldorfs foster the intellect is, at best, debatable. Taught that logic or methodical reasoning is insufficient, the Waldorf student is directed toward “spiritual experience” that is notionally “self-evident” (i.e., no proof required). It is questionable whether this is genuine thinking at all or merely a form of wishfulness: 

“To what extent will [a child’s] thinking become purely logical and colorless, unenriched by imagination, uninformed by experience? ... More than ever, therefore, should the attempt be made with our adolescents to preserve from the earlier stage of childhood those capacities which are natural to it, and to unite them with the new gift of intellectual thought. For this means to transform thought from what it is at present — the capacity for abstract hypothesis — into the capacity for self-evident spiritual experience.” [14]

For Anthroposophists, “the capacities which are natural to” children include an innate consciousness of the spirit realm. An important goal of Waldorf instruction is to preserve this consciousness, which in part means protecting children from the adverse effects of rational thought. “The capacity for abstract hypothesis” is a fairly accurate description of rationality — and it is what Anthroposophists reject. Another way of putting this is that Waldorf schools try to retard, as much as possible, the growing-up process in their pupils.  “Childhood is commonly regarded as a time of steadily expanding consciousness.... Yet in Steiner’s view, the very opposite is the case: childhood is a time of contracting consciousness.... [The child] loses his dream-like perception of the creative world of spiritual powers which is hidden behind the phenomena of the senses. This is ... the world of creative archetypes and spiritual hierarchies.

“In mastering the world of physical perception the child encounters difficulties in that he first has to overcome a dream-like yet intensely real awareness of spiritual worlds. This awareness fades quickly in early childhood, but fragments of it live on in the child for a much longer time than most people imagine. 

“... [I]n a Waldorf school, therefore, one of the tasks of the teachers is to keep the children young. [15]

Think about the implications of keeping children young as opposed to helping them to mature, especially in their mental capacities. Ask yourself whether intellect can truly be developed under the tutelage of teachers who agree with Steiner that “the brain and nerve system have nothing at all to do with actual cognition....” [16] Contemplate whether an education aiming at imaginative/clairvoyant “thought” is likely to equip individuals for life in the real world. In brief: Should we teach our children to live rationally in the real world or to have unsubstantiated intuitions of unseen worlds?

II.

Of course, young children have a limited capacity for rational thought. Teaching them by stimulating the imagination makes sense (as long as “imagination” is not used as a code word for paranormal powers). Likewise, it is perfectly correct to say that appearances can be deceiving. Trying to get beyond superficial appearances is necessary for navigating one’s way safely through the world, and it is indispensable for the attainment of wisdom. But mistaking imagined nonsense for reality or wisdom is a profound, deeply dangerous error. The things that Steiner and his followers imagine they perceive hidden behind superficial reality are bizarre and, in some cases, pernicious. 

I’ll give some examples from Steiner’s work. But bear in mind that matters are even more serious than these examples indicate. Steiner urged his followers to develop their own paranormal visions, primarily through the “faculty” of clairvoyance. He sought to keep a handle on things by insisting that everyone should carefully follow his instructions for developing true spiritual insight. Nonetheless, schisms have developed among Anthroposophists when they have placed emphasis on their own intuitions, visions, and revelations. (The Book of Revelation and other forms of “revelation” was extremely important for Steiner, and they remain so for Anthroposophists today.) [17] The problem is that different individuals may have differing, even contradictory, paranormal visions, and interpretations of the arcane Book of Revelation are widely divergent. So, while Steiner’s descriptions of esoteric “truths” remain the touchstone, Anthroposophists may wander far afield. Thus, almost any dream or divination that could conceivably be reconciled with Steiner’s doctrines might be embraced by Anthroposophical faculty members at a Waldorf school.

l discuss core Anthroposophical beliefs at some length in other essays. For now, a brief sampling of Steiner’s professed clairvoyant insights may be sufficient:

◊ Humans have lived in/on the Sun and the Moon: “If, as he had developed on the Sun, man was called plant man, the man of the Moon can be called animal man ... [T]he Sun man could only elevate himself into a plant by thrusting a portion of his companions down into a coarser mineral realm ... The animal man of the Moon does not yet have firm bones. His skeleton is still cartilaginous. His whole nature is soft, compared to that of today....” [18] 

◊ Gnomes don’t know how to get along with us: “Gnomes are ... unable to grasp how there can be anything but an ineffectual relationship with our world.” [19] 

◊ The Bible doesn't really show Jesus healing the sick; the Sun did it: “When Christ Jesus heals ... it is the sun force that heals.” [20]

◊ Just as Christ was crucified on Earth, Buddha met a similar fate elsewhere: “The Buddha wandered away from earthly affairs to the realm of Mars. Until then Mars had been the chosen center of forces designated by the Greeks as fearfully warlike. The mission of Mars came to an end in the seventeenth century. Another impulse became necessary and the Buddha accomplished a Buddha crucifixion there.” [21]

◊ We are reincarnated, but there’s more to it than that: “[R]ealize that looking at the human head you are looking at the transformed body of your previous earth life, and that the head you had then was the transformed body of your preceding life — you must imagine it without the head, of course. The head you see now is the transformed organism of the last life lived on earth. The rest of the organism as you see it now will be the head in the next life. Then the arms will have metamorphosed and become ears, and the legs will have become eyes.” [22]

◊ If that confuses you, you should know that the spirit world will be much more sensible: “When we climb out of the physical world into the spiritual world ... we shall gain the impression of powers in the spiritual world that take pity, as it were, on our weakness and say, ‘Well! so you were weak in the physical sense world! If only you climb into the spiritual world through the prime [window] I must dissolve you, suck you up and break you to pieces. But if you enter through the second [window] I will offer you something from the spiritual world and remind you of something that is there as well.’” [23]

The quotations you’ve just read reflect the sort of “thinking” that stands behind Waldorf schools where Rudolf Steiner’s doctrines — or offshoots from them — prevail. Anthroposophists argue that their mystic doctrines can be understood correctly only by people who have embraced Anthroposophy. Maybe so. But we must ask ourselves whether we want children to be nudged toward the Anthroposophical worldview, a worldview in which quotations such as the ones I’ve listed are considered sensible. Do you want this for your own children? If not, other kinds of schools would suit you and your children better.

◊◊◊◊

"[T]hinking is oriented on the physical plane; feeling is no longer confined to the physical plane but by its very nature is connected to the spiritual plane as well. Feeling really has a connection with all the spiritual beings who must be considered real. So that if a person with inadequate concepts sinks into his or her feeling life, he or she comes into collision with the gods — if you like to put it that way — but also with the evil gods. And all these collisions occur because the person entered this realm without any reliable means of knowledge. Entering the feeling life without adequate means of knowledge is unavoidable when there is more going on in the sphere of feeling than in that of ordinary reason. In the sphere of feelings, human beings cannot liberate themselves from their connection with the spiritual world. When they free themselves in the realm of the intellect in this materialistic age, they enter the world of feeling with inadequate concepts and consequently must become ill.

