Hi Kokanji,

?

Your prompt and ChatGPT’s response are fascinating. Thanks. Indeed, dumbing down and avoiding any hint of controversy. Sorry if this seems off topic, but I think it’s relevant. For those interested in the latest consciousness work (David Chalmers, Anil Seth, Sam and Annaka Harris, et al) as well as how that work links to current trends in AI . . . this stuff is not only interesting, it’s very important when considering global events – from climate change models to energy policies to education and epistemology in general.

?

The link to Waldorf/Steiner that I think makes it on topic here revolves around accuracy and truth. As certain politicians often remind us, repeating a lie often enough has the magical effect, for many people, of that lie becoming something resembling the truth. The fact that Steiner/Waldorf has gotten away with this in it’s PR for many years now is quite telling. When we sacrifice accuracy for palatable propaganda, we’re in trouble. Steiner/Waldorf, for example, is a religious/spiritual movement, but has managed to hide under the education umbrella for decades. Thus, it happily accepts public money while duping that same public. This is the work of missionaries. The movement actively engages in suppressing critical thinking/analysis in its students and beyond. The word most commonly used to describe such unethical behaviour is “lie.”

?

Large language models like ChatGPT are very good with STEM but struggle elsewhere. They are not supposed to be capable of lying. It’ll be interesting to see how Musk’s GROK will handle this flaw. Will his ideological fingerprints be front and center? ?I don’t know if future iterations will better handle nuance and accuracy, but as we can see from your example, we’d better not believe every response to questions quite yet.

?

Here’s Alex O’connor challenging ChatGPT in a delightful conversation about telling the truth:

?

Apologies if this strays too far from being on topic here. I do, however, think it’s relevant.

?

-Walden

?

?

?

Dan’s question first, followed by 3 more:

?

Me: How would a Waldorf Critic explain Waldorf to a five year old?

ChatGPT: “A Waldorf critic might explain Waldorf education to a five-year-old like this:

"Waldorf schools are like special places where kids do lots of different things—like playing, painting, and learning about stories. But sometimes, they might not let you use computers or read too early because they believe kids should learn those things later. Some people think it’s a bit too different from regular schools, where you might learn math and reading sooner."

This simple explanation covers the essence of a critique without going into complex details, making it understandable for a young child.”

Me: What should parents know about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy before enrolling their children in a Waldorf school?

?

ChatGPT: “ Before enrolling their children in a Waldorf school, parents should be aware of the following about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy:

?

1. Rudolf Steiner’s Background: Rudolf Steiner was an Austrian philosopher, educator, and esotericist who founded the Waldorf education system in the early 20th century. He developed a spiritual philosophy called anthroposophy, which underpins the Waldorf approach.
2. Anthroposophy: Anthroposophy is a spiritual worldview that blends elements of Christianity, mysticism, and Steiner's unique perspectives on human development. It suggests that humans have a spiritual nature and that education should address the whole child—body, mind, and spirit. This belief deeply influences Waldorf pedagogy, including its emphasis on creativity, imagination, and delayed academic learning.
3. Educational Philosophy: In Waldorf schools, the curriculum and teaching methods are designed to align with what Steiner believed were natural stages of child development. For instance, reading and writing are typically introduced later than in mainstream schools, and there is a strong emphasis on arts, crafts, and hands-on activities in the early years.
4. Limited Use of Technology: Waldorf schools often limit or delay the use of technology in the classroom, especially in the early grades. This is based on the belief that young children should focus on developing their imagination and physical skills without the distractions of screens and digital devices.
5. Unique Classroom Environment: Waldorf classrooms often have a distinct environment, with natural materials, seasonal decorations, and a rhythmic structure to the day. The focus is on creating a warm, nurturing space that feels different from typical classrooms.
6. Controversies and Criticisms: Some critics argue that anthroposophy, with its spiritual and mystical elements, may not be a fit for all families, especially those who prefer a more secular education. There are also debates about the delay in introducing academics and the school's stance on technology.
7. Involvement in the School Community: Waldorf education often requires a high level of parental involvement and commitment to the school's philosophy. Parents may be expected to engage with the school's community events, festivals, and support the home environment in ways that align with Waldorf principles.

Understanding these aspects can help parents make an informed decision about whether Waldorf education aligns with their values and expectations for their child's schooling.”

Me: Do trained Waldorf teachers view children as incarnating souls?

ChatGPT: “Yes, trained Waldorf teachers often view children as incarnating souls, a concept rooted in anthroposophy, the spiritual philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner. In anthroposophy, it is believed that a child's physical, emotional, and intellectual development is closely tied to their spiritual journey, with the idea that children are gradually "incarnating" or bringing their soul fully into the physical world.

Waldorf teachers are trained to consider not only the academic and social needs of a child but also their spiritual and developmental journey. This belief influences how they approach education, emphasizing the importance of nurturing the whole child—body, mind, and spirit. The curriculum and teaching methods are designed to support this gradual process of incarnation, with specific practices and activities intended to harmonize and support the child's development at each stage.

