Monday, October 18, 2021

When anthroposophy meets romanticism: the theology of Owen Barfield.

 Wendell G. Johnson

WHY read Owen Barfield and pay attention to his religious beliefs? In part, because C. S. Lewis, the well-known Christian apologist, called Barfield "the wisest and best of my unofficial teachers" (Lewis Allegory). Barfield grew up in a middle class, secular family where a mood of skepticism prevailed regarding anything of a religious nature: "I was brought up without religious beliefs and with something of a bias against them" (Barfield Romanticism 4). He was not flippant about religious matters, but neither was he reverent. While in officer candidate school, he was required to march in a parade. Barfield confessed to being embarrassed because he was not familiar with church services: "I didn't quite know when to stand up and when to sit down" (Blaxland-de Lange 15). Shortly after the First World War, he fired of what he perceived to be the materialism of the age and found solace in Romantic poetry, particularly the meaning of individual words. He began an intense study of lyrical poetry, and through this study, became interested in the evolution of human consciousness. Early in his study, Barfield was introduced to Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophical writings by Daphne Oliver, a singer and fiddler Barfield met in Cornwall. Barfield claims to have discovered Anthroposophy and joined the society "almost in the same year (1923) that I marfled" (Blaxland-de Lange 30). His wife, however, did not share his beliefs and was initially strongly averse to them. She applied to join the society shortly before her death in 1980.

Rudolf Steiner was born in February 1861 at Kraljevic, Hungary (in present day Serbia). Mystical experiences in childhood convinced him that a spiritual world existed that could be discerned by the senses. Early in his childhood, Steiner saw an apparent (to him) lack of continuity between inner and outer experience. He defined Urphanomene--the prime phenomena--as neither objective nor subjective, but as coming into existence only as they are interpreted by human beings. Steiner matriculated at the Technische Hochschule, Vienna in 1879, where he studied natural history, mathematics, and chemistry. While at Vienna, he also read widely in philosophy, particularly the works of Kant and Nietzsche. He enrolled at the University of Rostock and received his Ph.D. in 1891 upon the completion of his dissertation, Die Grundfrage der Erkenntnishteorie (The Fundamentals of Epistemology). Through the offices of his professor, Karl Julius Schroer, Steiner began to edit Goethe's writings in natural science. Prior to his conversion to Christianity from religious skepticism about the turn of the century, Steiner sharply criticized Christian ethics and considered Kant's categorical imperative to be "the philistine embodiment of an external code" (Steiner 143). He presided over the German chapter of the Theosophical Society but was expelled for refusing to follow Annie Besant's dictate that the seer Krishnamurti had appeared as Christ incarnate. Steiner wrote his first book on education, The Education of the Child, in 1907, which provided the principles behind the Waldorf Schools. The first Waldorf School was founded in 1919 to educate the children of the workers in the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany. The schools emphasize the role of the imagination in education, combining creative and analytical components. As of 2010, there are nearly 1000 independent Waldorf schools throughout the world.

Anthroposophy offers a highly idiosyncratic view of the relation between God and human kind. It is an offshoot of the Theosophical movements popularized by Madame Blavatsky, but the schools of thought differ in their orientation. Theosophy incorporates Eastern elements, primarily Buddhist, while Anthroposophy has more in common with nineteenthcentury German Idealism (Reilly 17). Steiner described Anthroposophy as a path of knowledge that unites the spirit in the individual with the spirit in the universe. The human ego is of the same nature and essence as the divine ego. Anthroposophical training seeks to unite this ego with the external world. Steiner maintains that a person has a physical body (resembling the mineral world), an etheric body (which plants can also claim), an astral body (which humans share with the animal kingdom at large and which is the vehicle of sensation and passion), and finally, an ego, which differentiates human beings from all otherworldly creatures. Steiner disagreed with the Darwinian view that physical evolution ultimately leads to human consciousness. Rather, consciousness has evolved through identifiable stages. According to Steiner, human beings exist before physical birth. Before entering the world, individuals enjoy "Original Participation" or an extrasensory link with the creator. Conceptual thinking began during the Greco-Roman period, termed the "Intellectual Soul" by Steiner. Human thought continued to develop until it was completely subjective, the age of the "Consciousness Soul" (the present time), during which the individual human microcosm discovers itself completely separated from the greater macrocosm (or creation). The Consciousness Soul literally accepts the world as it appears (as opposed to the world as it actually exists apart from human perception). Human beings are moving out of the age of the "Consciousness Soul" towards "Final Participation," which is achieved by turning attention to direct inspiration and inner revelation or intuition and where the individual is a self-contained ego (Carpenter 36).


