The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 28 February 1923, Stuttgart

Report on the Meeting of the Delegates IV

Morning Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at 9 am.

Address by Dr. Rudolf Steiner

My dear friends! After the way our meeting went on the first two days, I felt compelled yesterday to give a few guidelines — as I already said: out of my concern for the further course of the negotiations. Because today we have to come to a positive result, and it must not be the case that our dear friends who have traveled to this assembly of delegates leave tonight in the same way as they arrived on Sunday. We must arrive at a positive result. I tried to say what I said based on the reality that emerged from the negotiations. We must always take things as they appear in reality, and our present reality is what emerged from the negotiations over the past two days. We could not come to this meeting with a finished program, because then we would not have needed to meet. Otherwise, some program could have been worked out and sent to each individual, and that would have been the end of it. The point is that these negotiations are to be taken seriously and that every member of this assembly is to have a say through the delegates.

Now it has become clear that, quite apart from smaller groups, two main groups have emerged in the membership and that it is quite hopeless to expect these main groups to agree on an absolutely common program.

I will start with a completely different point to show how things really are. At the beginning of my lecture yesterday, I said: In the two decades of the Anthroposophical Society's life, something has been experienced. The Anthroposophical Society is not something that can be newly founded, something that can be spoken of as it was 15 or 20 years ago. But that is how someone who has only recently joined must speak. That can be extremely good, but it is spoken from a different point of view. I had to experience this life of the Anthroposophical Society from my point of view. And for this experience of mine, the shades that emerged in the last two years were very sharply present. How were they present? You see, my dear friends, when I came to Stuttgart, I met the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society here. That is how the really experienced circumstances had unfolded. When I came here, I came for certain reasons, there were intentions to be carried out, purposes to be carried out. When I spoke here in Stuttgart with someone who had been involved in his work here for many years, then, so to speak, I only needed to press a button and in a few minutes what I had to say was done. They understood me, they knew the needs of the Anthroposophical Society. For example: a Waldorf school teacher is immersed in his subject for a long time, because he was already immersed in education from an anthroposophical point of view before he became a Waldorf school teacher. The mistake was not that I was not understood in Stuttgart – most people assume that. I was understood – it was just that what was understood was not carried out. But that is what is needed. Of course, I do not have the time to explain all this in detail. I will explain why there is no time for that in my lecture today.

So on the one hand, here in Stuttgart, people who are really well informed and strengthened by the experience are immediately understood. In terms of understanding, everything goes like clockwork. These are the old, good members who have developed a kind of intuitive genius for anthroposophical matters. In this respect, everything is in order. And I only had to make the effort to find the committee myself, after weeks of back and forth negotiations, to tell us how it wants to find the bridge from easy understanding to the will! Therefore, my appeal to this committee is to finally tell us what it actually wants.

It was not right, how the essentials were misunderstood. It seemed grotesque to me when, out of complete ignorance of the circumstances, a proposal was put forward that we should now, in the midst of all the unfinished business, start to elect a new central committee. How impossible that is, will be understandable when I now characterize the other party.

You see, the following is quite natural: when I negotiate with someone, be it a group or an individual coming on behalf of a group, at first they understand nothing of what I say. That is quite natural — they understand nothing of it, absolutely nothing! But there is an infinite amount of activity, an infinite amount of goodwill. Anything that has not been understood will be done immediately! The speeches of those coming from outside are imbued with the noblest anthroposophical intentions. But one must grow into the old history, one must become familiar with all the details! And no matter how long these two groups may say to each other: We have the best will to grow together, they will not come together, they will always talk past each other. Do not think that I am only referring to the Youth Group. There are very old members of the Anthroposophical Society who are in the same situation. They do everything I say — but they do what has not been understood. Now we are faced with the truly worrying necessity of nevertheless continuing the Society in absolute inner solidarity and solidity. This can only be done if we find a form for it in which both groupings can flourish; in other words, if the old Anthroposophical Society continues to exist in accordance with our principles, and in such a way that it is led first by the committee of nine, which was not brought about as a mere [*] See note on p. 571.

was brought about not as a mere matter of necessity, but also arose out of historical circumstances. So that which has become historical must be carried forward historically. And the others will form a loose association, regardless of whether they are old or young, ninety-five or fifteen years old, whether they are Waldorf students or senior citizens – they are still members of the Anthroposophical Society – so that they then have an inner esoteric connection according to the karmic connections of these or those members, so to speak. Something definite will come out of this loose association. The group that represents history will have to indicate, from its experiences, which are abundant, what it and each individual wants to do next. But those who form the loose association will initially form this loose association by saying to themselves: We are genuine, true anthroposophists – these are often the youngest ones – and we will now continue to seek a form for our work. They don't need to come to any kind of election or the like right away; they will try to bring their loose association so far that we can then create the binding link between the two.

