 “Lovers of unconscious humour are recommended to make a study of pages 53-55 of the text.” — Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Max von Laue, ridiculing Rudolf Steiner’s OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE TOP TEN JOKES TOLD BY R. STEINER With Apologies to D. Letterman Compiled by Roger Rawlings Afterword by Diana Winters Addendum by Margaret Sachs Parting Shots by Yrs. Trly. Jokes Courtesy of Rudolf Steiner Anagram by Diana Winters Steiner’s statements were often unintentionally hilarious. He was serious about each of the following remarks. Seriously. No kidding. ◊◊◊◊ 10) “[A]n island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars.” [1] 9) “It is bias that causes people to imagine that their heads are the most perfect part of themselves. It is certainly structured in a most complicated way, but it is really just a metamorphosed cuttlefish.” [2] 8) “[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.” [3] 7) “The group soul of a beehive is a very high level being ... It has attained a level of evolutionary development that human beings will later reach....” [4] 6) “The animal man of the Moon [did] not yet have firm bones ... the Moon of that time did not have a thin, airy atmosphere ... its envelope was considerably thicker, even denser than the water of today.” [5] 5) “[These were] human beings who had their origins in the interbreeding of Earth offspring with humans who ... moved to Jupiter.” [6] 4) “Gnomes are ... unable to grasp how there can be anything but an ineffectual relationship with [us].” [7] * 3) [Why bulls charge at red fabric] “When the eye confronts red ... the blood in the eye is slightly destroyed ... When the bull confronts red he simply says, ‘Dash it all, all the blood in my head is being destroyed! I must defend myself!’ So he goes wild....” [8] ** 2) “[Science] sees the heart as a pump that pumps blood through the body. Now there is nothing more absurd than believing this, for the heart has nothing to do with pumping the blood.” [9] 1) “It would be a mistake to view the lung as less spiritual than the nose.” [10] ◊◊◊◊ It's hard to know where to stop. Steiner gets more preposterous the more you read him. Consider this a curtain call: 0) “What we have invisible within the soul, our hidden qualities — flirtatiousness, for example — become visible in plants. We don’t see this in a person who is awake, but it can be observed clairvoyantly in people who are sleeping. Flirtation, for example, looks like a carnation. A flirt continually produces carnations from the nose! A tedious, boring person produces gigantic leaves from the whole body, if you could see them.” [11] Oh, if only we could see them! Unconscious humor was never better than this! Except, maybe: -1) "It is actually due to the fact that potatoes have come to be widely eaten in recent times that materialism has developed." [12] ◊◊◊◊ * A joke is a failure if you have to explain it. But I can’t resist commenting on a couple of these. About gnomes: Steiner believed in them. Seriously: “There are beings that can be seen with clairvoyant vision at many spots in the depths of the earth ... If you dig into the metallic or stony ground you find beings which manifest at first in remarkable fashion — it is as if something were to scatter us. They seem able to crouch close together in vast numbers, and when the earth is laid open they appear to burst asunder ... Many names have been given to them, such as goblins, gnomes and so forth ... Their nature prompts them to play all sorts of tricks on man....” [13] ** Probably you’ve heard the folklore about bulls and the color red. Red drives bulls crazy, no? No. Bulls have little or no ability to see red. [14] They can, however, tell when pieces of cloth are flapped in their faces, and they don’t like it. But the color of the cloth is irrelevant. The interesting point, here, is that Steiner falls for the fallacy. He did this over and over. He cited myths, legends, fables, folklore — and, as in this case, folklore, finding “truth” in all of it. But in truth, much of it is silly, and wide swaths of it are flat-out wrong. In fact, Steiner’s “spiritual science” — Anthroposophy — is an amalgam of such fallacies, many of them ancient, gathered from around the world. A big pile of fallacies is not a treasury of truth. It is a big pile of fallacies. Consider Mars. Steiner knew that the ancient Greeks associated Mars with war (“Mars”: the Greek god of war), and what was good enough for them was good enough for him: He bought it: Mars is a warlike place. Just one little problem. The ancients who imagined stuff about Mars had almost no actual knowledge of the planet. Granted, Mars is red (which is why bulls don’t see it — sorry), but this doesn’t mean it is a bloody place. If you want to know about Mars, consult NASA, not ancient myths — and certainly not Rudolf Steiner. “The Buddha wandered away from earthly affairs to the realm of Mars ... The Buddha Mystery on Mars did not take the same course as the Christ Mystery on earth, but Buddha, the Prince of Peace ... was transferred to the belligerent realm of Mars ....” [15] Great stuff. I probably should have put