Anthroposophy requires no formal religious observances and its sympathizers attend a variety of Christian denominations. As Reilly notes, Anthroposophy is not a religion, but it has religious implications (15-16). The Christian Community, founded in 1922 in Switzerland by the Lutheran minister Friedrich Rittlemeyer, is based on lectures given by Steiner in England and Germany. The founding creed is reminiscent of its theological contemporary Paul Tillich, particularly the first article: "An almighty divine being, spiritual-physical, is the ground of existence of the heavens and of the earth who goes before his creatures like a Father" ("Creed"). The Christian Community celebrates the Eucharist, or Mass, in a renewed form they call the Consecration of Man. The worship service consists of four steps that reveal the invisible process of the spirit in visible form: Gospel reading, Offertory, Transubstantiation, and Communion. The term "Consecration of Man" implies that the ultimate goal of existence is to become an authentic human being by following Christ. In addition to the Consecration of Man, the Community observes six sacraments. Four of these sacraments follow traditional, mainline Christian teaching: baptism, confirmation, marriage, and ordination. Two of the sacraments have a unique anthroposophical interpretation: the Last Anointing assists the dying in freeing themselves from the body and transitioning to spiritual life, and Sacramental Consultation consists of confidential counseling which helps the initiate fulfill a person's life destiny. Adherents believe that immortality is closely related to the question of human existence. A human being does not come into existence at the time of physical birth nor does it go out of existence at physical death. Following Steiner, the Christian Community believes that human beings enjoy individual pre-existence before birth and death represents a transformation of earthly consciousness when the immortal past frees itself from its mortal body.

BARFIELD found something magical about certain combinations of words, and his experience of poetry affected his apprehension of the outer world. The poetic combination of words led him to the Romantic Poets and to their conception of imagination. For Barfield, it was a very short logical jump to posit that the human imagination conveys truth. Barfield's Romanticism Comes of Age (1944) contains essays he wrote under the auspices of the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain between 1926 and 1932. It was Steiner who introduced Barfield to Goethe and opened up the writing of the English Romantics, especially Coleridge. Barfield, following Steiner, divides the evolutionary process of human consciousness into four stages extending from 10,000 BCE to the present time, encompassing the Ancient Indian Period, the Ancient Persian Period, the Egypto-Chaldean Period, and the final two stages, which have the most relevance for Barfield's theology: the Age of the Intellectual Soul (which he dates BCE 750 to CE 1450) and the Age of the Consciousness Soul (CE 1450 to the present). During these final two stages, according to Barfield, Steiner's Intellectual Soul begins to converse with the Consciousness Soul. The soul is searching for meaning and seeking to overcome the distinction between subject and object. In his essay "Of the Consciousness Soul," Barfield describes the typical experience of the conscious soul: "At first this may be a certainty of pure feeling, and then perhaps a conviction, an absolute knowledge, of the truth that resides in beauty and imagination. This is the stuff of which the English Romantic Movement was made" (Barfield Romanticism 78). In other words, according to Barfield, Coleridge and Steiner are describing the same thing: genuine creative imagination.

Barfield had high praise for Steiner: "future historians of Western thought will interpret the appearance of Romantic philosophy towards the close of the eighteenth century as foreshadowing the advent of Rudolf Steiner (Barfield Romanticism 19) and acknowledged him as il maestro di color che sanno: the master of those who teach (Barfield Romanticism 11). Barfield was disappointed to discover that individuals who shared his interest in literature had little time to listen to his observations on Steiner. By the same token, people who shared his devotion to Steiner were not anxious to hear his thoughts on language and literature. When Romanticism Comes of Age first appeared in 1944, the Anthroposophists were apparently tarred with the same brush as Nazi Germany. As a result, Barfield goes to great lengths in the book to distance the thought of Goethe and Steiner from Nazi propaganda and reiterate his abhorrence of the Nazi regime.

