Anthroposophy could be represented in the list of religions on this forum section

Why Anthroposophy is not represented in this section of the hipforums?
It is as present nowadays as thers philosophies or religions..
It could be interesting to have discussions on all the books and speechs of Rudolf Steiner in a special place amongst the other headtopics..

 

"How , finally , do I free myself from the fixed and lifeless concepts with which I used to adapt to a physical life?

Heard the name Rudolph Steiner many years ago, but somehow the 60s sidetracked me. Also I may not be intelligent enough to grasp certain ideas/principles, however I will endeavor to do some study on his writings.

 

i think what there are subforums here for depends upon there being someone or several to moderate each of them.
it certainly makes no claim to be an exaustive list. nor representative of the numbers of followers of each, just of within the community of members of this site.

 

I've read some of Steiner's books, and there's a lot in there in terms of both philosophical and mystical insight. However, I've not gone deep into Anthroposophy as a result. I have found that whilst some of the content is fairly intelligible, there are also a lot of 'funny ideas' which can be hard to interpret or understand.

However, Steiner had a finger in many different pies. The Steiner school system is quite well known for instance. But he also had definite notions regarding agriculture, architecture, the arts, a new form of singing known as Eurythmy, and was probably the world's leading expert on the works of Goethe.
In Dornach, Switzerland, you can see his Goetheanum building which I believe is used for a variety of cultural presentations.
It's because of his concrete achievements (no pun intended) that depite stuff about how Buddha now resides on Mars, and many other such notions, Steiner is hard to dismiss as merely another crank.
I'd say he is a fairly important figure in the history of western esotericism in the 20th century. Maybe there's something a little bit 'quaint' about his work compared to other comprable figures, but in essence the aim is to bring light and consciousness, and that's what the world needs.

 

as for fixed perspectives denying us observing and experiencing the diversity that otherwise exists, it would seem a simple matter for all of us, to cease from inflicting them on each other.
beginning with whatever examples are most common where each of us live, be that christianity, islam, symbolic value, or the weaponization of political perspectives.
i know its ignorance is the hardest thing for the ego to admit, but its not in any way beyond our capacity to stop denying that the unknown is unknown.
and that while this prevents nothing from existing, neither does it owe anything to any word nor book.
and while we do owe it to ourselves to not make our world more difficult for each other, it is not because some powerful invisible spirit might not like our doing so, but far more simply, that we still have to live in it.
all these gods and messengers may be a good thing, when they inspire and motivate us to be mutually and indiscriminately considerate, but it is our own choice, the kind of narrowing of our perspectives, by the commonality and popularity of a static mythose, lacking independently observable confirmation.
i don't mean we can choose the popularity for others of ambient mythose, but rather that we can avoid ourselves contributing to their brittle rigidity.

if his point is that this or any universe, owes nothing to what we tell ourselves and each other, that much aligns with my own perspective,
whatever buddahs on mars or virgin births or flying spagetti monsters.