Mystical Thinking,

Realistic Thinking


I’m aware that, to mystics, my thinking must surely seem shallow. I display what Steiner called mere materialist thinking. Instead of reaching deep into the unconscious or clairvoyant depths of my soul, I emphasize clarity and reason. Steiner’s universe is a dense, complex spiritual aggregation of innumerable beings and layers. Anthroposophists would argue that my view is simplistic and, therefore, untrue.

I understand the appeal of mystical thought. For most of my life, I embraced it. And I’m still prone to it, more than a bit. Walking in a woods, for instance, on a sunny summer day, I may come upon a scene of such powerful natural beauty that my heart swells, and I have a sense of magical powers at work, transcendence, glory.

But these days I know such feelings for what they are — wonderful fulfillment caused in the real world by the workings of a real physical body and brain, mine. I love to experience such moments, and I sometimes go in search of them. But I no longer mistake them for anything but desirable subjective experiences that cause me to be grateful for my life, and — at best — lead me to see my life in context, playing itself out in an astonishing universe that was here long before I was born and will persist, probably, long after I am dust.

Mystical thought can feel profound, but it is often deeply wrong. A friend of mine died recently. Since that day, I’ve been having an experience I’ve often had when someone close to me has died. I keep thinking of my friend as if he were still alive. I have to catch myself and remember that I cannot share with him the thought that has just flown through my mind, an idea that I know would interest him. I cannot drop by for a visit, I cannot expect reciprocation, communication, togetherness. He no longer exists. My mind can't quite grasp this reality. Death is, at some fundamental level, unimaginable to us. My own death, although inevitable, seems to me an incredible prospect. This, I think, is an ingrained attitude given us by evolution: Those of our ancestors who could not accept the thought of death were strengthened — they kept striving, working, pressing on, as if they and all their achievements would not eventually be wiped away. Those of our ancestors who brooded on their coming deaths were weakened — they tended to feel that struggling against the inevitable is pointless, so they were prone to give in, to become passive. As a result, the genes of the defeatists tended to be winnowed away, while the genes of the strivers (who may have had a less clear vision) flourished and were passed on to us.

Denying death leads directly to mysticism. If we can scarcely believe that our dead friends and loved ones are really deceased, lifeless, then we tend to think of them as still existing somewhere. Their bodies don’t still exist, and none of their essence seems to exist here — so we place them, in our imaginations, in some other place, invisible to us — we imagine the dead surviving there without their earthly bodies but still, spiritually, retaining their identities. So without consciously realizing the process, perhaps, we begin to think of souls living in a spiritual realm of some sort, and we begin to dream up theories to account for such visions — theories that easily become religions. Yet all of this may simply be our subjective, irrational natures at work — it has no objective truth that we can ascertain. God may exist. Heaven may exist. But we don’t know these things. We simply wish them to be true, because the alternative feels so wrong.


Consider a specific form of mystical thinking, Steiner’s. Here is Steiner’s criticism of Isaac Newton, the genius whose work undergirds modern science. Steiner said that Newton stood “at the starting point of modern science ... [He] was the first to completely mathematize and separate space [i.e., the physical cosmos] from man [or man’s spiritual nature] ... Newton had torn nature asunder into space and man-who-experiences-space.” [1]

Steiner’s point is that Newton disregarded the spiritual when he created a mathematical, materialistic description of reality. Newton's theories "mathematize" the cosmos, causing a schism between the cosmos and ourselves. We become alienated from nature. Newtons' theories do not speak to our spiritual natures — they are un-heartfelt and, therefore, both shallow and wrong.

For mystically inclined people (which probably includes almost everyone in the world, to one degree or another, for the reasons I gave above), there may seem to be a core of good, solid sense in spiritual teachings such as Steiner's. It may seem self-evident that a true description of nature must include spirit. Mere dead matter could not have evolved into life, surely. Our world cannot be merely a random assemblage of atoms running through mathematically described courses. Surely there is a spirit realm behind or imminent within the physical realm. Surely our lives have meaning, extending beyond the grave. Surely.

We all incline toward such thinking. But if we are to live rationally, with our eyes open in the real world, we need to resist it. All of the mystical statements I made just now may be true, but we have no proof. For all that we know (as opposed to all that we feel or wish), all of these mystical statements are wrong. The only reasonable attitude for us to take — hard as it is, rubbing us the wrong way — is to suspend judgment. We know what we know, and we don’t know what we don’t know — and, sadly, the latter category is quite large. We know far more than our ancestors knew, and in the future people will presumably know far more than we know now. But we are stuck in our age, possessing only the information that has been obtained up to this point in human history.

