Wow, I go into town for a day and find myself inundated when I get back. I will answer in true anthroposophical fashion ‹ backwards, starting with Robin.
Hi Robin, Thanks for you views. The first thing I need to say is that one should never attempt to critique a position without first understanding it. You appear only to have read my short piece on Ahriman, and on on the strength of that presume criticize my entire work. The things you say about Darwinism are true enough, but very much of the past. Simpson's tautology has been around for forty years now and science has just ignored it. It represents a kind of a-rationality, not the clear cut irrationality that you will find drawn attention to in my work. Also on the matter of Ahriman and the Christ principal. Yes, Steiner is very clear that it is humanity's task to redeem Ahriman, but we do not do that by letting him have his own way. The road to redemption, for him and for us, is through confrontation. We need to see through his tricks and take him to task, not pretend that they are not there ‹ that leads to wishy-washy feel good stuff that is of no use to anyone, except Ahriman himself. (Anyone who sees a parallel here with the Saddam Hussein situation is probably right). Why is confrontation between spiritual science and materialism necessary? You will find out why in considerable detail if you study my book. Very briefly put, it is because the two embody the exact opposite directions in causal logic. For materialism all causes are physical causes, and for a Science of the Spirit the exact opposite must be true, and there is no middle ground except that offered by the Cartesian dualism, which Steiner always strongly rejected. As a genuine spiritual scientist, therefore, you cannot help but be in conflict with materialism, and if you think you are not then you are just not seeing straight. As to science treading the same path as my "spiritual peers" in rejecting my thesis, then I admit that I expected an outright rejection from academia especially. I have been surprised to discover that it is not always the case. A recent letter from John Polanyi (Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, and son of the philosopher of science Michael Polanyi) strongly commends me for what I have written, and states "I am fascinated by the Goethe-Rudolf Steiner context for my father's thought." Yesterday, when visiting my old professors at the U of A philosophy department, to gauge their reaction to my work, I was told "we are very proud of what you have done," which was, of course, most gratifying, but it bowled me over a little because I was expecting rejection. And there are other very positive examples than I could cite. Let it be on record, therefore, that so far those within the philosophic and scientific community have been far more open to what I am saying than have anthroposophists, who tend, as you have done, to criticize without first gaining a clear understanding of what is involved. To help you come to grips with what I am saying in my book, I place below the text of the short paper 'My Thesis'. It may help persuade you that there is much more of consequence here than you and other anthroposophists have suspected. It is not a substitute for reading the book itself, but it is at least a start. Don MY THESIS The principal argument in my book Evolution and the New Gnosis, written with the aid of Robert Zimmer, concerns the logical contradiction which must of necessity arise when we use intentional and metaphorical language‹the language of intelligent human creativity‹to describe how nature might work if it possessed no creative intelligence of its own, i.e. if all that nature is and does were merely the unintentional (accidental) outcome of blind and purposeless physical forces. My thesis is that if this were in fact the case, if nature were in its innermost reality a blind and purposeless process, then it entails an outright contradiction (is logically untenable) to use the language of intelligent and purposeful design to explain how it works and how it got to be the way that it now is. And yet, as matters stand, the theoretical credibility of materialism in general, and Darwinism in particular, depends upon our making just such an error in logic, and upon our willingness to continue to ignore what it is that we have done historically in this regard and still continue to do, or to pretend that it does not matter. I have posited that this contradiction exists at two levels within science: In the physical sciences, as demonstrated most clearly in quantum physics (see essay #13), it manifests primarily as paradox; whereas in the biological sciences, and especially in Darwin's theory of origins (essays 3,4,8,11, & 21), it manifest as a contradiction so complete that the theory must be termed irrational. I have suggested that this error in logic began in an unconscious manner, several centuries ago, when in the physical sciences, which had earlier adopted the idea of mechanism‹with God the Designer as its source‹as an aid to explaining how the world worked, gradually dropped God from the picture while retaining the language of conscious design, and specifically the use of the of the word 'mechanism,' which then slowly became a dictionary-sanctioned synonym for materialistic thought. I have suggested that there were very good reasons, connected with the evolution of human consciousness itself, for our making this great mistake, but that a mistake it most surely was and must now be rectified; either that, or we must abandon completely the requirement that rationality underlie scientific and philosophic thought‹because we cannot have both. We are either rational beings or we are not, and if any