"What then is the only remedy to really restore people to health? They must be guided to concepts that reach out to include the world of feelings; that is to say, modern people must again be told of the spiritual world in the most comprehensive sense."

[Rudolf Steiner, PSYCHOANALYSIS AND SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1990), November 11, 1917.]

◊◊◊◊

Parts of this essay were adapted from “Unenlightened”.

For information about clairvoyance

and other "psychic phenomena,"

see "Clairvoyance".

These two links will take you to brief

extensions of the discussion of thinking

as promoted in Waldorf schools:

"Reality and Fantasy"

"Criticism".

---

AFTERWORDS

I.

Steiner’s advocacy of “imagination” can be found in many of his lectures and books; ditto his dismissal of rational thought and the testimony of the five physical senses; and ditto his use of language that obscures as much as it enlightens. Here’s a characteristic, elusive yet revealing example. Analyzing a Rosicrucian text, THE CHEMICAL WEDDING OF CHRISTIAN ROSENKREUTZ, Steiner describes a vision is of a unicorn showing deference to a lion. I’ll quote Steiner, then circle back and discuss the passage in detail. The spiritual seeker “feels the possibility arising of using his faculties of understanding in a way suited to the spiritual world. His possession of this capacity appears before his soul in the imagination [sic] of ‘the unicorn bowing before a lion’ ... Were we to consider this as a symbol rather than a real imagination [sic], we might say that it pictures an event in the soul of the spiritual seeker through which he feels himself capable of thinking what is spiritual [sic]. But such an abstract idea would not express the full essence of the soul event that we are considering. For the event is experienced in such a manner that the sphere of personal sensory perception is extended beyond the boundary of the physical body. In the spirit realm the seer experiences beings and events external to his own essential being ... When such extended consciousness arises, mere abstract conceptions cease, and the imagination appears as the necessary form of expression for what is experienced.” [24] 

Why didn’t Steiner express himself more clearly? A self-professed savant who does not want to be challenged would find obscure, stupefying language useful. Readers may feel inadequate to challenge such language; some, indeed, may figure that such semi-unintelligible language must proceed from profound depths of wisdom. Well, let’s see. Taking it from the top:

The seeker “feels the possibility arising of using his faculties of understanding in a way suited to the spiritual world. His possession of this capacity appears before his soul in the imagination of ‘the unicorn bowing before a lion’” So, the seeker “feels” (not thinks) that s/he may be developing the ability to understand spiritual truths (“the possibility of understanding ... the spiritual world”). This ability entails a different way of seeing, one that is appropriate for spiritual matters (“understanding in a way suited to the spiritual world”). The seeker possesses this this ability when an image (an “imagination”) appears “before his soul” as if projected there or seen with one’s (spiritual) eyes (one’s new “faculties of understanding” which can be variously termed second sight, psychic power, or clairvoyance).

Steiner continues: “Were we to consider this as a symbol rather than a real imagination, we might say that it pictures an event in the soul of the spiritual seeker through which he feels himself capable of thinking what is spiritual.” A crucial point. If we take the image (a unicorn bowing before a lion) as a mere symbol or picture, we might think that the seeker is merely describing an event occurring within his/her soul (“it pictures an event in the soul of the spiritual seeker”). But if we think this way, we fail to grasp the true nature of what the seeker has perceived:

“But such an abstract idea would not express the full essence of the soul event ... For the event is experienced in such a manner that the sphere of personal sensory perception is extended beyond the boundary of the physical body.” That is to say, our “abstract idea” (that the seeker is presenting a symbol) is too weak to “express the full essence of the soul event”. The seeker has used a supersensory mode of apprehension (his/her “sphere” of “perception” has reached “beyond the boundary of the physical body”) to perceive a true spiritual event: the “essence of the soul event” that is accurately conveyed as a unicorn bowing to a lion. 

Steiner goes on, “In the spirit realm the seer experiences beings and events external to his own essential being ... When such extended consciousness arises, mere abstract conceptions cease, and the imagination appears as the necessary form of expression for what is experienced.” Using his/her super-method of seeing, the seer “experiences” spiritual beings (such as may appear as unicorns) and events (such as may appear as bowing). The faculty of imagination provides “the necessary form of expression” enabling the seer to formulate an accurate representation of a spiritual experience that otherwise would remain beyond human apprehension (the event is “external to his own essential being” — it is alien but it objectively exists and can be experienced by an adept). 

In this passage, we may recognize a subtle distinction between clairvoyance (the ability to apprehend spiritual beings and events) and imagination (the means of expressing what clairvoyance has revealed). This is, however, a distinction without an effective difference. If the imagination were to create a false image (e.g., the lion bows to the unicorn) all would be undone. So the imagination needs to express what clairvoyance has truly apprehended (the unicorn bows to the lion) and do so in a true image (the unicorn bows to the lion).  

Whew. While Steiner does not use to term “clairvoyance” in the sentences we’ve just examined, we can hardly mistake his meaning, given that he often spoke of clairvoyance and sometimes explicitly equated it with imagination, as we saw previously [“...we must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again....”]. In the real world, perception and expression are distinct activities, but they blur in Steiner’s teachings. For him, they are components of clairvoyance/imagination which is the path to truth. Well, let’s consider that. William Wordsworth recognized the magical allure of images that we half create:

Therefore am I still

A lover of the meadows and the woods,

And mountains; and of all that we behold

From this green earth; of all the mighty world

Of eye, and ear — both what they half create,

And what perceive; well pleased to recognize

In nature and the language of the sense,

The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,

The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul

Of all my moral being.

[“Lines Written Above Tintern Abbey,” ll. 106-107.]

Wordsworth anchors his thoughts in nature, reality, the language of the sense. Steiner skims past these to fantasyland. To become Steiner’s followers, we would need to do the same. Specifically, we would need to employ supersensory methods that deny the evidence of our physical senses and the operations of our rational brains — or, failing that, we would need to accept the accounts given us by one who claims to have transcended physical limitations. In other words, we would need to embrace blurred perceptions that arise, at least in part, from subjective, “felt” fantasies — which would incline us to embrace the dissimulated visions served up by one who claims the “gift.”

That way lies madness. We can “imagine” or “half create” almost anything. Hogwarts. The Imperium. Mordor. The Seven Cities of Gold. Atlantis. Ancient cities inside the Moon. Ancient beings wandering through the bowels of the Earth. Nessie. Little green men. Anything. What fun. But such conceptions are not knowledge — they are fantasy. And if we accept them as truth, they are fantasy run amok.

II.

