Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 16

Continuing my comments on the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'.

Peter Staudenmaier writes inParagraph 6:

Who was Rudolf Steiner?
Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder. Born in 1861, Steiner grew up in a provincial Austrian town , the son of a mid-level civil servant. His intellectually formative years were spent in Vienna, capital of the aging Habsburg [sic] empire, and in Berlin. By all accounts an intense personality and a prolific writer and lecturer, Steiner
dabbled in a number of unusual causes. At the age of 36, he reports, he underwent a profound spiritual transformation, after which he was able to see the spirit world and communicate with celestial beings. These ostensible supernatural powers are the origin of most anthroposophist beliefs and rituals. Steiner changed his mind on many topics in the course of his career; his early hostility toward Christianity, for example, gave way to a neo-christian version of spiritualism codified in anthroposophy. But interest in mysticism, occult legends and the esoteric was a constant throughout his life.

To the statement "Like many quasi-religious groups, anthroposophists have a reverential attitude toward their founder" I would like to point out that while the phrase attempts to impute that anthroposophists are quasi-religious by virtue of the fact that they generally have a reverential attitude toward their founder, it does not follow logically. That any group that has a reverential attitude towards its founder is not also thereby quasi-religious is evident when considering the attitude of many Americans towards the founders of their country. While often in many ways reverential, it does not make those Americans a quasi-religious group. And why does Mr. Staudenmaier employ the phrase "quasi-religious"? Are anthroposophists not religious enough for him? If Staudenmaier feels that anthroposophy is a religion, with Steiner as its prophet (or even God) it would be more honest to come out and say so.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 15

Ernst Bloch's ramblings are worth quoting at some length. The following is from Bloch's central book, a three volume philosophical work titled "The Principle Of Hope" (Die Prinzip der Hoffunung). It serves to give a little insight into Bloch's thinking. I find it telling that Staudenmaier relies on such insightful writing as this to establish his case:
"And let us not forget what second-rate clairvoyance achieves here. … At the peak of 'Knowledge of Higher Worlds' the occult journalist Rudolf Steiner established himself, a mediocrity in his own right. A mediocre, indeed unbearable curiosity, yet effective, as if mistletoe were still being broken off here, as if something shoddily druidical were fermenting, soaking, murmuring and chattering an newspaper. Whether the chatter and the low level are necessary for this kind of 'initiation' or occult activation it is difficult to say. There are a few, a very few, serious writings from the Steiner circle, for example Poppelbaum's biosophical study 'Man and Animal' and several chemical-astrological boldnesses with imitations of alchemy; but everywhere else the mere chorus of a hundred thousand fools predominates. Nevertheless there sometimes also appears a dash of mediumistic disposition, an atavistic capacity for parapsychic phenomena, above all for atavistic clairvoyance. There can be no doubt that such phenomena and such dispositions still exist, nor that they rose extremely high in characters like Blavatsky and the somnambulistic Steiner. Atavistic clairvoyance was linked as it were subterraneously with mythic customs and cults, with world-pictures constructed on a different state of consciousness from that of today. Thus Rudolf Steiner was after all able to touch an elements and secret teachings which from the outside are almost closed to modern consciousness, however great its philosophical empathy. Sometimes types such as these, shallow mermaids or minotaurs of tripod and journalism at the same time such as Blavatsky or Rudolf Steiner, had in their consciousness a feedpipe from the unconscious, from the long-past, not-past. Or, like deep-sea fish, deformed and flattened, but still in a twilight form scarcely accessible to mythological research, old under-, inter- and hinterworlds rose putrefied to the surface."

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 14

Continuing my comments on the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'.

The implication that anthroposophists attempt to hide their "highly esoteric doctrine" because they consider it only "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" seems laughable in light of the fact that nearly every Waldorf School sells Rudolf Steiner's highly esoteric books openly in their bookstores. Has Peter Staudenmaier ever actually visited a Waldorf School?

