Rudolph Steiner

About: rudolf steiner - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multicultural emphasis

Steiner was early in seeing the challenges of a multicultural society. He articulated the need for a spirituality that could respect and unite all religions and cultures. His line of thought can be summarized as follows:

Many people, especially those of Eastern cultures, see the need for a spiritual basis for a culture. Others, especially in the West, live in a materialistic framework that has achieved astonishing results, especially through the achievements of modern science, but has abandoned its spiritual roots. Steiner suggested that, without a reconciliation of these two, a clash of cultures would be inevitable. He suggested that the East (for Steiner, characteristically spiritually centered people and peoples) would only respect the West (characteristically people and peoples who focus on external reality and achievements) when a new spirituality arose in the West, a spirituality that united the achievements of both cultures.[

...

Lots of different views on RS here in the Wikipedia.

The Representative of Man Statue image:

(unfortunately truncating Lucifer & the Rock Being)

Goetheanum-I

Comments

Mark de LA says

RS's obituary in the New York Times is recaptured in the rsarchive here.
What is interesting is the description of RS's threefold state which it contains.

Si says

… when a new spirituality arose in the West, a spirituality that united the achievements of both cultures.

#hmmm … exactly what #LOA is doing now, don’t you think? It spans all cultures, values all achievements independent of culture, race, or scientific outlook, and provides a deep, rich, and very consistent base for understanding all manner of experience, including spirit and God, without invalidating any aspect of any particular religion.

I have often said, that if #RS were alive today, he would wholeheartedly embrace #LOA, for it is entirely compatible with all that he taught and is about the most simple, solid, and consistent viewpoint on the nature of spirit and reality ever put forward, drawing on the best aspects of all prior knowledge and spiritual pursuits, including Steiners.

… and those who look on #LOA as simply a means to “get something” entirely miss the point of it. #LOA is a complete and comprehensive “spiritualality” though and through.

#predictions #spirituality #culture

Mark de LA says
Maybe what you believe #LOA to be is independent of what Esther, Bashir & Oprah Winfrey are pushing. I see no spirituality in theirs. More like the bandwagon of material-psychology. Anyway I am fine with the ontology I have acquired over my 76 years of living – not interested much in new age trendy stuff. If it makes you happy go for it. NLP was/is good enough to make you feel good regardless of circumstances. Put yours in the light of day with open experiments scientifically … then we might talk about it.

Si says
Not really. What I believe it to be is the same as what all of those relate as a complete ontology … but what I think you are looking at is the “preacher effect”. All preachers, of any ontology, tend to push the aspects that draw in the crowds and appeal to the masses. This is true of every system or ontology, even science. But take the time to look under the hood of #LOA and you will find everything I talk about preached at one time or another by all of those you listed … but you wont find the rest in the M$M and other high profile sound bites and shows any more than you will find the deeper spiritual aspects of the Christian, or Muslim, religions in the same. Sad, but true … because people want to be dazzled with something enticing in order to begin to move in some direction. Even you sir, except that you mismatch the dazzle instead of allow yourself to be drawn to it.

I know you believe yourself fine with your ontology … that was not my point. My point was to the content in the thought above and to the idea that what #RS was seeking for the future (i.e. … when a new spirituality arose in the West, a spirituality that united the achievements of both cultures.) is now coming into being (in this, the future) in the form of #LOA.

Not everything I talk about is about you or converting you … in fact, almost none is. I just talk about my life and my exploration of it as prompted by things you write.

Mark de LA says
Inspite of your continuous deframing I am the only one on the other side of your comments. There is no crowd applauding you. Perhaps you are just talking to yourself.

Si says
Ha! So what’s the reason you write all the articles you write here for then?

Sameo sameo I bet!

Who’s the pot and who’s the kettle?

We all write for various reasons:

To clarify or understand better something we are reflecting upon.
To share an idea or knowledge with others.
To gain recognition.
To record something for memory or posterity.
To receive positive feedback (praise etc).
Because we are told to (such as an assignment in college).

I primarily write for reason #1 with some of reason #2 and sometimes mixes of others. Why do you write?

For instance, I am writing this right now mostly for #1 in my condition of responding (rapport) to what you wrote.

Mark de LA says
mostly 4 except mostly for my own research

Si says
👍

Si says
Okay. Well remember this … because you often give me feedback as if what was important to me was #3 or #5 and in fact those are almost never why I write.

And even though you are #4 … I still enter a condition of responsive rapport when I read what you write and thus have a #1 and #2 response to it.

Mark de LA says
#AlreadyAlwaysArguing & your de-framing is a waste of my time better devoted by me for my research.

Si says
I don’t even know what you mean by de-framing. What I am interested in is my first comment Rudolph Steiner (comment 83505). That is very interesting and exciting!

You never responded to that at all. Instead you went off on your usual talk about me and my ideas (i.e. Maybe what you believe #LOA to be ...) … whatever you call what you did there … I call doing that #RWG.

I simply want to talk about #RS and how his ideas are seeing fruition in modern times … after all, that is what the subject of this thought and the article it references is about!

i.e. there is no RS spirituality in Esther & Bashir except the psychological/materialism ….. you speak of.