Barfield's allegiance to Anthroposophy and his dependence on the thought of Rudolf Steiner set off his "Great War" with C. S. Lewis. Barfield met C. S. Lewis shortly after the First World War and before enrolling at Oxford. The "Great War" is a series of letters between Barfield and Lewis that arose from Lewis's attempt to dissuade Barfield from following Anthroposophy. Barfield contended that the claims of Anthroposophy were objectively true. Lewis said that this was nonsense--Anthroposophy has nothing to do with science, scientific investigation, or the scientific method. Lewis regarded Steiner as a superstitious panpsychist and was disappointed to hear that Barfield was impressed by Steiner: "The comfort he gets from him... (apart from the sugar plum of promised immortality) seemed something I could get very much better without him" (Adey 13). The letters, written between 1925 and 1927, chronicle Lewis's disagreement with Barfield's contention that poetry conveys knowledge and imagination disseminates truth.

The "Great War" served as a catalyst and allowed each participant to crystallize his position relative to the other. Lionel Adey thinks that Barfield got the better of the exchanges, and concludes, "Future students of twentieth-century thought may well find Barfield among the diagnosticians of a profound change in human consciousness, one comparable to the Reformation or Enlightenment." This judgment, at the present, appears overblown. However, Adey's take on Lewis's position is accurate: "[his] writing, on theology in particular, is an effort not of creative Reason but of Understanding that looks backward over the path traced by earlier scholars" (123). Lewis eventually tried to place his thought within the traditional theological trajectory and, according to Lewis, "Barfield "changed me more than I him" (Surprised 14). In Surprised by Joy, Lewis explains that Barfield delivered him from chronological snobbery, or the inability to grant credence to ideas generated prior to the Enlightenment. Once he overcame this barrier, Lewis could countenance belief in the supernatural, including Christianity (Adey 14). Lewis outlined his conversion, first to theism and subsequently to Christianity, in Mere Christianity. The book's chapters are based on transcripts of radio broadcasts Lewis made during World War II while he was at Oxford (approximately the same time Barfield published Romanticism Comes of Age). After the period of the Great War, Lewis refused to discuss Steiner and theology with Owen Barfield, much to the latter's chagrin. After Lewis's conversion to Christianity, Barfield wanted to see what relation there was between his "stance after his conversion and the kind of opinions he had before it" (Blaxland-de Lange 175). However, Lewis would not rise to the bait and refused to discuss the subject that had set off the "Great War."

BARFIELD'S Worlds Apart (1963) hints at his religious views. This philosophical novel depicts a symposium of characters who gather Friday evening through Sunday afternoon to discuss three questions: 1) Darwinian evolution (does it extend beyond the biological sphere?), 2) modern science (can it deal with phenomena distinct from the human mind?), and 3) the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind. Barfield does not visibly place himself at the gathering, but he disperses his own views among the participants. One of the characters, Hunter (a professor of historical theology and ethics), will remind the reader of C. S. Lewis.

Barfield's essay "The Son of God and the Son of Man" is one of his most avowedly theological treatises. It is here that Barfield provides his definition of Christianity as "the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God" (Rediscovery 249). This is the correct definition of Christianity, in Barfield's opinion, for the very simple reason that it cannot apply to any other religion. In this essay, Barfield distinguishes between the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" as applied to Jesus in the Christian New Testament. Jesus is the "Son of God" because he partakes of the divine nature and, according to the Gospel of John, became incarnate in order to reveal God to human beings. Jesus considered himself the "Son of God'" because he shared a oneness with God that is not possible for ordinary human beings. "Man" (Hebrew: adam) is a Semitic expression for humanity in general. With the preface "son of" it designates a specific human being. The term is used in Daniel 7:13-14 to describe a transcendental eschatological agent who brings the kingdom to afflicted saints. In the similitudes of Enoch (I Enoch 37-71) the term applies to a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth to judge the wicked and deliver the righteous. In the New Testament, Jesus used the term "Son of Man" to refer to himself. By his use of this term, Jesus lays claim to pre-existence and announces that he will one day inaugurate the kingdom (Ladd 156).

