knowing

i think this post by Diana goes a very long way in describing, you know, motivations. Those who really don’t get it, would go away. They would distance themselves from anthroposophy and everything else surrounding it. (Oh, I can do that too. But I fear it would be superficial, at best. Hypocritical at worst.)

I mean, there’s a reason why some people go away angry and never think about it — that is, anthroposophy — ever again. And there’s a reason why some people don’t. For some, it is never ever over. It is never a part left behind — even if rejected — never a separate piece that can be detached and removed from your person. It would be like ignoring a core aspect of one’s life. You can’t do that. It’s like the love you don’t really want, a very dysfunctional state of mind.

And Frank’s problem is his wanting to define the person who knows anthroposophy — without wanting to stick a label on an anthroposophist, without even defining anthroposophy. Thus the criteria for knowing are entirely arbitrary. Blaming the rejection (or, I assume, in his estimation, the unwillingness to or incapability of grasping the “essence”) of anthroposophy on prejudices comes a little bit too easy; maybe projecting evil intentions is easy, too, a validation of the importance of anthroposophy’s supposed essence. Not that I haven’t heard that I’m prejudiced numerous times already. That I’m ignorant and that I speak of things I know little or nothing about. If this was really the case, the problem for the anthroposophist would — I imagine — be lesser.

My experiences of anthroposophy really didn’t emanate from google. No more than Frank’s experiences of anthroposophy. That said, I would most likely have read less about it, hadn’t it been for the internet. This happened decades after* the experiences shaped me — or whatever it was it did — though. I don’t think I would have fallen for temptation to read, had I not been… primed. In some way. Had I not been there then. Lots of people had less unfortunate experience than I did, and never dedicated much thought to the negatives and positives of waldorf or ever bothering to find out about anthroposophy. Lots of people had more unfortunate experiences and still — probably — came away a lot more indifferent than me. Because I’m not indifferent. Quite obviously the opposite of indifferent. And in some ways, maybe this makes it more rather than less complicated.

And, now, this is the puzzling bit. I wasn’t even considered to be… a child with, eh, soul qualities. I was supposed to succumb, to die, metaphorically/spiritually or physically; I’m not so sure how and of what exactly. I wasn’t even prone to imagination — didn’t believe in anything supersensible, or rather, didn’t much consider the possibility.

Yet, somehow, it appears I’m the one with the Steiner obsession — or whatever they are: these irrational things I spend (too much of) my time doing — a kind of disease which doesn’t seem to afflict that many people.

*Addendum: Perhaps it isn’t so simple: I did read about anthroposophy in high school. Then I returned to it perhaps 10 years ago, still being too caught up in my own experiences to enjoy any of it. So one could say it was only the third time I returned to it (post leaving waldorf) that I could actually stand dealing with the topic, even enjoy it, to some degree. Interesting is that when I “returned” to anthroposophy in high school, it was for religion class, and I did it because I chose it. And somehow I felt… and this is peculiar, because I had to look up the “facts” of Steiner’s beliefs and the basic anthroposophical tenets and so forth, I still felt I knew it. Most of the time, speeches weren’t my strongest asset — mentally, i e; I remember often being complimented for my voice, my actual speaking or reading aloud and such things, and I sometimes suspect that waldorf speech “training” (the recitations) had something to do with this — but this speech, however, was intrinsically easy. I figure it had something to do with me grasping quite some basic anthroposophic thinking and being — yes, indeed, essence — and that I only needed to find the way to the verbal expressions (like advancing from the level of gnomes and fairies and mystical beings and all the tangible — all is relative — ensoulment of nature stuff).