Mark de LA says
There is a clue in today’s

P.1532 ~

as far as RS & GW are concerned .

Si says
Ummm … yea, well look under the hood. It seems like all you know of #LOA ontology is what comes in via the M$M plus a few odd youtubes you have listened to. There is a rich and deep spiritual understanding and commitment involved in #LOA. You can get a good gist of it simply from my writings here as I reflect it wherever I write. The rich and deep spiritual life of #LOA is the foundation for nearly everything I relate … because it is the foundation for how I experience life.

Mark de LA says

(Maybe redo some NLP training)
The ability to frame and reframe grows from the awareness that nothing has “meaning” in and of itself, but that meaning in the human sense emerges as a mental construct-a way of thinking about something. My colleague, Dr. Bob Bodenhamer, and I have written an entire book on conversational reframing (Mind Lines: Lines for Changing Minds, 1997). In that work, we identified seven directions for sending a brain. These seven directions, in turn, provide seven dimensions for reframing. These included:

Deframing: pulling a piece of meaning apart.
Reframing: reclassifying some action or idea.
Pre-framing: setting up a frame ahead of time that establishes a perspective.
Post-framing: setting up a new time perspectives from a future vantage point so that as a person looks back upon an action, it takes on new and different meanings.
Counter-framing: providing counter examples.
Outframing: stepping aside from a piece of meaning and setting a new and higher frame about the idea.
Metaphorical framing: using story, metaphors, and non-propositional language to frame things using an analogous situation.

Mark de LA says
Just a pile of generalizations with no evidence to support it.

Si says
Well that is why I said I don’t know what you mean by de-framing. Because I did not pull any meaning apart. I provided straight up answers to your “maybe you’s” and other sidewise commentary to my topics.

If anything, by the book here, you are the one who are de-framing. Look at all of the above objectively … it is easy to see. That is why I say you mismatch. I am interested in getting back to the topic … not this side stuff you keep pulling in, but I answer the side stuff as part of my understanding it through writing about it.

Mark de LA says
Thanks for illustrating de-framing without copping to it.

Si says
I think you misunderstand de-framing … perhaps you are lumping de-framing and #RGW … mixing them up.

Mark de LA says
Nope! saying & re-saying the opposite of the other is de-framing – take a course.

Si says
Clarifying and/or understanding something is not it’s opposite … even if it contains something different than what is being clarified or understood.

It seems to me like you designate whatever I write as “in opposition to your interests”, no matter what it is. The best I can figure is that my style of writing is different than your style of writing and that causes you to think of it as some kind of opposite.

Mark de LA says
When the meaning of your “Clarification” turns out to be the opposite it is de-framing. The negation “is not its opposite … “ is a deframe.

Si says
I am simply talking about interesting things and clarifying when you get sidetracked. I don’t know how you get de-framing or #rwg out of that … neither is there … but you say you do, somehow.

Until you can examine this phenomena more deeply and really find what it is you are in opposition about in my writings, there doesn’t seem to be a point to go on in this track.

Or, we can talk about the subject … i.e. Steiner and where he sees the world going. I’ve got lots more ideas about that!

Mark de LA says
I am no longer interested in this thread :

Si says
Okay. Well you are welcome to zap this whole thread (you own it) and just keep Rudolph Steiner (comment 83505) which is what I care about and directly related to the topic. Please don’t zap that. It is a great insight gleened from #RS’s work and I would like to be able to include it in my further compilations and research. Thanks!

Mark de LA says
In lectures to members of the Anthroposophical Society at the beginning of the twentieth century, Rudolf Steiner mentioned three occultisms that would be developed: Eugenic in the East (Russia-India), Hygenic in the Central, and Mechanical in the West (esp. America). This group is devoted to tracking the progress toward the third occultism, Mechanical Occultism. (***)

Si says
Seems likely … and there IS a 4th … #LOA … and it was predicted by Ouspenski and Gurdjieff and unlike the other 3 (which also Ouspenski and others predicted, not just #RS, hence the book “the 4th way”) the 4th spans all cultures and current religious persuasions. #LOA is slightly more prevalent in the USA right now but still very active in ALL cultures, and not just east and middle, and spans all generations and kinds of people. It is the common glue ontology being picked up by common people who have the insight to see the problems with current, as well as the 3 predicted, otologies. #LOA is being taken up by those who are tired of the status quo in ontology which really has not changed that much in many thousands of years and the 3 #RS is talking about won’t change that significantly either. #LOA is a deeper insight into the true nature of all that we experience and a common and consistent structure to understand everything, including other religions, and even why we, as humans, love and love to be good to each other … exactly how and why that works.

Perhaps #RS predicted #LOA too, though I don’t know where to look exactly, other than what he says in the thought above leans more toward something like #LOA than it could any of the other 3.

Don’t sell #LOA short just by what you hear in the M$M about it. #LOA really is a common denominator ontology … really is the 4th way … the way of the sly man (as Ouspensky calls it).

Si says
👍

Rudolph Steiner

About: rudolf steiner - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multicultural emphasis

Tags

Comments

See Also