◊ "Within the brain nothing at all exists

 of the nature of thought."

— Rudolf Steiner

— Rudolf Steiner

STEINER’S SPECIFIC

Thinking Without Our Brains

I.

According to Rudolf Steiner, life in the ordinary world is, in many ways, a hollow sham. The physical universe is harsh and cold. The daily grind is oppressive. Descent to earthly incarnation weakens our ties to the spirit realm. Steiner cited with approval a line from Goethe: 

Humanity is in pain, Steiner said. He described “the longing human soul in its yearning, tormented emptiness” [2] and he offered his own teachings as the antidote: 

Things are worse than ever in the modern age, Steiner suggested, and he knew the reason: Our thinking is badly fouled up. Our values are wrong. And much of this is the result of modern science. Steiner called his own doctrines "spiritual science," claiming that he used clairvoyance to objectively study the spirit realm. Consequently, he sometimes affirmed science and scientific thinking. More often, however, he denounced all sciences except his own. 

Fundamentally, Anthroposophy is antiscientific. Consider how crazy the modern, scientific point of view really is, according to Steiner:

In offering us a cure for our spiritual sufferings — a cure that would offset the dismal scientific view — Steiner was by no means alone. Many other clerics, theologians, mystics, and gurus have had the same aim, and many of them have attracted far larger followings than Steiner has attracted. But for anyone interested in Waldorf schools, examining Steiner’s teachings is essential, and those teachings must be recognized as a proposed, mystical antidote to the ills of the modern, scientific age. 

We all would like to live in a world where we feel comfortably secure, warmly loved, and purposeful. Science describes a rather different reality: We live on a small planet orbiting a nondescript little star, far from the center of our galaxy; and our galaxy is but one of innumerable galaxies; as intelligent beings, we may be alone in a vast, dark universe; and nature is indifferent to us, even at times hostile; and we descended from apes; and our bodies are really just biological machines, made up of molecules behaving more or less randomly; and these molecules, in turn, are made up of atoms behaving more or less randomly; and at the subatomic level, there is chaos and indeterminacy; and, and, and... 

Most people find these scientific propositions disagreeable. Many are horrified, appalled, aghast. (There is another side to science, of course. Some scientific work is distinctly inspiring. Think of  the splendors captured in photos taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, for instance.) It is undeniable that as science progresses, humanity's claim that it occupies a central place in the cosmos becomes less and less plausible. [5] In this sense, the need many people feel for an alternative, more spiritual vision grows ever greater. Steiner’s solution was to serve up a dizzyingly intricate description of a universe teeming with spiritual powers and beings, a universe profoundly attentive to humanity, a universe in which dull, daily reality fades away. Life on the physical plane of existence is ensnared in illusion, he taught; it is, in some senses, unreal; beyond it lie the transcendent realms of the spirit, which Steiner can show us.

Steiner said that we are led astray both by modern science and, more generally, by materialism. In using the latter term, he did not mean lust for material possessions or wealth. He meant the belief that the material or physical universe is all that exists — the belief, in other words, that the laws science has discovered for physical reality extend everywhere, throughout the universe, and offer a complete description of the universe. Steiner argued that science does a reasonably good job of describing superficial conditions in the immediate here-and-now, but he denied that the same conditions exist elsewhere. He said that the findings of science do not apply to the distant past, or to the distant future, or to the many levels of nonphysical reality. The material realm, he argued, is a temporary, unusual condition, something that evolved out of spiritual reality and that will soon be replaced by a new, higher spiritual reality. Moreover, Steiner taught, we are unable to correctly perceive the underlying truths of the physical here-and-now if we rely on our senses and brains — "natural" science is, in this sense, useless.

Our life on Earth is generally ruled by illusion, Steiner said. Our brains and senses cannot penetrate the veil of illusion. Steiner borrowed the Oriental term “maya” for the darkness in which he said most people are caught, [6] and he attributed this darkness to Ahriman, who is one of the two chief demons in Steiner's theology:

Steiner differentiated between the Eastern and Western understanding of maya:

Steiner claimed to perceive the outlines of human evolution. He said that we have progressed from primitive forms of consciousness to ever higher and more accurate forms, culminating for now in Anthroposophy. He argued that natural science, too, has evolved. By the 19th century, it had reached a high plateau, and it produced results of real value to mankind during that period. But its time is now past. In the modern world, Steiner said, spiritual truth is flowing once again and natural science must be overcome to enable us to apprehend spiritual truth. Science and the material world are slated for retirement.