In "From East to West," Barfield applied Steiner's scheme to Christian theology: "Through the incarnation of Christ in a human body, there was born into the world a legitimate self consciousness" (Romanticism 31). In Christ, the human ego, the true sell descended from purely spiritual heights to the earth: "Had Christ not come to earth, human beings would never have been able to utter the word 'I' at all" (Romanticism 31). The resurrection of Jesus is tied to human imagination; in fact, the resurrection makes imagination possible. "Imagination is the most precious of all our possessions, the chosen one of all our faculties to be our savior" (Romanticism 33).

Barfield was disappointed that Lewis would not continue their theological discussions after the Second World War and penned a conscious imitation of St. John's prologue (John 1), also known as the hymn to the Logos:
   Behold, there was a certain philosopher!
   And the philosopher knew himself that he is one.
   And the Word, having become one in the philosopher, was in
   God.
   And the Word was the light of his philosophy.
   And the Light was shining in his philosophy
   And the philosopher knew it not.
   And the Light was in the philosopher,
   And his philosophy came into being through the Light,
   And the philosopher knew it not.
   The philosopher said that no one
   Under any circumstance could ever behold the Light.
   And when he had beheld that Light, the philosopher insisted
   That its name was LORD.
   And his philosophy bore witness about the Light,
   That it is the Word and life of mankind,
   And about the philosopher,
   That he was not born of the flesh,
   Nor of the will of the flesh,
   Nor of the will of man,
   Nor through a command of the Lord,
   But of God.
   And the philosopher did not receive the witness.
   (Blaxland-de Lange 175-6)


It remains an open question whether Lewis ever saw Barfield's effort: "I don't think I ever showed it to him, though I felt a strong impulse to do so. If I did, then he paid scant attention to it; if I didn't, it was because I was afraid of his paying scant attention to it" (Blaxland-de Lange 175). According to Steiner and Barfield, the Logos represents Cosmic Intelligence (Reilly 21). Logos (word) is related to the Greek verb lego: to speak. With the rise of Greek rationality, logos plays an increasingly important role. For Socrates, it is related to such words as truth, knowledge, virtue, law, nature, and spirit. For both Socrates and Plato, a harmony exists between the logos of reason and the logos of reality. Although it refers to speech and revelation, logos has a metaphysical reality. Particularly appropriate for our interpretation of Barfield is the use of the term by Philo of Alexandria, who viewed the divine logos as a mediating figure between the transcendent God and the world. In John's Gospel, the incarnation of the pre-existing logos marked its transition to history. Traditionally, a barrier remains between the transcendent and the immanent spheres of existence. In the person of Jesus Christ, the transcendent logos (the eternal God) breaks into the immanent, human sphere. As St. John points out in the Prologue to his Gospel, the world was brought into existence through the agency of the Word (logos). The combination of the logos with Christological pre-existence identifies the historical figure of Jesus with the World of the divine creator (Kittel 131).

God manifests God's self in Christ, revealing that God's nature and power are immanent in human individuals. In the anthroposophic view, this is not only the wisdom of God, but also the wisdom of humankind. However, Barfield also sees a reciprocal action: that immanent, temporal humanity also attains transcendent status. Barfield was not a kenotic theologian; he argued for a polar relationship between God and humanity. For Lewis, God remained transcendent and the immanent status of the Godhead was limited to the time that Jesus spent on earth. For Barfield, God as the Son descended from above and died on the cross. God the Father remained firmly in the transcendent sphere. Lewis strongly disagreed with Barfield's view of the deification of human kind; in fact, he abhorred the idea. The relationship between humans and God was not an evolving one for Lewis. For him, the chasm between creator and creature remains fixed, and the revelation that bridged that chasm occurred in the past and is finished.

ANY deeply held literary point of view has religious implications (Reilly 4), and Barfield was a passionate Romantic. He strongly held to the immanence of God in humanity and the cosmic transformation of God's consciousness into the individual consciousness. The incarnation of Jesus was the historical turning point in this regard, whereby God became immanent by means of human imagination. Barfield attempted to deal with the question faced by many Christians: How do human beings come to terms with a God who exists forever above and beyond them? Barfield found the answer in Romanticism: the human imagination.

Works Cited

Adey, Lionel. C. S. Lewis's "Great War" with Owen Barfield. Victoria, B.C.: U of Victoria P. 1978.