After our negotiations ended yesterday, I was asked at 12 o'clock [at night] to come to another meeting at Landhausstraße 70. At the end of the meeting, the objection was raised: We have seen that those who represent the old society, which has its leading figures here in Stuttgart, cannot properly relate to the individual institutions and enterprises from an anthroposophical point of view. Those who do not agree with this now, certainly not! If that were the case, these enterprises would be a complete failure and would have no following. I said that if that were the case, then the desirable state would have been reached, because the abstract desire to help is worth nothing. A healthy state will only come about if the enterprises here in Stuttgart – I do not mean this ironically – are left alone with good advice. The mistake made by the departments was that they always talked about the enterprises and not about the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society in relation to the enterprises. The enterprises as such are either in order or not in order. The eurythmy enterprise is in order, the Waldorf school is in order, the Kommende Tag is in order. The Federation for a Free Spiritual Life, however, is not in order. But a federation for a free spiritual life will not be founded out of this assembly; nor, my dear friends, will the two magazines¹ can be edited by this meeting. The point at issue is that the Stuttgart undertakings must be left alone. One can have confidence in them, and there is no question of the personalities who are in these institutions being tested for trustworthiness. Every day at the Waldorf School, for example, shows that the Waldorf School has excellent leadership. We are here to talk about what the Anthroposophical Society should become in the future. The point is that we proceed in such a positive way - I ask you to discuss my proposal - that all those who can feel: are not connected historically with the time when one only had to press the pen for their joint work within the whole of anthroposophy, will find such a form that has lasting value. Then there will be absolutely no need for the concern, which can be formulated something like this: What will the old Society do with the enterprises if the young do not participate? The loose association will take an interest if – forgive the ugly word – it is organized the way they want it. Then interest will awaken. I would like a form to be found within which real interest can exist.

That, my dear friends, is what it is about: not a division into two groups, but a classification so that those who are familiar with the things that need to be present can actually continue to prevail in their way, but without disturbing the others, and so that both groups can work together in harmony. You can't try to bring them together. They will never talk to each other, but they will work together splendidly. Everyone must do what they are good at and are predisposed to do. So we actually come to find a way for society to continue to exist.

I would like to mention a grotesque fact again and again. The Federation for Threefolding has had three heads in succession.² The first head — as I have already briefly explained — remained until I declared: I can no longer participate. The second main person was someone who, when working in the right place, worked extraordinarily well; this was demonstrated in many places within the Anthroposophical Society. I had not been there for a long time when I came back. A meeting was taking place with the leadership of the Federation for Threefolding. I asked what had happened, and I was told: We have created a card index of such and such slips of paper; all the newspaper clippings are here and there; then we have larger slips of thicker paper, and then there are all the opposing articles; and then we have other slips of paper that are thinner and can be folded, with the indentations and so on. So I finally said: Yes, but my dear friends, I don't want to know what you have in your card catalogs. Don't you also have heads? I don't want to deal with card catalogs, but with heads. — The heads were not absent, but they were eliminated, and a card catalog was placed opposite me.

They laugh at it! In a sense, it's not even funny.

In a sense, this is the Stuttgart system, and those who stand in it sometimes completely disagree with what they are doing. I have found no greater opponents of the Stuttgart system than those who carry it out. That is just the way it is. Yes, my dear friends, but if that is the case, then it must be clear that there must also be a form that can exist alongside it. Those who, on the one hand, are gasping under their duty must necessarily think quite differently from the others, who have no reason at all to think that way, but who think according to their insight: That is how it must be in the Anthroposophical Society if one has not been at 17 Champignystraße and 70 Landhausstraße! — The groups cannot possibly communicate with each other! Therefore, what I am proposing is not a division in the Society, but rather a means of uniting. On spiritual scientific ground, one unites by differentiating, individualizing, not by centralizing. Take account of what I have said, speak from this point of view, then we will actually come to an end today.