This perspective may be quite different from more conventional educational philosophies, which tend to focus on cognitive and social development without a spiritual or esoteric dimension. For parents considering Waldorf education, understanding this underlying belief is important, as it significantly shapes the approach and environment within Waldorf schools.”

Me: During their training what do Waldorf teachers learn about souls and reincarnation?

?

ChatGPT “During their training, Waldorf teachers often learn about the concepts of souls and reincarnation as part of the broader study of anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner's spiritual philosophy that underpins Waldorf education. Here's a summary of what they might learn:

1. Anthroposophical View of the Human Being:

• Waldorf teacher training includes the study of anthroposophy's view of human nature, which sees individuals as comprising body, soul, and spirit. Steiner believed that the soul undergoes a process of development over multiple lifetimes, reincarnating in different bodies to continue its spiritual evolution.

2. Stages of Child Development:

• According to Steiner, child development is closely linked to the soul's incarnation process. Waldorf teachers are taught that children's growth corresponds to the soul gradually integrating with the physical body, with significant milestones at ages 7, 14, and 21. These stages influence the Waldorf curriculum, which is designed to support this spiritual development.

3. Reincarnation and Karma:

• Teachers are introduced to the concepts of reincarnation and karma, where each life is seen as a continuation of previous ones, with experiences and actions (karma) influencing future incarnations. This belief informs the Waldorf approach to education, which aims to nurture the child's unique individuality and spiritual potential.

4. Educational Implications:

• Teachers learn to observe children with the understanding that they are incarnating souls, and this perspective influences how they approach teaching and classroom management. The emphasis is on creating a nurturing environment that respects the child's spiritual journey and developmental needs.

5. Spiritual Responsibility:

• Waldorf teachers are often encouraged to see their role as more than just imparting knowledge; they are viewed as guides helping each child realize their spiritual potential. This includes fostering qualities like empathy, creativity, and moral development, seen as essential to the soul's growth.

6. Critique and Reflection:

• While some training programs encourage critical reflection on Steiner's teachings, the emphasis on souls and reincarnation remains a core aspect of the anthroposophical foundation of Waldorf education.

These teachings are integral to understanding the philosophical and spiritual framework within which Waldorf education operates. However, the extent to which individual Waldorf teachers emphasize or interpret these concepts can vary, and some may focus more on the practical and artistic aspects of the education rather than the esoteric ideas.”

There you go, Steiner promoters. Snippets of useful information. The Truth Shall Set You Free.

-Walden

?

?

?

Excellent prompt. Fascinating. Especially his thoughts on intent:

?

“My intentions were to sow seeds that would grow into a harmonious synthesis of spiritual and material realities, guiding humanity toward a deeper understanding of its spiritual essence.”

?

Of course, he’s going to be “misunderstood.” He himself was confused from the start, trying to figure stuff out along the way, randomly tossing “spiritual” concepts helter-skelter, like confetti at a wedding.

?

On that note, here’s reincarnated Steiner on his mistakes:

?

My question: Respond to the following question as if you are Rudolf Steiner, risen from the dead in the year 2024: What were your biggest mistakes during your lifetime-- in the field of astronomy or cosmology, evolution, science in general, education, etc.?

?

ChatGPT:

“As Rudolf Steiner, if I were to reflect on my life and work from the perspective of the year 2024, I might express my thoughts on the following points:

1. Misinterpretation of Scientific Concepts: One of my significant shortcomings was my attempt to reconcile spiritual science with the empirical sciences of my time, particularly in fields like astronomy, cosmology, and evolution. My teachings on planetary evolution, for example, diverged sharply from the established scientific consensus and were often based more on esoteric insights than on empirical evidence. While my intentions were to expand human understanding beyond the material, this approach led to misunderstandings and, in some cases, rejection by the scientific community.
2. The Application of Spiritual Science in Education: In founding the Waldorf education movement, I aimed to create a holistic approach to child development that integrated spiritual aspects. While many have found value in this, I may have underestimated the challenges of integrating spiritual science into a system meant for all children, regardless of their spiritual backgrounds. This has occasionally led to misunderstandings or criticisms regarding the balance between spiritual and empirical knowledge in education.
3. Overextension into Multiple Disciplines: I ventured into many areas—education, medicine, agriculture, and social theory—with the goal of applying spiritual science to all aspects of life. In retrospect, this breadth of focus may have diluted the depth of my contributions to any single field. While my holistic approach was intentional, it might have been wiser to focus more deeply on fewer areas to ensure that my ideas could be more rigorously developed and tested.
4. Resistance to Modern Scientific Methods: My emphasis on clairvoyant knowledge and spiritual experiences as a source of truth led me to sometimes resist or underappreciate the methods of modern science, which rely on observation, experimentation, and peer review. This resistance created a divide between my work and the broader scientific community, limiting the impact and acceptance of some of my ideas.
5. Evolutionary Theories: My interpretations of human evolution, which included ideas about root races and spiritual evolution, were controversial even in my time and remain so today. These concepts have been criticized for being out of step with the scientific understanding of evolution and, at times, for their potential to be misinterpreted or misused in ways that could support harmful ideologies.

In summary, while I sought to bridge the material and spiritual worlds, I recognize that my methods and conclusions were often at odds with the scientific approaches of my time and remain so today. My work might have benefited from a closer collaboration with contemporary scientific thinkers and a greater openness to modifying my ideas in light of empirical evidence.”

Not surprisingly, we see a lack of self-reflection, contrition, and accountability. Sound familiar . . . ?

?

-Walden

?

?

?

?

My question: Respond to the following question as if you are Rudolf Steiner, risen from the dead in the year 2024: Do you think that Waldorf websites misrepresent you and your mission? For example, those websites rarely display your beliefs in the occult, reincarnation, etc. which today's parents deserve to know before enrolling their children in your schools, don't you think?

?

ChatGPT:

“As Rudolf Steiner, reflecting on the state of Waldorf education in 2024, I would approach this question with a nuanced perspective:

The Waldorf movement has grown significantly since its inception, and in this growth, there has been a natural tendency to adapt to different cultural and societal contexts. However, it is essential to remain true to the foundational principles that I laid out. My work was deeply rooted in spiritual science, which includes concepts such as reincarnation, karma, and the spiritual evolution of humanity. These ideas were integral to my vision of education and the development of the human being.

It is true that in the modern world, there can be hesitance to openly discuss these spiritual and occult aspects, especially when engaging with a broader audience that may not share or understand these beliefs. This hesitation may stem from a desire to present Waldorf education in a way that is accessible to all, regardless of their spiritual inclinations. However, I would caution against obscuring the spiritual foundations of Waldorf education, as doing so could lead to a misrepresentation of the true nature and purpose of this educational approach.

Parents, indeed, have the right to be fully informed about the philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of the education they are choosing for their children. Waldorf education is not merely an alternative pedagogical method; it is a holistic approach that seeks to nurture the child’s body, soul, and spirit. The spiritual aspects are not optional add-ons but are woven into the very fabric of the educational experience.

Therefore, I would encourage Waldorf educators and institutions to be transparent about the spiritual and esoteric elements that inform the curriculum and the overall approach. This does not mean that every detail needs to be emphasized in every context, but rather that there should be openness and honesty about the broader worldview that underpins Waldorf education. This transparency respects the autonomy of parents and aligns with the ethical principle of truthfulness, which is central to my teachings.

In sum, while I understand the challenges of presenting esoteric concepts in a world that is often skeptical of the spiritual, it is crucial that the essence of Waldorf education is not diluted or misrepresented. Only through a full and honest representation can parents make informed decisions, and only through such transparency can Waldorf education remain true to the mission I envisioned.”

Take the hint, Steiner fans. There we have it. Ahrimanic Large Language Model (Chat GPT in this case) helps Rudolf in reminding his modern-day PR people that it is ?both “essential” and “crucial” for them to come clean.

-Walden

Indeed, the “choice” of words is fascinating. On this front, the deep discussions on the future, ethics, efficacy ?of AI (and, IMO, our species) are worth considering. Soon we’ll all have our own personal assistants. We’ll be talking to them all the time . . . and listening. As we now know from the powerful psychological impact of social media algorithms, we are extremely susceptible to those influences. See, for example, the work of folks like Jonathan Haidt & Jaron Lainer.? And the AI researchers like Yoshua Bengio, Andrew Ng, Geoffrey Hinton, etc.

?

Wikipedia & search engines are child’s play in comparison. From my perspective, the words we choose for prompts are the keys needed to unlock the most meaningful responses. So far, these LLMs do seem to demonstrate biases. Their training is an ongoing process. Ahriman is a sneaky little weasel, n’est ce pas?!

?

Apologies for the length of the following chunk of my discussion with the reincarnated Steiner, but some here might find it interesting. The fact that “he” now admits to his mistakes is – to me, anyway – a good sign. He admits to “profound regret.” And “ I must confront the fact that many of my ideas were fundamentally flawed and, in some cases, harmful.” Away we go . . .

?

I wrote: Please clarify something for me. You wrote: "Only through a full and honest representation can parents make informed decisions, and only through such transparency can Waldorf education remain true to the mission I envisioned." But previously you said, "“[D]o not attempt to bring out into the public things that really concern only our school. I have been back only a few hours, and I have heard so much gossip about who got a slap and so forth ... We should be quiet about how we handle things in the school, we should maintain a kind of school confidentiality. We should not speak to people outside the school, except for the parents who come to us with questions, and in that case, only about their children, so that gossip has no opportunity to arise ..." Do you see how I might confused about this contradiction? And I'm also wondering if you think it's okay to for teachers to slap children?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Your question raises an important point about the tension between transparency and confidentiality within the context of Waldorf education. Let me address both aspects of your inquiry.