Barfield, Owen. The Rediscovery of Meaning, and Other Essays. Middlelton, CT: Wesleyan UP, 1977.

--. Worlds Apart: A Dialogue of the 1960s. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP, 1963.

--. Romanticism Comes of Age. London: Anthroposophical Publishing Co, 1944.

Blaxland-de Lange, Simon. Owen Barfield: Romanticism Comes of Age: A Biography. Forest Row, England: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2006.

Carpenter, Humphrey. The Inklings. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1978.

"The Creed of the Christian Community." The Christian Community. 2010. 6 Jul 2010 <http://www.thechristiancommunity.org/creed.htm>.

Kittel, Gerhard. "Lego." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. Gerhard Kittel. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1964. 69-143.

Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Grand Rapid, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1993.

Lewis, C. S. Surprised by Joy: The Shape of my Early Life. London: G. Bles, 1955.

--. Allegory of Love; a Study in Medieval Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1936. N. pag.

Reilly, R. J. Romantic Religion: A Study of Barfield, Lewis, Williams, and Tolkien. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 1971.

Steiner, Rudolf. The Nature of Anthroposophy. Blauvelt, NY: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1964.

Anthroposophy 

Owen Barfield

A religious philosophy, or a “spiritual science” (Romanticism Comes of Age 7)—its central belief the assumption “that nature has indeed a spiritual life, a spiritual substance of her own, which she preserves quite independently of man” (Romanticism Comes of Age 275)—to which Barfield was an adherent since the late 1920s, Anthroposophy was founded by the German occult philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) after (because of) his break with Theosophy. Anthroposophy teaches that human kind’s evolving consciousness is the result of—inextricable from—cosmic, extra-personal processes; that man evolves from original participation, to the age of the intellectual soul, to the age of the consciousness soul (the present), to final participation and the imaginative soul.

Barfield heard Steiner speak only once, in his twenties, and from that time on was greatly influenced by his prolific writings, becoming a well known proselytizer for Anthroposophy and an adherent of his teachings and of the faith that “through Rudolf Steiner there was revealed the gradual entrusting of the Cosmic Intelligence to man, of which the Incarnation of the Word was the central event, and which is the meaning of history” (Romanticism Comes of Age 237). Prior to his first encounter with Steiner, however, Barfield had already discovered many of the central tenets of Anthroposophy independently.

“From one point of view,” Barfield notes, “Anthroposophy is a new and startling phenomenon in the history of the mind. From another it can be seen as the natural and inevitable development of intellectual and philosophical impulses which had begun to manifest before Steiner was born.” As Barfield observes in Romanticism Comes of Age, “[Anthroposophy] begins to look much more like a coming-to-the-surface at last, and out of the clear light of day, of something that has long been at work in the dark—or nearly in the dark . . . half-hidden, always trying to reach the surface, and occasionally succeeding in doing so-for a brief period, and perhaps in an unexpected form . . . then vanishing again into obscurity”(300).

Barfield’s (and Steiner’s) Romantic precursors had also anticipated Anthroposophy’s key ideas.

The thinking of others, such as Hegel and the Nature-Philosophers in Germany and Coleridge in England, had taken the same direction, but none of them had achieved their aim so authoritatively or so completely. Coleridge could write, rather vaguely, of “organs of spirit,” with a latent function analogous to that of our more readily available organs of sense, and Goethe could apply his “objective thinking” to supplement causality with metamorphosis. But neither of them could carry cognition of spirit beyond spirit-as-phenomenally-apparent in external nature. It was in Steiner that Western mind and western method first achieved cognition of pure spirit. The others were all apostles of Imagination in its best sense, Steiner alone of those profounder levels which he himself termed Inspiration and Intuition, but which may together be conceived of as Revelation in the form appropriate to this age—as a mode of cognition to which the noumenal ground of existence is accessible directly, and not only through its phenomenal manifestation; to which therefore even the remote past can become an open book.
(“Listening to Steiner” 97-98)

If Anthroposophy had early 19th century antecedents, it resonates as well with developments in 20th century thought.