The “new revelation” can be found in Anthroposophy, which Steiner called “spiritual science.” But Anthroposophy actually is — as his words suggest — a mystical religion that devalues real science. [11]

II.

Steiner taught that the corrupting influence of scientific, materialistic thinking spreads outward into all spheres of human life, including philosophy:

The blight of scientific, materialistic thinking extends even further, all the way into mainstream religion. (In the following quotation, “Christian” clearly does not refer to Anthroposophy but to orthodox Christian denominations.)

Materialistic thinking — that is, thinking that relies on the material organ called the brain — will doom humanity, creating wholly materialistic human beings, unless we find a spiritualistic remedy. Lacking spiritual truth — that is, lacking Anthroposophy — humanity may cut itself off completely from the spirit. This would be lead to our utter destruction.

Steiner considered this issue so important that, in discussing it, he employed a term he usually avoided: "sin." Materialistic thinking — which as we have seen is associated with maya caused by Ahriman — is sinful. 

Materialistic thinking, science, is thus evil. It is sinful. And it will lead to our ruination.

The essence of the sin Steiner described is reliance on the brain. Steiner taught that the brain, being a merely physical organ, is incapable for real cognition. It can learn nothing of ultimate importance. The nerves and brain are merely a physical expression of real cognition, which occurs elsewhere. In this sense, “materialistic thinking” is not so much the content of sinful thoughts as the use of the wrong organ in our efforts to think. The use of the mere, material brain leads us into error.

Actual cognition, according to Steiner, is clairvoyance, and it does not occur in the brain. Here is Steiner discussing the preparation for occult initiation:

Real cognition, Steiner said, comes to us from the spirit realm. Living here in the physical universe, incarnated within physical bodies, we do not produce real thoughts, thoughts that reveal spiritual truth. Rather, the gods produce these thoughts, and our brains are mere receptacles  — imperfect receptacles — for the gods' thoughts. To truly apprehend the gods' thoughts, to attain real cognition, we must develop better, finer organs than our physical brains: We must develop incorporeal organs of clairvoyance.

III.

Steiner pinned his teachings on the rejection of science, the brain, and intellect — that is, real knowledge of the real world. Instead, he advocated clairvoyance (which does not exist [18]), which he said operates through ethereal organs. This is moonshine, yet it is the essence of Steiner’s teachings.

Any worldview that warns us away from the use of our brains must be suspect. It deserves our deepest skepticism or, indeed, it deserves utter rejection. Anthroposophy encourages us to turn our backs on truth and the hard-won fruits of human scholarly, scientific, philosophical, and, yes, theological progress. It encourages us to reject real knowledge and replace it with fantasy, delusion, and ignorance. The only sane response to this advice is a firm No Thanks.

Science is mankind’s highest attainment. Raising ourselves laboriously from millennia of ignorance and superstition, we have begun to gain genuine information about  our surroundings and ourselves. This is not something we should lightly toss away. It is our finest legacy and our greatest hope. And yet Steiner would junk it in favor of mystical claptrap.

We all yearn for the transcendent. We all chafe at the limitations of our lives and conditions, our unfulfilled desires, our mortality. We all wish for something more — we want to rise from dreariness to joyous fulfillment. But it should be perfectly clear that we will solve none of our problems by rejecting real knowledge and turning to fanciful illusions instead. We must stand firmly on the truth, whether or not we find the truth agreeable. We must have the courage to face reality and make the best of it. Running away into fantasy solves nothing.

If we are to improve our lot, we will do it by turning to precisely the things Steiner wanted us to discount: our brains, rationality, science, and our expanding store of real information — real knowledge. This is the true path, the upward ascent from blindness to sight, from falsehood to truth. We have been led upward by the great scholars, scientists, philosophers, and theologians of the past, incandescent minds who pushed back the darkness. We should build on their gifts to us, not squander them. We have it in our power to improve ourselves, if only we will have the courage and intellectual honesty to do so.

— Roger Rawlings

"The brain does not produce thoughts." — Waldorf teacher Henk Van Oort, 

ANTHROPOSOPHY A-Z (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2011), p. 16.

In other words,

Sometimes Steiner had a little — a very little — to say in favor of intellect. It can help us to get beyond it; it can assist our ascent to a level where we no longer need it:

Paraphrase: In my book THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM, I describe how intellectual powers can be heightened, leading to the development of exact clairvoyance. Such clairvoyance then exists as a free inner power of the soul. Only after gaining this power can we understand the other components of our being, aside from our powers of pure thought and free will. Through exact clairvoyance (which involves imaginative, inspired, and intuitive consciousness, and goes beyond the limits of the intellect), we attain true self-knowledge and we realize that our true home is the spirit realm. Then we understand that to be fully human, we must develop our exact clairvoyance more and more.

According to Steiner, we descended into our current condition — using lowly intellect instead of divine clairvoyance — due to race mixing. [See "Blood".]

AFTERWORD

I.

Why did Rudolf Steiner try to foist his cockeyed, occult fantasies on us? We cannot know. Perhaps he was telling the absolute truth, as he understood it. Perhaps he felt the pain of which he spoke; perhaps ordinary existence was a grievous burden to him, and he turned to occultism out of genuine need and conviction. Perhaps. But other possibilities come to mind. Here's one. I offer it not to assail Steiner the man, but in an effort to place an historical figure in context for whatever light this may provide. Evaluating Steiner's teachings is far more important than attempting to understand Steiner as an individual. Nonetheless, trying to bring historical figures into focus can be informative, making them live in our comprehension and thus helping us to understand their work, at least tangentially.

Bear in mind that flawed individuals can make wise statements, and wonderful individuals can speak foolishly. Thus, Steiner's personal weaknesses and strengths have no necessary bearing on the validity of his teachings. Still, holding that proviso in mind, consider the following. It is possible that Steiner became an occultist because he suffered from thwarted ambition. Failing to receive recognition as a great philosopher, he turned to fraudulent spiritualism for the recognition he coveted. 

Steiner claimed that he had spiritualistic experiences and knowledge beginning in his early youth, and some of his earliest publications bear at least a suggestion of this claim. [19] After graduation from college, he edited the scientific works of Goethe, which express Goethe’s own esotericism. But most of Steiner’s early, original writing was rational and conventional, not esoteric. Considering himself a man of letters, Steiner became editor of Deutsche Wochenschrift [i.e., "German Weekly"]. As an editor of his autobiography has recorded, 

Steiner’s first book, A THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE IMPLICIT IN GOETHE'S WORLD CONCEPTION, appeared in 1886. It was followed by TRUTH AND SCIENCE (1892) and THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM (1893). Anthroposophists today try to make these books appear consistent with their spiritualistic beliefs, but it is a struggle. In fact, Steiner wrote his early works as a secular intellectual. 

Steiner hoped that THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM would establish his reputation as a leading thinker, but it did not. [22] Still, he continued to work in ordinary channels. In 1895, he published NIETZSCHE, A FIGHTER AGAINST HIS TIME, followed by other more or less conventional intellectual works. In 1897, he became editor of Magazin für Literatur (“Magazine for Literature”). His writings in this period were indifferent or even hostile to spiritualism, especially Theosophy. 

Despite his efforts, Steiner was not hailed as the next great German philosopher, and in fact he fell into poverty. 

Steiner became 

He made his way in important circles, but uneasily. 

After several years working as a literary man, Steiner rather suddenly turned to Theosophy and started lecturing about occult “truths.” 

Steiner’s friends and students were startled and largely uncomprehending. 

Steiner left much of his previous life and many of his previous associates — including his wife — behind. 

Steiner separated from his wife in 1903.

Steiner soon became head of the German Theosophical Society, and in 1904 he published one of his seminal occultist works, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT. He began devoting virtually all of his considerable energies to occultism. 

Marie von Sievers was an aristocrat. 

(Note that Steiner became inseparable from von Sievers while he was still married to Eunicke.)

Steiner released his magnum opus, OCCULT SCIENCE - AN OUTLINE, in 1910, and three years later he broke away from Theosophy in order to establish his own occult movement, Anthroposophy. [31] He developed what, by his own estimate, was a large following: 

In 1919, a lionized spiritual leader, Steiner oversaw the creation of the first Waldorf school. [34] The rest is history.