Anthroposophy is an escapist fantasy. [25] How can smart adults possibly fall for it?

Quite possibly the deepest explanation is that all human beings have an inborn tendency toward certain forms of self-deception, and Anthroposophists happen to fall for a certain version of one nearly universal delusion. A fascinating theory formulated by cognitive psychologists is that we are born with an innate predisposition to believe in the supernatural. [26] This predisposition does not prove that the supernatural exists; it only means that our brains are wired in such a way as to lead us to think it exists. Specifically, our brains malfunction in a way that makes supernatural beliefs feel right to us.

According to the theory, 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 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.

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 they 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. [27] For Steiner and his followers, this means accepting the unproven idea that the universe is aswarm with all sorts of spiritual beings who are the real cause of everything physical.

In sum, the theory is that a belief system like Anthroposophy is built on illusions that are caused by the way our minds naturally, but imperfectly, function. [28]

An extension of this theory is that our brains have evolved the way they have because certain illusions are comforting to us. [29] Instead of feeling helpless in the face of an indifferent or even hostile universe, 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. 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 imbedded in us — that is, our brains wound up wired in such a way as to lead almost all of us, including the brightest among us, to tend to fall for occult beliefs: belief in the invisible realm behind the visible, belief in the great beyond, belief in...

But where does this leave us? The only thing we can conclude about our bias in favor of supernatural beliefs is that it has been useful to us. We do not necessarily know that our various supernatural or occult beliefs are true. Indeed, if we force ourselves to think rationally, we may realize that have no good reason to accept such beliefs. Consider the implications. What if the spiritual powers we appeal to and try to use don’t actually exist? What if we have simply made them up, unconsciously, because of the way our brains tend to work? In that case, raising children in an atmosphere of magic and mysticism — the occultism underlying Waldorf education as conceived by Steiner — means leading them badly astray. 

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, long and hard, in one’s 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 into this most private sphere. 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.

III.

In a remarkable book dealing with one of Steiner’s occult theories, [30] Richard Ramsbotham provides an example of what passes for rational thought among Anthroposophists. Ramsbotham repeats the usual claim that Anthroposophy is scientific, that it is “the science [emphasis by Ramsbotham] of the world of the spirit.” [31] Quite quickly, however, this claim starts to break down. Ramsbotham reports that “‘spiritual science’ — or supersensible science — depends on the development of our own inherent faculties of cognition.” [32] “Supersensible science” is the examination of spiritual phenomena, which are inaccessible to our normal senses: sight, hearing, etc. The “cognition” on which this “science” depends is clairvoyance.

Steiner encouraged his followers to use their own clairvoyance to check his supersensible discoveries, as Ramsbotham correctly reports. [33] But with less justification, Ramsbotham also asserts that Steiner’s teachings can be confirmed by ordinary forms of thought and perception: Steiner “did not consider it necessary for us to be clairvoyant before we start ... Our healthy powers of thinking, perception, and judgement are enough to test the truth or otherwise of his findings.” [34] In fact, as we have already seen, ordinary powers of thinking lead us to precisely the opposite conclusion: Steiner’s “research” collapses when subjected to rational review.

Ramsbotham acknowledges that he himself has not developed the clairvoyant powers that Steiner claimed to possess: “I could not myself have carried out Steiner’s research.” [35] Instead, Ramsbotham accepts Steiner’s word: “[M]any people have become able to place a certain trust in Steiner’s research.” [36] Steiner’s followers develop their trust by “living with the results of this research” so that “over many years even [sic], they find this [i.e., their trust] not to have been disappointed by Steiner.” [37] Eventually, their trust leads them to be “certain of what Steiner is saying.” [38] Ramsbotham places himself firmly among those who trust Steiner.

Trust is faith. The words are synonymous. Faith is a requirement of religion, not reason. In the final sections of his book, Ramsbotham digs through literature and history, seeking circumstantial evidence that may support Steiner. This scholarship holds points of interest, but none of it amounts to much since Ramsbotham has not investigated or confirmed the central thesis. “Living” with research may accustom us to its claims, but it does not provide confirmation of the claims. Ramsbotham ultimately gives us nothing but tangential evidence that he has deliberately selected in a effort to buttress an unconfirmed occult vision. This is hardly persuasive — it begins and ends in taking Steiner on faith. “[T]his book is wholeheartedly indebted to him.” [39] This is not reason or logic, sensible or reliable thinking. It is blind faith.

IV.

On April 28, 2009, many months after writing “Thinking Cap,” I posted the following message at the waldorf-critics discussion list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/10059 ). I’ll append it here, although it repeats some material covered previously.

Steiner wanted Waldorf teachers to be Anthroposophists, but he knew that some non-Anthroposophists would need to be hired, and indeed many teachers at many Waldorf schools are not Anthroposophists. Further, many Anthroposophists are not "initiates" — they are still at a relatively low level of spiritual advancement. At many Waldorf schools, only an inner circle of the faculty really knows what the schools are doing. Sometimes these insiders hold special meetings referred to, collectively, as the college of teachers. The discussions there are, in effect, top secret. Steiner urged his followers to be secretive — he was giving them "mystery" knowledge that would actually be harmful to the uninitiated if it were revealed to them. The uninitiated consist of everyone on Earth except Anthroposophical insiders. So figuring out what is what in Waldorfworld often calls for detective work.

There is no absolute requirement that a Waldorf teacher must be clairvoyant. But it is desirable, and many insiders on Waldorf faculties believe they are clairvoyant. (The danger of a Waldorf school may well be in direct proportion to the percentage of the faculty who delude themselves into thinking they are clairvoyant. They are lying to themselves, occupying a fantasyland toward which they hope to shepherd students.)

There is, nonetheless, a general presumption among Waldorf faculties that clairvoyance is available and should be used by as many Waldorf teachers as possible — at a minimum, they should use what Waldorf educator Eugene Schwartz calls "everyday clairvoyance." [40] But any Waldorf teacher who can use higher forms of clairvoyance should do so. Indeed, as I will indicate, "the Waldorf teacher’s consciousness" boils down to clairvoyance.

Here are a few relevant comments by Steiner:

"[W]e [Waldorf teachers] should neglect no single opportunity of quickening the inner life of soul and spirit." [41] To do this, Waldorf teachers need to develop "the Waldorf teacher’s consciousness," which is "hardly present anywhere else in the world" [42]. This unique consciousness will restore "what humanity has lost in the last three or four centuries." [43] What has been lost? As Steiner often explained, modern humankind has lost the old, intuitive clairvoyance. "Essentially, people today have no inkling of how people looked out into the universe in ancient times when human beings still possessed an instinctive clairvoyance.... If we want to be fully human, however, we must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again...." [44] Or put it this way: "The goal of all our educational thinking must be to transform [educational] thinking so as to rise fruitfully from the level of physical thinking to spiritual thinking." [45] "Spiritual thinking" is clairvoyance.