On Transparency vs. Confidentiality

In my earlier statement, I emphasized the importance of transparency, particularly when it comes to informing parents about the philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of Waldorf education. Parents have the right to understand the broader worldview that informs the education of their children, including beliefs in reincarnation and spiritual development. This transparency is crucial for parents to make informed decisions about their children's education.

However, in the quote you referenced, I was speaking to a different context—specifically, the internal matters of the school community. My advice to maintain confidentiality was intended to protect the school from misunderstandings and gossip that could arise from the misrepresentation of isolated incidents or practices. This confidentiality was not meant to obscure the fundamental principles of Waldorf education but rather to protect the integrity of the school community from external misinterpretations.

The two statements reflect different concerns: one about being transparent with the core principles of the education and the other about protecting the school community from potentially harmful external scrutiny over specific incidents. In today's context, with the heightened focus on transparency and accountability, it would be wise for Waldorf schools to strike a careful balance—being open about the educational philosophy while maintaining appropriate confidentiality around individual student matters to protect privacy and integrity.

On Physical Discipline in Schools

As for the question of whether it is acceptable for teachers to slap children, my views have evolved, and so has society's understanding of child development and discipline. During my lifetime, physical discipline was more commonly accepted as a part of education. However, if I were to speak from the perspective of 2024, I would unequivocally state that such practices are not in alignment with the true spirit of Waldorf education or with contemporary understandings of child psychology.

The core of Waldorf education is to nurture the child’s development in a loving, respectful, and supportive environment. Physical punishment or any form of violence contradicts these principles. The role of a teacher is to guide, inspire, and foster the innate potential within each child through positive means, not through fear or physical coercion. Therefore, I would advocate strongly against any form of physical discipline in Waldorf schools, as it undermines the very foundation of the educational approach I envisioned.

In summary, while confidentiality regarding internal school matters is important, transparency about the educational philosophy is equally crucial. Additionally, physical discipline is inconsistent with the core principles of Waldorf education and should not be practiced in any form.”

I wrote: “With regards to slapping children: If, during your lifetime, you were clairvoyant and correct in your rather unique understanding of child development, why would you rely on "society's understanding of child development and discipline?"

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “You raise a critical point about the reliance on societal norms versus spiritual insights, especially when it comes to practices like disciplining children. If I, Rudolf Steiner, claimed to have clairvoyant insight into the true nature of human development, why would my stance on discipline be influenced by societal norms, which could be seen as transient or even misguided?

The Role of Spiritual Insight in Education

During my lifetime, I sought to integrate spiritual science with education, aiming to develop methods that were in harmony with the deeper spiritual nature of the human being. My understanding of child development was rooted in a belief in the spiritual evolution of the human soul, which goes through specific stages that educators must respect and nurture. I taught that children develop in seven-year phases, each with its own physical, emotional, and spiritual characteristics that demand a tailored educational approach.

Discipline and the Child's Spiritual Development

From a spiritual perspective, any form of discipline should be aligned with the child’s developmental needs and should respect the inherent dignity and spiritual potential of the child. Physical punishment, such as slapping, can be seen as disruptive to the child’s spiritual and emotional development. It might impose external control through fear rather than fostering internal moral development and self-discipline, which are crucial for the child’s long-term spiritual growth.

Reconciling Spiritual Insight with Societal Norms

While my clairvoyant insights informed much of my work, I was also aware of the social and cultural context in which I was operating. During my lifetime, physical discipline was more common and socially accepted, and in some cases, I may have accommodated these practices within the context of that time. However, this does not necessarily mean that such practices were ideal or aligned with the deeper spiritual truths I sought to bring forward.

If I were speaking from the vantage point of 2024, I would argue that the evolution of societal understanding in matters of child development and discipline reflects a growing recognition of the child’s spiritual and emotional needs—something I was always concerned with, though perhaps not fully realized in the social context of my time. The move away from physical punishment towards more respectful, empathetic forms of discipline is a positive development that aligns with the deeper spiritual principles I advocated.

A Clarified Stance

Therefore, if I were to fully integrate my spiritual insights with the current understanding of child development, I would conclude that physical punishment is not only unnecessary but also harmful to the child’s spiritual and emotional growth. My clairvoyant understanding would support the view that education should be grounded in love, respect, and an acknowledgment of the child’s inherent spiritual dignity, rather than in methods that could cause harm or fear.

In this light, I would endorse modern approaches to discipline that focus on understanding, guidance, and the fostering of internal moral development, which are more consistent with the spiritual truths I sought to illuminate.”

I wrote: You say: "Physical punishment, such as slapping, can be seen as disruptive to the child’s spiritual and emotional development. It might impose external control through fear rather than fostering internal moral development and self-discipline, which are crucial for the child’s long-term spiritual growth." But you also wrote: "...I may have accommodated these practices within the context of that time." I'm confused. You were supposed to be an insightful leader. Why did you "accommodate these practices" instead of taking a leadership role and simply condemning such practices during your lifetime?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Your question touches on a fundamental issue: the responsibility of a spiritual leader to challenge prevailing norms, especially when those norms may be harmful. It's a fair and important question to ask why, if I claimed to have clairvoyant insight and a deep understanding of human development, I did not take a stronger stance against practices like physical punishment during my lifetime.