Those who are thinking of realizing a more original form of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society, of being in a union of smaller groups in which they are not constrained, will be able to live it up. And that is what matters first. I do hope that in this way we will get to the point where everyone knows which group they belong to. Then it can continue, then the loose union can form, can give itself a head in such a free or unfree way as it wants. A connecting link can then be created — not between the two Anthroposophical Societies, but between the brothers, the two groups of the unified Anthroposophical Society. But we will have to discuss that, my dear friends. I just threw that in as a guideline.

On behalf of the nine-member board, which has now taken the place of the old central board, Dr. Unger makes the following statement:

1. Mr. Uehli has definitively left the old central board.
2. The other two members of the central board have co-opted the members of the committee and are willing to co-opt further individuals to form an extended board.
3. These individuals on the committee are willing to take over the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society as the new board.
4. The members of the new executive council residing in Stuttgart will take over the administration of the Society's affairs.
5. They will assume particular responsibility, together with the leading figures of the institutions founded in Stuttgart, for the proper integration of these foundations into the Anthroposophical Society.

The new leadership of the Society has set itself the following guidelines:

1. The leadership will feel responsible for ensuring that the life of the anthroposophical movement as a whole is led into all parts of the Society. This includes reports on lectures, research and the fruits of anthroposophical work. A newsletter as the organ of the Society should serve these purposes.

2. The leadership of the Society will feel responsible for ensuring that the individual creative powers in the Society can develop and that the personalities involved in the work feel supported by the interest that the Society takes in their work.

For both tasks, the leadership relies on trusted personalities in the sense of the draft principles of an Anthroposophical Society.

The Executive Council hopes to find support for the affairs of the Society and help in carrying out its tasks in a body of trusted individuals to be formed.

The following tasks are among the objectives that the Anthroposophical Society has set itself in accordance with the draft principles: cultivation of universal anthroposophical life — development and cultivation of anthroposophical community — imparting of anthroposophical teachings to the outside world — introduction and continuation — study groups — organization of defense against opponents - focusing the work on the future.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Our group is still in the process of coming into being, and it is therefore clear that we cannot come up with a program at the beginning of this process. That is quite impossible. So I can only give you a very brief description of how we actually view this whole undertaking, so to speak, from within. The starting point is that what we see as anthroposophical striving for development has not been realized in the narrow-mindedness of the Anthroposophical Society, so that we were initially in a position where we could not communicate at all and were the impetus for what could have ultimately led the Society into chaos yesterday. When Dr. Steiner suggested dividing the Society into two societies because of the two different directions of will, we were shocked by this conclusion. But then we realized that it was precisely through this structure that harmony in society could arise again. So we are very grateful to Dr. Steiner for helping us to find a way to continue our own anthroposophical development without having to contribute to the creation of such chaos, an atomization of the Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, it is now a matter of us having to try to assert our own developmental conditions in a certain independence from what has become the historical society. But it is self-evident for us – if we now have the opportunity to grow further as anthroposophists – that the fruits of this development must then benefit the whole anthroposophical movement. That the development of the Anthroposophical Society will then have its strongest supporters in us, and that we are convinced from the outset that we need the individual institutions, the publishing house, the institute and so on, but that we can bring our development to fruition better with a certain independence, with a certain distance.

If older members of society sympathize with us, then it is quite natural for us that these “young people” can also include those who are ninety-five years old, as Dr. Steiner said. For example, it is perfectly possible, according to this view, for one and the same person to be actively involved in both branches of anthroposophy, and every member of the older friends can work with us. We want to be completely free in this, depending on whether people come together out of human or anthroposophical impulses.

For us, this actually anthroposophical aspect is such that this difference between age and youth, which has often complicated the debate in a highly philistine way, does not exist. The fact is that I myself am older than some of those who did not get on with the youth. So from this side it can be said that, with regard to the danger of further disintegration and fragmentation, we are convinced that this danger does not exist. It is part of a basic impulse that there must be no difference whatsoever in age, status or occupation, that for us these things are so entwined with the anthroposophical that we would immediately become untruthful if we were to make any distinction in this regard. We must see to it that we introduce anthroposophical truthfulness.

We can try to work from these developmental possibilities to strive for a certain connection that will then lead to a free organization. But that is not really the first concern, nor what this connecting link to the old society will look like. I am thoroughly convinced that these things will arise of themselves, if, on the one hand, the Anthroposophical Society can continue to work out of its own developmental conditions, undisturbed by an opposition that cannot help it and thus does not help itself either, and if, on the other hand, the youth group can also develop according to its own nature. Then this connection will come about of its own accord, because after all, we are aware of both sides: they are anthroposophists and we are anthroposophists. Thus the connecting link, as whose representative Dr. Steiner is here, is present.

From the points of view presented by Dr. Steiner, Dr. Unger and myself, the discussion could now be continued in a truly friendly and objective manner and take on a completely different character from yesterday's. It would be necessary for us to stick to the good starting points and persevere with what we have begun as a positive path shown to us by Dr. Steiner.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, talks about the formation of a trust organization³ and warns against letting it develop in a bureaucratic way. A real trust organization must form itself through living relationships. The minimum is the right of the trusted personalities to propose members for admission to the society. In addition, the most diverse relationships must arise between the society's board and the trusted personalities. The board must have the opportunity to work with very different personalities as trusted persons in different matters. The trusted personalities should be appointed by the board, not elected by the members, but they should be trusted by the members. In principle, the matter of the trusted organization is already regulated in a comprehensive way by the “principles”. On the basis of these principles, the relationship with the youth group can also be organized in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.

When approaching such a matter as the creation of a trust organization, one must be careful not to fall into a sense of optimism. We have to go back to what was given at the starting point of the Anthroposophical Society when it was founded as a draft of the principles. There we find exactly how a trust organization must be managed.

For example, one might think that a person of trust can be appointed by one member being proposed to that effect by seven others. The persons of trust have to provide a guarantee when members register. That is, so to speak, the minimum of what the persons of trust would have to do; beyond that, the organization of the persons of trust would have to be built up. I now believe that it is important that we do not appoint trusted personalities in some theoretical way, but that such an organization is formed out of the work. The starting point would be that trusted personalities are proposed and the Central Committee recognizes these personalities. Then a basis is created for admitting members, and the relationship of trust must begin to develop. This must now arise out of the work that the Central Committee and the trusted individuals thus appointed do. It cannot be a matter of the Central Committee saying yes and amen to everything, but it must satisfy itself that it can take responsibility. Of course, it is easy to find seven people whom one does not know at all and thus bring in trusted individuals who are not really trusted at all. We cannot work only from the bottom up in the Anthroposophical Society; we must also work from the top down. This must not be forgotten, otherwise we will end up with a kind of democracy or Bolshevism.

Then there is the question of a trusting, lively interaction. But both parts belong to this. Good will must be shown by both the leadership and the members.

Furthermore, Dr. Steiner must be relieved of the enterprises, but not dismissed. Dr. Steiner has often said the same thing over the years, and it was not heard. And finally today we are coming to the realization that we actually have to do what Dr. Steiner said years ago. I could show you this with practical examples. If he is heard, then he gets by with very little time, and we have our hands full implementing it. For the rest, they have to say to themselves: We should not interfere in the enterprises. What kind of advice do you think I received in the first place regarding commitments? Everyone should say to themselves: Not what should the others do, but what should I do?

Mr. Leinhas reports that there are about 55 requests to speak and some written communications.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Now that it has been made clear that such a division is not a “split” but an “outline,” I would like to say that I do not want to hold on to what I have said about it.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena, emphasizes the necessity of young people working together with old people.

Count Hermann Keyserling, Koberwitz near Breslau: The depression that has probably weighed on all of us has given way to a joyful feeling when Dr. Steiner kindly helped us out of our plight. Speaker thanks the committee of nine for the selflessness with which they have undertaken such a great task as the preparation of this conference. Speaker moves that the discussion should not continue, but that a vote should be taken on the committee of nine's program.

Mr. Otto Coppel, Edenkoben, says that the management has not made it sufficiently clear what it wants. Therefore, the attempt to break up the meeting the day before yesterday, as nonsensical as it was, was only natural. Now, before voting, the program should be discussed.

Now a procedural debate is taking place as to whether a vote should be taken or whether the discussion should continue.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: We are in danger of going in the wrong direction. We are all anthroposophists and differ only in the way we have become so; the question is not whether we should vote or continue the discussion, but I would like to make the following suggestion: Now that the direction for further development has been set, it would be necessary for a number of people to step forward and say: I believe that this and that is the right thing, and I think it is good for the following reasons.

Mrs. Emma von Staudt, Munich, emphasizes that one should not overlook the tremendous amount of self-criticism and self-knowledge that has been practiced from within. It will be difficult to live with two families under the same roof. Therefore, she would like to make a tactical suggestion for living together. If the three different directions: art, science and religion were represented more, without prejudice to the actual leadership of the branches, this coexistence would be easier.

Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart: It is not a matter of voting on whether to join the old or the new society, but rather of recognizing that things have become so and that we can only continue within the Anthroposophical Society if we now work on the one hand in the way history has developed, and on the other hand in the way that seems right to those for whom Dr. Büchenbacher has just spoken. It was mentioned earlier that individual parts of society do not understand each other with other parts. It seems to me that this cannot be the case, they do understand each other. But it would depend on whether it would be expressed as strongly and from as many sides as possible, to what extent they can understand each other very well, how they can establish a connection with the institutions and an understanding for these institutions among the members. It seems to me to be very necessary that it not be expressed simply through silence: yes, now it is just so, we agree with it, but that this agreement be expressed through speeches. It would be necessary to speak very briefly about how one understands the whole matter, how one believes one can work within this so-divided society.

Of course, one or two things could be said about Dr. Unger's program, but it seems to me that the important thing is not to discuss the program, but to implement it.

At the request of the chairman, the assembly unanimously approves the program.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, points out that a relatively large amount has been achieved in Hamburg; he speaks of a “Hamburg system” based on the activation of the human being. The personalities here have earned antipathy as well as sympathy because the “activation of the human being” has not happened. However, he has already found some things in the work of the committee that go in this direction. He said that he would do whatever lay in his limited power to ensure that this “activation of the human being” gradually became decisive in the committee, which would be expanded. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart: I would like to say a few words about the situation that has now been created, which I could not say yesterday because I did not understand it. As you have heard, I resigned from the Central Executive Committee because I was unable to work fruitfully. Now the situation is such that I am growing naturally into the organization of the Free Community because I believe that I can work in the way that is possible, out of friendship for people. Whether I continue with the other things or not is a matter for the committee; it does not belong here, for example, the 'Federation for a Free Spiritual Life' or the newspaper 'Drei'. I want to be able to work as a free human being.

Mr. August Everbeck, Brake: Yesterday the Society threatened to dissolve into chaos - today the difficulties no longer exist after listening to Dr. Steiner. (He wants to explain how the Stuttgart work looks from the periphery. — There is an interjection: Positive suggestions! - The speaker then summarizes his remarks: The only thing that was missing in the branches was the connection with Stuttgart.)

Dr. Josef Kalkhoff, Freiburg: If we had absorbed “Practical Thinking” and “The Philosophy of Freedom”, then we would not have needed a great physician to tell us what is missing. Anyone who believes that they have things to contribute to the discussion can send a paper to Stuttgart, and it will be processed – or thrown away.

What needs to happen is not terribly new, it just needs to be brought to consciousness. We have a medical working group. One can also continue to work in the threefold order, because it is not work that should be abolished, only the organization. What emerges from the discussion should not be thrown in the trash. We should not commit ourselves to a program; that would take care of itself.

Professor Hermann Craemer, Bonn: These are practical suggestions for the future, and what the assembly has suggested should be put into practice, and to be clear about the first steps, based on the nature of such an assembly. There are over a thousand people who are supposed to communicate with each other, and that is extremely difficult. We have also seen that within this large group there are individual groups, especially the youth movement, who, when one person stands up, understand each other perfectly without the person concerned having said much. We still have to learn the art of communicating in large gatherings and not talking at cross purposes. This can be achieved if the branches practice learning to listen to the other person, to be interested not only in the content of what he says, but in the fact that he is saying it. If we practice this coming-to-the-experience-of-you in the branches and continue to practice it in somewhat larger circles, we will gradually come to understand each other in larger gatherings as well. People who live in geographic districts should work together, starting with the simplest personal interaction and working through the problems we face. Here we have to start from scratch and spare no sacrifice so that we can grow together from fragmentation and atomization into one organism.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart, agrees with the program of the new central committee as the spokesperson for the Kerning branch in Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it was noted that there is a discord against one person of the new central committee, which he also shares; this is the person of Dr. Carl Unger (heckling). Speaker Leinhas explains that he will talk to Dr. Unger personally.

Dr. Praussnitz, Jena, fully supports Mr. Leinhas and has a request to make to the assembly: to return to the religious revival movement this evening.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: There can be no question as to whether the Neuner Committee should continue the matter or not. The matter requires that the affairs of this committee be continued.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, discusses the matter of founding the Free University; he reports that Mr. Emil Molt has donated ten million marks for the Free University.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: You, the members of the Committee of Nine, are wondering what we should do when we are carried by the trust. Please do not think that it is only an honor to sit here at the committee table and be flattered. That is not what motivates us; rather, we make ourselves available out of a sense of duty and responsibility. It should not be so difficult for you to say: You must!, as it is difficult for us to say: We must! When we meet again, we will not be able to make excuses: We have not had time! (A voice from the audience asks the assembly to shout unanimously: You must!)

End of the morning discussion.

II. Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The Conditions for Building a Community in an Anthroposophical Society” [in GA 257]

Afternoon Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at half past two.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, of Jena, announces that a committee has been formed consisting of the following members: J. G. W. Schröder, Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Rene Maikowski, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Maria Röschl, Wilhelm Rath, Berlin, probably Rector Bartsch and Ernst Lehrs.

Mr. Rene Maikowski, Stuttgart, announces the personalities of the committee that will deal with the founding and tasks of the School of Spiritual Science: Emil Molt, Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Ernst Lehrs, Werner Rosenthal, Louis Werbeck, Rene Maikowski.

Mr. Manfred Kries, Jena, points out the necessity of working together, especially in the field of medicine. As physicians, one must begin with anthroposophy. The moral, the powers of love, are what one must start from. We can only be successful in spreading the remedies if we have the necessary support from the clinic. We cannot work only in a propagandistic way; we need the experience of those who stand behind us. There is a characteristic that shows how differently the young and the old approach medicine. We cannot appropriate a new method from our own experience and proceed from there to the physical plane. We have to start from pure anthroposophy. We have to develop to the point where we can specialize the purely human, the general, to such an extent that we can penetrate to the individual physical organ.

Mr. Otto Maneval of Stuttgart said that concern for the Waldorf School is an important task of the Anthroposophical Society. Not all members of the Anthroposophical Society are members of the Waldorf School Association. The idea of the Waldorf School must also be brought to bear on the state by professing it.

Mr. Wilh. Salewski, Düsseldorf, believes that the basis for genuine community building is an artistic and educational approach. One should not only find common ground with anthroposophists, but also with non-anthroposophists. With such people one could work in some area. If one does it right, such work will automatically lead to anthroposophical work. If you come from the Ruhr area, you feel a particular need to speak to people in the moment, to grasp them morally in the world situation. We have to pay attention to this: what is the spiritual world saying, what is Dr. Steiner saying, what needs to be done today? If we listen to this, a rhythmic inhalation and exhalation will arise. The bridge to other people can only come from the heart, from love. Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart, points out that what Mr. Maneval said earlier should be taken into account. The financial situation of the Waldorf School is very difficult, and in this regard he must remind us of the dangers that Dr. Steiner spoke of at the last general assembly of the Waldorf School Association. It is absolutely essential for the economic survival of the school that it be the constant concern of all Anthroposophical Society members. The school would not have been able to survive at all without the help of friends abroad. But this is by no means enough. It should be pointed out to the state that the 1925 primary school law allows the admission of pupils to the first class of private schools for the last time. It is therefore important for the Waldorf School to gain such strong support that this paragraph cannot apply to it. So material means and ideal interest, that is what could ensure the continued existence of the Waldorf School.

Mr. Jürgen v. Grone, Stuttgart: My dear friends! I have been asked to serve on the provisional committee of the younger generation and am thus active in both committees. To explain my position, I would like to refer to an experience I had in Berlin in 1908.

Around this time, several young people from very different walks of life, from different parts of the world, came together and met weekly at Motzstraße 17 to study Dr. Steiner's philosophical writings intensively. It was a seemingly random community. But the significant thing was that what moved people to come together in community was the love that each person had for delving into the world of ideas. Through this collaboration in Motzstraße, the personalities involved were able to get to know each other very intimately, and, as I was later able to observe, this work created links of destiny. When I came to Stuttgart a few years ago, I met people again who had belonged to this circle, and I can assure you that we immediately felt how a shared inner experience had connected us precisely through this study of the philosophical works. Our eyes lit up, so to speak, when we saw each other again.

After the war, when I was studying the 'Kernpunkte' and realized that something needed to be done from an anthroposophical perspective that would directly address the social needs of the present, it was this impulse that led me to work on the newspaper. For me, there was indeed a strong connection between the memories from 1908, the anthroposophical experience of that time and the will to translate this anthroposophical experience into social action. On the other hand, I must emphasize that since the seemingly so spontaneous community work in the past, I have a deep, inner understanding of what today's anthroposophical youth and all those who feel connected to it want. Since then, I have taken a keen interest in working with those communities that, above all, consider it necessary to promote true anthroposophy in a group of people through intensive collaboration.

I only wanted to point out these two points of view so that you can see why I agreed to be a member of the committee and why, on the other hand, I agreed to be a member of the provisional committee for the time being.

Dr. Gabriele Rabel, Stuttgart: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak before a larger circle of anthroposophists. I want to make my personal position on anthroposophy as clear as possible. I joined two years ago in order to get to know anthroposophy thoroughly. At the time of my admission, everyone knew that I was not a follower. It was also Dr. Steiner's intention that I should be offered the opportunity to study the matter thoroughly. The result of these two years of examination is a peculiar mixture of sympathy and antipathy.

I feel warm sympathy for everything I have observed in the movement that is personal and human, in the soul, and in the honest striving for spiritual perfection; I feel the warmest sympathy for what is happening in Landhausstrasse and here in these days. It was wonderful of Dr. Steiner to have made such wise use of the burning of the Goetheanum, to have taken it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and reflection.

The spirit of self-knowledge that shone through these speeches suggests that it could easily be the case that in a few years the fire at the Goetheanum will be seen not as a disaster but as a piece of good luck. Every event is only what we make of it.

I have heard the word: the Goetheanum could not have burnt down if we had been what we should have been. That is a distinctly religious attitude. My personal conviction is that it is in this attitude, in the emphasis on the religious character, that the salvation and future of anthroposophy lies.

On the other hand, I am very skeptical about another area to which Dr. Steiner attaches great importance: anthroposophical science. I am an opponent of that. I am not just a so-called opponent, as Dr. Steiner said, I am a real opponent. I have truly shuddered at the abyss of ignorance, inability to think and arrogance of people that I have encountered in a large number of anthroposophical works. It is truly disheartening to read such works. They are written by people who have no idea of natural science. And the people in question have doctorates. Unfortunately, it is one of the saddest chapters of the universities today that a doctorate can be acquired very easily.

Of course, I cannot prove these assertions in detail here. I have already begun to provide evidence in the last article in “Drei,” and I want to continue doing so as long as the editorial staff of “Drei” is so loyal and kind as to publish my critique. I feel obliged to offer a critique. It is necessary to address the details objectively. But it is not enough to say that the whole polemic is insubstantial. It is necessary to show in detail where the errors in thinking lie. I will endeavor to do this as clearly and distinctly as possible.

This discussion about atomic theory has made me clearly recognize the dangers of the Anthroposophical Society in another way. These are dangers that have been pointed out many times, including by myself. But it is quite a different matter whether one speaks of something in general or whether one has concrete examples that can be used to show: There it is. In the first article I wrote the following: the position of anthroposophy on atomic theory is completely unclear. Dr. Steiner himself did not believe in the reality of atoms in the past, but has since been persuaded by the facts, as he mentioned in conversation, and now believes, like us, in the existence of atoms. In response to this, I was told by the anthroposophical side that this is yet another myth that is being peddled solely for the purpose of undermining trust in Dr. Steiner's personality. A scientific person is completely baffled and at a loss in the face of such an attitude. It would be natural for me to lose all trust in him if he could not be belied by facts and stubbornly clung to something he had once said just because he had said it.

