For some obscure reason, Sune seems to be paying a lot of attention to me on twitter right now. I’m not going to try to figure out why. (Presumably it isn’t because he thinks he’ll convince me of anything — I might just as well tell him that, if so, the time and efforts are not well spent. I’ve seen all those links a hundred times before.)
Sune thinks I’m playing ‘mind games’ with him and — I suppose — with anthroposophists in general. If I say I don’t — that’s just another of my clever mind games. So I won’t say that. Well, I actually will say that — except that there’s no point saying so to Sune. If anyone’s playing games, however, it’s Sune’s own mind playing games with Sune.
I can sort of understand that what critics and certain historians write is not what Sune wants to see written. What one wants to see is not necessarily what one needs to see or what should be seen, however. In any case, researching a movement’s ideas or history can never be the same as believing its ideas to be the truth or its history to be stainless. Sune wants the latter. In my opinion, that mindset is a much worse threat to anthroposophy than any historical research can ever be. A much worse threat than some people not liking anthroposophy can ever be. I’ve said this a thousand times. I hardly need to reiterate it.
What Sune is infuriated with — he used that word, and I do believe it’s accurate, he is infuriated — is not me or Melanie or Peter or Diana or anyone else. He’s infuriated with poor old Rudolf S who said some silly things that don’t sound very appealing today and probably didn’t to lots of people even back then. Sune is infuriated with past (and current) anthroposophists who had the bad taste not to behave impeccably or to believe only in what is palatable. (Sadly, Sune himself fails on the same account. And, yes, we’ll see what happens in kamaloka, don’t you think?) There are things that are indefensible today — but there’s a simple solution: don’t try to defend them, because that’s where the troubles begin.
I don’t know why some people — especially those who seem to be the most fervent believers — have so little faith in the power of anthroposophy to withstand scrutiny or criticism. And, so what — somebody researches anthroposophy… that, in itself, is neither the end of the world, nor the end of anthroposophy. But in the latter case — it can be. If you let it. But if so, it won’t be the fault of an outside enemy, it will be anthropsophy’s own.
Let’s return to the alleged ‘mind games’. I’m not entirely sure why I would need to play mind games. I have to conclude that Sune is seeing ghosts, he’s seeing something sinister that isn’t there. There’s very little I can do about it. It would perhaps be interesting if Sune could — for once — focus on telling us why anthroposophy matters so much to him instead of obsessing about other people and their various flaws (most of which he’s dreamed up).
Is it — the thing about ‘mind games’ — some kind of warped compliment? Should we conclude that my alleged ‘mind games’ are so darn clever that I’ll outsmart anthroposophists? Or are even intelligent anthroposophists so dimwitted, according to Sune, that even I — with all my flaws — can outsmart them? Clearly I’m possessed by ahrimanic forces, so everything is possible. He even reminds me, today, that some years ago I joked that I eat anthroposophists for breakfast. It seemed funny in the context (which was how some anthropsophists saw me as evil embodied). Perhaps it wasn’t very entertaining. But at most I’m guilty of a bad joke.
I think you should know one thing. I don’t have to reject everything anthroposophical, especially not the cakes (we’ve been over that, haven’t we?). I don’t have to support everything ‘anti-Steiner’, or whatever, either (I’ve given ample evidence I don’t do that, haven’t I?). But on the other hand, I don’t have to agree that anthroposophy is great or the saviour of mankind or heaven on earth or that anthroposophists and Steiner are perfect and I definitely don’t have to agree when people l like are called ‘haters’ or people whose knowledge I respect are called ugly names. I don’t have to buy all that nonsense — and am not sure why I should engage with it at all. When I said yesterday that I don’t take things half as seriously as Sune does, that was wrong: it’s not half, the seriousness with which I take these things is infinitesimal compared to Sune.
I can easily explain why: even for me as a non-anthroposophist, who truly values the work Peter has done (because it is very interesting), I do realize that anthroposophy as a worldview has its very own power. For me, the world does not end because someone — who was human — said silly things that are factually wrong or morally reprehensible. It’s not really such an enormous deal, as far as I’m concerned.
The only path I need to follow is the one that leads me to what interests me, to the things I want to know and experience. And this is not some kind of ‘mind game’. And it isn’t ‘hatred’.