theory has an irrational foundation it must be abandoned. If my argument is correct, and so far no one has shown it not to be, then it must mean that during the past several centuries the development of materialist philosophy, and the Darwinian theory in particular, are all the result of a gigantic but largely unconscious linguistic error, the underlying reason for which is to be found in the nature and origin of language itself, suggesting that language per se, perhaps because it conceals a spiritual source, simply cannot legitimately be used to explain the existence of a purely material and designer-less universe without giving rise to a hidden but extremely serious contradiction in causal logic. The possibility that language is spiritual in origin is clearly pointed to in the works of Owen Barfield, Rudolf Steiner and others, who claim that it did not evolve upwards out of animal grunts, as Darwin and others have suggested, but downwards from an already Intelligent source (and indeed that this is true of nature in its entirety). It is only when we ignore this possibility, or treat it as being false, that we fall into the hidden irrationality of which I now speak. Under what set of circumstances might it be permissible for us to continue to ignore this contradiction? I suggest only one: it would need to be shown, conclusively and without the use of linguistically-flawed argument, that materialism is a completely true theory, so that its being a linguistically irrational one does not matter. I submit that this cannot and never will be possible, so that the time has come in the name of simple rationality to abandon philosophic and scientific materialism (a Monism of matter) and to put in its place a Monism of Mind. These arguments, and the reasons why we need to reject all dualist compromises, are gone into in much greater detail in the above work. Note: in the five years since I first began arguing this thesis I have only gradually awoken to the enormity of what it is that I am saying, which is that a very large part of the Western world's intellectual tradition, and most if not all of the great minds connected with that tradition, have made a very serious error in logic‹one which could invalidate nearly their entire work. To suggest that it requires the thought of a nonentity like myself to bring this to the world's attention, now appears, even to me, to be a claim of unparalleled audacity if not downright foolishness. Nevertheless my argument seems to be a true one, because none of my intelligent friends and acquaintances, and I am it touch with quite few, have been able to counter what it is that I am saying. Whenever they come to truly understand it, they either agree with me or they simply fall silent. I don't think of myself as paranoid, but to my considerable surprise, perhaps because by nature I tend to be a little unworldly, I have found that these ideas have also led to something akin to character assassination, coming from what I would have thought a least likely source. Perhaps taking pot shots at the messenger would be a better way to put it. At first I was greatly troubled by this, but I have gradually come to accept that it goes with the territory, because discrediting me makes it easier, even for sophisticated minds, not to have to deal with the very uncomfortable problem that I am raising. People who do this are perhaps unaware of how very much I would prefer, if my thesis is false, for it to be proven so‹though I must add that muddled thinking will not accomplish this task. On the other hand, if my thesis is true then someone needs to strongly represent it, and it seems that I might have been given that task, perhaps because I have no career at stake. If my thesis is untrue then clear and forceful counter argument, based upon a thorough study of my work, is the preferred way of dealing with it. This is why I have dedicated my book, with genuine respect, to Charles Darwin, in the knowledge that he would have welcomed public debate on this issue. What needs to be argued is, I think, clear from the contents of my book, and I would gladly participate in any rational debate concerning it. Don Cruse > From: "Robin Duchesneau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:25:23 -0700 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Biodynamics and Darwin > > Dear Don, > > Interesting topic indeed. I have a few comments... > > I am surprised to hear that you ..."have been surprised with the intensity > of resistance... within the anthroposophical movement itself, the one place > where I thought they would be well understood". I'm not surprised at all! > And..., if you get resistance from your spiritual peers, then what will the > scientific crowd think? How do you intend to deal with the "unavoidable > conflict"? Personally, I find SALVATION within Natural Sciences; NOT THE > DEVIL WITHIN. I'll get back to that, but first, > > ...pardon me for pointing out that Anthroposophists are not beyond the reach > of Ahriman. As such, is not wise to confound the METHODOLOGY with its > PRACTITIONERS; Anthroposophy with Anthroposophists. Your thesis pends on the > reality that "language itself has been the key to Ahriman's trickery". > Since you have experienced "intense resistance" in stating your case, it is > possible that you have either fallen victim to the difficulties of > communication, or that your thesis is incorrect. You must be open for both > eventualities. > > I understand that the main argument of your thesis is that: - the devil in > the language has corrupted the meaning of Darwins theory, and that we must > be made aware of the serious consequence. One might also state that > Darwin's theory is a tautology. In the spirit of the matter I'll define and > explain the word and my thought. A tautology can be defined as 'a needless > repetition of an idea, statement, or word: 'REDUNDANT', or, 'true by virtue > of its logical form alone'. Thus, Darwin's "... the survival of the > fittest..." becomes a tautology since 'fitness' is defined as: "...the > capacity of an organism to survive and reproduce...". Hence, Darwin's > theory might well be rephrased as : THE SURVIVAL OF THE ONE WHO SURVIVES. > But, no need to worry because ALL theories are tautologies... see Peters: A > Critic for Ecology. > > Isn't Darwin's theory simply the embodiment of one of the necessary > conditions for spiritual enlightenment; a demonstration that all that exists > proceeds in an evolutionary process that explains the structure and behavior > of organisms, in their environment. As such semantics might be trivial, so > long as the condition is integrated into contemporary consciousness; which > it is. In this respect, Steiner mentions that NATURAL SCIENCE, the study > of living phenomena, is a means of attaining and recognizing the "Etherique > Cosmic Christ" on earth; a means of discovering the suprasensible life > forces that lay behind sensible phenomena. Thus, wasn't Darwin was on the > right track? > > You also mentioned the need of a 'new impulse' for the spiritual life of > mankind. Does this new impulse replace that of the 'Christ'? Or is that > cycle over yet? > > Are you referring to Steiner's book called Cosmic Memory? I've just > finished reading it. If so, you might be interested to recall that he > describes how our organs of speech will slowly become reproductive organs, > while these latter will lose their function. If this is the case, then > language as we know it will certainly undergo a major transformation. I've > only begun to meditate on this spiritual and physical phenomenon, so I can > offer no resolve. > > As for your "unavoidable conflict" and "battle" between anthroposophy and > the conventional approach to science, I must disagree. Perhaps this was the > way of the past, it has no place today. In the present it is AVOIDABLE and > battles NEED NOT OCCUR! Quit the contrary, we must silent the debate on > who's right and who's wrong and work together in revealing the divine. It > is only when <Science becomes religious, and Religion scientific> that the > true liberty of man will be preserved; his personality will be saved from > the crushing deterministic laws of physics, and kept undiluted from > spiritualities without any real foundations. > > Don, I commend you on you efforts of taking up these crucial questions and > trying to give them the intense critical study that they call for. > > I also look forward in reading your final essay. > > Regards, > > Robin > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eve Cruse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 25 septembre, 2002 15:54 > Subject: Biodynamics and Darwin > > >> >> In Biodynamics #223, I expressed the view that Biodynamics would not come >> into its own as a truly spiritual approach to agriculture, until the >> Darwinian theory is overcome. The two are totally incompatible, and while >> Darwin dominates Steiner cannot. >> >> With this in mind I thought that this lidt would be interested in the > short >> article that I have recently begun to circulate within the > Anthroposophical >> movement, it concerns some of the things that Rudolf Steiner had to say >> about science and the spiritual forces of hindrance. >> >> >> >> NATURAL SCIENCE AND AHRIMAN >> THOUGHTS ON INDICATIONS IN THE WORK OF RUDOLF STEINER >> >> In the lecture series Karmic Relationships Vol. IV, Rudolf Steiner clearly >> indicates that he expected the Platonic and Aristotelian streams to work >> together at the end of the 20th century in order to bring a new and >> significant impulse to the spiritual life of mankind. This expectation >> prompts us to ask: what kind of impulse had he in mind? Certainly it would >> need to be something in keeping with his own striving, but it would need >> also to go beyond that which is explicit in his legacy, otherwise it could >> not be considered a 'new' impulse. Without saying as much, because our > work >> is intended for a general audience, Robert Zimmer and I have sought to >> address this question in our recently published book Evolution and the New >> Gnosis: Anti-establishment Essays on Knowledge, Science, Religion & Causal >> Logic. >> >> In the above mentioned karma lectures, and in other lecture cycles, like > the >> one entitled 'The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness', Rudolf Steiner > comments >> repeatedly on the Ahrimanic character of modern science, and tells us that >> many of the 20th century's scientific works, which at that time were yet > to >> be written, would be of Ahriman's authorship, achieved by his working into >> the minds of materialistic thinkers. He also tells us that simple > 'trickery' >> has been and still is Ahriman's principal weapon in convincing humanity > that >> the physical world is the only reality (see my article 'Matter & >> Mephistopheles' (in Biodynamics No.234). >> >> This being the case, we surely need to begin to understand what that >> trickery is, and something of how it has worked over the past several >> centuries to bring about the age of materialism. Such an insight could not >> fail to be of great value to the future of human understanding, and yet > its >> character is nowhere explicitly stated in Steiner's work, only hinted at. >> Did he know what Ahriman's trickery involved? I think he did, but that he >> also knew that the time was not yet right to make that knowledge public. >> However, it would have