In actual fact Bloch did not oppose anthroposophy
"from the beginning." The book cited to this effect ( Heritage of our Time, in German Erbschaft der Zeit) was first published in 1935. (I should note that the essay that mentions anthroposophy was written around 1923 according to the book's editor. However, to actually "oppose" anthroposophy
requires publishing, speaking publicly, or otherwise undertaking action on the subject.) Anthroposophy was at that point about 35 years old, and Steiner was already 10 years dead. By indulging in such rhetorical flourishes, Staudenmaier undermines his credibility as a historian.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 13

Moving on to the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'.

Peter Staudenmaier writes inParagraph 5:
In light of this broad public exposure, it is perhaps surprising that the ideological underpinnings of anthroposophy are not better known. Anthroposophists themselves, however, view their highly esoteric doctrine as an "occult science" suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite. The very name "anthroposophy" suggests to many outsiders a humanist orientation. But anthroposophy is in fact a deeply anti-humanist worldview, which is why humanists like Ernst Bloch opposed it from the beginning.PS2 Its rejection of reason in favor of mystical experience, its subordination of human action to supernatural forces, and its thoroughly hierarchical model of spiritual development all mark anthroposophy as inimical to humanist values.

So let me summarize this absurd and illogical paragraph: Anthroposophists are doing a lot of work that is getting positive publicity in the world, but their evil ideology is somehow overlooked. Further, this evil ideology, this "highly esoteric doctrine" they consider "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" (note the classic leftist tactic of decrying elitism). And even their name is misleading, suggesting humanism when in fact, because one Ernst Bloch "opposed it from the beginning," it must not be. And finally, because Peter Staudenmaier has now labeled it anti-reason, pro mystical experiential, subordinating of human action to supernatural forces, and hierarchical (without having offered any examples or even citations of primary of secondary sources to support these allegations) it must be "inimical to humanist values." Or the even shorter version: Ernst Bloch didn't like it, I called it names, and you must consider it evil. This type of writing seems more reminiscent of Pravda under Stalin than serious historical scholarship. (Pravda was the state-run party newspaper of the U.S.S.R. Under Stalin it published raving denunciations of those targeted by the state for elimination. Their supposed crimes were described in lurid detail. Mostly these crimes were fabricated to create the illusion of justice, though few people in or outside the country believed these accusations, either at the time or since.)

Children are more conscious than adults

Another quote from the NY Times' article on what scientists believe but they can't prove.

Alison Gopnik
Psychologist, University of California, Berkeley; co-author, "The Scientist in the Crib"
I believe, but cannot prove, that babies and young children are actually more conscious, more vividly aware of their external world and internal life, than adults are. I believe this because there is strong evidence for a functional trade-off with development. Young children are much better than adults at learning new things and flexibly changing what they think about the world. On the other hand, they are much worse at using their knowledge to act in a swift, efficient and automatic way. They can learn three languages at once but they can't tie their shoelaces.

And I believe, but can't prove, that this is another case of mainstream scientists grasping towards what Waldorf educators have been taught for the last 80 years. Steiner was an expert of sorts on the nature of consciousness. In fact, all of anthroposophy is a study in the levels of consciousness. Steiner referred to levels of consciousness in many lectures, and in detail especially in the first several years of his Anthroposophical work (see among others the lectures of 26 September 1905, 10 June 06, and 1 June 1907).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism XII

Next up is the
fourth paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier's writes in Paragraph 4:
Organized anthroposophist groups are often best known through their far-flung network of public institutions. The most popular of these is probably the Waldorf school movement, with several hundred branches worldwide, followed by the biodynamic agriculture movement, which is especially active in Germany and the United States. Other well-known anthroposophist projects include Weleda cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and the Demeter brand of health food products. The new age Findhorn community in Scotland also has a strong anthroposophist component. Anthroposophists played an important role in the formation of the German Greens, and Germany's current Interior Minister, Otto Schily, one of the most prominent founders of the Greens, is an anthroposophist.