Boiling down what we’ve just seen: The "Waldorf teacher’s consciousness" is, or hinges on, clairvoyance. And note that "clairvoyance" and "imagination" are virtually interchangeable terms. Waldorf schools are often celebrated for emphasizing imagination. The celebrants rarely realize that what the schools really promote is clairvoyance — they don’t realize, in other words, that the schools are occultist institutions.

Here is Steiner again talking to Waldorf teachers: "As teachers in the Waldorf School, you will need to find your way more deeply into the insight of the spirit and to find a way of putting all compromises aside ... As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling." [46] In Anthroposophy, "to find your way more deeply into the insight of the spirit" means using clairvoyance — specifically, "exact clairvoyance" that confirms Steiner's doctrines.

More tidbits: "When we teach, in a certain sense we take up again the activities we experienced before birth. We must see that thinking is a pictorial activity which is based on the activities we experienced before birth." [47] By "pictorial activity," Steiner meant the formation of "imaginations" or images that are attainable through clairvoyance and/or its precursors, imagination, intuition, and inspiration. Seen in broad Anthroposophical terms, the precursors are versions of clairvoyance. Waldorf teachers should employ them, and they should help their students to develop them. As we saw, above, humans must "regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again...." This (imagination, i.e., clairvoyance) is what Waldorf schools are all about.

As for what Steiner meant by "activities we experienced before birth": He said that spiritual powers guide us during the intervals between our earthly incarnations. Waldorf teachers should carry forward the work of those spiritual tutors. Note the messianic self-importance implied in this. "We [Waldorf teachers] want to be aware that physical existence is a continuation of the spiritual, and that what we have to do in education is a continuation of what higher beings have done without our assistance. Our form of educating can have the correct attitude only when we are aware that our work with young people is a continuation of what higher beings have done before birth." [48] Anthroposophists believe that children are born with memories and knowledge derived from their past spiritual lives. The purpose of early childhood education at Waldorfs is therefore to keep children young so that they retain this spiritual knowledge as long as possible — ideally all the way into adulthood. And, centrally, note that Waldorf teachers can know what the spiritual tutors were doing only if they are either clairvoyant or slavishly, blindly obedient to Steiner.

Waldorf teachers also need to understand mankind's future evolution, which again is something they can grasp only if they are either clairvoyant or slavishly, blindly obedient to Steiner. "[W]e wish to lay the foundation for a good pedagogy ... We should be very clear about which human tendencies are present for a distant human future." [49]

In brief, top-level Waldorf teachers believe they are clairvoyant and, indeed, they think they are on a messianic mission: "As teachers we are co-workers [with spiritual powers] in the actual guidance of the world." [50] 

 

— Roger Rawlings

---

---

"[F]rom the eighth pre-Christian century to the fifteenth century A.D. ... human beings predominantly employed their etheric body when they engaged in thinking ... [I]n the fifteenth century people began to think with their physical bodies. When we think, we do so with the forces the etheric body sends into the physical body."

[Rudolf Steiner, MATERIALISM AND THE TASK OF ANTHROPOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 1987), pp. 178-179;

R.R. sketch, 2009, based on illustration on p. 179.]

---

The beauty of Waldorf schooling

may lie largely on the surface.

Lovely paintings by Waldorf students.

---

Image of Buddha before his depature

from karenswhimsy.

---

Unicorn image from http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

---

Waldorf schools generally oppose "materialistic" thinking — a term Steiner

used for thinking that occurs in the brain. (Real thinking,

he said, occurs in "organs of clairvoyance.")

The products of "materialistic" thinking are similarly downplayed.

Generally this includes computers and televisions,

which are often associated with the demon Ahriman.

Computer "art" I have created, such as the image you see here,

presumably comes from a very bad place. 

Of course, I agree that spirit is important.

The spirit in which we live and work is extremely important.

But there is no rational reason to think that modern technology

if the handiwork of imaginary fiends such as Ahriman.

Creating art on computers is fundamentally no different

from creating it in any other way. A computer is just a tool.

The reason I have given up computer art is simple:

I'm not very good at it.

---

To examine more of Rudolf Steiner's statements

about ordinary forms of thought or intellect,

please use this link: "Thinking".

For a look at the role brain chemistry

may play in spiritualistic belief, please see "Dopamine".

◊◊◊◊

ENDNOTES

[1] Rudolf Steiner, THE ILLUSTRATED CALENDAR OF THE SOUL (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004), meditation #7. This meditation is intended for adults. Steiner taught that even adults need to minimize rational thought.

[2] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 61.

[3] Ibid., p. 118.

Steiner said that, when one becomes clairvoyant like himself, one's dreams become systematic and reliable: Dreams then are not jumbled reflections of reality but true visions into the spirit realm. [Rudolf Steiner, WIE ERLANGT MAN ERKENNINISSE DER HOHEREN WELTEN? (Berlin, 1918), p. 159. See http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html .] But Steiner also claimed that his teachings were scientific, and that conventional science would bear him out. It has not — his views have no basis in reality as demonstrated by science.

[4] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 28.

The existence of clairvoyance is extremely doubtful. “Research in parapsychology ... has yet to provide conclusive support for the existence of clairvoyance.” ["clairvoyance." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2009. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 25 Feb. 2009.] Whether psychic capacities might be developed in the future — through the growth of incorporeal organs or in any other manner — is a subject more suited to science fiction than to levelheaded discussions of reality. (See, e.g., Arthur C. Clarke, CHILDHOOD’S END.) It is not irrelevant to note that Steiner’s sources included fantasies such as the Rosicrucian novel ZANONI and the weird narratives of Norse mythology. (See my essays “Steiner’s ‘Science’” and “Oh My Word” at this Web site).

The existence of organs of clairvoyance is more than doubtful. But Steiner's doctrines require one to develop such organs and then to exercise them in a certain, prescribed way. Mainly, this way requires tossing out critical intelligence and devotedly following gurus (i.e., in particular, Steiner). A seeker must "engender within himself this attitude of devotion" [WIE ERLANGT MAN ERKENNINISSE DER HOHEREN WELTEN?, p. 5] and submit to "inspired forerunners" (i.e., spiritual teachers, in particular, Steiner) [Rudolf Steiner, DIE STUFEN DER HOHEREN ERKENNISNIS (Dornach, 1935), p. 65. Again, see http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html .] Submitting in this manner is the opposite of thinking for oneself, exercising intellect, using one's critical intelligence. It is blind belief in occultism.

Trying to reason with Anthroposophists is an interesting undertaking, but in many (if not all) cases it is doomed to failure. Good Anthroposophists heed Steiner's dictum: They must not employ critical thought in evaluating his own statements. Good children "have a respect that forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart, to harbour any thoughts of criticism or opposition." [Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Rudolf Steiner Publishing Company, 1923), p. 10.] Good adults should have a similar sense of veneration, at least for the people they have selected, somehow, to be their masters.