Much influenced by developments in modern science, especially 20th century physics’ discovery of the participatory nature of reality,[i] Barfield finds surprising similarities in its discoveries and the teachings of Anthroposophy: “That it is an illusion to imagine nature unperceived as being or remaining ‘the same thing’ as nature perceived is a truth about which Anthroposophy and modern Physics agree.” But there is, of course, a different—a qualitative difference:

Modern Physics assumes for its purposes that Nature unperceived consists of some kind of network of waves or particles. What does Anthroposophy assume? That Nature unperceived is the unconscious, sleeping being of humanity; just as Nature perceived is the self-reflection of waking humanity.
(Romanticism Comes of Age 277)

It is this belief, of course, which makes Anthroposophy, and the thought of Owen Barfield as well, heretical.

In an essay on “Listening to Steiner,” Barfield succinctly summarizes Anthroposophy’s “basic principles” in the following way:

  •  The evolution of the world is, and always has been, essentially an evolution of consciousness; and the material and biological evolution, which is its outward expression, will never be known, though it may be tinkered with, until that is fully realized.
  •  In the course of that evolution matter has emerged from mind and not mind from matter. Spirit must first take on the form of a material brain in order to lead in this form the life of the conceptual world, which can bestow upon man in his earthly life freely acting self-consciousness. To be sure, in the brain spirit mounts upward out of matter, but only after the material brain has arisen out of spirit.
  •  In its later stages evolution is coterminous with the evolution of human perceiving and thinking. That does not mean a “history of ideas” refracted from particular heads, but a progressive development of the whole relation between the inner and the outer world.
  •  The verb “to evolve” requires a single subject if it is not to be meaningless. The age-long evolution of individuality—that is, of individual selves or egos—out of a general and participating consciousness, is accordingly not conceivable except in terms of repeated earth lives (reincarnation), just as the evolution of a natural species is inconceivable without repeated individual embodiments in the course of which it acquires its special form.
  •  The central form in evolution, that is, of the painful emergence of a subjective and specifically “human” consciousness out of that original participation in the phenomenal world which the myths reflect, and its advance to man’s final participation in that world as an individual free spirit, was the historical life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
  •  That stage in the evolution of consciousness which gave rise to, and has been urged forward by, the scientific revolution in the West is, on the one hand, responsible for the prevailing materialism of the present age. On the other hand it is that which has made possible exact knowledge both of nature and of spirit. Up to now this has only been realized in relation to knowledge of nature, and there only in a very limited (predominately mineral) sphere. Correlatively, however, it has made possible exact knowledge of man’s own spirit and of the spiritual world of which he is a part. Organs of perception giving rise to such knowledge are latent in all human beings, but can only be developed and brought into activity by arduous and persevering endeavor.
  •  Steiner himself developed these organs to an extraordinary degree and applied them to many, or nearly all, realms of knowledge. His books and lectures consist in the main of the findings of his spiritual research in those different realms. (“Listening to Steiner” 98-99)

In its simplest terms, Anthroposophy, then, should be thought of as “a path of knowledge to guide the Spiritual in the Human Being to the Spiritual in the Universe” (Romanticism Comes of Age 302: Barfield is quoting Steiner). “Men have called me also Sophia,” the Meggid explains in Unancestral Voiceperoration, Barfield’s most concise exposition of Anthroposophy’s central teachings:

 Once I was the ancestral voice of the Father-wisdom, the theosophia that spoke inarticulately through blood and instinct, but articulately through the sibyls, the prophets, the masters. But at the turning-point of time, by that central death and rebirth which was the transformation of transformations, by the open mystery of Golgotha, I was myself transformed. I am that anthroposophia who . . . is the voice of each one’s mind speaking from the depths within himself.
(Unancestral Voice 221)



[i] “Nothing is more important about the quantum principle than this,” the noted physicist John Wheeler has shown, “that it destroys the concept of the world as ‘sitting out there,’ with the observer safely separated from it by a 20-centimeter slab of plate glass. Even to observe so minuscule an object as an electron, he must shatter the glass. He must reach in. he must install his chosen measuring equipment. It is up to him to decide whether he shall measure position or momentum. . . . . the measurement changes the state of the electron. The universe will never be the same. To describe what has happened, one has to cross out the old word ‘observer’ and put in its place the new word ‘participator.’ In some strange sense, the universe is a participatory universe” (Capra 127-28).



by L Fischer2011Cited by 3 — Owen Barfield (1898-1997) was a thinker, literary scholar, writer, solicitor, and an eminent interpreter of Rudolf Steiner‟s spiritual philosophy, known as.