II.

Curiosity about historical figures is natural and, to some extent, it can be productive. But we need to keep things in perspective. Our main focus should be on ideas, not on the people who express those ideas. Steiner may or may not have been a fine man; it doesn't make much difference. What we need to know is whether or not his ideas are true, and we can make this judgment only by focusing on his ideas and thinking about them carefully.

I think Steiner was a fraud, pretending to possess clairvoyant powers that in fact he lacked (in all probability, no one possesses such powers). If I'm right, this is a marginally useful insight. However, it doesn't tell us anything conclusive about the quality of Steiner's ideas. A fraud may speak the truth, even if s/he does so unintentionally or unknowingly. A fraud may tell what s/he thinks are lies, but these statements may actually be pearls of great wisdom — the fraud just doesn't know it. The only way for us to know is to forget the speaker and attend to the speech, the words, the meaning.

Anthroposophists sometimes think that the way to settle an issue is to find out what Steiner said on the subject. He said thus-and-so, which means that thus-and-so is the right answer. This is clearly the wrong approach. Maybe 99.9% of everything Steiner ever said was right, but if we happen to be arguing about the one matter where he was wrong, then taking his word on that subject would be a mistake.

The same goes in reverse, of course. Even if 99.9% of Steiner's statements were garbage, we must remain open to the possibility that the next statement of his we consider will turn out to be — miraculously — correct. The only way to evaluate ideas is to focus on the ideas.

Let's return our focus to the ideas that underlie Waldorf education:

III.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with Waldorf schools is that the Waldorf conception of thinking and knowledge — epistemology, if you will — is so deeply irrational. Think of the implications of such irrationality for institutions that are usually meant to foster thinking and convey knowledge — schools.

Waldorf schools often say that they encourage imagination — which is true, and many parents find this emphasis on imagination attractive. But in Steiner's doctrines, imagination is the first of three stages on the path to clairvoyance, and clairvoyance is the goal. Waldorf schools often conceal this (along with a great deal more), but this is central to their mission. The mission of any real Waldorf school — by which I mean any school that is faithful to the teachings of Rudolf Steiner — is to assist students along the path to clairvoyance. Accordingly, the schools try to prepare students for future human evolution, as described by Steiner. The next stage of our evolution will occur on or during Jupiter, followed by Venus and then Vulcan. As we undergo this evolution — following the "divine cosmic plan" created by the "gods" — we will attain higher and higher states of consciousness until we ourselves become gods. And the payoff? 

I have just given you an extremely concise outline of the Anthroposophical vision. To most people, the Anthroposophical vision is nuts. (And to mainstream Christians, it is sacrilegious.) Unless a parent sees good solid sense in Anthroposophy, s/he should almost certainly not send a child to a real Waldorf school. Waldorfs do not turn all their students into junior Anthroposophists, of course, but the schools try to at least nudge students in the direction of Steinerish occultism. Remember Steiner's avowal:

The concepts of thinking and knowledge that inform Waldorf schools come mainly from Rudolf Steiner himself. We can see Steiner's epistemology, in its earliest and purest form, in his book THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM, particularly as Steiner revised it following his conversion to occultism.

Here's another concise summary; in the fewest possible words, I’ll try to describe spiritual epistemology as Steiner and his followers came to understand it. At the core of oneself is a pure, authentic Self, an "I". When the "I" thinks about its own thoughts in a disciplined manner, the difference between subject and object vanishes and a higher, transcendent consciousness becomes possible. Bear in mind that true thoughts do not come from the brain but from the spirit realm. The "I" is a denizen of that realm and thus receives its true cognition from on high. The resulting consciousness consists of inherently authentic Truth. The labors of "materialistic" thinking (rational argumentation, etc.) become unnecessary because direct access to Truth has been attained.

Certain problems obviously arise from this set of ideas. Consciousness focusing upon itself may not be a transcendence of subjectivity but the intensification of subjectivity. According to Steiner, truly knowing and truly feeling are the same: We must develop 

This is the heartfelt "thinking" Waldorf schools try to promote; it is more akin to emotion or intuition than to rational cogitation. You know that something is true because it feels so true, deep inside. It rings your spiritual bell.