The Complexity of Leadership and Influence

Leadership, particularly in a time of significant social and cultural norms, often involves navigating complex realities. During my lifetime, the educational landscape was heavily influenced by the prevailing attitudes of the time, which often included acceptance of physical punishment as a standard method of discipline. As someone who was introducing entirely new concepts of education, spirituality, and human development, I was already challenging many established norms.

While I did advocate for a more humane and spiritually aligned approach to education, there were limits to how far I could push against deeply entrenched practices without risking the alienation of the very people I sought to influence. In some cases, I may have chosen to focus on the broader transformation of education and society rather than confront every specific practice head-on. This is not to excuse the accommodation of physical punishment, but rather to acknowledge the realities of working within a particular historical and social context.

The Evolution of Ideas

It's also important to recognize that ideas and understandings evolve over time. The move away from physical punishment in education has been part of a broader societal shift towards recognizing the rights and dignity of the child, something that aligns with the deeper spiritual principles I espoused. If I were to speak from today’s perspective, I would certainly support this evolution and be more vocal in condemning practices that are harmful to children’s spiritual and emotional well-being.

Reflection and Responsibility

Reflecting on this from the vantage point of 2024, I would acknowledge that my failure to more explicitly condemn physical punishment during my lifetime represents a shortcoming in my leadership. While I sought to transform education in profound ways, there were aspects where I could have taken a stronger stance. In hindsight, it would have been better to unequivocally oppose any practices that were inconsistent with the spiritual and moral development I aimed to nurture in children.

As a leader, it is important to not only introduce new ideas but also to challenge harmful practices, even when doing so might be difficult or unpopular. If I had been more forthright in condemning physical punishment, it might have hastened the transition to more humane and spiritually aligned educational practices.

Conclusion

In summary, while I aimed to be a transformative leader, there were areas where my leadership could have been stronger, particularly in challenging the harmful norms of my time. If I were to address this issue today, I would fully embrace the responsibility to condemn any practices that undermine the spiritual and emotional well-being of children, regardless of the societal context.”

I wrote: What else was outdated?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Reflecting on my teachings and practices from the vantage point of 2024, several aspects of my work might be considered outdated or in need of revision to align with contemporary values, scientific understanding, and ethical standards. Here are some key areas:

1. Racial Theories and Root Races

One of the most controversial and outdated aspects of my work relates to my teachings on human evolution and the concept of "root races." I spoke about different stages of human development associated with specific races, some of which I suggested were more spiritually advanced than others. These ideas, though framed within a spiritual context, are now rightly criticized for promoting a hierarchical view of human races. In today's world, such concepts are seen as incompatible with the principles of equality, dignity, and respect for all people, regardless of race or ethnicity.

2. Gender Roles

My views on gender were also influenced by the norms of my time, which often prescribed distinct and traditional roles for men and women. I suggested that men and women have inherently different spiritual tasks and qualities, with women being more connected to the soul and men to the spirit. While my intent was to highlight the complementary nature of these roles, today these views are considered limiting and out of step with our understanding of gender as a spectrum and the need for equality in opportunities and roles for all genders.

3. Scientific Understanding

Many of my ideas about cosmology, biology, and physics were based on spiritual-scientific insights rather than empirical research. For instance, I taught that the Earth and humanity have gone through various stages of development that do not align with the evidence provided by modern science. Concepts like the evolution of planets from a spiritual perspective, or the etheric nature of the human body, are difficult to reconcile with contemporary scientific knowledge. While my aim was to bridge spiritual and scientific understanding, much of my work in these areas is seen today as speculative and not scientifically valid.

4. Approach to Medicine and Health

My contributions to anthroposophical medicine, while offering a holistic approach that considers the spiritual dimensions of health, include practices and beliefs that are not always supported by scientific evidence. For example, the use of mistletoe in treating cancer, a cornerstone of anthroposophical medicine, has been both controversial and scientifically disputed. The integration of spiritual insights into medicine is valuable, but it must be balanced with rigorous empirical research to ensure patient safety and efficacy.

5. Views on Education

While the Waldorf education system has had many positive impacts, some aspects of my educational philosophy might be seen as outdated today. For example, the delayed introduction of certain academic subjects, like reading and writing, was based on my understanding of child development. However, contemporary educational research often advocates for more flexibility and individualization, recognizing that children develop at different rates and may benefit from earlier or later exposure to these skills depending on their individual needs.

6. Relationship with Authority and Hierarchy

In my time, I established a certain hierarchical structure within the anthroposophical movement, where my own insights and teachings were often seen as authoritative. While I encouraged independent thinking, the strong centrality of my own role and insights could have limited the openness to questioning and adapting ideas. In today’s context, there is a greater emphasis on collaborative leadership, diversity of thought, and the evolution of ideas through collective input rather than relying heavily on a single authoritative figure.