Steiner pretended to know far more than anyone of our modern era can know. Appealing to our innate desire for the mystical, and borrowing from many sources, he conjured up a fabulous universe teeming with discarnate, spiritual beings. And he claimed to truly know the things he described; he said his visionary system, Anthroposophy, is scientific — it is "spiritual science." Some people find Steiner's vision irresistibly attractive. But very little in Steiner's teachings is genuinely knowable; virtually all of it is, for all we actually know, fantasy. Steiner gained his “knowledge” of the spirit realm by using a faculty that does not exist: clairvoyance. Everything he said, arising from his claimed powers of clairvoyance, is almost certainly unfounded.

Steiner was factually mistaken in almost all of his teachings. Even his criticism of Newton veers from the historical record. Newton was, in fact, a spiritual man. He had deep spiritual interests. As THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA reports:

“Newton found time now to explore other interests, such as religion and theology. In the early 1690s he had sent Locke a copy of a manuscript attempting to prove that Trinitarian passages in the Bible were latter-day corruptions of the original text. When Locke made moves to publish it, Newton withdrew in fear that his anti-Trinitarian views would become known. In his later years, he devoted much time to the interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and St. John, and to a closely related study of ancient chronology. “ [2]

Newton did not tear nature asunder — he probed nature and learned some of its basic laws, which he set forth. And all the while, he also concerned himself with metaphysics.

God is not necessarily absent from the universe described by Newton. Rather, the laws of nature Newton discovered may simply be procedures God chose for the operations of the physical universe. Steiner himself understood (or nearly understood) this, although he did not moderate his criticism as a result.

“Newton becomes ill at ease, as it were, when he contemplates his own view of space. He is not quite comfortable with this space, torn as it is out of man and estranged completely from the spirit. So he defines it after all, saying that space is the sensorium of God.” [3]

Steiner argued that Newton tried to banish God from the universe, then found that he was uncomfortable with the result, so he reintroduced God into it. This is a nice rhetorical point, but it misstates the situation. Newton said that an apple falls due to the force of gravity; Steiner denied the existence of universal gravitation, teaching that all things — including falling apples — work as they do because of the activities of spiritual beings. [4] Perhaps, ultimately, Steiner is right. Perhaps God or the gods do ultimately control everything in the universe. But Newton’s laws do not necessarily conflict with this possibility. The conflict exists for us only if we, like Steiner, reject modern science, modern knowledge. If we accept modern knowledge while still wishing to affirm our religious faiths, our challenge is to reconcile these affirmations — a daunting challenge, certainly, but not one that is self-evidently impossible, not one that must lead us to despair.

Steiner’s thinking is circular — it does not lead anywhere. He started with what should be a conclusion, reached only after long, diligent investigation. He postulated the notion that multiple spiritual beings exist and guide everything. Over the years, he elaborated this view, creating a body of doctrines that fills many volumes of convoluted prose. But he never proved any of it. Rather, after expending all those untold words, he arrived at a conclusion that is indistinguishable from his premise: Multiple spiritual beings exist and guide everything. Steiner did not advance our pursuit of knowledge by an inch. If spiritual beings exist, he did not demonstrate their existence, he merely asserted it. Thus, he left us no farther along than we were before, whereas Newton advanced our knowledge of the universe greatly.

Steiner may have meant well, but he did not do well. He asked us to remain forever in a benighted, ancient, dark frame of mind, knowing little about reality, but imagining a lot. Whether or not he realized it, he misled us. Isaac Newton told us demonstrable truths.


Many people are drawn to mysticism because they find the real, material world inadequate. This is especially the case among people who are downtrodden or impoverished. Yet even for them it is a sad error. We live in what is — as far as anyone truly knows — the only world we will ever inhabit. And we currently are experiencing — as far as anyone truly knows — the only lives we will ever have. If we can’t find fulfillment here, we will find it nowhere.