this quote on the top ten list instead of burying it here in a footnote. Oh, well. Steiner had a million of ‘em. [16] OK. Enough bull. But about those gnomes ... AFTERWORD by Diana Winters The presence of stuffed-fabric gnomes in Waldorf kindergartens strikes some parents as charming or even humorous. The gnomes are not only physically present: they often appear in stories the teachers tell, and the children are encouraged to draw gnomes. But the gnomes' role is more complicated than this. I urge prospective Waldorf parents to see past the charm-facade provided by the gnomes. The gnomes sell the school incredibly well, and that is one of their main functions. They literally sell like hot cakes at school fairs or craft shows, and they "sell" the school by dulling parental reasoning abilities. Parents fall "in love" with the gnomes, along with the knitted bunnies and ponies and flowing silks and homey "just like grandma's" atmosphere of the kindergartens. I urge prospective or current Waldorf kindergarten parents to visit a classroom and observe just how (or whether) the children actually relate to or interact with the gnomes in the classroom. The gnomes aren't cuddly. They aren't friendly. They're actually just a little bit threatening. Gnomes in Waldorf lore are not quite sympathetic to humans — they're tricky and conniving, not exactly smart but crafty, resentful, frankly a little on the mean and stupid side. Gnomes aren't friends or playmates for children — they're often just odd, grimacing presences on the shelf. Watch in the classroom and see — do the children play with them? Do they talk to them? Do they appear to view the gnomes affectionately? Do the gnomes have names, personalities, do the children tell stories about the gnomes? Watch and see. Gnomes are something that Waldorf schools can hook onto in popular culture, from suburban lawn ornaments to familiar fairy tales, and insinuate a message about "nature spirits" that is meant to prepare children to be receptive to a wide variety of related beliefs about the "spiritual hierarchies" as outlined by Rudolf Steiner. Nature spirits are at or near the bottom of a very complex hierarchy, going up through various rankings of angels and archangels to the Christian seraphim, cherubim etc. (in other terminology "thrones" and "dominions" etc. God, however, is curiously rarely spoken of). Of course, angels are also often spoken of and painted or drawn in Waldorf. I think gnomes get more systematic emphasis because talk of angels is too blatantly religious, parents will wonder if their child comes home always talking about angels, whereas gnomes can be treated as simply creatures from children's stories or fairy tales, and of course most Waldorf schools deny to parents that the curriculum is religious.  Gnomes are work underground. Drawing by a Waldorf student. [Courtesy of PLANS.] ADDENDUM by Margaret Sachs The felt gnome in my son's Waldorf classroom sat on a shelf near the top of the chalkboard. I remember the class teacher telling a group of parents that the gnome's role was to watch the children while he, the teacher, was out of the classroom. He said it with a smile and a twinkle in his eye, so my reaction was that it was funny and cute. I assumed it was intended as a big joke and that all the other parents shared that assumption. It never occurred to me that the gnome might have a different significance for the children. But I don't remember my children ever including gnomes in their conversation or play. The teacher spoke of the gnome affectionately. I think he said the gnome's name was George. It's really weird to look back now, picturing all those adults sitting at their children's desks, listening attentively to a man who, unknown to us, believed his guru could see real gnomes. It's like something out of a Monty Python skit. To learn a little about gnomes and other nonesuchs that Steiner said are real, please use this link: "Beings" PARTING SHOTS by Roger Rawlings
Maybe I should add the following. I’ll use a Q & A format: 1) In the list of ten “jokes,” above, do I quote R. Steiner out of context? For sure. But, consider: All quotations are always out of context. To keep a sentence in context, you really ought to quote the entire paragraph in which it appears. But that would be out of the context of the whole chapter. I can’t very well reprint a hole chapter, but let’s say I did. That chapter would be out of the context of the whole book. So let’s say I reprinted the whole book (and got sued by the publisher for my trouble). The book would be out of the context of all the author’s other books. So let’s say I reprint several related books... You get the idea. The only solution to this difficulty is to make sure that any quotation is faithful to the meaning of the sentence as it appears within its original context. I have done so. If you doubt this, please check up on me. I’ve documented each quote. Read the books in question and draw your own conclusions. 2) Do I mangle Steiner’s meaning by chopping out various words and phrases? I do excise Steiner’s repetitions, asides, and other idiosyncratic confusions, but this is to his benefit. I work to present Steiner’s points as clearly as may be. If you have doubts, I again suggest that you check up on me. I have no reason to alter Steiner’s meaning, since his meaning is the best case against him. Further, please bear in mind that I am generally looking at English-language editions of Steiner’s works. Often enough, these works have been bowdlerized: The Anthropo-friendly editors have sometimes left out the worst phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and lectures. So, if I still find amazingly cockeyed statements in the remaining texts, imagine what I might find if I turned to the German-language texts. (Funny you should ask. I’ve gone to the German texts occasionally, and found real dillies. Check this in my essay “Unenlightened” on this Web site.) 3) Should Steiner’s statements be taken as metaphoric, or parabolic, or anything else aside from literal? Steiner did sometimes mean his words to be taken in a non-literal way. He salted his remarks with phrases such as “as it were.” He frequently hedged. More important, he claimed that you can’t understand him unless you agree with him, i.e., become an Anthroposophical initiate. This is a clever defense, since it cuts out all possible critics. But it reminds me of a book I bought when my religious faith was wavering. Written by a Catholic theologian, it was titled TEN PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, or something like that. I never got past the foreword, because in it the author explained that the proofs will seem conclusive only to people who start with the premise that God exists. Huh? I was young at the time, but even back then I could spot a cop-out tautology when I saw one. Returning to Steiner: My approach is to take Steiner seriously, which means taking his statements seriously (and laughing at them if that is the response that serious consideration of silly remarks leads us to). If Steiner hedges on the meaning of his words, I include the hedge. If the point he is making is preposterous, I usually point this out. But in all cases, I try to relay accurately what Steiner said and meant. 4) Isn’t laughing at Steiner wrong? Yes, in a sense. The damage Steiner and his followers can inflict on children (and adults) is no laughing matter. But, on the other hand, much of what Steiner said and wrote cries out for derision. And mockery can serve a practical purpose. You’re less likely to be lured into something harmful if you see through it. Consider: If members of Steiner’s first audience had started to giggle, then burst into derisive cackles, and then — holding their bellies, shaking their heads — walked out, history might have been different, in a sense. ANAGRAM by Diana Winters Anthroposophy : Pooh, phony star  Drawing by a Waldorf student.  Loki, the prankster god of Norse mythology (beloved by my Waldorf classmates and me, way back when). [John Bauer.] ENDNOTES [1] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998, Volumes 1 & 2), p. 607. [2] Rudolf Steiner, PRACTICAL ADVICE TO WALDORF TEACHERS (Anthroposophic Press, 2000), p. 98. [3] Rudolf Steiner, POLARITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF MANKIND (Steiner Books, 1987), p. 59. [4] Rudolf Steiner, BEES (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 176. [5] Rudolf Steiner, COSMIC MEMORY: PREHISTORY OF EARTH AND MAN, from the chapter “Life on the Moon” (SteinerBooks, 1987) pp. 194. [6] Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 238. [7] Rudolf Steiner, CHANCE, PROVIDENCE, AND NECESSITY (SteinerBooks, 1988), p. 95. [8] Rudolf Steiner, COLOUR (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992), p. 132. [9] Rudolf Steiner, PSYCHOANALYSIS AND SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY, (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1990), p. 126. [10] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Foundations of Waldorf Education, 1), p. 205. [11] Rudolf Steiner, DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 128. [12] Rudolf Steiner, FROM ELEPHANTS TO EINSTEIN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 44. [13] Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3. [14] E.g., Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, ANIMALS IN TRANSLATION (Scribner, 2005), p. 43. [15] Rudolf Steiner, LIFE BETWEEN DEATH AND REBIRTH (SteinerBooks, 1985), p. 207. Mars is reddish, but then so is Sedna, a minor planet of which Steiner was inexplicably unaware. (See web.gps.edu/~mbrown/sedna/ where we learn that Sedna orbits the Sun far beyond the orbit of Pluto.) Is red Sedna, then, also a warlike place, like Mars? Hard to say. Pluto, too, is red. What about Pluto? (See web.gps.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ which deals with both Pluto and Eris, a planet bigger than Pluto and even farther away than Sedna. Somehow Steiner missed this planet, too.) Eris is white, so it doesn’t qualify for honors as the War Planet. But which planet truly deserves that title? If we go by which planet has actually hosted the most wars, then the War Planet is certainly the Earth. [16] Jimmy Durante.  Life is a dance, perhaps. A comedy, perhaps. Pain and suffering — and beauty and joy. [R.R., ~ 1970.] |