The rejection of critical thought is stressed in the Waldorf school movement: "A youth whose childhood has been touched by the blight of 'critical thinking' will come to the moment of independent insight badly crippled ... Because skepticism has long since robbed him of part of his heart, he will now feel unable to embrace enthusiastically what he has come to understand." [John Fentress Gardner, THE EXPERIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE (Waldorf Press, 1975), pp. 127-128.] (Gardner was a leading American Anthroposophist.)

"Embracing enthusiastically" is what Waldorf students are taught to do. They may not (indeed, usually do not) understand what they are embracing, but they have been taught to embrace it anyway, freed from the "blight of critical thinking." Good adult Anthroposophists are often similarly enthusiastic and uncritical, which helps explain why they often get so riled up over criticism. They aren't accustomed to such modes of thought. They frequently think that criticism means murderous, evil attack. This makes rational discourse a bit difficult.  

  

[5] John Fentress Gardner, “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” ONE MAN’S VISION: IN MEMORIAM, H.A.W. MYRIN (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), p. 48.

Despite Steiner’s claim that he appreciated the intellect, he generally associated it with evil. In Steiner’s theology, Ahriman is a dreadful demon. (See my essay “Bad, Badder, Baddest”.) Ahriman’s cardinal evil attribute is that he is “the supreme intellectual power: Ahriman.” [Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 167.] Ahriman’s fiendish plots include this: “One of the things Ahriman wants for us is that we produce lots of libraries, storing lots of dead knowledge all around us.” [Rudolf Steiner, POLARITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF MANKIND (SteinerBooks, 1987), p. 163.]

Steiner taught that intellectual thought did not begin until 600-800 BC. It is, he said, a gift from Lucifer. [Rudolf Steiner, THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 117.] Ahriman, however, corrupted it. “Ahriman appropriated intellectuality ... Intellectuality flows forth from Ahriman as a cold and frosty, soulless cosmic impulse ... In reality, it is Ahriman who speaks....” [Rudolf Steiner, ANTHROPOSOPHICAL LEADING THOUGHTS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973), p. 98.] We currently live in a materialistic age in which materialistic (intellectual) thinking prevails. This is a “necessary phase in the evolution of humanity.” [Rudolf Steiner, WALDORF EDUCATION AND ANTHROPOSOPHY 1 (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 235.] Entering this phase, we surrendered old clairvoyant capacities, but we will attain greater clairvoyance when we move forward in out evolution. This is well, since “The intellect destroys or hinders.” [Ibid., p. 233.] The Waldorf curriculum is geared to the notion that children individually pass through the same phases that humanity has undergone collectively. Thus, students don’t develop intellectual abilities until they are well into their high school years, according to Steiner.

Ultimately, intellect is anathema for Steiner and his followers — critical thinking must be suppressed. "By intellectualising he [the seeker] merely diverts himself from the right path." [WIE ERLANGT MAN ERKENNINISSE DER HOHEREN WELTEN?, p. 32.] Steiner tells his followers, "You must not try to receive these insights in a sober-minded and intellectual way." [STUFEN DER HOHEREN ERKENNISNIS, p. 66.] The goal is to reach a stage at which "our thinking ceases." [Rudolf Steiner, MEDITATION UND KONZENTRATION (Dornach, 1935), p. 33. See http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html .] Steiner moderated this stand only to the extent that, he taught, we humans are currently passing through a stage of our evolution in which we need to master intellect before moving beyond it. He spoke of this evolutionary process in racial terms. We evolve upward by passing through higher and higher racial forms. Properly evolved humans currently are members of the fifth "subrace" of the fifth "root race." "Every root race and subrace has its task in the evolution of humanity. The goal of ours — the fifth main, or root, race — is called Manas, that is, to awaken human understanding through concepts and ideas." [Rudolf Steiner, THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 178.] "Our fifth post-Atlantean subrace is developing a culture of reason, but at the same time it is bringing egotism to an absolute extreme ... Our fifth root race will be ruined by egotism intensified to the utmost." [Ibid., p. 179] Steiner dated the emergence of subraces in the fifth root rate starting with the sinking of Atlantis. Yes, Atlantis. So much for "a culture of reason."

[6] John Fentress Gardner, THE EXPERIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE (The Myrin Institute Inc. , 1962), p. 26.

Truth is a subtle and intricate subject. What do we mean by “truth”? For some, it is verifiable information. For others, it is unverifiable belief. And there’s another issue. Do people actually want the truth, in the former sense? Neurological research indicates that many people don’t. They want reassurance, comfort, trust — and they are quite willing to forego verifiable truth in the process. “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.] This opens a wide door for charlatans like Steiner, and it can create endless confusion among those who put their trust in them. Even intelligent, sophisticated people such as John Fentress Gardner may choose, unwittingly, to be betrayed. The only way an Anthroposophist can “verify” any of Steiner’s occult pronouncements is to employ clairvoyance — which, in reality, means that Steiner’s doctrines are unverifiable.

Waldorf schools have a tenuous relationship with truth. Not only do they depend upon Steiner’s doctrines, but they often disguise their occult purposes — thereby betraying the trust of many parents and students. Lying in the cause of “truth” is, at best, problematic.

[7] Rudolf Steiner, THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), pp. 248.

[8] Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 64.

[9] Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 256.

Imagination is far from being a reliable faculty. It can easily lapse into hallucination and insanity. See, e.g. James Phillips and James Morely, IMAGINATION AND ITS PATHOLOGIES (MIT Press, 2003). I am inclined to consider Steiner a charlatan, deceitful but rational. It is possible, however, that he was mentally unbalanced. If he actually had the astonishing “clairvoyant” visions he claimed, he almost certainly was hallucinating. For a discussion of Steiner’s strangest visions, see "Everything" and the following essays, on this site.

 

[10] A. C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), p. 24.

[11] Ibid., p. 17.

[12] Ibid., p. 18.

[13] Ibid., p. 24.

[14] Ibid., pp. 23-24.

[15] Ibid., pp. 15-16.

Steiner himself said: "Although it is necessary, especially today, for people to be completely awake later in life, it is equally necessary to let children live in their gentle dreamy experiences as long as possible, so that they move slowly into life. They need to remain as long as possible in their imaginations and pictorial capacities without intellectuality." [Rudolf Steiner, A MODERN ART OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2004), pp. 103-104.]

The archetypes and hierarchies Harwood mentions are occult concepts in Steiner’s elaborate description of the spirit realm.