Perhaps we can find it, here and now, in reality. The world we occupy is a wondrous place — not because of any real or imagined spiritual presences, but because of the nature of physical reality itself, and because of the true capacities of our own minds. We live in a world of amazing, intricate phenomena at the quantum level, and at the cosmic level, and also at our daily, experienced level. It is a world of charmed quarks and pinwheeling galaxies, a world of birds that migrate seemingly impossible distances, and crawling creatures that revise themselves as butterflies, and cloud-coloring sunsets, undulating hillsides of wildflowers, swarms of fireflies, the melancholy glory of autumn, the quickening excitement of spring... And it is a world of music and painting and literature and science — a world graced by the genius of humanity.

In truth, the real world is far more beautiful and multilayered than the dreams Steiner ginned up. Of course, there is much suffering in our world. But so is there in Steiner’s fantasized worlds — he taught of evil gods, black magicians, disease, cosmic error, souls filled with ugliness, the abyss... [5] Reality stands up well in comparison with such dark conceptions. And reality has the inestimable advantage of being real.

But what about the dreariness that infects so much of our real lives? We are so often dissatisfied, bored, weary. Even when our circumstances are not oppressive, we often find oppression within out own minds and hearts. Steiner taught that the cure will be our evolution to higher, better forms of consciousness. That would be nice, of course. But if the universe and our lives are not as he described them, which is extremely probable, then his solutions have no bearing, they are worthless.

I don't pretend to have solutions for everything that ails us. I cannot lift the impoverished into affluence; I cannot cure the sick. But humanity as a whole, working together — cooperatively and rationally — might well find solutions to many of our tribulations. We will do so, however, only if we see our situation for what it really is, and strive to find remedies that actually work, in the real world. Fantasizing mystical deliverance will avail little, and it may in fact deflect us from undertakings that hold the promise of actual improvement in the human condition.


Steiner offered political prescriptions for the reorganization of society, along with recommendations for improvements in education, agriculture, medicine, and other fields. His primary focus, however, was on spiritual matters, so in assessing his work, this must be our focus, too. The darkness that concerned Steiner most is the darkness that often afflicts the human spirit. He addressed the inner pain that infects the wealthy along with the impoverished, the healthy along with the ill.

If his focus was arguably wise, his offered remedies tended to be nonetheless empty. His key prescriptions, which he said would help us overcome all our woes, were various meditative exercises designed to promote the development of clairvoyance. He offered the hope of occult initiation that would yield knowledge of the higher worlds; he offered a dream of evolutionary progress upward through and beyond the ranks of the gods, culminating in our own ultimate apotheosis. It is a remarkably appealing prospect. But little good, I'm afraid, can come from a dream that is, as far as any truly knows, indistinguishable from delusion.

Steiner recommended meditating on natural phenomena, both the living and the dead. Such exercises, undertaken rationally, may actually be beneficial, although they cannot produce the mystical rewards Steiner promised. Sit and gaze at a tree for a few minutes — any tree, or, indeed, any natural object. Try to apprehend it fully; try to observe everything about it. Pretty soon, you’ll realize that you can’t. You can’t know every twist and turn of one tree's trunk, every limb and twig and leaf of that single organism. You can get a general impression of any natural object you study, but grasping all the details of its form and function is far beyond our powers of observation and memory. If you stared at one tree every day for the rest of your life, you still could not know it completely. And that’s one physical object, one out of a virtual infinitude of phenomena that present themselves for our contemplation. The real world is a place of unbounded variety, constant surprise, rewarding challenges and wonders, if we only look at it with clear eyes.

The tragedy of mysticism (and I use the word “tragedy” quite intentionally) is that it gazes upon the universe with clouded eyes. It replaces a wondrous reality with a far less superb fantasy. Even an imagined universe as densely detailed as Steiner’s palls in comparison with the reality Steiner disparaged.

And here’s a related point. If a spirit realm exists apart from the material realm I've been calling reality, it certainly deserves our most careful and concentrated attention. But we should certainly be skeptical of any spiritual teachings that require us to set aside genuine knowledge. Any true religion, axiomatically, must be consistent with truth. If a religion falls apart in the face of scientific fact, it is an unsound faith, one that does not deserve to survive. Put it this way: There is no necessary opposition between true scientific knowledge and true religious faith. Truth at any level must admit the truths of all other levels. This helps explain why, for instance, the Vatican has an observatory. Some leading Catholic thinkers, seeking to profess universal truth, are committed to having a scientifically correct understanding of the physical universe. Such knowledge would not weaken true faith — it would inestimably strengthen true faith.