 


Steiner and the Theosophical Current

2016, Schriften – Rudolf Steiner Kritische Ausgabe: Band 6: Schriften zur Anthropologie – Theosophie – Anthroposophie. Ein Fragment
1516 ViewsPaperRank: 6.212 Pages
Foreword to Volume 6 of the series Schriften – Rudolf Steiner Kritische Aufgabe (frommann-holzboog Verlag, 2016), edited by Christian Clement. This volume contains Steiner's two texts, Theosophie and Anthroposophie. The foreword discusses Steiner's relationship to the Theosophical and post-Theosophical currents.



‘Rudolf Steiner’s engagement with contemporary artists’ groups: art-theoretical discourse in the anthroposophical milieu in Germany in the early 20th century’

2018, Journal of Art Historiography 19
1405 ViewsPaperRank: 5.433 Pages
It is a topos that the manifold heterodox religious movements that have been spreading throughout Europe in the late 19th century paved the way for the abandonment of representational painting by virtue of providing a reconsideration of traditional thought systems as well as a reorientation of established values. The leading proponents of these subversive ideas often sought to direct and regulate artistic production through various ways. In this context, Rudolf Steiner’s dynamic interaction with young artists who came to attend his lectures offers an interesting paradigm that stands in sharp contrast to other practices followed by more traditional scholarly simulated lectures. After 1907, by weaving together esoteric Christianity with Goethe’s colour theory and projecting them into an art historical narrative, Steiner denounced the mainstream theosophical doctrine, spread by Annie Besant, and was ready to express contemporary preoccupations regarding the importance of colour in the reinvention of artistic practice. Both a transmitter of ideas and an eclectic recipient of contemporary artistic discourses, Steiner urged young artists to engage with specific art-theory discourses and interfered in the artistic production by commissioning art works or by providing instructions for them.





‘And the Building Becomes Man’: Meaning and Aesthetics in Rudolf Steiner’s Goetheanum

3590 Views14 Pages
"Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophical Society, is renowned for his work in widely varied fields. However, his accomplishments as an architect are less well understood. His two greatest achievements in this field – two buildings known as ‘Geotheanum I’ and ‘Goetheanum II’ (built after the destruction of the 1st) – have been described as ‘sculptural architecture’, of a kind similar Expressionist form to Gaudi, Obrist, and Finsterlin. The focus of this chapter, Goetheanum II, is a giant sculptured form, four stories high, with sweeping lines that give the effect of a giant monolithic mass. It is home to the Anthroposophical movement, and holds a 1,000 seat performance hall in which spiritual performances take place. Contributors to an issue of the Swiss architectural magazine Werk, in 1960, on the building, agreed that the building’s design must have required “a uniform worldview and lifestyle.” Indeed, to understand the Goetheanum requires an understanding of Anthroposophy and of Steiner himself. This chapter looks at the meaning in the aesthetic choices of Steiner in the design and construction of the Goetheanum II. Steiner’s belief that the people of Western Europe needed to re-orientate their weltanschauung is understood as a spiritual need. Interestingly, it was a view shared by many Expressionist artists. Steiner could not have been unaware of a number of significant Expressionistic philosophies and forms present in Europe during his formative period. As a lecturer he travelled extensively, and came into contact with many artists and writers who shared similar ideas. His vision for the Goetheanum was grandiose, like those of many other Expressionists, though unlike many others he had the opportunity to build his vision himself. The Goetheanum has also been referred to as a gesamtkunstwerk, also a theme common in the German art scene at the time. Yet Steiner wanted something ‘new’ for his nascent spiritual group; “Not to build in a style born out of our spiritual world view, would mean to deny Anthroposphy in her own house.” As a result the Geotheanum expresses Anthroposophical ideals, a movement which itself professed to inhabit the entire cultural life of its adherents. For Steiner this was came in the form of spiritual realisation, which could best be achieved in the sculptural shapes and organic forms of the Goetheanum"



