![]() "[I]t is necessary that the [aspirant seer] should control and dominate everything that seeks to influence him from outside." — Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1947), chapter 6, GA 10. FOOLING (Ourselves) What are we to make of the claims made by self-described clairvoyants? According to extensive scientific research, there is virtually no chance that anyone possesses clairvoyant powers. [See “Clairvoyance”.] Indeed, many professed clairvoyants, seers, psychics, etc., have been shown to be frauds. Yet belief in strange psychic powers is widespread. [See “Why? Oh Why?”] Dubious claimants such as Sylvia Browne continue to step forward, identify themselves as clairvoyants, and attract large followings. When claims of clairvoyant ability are made sincerely — that is, when there is no intentional fraudulence — much of the explanation surely lies in the human mind’s capacity of deceive itself. Hallucinations of various sorts, major and minor, are fairly common, as is the human capacity for self-hypnosis or autosuggestion. Individuals who experience what might be called self-induced hallucinations may sincerely believe that they have received true clairvoyant visions. This is especially the case when the hallucinators accept the guidance of someone like Rudolf Steiner, who extolled clairvoyance and laid out in great detail what “true” or “exact” clairvoyance reveals. Followers of such gurus prime themselves to “perceive” what they have been told to perceive. They "see" what they were determined to see, and then they accept these preprogrammed fantasies as proof of their psychic capacities. [See “Guru”.] Here are some illuminating statements on these matters. I have included many that are current now and a few that refer to texts that were current in Steiner’s day. ![]() ![]()
![]()
Anthroposophists and Waldorf teachers who believe they are clairvoyant are almost certainly mistaken. If they have visions like Steiner's, they are almost certainly hallucinating. This does not mean they are insane, but it indicates that they are unconsciously deceiving themselves. — R.R. ![]() "autohypnosis also called Self-hypnosis: hypnosis that is self-induced. Though feasible and possibly productive of useful results, it is often a sterile procedure because the autohypnotist usually tries too hard to direct consciously the activities that he wishes to take place at the hypnotic level of awareness, thus nullifying the effort. A form of self-hypnosis, or trancelike experience, is familiar to anyone who has been so absorbed in an activity that a moment or two is necessary in order to reorient to the existing environment. Studies that have been conducted with individuals who have reported having such intense, absorbing experiences have shown that these persons tend to be highly susceptible to a deeper form of hypnosis when induced by an experienced hypnotist." — "autohypnosis." ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, Online, 20 Apr. 2010. When we think of hypnosis, we usually imagine someone being put into a deep trance by a skilled mesmerizer. But there are many levels of hypnosis, from shallow to extremely deep, and the mesmerizer may be oneself. A "clairvoyant" can have "clairvoyant visions" only through a process of hallucination of autohypnosis. Significantly, Anthroposophists believe in clairvoyance, they think they should attain clairvoyance, and many think they have indeed attained it. But convincing yourself that you have nonexistent powers and can see nonexistent realities is putting yourself under a dangerous spell. This does not mean that you stagger around in a hypnotic fog — you may seem conscious and alert to yourself and to others — but you have willfully skewed your perceptions:
Autosuggestion or self-hypnosis is sometimes offered as a useful therapy. In fact, it is just the opposite: It is a flight from reality. You see what you want to believe, not what is real. You brainwash yourself. — R.R. ![]()
We usually think of hallucination and hypnosis as rare events, but in fact they are common. The challenge for humanity is not to develop clairvoyance (a delusional goal) but to open our eyes, look at reality without quailing, and use our thinking brains to acquire truth. Truth is beautiful, even when it is distressing, precisely because it is the truth. It is the only basis on which to build meaningful, fulfilling lives. It is the key to human dignity and freedom. — R.R. ![]()
Shapiro puts his finger on a crucial problem: If you have been hallucinating or brainwashing yourself, how can you break free? It can be terribly hard, but it is also terribly important. Having a small hallucination now and again isn't a sign of insanity, and deceiving yourself now and again need not be a disaster. But if you make habits of these activities, then losing contact with reality — perhaps so much as to merit a diagnosis of insanity — becomes a serious possibility. — R.R. ![]()
