Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

Additional notes:

• Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources.
• We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed.
• For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard.
• Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103

Hi, SamwiseGSix. Provide evidence for your claim. Searching by gnosis great penalties secret at Google Books (without the quote marks) found nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is an interesting question and I will be looking for additional sources here - perhaps you could also look for sources demonstrating where the Gnosis of ancient times has been publicly published? Seeking to find and publish such esoteric mysteries in the past did quite consistently result in real danger and persecution though right, found these so far for example:

Ambelain, Robert. "Modern Martinism." Martinism History and Doctrine. Trans. Piers Vaughan. Paris, 1946.

Falasca, Sefania. "What I Would Have Said at the Consistory." 30Giorni. 1 Nov. 2007. Web. 30 Sept. 2015. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, SamwiseGSix. You conflate between Gnosticism and mystery religions. Don't beat around the bush, but do provide evidence for your claim.

Your two sources do not amount to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

It is a claim made by Blavatsky, Steiner, and their believers. It is not a claim made by respectable scholars of religion. So, there are no WP:RS about it: if a source endorses such claim, it is not a reliable source.

Where was Gnosis published? See List of Gnostic texts.

Of course, Christian Orthodox heresy hunters were hunting down Gnostic books. But the Gnostics weren't hunting down Gnostic books, out of fear of revealing their secrets. The Orthodox were angry at those books being public, not the Gnostics. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to the purpose of FTN, I think whitewashing is going on at Anthroposophy. Or, if it isn't whitewashing, they are at least POV-pushing a non-mainstream POV. More eyes needed.

Reason? Many of the sources employed by my opponent seem subpar (fail WP:FRIND). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

..it appears its just me rolling through - I had noticed some concerning NPOV issues on the article (some editors were asking if the founder was a Nazi for example, so I added an Independant.co.uk article demonstrating that Adolf Hitler himself personally commanded his Nazi followers to wage "war against Steiner") NPOV issues which I believe I've now gone ahead and fixed.. I am quite content with the article as it is now and don't feel the need to make further adjustments at this point, although it does appear someone may have just recently added 11 (yes, 11 lol) citations in the second sentence of the article (perhaps we could narrow this to a more reasonable 3-5, moving the others further down?) of some interesting scholars going out of their way to seek to tie the philosophical movement to neo-Gnosticism hehe which the source documents expressly deny, a scholarly and theological move somewhat reminiscent actually of the Italy of the late 1910's and early 1920's hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What I have shown: scholars from various POVs (mainstream academic, traditional Catholic, conservative Evangelical, and New Age) agree that Anthroposophy is Gnosticism or neognosticism.

What you have shown: Steiner and his believers reject this label for spurious reasons. So, you have a sect which rejects this label for bogus reasons, I have WP:SCHOLARSHIP which shows that the label does apply.

And, of course, there is a huge difference between emic and etic. Misplaced Pages takes an etic approach, not an emic approach.

Fact is that the adjunct Fuhrer and many other high-placed Nazis were supporters of Anthroposophy. Nazism was not an ideologically monolithic party, but grouped many different factions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm - according to the Independent.co.uk article and Walter Stein et al the Nazis actually saw the Anthroposophists as a chief enemy early on in their rise and quickly drove Steiner and friends out of Germany in the early 1920's to Switzerland, who never set foot in Germany again. Steiner soon died. Many years after his death, some Nazi officials attempted to leverage some of Steiner's works/insights including around farming; although the Swiss, British, French, and American branches etc of the Anthroposophical Society had long broken off in a significant schism with the small number of controlled/organized Anthroposophists remaining in Germany, from whose ranks a significant number had in the '30s and '40s been sent to the concentration camps - this information is quite handily retrievable from the significant number of books written on the subject..

Although a number of the scholars you cite seek to claim 'Anthroposophy is Gnosticism' as you put it - the original source texts for Anthroposophy do clearly state Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of 'the Gnosis', as the Gnosis was a closely guarded secret of ancient times.. Are you claiming that 'the Gnosis' of ancient times has indeed been published in one of your cited journals, or here on Misplaced Pages - please do prove this claim if so, as it appears there are a range of reasons to be quite skeptical of the assertion hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not my task to prove anything. I simply WP:CITE WP:RS. Misplaced Pages is simply a website for churning WP:RS, according to an agreed methodology (WP:RULES).