“Life emerged on earth thanks to a 12 billion-year-old process of stars caught in a cycle of collapsing, re-forming and collapsing again, said the former director of the Vatican Observatory. Over time ‘there has been a continuous transformation of energy (in the universe) into ever-more-complex forms of material,’ said U.S. Jesuit Father George Coyne ... The sun in earth’s solar system is a third-generational star, he said, which means it has gone through a process of birth, death, rebirth, death and rebirth. ‘If this process hadn’t happened in the universe, we wouldn’t be here,’ he said.” [6]

Such scientific information presents challenges for Catholic theologians, but many of them do not shy from the task.

Many Tibetan Buddhists take a similar approach to science, accepting scientific truths and wrestling to accommodate them.

“Tibetan monks and nuns spend their lives studying the inner world of the mind rather than the physical world of matter. Yet for one month this spring a group of 91 monastics devoted themselves to the corporeal realm of science. Instead of delving into Buddhist texts on karma and emptiness, they learned about Galileo’s law of accelerated motion, chromosomes, neurons and the Big Bang, among other far-ranging topics ... [S]cience has been given a special boost by the Dalai Lama, who has long advocated modern education in Tibetan monasteries and schools in exile, alongside Tibet’s traditions.” [7]

Bear in mind, please, that I do not advocate Catholicism or Buddhism. I am an agnostic. I offer these examples only to illuatrate the possibility that religion and science might be reconciled.

At least some Catholic theologians, along with at least some Buddhist monks and nuns, embrace the realities revealed by science. Steiner claimed to do the same. He claimed, in fact, to do it better than anyone else. He said that his practiced the science of the spirit, applying scientific principles to the study of the spirit realm. He said that his spiritual findings were — or would prove to be — wholly consistent with the findings of natural science.

Those were his claims. But his actual behavior was quite different. For the most part, instead of acknowledging scientific truths, he denied them. He preferred astrology to astronomy, alchemy to chemistry. He derided astrophysicists for their clever but erroneous descriptions of the stars. He repudiated medical knowledge, agricultural knowledge, Einstein's theories of relativity, Newton's theories of gravity, optics, orbital mechanics... [8] Of course, in practice, Catholics and Buddhists may often take antiscientific stands, but our primary concern here is with Steiner and his followers, For Steiner, most real science is trash. [9] When he listened to scientists at all, he found their statements stupid.

“I once had the opportunity of telling an excellent chemist about our efforts to produce radiant, shining colors for the paintings in the Goetheanum [his headquarters] and how we were experimenting with colors made from plants. He replied, ‘But we can already do much better than that; today we have the means to produce colors that are iridescent and begin to shimmer when it is dark.’ That chemist did not understand anything I was saying; he immediately thought in terms of chemistry.” [10]

Steiner wanted colors that shine spiritually, as perceived by clairvoyance — which, as far as anyone truly knows, does not exist. He wanted a fantasy, not reality.

A position commonly taken by people of faith is that scientific explanations are incomplete because they do not take spiritual realities into account. Sometimes Steiner expressed this view, but often he went much farther, saying that scientific findings are totally wrong, even at the level of the material universe. Even as he pretended to embrace science, Steiner threw science away. And in doing so, he threw reality away. His repudiation of science and reality was often categorical. Thus, at various times, he expressed opposition to “scientific simpletons” with their “scientific trash” and their “logical, pedantic, narrow-minded proof of things.” He deplored “primitive concepts like those...of contemporary science.” He proclaimed,

"[S]cience speaks under the influence of the demonic Mars-forces."


"[W]hen we listen to a modern physicist blandly explaining that Nature consists of electrons...we raise Evil to the rank of the ruling world-divinity.” [11]

The universe of Newton, Einstein, and other great scientists exists; we can be sure of this. The universe described by Steiner does not exist, or at least we cannot know that it exists, which in practical terms is the same thing. Steiner’s visions have no practical application in the real world — a point his followers strongly deny, of course. They turn to such compilations of Steiner’s works as INVESTIGATIONS INTO OCCULTISM SHOWING ITS PRACTICAL VALUE IN DAILY LIFE. [12] Think about that title. I suggest that it is preposterous, laughable — and dangerous. Humans have impulses that lead them to believe in the occult; but these are impulses we must overcome to live full, sane lives. Indeed, they may impulses we need to overcome in order to be truly faithful and reverent. If we are to find God, we will not do it in the teachings of fantasists such as Rudolf Steiner.