To claim that all mystical experiences result from autosuggestion may be going too far. But clearly the statements we are examining point to grave potential harm we can inflict on ourselves. Seeking truth, meaning, divinity, God — these are high and noble aspirations. To pursue them, we should use our best capacities — clear minds and courageous hearts — and not sink into self-defeating delusions. — R.R. ![]() "suggestion: in psychology, process of leading a person to respond uncritically, as in belief or action. The mode of suggestion, while usually verbal, may be visual or may involve any other sense. The suggestion may be symbolic ... Suggestion, or suggestibility, plays a significant role in collective behaviour, especially in social unrest, and it constitutes the central phenomenon of hypnosis." — "suggestion." ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, Online, 19 Apr. 2010. We all hunger for "suggestions" — symbols, revelations, teachings — that show us truth. Yet our very hunger may lead us to accept offerings that cannot stand up to rational analysis. Unrest, both social and personal, almost inevitably results from swallowing lies and affirming them as glorious truths. Steiner taught that his followers needed to find a guru in whom they could put unquestioned faith. The guru Anthroposophists usually choose is Steiner himself. The autosuggestion practiced by Anthroposophical "clairvoyants" is conditioned by Steiner's doctrines — what they "see" is what he led them to "see." — R.R. ![]()
Belief is easy; suggestibility is in of our natures. Rational thought, on the other hand, is hard. But rationality is our only real hope. We have good brains — God, or the gods, or evolution saw to that. Our task is to use our brains, making the best possible use of our brains' great capacities, while guarding against the errors our brains are prone to. We should be smart enough to understand how our brains may misfire, and to make the needed adjustments. — R.R. ![]() "The four stages of mystical prayer may be described psychologically as four gradually deeper stages of trance, a psychic state in which thinking about something accomplishes what an effort of will is ordinarily necessary to effect. As trance deepens, the ordinary functions of consciousness are lost one by one, with gradually increasing intensity or extent. Because the functions of ordinary consciousness are inhibited, the contents of trance experiences are received without conflict, regardless of whether they would be disturbing during normal waking sobriety. Similarly, it is no more possible during trance than during the dreams of natural sleep to recognize fantasies as fantasies. Whatever their contents, mystical trances may be experienced as real and true. Ideas become delusions; daydreams become hallucinations. Trances consequently promote forms of religiosity that are at least partly inconsistent with a scientific understanding of the perceptible world."— "mysticism." ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, Online, 19 Apr. 2010. Of course, Anthroposophists do not lie to themselves constantly; they do not hallucinate (deeply or shallowly) around the clock; they are not in trances (deep or shallow) 24-7. Much of the time, they live more or less in the real world, functioning much as everyone else functions. But when they "do" Anthroposophy, seeking to develop and use clairvoyant powers — and particularly when they devote themselves to the mental exercises, meditations, and prayers provided to them by Steiner — they may indeed enter trance-like states. [See, e.g., "Serving the Gods".] — R.R. ![]() I hesitate to add another quotation about hypnosis; I am not arguing that Steiner hypnotized anyone. But Steiner's followers do, I submit, hypnotize or at least deceive themselves. Their behavior then hinges on credulity and/or suggestibility, which come with a high potential cost:
We have good brains — but we must guard against the errors our brains easily make. Here we are told of a woman fantasizing. When she watches a video of the event, she knows her tale of alien abduction was almost certainly nothing but a fantasy. Yet because she was so suggestible, her fantasy made a deep impression on her, and evidently the fantasy persisted as her knowledge of what really happened faded. Her weak grip on reality became even weaker — she failed to work hard to stand with open eyes in the real world. — R.R. ![]()
Statues that move, paintings that weep, clairvoyance that brings us truth — these are unreal, they are lies we tell ourselves. It is time to stop. — R.R. ![]() That's all pretty grim, and I've begun to preach. So I too will now stop. And to lighten the atmosphere a bit, I'll quote a very different kind of source. "You don't mind living in a figment of another man's imagination?" — MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS, ALL THE WORDS Vol. 2 (Python Productions, 1989), p. 168. It isn't precisely funny, but Anthroposophists may indeed spend considerable time living in another man's fantasy. The fantasy is Anthroposophy. The fantasist was Rudolf Steiner. ![]() An Anthroposophical astrological emblem: Sagittarius as designed by Rudolf Steiner and drawn by Imma von Eckhardstein [Rudolf Steiner, CALENDAR 1912-1913, Facsimile Edition (SteinerBooks, 2003), p. 83ff. R. R. copy, 2010.] Sagittarius is one of the constellations we tell ourselves we see in the sky. When we "see" such constellations, we are fooling ourselves. [See “Why? Oh Why?”] Our brains impose the patterns we think we see. The constellations do not really exist, any more than other optical illusions do. When we chart the astrological influences of the constellations, we compound delusion with delusion. ![]() ![]() Steiner taught that the will is a separate human faculty, and he said that exercising great will power is needed if you are to "see" what he "saw" through his claimed clairvoyant powers. By exerting the will, you can see what you want to see.