... and you have violated WP:PSCI. WP:AE is just around the corner.

According to Hitler (de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften), all esotericists were manipulated by Jews, and their place was the concentration camp. From a Nazi POV, it would have seemed more "logical" to spare the Ariosophists and doom the Anthroposophists, but the opposite has happened. Yup, they were extremely lucky.

Staudenmaier's book says that the Nazis were not quarreling among themselves if the philosophies of Nazism and Anthroposophy do overlap, but they were quarreling if such overlap is "good" or "bad". He also points out that the Anthroposophists from some cities were discretely investigated by the Gestapo, and their conclusion was that the Anthroposophists were trustworthy citizens of the Third Reich (i.e. neither leftists, nor controlled by Jews).

You have offered absolutely no WP:RS which WP:V the claim "the Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden and ancient mysteries." It is not my task to prove that such WP:CB does not appear in any WP:RS. You simply have to WP:CITE two or three WP:RS in order to prove me wrong; I don't have to prove a negative. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Tangent before I dive into this, @SamwiseGSix what does "hm" mean you insert it very often in text but I'm only familiar with its mean as "hmm", is there some other meaning being implied here? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @DIYeditor and helpful survey of sources below - they should be able to handily help outline the secret and esoteric nature of the early Gnostic groups, and by 'hm' I just mean 'hmm' heh yes

The sources currently linked at the top of the Misplaced Pages page also quite rarely mention 'the Gnosis' and when doing so the term appears to be quite subjective. For example, would 'the Gnosis' of certain Theosophists in the 1880's be the same as 'the Gnosis' of earlier eras? It appears not - the Theosophists for example attempted to publicly present a young Jiddu Krishnamurti literally as the reincarnated Maitreya Buddha, which he himself promptly offered was obviously nonsense - also adding a few additional sources which I hope could help demonstrate the guarded and secretive nature of the early mysteries:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SNbaDwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_shttps://books.google.com/books?id=ZSMtAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://academic.oup.com/book/8519/chapter-abstract/154365661?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Although some modern scholars may seek to tie Anthroposophy with labels of the common 'Gnosticism' and yet more common 'neo-Gnosticism' broadly washing around in circulation these days, the original source texts clearly state that Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of 'the Gnosis' as it was a guarded and hidden secret - is it then really so fair to have many links of scholars attempting to apply the 'neo-Gnosticism' label in the very first sentence of the Misplaced Pages article as it is now written? This seems somewhat unfair and heavy handed - if some scholars want to go out of their way to seek to make such connections and claims of 'neo-Gnosticism' etc based on some surface level similarities or appearances, and we in the community want to bring a truly Neutral Point of View here, then most of those links should arguably be featured in sentences and paragraphs at least somewhat further back in the article right, hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler himself personally commanded By the same reasoning, Ernst Röhm was not a Nazi either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My opponent recommended me Pagels' book. There are two quotes which remotely WP:V his claim:

And that, Marcus adds, is how "the naked Truth" came to him in a woman's form, disclosing her secrets to him. Marcus expects, in turn, that everyone whom he initiates into gnosis will also receive such experiences. In the initiation ritual, after invoking the spirit, he commands the candidate to speak in prophecy, to demonstrate that the person has received direct contact with the divine.

But much of gnostic teaching on spiritual discipline remained, on principle, unwritten. For anyone can read what is written down—even those who are not "mature." Gnostic teachers usually reserved their secret instruction, sharing it only verbally, to ensure each candidate's suitability to receive it. Such instruction required each teacher to take responsibility for highly select, individualized attention to each candidate. And it required the candidate, in turn, to devote energy and time—often years—to the process. Tertullian sarcastically compares Valentinian initiation to that of the Eleusinian mysteries, which 'first beset all access to their group with tormenting conditions; and they require a long initiation before they enroll their members, even instruction for five years for their adept students, so that they may educate their opinions by this suspension of full knowledge, and, apparently, raise the value of their mysteries in proportion to the longing for them which they have created. Then follows the duty of silence . . .'

As you see, the link between Gnosticism and mystery religions is just sarcasm.

If you ask me "secret teachings" played two roles: (i) sales pitch; (ii) heresy hunters were out there, so of course Gnostics had to keep their mouths shut.

The confusion is due to the fact that "secret teachings" are mysteria in their language.

In support of my view:

Although secrecy is a rare practice in esotericism (for this reason Faivre excluded it from his analysis), as a “dialectic between the hidden and the revealed” it occupies an important position in esoteric discourses.

From Haven, Alexander van der (2008). "Kocku Von Stuckrad, . Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge. Translated by Nicholas Goodrick‐Clarke. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2005. xii+167 pp. $115.00 (cloth); $34.95 (paper)". The Journal of Religion. 88 (1). University of Chicago Press: 133–134. doi:10.1086/526381. ISSN 0022-4189. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very good - and thank you dear Doctor G, I do like to think of folks not necessarily as opponents, but rather fellow travelers on the good 'spaceship earth' when possible hehe, frail as she may be in these turbulent times..

So I do wonder then, with these new additional insights, how we might go about adjusting the article accordingly? Might I draft up a new proposal for revision? If there are any remaining or further concerns, perhaps we could also continue this discussion directly on the 'talk' page of the article as well. Very curious to hear your thoughts on best possible ways forward, please do keep us updated here. Best, -GS SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the section below. A. Parrot (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey of sources relating Anthroposophy and Gnosticism

Starting from scratch, I found these which are widely cited and mention both anthroposophy and gnosticism (and "secret"):

• Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts.
• Gedaliahu A. Guy Stroumsa. Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions And The Roots Of Christian Mysticism.
• C. J. Jung. The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man.
• P. Bruce Uhrmacher. Uncommon Schooling: A Historical Look at Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf Education.
• Erik Hornung. The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West.
• Dan Merkur. Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions.
• Gedaliahu A. Guy Stroumsa. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology.
• Peter Staudenmaier. Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era.
• Florian Ebeling. The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times.
• Peter Staudenmaier. Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy.
• Stephan A. Hoeller. Jung and the Lost Gospels: Insights into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library.

Does anyone care to go through these and say which are citable as scholarly opinions for this article and which might be fringe or irrelevant? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Steiner evidently wrote a letter titled "Gnosis and Anthroposophy". I haven't beenable to find an accessible copy online, but this page of this Anthroposophist book summarizes it. It seems like Steiner was describing a broader "Gnostic" tradition that he thought had existed for millennia, of which ancient Christian Gnosticism was a particular form.
• Jung calls Theosophy and Anthroposophy "pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress", but he is not an RS for present-day understandings of Gnosticism.
• Stroumsa only mentions Anthroposophy in passing on page 1: "Modern esotericism, however, has little to do with secret doctrines and practices in ancient religions. It refers, rather, to a pot-pourri of various elements in European trends since the early modern period, such as Renaissance Hermetism, Rosicrucians, 'Illuminés', Freemason, Tarot, the Theosophical Society, and the Anthroposophists."
• Hornung discusses Gnosticism and Anthroposophy in different chapters of the book, connecting them only once on page 148: " doctrine of humankind's sinking ever more deeply into matter until a new ascent from it began with Christ sounds Gnostic, especially when Steiner stresses that humankind will be led back up into the spiritual realm…"
• Merkur is a difficult one because it uses "Gnosis" in a broad sense to refer to mysticism of many kinds. The book description says it "traces the use of powerful gnostic visionary techniques from Hellenistic Gnosticism and Jewish merkabah mysticism, through Muhammad, the Ismaeilis, and theosophical Sufism to medieval neoplatonism, and renaissance alchemy." The passages that actually discuss Anthroposophy are mostly not accessible to me via Google Books, and it's not clear if they actually connect Anthroposophy with ancient Gnosticism.
• Ebeling only mentions Anthroposophy once, without any reference to Gnosticism.
• The first Staudenmaier source only mentions Anthroposophy and Gnosticism together when quoting Hitler describing Steiner as a "Gnostic". The second Staudenmaier source doesn't actually mention Gnosticism at all, only "prognostications".
• Hoeller mentions Anthroposophy only once: "It was largely the result of the highest and most unbiased insight of modern depth psychology that many contemporary scholars began to recognize that these cosmic images, which reappear in kindred form in neo-Gnostic systems such as Theosophy and Anthroposophy, might in fact be primal patterns perceived as the result of direct visionary and intuitive experience."

The major problem here is that "gnostic" is an ambiguous term. In the broadest sense, it can refer to any mystical, secret knowledge, and thus be a virtual synonym for esotericism. It's more usually used to refer to specific varieties of ancient Christianity, and sometimes to non-Christian schools of thought in the ancient world that seem to resemble the Christian Gnostics. But that narrower use of the term is itself very variable in its scope, and has often been used haphazardly by scholars of ancient religion. I know of two scholarly books arguing that the term should be disused entirely: Rethinking Gnosticism (1996) by Michael Williams and What Is Gnosticism? (2003) by Karen King. The strongest rebuttal of their arguments that I'm aware of is The Gnostics (2010) by David Brakke, which argues that the term should be restricted to the particular Christian group known as the Sethians.

The upshot is that we can't simply apply the label "Gnostic" without explaining what exactly that means. As far as I can tell, Hornung is the only one of these sources to highlight a specific similarity between Anthroposophy and the ancient Christian sects that are generally labeled "Gnostic". So WP can mention that specific connection, but in the absence of further sources, I don't think it can do more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, the sources are:

• Robertson, David G. (2021). Gnosticism and the History of Religions. Scientific Studies of Religion: Inquiry and Explanation. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-350-13770-7. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Theosophy, together with its continental sister, Anthroposophy... are pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress...
• Gilmer, Jane (2021). The Alchemical Actor. Consciousness, Literature and the Arts. Brill. p. 41. ISBN 978-90-04-44942-8. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Jung and Steiner were both versed in ancient gnosis and both envisioned a paradigmatic shift in the way it was delivered.
• Quispel, Gilles (1980). Layton, Bentley (ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: The school of Valentinus. Studies in the history of religions : Supplements to Numen. E.J. Brill. p. 123. ISBN 978-90-04-06176-7. Retrieved 3 January 2023. After all, Theosophy is a pagan, Anthroposophy a Christian form of modern Gnosis.
• Quispel, Gilles; van Oort, Johannes (2008). Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica. Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. Brill. p. 370. ISBN 978-90-474-4182-3. Retrieved 3 January 2023.
• Carlson, Maria (2018). "Petersburg and Modern Occultism". In Livak, Leonid (ed.). A Reader's Guide to Andrei Bely's "petersburg. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-299-31930-4. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are fundamentally Gnostic systems in that they posit the dualism of Spirit and Matter.
• McL. Wilson, Robert (1993). "Gnosticism". In Metzger, Burce M.; Coogan, Michael D. (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford Companions. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-974391-9. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Gnosticism has often been regarded as bizarre and outlandish, and certainly it is not easily understood until it is examined in its contemporary setting. It was, however, no mere playing with words and ideas, but a serious attempt to resolve real problems: the nature and destiny of the human race, the problem of *evil, the human predicament. To a gnostic it brought a release and joy and hope, as if awakening from a nightmare. One later offshoot, Manicheism, became for a time a world religion, reaching as far as China, and there are at least elements of gnosticism in such medieval movements as those of the Bogomiles and the Cathari. Gnostic influence has been seen in various works of modern literature, such as those of William Blake and W. B. Yeats, and is also to be found in the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the Anthroposophy of Rudolph Steiner. Gnosticism was of lifelong interest to the psychologist C. G. *Jung, and one of the Nag Hammadi codices (the Jung Codex) was for a time in the Jung Institute in Zurich.
• Diener, Astrid; Hipolito, Jane (2013) . The Role of Imagination in Culture and Society: Owen Barfield's Early Work. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-7252-3320-1. Retrieved 6 March 2023. a neognostic heresy
• Ellwood, Robert; Partin, Harry (2016) . Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-315-50723-1. Retrieved 6 March 2023. its recovery of the Gnostic and Hermetic heritage. several Neo-Gnostic and Neo-Rosicrucian groups
• Winker, Eldon K. (1994). The New Age is Lying to You. Concordia scholarship today. Concordia Publishing House. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-570-04637-0. Retrieved 6 March 2023. The Christology of Cerinthus is notably similar to that of Rudolf Steiner (who founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912) and contemporary New Age writers such as David Spangler and George Trevelyan. These individuals all say the Christ descended on the human Jesus at his baptism. But they differ with Cerinthus in that they do not believe the Christ departed from Jesus prior to the crucfixion.
• Rhodes, Ron (1990). The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement. Christian Research Institute Series. Baker Book House. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8010-7757-9. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
• Leijenhorst, Cees (2006b). "Antroposophy". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. p. 84. Nevertheless, he made a distinction between the human person Jesus, and Christ as the divine Logos.

Again, I'm not pleading that the Gnosis was secret, just that it was called "secret teachings". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these sources undermine my key point. The term "Gnostic" is too ambiguous to really be useful as a descriptor. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are both esoteric and thus "gnostic" in the broadest sense, but Anthroposophy had some beliefs that resembled specific beliefs of the ancient Christian Gnostics. So the article should explain the resemblance between Steiner's Christology and that of the ancient Gnostics, but it doesn't seem to be a simple copy of ancient Gnosticism. Leijenhorst's article says as much: "Though Steiner’s emphasis on Jesus Christ’s divine character could be called Gnostic, he avoided docetism by affirming that Jesus Christ had really died in human shape and had risen from the dead."

So just slapping the label "Gnostic" or "neo-Gnostic" on Anthroposophy really isn't helpful. I think it would be better for the lead sentence to just call Anthroposophy "esoteric", which doesn't seem to be in dispute. A. Parrot (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You say there is a dispute. Which WP:RS (i.e. WP:FRIND) dispute this label? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if it's not disputed (disputed in the sense that there might be sources that explicitly do not consider Anthroposophy as "Gnostic" or "neo-Gnostic"), how many RS use "(neo-)Gnostic" as a primary descriptor for a defining opening sentence? While I am admitted completely disinterested in this topic (disinteresed as in *yawn*), I have spent a few seconds to look up entries for Anthroposophy in Oxford Reference: none of them even mentions a gnostic connection. Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly - leading with the Britannica citation (and/or Oxford sources) with some similar copy feels much more appropriate:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthroposophy

It does appear a range of scholars including Leijenhorst are pointing out important differences as well, which should be mentioned around any eventual potential label slapping attempts of "neo-Gnosticism" etc, if at all

Perhaps additional work and defense will be found and/or published soon in addition.

The impulse to seek to label the article as "neo-Gnosticism" right out of the gate (with 11 citations??) does feel highly inappropriate and quite reminiscent of Italy in the late 1910's and early 1920's during its governmental transition to full state authoritarianism, if one looks a bit more closely at the history and various similar labels applied at that time as well.

There are plenty of reliable sources detailing their "neo-Gnosticism" edict in 1919, with Mussolini's rise just so happening to occur quite rapidly afterwards - and we all know what happened next.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand that "gnosticism" is not very specific. But I don't understand that the label is disputed in WP:FRIND.

And I find that bringing in Mussolini is just ridiculous. Reductio ad Hitlerum. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to use common sense. It's obvious that Steiner's Christology was influenced by ancient Christian Gnosticism, and the article should of course say that, but the word "Gnostic" is too ambiguous to be all that useful as a descriptor by itself. And, as Austronesier and Samwise just said, it's not necessarily the most prominent descriptor for Anthroposophy in the recent sources. I don't see why you're fixated on declaring Anthroposophy to be "Gnostic" in the lead sentence. A. Parrot (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is articulating my WP:OR knowledge that Steiner spoke a lot about Ancient Gnosticism and Manicheism. And, indeed, many of his ideas are influenced by the 19th-century understanding of Gnosis. It's what every reader of many books by Steiner knows, but somehow it is too boring to get mentioned by scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The influence of Gnosticism upon Steiner is clear and supported by sources. The label of "Gnostic" is unnecessary and potentially ambiguous. A. Parrot (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The influence of Gnosticism upon Steiner is clear and supported by sources.—okay, I'm prepared to settle at this. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, an exploration of 'Gnostic influence' etc in the 'Religious Nature' section could make sense - but the attempt at ambiguous, unnecessary labeling and extensive citations therebouts in the intro paragraphs should be moved down to the 'Religious Nature' section as well, right.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The intro should also start with the Britannica citation and similar language.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, according to de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften Bormann and Goebbels hated Anthroposophy, while Hess and Himmler loved it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes some Nazi elements there did appear to hold on to a small, leftover and controlled German remnant, long disavowed by the other country branches as discussed above (US/UK/FR etc), and then also crushed in '41 as the linked article shows.. I have prepared a modest draft for the intro paragraph and #Religious Nature section which I have posted over in the article's talk page, how about I go ahead and edit those subtle adjustments in then? They contain the points covered above and I could implement this first edit tonight or tomorrow, if there are no objections..

Certainly hoping to avoid any kind of arbitration issues here though too, maybe folks would want to offer advice as needed? Could also check in at the teahouse or help desk if that might be recommended here as well, thanks! SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't say that people should be blamed for preserving their own lives during a totalitarian regime.

Second, most German Anthroposophists were not sent to concentration camps. It is true, SD purists wished they have been sent to concentration camps, but it simply did not happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, tragic circumstances they were. "Never Again" as the saying goes - I've added a reply over in the talk page, and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you all for your help and deep analysis here in addition. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that "esoteric" should be the label. It's not helpful to the general reader to throw "gnostic" in the lead, as opposed to other influences, and without explaining it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

More eyes needed

See Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc. My opponent thinks that gnomes, elves, fairies, and sylphs who are in control of natural phenomena is "an ontology" and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans is "an epistemology". I have told them the following: if you are here to deny atomic theory in the name of Goethean science: go away, don't waste our time with such nonsense. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There are over 3000 Waldorf schools in most major cities around the world and have they have been quite extensively published about positively in academic publications, also the Camphill movement and in environment/conservation (pls see history around Rachel Carson's famous 'Silent Spring' and more) - here are some initial sources:

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861

The idea here is not to reverse the qualification that much of Anthroposophy is considered pseudoscientific by todays standards - the philosophy and application in education and environmental conservation for example however have demonstrated very measurable results published in academic articles, the article should thus approach a more balanced NPOV by also featuring some sources like these:

https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/discovering-camphill-a-personal-narrativehttps://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/The_Rachel_Carson_letters_and_the_making_of_Silent_Spring/22907084/1

On metaphysics, the philosophy does draw a notable amount of influence from Thomas Aquinas and Ancient Greek philosophy. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind the Waldorf schools and Thomas Aquinas, are you seriously telling us that gnomes and fairies are real? Achar Sva (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, suggesting that Misplaced Pages should endorse gnomes, sylphs, and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans makes a mockery of our encyclopedia.

WP:RS: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/my-waldorf-student-son-believes-in-gnomes-and-thats-fine-with-me/274521/ tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd say they're not, though we do live in a democracy (for now) - the positive effects of Waldorf education have been measured in the journal articles above and have received some press: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to make a mockery out of the Encyclopedia in any way here, rather simply trying to help add some of the scientific insight available in the many independent journal articles above to help facilitate neutral point of view, for the sake of a decent and humane future. Humanity faces existential risk https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And gnomes and sylphs will bail humanity out of this crisis? Yes, we live in a democracy, Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Only we humans can bail out humanity :)

If we follow the science and stick to a true NPOV, it appears we should be just fine.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Gnomes and sylphs are part and parcel of the ontology of Anthroposophy; talking to the spirit of dead Atlanteans is part and parcel of the epistemology of Anthroposophy. Correct me if I am wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well no I don't think so - the core approach starts more with a philosophy of freedom, so there really are no requirements for anything like that hehe

However for humanity to survive the 'mechanization' of the economy etc (as was written in the 20's, perhaps in consideration of ai/nuclear etc these days) some sort of re-thinking of global society as a more unified human body might actually be needed, as the C&H piece explores hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner did claim to directly see gnomes and sylphs, he did claim he directly talked to the spirits of dead Atlanteans. He named that Spiritual Science. Was he a schizophrenic? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I did enjoy your Thomas Szasz quote from yesterday "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia" etc hehe

He appears to be drawing quite deeply on Freud Beck and co there right, default Existentialism of the 20s / 30s, with a dash of Stoicism added on in the 60s there perhaps ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Treher, Wolfgang. Hitler, Steiner, Schreber – Gäste aus einer anderen Welt. Die seelischen Strukturen des schizophrenen Prophetenwahns, Oknos: Emmendingen, 1966 (newer edition: Oknos, 1990). ISBN 3-921031-00-1; Wolfgang Treher Archived 2005-02-12 at the Wayback Machine tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

An interesting (default existentialist? 'existence precedes essence'? some pretty big assumptions etc eh, hm) response - Hitler and Steiner really were very different though as even P. Staudenmeier points out, with Hitler personally telling his followers to "wage war on Steiner" as the Independent.co.uk article discussed further above also illustrates in further detail hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Steiner and many of his friends had to flee to Switzerland by the early 1920's, never to set foot in Germany again.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Treher's point is that both Hitler and Steiner were schizophrenics. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hitler maybe yeah, plenty of scholars have considered psycopathy etc

Re Steiner, Goldwater rule ha SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Treher was not bound by the Goldwater rule, and I am not a MD or psychologist. So I may speak freely: the case for someone claiming to have the Siddhis of Imagination and Inspiration (i.e. seeing things which are not there, and hearing voices talking in his head) is much stronger than the case for Hitler.

The problem with Well no I don't think so is that you are not WP:RS about Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairvoyance

Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination.

Reference
Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, you may seek to diagnose him from afar if you like hehe, though as you say, you're not an MD or psychologist hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairaudience

The term clairaudience comes from the French words for hearing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ∗verbal or ∗nonverbal auditory hallucination that is attributable to a metaphysical source, and is therefore interpreted as a ∗telepathic, ∗veridical, or at least ∗coincidental hallucination.

Reference
Guily, R.E. (1991). Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes so to be precise though, we should qualify the intro of the article, as it appears relatively few folks in the article-related community believe in their ability to gain deeper insights etc through their meditations these days, especially as say in comparison with the Buddhists of old.. Much different time we live in these days (material progress makes life much better in so many ways!) although the environment and everything is much different now than in days gone by hm

It is getting late here though too, and I should get to bed soon SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you might take a look at this auther, who has been covered and published in academic research journals in addition:

Robert Sardello, PhD, is cofounder (with Cheryl Sanders-Sardello, PhD, in 1992) of the School of Spiritual Psychology. At the University of Dallas, he served as chair of the Department of Psychology, head of the Institute of Philosophic Studies, and graduate dean. He is also cofounder and a faculty member of the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, as well as author of more than 200 articles in scholarly journals and cultural publications, and is a former faculty member of the Chalice of Repose Project in Missoula, Montana. Having developed spiritual psychology based in archetypal psychology, phenomenology, and the spiritual science of (RS) from more than thirty-five years of research in this discipline, as well as holding positions in two universities, Dr. Sardello is now an independent teacher and scholar, teaching throughout the US, Canada, and the UK, as well as the Czech Republic, Philippines, and Australia. He is a consultant to many educational and cultural institutions..and is author of several books, including Facing the World with Soul (2003) and Love and the World (2001). SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is getting late here though, going to need get some sleep SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

you may seek to diagnose him from afar if you like hehe, though as you say, you're not an MD or psychologist—I'm not Treher: he diagnosed Steiner with schizophrenia, not me. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm just appears quite reductive yeah, to just say those two are clinically identical etc, when they really couldn't be much different looking at the Independent.co.uk article for example

'Existence precedes essence' etc, lots of deep assumptions there - one could perhaps look a bit more closely at Treher's philosophical / ontological approaches there as well hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert Sardello isn't WP:FRIND about Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well he has been published in a range of mainstream journals etc right, feeling a bit dragged into the ring here though hehe and really need to get to sleep hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the place to whine about materialism or Existence precedes essence. Keep those remarks to yourself. WP:NOTAFORUM.

And you seem to equivocate between "mystical delirium" and "religious belief".

You claim that he was essentially wrong about "seeing" gnomes and sylphs, but "not a schizophrenic". This looks like a contradiction.

Steiner considered himself a Great Initiate, he thought he could talk with God like Moses, and considered himself to be an universal genius, far superior to Leonardo da Vinci.

That Sardello isn't WP:FRIND I learned it from your message. When a member of a new religious movement denies that his own guru is a schizophrenic, that member is not WP:FRIND in respect to his guru. I don't even have to claim that Sardello is wrong, but simply that he has an axe to grind against rational critics of his guru. Simply being a religious adept of his guru disqualifies him from WP:FRIND. Occultism is definitely religion if you want to know that. Misplaced Pages does not sell the patent nonsense that occultism isn't religion.