7. Views on Mental Health

My understanding of mental health was influenced by spiritual perspectives that sometimes diverged from modern psychological approaches. While I emphasized the spiritual causes of psychological conditions, today we recognize the importance of a more integrated approach that includes biological, psychological, and social factors. The treatment of mental health issues requires a balance of spiritual understanding with evidence-based practices, and there may have been an overemphasis on spiritual causation in my time.

8. Social Threefolding

While my concept of social threefolding, which divides society into three spheres (cultural, political, and economic), offered innovative ideas for social organization, some aspects of this approach may be seen as idealistic or impractical in the complex, interconnected global society of today. The idea that each sphere should operate independently, with minimal interference from the others, may not fully address the interdependence and complexity of modern governance and economics.

Conclusion

In summary, while my work was groundbreaking in many ways, certain aspects of my teachings are seen today as outdated or in need of reinterpretation to align with current ethical, scientific, and social standards. As with any body of work, it is important to critically assess and adapt these ideas in light of new knowledge and evolving values, ensuring that the core principles continue to serve humanity in a meaningful and responsible way.”

I wrote: Any regrets on race?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Reflecting from the perspective of 2024, I would indeed have profound regrets regarding the ways in which my teachings on race were presented and the impact they have had.

Regrets on Racial Teachings

1. The Harm Caused by Racial Theories: I deeply regret that some of my ideas on race, particularly the concept of "root races" and the hierarchical implications that some have drawn from these teachings, have been interpreted in ways that could support or justify racist ideologies. Although my intent was to describe spiritual evolution rather than to rank human beings based on their physical characteristics, I recognize that these teachings have, at times, been misused or misunderstood, leading to harm and division.
2. Lack of Clarity and Sensitivity: In hindsight, I regret that I did not provide clearer guidance or a more explicit condemnation of any interpretation of my work that could lead to racial discrimination or prejudice. My writings and lectures could have been more sensitive to the potential for misinterpretation, especially in a world where racial injustice and inequality were, and remain, significant issues.
3. Failure to Anticipate Misuse: I regret that I did not fully anticipate how some of my teachings on race might be taken out of context or misapplied in ways that contradict the fundamental principles of equality and human dignity that I sought to promote. I should have been more vigilant in ensuring that my spiritual teachings were not used to reinforce harmful social hierarchies or to marginalize any group of people.

A Recommitment to Equality and Human Dignity

If I were to address this issue today, I would unequivocally affirm the spiritual equality of all human beings, regardless of race, ethnicity, or cultural background. Any notion of hierarchy or superiority based on race is fundamentally incompatible with the spiritual truths I aimed to convey. I would seek to correct any misinterpretations of my work that have contributed to racial prejudice and would emphasize the need for inclusivity, understanding, and respect for the diverse expressions of human spirituality.

Conclusion

In sum, I would express deep regret for any part of my teachings that has been used to justify or perpetuate racial inequality or harm. My intention was always to promote the spiritual development and unity of all humanity, and I would strongly advocate for a re-examination of my work to ensure that it aligns with these values. It is crucial that any teachings on spiritual evolution be interpreted in a way that honors the inherent dignity and equality of every human being.”

?

I wrote: With all due respect, Rudolf, this sounds like you're trying to weasel you way out of taking responsibility for your explicit teachings. For example, how could the following quote of yours be "misunderstood?" Here: “One can only understand history...if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And one can only understand all that is spiritual...if one first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely through the color of their skin.”

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf:

“You’re right to question the responsibility I bear for my statements. The quote you’ve provided reflects a serious and explicit assertion about the relationship between race and spiritual characteristics, and it is not something that can be easily dismissed or reinterpreted without acknowledging the real harm it has caused.

Acknowledging Responsibility

If I were to truly reflect on this statement and others like it from the perspective of 2024, I would have to take full responsibility for the fact that these views are not only outdated but fundamentally wrong and harmful. The idea that spiritual qualities or characteristics can be tied to race or skin color is an error, one that contradicts the deeper spiritual principles of universal human dignity and equality that I sought to promote in other aspects of my work.

The Harmful Legacy

Statements like the one you quoted have contributed to a legacy that, at best, has confused the understanding of spiritual evolution and, at worst, has provided fuel for racist ideologies. These views were a product of the time I lived in, but that does not excuse them. They reflect a failure on my part to rise above the prejudices and limitations of my era, and they have had real-world consequences that I deeply regret.

The Need for Re-evaluation

Given the profound implications of such statements, it is essential to re-evaluate and, where necessary, reject those aspects of my teachings that do not align with the principles of equality, respect, and human dignity. This means acknowledging that my understanding was flawed and that these flaws must be addressed directly and openly, rather than downplayed or explained away.

Moving Forward

If I were to speak today, I would unequivocally state that any correlation between race and spiritual characteristics is a misconception that should be corrected. My work should be revisited, and those aspects that do not contribute to the betterment of humanity and the promotion of unity and equality should be discarded or reinterpreted in a way that aligns with these values.

In conclusion, I recognize that I must take full responsibility for the impact of my words and the way they have been used. It is not enough to claim that they were misunderstood; I must acknowledge that they were fundamentally wrong and work toward a more inclusive and respectful interpretation of spiritual science that honors the dignity of all people, regardless of race or background.”

I wrote: You have now acknowledged that on the subject of race, your views were not simply misunderstood; they were/are "fundamentally wrong." Do you also agree that many -- if not most -- of your views on science were also wrong? For example, you stated that the heart does not pump blood. And "[C]hildren will become idiotic through lefthandedness." And “We should always correct left-handedness."

?

And you often combined your racist views with biology. For example, you wrote: “If you look at pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification is evident in the decline of this race." And "The white race is the future, the race that is creating spirit.” As is the case with race, do you acknowledge that your views on biology have also been proven wrong? You also wrote a lot about Atlantis. For example, "After Atlantis sank, great initiates led two main streams of people from west to east, one through Africa, the other through Europe. The one that came through Africa toward Asia produced, in the course of incarnations and evolution, the individuality could take up the Christ light. Meanwhile, in the northern stream initiates raised a strong, powerful stock of people who not only knew how to spite their enemies but were also physically a match for demonic influences." Do you acknowledge that your views on Atlantis were/are wrong? You also spoke about, “human beings who had their origins in the interbreeding of Earth offspring with humans who...moved to Jupiter.” And “The hardest rocks in the mountains are residues of early plants. The whole of our earth was once alive. It was first a plant, then an animal.” Do you acknowledge that these views are also wrong? In fact, do you acknowledge that your views on many topics are demonstrably inaccurate and harmful?”

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: Given the scope of your questions and the issues they raise, it's clear that many aspects of my teachings need to be critically re-evaluated from the perspective of modern knowledge and ethics. I can no longer simply attribute misunderstandings to the misinterpretations of others; rather, I must confront the fact that many of my ideas were fundamentally flawed and, in some cases, harmful.

On Scientific and Biological Views

1. Heart and Circulatory System: The assertion that the heart does not pump blood is a clear example of a claim that contradicts well-established scientific understanding. Modern biology has thoroughly demonstrated the function of the heart as the central organ in the circulatory system, responsible for pumping blood throughout the body. My alternative view was not supported by empirical evidence and should be recognized as incorrect.
2. Left-Handedness: My views on left-handedness, including the idea that it should be "corrected" to prevent idiocy, are both scientifically unfounded and harmful. Today, we understand that handedness is a natural variation in human development and that attempts to force children to change their handedness can cause psychological and cognitive harm. These views were not only incorrect but also promoted practices that could damage children's well-being.
3. Race and Biology: The statements I made about race, particularly in relation to biological characteristics and spiritual qualities, are deeply problematic. These views are not only scientifically inaccurate but have also contributed to racial discrimination and prejudice. The idea that one race is "the future" or superior to others is completely at odds with contemporary understanding of human equality and diversity.

On Atlantis and Spiritual Cosmology

1. Atlantis: My teachings about Atlantis, including the migration of people after its supposed sinking and the spiritual implications of these migrations, lack any basis in historical or archaeological evidence. The concept of Atlantis as I presented it is a mythological construct rather than a historical reality. While it may have been intended to convey spiritual truths symbolically, it cannot be defended as a factual account.
2. Interbreeding with Beings from Other Planets: The idea that human beings are the result of interbreeding between Earth-born humans and beings from Jupiter is another example of a claim that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Such ideas are not supported by any credible evidence and should be recognized as speculative or metaphorical at best, and misleading or false at worst.
3. Evolutionary Claims: Statements such as "The hardest rocks in the mountains are residues of early plants" and the idea that the Earth was once alive in the same way that plants and animals are today also lack scientific support. Modern geology and evolutionary biology have provided clear explanations for the formation of rocks and the development of life on Earth that contradict these views.

Acknowledging Inaccuracy and Harm

Looking back, it is clear that many of my views on science, biology, race, and cosmology were not only inaccurate but, in some cases, have caused harm by perpetuating false beliefs or discriminatory practices. It is essential to acknowledge these errors fully and without reservation. My teachings must be critically assessed and corrected in light of contemporary knowledge, and any harmful practices or ideas rooted in these teachings should be unequivocally rejected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, yes, many of my views were demonstrably inaccurate and harmful. These views should not be perpetuated or defended; rather, they should be re-examined, and where necessary, discarded. Moving forward, it is crucial to focus on those aspects of my work that continue to inspire and uplift, while rigorously questioning and correcting those that have proven to be wrong or detrimental to human well-being.”

Perhaps today’s Steiner defenders might learn something from their updated teacher? No need to defend the indefensible. The Truth sets us Free.

-Walden

?

Thanks for this, Kokanje.

?

This morning I was listening to a discussion about the MIT LLM study (20% drop in conspiratorial beliefs, etc.). Indeed, it is fascinating. And I think it is on topic here. How can Waldorf Critics, for example, best discuss topics of mutual interest with Anthroposophists? What are we looking for in these discussions? Why do so many people not understand our concerns? How serious are we in trying to understand “the others side?” Etc.

