life on mars

Evidently, some gadget — called Curiosity — has landed on Mars and is supposed to discover the planet and send the information collected back to earth. We are to learn more about that red planet in the sky, sometimes visible from my window, a little more orange than the stars. Don’t imagine, however, that Curiosity will find the whole truth. It will not be able to glean any knowledge through clairvoyant means. Somebody else did, hundred years ago. First, one must be clear that Steiner spoke about the planets in two different senses: as physical planets and as stages of earth evolution and in the evolution of consciousness. Only then can one continue. I want to focus on what Steiner said about the planet Mars, the physical planet, what it is like, according to him… and what about the Martians?

Here’s Steiner answering a question from his audience. The question is about Mars, more specifically about what we know about Mars. Apparently, there was a discussion (in society or in science or both, I don’t know) about the planets merging again with the earth. Steiner says there’s no cause for concern, because:

If Mars, for instance, were actually to come down and unite with the earth, it would not be able to lay waste the land but only to inundate it. For as far as investigation is possible — it can never be done with physical instruments but only through spiritual science, spiritual vision — Mars consists primarily of a more or less fluid mass, not as fluid as our water but, shall we say, more like the consistency of jelly, or something of that kind.

He then continues to say that Mars is not solid, so what from earth looks like canals on Mars are in reality something more like trade winds. What about life on Mars then?

… everything on Mars is much more full of life than on the earth. The earth is a dead planet in a far stronger sense than Mars, on which everything is still more or less living.

He later goes on to describe it the situation in a bit more detail:

You must remember that the constitution of Mars is quite different from that of the earth. As I said, Mars is not densely solid in the sense in which today the earth is solid, But I described to you quite recently how the earth too was once in a condition when mineral, solid matter took shape for the first time, how there were then gigantic animals which, however, had as yet no solid bones. Mars today is in a condition similar to that of the earth in that earlier epoch and therefore also has upon it those living beings, those animal beings which the earth had upon it at that time. And “human beings” on Mars are as they were on the earth at that time — still without bones. /…/ These things can be known. They cannot become known by the means employed in modern science for acquiring knowledge; nevertheless it is possible to know these things. If, then, you want to have an idea of what Mars is like today, picture to yourselves what the earth was like in a much earlier age: then you will have a picture of Mars.

Note that none of this is knowable through modern science. What a pity, NASA! Sending all that stuff up there, and yet Curiosity will never satisfy our curiousity for details and photos of Martians! Or will it? How shall we interpret Steiner here? Did it not occur to him that people might one day send a little machine up there? That clairvoyant gazing would, at some point in the future, not be the only means of knowing what takes place on other planets? I’m waiting for Curiosity to send back photos of boneless Martians.

About these ads

8 comments

  1. Don’t hold your breath will you. Sounds like steiner liked his drugs a little too much. Wouldn’t surprise me if he was into acid. Sure is a good trip he experienced. Lol. After 12 hours sleep I’m feeling a little cheeky :-)

  2. How could we REALLY have landed there, especially if what we found doesn’t match Steiner’s description? I’m sure the Mars landing is just another conspiracy. If we ever REALLY go there, we may find out it’s soft – just like Steiner’s brain. (Wait, to I still get to take an occasional jab at the conspiracy people after the 9-11 thread?)

  3. I assume the Steve Hale’s of anthroposophy think this one is a hoax, too. If we couldn’t get to the moon, then obviously we couldn’t get to Mars – if Mars is even up there, and not just some sort of cosmic state of mind.

    This achievement, technically, is exponentially more amazing and impressive than the moon landing, so I assume it will cause fear and loathing in technophobes everywhere, including anthroposophists.

    Reading up on this today, I had not realized the Russians sent a similar (though obviously not nearly as technically advanced) craft up there in 1971, but after it landed it wasn’t heard from again. I wonder if the anthroposophists believe THAT one was real, and it went silent because it sunk in the soft substance of Mars.

    Anyway, I too am looking forward to the pics the rover will send back, of gigantic boneless animals roaming about.

  4. ‘If we couldn’t get to the moon, then obviously we couldn’t get to Mars’

    faultless logic!

    People had all sorts of ideas about what Mars might look like:
    http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2012/08/07/a-trip-to-mars/

    Reality seems disappointing so far… Though Shane posted a photo of a fluffy Mars mountain in which the gigant boneless animals might be hiding. There’s still hope!

  5. What’s most telling to me though is the certainty with which Steiner states what we now know (and at his time had a fair idea about) is utter nonsense. And his followers … well follow whatever he states. As such had he been talking about Epsilon Eridani B which is currently hypothesised to be the closest extra-solar planet to Earth then they’d still be sticking to their story.

    Funny though that even with all that ‘spiritual scientific knowledge’ I don’t recall Steiner ever mentioning that the nearest extra-solar planet circled the star called Epsilon Eridani. I’ve searched the archives but no luck. I’m sure Steve or similar could explain this anomaly for me.

    Steve or friends …. ?

  6. Well well, maybe that planet is not spiritually relevant! Another alternative — that might hold some appeal to some extremist folks — is that the planet has been made up (like the moon landing) by materialistic scientists. (Which should be to the credit of their imaginations, but unfortunately they didn’t illustrate their findings with wet-on-wet paintings…)

  7. Yes, they will just say it isn’t actually true, some of the planets and stars that scientists say are there aren’t really there – they, and you, are deceived by Ahriman. Materialist errors.

  8. If you need an explanation, you will always find one. In case you’re one of those who want to keep the illusion that Steiner was *always* right, you’ve got to…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers