Oh, the joy! Here’s yet another blogger comment to the debate on anthroposophy and the internet, from the same blog I mentioned earlier today. This particular one is a response to Sergej Prokofieff’s somewhat comical article, The Being of the Internet, which I dealt with a week ago. Taking a more sensible approach, this blogger doesn’t share Prokofieff’s fixation on the medium as such — Prokofieff expressed severe suspicion against digitally compressed information — and wants to emphasize the human beings’ activity over the format in which information is presented, if I understand him right. He writes:
I think Prokofieff is focusing too intently on the mechanism of storage (“how”). To declare that because information is communicated through digital means, it is therefore rendered into a state “which no ‘reverent feeling’ is possible” is not only a sweeping overgeneralization, but is simply not true; direct experiences of myself and countless others show this to be the case.
Apparently, one can also find the Christ impulse being actively furthered on the internet.
The blogger also suggests that Prokofieff’s attitude toward critics (who, in his estimation, have too easy access to Steiner material due to its availabily online) could even seem to be motivated by “a fear of such criticism, and a desire to secretize what may invite such criticism” when instead it would be possible to counter “the criticism in a way that demonstrates in the action itself the worth of anthroposophical wisdom.” And I couldn’t agree more with this statement, which is thoroughly sensible:
Steiner is in no way infallible, and he said some things which were wrong, and other things which were ill-phrased or confusing. Thank God: he is human.
Maybe not all paths on the internet are Ahriman’s paths. Maybe we can have the whole anthroposophical Wesenszoo* as our online companions! (*Zoo of beings. Someone must have invented that word, I can’t remember were I first saw it.)