Rudolf Steiner’s Theories and Their Translation into Architecture
by
Fiona Gray
B.A. Arts (Arch.); B. ARCH. (Deakin).
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy 

On Rudolf Steiner's Conception of Consciousness Soul (by Johannes Kiersch)

2021, STEINER STUDIES

81 Pages

The concept of 'consciousness soul' (Bewusstseinsseele) is part of the terminological core of Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy. It has been discussed to a certain extent within the isolated discourse among anthroposophically oriented researchers, but has so far hardly been acknowledged in academic studies on Steiner. The present article undertakes a first systematic mapping of the research area in which this term can be meaningfully located, discussing three frameworks that have appeared so far as promising and hermeneutically appropriate approaches to the difficult subject.

https://www.academia.edu/53157242/On_Rudolf_Steiners_Conception_of_Consciousness_Soul_by_Johannes_Kiersch_


Anthroposophy and its Defenders

(co-written with Peter Zegers)

Reply to Peter Normann Waage, “Humanism and Polemical Populism”

“Anthroposophy and Ecofascism” has sparked a debate within Scandinavian humanist circles, with some authors like Peter Normann Waage lining up to defend anthroposophy as a harmless variant of humanism. 1 While we are encouraged by this long overdue debate, we are troubled by the degree of historical naiveté it has revealed. Waage’s perspective seems to represent a view that is fairly widespread among educated and well-intentioned people. We hope that we can contribute to a more accurate view of the political ihttps://social-ecology.org/wp/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-its-defenders-2/mplications of anthroposophy by correcting several of the misconceptions exemplified by Waage’s reply. Although Waage has nothing to say about the article’s main topic, the systematic collusion between organized anthroposophy and the so-called “green wing” of German fascism, he does raise several issues that lie at the core of that collusion. Waage would have us believe that Rudolf Steiner was a principled anti-racist, that he opposed private property, rejected militarism and nationalism, and was a staunch adversary of Nazism.  These claims are not simply untrue; they betray a surprising unfamiliarity with Steiner’s published work and a profound misunderstanding of anthroposophy’s political history.

https://social-ecology.org/wp/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-its-defenders-2/

Neo-Nazi elements sold as Anthroposophy


60 Pages
On racism and Holocaust negationism in the anthroposophical scene in the Netjherlands and Belgium. Original published on Egoisten.de (Germany). Also on http://fhs1973.com/2009/08/24/



.

 


Theosophical Appropriations: Esotericism, Kabbalah, and the Transformation of Traditions, edited by Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss

2016, Theosophical Appropriations: Esotericism, Kabbalah, and the Transformation of Traditions, edited by Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss
PaperRank: 4.5410 Pages
Theosophical Appropriations Esotericism, Kabbalah and the Transformation of Traditions Editors: Julie Chajes, Boaz Huss The thirteen chapters of this volume examine intersections between theosophical thought and areas as diverse as the arts, literature, scholarship, politics, and, especially, modern interpretations of Judaism and kabbalah. Each chapter offers a case study in theosophical appropriations of a different type and in different context. The chapters join together to reveal congruencies between theosophical ideas and a wide range of contemporaneous intellectual, cultural, religious, and political currents. They demonstrate the far-reaching influence of the theosophical movement worldwide from the late-nineteenth century to the present day. Contributors: Karl baier, Julie Chajes, John Patrick Deveney, Victoria Ferentinou, Olav Hammer, Boaz Huss, Massimo Introvigne, Andreas Kilcher, Eugene Kuzmin, Shimon Lev, Isaac Luberlsky, Tomer Persico, Helmut Zander.




Qabbalah, The Theos-Sophia of the Jews

2410 ViewsPaperRank: 9.930 Pages
The article offers a preliminary study of Jewish theosophists and their interpretations of Kabbalah and analyzes the contexts and significance of Jewish-theosophical appropriations of Kabbala. The article argues that the Jewish theosophists’ interpretations of Kabbalah were part of a wider current of modern-Jewish interest in Kabbalah, and that some of their basic assumptions about the nature and significance of Kabbalah resemble and interconnect with the perceptions of modern scholars of Kabbalah.
https://www.academia.edu/28239752/Qabbalah_The_Theos_Sophia_of_the_Jews