Some people think I'm to blame for the WP:RULES of Misplaced Pages (which is dumb), or for the public availability of information published by third-parties (which is again dumb). I simply WP:CITE WP:RS according to WP:RULES, so don't blame me for the POV that Steiner was a schizophrenic. It is publicly known and actually quite a straightforward POV. On many occasions I have received irate attacks from cultists simply for citing stuff publicly known for decades. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm, well you are attempting to cite Treher who never met Steiner in person - APA and equivalent ethics rules internationally point out that it is irresponsible and unethical to attempt such a remote diagnosis without consent and without even having met the person hm

The many mainstream articles from Sardello (including while chair at UDallas Psych Dept etc) establish his deep mainstream-recognized insights in the field and can help serve as a buffer for the very small smattering of material published in the 60's by Treher outside of modern ethics rules on Steiner (it appears he is the only one) seeking to diagnose him with serious clinical conditions hehe (stigmatizing and potentially discriminating, possibly even damaging the discipline of the time etc)  without ever even having met him, and without consent..

A range of court precedents establish that this specific approach as it relates to matters esoteric is not a 'religion' - as for analysis around existentialism and questions of whether 'existence precedes essence' etc, as discussed on the talk page previously this is all part of the notable branch of philosophy considered as ontology, which serves as an important cornerstone also in the development of our philosophy of science.. Because the existentialist stream does rely quite heavily on Marx's 'dialectic materialism' which at its core really is just an inversion of Hegel's dialectic into materialism, another very deep and arguably gaping set of assumptions; it would therefore be arguably quite deeply unscientific ontologically speaking to simply exclude views that do not fully conform with Marx's (somewhat dogmatic?) leaps of faith into materialism, based actually on a somewhat simple inversion of Hegel's spiritually understood and famous 'Hegelian dialectic' hm

For example, how can you be so sure that a dogmatic focus materialism will at some point produce a truly comprehensive understanding of the big bang? There are plenty of famous and well respected academics that leave room for the possibility of at least some deeper mysteries in the universe, recognizing that their are some things which are actually somewhat difficult to measure simply from only a material perspective hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are conflating psychiatry with existentialism, existentialism with Marxism and seeing Marx as the inventor of materialism. This is completely offtopic. WP:NOTAFORUM. I urge you to desist from offtopic rants about materialism, existentialism, future of mankind, and existential risk.

Courts which decide that occultism isn't religion make a mockery of justice.

As I said, I don't even claim that Sardello is wrong, but you told me that he is a disciple of Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say Sardello was anyone's disciple? He has published various works stating himself that he has studied a range of thinkers hm

The philosophical ontology, and underlying philosophy of science are all arguably quite applicable here, especially to the somewhat wide-ranging counter claims / assertions shared above hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Having developed spiritual psychology based in archetypal psychology, phenomenology, and the spiritual science of (RS) from more than thirty-five years of research in this discipline, as well as holding positions in two universities (emphasis mine). Does it mean the spiritual science of the reliable source? That does not make sense. So, it must mean the Spiritual Science of Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes he is saying he has developed his concepts based on the 35 year career in mainstream psychology, and also by leveraging insights by critically/analytically reading (though not through serving as a disciple of any kind) aspects of Steiner's body work hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Plato had many disciples who have never seen him alive. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything specific that WP:FTN needs to deal with in all of this, or is it just an exercise in space-filling? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Yup, SamwiseGSix suggested some edits which IMHO are filled with sources which fail WP:FRIND. I did not check them all, so I could be wrong, but my instinct tells me I'm not. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few of them again, they do seem quite independent and reliable to me hm

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861

https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/discovering-camphill-a-personal-narrativehttps://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/The_Rachel_Carson_letters_and_the_making_of_Silent_Spring/22907084/1

SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Articles written by Steiner's believers and/or Waldorf teachers should be discarded for failing WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In which case, I suggest you start a new thread at WP:RSN, asking whether a specific source can be cited for a specific statement. And stick to that. No off-topic tangents about whether it is possible to be a disciple of a dead philosopher. No debates about how many Anthroposophists were sent to concentration camps. Nothing about Atlantis. Just the source being cited, and what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu has tried to explain to SamwiseGSix why neither anthroposophic literature nor WP:FALSEBALANCE is acceptable on Talk:Anthroposophy for about a week now, and the discussion contains many excursions into WP:FORUM territory. The point of coming here is usually to lure people there to help. Instead, the "discussion" has metastasized to here. This is a noticeboard. It is for notices. Can we please stop it here, go over there and comment? I just did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)