This paragraph attempts to establish that anthroposophy is a movement that is, by implication, centralized, organized, and everywhere. "Organized groups... [have a] far-flung network of public institutions." Next the Waldorf School movement is mentioned. One would gather from this that a network of Waldorf Schools is an organized public institution of some unmentioned anthroposophist group. Actually, most Waldorf schools are independent and self-governing (many of the European Waldorf schools even have the word "Free" in their name to indicate this). A Waldorf School, like most anthroposophical initiatives, is a grassroots organization, usually founded by a group of parents, and in every legal and moral way independent of any outside hierarchical control. In fact, every component of the "far-flung network of public institutions" mentioned above is legally independent of all the others. This is true all over the world, and not just in the US. Just about every Waldorf School is a legally independent nonprofit institution. Exceptions include the few US charter schools based on Waldorf methods.

Many of these alleged dangerous anthroposophical initiatives do exactly the same thing that Peter Staudenmaier also spends his time at: they are organized grass-roots social initiatives. But rather than having Karl Marx as their ideological inspirer, they have Rudolf Steiner, which seems to bother our author considerably.

By naming all these initiatives Staudenmaier inadvertently confers quite a bit of praise on the accomplishments of various anthroposophists, though doubtless it was not his intention. It is also an attempt to link all these initiatives. Are the very real accomplishments of the German Green Party now somehow worthless if one of its founders happens to be an anthroposophist and a few other misguided anthroposophists happen to have been Nazis?

View from the other side

The very next opinion in the NY Times' article on what scientists believe but they can't prove is a striking contrast.

Nicholas Humphrey
Psychologist, London School of Economics; author, "The Mind Made Flesh"

I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

This is really interesting. Humphrey is arguing that he is irrelevant, the fact that he thinks is irrelevant, and by extension all culture is coincidental. The only force in the universe is "natural selection", here virtually personified as a being, performing a trick - making a bunch of dumb apes in a purposeless system imagine that their existence has meaning. The idea is quite clever, and his formulation is catching. But it does seem a lot like projecting an existential crisis onto the entire universe. His book title speaks more than the author perhaps intended; he is really trying to negate the mind by reducing it to matter. His position is the most basic philosophical materialism, and it is interesting to note that this is one of those things that he admits to believing but not being able to prove.

What do you believe that you can't prove?

The NY Times ran a great article about what scientists believe but they can't prove. It yielded some great things from an Anthroposophical perspective, such as:

Donald Hoffman
Cognitive scientist, University of California, Irvine; author, "Visual Intelligence"

I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.

The world of our daily experience - the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds - is a species-specific user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential character is conscious. It is unlikely that the contents of our interface in any way resemble that realm.

Indeed the usefulness of an interface requires, in general, that they do not. For the point of an interface, such as the Windows interface on a computer, is simplification and ease of use. We click icons because this is quicker and less prone to error than editing megabytes of software or toggling voltages in circuits.

Evolutionary pressures dictate that our species-specific interface, this world of our daily experience, should itself be a radical simplification, selected not for the exhaustive depiction of truth but for the mutable pragmatics of survival.

If this is right, if consciousness is fundamental, then we should not be surprised that, despite centuries of effort by the most brilliant of minds, there is as yet no physicalist theory of consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless matter or energy or fields could be, or cause, conscious experience.

This is philosophically compatible with Steiner and Idealistic Philosophy in general. In fact, it is strikingly similar to Steiner's claim that the spiritual world is the "real" world and the physical world, while also real, is a reflection of the spiritual world. Interesting also is the conclusion by Hoffman - not stated explicitly, that the proposition is not provable by physical science.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism XI

Continuing my commentary on the third paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier's question of how Anthroposophy could possibly sustain a reputation of progressive humanism when it is in fact populated by fascist hate-mongers begs another one. If anthroposophy is so rotten to the core, how could it possibly have sustained a reputation to the opposite for so long? Staudenmaier attempts to answer this by proposing that the duplicitous anthroposophists systematically deny believing what he, with his self-professed expertise, has discovered they actually believe. This puts him in an interesting position. Either he claims that all anthroposophists who disagree with his opinion are intentionally deceptive, or he claims to know better than the person himself or herself what that person believes.

Next, he goes on to claim that while individuals might have done good things, other members of that group have done and continue to do bad things. What these bad things are is not actually mentioned. There are no actual examples. The implication is, "Disregard the individual. If you see the label 'Anthroposophists' or 'Anthroposophy' you know you are dealing with bad people". This kind of thinking is actually much closer to prejudice and racism than anything found in Steiner. Indeed it is the root of most all bigotry.

As I have stated before: If a few people can be shown to harbor fascist sympathies, it does not follow that everyone with a similar background must therefore also harbor the same fascist sympathies. Anthroposophy is not a monolithic movement where every individual subscribes to a fixed and simple credo. It is a worldwide movement of individuals with a wide variety of thoughts and opinions, united primary in a common interest in the work of Rudolf Steiner. The role this interest plays in a person's life may vary considerably, as do their other interests.

My Defending Rudolf Steiner site is getting noticed

A few people have actually written me about my Defending Rudolf Steiner site. Some have objections, others express appreciation. Googling around I found a few people linking to it. One amusing site is Jeff Smith's ramblings. Jeff seems to be thinking out loud as he read through the site. I'm not sure that he got all my points (he even admits to have not read much of it) but also does not appear to have any serious criticisms.

My Peter Staudenmaier Page

In googling around I found a site that referenced my Peter Staudenmaier page. (It's over at http://fire.prohosting.com/anthro2/Peter_Staudenmaier.htm. There Jeff Smith takes me to task for "holding a grudge" against Peter Staudenmaier. He quotes some of my writing at length, and looking at it like that, I realized that it was a bit of a rant, and not really the best way of presenting things. So I moved it off to a separate "rants" page, and tried to redo the Peter Staudenmaier page to be more factual.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism X

Moving on to the third paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier's writes in Paragraph 3:
Why does anthroposophy-a blatantly racist doctrine which anticipated important elements of the Nazi worldview by several decades-continue to enjoy a reputation as progressive, tolerant, enlightened and ecological? The details of Steiner's teachings are not well known outside of the anthroposophist movement, and within that movement the lengthy history of ideological implication in fascism is mostly repressed or denied outright. In addition, many individual anthroposophists have earned respect for their work in alternative education, in organic farming, and within the environmental movement. Nevertheless, it is an unfortunate fact that the record of anthroposophist collaboration with a specifically "environmentalist" strain of fascism continues into the twenty-first century.

Calling anthroposophy racist is still a few steps from proving it. We have already heard Steiner's praise of the importance of all races in human development, so at best our author could hope to prove that anthroposophy is a subtly racist doctrine. But a carefully examination of anthroposophy is apparently not Staudenmaier's intent.

Our author could, and later will, argue that Anthroposophy is hopelessly inconsistent internally; that Steiner would praise equality and then turn around and denigrate other nationalities. To prove that claim they would first have to cite instances of Steiner's alleged racist or fascist statements (this he has not done here - it is repeatedly and loudly claimed that Steiner was a racist, but little actual evidence of this is provided) and show that these are not in any way taken out of context. Further, to claim expert knowledge of Anthroposophy's internal inconsistencies Staudenmaier would need to read more than secondary books on the subject. Most experts on Anthroposophy have spent decades systematically studying the hundreds of volumes of primary source material on the subject. The general consensus of these experts is that Rudolf Steiner was remarkably consistent throughout his lifetime. It seems strange to me that contrary to all this existing research Peter Staudenmaier (and Peter Zegers after him) flatly dismiss the experts as brainwashed and claim that their meager reading of a few secondary sources affords them superior knowledge of such a highly complex subject. Zegers has already been spanked by no less than Noam Chomsky for making claims requiring advanced expertise in a complex subject without appearing to possess such expertise, in that case accusing an Israeli author of anti-Semitism (incidentally, something he will later also accuse Steiner of):

"I don't know Zegers, but I have to wonder whether he knows anything at all about Shahak and what he does. Of course, Shahak is making "selective use" of the Rabbinic sources he cites (rarely the Talmud, incidentally). That is true of 100% of the finest and most careful scholarship. The question is whether his choices distort the original texts. If Zegers believes he can show that, I am impressed with his scholarship; few people have the deep knowledge of the Rabbinic literature that would be required to have any judgment on the matter. I would certainly await with interest his demonstration of this charge with a careful scholarly analysis of the original sources that Shahak cites; a demonstration that has not yet been attempted, to my knowledge. Lacking that, one can only regard his charges as sheer slander."