Steiner here gives us the key to Anthroposophical belief. In order to believe Steiner's bizarre doctrines, his followers must see only what they want to see, while banishing everything else from existence. Steiner offers this as a method for attaining spiritual knowledge. A better description, however, is that it is a technique for self-deception, refusing to face reality squarely. If you will yourself to see gnomes, for instance, and work at this long enough while blocking out all real information about the world, sooner or later you will probably see gnomes. And your grasp of reality will weaken commensurately. [See "Will".] ![]() ![]() We often "see" (visualize, fantasize, fabricate) falsehoods. We create, in our minds, worlds that do not and cannot exist. ![]() [M. C. Escher.] We do far better when we climb to the real heights of the real universe. ![]() ![]() ![]() We have an amazing capacity to trick ourselves into believing the impossible. ![]() This can be drawn, but it can't be built. ![]() It is here: You can see it. But it is impossible. ![]() [M. C. Escher.] When we see miraculous, mind-bending sights, we are not necessarily breaking through to another, higher realm. We may be simply fooling ourselves. Every optical illusion — like every magic trick — can be understood and proved false by careful observation and thought. (Which, by the way, is a good thumbnail description of science: careful observation and thought. Science, which may seem cold and even harsh to some ways of thinking, is really nothing but a method of acquiring information. Real information. Facts. Truth.) Nothing we think we see in images such as those above actually exists or could possibly exist. And our senses and brains, which can indeed fool us, are the very tools we must use to see through the foolery. The lesson of illusions is not that we cannot know the truth, the lesson is that we have to work hard (logically, scientifically) to find the truth. And when we do this, we find (perhaps to our surprise) that we can find it, and thus the pursuit has been worthwhile. ![]() [NASA.] ![]() [R.R.] ![]() [R.R.] ![]() ![]() Here are items from the Waldorf Watch "news" page: I.
• ◊ • Waldorf Watch Response: There’s really no paradox. At most, there’s a minor mystery: How can anyone take Steiner seriously, given that his teachings are “so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre”? Unfortunately, human beings have an enormous appetite for the bizarre. [See “Why? Oh Why?” and “Inside Scoop”]. Many people want to believe in the strange and the marvelous. And Steiner fed this appetite. He perfected a persona that conferred spurious plausibility to his remarks — smart, poised, charismatic, he wowed his audiences with polysyllabic fantasies masquerading as facts. His sophistry was and remains, for many, impenetrable. (Steiner can be understood. The question is whether you see any point in expending the needed effort.) Intentionally or not, Steiner was a flimflam man par excellence. Here’s Steiner in full rhetorical flight; he soars very nearly into the realm of laughable double-talk:
We can’t know whether, when he spoke this way, Steiner thought he was speaking truthfully. What we can know is that his faithful followers have accepted his lectures as marvelous vessels of well-nigh incomprehensible wisdom. And think about this: The statement I have quoted comes from a lecture that Waldorf teachers consider foundational.
![]() II. A posting at the Waldorf Critics list outlines an approach often used by Waldorf apologists to lure outsiders into the Anthroposophical fold. The gist of the technique is to raise so many doubts about the reliability of ordinary knowledge that you begin to doubt everything you know. This may lead you to imagine that bizarre teachings such as those of Rudolf Steiner are as plausible as anything else. (The logical flaw in this, of course, is that if you begin to doubt X, all that you really should conclude is that you now have doubts about X, and thus you should look into the matter more deeply. You obviously should not leap to the opposite extreme and unreflectingly embrace an alternative viewpoint, Y, which may be even less true than X. You need to study both X and Y carefully, and reach sensible conclusions about each.) To believe in Anthroposophy, you need to cut your ties to reality; you need to surrender your sense of truth and falsehood, so that the false starts to look true to you.* — R.R. ![]()
• ◊ • Waldorf Watch Response: Questioning everything can lead to wisdom. Reconsidering everything can be wise. Certainly there can be benefits in asking yourself "how you know something is true." But in the process, you need to remain rational; you need to think clearly. Forms of mysticism, such as Anthroposophy, require you to move in the opposite direction. They ask you to embrace fantastical beliefs for which there is no rational or empirical basis. They lead to confusion and self-deception, not clarity or truth. For more on the techniques Waldorf schools use to win converts to Anthroposophy, see Grégoire Perra’s “The Anthroposophical Indoctrination of Students in Steiner-Waldorf Schools” [https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/he-went-to-waldorf], including the section “The Indoctrination of Parents.” Perra knows whereof he speaks — he is a former Waldorf student who went on to become an Anthroposophist and a Waldorf teacher. ◊ * If you doubt that mainstream science has the last word about absolutely everything, you are correct. Science is a evolving process; we know more today than we knew yesterday, and we will know more tomorrow than we know today. But the gaps in our current scientific knowledge should not cause you to repudiate science altogether and leap to an alternative approach. Put it this way: If you have doubts about mainstream science, you should have many more doubts about mystical systems such as Anthroposophy. Mainstream science is based on fact and reason — in other word, it is based on reality. Mysticism is based on fantasy and dream, not reality. ![]() ![]() ![]() — Compilation and commentary by Roger Rawlings ![]() ![]() ![]() The formatting at Waldorf Watch aims for visual variety, seeking to ease the process of reading lengthy texts on a computer screen. ◊ Some illustrations appearing here at Waldorf Watch are closely connected to the contents of the pages on which they appear; others are not — the latter provide general context. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
To visit other pages in this section of Waldorf Watch, use the underlined links, below. ◊◊◊ 10. CLAIRVOYANCE AND DELUSION ◊◊◊
———————— You may also want to consult the following essay posted in the first section of Waldorf Watch:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() [R.R.] ![]() [R.R.] |