The blog of the anthroposophical society in Canada has a post on ‘goethean conversation’, which supposedly is a manner of conducting conversation in order to receive ‘ideas and insights [coming] from the Archangels, specifically those Group Souls who guide mankind’. Referring to a text by Sergei Prokofieff, the post author writes:
Prokofieff relates how Rudolf Steiner briefly mentioned the New Group Souls in a lecture on June 1st, 1908. He describes how they differ from the Old Group Souls in that they fully take into account the freedom of mankind. And whereas the Old Group Souls controlled the affairs of men to some extent, the New Group Souls are now waiting for man to approach them out of total freedom. [. . .] Prokofieff adds that in order to approach the New Group Souls, individuals must first gain a knowledge and understanding of them, i.e. the Wisdom imparted by Anthroposophy.
Goethean conversation, the author predicts, will become ‘increasingly important’ due to the disappearance of old group souls. Old groups souls are presumably ‘withdrawing’, which I suppose is similar to the fate befalling backwards races… they become irrelevant to the evolution of earth and man. Signs that this is happening ‘are everywhere’ and examples of this process can be seen in:
the recent financial melt-down, chaos in large corporations, institutions and government; the crises in health-care and education; and at least half a dozen failed or failing states throughout the world.
Goethean conversation provides a solution:
It is part of man’s destiny to awaken to the fact that he has a free choice to work with the Gods, and Goethean Conversation is one of the ways …
However, I do wonder how a method like this, which partly seems to consist in holding back criticism, could actually help improve anything in this world. Perhaps the higher worlds operate in different ways — they sometimes seem like bizarro world, a parallel universe where words have lost their regular meanings and fact and fiction are reversed (oops that’s the world of anthroposophy, isn’t it…?) — but in this material reality I happen to live in, criticism is the best way to correct wrongs and to improve how we go about things. To me, it just seems more straightforward to discuss and debate than to contemplate your own failings and wishing everyone else will come to terms with theirs… on their own. Actually, goethean conversation, as it is described in the post, seems like a rather futile task and not likely to result in anything productive. But then, listening to Steiner, knowledge should be imparted, not discussed, since discussion is a sign of ignorance rather than a sign knowledge (I would claim the opposite is true, but there we go again with the parallel anthroposophic universe):
Where knowledge exists, knowledge is imparted and there is no particular desire for discussion. Where there is desire for discussion, however. there is as a rule no knowledge of the truth. Discussion begins only when there is a lack of knowledge, and it is always and everywhere the sign of a decline regarding the seriousness of a subject when it is discussed. Disintegration of a particular trend is always proclaimed by discussions. It is important that in spiritual science we come increasingly to understand that the wish for discussion may really be taken as a sign of ignorance. On the other hand, the opposite of discussion, the will to learn, the will gradually to comprehend what is in question, should be cultivated.
[Quoted recently in this thread on anthroposophists’ problematic attitude towards criticism, debate and discussion.]
the ethereal kiosk 
Dear Zooey,
the more I hear about what Anthroposophy is up to, the bleaker it looks. I’m reminded of men of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation who, when I was a boy, used to tell me that a ‘real man’ never forgives, never explains and never apologises; such macho posturing and anti-intellectualism praises only rhetoric that agrees with predetermined doctrine, utterly silences dissent from within and blocks constructive critique from without; it is the height of passive-aggression in conversation and, when adopted by militaristic entities, ends in genocide in which all critics are silenced forever.
One can witness those techniques at work in posts and comments throughout the blogosphere where Steiner apologists simply assert their views and refuse to answer specific questions; instead offering nonsensical, shifting and generalised platitudes. How different that is from the rationalists position in which real learning and advance comes from being tested by self criticism and the sharp intellects of others picking through the parts that one might have missed or incorrectly evaluated.
Of late, we seem to be witnessing a lull in the level of engagement by Anthroposophists with their on-line critics; having run out of rhetorical quips and put-downs they have reverted to silence; a silence that reminds me of the moments following a rhetorical argument in a bar full of normally noisy drunks, usually signifying some kind of verbal or actual violence is imminent. But I don’t expect an armed militia to spring out of the new-age machine as, in the UK, they have other powerful weapons at the ready: state-funded Free Schools, plenty of cash and the self-righteousness of mobilised hippy consiousness.
best wishes,
Nick
Nick: brilliant :)
Zooey,
It just dawned on me to ask this question:
(which of course means that you and I must be engaged in Goethean Conversation even over the Internet!)
Does Mr. Dog practice Goethean Barking?
Now wait a minute Zooey, you are acting as if Goethean Conversation is some Luciferic New Age woo-woo practice that has not been Ahrimanically proven and upgraded for our 21st Century materialistic consciousness. Clearly you have not heard of Carl Flygt and his new theory of Conscious Conversation.
http://consciousconversation.com/
Ahriman is proud of him and so should you be. I excerpt below the essence of his theory. Why, it seems just as intellectual and academic as anything Peter Staudenmaier writes.
———————————–
The theory asserts necessity at three levels.
(P1) When we use language, we are limited to a finite number of possible types of action with that usage.
(P2a) When we use language, we are usually trying to make contact with the reality of our existence.
(P2b) Both the terms and the predicates we use in language are causally tied to the reality of existence.
(P3) There is always a moral law at work in our use of language.
________________________________________
(C) By logical, natural and moral necessity, our conversations are/can be/should be materially efficient.
Material efficiency is a notion from Aristotle.
The material cause of x is the substance of which it is composed. Without the presence of that substance, x would not exist.
The efficient cause of x is the chain of events that have led to x’s materializing. Efficient causation is how things in general come to be.
Material efficiency is thus the principle of physical reality. Conversation, on my theory, is a species of physical reality, from the syllables pronounced and issued on the wave forms of speech, to the thoughts in the bodies and brains of those present, to the cosmic impulse to speak and to express one’s deepest need for recognition, for truth and for spirit vision.
==================================
Plus check out all his META RULES
http://consciousconversation.com/The%20Contract/MetaRules.htm
‘Does Mr. Dog practice Goethean Barking?’
Not much. He favours the canineosophical howling he has developed. It’s the way to keep a fruitful conversation going with a fire engine truck or a police car, he figures. It’s a kind of communication human beings have a dificult time to understand, because it’s so spiritually advanced.
—–
I need to get back to the other comments later. My attention has been absorbed by current events.