Waldorf faculties generally deny that Anthroposophy is a religion and that they promote Anthroposophy in Waldorf schools. But Steiner's own words often undercut these denials. Harwood's assertion that Waldorf schools try to keep kids young is explained in such comments of Steiner's as the following. Steiner was addressing the teachers in the first Waldorf School. This is a longer version of a quotation I provided earlier. Note the clear religious content: "To the extent that I feel in a very living way what it means to you to have devoted your entire person to [the] work of the Waldorf School, I would like to say something more. As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling. We must be serious about an idea often mentioned as a foundation of Anthroposophy, one of importance for us. We should be aware that we came down from the spiritual worlds into the physical world at a particular time. Those we meet as children came later and, therefore, experienced the spiritual world for a time after we were already in the physical world. There is something very warming, something that strongly affects the soul, when you see a child as a being who has brought something from the spiritual world that you could not experience because you are older. Being older has a much different meaning for us. In each child, we greet a kind of emissary bringing things from the spiritual world that we could not experience." [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 118-119.]

[16] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, p. 60.

Steiner did not claim that the brain is useless. His point was that true “cognition” — the ability to really understand — depends on clairvoyance. He acknowledged that intellect had some value (he himself was an intellectual), but he said it pales by comparison with paranormal perception. He had to argue this way, since his doctrines collapse if judged by rational standards. Hence his denigration of “thinking’s power.” "Try not to tell the stories in a way that causes the children to reflect and understand them in the head." [Rudolf Steiner, PRACTICAL ADVICE TO TEACHERS (Anthroposophic Press, 2000), p. 15.]

Exposure to rational thought is actually harmful to children, Steiner said: “If you particularly emphasize the development of thinking, you actually direct the entire human being back to prenatal life. You will injure children if you educate them rationally....” [THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, p. 61.] There’s an apparent contradiction between Steiner’s claim that children are harmed by being directed back to life before birth, and Harwood’s argument that children should be kept young precisely so that they can retain their intuitions of life before birth. Steiner confused matters by using the term “thinking” is contradictory ways. But Harwood does present Steiner’s doctrine more or less correctly. Children should not be hindered by a rational education; their powers of rational thought should not be emphasized. Instead, children should be encouraged through “pictorial thinking” or imagination — this will help them build upon their previous existences without sending them back into those existences, which would mean interrupting their spiritual progress. Picking up on comments Steiner made to Waldorf teachers: “You will injure children if you educate them rationally ... [L]iving pictures go through imagination and sympathy. Concepts are abstractions, and they go through memory and antipathy. They come from life before birth ... If you bring children as many living pictures as possible, if you educate them by speaking in pictures, then you sow the seed for a continuous retention of oxygen, for continuous development, because you direct the children toward the future, toward life after death ... We must see that thinking is a pictorial activity which is based in what we experienced before birth ... To take this into our own feelings, namely, that education is a continuation of supersensible activity before birth, gives education the necessary consecration.” [Ibid., pp. 61-62.] “Living pictures” are images imbued with spiritual power. “Supersensory activity” consists of actions that our senses cannot perceive: actions in the spirit realm. Concerning the “continuous retention of oxygen”: Steiner studded his lectures with medical language, some of it making sense, much of it not. For a hefty dose of Steiner’s errant ideas about the human body and brain, see Rudolf Steiner, AN OCCULT PHYSIOLOGY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1983).

Pictorial and linguistic intelligence are centered in different areas of the brain. The ability to comprehend and use language, including the understanding of abstractions, is essential for higher cognition. Pictorial thinking can be productive, but it is limited. One perspective into the limitations of pictorial thinking is provided by Temple Grandin in THINKING IN PICTURES: My Life with Autism (Vintage Books, 2006). Grandin, a high-function autist who possesses considerable language skills, nonetheless relies primarily on pictorial thinking, and she reports cognitive deficiencies that would, presumably, horrify Steiner. Because the only words she feels comfortable with are ones that convey concrete pictures, Grandin says that her capacity for philosophical and theological thinking is circumscribed: “Some philosophy books ... are simply incomprehensible [to me].” [Ibid., p. 15] Basic ontological concepts are beyond reach: “To this day certain verb conjunctions, such as ‘to be,’ are absolutely meaningless to me.” [Ibid., p. 15] Concerning the Lord’s Prayer, “The words ‘thy will be done’ had no meaning when I was a child, and today the meaning is still vague.” [Ibid., p. 17] Steiner might dismiss Grandin’s testimony, categorizing Grandin as he once did a Waldorf student who had learning disabilities. “That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings ... [T]hey are actually not human beings, but have only a human form. They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences ... [T]here are people who are not human beings.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 649-650.] The only inhumanity evident here is Steiner’s — and the glaring failure to think straight is also his.

Steiner's extraordinary doctrines concerning the brain include this: "[T]he content of the intestines is decidedly akin to the brain-content. To speak grotesquely, I would say: That which spreads out through the brain is a highly advanced heap of manure! Grotesque as it may be, objectively speaking this is the truth. It is none other than the dung, which is transmuted — through its peculiar organic process into the noble matter of the brain, there to become the basis for Ego-development. [paragraph break] In man, as much as possible of the belly-manure is transformed into brain-manure, for man as you know carries his Ego down an to the Earth; in the animal, less. Therefore, in the animal, more remains behind in the belly-manure — and this is what we use for manuring. In animal manure, more Ego potentially remains. Just because the animal itself does not reach up to the Ego, more Ego remains there potentially. Hence, animal and human manure are altogether different things." [Rudolf Steiner, AGRICULTURE COURSE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2004), p. 140.]

[17] See, for example, Rudolf Steiner, THE BOOK OF REVELATION (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), Rudolf Steiner, THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN: Lectures on the Book of Revelation (SteinerBooks, 1985), and Rudolf Steiner, INTUITIVE THINKING AS A SPIRITUAL PATH (SteinerBooks, 1995). 

[18] Rudolf Steiner, COSMIC MEMORY: Prehistory of Earth and Man (SteinerBooks, 1987), pp. 193-195.

[19] Rudolf Steiner, CHANCE, PROVIDENCE, AND NECESSITY (SteinerBooks, 1988), p. 95.

[20] Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: The Evolution of Individuality (Anthroposophic Press, 1990), p. 65.

[21] Rudolf Steiner, LIFE BETWEEN DEATH AND REBIRTH (SteinerBooks, 1985), p. 207.

[22] Rudolf Steiner, POLARITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF MANKIND (Steiner Books, 1987), p. 59.

[23] Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), p.105.

[24] Rudolf Steiner, THE SECRET STREAM (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 174.

[25] In using the word “escapist,” I am characterizing the belief system, not the adherents of the system. I do not claim that all Anthroposophists are escapists, only that Steiner’s doctrines invite escapism. Analogy: If I were to say that Communism is a lousy system, I would mean that Communism is bad, I would not mean that all Communists are louses.

The escapism inherent in Anthroposophy is reflected in the similarities between Steiner’s doctrines and fantasy fiction, including science fiction. As one of Steiner’s critics has written, Steiner’s “so-called ‘thinking,’ his supposed power of supersensible perception, led to a vision of the world, the universe, and cosmic history which is entirely unsupported by any evidence, which is at odds with practically everything which modern physics and astronomy have revealed, and which is more like science fiction than anything else.” [Anthony Storr, FEET OF CLAY (Free Press, 1996), p. 81.]

Many Anthroposophists consider themselves to be hardheaded realists. They deny that they slavishly follow Steiner — they consider themselves to be independent spiritual seekers, dispassionate investigators of the spiritual realm. The subjectivity Steiner advocated, and that they embrace, necessarily leads them in this direction. They trust their own intuitions, their own spiritual “insight.” This is a central reason that schisms develop among spiritualists: Each seeker has his/her own visions, and since no one else can confirm or even investigate such subjective, private states of mind, no one can dissuade her/him from deeply felt convictions. But subjectivity and emotion are not, in truth, avenues to knowledge. They produce, at best, cozy dream states. The spiritual “investigations” conducted by mystics are, in the end, indistinguishable from fantasy.  

[26] Paul Bloom, “Is God an Accident?”, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, December, 2005, p. 105, www.theatlantic.com . See also Robin Marantz Henig, “Darwin’s God,” THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, March 4, 2007, at www.nytimes.com , especially the discussion of “the byproduct theory.”

[27] Randomness is generally repugnant to most humans, yet it is a basic reality. For example, the primary law of 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]

People have an especially hard time accepting the possibility that our own existence may result from random events. We reject this possibility almost with knee-jerk eagerness. Of course, it may be true that God or gods created us, and that our lives have spiritual meaning. But our reflexive eagerness for spiritual affirmation does not, in itself, confer it. Indeed, Anthroposophists and others may flee to spiritualism not because they have good reason to do so, but because they are emotionally unable to bear the possibility that the universe is neutral and uncaring. “Darwin ... had the intellectual toughness to stick with the deeply discomfiting consequences of his theory, that natural selection has no goal or purpose. Alfred Wallace, who independently thought of natural selection, later lost faith in the power of the idea and turned to spiritualism to explain the human mind. ‘Darwin had the courage to face the implications of what he had done, but poor Wallace couldn’t bear it,’ says William Provine, a historian at Cornell University.” [Nicholas Wade, “A Mind Still Prescient After All These Years” (THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 10, 2009), p. D4.] Turning to spiritualism because the evidence leads us to it would be one thing; turning to spiritualism because we can’t bear to face facts would be something else.

[28] In this context, it is important to remember than in science the word “theory” does not denote uncertainty, as such. A scientific theory is a well-developed explanation of phenomena, based on hard evidence. A theory may turn out to be wrong, in which case it will be replaced by a better theory, but it is not just a guess or a supposition.

The functioning of the brain eluded Steiner. Steiner taught that the material universe arises from the supersensible realm, the realm of spirit, feeling, and thought. He claimed that our minds have extraordinary powers, because of our connection to the spirit realm. Central to all his doctrines is the belief in clairvoyance. He also credited the existence of other mental “powers” such as telepathy and telekinesis (the power to move and alter physical objects by thought alone), which he said are produced by aging too fast. “[I]f a person falls victim to encroaching age too early ... [l]ower forms of clairvoyance, such as telepathy, telekinesis and so on ... occur....” [Rudolf Steiner, SOUL ECONOMY: Body, Soul, and Spirit in Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 2003), p. 132.]

According to Steiner, the brain produces “materialistic” thinking. “When people are as blinded by materialistic thoughts as they became during the nineteenth century and right into the present, the physical body becomes a copy of the spirit and soul living in materialistic impulses. In that case, it is not incorrect to say that the brain thinks. It is then, in fact, correct. By being firmly enmeshed in materialism, we have people who not only think poorly about the body, soul, and spirit, but people who think materially and feel materially. What that means is that materialism causes the human being to become a thinking automaton, that the human being then becomes something that thinks, feels, and wills physically.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.]

Such thinking leads to utter error, according to Steiner, and it has the most pernicious results. Note that Steiner describes the physical body as being a copy of the spirit and soul (he distinguished between these — here, I’ll use the shorthand “mind”). He argued that our minds not only can manipulate real objects, as in telekinesis, but they actually create real objects and beings. Bad karma arises from bad thoughts, feelings, and actions, and it may include bodily disfigurements, tumors, and illnesses. (See my essay “Steiner’s Quackery” at this Web site.) A flawed body is a copy of flawed impulses. Other unfortunate physical realities are also embodiments of mental, emotional, and spiritual errors.

Our errors can also create real beings residing in the spirit realm. After we die, we meet the Guardians of the Threshold, which are manifestations of our errors. “[T]he false thoughts that have been produced stand there as living beings before one.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE OCCULT MOVEMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND ITS RELATION TO MODERN CULTURE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973), p. 125.] We cannot get past the Guardians until we overcome the errors that they embody. Here’s part of what the first Guardian of the Threshold says to the human soul: “My being will be changed and become radiantly beautiful when you have made amends for all your wrongs and so purified yourself ... My threshold is built of every feeling of fear still within you and every feeling of reluctance in the face of the strength you need to take on full responsibility for your thoughts and actions. As long as you still harbor any trace of fear at directing your own destiny, the threshold lacks an essential element.” [Rudolf Steiner,  HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS (Anthroposophic Press, 1994), p. 186.] 

To find truth, according to Steiner, we must get beyond the brain and use clairvoyance, which he said is not located in the brain but in incorporeal organs of clairvoyance. But not just any clairvoyance will do. Just as material thinking leads to error and problematic realities, so does faulty spirituality. Truth can be obtained only through what Steiner called “exact” clairvoyance, which enables us to perform correct investigations of the spirit realm. The Guardians embody false spiritual investigations: “Just as thoughts are living realities, false results of investigation are real powers which are there directly one crosses the Threshold of the spiritual world [i.e., the Guardians, representing false spiritual investigation, are met as soon as one dies].” [THE OCCULT MOVEMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND ITS RELATION TO MODERN CULTURE, p. 125.] The findings of exact clairvoyance are, in essence, nothing but Steiner’s doctrines — the strength and responsibility Steiner advocated boil down to following Steiner. 

In the end, all that Steiner offers — aside from his self-promotion — is an elaborated version of wish fulfillment. Exercise the magical powers of your disembodied mind in order to get what you want, he advises. Have the right feelings, think the right thoughts, and you will control your destiny. Most of us would all like to control our own destinies, of course. And certainly we all should take responsibility for our thoughts and actions. But only the rational use of the brain, directing us in constructive and compassionate action, can produce real benefits. To believe that our lives are entwined in mystical karmic forces, and to seek solutions in occultist fantasies, is a refusal to accept real responsibility for ourselves and our world.

