FOREWORD
This volume contains a series of lectures given by
Rudolf Steiner to people working on the construction of the
Goetheanum, a great building of molded concrete that Rudolf Steiner
designed and which was to replace the first Goetheanum that was
burned on Dec. 31, 1922. The workmen had approached Steiner and asked
that he speak to them about questions that interested them. The
lectures are very casual and often take the form of a conversation,
with the workmen asking first one and then another question and
Steiner responding impromptu.
Steiner had never intended that this material be
published as it did not have the carefully structured character of
his books or even of his more formal lectures, and the reader of this
volume must bear this fact in mind. Moreover, the readers unfamiliar
with Steiner's fundamental writings are advised to first take up the
study of either
An Outline of Occult Science
or
Theosophy.
In these works they will find a discussion of both the basic findings
of the science of the spirit and of the scientific method employed in
spiritual research. An understanding of these writings is absolutely
necessary in forming a judgment regarding the soundness of the
information conveyed by Steiner in a volume such as this one.
And this volume in particular contains certain
statements that can all too easily be misunderstood and lead those
who have not made a thorough study of the methods of the science of
the spirit to pronounce hasty judgments about its validity. In
particular there is a statement about the planet Mars in the tenth
lecture that is problematic in this respect:
“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.”
In the light of the fact that an object weighing over
200 lbs landed on Mars and sent back pictures by means of equipment
that has proved effective in similar situations and that these
pictures show Mars to be a rocky desert, the above statement of
Rudolf Steiner can only be judged inaccurate. But the matter is far
more complex than the simple juxtaposition of these two statements
suggests.
To form any judgment about these two statements we must
have some sense of how Steiner reached his conclusion. We know that
he was able to enter higher states of consciousness that he labeled
Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. In the state of Imagination
the human soul moves within a realm that can be compared with a
two-dimensional space of color images. In true Imagination,
consciousness does not experience itself as observing these images
from outside the two-dimensional realm but experiences itself as
spread out over this two-dimensional realm and as interwoven with all
the images. Before even elementary observations can be made with
accuracy, the soul must undergo considerable development in the
direction of self-knowledge so as not to confuse itself with the
objective Imaginations.
The development of Inspiration and Intuition then allows
one to interpret what is experienced. Even after these states have
been achieved, it constitutes a considerable task to direct one's
gaze toward specific Imaginations. In particular, Steiner makes clear
that it is possible to find within the Imaginative world the inner
realities that relate to specific outer events in space and time.
However, the quality of the Imaginative world is movement. Space and
time are both derived from movement as was already known to Aristotle
who characterized time as the number of movement relative to space.
Finding one's way in Imagination to a specific time with
regard to a specific spatial reality, for example, Mars as of the
time of the lecture may have been particularly difficult. The
description Steiner gives of Mars is quite consistent with his
general picture of the evolution of the cosmos, only it appears to be
more characteristic of the earlier condition of the world. Readers
familiar with his evolutionary picture will know that he views the
world evolution as a gradual condensation of solid forms out of
originally much softer forms. In earlier ages a more watery condition
was the densest condition obtained by matter. Still earlier worlds
achieved only the state of air or gas. And most problematic for
materialistic thinkers is the idea that the first material condition,
which is preceded by purely soul and spiritual ones, is that of pure
warmth, radiant heat.
It is possible that Steiner did make a mistake in his
location of the actual time in his description of Mars as it appears
in lecture 10 in this volume. Another possibility is that he was
unable to adequately translate the living images of the Imaginative
world into conceptual form in this particular case. Incidentally, the
reader should be aware that this translation is by no means an easy
task and that Steiner is the first occultist to accomplish this work
on a vast scale.
A third possibility was suggested by Dr. Unger in a
lecture delivered in Spring Valley in 1985; namely, that Steiner did
not even want to fully translate the imaginative picture because he
might have wished, in view of the coarse popularization of science,
to give his listeners a true if old spiritually valid picture. He
might have done this to insulate the souls of the workmen from the
deadening influence that materialism works on the soul in the life
after death. In considering this possibility one should realize that
only the workmen were allowed to attend these lectures.
A final consideration which could account for the
discrepancy between Steiner's statement and the one resulting from
the recent space mission is that there is after all a time difference
between these two events of some 60 years. Though most people would
find it far-fetched, it is possible that Mars actually went through a
considerable condensation over that period. On this point Dr. Unger,
in the same lecture, observed that the intensity of materialistic
thinking in our time is a force leading to such densification of the
cosmos.
While the above thoughts do not offer a clear resolution
of the discrepancy, they do point to the complexity of the issue, and
they also should make clear that even if Steiner was not completely
accurate on this point, it does not constitute a challenge to the
totality of his work, a work that has born fruit in many practical
applications such as the Waldorf Schools, Bio-Dynamic agriculture and
anthroposophical medicine, to mention a few. These practical
applications were all the result of his spiritual research, and their
world-wide success and acceptance lends support to the validity of
the underlying method out of which they arose.
With these thoughts in mind and an understanding of
Steiner's basic writings the reader will find in this volume a
fascinating collection of Rudolf Steiner's ideas. He will also meet a
very lively mode of presentation and an informality which is not
found in Steiner's other works.
Stephen E. Usher
|