Having rational discussions with Anthroposophists can be difficult. Steiner’s followers often assert that only their own opinions have any ultimate validity. Here is a statement that appears in many Anthroposophical publications. It refers to the school of Anthroposophical knowledge established by Steiner:

“No person is held qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded....” [13]

This rather unwelcoming (shall we say close-minded?) attitude finds justification in Steiner’s own words. Referring to transcripts of lectures originally circulated only among his followers, Steiner said

“The right to judge such private material can, of course, be conceded only to someone who has the prerequisite basis for such judgment, and regarding most of this material this would mean at least knowledge of the human being and of the cosmos insofar as these have been presented in the light of anthroposophy, and also knowledge of what exists as ‘anthroposophical history’ in what has been imparted from the spiritual world.” [14]

A rational discussion can occur only if the parties agree that all participants have views worth considering. Steiner and his followers tend to reject this out of hand. They claim that they alone comprehend the wonderful, abstruse truths of Steiner’s doctrines — and that all other views are commensurately irrelevant.

One of their premises is that real knowledge of how the universe works is hidden from all except the initiated. Those of Steiner’s followers who consider themselves initiates thus think they possess incomparable wisdom. They preserve this wisdom carefully, dispensing only as much as they decide is appropriate. In this, they follow the example Steiner set. He wrote works for the general public, and he revealed some — but only some — hidden knowledge in them.

“The hidden knowledge which is gradually taking hold of mankind, and will increasingly be doing so, may in the language of a well-known symbol be called the Knowledge of the Grail. We read of the Holy Grail in old-time narratives and legends, and as we learn to understand its deeper meaning we discover that it most significantly pictures the heart and essence of the new Initiation-knowledge, centering in the Mystery of Christ. The Initiates of the new age may therefore be described as the 'Initiates of the Grail.' ... We are now living at a time when the higher knowledge needs to be far more widely received into the general consciousness of mankind than hitherto; it is with this view in mind that the present work has been written." [15]

But even in these works, Steiner withheld much. Here is a passage from the same book (it refers to the distant future):

“From Venus, a a certain stage, a separate celestial body becomes detached [i.e., will become detached]. This — as it were an 'irreclaimable Moon' — includes all the beings who have persisted in withstanding the true course of evolution. It enters now upon a line of development such as now words can portray, so unlike is it to anything within the range of man's experience on Earth. The evolved mankind on the other hand, in a form of existence utterly spiritualized, goes forward into the Vulcan evolution, any description of which would be beyond the compass of this book." [16]

Perhaps someone with better language skills could have described things that Steiner said were indescribable or best left undescribed, but his language — cloudy, vague, evasive — was certainly not up to the task. Indeed, he used language that served better to conceal than to explain. But this is necessary, Steiner would rejoin: The uninitiated may not be told the secrets for which they are unprepared.

The “hidden” or “mystery” knowledge that Steiner and other “initiates” claim to possess is not available through any ordinary means, Steiner insisted.

“These things cannot be — nor are they meant to be — discovered by dint of reasoning and reflection.” [17]

These things are available only through high powers of clairvoyance, allowing initiates to perform such arcane tasks as, for instance, reading the Akashic Records, which comprise an invisible celestial encyclopedia.

“[I]f we are able to raise our faculty of perception [i.e., clairvoyance] and look through the visible world to the invisible, we arrive at length at a point where we have [i.e., we see] before us what might be compared to a mighty spiritual panorama wherein all the past events of the world are displayed. These abiding traces of all spiritual happenings may be called the ‘Akashic Records’....” [18]

Occult initiation allows one to penetrate the higher worlds, the spirit realm. Conditions there are radically different from those found on the physical plane of existence, the lower realm accessible to our ordinary senses.

“[T]he beings and events seen in this field are not of a kind to be perceived by outer senses ... All we receive of them are the impressions of purely spiritual sound, spiritual light and spiritual warmth. They do not find expression in material embodiment.” [19]

Spiritual sound, spiritual light, and spiritual warmth are quite different from physical sound, light, and warmth. Indeed, ordinary consciousness may comprehend a rough sort of analogy between the higher and lower realities, but any such analogy must be misleading. The spirit realm is literally incomprehensible to the uninitiated.

A further complication is that much of the spirit realm — and even a lot of the physical realm — is in constant flux, according to Steiner. Most beings are evolving, some upward, some downward. Thus, what was true during one period may be quite untrue during another period. Various gods (who are evolving) coordinate their efforts in differing ways in differing periods.

"It is a very complicated matter, as you may well imagine, when the Spirits of the different Hierarchies [i.e., gods of different ranks] have to coordinate their forces in such a way that the mission of the Earth can be fulfilled ... You will understand therefore that statements such as those made in our last lecture are valid only in so far [sic] as they refer to a definite period in evolution and that the whole picture changes immediately one depicts evolution at another period." [20]

It is all very, very complicated. Steiner will say one thing one day and another thing the next — the "whole picture changes." So, any apparent contradictions should be overlooked since this is how things are, in the esoteric scheme of cosmic evolution.

Still another problem is that when Steiner revealed hidden knowledge to insiders, his words were often taken down and then published. But because Steiner himself did not review all of the resulting transcripts, some errors may have crept in. (Only Steiner, of course, possessed enough hidden knowledge to make the needed corrections.)

“The results of my anthroposophical work are, first, the books available to the general public; secondly, a great number of lecture courses, originally regarded as private publications and sold only to the members of the Anthroposophical Society. The courses consist of more-or-less accurate notes taken at my lectures, which for lack of time I have not been able to correct ... [T]he public and the private publications are in fact two quite different things, built upon different foundations ... Whoever reads these privately printed lectures can take them to represent anthroposophy in the fullest sense ... It must be borne in mind, however, that faulty passages occur in these lecture-reports not revised by me. [paragraph break] The right to judge such private material can, of course, be conceded only to someone who has the prerequisite basis for such judgment...” [21]

So, take it all in all, we outsiders are at an enormous disadvantage. We really cannot penetrate to the truths possessed by Steiner and his initiated confederates. Thus, our views are of no value.


Or perhaps not. Perhaps we outsiders are perfectly capable of reading Anthroposophical texts and gaining a perfectly serviceable understanding of their meaning. We must make allowances for the cloudiness of Steiner’s verbiage, and we must bear in mind that errors may have crept into some texts — but Anthroposophists must do the same. We outsiders lack the clairvoyance that initiates use to confirm and correct Steiner — but in reality, initiates lack clairvoyance also, since clairvoyance is a delusion.

No, I’m afraid that all the denials and defenses put up by Anthroposophists do not withstand scrutiny. The opinions of outsiders who have studied Anthroposophy carefully cannot be brushed aside on the excuse that we do not possess the needed background, the needed psychic powers, the needed attitudes, the needed depth of comprehension. We can understand Anthroposophy well enough, and at least some of us may come to the opinion — which merits consideration, at least — that Anthroposophy is erroneous on many counts — perhaps, indeed, on nearly all counts.

We skeptical outsiders may also come to a secondary conclusion, or call it a suspicion. Steiner protested too much. He gave multiple reasons why his views should not be challenged. He said over and over, in various ways, that the only people who can understand him are the people who agree with him; all the rest of us should hold our tongues, we simply don’t understand, indeed we cannot possibly understand. But aren’t Steiner’s protestations precisely what one would expect from a dissembler? Someone who wishes to seem mysterious and wise, and who wants to avoid being pinned down and thus found out, would use precisely the tactics Steiner employed. Steiner's statements certainly are different from any that a true scientist — which is what he claimed to be — would ever make. Imagine Einstein, for instance, making Steiner-like stipulations: No one can understand the General Theory of Relativity unless he approaches it with an attitude of devotion, having been admitted to the inner circle of “mystery” physicists who possess certain occult secrets (and perhaps a secret handshake). This is not the way science works. It is not the way intelligence works. It is not the way the search for truth works.

“Anthroposophy” — the label Steiner chose for his teachings — means human wisdom. But the stipulations Steiner laid down reveal that Anthroposophy stands in opposition to genuine human wisdom.

— Roger Rawlings


[R.R., during the here and now]


This page offers you the truth.

But naturally it can't provide

the complete and final word

on all matters concerning the thinking

on which Waldorf education is based.

There's more to be said, just as there was

a lot of ground to cover before arriving here.

To grain a more rounded view,

please explore other pages

at the website.

To consider what counts as good, common-sense

educational policy in Waldorf schools, see "Common Sense".


Use the following link to access further helpings of