Naom Chomsky in the Dutch journal Kleintje Muurkrant nr 360, September 2001.
For more detail on the incident, see Sune Nordwall's web page at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Shahak.htm

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism IX

Continuing my commentary on the second paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Staudenmaier at one point acknowledges that the official policy of the Nazi state was to ban anthroposophy as incompatible with fascism, but dismisses this as petty bureaucratic squabbling. Real fascism, he informs us, was pro-anthroposophy. Aside from demonstrating rather questionable judgment, such a stance from a self-proclaimed expert on fascism shows not a little bit of arrogance mixed with a studied ignorance of the broader context.

Staudenmaier's statement "the actual politics of Steiner and his followers have consistently displayed a profoundly reactionary streak" is simply untrue. For clarity we should first separate the politics of Steiner and those of his followers. Steiner's politics will be discussed at length below. Of his followers I will admit that a number, both in the 1930's and later, can be described as "profoundly reactionary." Indeed, every single one of these cases is very well known to Staudenmaier and those upon whose opinions he relies. However, I maintain that even in the 1930's the number of anthroposophists sympathetic to fascism was the smallest minority, and today is minuscule. The vast majority of Steiner's followers all over the world today are politically left of center. While making this assertion I will acknowledge that no scientific research exists on the subject. No surveys have been conducted. I draw on years worth of anecdotal evidence from my many interactions with anthroposophists, as well as discussions in several countries with numerous people on the topic.

Hitler himself attacked Steiner in print in 1921, and the Nazi regime banned anthroposophy in 1935.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism VIII

Continuing my commentary on
the second paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.
That the Nazi state was adamant that anthroposophy was irreconcilable with their fascist values is evident in the following documents. It was written by Jakob Wilhelm Hauer to the Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst RFSS), Oberabschnitt Süd-West, Stuttgart, on February 7th, 1935. (Archival source: BAD R 4901-3285. Hauer. Translation by Daniel Hindes.):

"Anthroposophical "spiritual science", because it holds fast to outmoded spiritual concepts, causes anthroposophy to belong to the epoch of occidental thinking against which our new race- and volk- based thinking (that sees man as a unified physical-spiritual entity) is fighting for its continued existence. Anthroposophy, too, frees the spirit from its connection to race and volk and damns all that is racial and folk-based (Völkische) to lower spheres of primitivism - to the instinctual - considering it to be a drive to be overcome by the spirit, a prehistoricism. Thereby it demonstrates its interconnection with the dominant streams of previous European spiritual history, above all the Enlightenment, German Idealist philosophy, and the Liberalism of the previous century. In it remains living the idealism of the French Revolution and the humanitarian ideals of the Freemasons, as it does in Theosophy, the mother-organization from which it arose. Like Freemasonry and Theosophy, it mixes itself with oriental mysticism, occultism and spiritualism, and breaks like a large wave - similar in form to the secret teachings of the Kabbalah - over Europe…
"These foundations of the world view have the effect that anthroposophy stands open in a disastrous manner to all anti-völkisch, anti-Nationalistic, pacifistic, überstaatlichen (considering something to be more important than the state) and especially Jewish influences…"

Report of the Security Service Central Office (SD-Hauptamtes) in Berlin on "Anthroposophie" dated May 1936. (Archival source: BAD Z/B I 904. Translation by the author.)

"I consider the Anthroposophical worldview, which is in every way internationally and pacifistically oriented, to be quite simply incompatible with National Socialism. The National Socialist worldview is built upon the conception of blood, race, and Volk, and then also, on the conception of the absolute state. Precisely these two fundamental pillars of the National Socialist worldview and the Third Reich are denied by the anthroposophical worldview. […] Every study and activity involving anthroposophy necessarily has its source in the anthroposophical worldview. This means that schools built upon the anthroposophical worldview and managed by anthroposophists are a danger to true German education […]"