allowed him to predict with certainty that at the > end >> of the 20th century it would be the task of the Platonic and Aristotelian >> streams to make it public, and that such an insight would indeed > constitute >> a new impulse. I suggest, therefore, that his prediction in this regard > was >> not guess work; that he knew whereof he spoke, and that it is now our task >> as participants in these two streams to know it also, and to explore its >> deeper ramifications. >> >> In the art of trickery the best tricks are often the most simple > their > very simplicity causes them to be overlooked, even by highly >> intelligent people. This possibility stands behind the thesis developed by >> Robert and myself in our work. We argue that all along, language itself > has >> been the key to Ahriman's trickery, because it can be shown that > intentional >> and metaphorical modes of expression become profoundly and logically > invalid >> when they are used to promote or to defend a materialistic argument, but >> that for centuries now, our best minds included, we have all failed to see >> this irrationality. >> >> In constructing our argument Robert and I have focused on four main > subject >> areas: >> >> A. Use of the word 'mechanistic' as a dictionary-sanctioned synonym for >> materialism as a whole, and how this relates to its true meaning, and to > the >> crucial question of 'failure' in man-made mechanisms when contrasted with >> their natural equivalents (see Essay #4 in our book. Also my >> semi-autobiographical paper 'Machines That Cannot Fail', and the shorter >> presentation entitled 'My Thesis > SouthernCrossReview.org). I have since > been made aware that the question of >> failure was addressed in almost the exact same manner by Rudolf Steiner > and >> Ita Wegman, in Chapter II of Fundamentals of Therapy. It is limited there > to >> the book's subject, but clearly it has the potential to be universalized, > as >> Robert and I have sought to demonstrate. It certainly shows, however, that >> Steiner was already cognizant of this problem >> >> B. The serious logical consequences that arise from the extremely > 'loose' >> use of language in promoting and defending Charles Darwin's theory of >> origins. >> >> C. How this all bears on the problem of human knowledge as a whole. >> >> D. The far-reaching significance of Owen Barfield's phrase 'The Great >> Tabu,' and how it has worked to shape the philosophy of science. >> >> I first began to think seriously about these four issues after my 63rd > year, >> and in the past five years, in a number of preliminary discussions with >> members of the anthroposophical movement, I have met with the following >> objections to what I was attempting to express: >> >> 1. That my emphasis on the issue of causal logic detracts attention > from >> the need for us, as spiritual scientists, to develop organs of higher >> cognition. This is both untrue and short-sighted. My argument is >> complementary to all such concerns, and if it is shown to be true it will >> immeasurably heighten the need for science as a whole to take higher >> knowledge seriously, and for the scientists of the future to seek to > develop >> such knowledge. >> >> 2. That if what we are saying is true, then it must appear to > contradict >> Steiner's seeming strong support for Darwinism, and especially his > vigorous >> defense of the work of Ernst Haeckel. This issue is addressed in my >> supplementary paper 'Steiner, Haeckel and Ethical Individualism,' (see >> Trans-intelligence.org) and briefly also in Appendix VI of our book. >> >> 3. That Steiner, and others, have claimed that materialism cannot be >> logically disproved. Here I point to Steiner's other claim, namely: that >> anthroposophy is the only modern critical world view that does not conceal > a >> contradiction at its base. This must mean that all other critical world >> views, and materialism especially, DO conceal fundamental contradictions. >> Most modern world views are dualistic, and the contradiction present in > the >> Cartesian dualism is fairly obvious, but not so that which underlies a >> monism of matter. This whole question is discussed at some length in the >> book, especially in Essay #12 entitled 'Causal Logic: Dualism and the Two >> Monisms' >> >> 4. That this all leads to a potential conflict, at the level of simple >> rationality, between anthroposophy and the conventional approach to > science. >> Yes, of course, I see this as being unavoidable, but I would remind my >> critics that Steiner constantly uses the language of conflict when talking >> about such matters. He speaks everywhere of spiritual battles between the >> forces of hindrance and those that work for the good of humanity. This > same >> battle, I suggest, must now come down to earth in earnest. We deceive >> ourselves if we think that in the interests perhaps of a false >> respectability, or of the quiet life, that this is not the case. I make no >> apology, therefore, for saying what needs to be said. >> >> I have been surprised with the intensity of resistance my views have met >> within the anthroposophical movement itself, the one place where I thought >> they would be well understood. However, this has only made me work that > much >> harder in stating my case. >> >> This issue is far too important, for anthroposophy and for the future of >> science, for personal matters to stand in its way. I have requested that >> the Science Section of the School of Spiritual Science, of which I have > been >> a member now for 33 years, should seriously take up the crucial questions >> that Robert and I have raised, and try to give them the intense critical >> study that they call for. >> >> Don Cruse >> > >