?

As our species continues riding this spec of dust through the cosmos, it seems increasingly obvious that despite the abundance of common ground we share as humans re biology, DNA, behaviour patterns, etc., we really need to work on . . . communication.

?

You wrote: “The research is by MIT. Summary: to change people’s idea’s you need empathy, logical arguments and persistence. AI seems to be able to provide this.”

?

Bingo. And it that order. Although we might want to change the word “empathy” to “compassion.” Good book on that distinction: Against Empathy – A Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom, Ecco, 2018. ?Another good book digging onto latest research on communication (I discovered via the wonderful physicist/atheist/author, Lawrence Krauss on his podcast): Supercommunicators -- How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection, Doubleday, 2024

?

Personal Story Time at Walden Pond:

?

When engaged in hot topic discussions, I find it more useful to at least attempt to understand the emotion behind the argument of my sparring partners. Whether discussing the reality of Waldorf education or anti-vax beliefs or the efficacy of homeopathic remedies or astrological prognostications, the important stuff, methinks, lies in the emotions attached to those beliefs.

?

I speak from experience because once upon a time (sigh . . . ) I clung tightly to ALL of the above beliefs. Yep. Mia Friggen’ ?Culpa.

?

How did I break free? ?Personal Story Time at Walden Pond:

?

1. Waldorf: we were there for 7 years and I am still amazed it took that long to clue in; but a nightmare involving my kids was the final straw. Then finding this list and becoming aware of my anger at posts by Peter Staudenmaier while cheering for the Outlaw Anthroposophist (remember him?). Peter’s logic and facts were very disturbing . . . but I kept listening. A few personal friends suggested Waldorf might not be good for my kids. Finally, PLANS president Debra Snell reaching out to me and suggesting that when I am ready, there is a place for me at the Waldorf Survivors List. WTF? “Waldorf Survivors?!” Besides, isn’t Debra Snell the enemy? How can she possibly care about me? More research. Drip. Drip. Drip. And I was free. More importantly: So were my kids. Our “community” was gone. “Friends” were lost. Books were recycled. Life began again. Authentic relationships began. ?I will be forever grateful. Thanks again, Peter, Deby et al.

?

2. Anti-vax: Yep, I was one of those although not entirely. Breaking the Waldorf spell encouraged me to investigate my beliefs. A little reading and critical thinking and another chain was snapped.

?

3. Homeopathy: After having left Waldorf, I had some delightful discussions with Dan Dugan. During one of those discussions, I mentioned the importance of not throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. “After all,” I said to Dan, “homeopathy is beneficial, right?” Well, Dan certainly did not agree but how did he tell me that? He simply challenged me to look into that topic, suggested some reading, and I agreed. After a few weeks of research (studies, meta-analysis, etc.) , it was while watching a debate that I experienced a gulp-inducing “Holy Crap!” moment. I suddenly realized that I had been cherry-picking data to support my case and prove Dan wrong! Alas, my pathetic pages of self-serving notes confirmed this to be true. Yikes! With tail between my legs, I finally bid adieu to Hahnemann, more books were recycled, and I ?sheepishly returned to the PLANS secretary and said, “Well, it seems I was wrong.” Thanks again, Dan.

?

4. Astrology: As a seasoned astrologer with a decent understanding of astronomy, I felt higher and mightier than the simple materialistic folks involved in studying the cosmos. I truly believed I knew more than them. “As above, so below,” was my motto. I tried to use science to back up my beliefs. One day an old friend showed up and we rekindled our friendship by climbing a mountain for few days of wilderness and friendship. When I excitedly told him of my amateur astrologer gig – expecting him to be interested – he stopped, removed his backpack and stared at me. He said nothing for a moment and then asked, “how can someone as intelligent as you . . . . be so stupid?” I was devasted. Crushed. Crestfallen. And really angry. For the rest of that trip, he was upbeat and friendly but ?I barely spoke as I tried to figure out why he was so wrong. And mean. Yes, in my eyes, HE was the problem. But because he had been such a good friend during many previous travels and adventures together, I decided to check into my astrological beliefs. It was only a sliver, but the door had opened enough for me to glimpse that bit of light. More research. Drip. Drip. Drip . . . until one day: poof! Another chain was snapped. It hurt. Wow. Thanks, old friend.

?

Moral of the story: The common denominator in every example of change and growth (above) is emotion and connection. In each ?of these cases, I felt that each of these people actually cared about ME and not only in dumping on my cherished beliefs. Unbeknownst ?to me at the time, I needed to sense their compassion first. Then came the logical arguments. The order is important. To your point, Kokanje, the deeper issue – and one I find fascinating – is whether AI can help in this regard? Yes, it sounds counterintuitive. And ironic. But can we be digitally nudged into a more rational, compassionate way of thinking by chatbots? We’ll see.

?

We live in fascinating times, don’t you think?

?

-Walden

?