[29] See, e.g., Benedict Carey, “Do You Believe in Magic?”, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007, D1, www.nytimes.com .

[30] Richard Ramsbotham, WHO WROTE BACON? (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004).

The book digs into the silly debate over whether Sir Francis Bacon is the real author of Shakespeare’s works. Ramsbotham’s conclusion is that both Bacon and Shakespeare were actually the puppets of King James I, a mystic predecessor of Rudolf Steiner.

Temple Lodge Publishing is devoted to furthering “spiritual science, or anthroposophy, as founded by the Austrian thinker Rudolf Steiner.” [www.templelodge.com/pages/about.php]

[31] Ibid., p. 4.

[32] Ibid., p. 4.

[33] Ibid., p. 4.

[34] Ibid., p. 5.

[35] Ibid., p. 7.

[36] Ibid., p. 5.

[37] Ibid., p. 5.

[38] Ibid., p. 5.

[39] Ibid., p. 7.

Scholars are  — or should be  — engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. This pursuit is largely impossible within a system such as Anthroposophy, which rejects most real knowledge. Science tells us that the universe is not at all the sort of place Steiner described, which helps explain why Steiner and his followers denounce science. Steiner called the findings of science “scientific trash.” [THE RENEWAL OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 94.] Steiner similarly dismissed the work of “historians, sociologists, economists, and politicians” or, in general, “so-called educated people in the universities.” [SECRET BROTHERHOODS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2004), pp. 92 and 97.] If Anthroposophists really prized truth, they would embrace the findings of science and other disciplines, but they do precisely the opposite. Virtually all real knowledge is antithetical to Anthroposophy.

To recap: Knowledge is acquired through the use of the brain — except that Steiner denied this. “[T]he brain and nerve system have nothing at all to do with actual cognition....” [THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, p. 60.] Steiner advocated use of “exact clairvoyance” [e.g., THE TENSION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST (Anthroposophic Press, 1983), p. 40] — an oxymoron since there cannot be an exact form of a nonexistent faculty. According to Steiner, only thoroughgoing materialists think with their brains. Such people are essentially biological robots, and the results of their thinking is corrupted. [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.]

In denying that real cognition occurs in the brain, Steiner separated his doctrines from reality and truth. The thinking of his followers necessarily suffers as a direct result. Consider, for example, Steiner’s follower Clopper Almon. An economist, Almon presumably employed his brain in his professional work — he was, presumably, a genuine scholar in the field of economics. But when he turned his attention to Anthroposophical matters, his thinking became extremely sloppy. Thus, for instance, substantiating Steiner’s view of evolution and refuting Darwin was simple for him: He merely went to a museum and eyeballed some exhibits. “I once spent two days in intense study of the fossils in the Natural History Museum in Vienna ... Darwin’s view of gradual evolution of lower into higher forms had no example that I could find to support it.” [Clopper Almon, A STUDY COMPANION TO AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 73.] This “intense study” — spanning a total of two days — was in fact anything but intense. It was cursory and brief. In no sense did Almon conduct any scholarly or scientific research — he studied no texts, engaged in no argumentation, took no classes, undertook no field work. Yet he and his editors found his superficial efforts sufficient for their purposes. Note that the product of Almon’s study is, for Anthroposophists, an extremely important book, a guide to Steiner’s magnum opus, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE. So here we get a glimpse into the type of thinking that is found in important Anthroposophical publications.

On other occasions, Anthroposophists display more intellectual rigor than Almon did in this instance. But the overall truth is that Anthroposophists have a severe problem with truth. They subscribe to a philosophy and method of “cognition” that makes apprehension of truth nearly impossible. That’s their right, of course. But when they inflict the consequences of their preferences on others, especially children, the matter becomes serious. Children in Waldorf schools are far too often “educated” within the miasma of occult falsehood.

[40] Eugene Schwartz, WALDORF EDUCATION: Schools for the Twenty-First Century (Xlibris Corporation, 2000), p. 34.

[41] Rudolf Steiner, DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 1983), p. 17.

[42] Ibid., p. 21.

[43] Ibid., p. 21.

[44] Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 256.

[45] DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO EDUCATION, p. 29.

[46] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 118.

[47] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 62.

Imaginations are Steiner's alternative to ordinary thinking, such as rationality, logic, intellect. 

"[O]rdinary thoughts are inadequate to grasp what spiritual science [i.e., his doctrines] can investigate ... I assume you all know what I have said about imaginations ... It is these imaginations and not our ordinary ideas which we must have in our souls...." [Rudolf Steiner, THE DRUIDS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2001), p. 13.]

Steiner said that imaginations exists on a scale extending from error caused by the body to true clairvoyant insight attained by the spirit:

"Hallucinations, pictures that appear before human consciousness and that do not reveal a corresponding reality upon closer, critical examination — such hallucinations, such visions, are something diseased if we consider them from the standpoint of human life as it unfolds between birth, or conception, and death. When we describe hallucinations as something abnormal, however, as something that certainly does not belong to the normal course of life between birth and death, we have in no way grasped the inherent nature of hallucination.

"... If the body conceptualizes as body, it conceives hallucinations; that is, it brings hallucinations into consciousness. If the spirit conceptualizes as spirit, then it has imaginations; if the soul, which is the mediator between the two, begins to conceptualize, that is, if the soul conceptualizes as soul, then neither will the unjustified hallucinations pressed out of the body arise, nor will the soul penetrate to spiritual realities. Instead it will reach an undefined intermediary stage; these are fantasies. Picture the body; between birth and death it is not an instrument for conceptualizing. If between birth and death it conceptualizes nevertheless, it does so in an unjustified and abnormal way, and hallucinations thus arise. If the spirit conceptualizes in really rising out of the body to realities, then it has imaginations. The soul forms the mediator between hallucinations and imaginations in faintly outlined fantasies.

"If the body conceptualizes as body, hallucinations arise.

"If the soul conceptualizes as soul, fantasies arise.

"If the spirit conceptualizes as spirit, imaginations arise." 

[Rudolf Steiner, THERAPEUTIC INSIGHTS (Mercury Press, 1984), lecture 3.]

[48] Ibid., p. 37.

[49] Ibid., p. 80.

[50] DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO EDUCATION, p. 41.

◊◊◊◊

Note: John Fentress Gardner and A. C. Harwood had long, influential careers as Anthroposophical educators, lecturers, and authors. Several publications by both men are still available. (Mr. Gardner’s career was interrupted by the scandal I describe in my memoir — see “Unenlightened” and/or “I Went to Waldorf” — but he continued to write and publish thereafter.) Richard Ramsbotham teaches drama at the Glasshouse College.