Let’s dwell on that last point for a moment. How can one be sure that a Truth that feels so right, inwardly — a Truth provided by intuition — is not simply a subjective wish? Steiner saw the problem, and his answer was that "living thoughts" are implanted in us before we are born. 

Thus, correct intuition is the apprehension of divinity and its gifts, living within us. We don't really need to think: All we have to do is commune with ourselves, finding the prepackaged "living thoughts" that we carry inside.

Notice how Steiner's seemingly straightforward philosophical argument about the sources of knowledge balloons into an occult theology. In order for the thesis of PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM to be correct in the way Anthroposophy needs it to be correct, a vast body of occult belief becomes necessary, and Steiner provides this in thousands of occult lectures. Of course, according to Steiner, his doctrines are not beliefs but living thoughts, Truths. But they are "true" only because he defines them as true; they emerge from a form of consciousness that depends on them for its existence. This is a closed loop, one that cannot be examined by any outside observer. A living thought is any idea that is correctly revealed by intuition, and intuition is defined as the power to reveal living thoughts, which by definition are true. How do we test this? We "know" we are correctly using our intuition when the ideas it yields ring our bell — we get a “spiritual feeling” that is the same as “spiritual perception.”

No one else can hear the bell, unfortunately, but that's how it goes. In other words, a self-affirmed "clairvoyant" may absolutely know in his/her heart that s/he is correct about something, but no one else can know — there is no way for an outsider observer to test a clairvoyant’s inwardly revealed “living thought.” And that’s okay, Steiner said. Testing and proving things, he explained, is beside the point. 

The process of opening oneself to “living thoughts” is beyond testing because it is beyond “materialistic” or brain-centered thinking. By definition, intuition is living-thinking. which is clairvoyance, which is truth, and all’s well. 

Steiner did add one clarification. True intuition or living-thinking should not be confused with any old form of clairvoyance; there are higher and lower forms of clairvoyance. The real kind, the kind that yields the truest truths, is "exact" clairvoyance. 

You may bridle at this, but hold your indignation. There is a deeper problem than trying to decide what form of clairvoyance is best. The problem is this: Does clairvoyance exist at all, in any form, at any level of exactitude? As far as we know, the answer is no. There is simply no evidence that any form of clairvoyance exists. [See “Clairvoyance”.]

This leads to a crucial point. No outside observer can confirm anything that a "clairvoyant" feels to be true — and neither can the "clairvoyant." S/he may firmly feel that an idea is right, but there is no way s/he can know for sure. A deeply believed fantasy may feel just as right as any actually correct perception; and a pleasant hallucination may commend itself, powerfully, to one's heart. In fact, if someone yearns for spiritual truth, the "intuitive" fulfillment of that yearning may quite easily be nothing but the unconscious affirmation of the desire. You go in search of the vision you wish for, and you have that vision, and... And, what? If you have the vision you want, and if it "feels" the way you want, then you may have achieved nothing but self-deception. Instead of working your way toward true knowledge, you may only have been deluding yourself, feeding yourself the fantasy you so keenly desire. 

And what visions should you seek? Steiner stressed the need for a guru. A seeker 

Notice that wording: "strictly rely." Absolute reliance. Obedience. Faith. The "science" Steiner advocated becomes, then, a religion — a process of faithful observance.

So in this sense, too, the form of thought advocated by Steiner is not real thinking at all. You don't develop "living thoughts" out of your own brain. These "thoughts" are either prerecorded ideas that have been implanted in you before birth, or they are notions that your guru has directed you toward — or they are both. They are not, in any event, your own thoughts. They are not, really, thoughts at all. They are prescribed doctrines, or fantasies — or both. In their most august form, they are articles of faith. In their most debased, they are delusions.

Where does this all leave us? What can we make of the epistemology underlying Waldorf schools — and what are the implications for Waldorf education? a) The epistemology is bogus. No one following Steiner's prescriptions can attain any verifiable knowledge — verifiable by others or even by oneself. b) Waldorf education is built on, and largely consists of, pipe dreams. It stresses a form of "thought" that is not thinking at all, but feeling, "intuiting," perhaps fantasizing. It, too, is bogus.

— Roger Rawlings