But what about anthroposophy? If you believe that Dr. Steiner is not dependent on considering the facts, that he sees through all connections from his own thinking, then of course it is only logical when one comes to such views. There is a gulf between anthroposophy and science. As anthroposophists, you believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner; as scientists, you cannot believe in it. I know very well that you will tell me: We do not believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner, on page so and so much it says: The clairvoyant can err. Yes, there it is, you can read it there, but in practice I have never known anyone to express doubt about what Dr. Steiner said. If he took the floor in a procedural debate or in some kind of scientific discussion, then the case was settled. And now Dr. Steiner spoke recently about the atomic discussion and confirmed the legend that I had told at the time. He explicitly said that I (this opponent) was right, that it was useless to deny the results of science. Yes, what do these gentlemen do now, who have been so fanatically committed to the fact that atoms do not exist? If you have arrived at this conviction, not through blind faith in authority but after careful consideration of the facts, then you cannot just let go of your conviction so easily. This thought seems quite absurd to you, that one of you could polemicize against Dr. Steiner. That is the great cancer. That is what we cannot understand. It is a religious attitude. I use the word religious here in the best sense, that one's own judgment is subordinated to something that one perceives as a higher power, to which one looks up in humility and reverence. I do not want to disgust you with this attitude. But it is not the scientific attitude. The scientific person must be completely free to form his or her own judgment. And so, the more I delve into anthroposophy, the more deeply I am convinced — earlier it was only a hunch — that no synthesis is possible between faith and science, because the scientific person must be free and independent, and the religious person desires to be the opposite. Both attitudes have their good and beautiful aspects. But you cannot mix them. I have the impression that what is being criticized as the system of double accounting is the only possible clean separation: on the one hand, a scientist, on the other, a religious person. I just wanted to say that these are some of the reasons why science must view anthroposophical science with skepticism. I cannot see at present that this conflict can be resolved unless anthroposophical science teaches me better.

There is one more point I would like to mention, which is also a major stumbling block for science. I know you and I are already bored by this, but it is the unholy mystery of Dr. Steiner's changes. It is not possible to get past this point. This question must be thoroughly addressed.

Recently, I have read all the articles that Dr. Steiner wrote between 1886 and 1903. I have read all the articles and found much that is beautiful and good. But I absolutely do not see how one should get over these contradictions.

Speaker reads the following passages:

“But however hard one may try, no one will ever succeed in reconciling the Christian and the modern scientific world view. Without a personal, wise leadership of world affairs, which announces itself in times of need by pointing the way, there is no Christianity. Without the denial of such a leadership and the recognition of the truth that all the causes of events lie in this world accessible to our senses, there is no modern way of thinking. Nothing supernatural ever intervenes in nature; all events are based on the elements that we reach with our senses and our thinking. Only when this insight has penetrated not only into thinking but also into the depths of feeling can we speak of a modern way of looking at things. But our modern minds are quite far removed from this. It works with thinking. The minds of contemporaries are gradually coming to terms with Darwinism. But the feeling, the feeling, are still thoroughly Christian.“

"We are entering the new century with feelings that are essentially different from those of our ancestors, who were educated in Christianity. We have truly become ‘new men’; but we, who also profess the new world view with our hearts, are a small community. We want to be fighters for our gospel, so that in the coming century a new generation will arise that knows how to live, satisfied, cheerful and proud, without Christianity, without an outlook on the hereafter.”⁴

I cannot bring myself to read this and then read the essays that appeared five years later in Lucifer-Gnosis and then assume that the man who wrote the two essays has not changed. If a conversion has taken place, I would find it understandable. I have given myself the interpretation that it happens very often in world history that one condemns everything one preached before and vice versa. But that without such a transformation both opinions can be reconciled, I do not understand. I have not received any explanation about this from anyone. The agreement with Haeckel goes so far that he could say: We, the small Haeckel community, are the community of the future, we proclaim the gospel. In an article in the journal Drei, he tried to say what would have captivated him, and it would have been the artistic element. I must urgently ask, also in the name of all the scientists who are trying to have faith in Dr. Steiner: Well, the gods are on this side; the gods also belong to nature. These are conjurer's tricks. I request that this question be addressed. I am very willing to be educated and will gladly proclaim, publicly and loudly, as I stand here with my accusation, that Dr. Steiner has been wronged and that the matter has now been clarified for me.

The speaker concludes with a request that Dr. Steiner himself comment on this question if possible.

Dr. Praußnitz, Jena: I must first express my appreciation of the extraordinary courage that Dr. Rabel has shown by presenting her point of view calmly and unconcernedly. I know what it takes for an anthroposophist to speak in the face of opponents. Regarding the question of the atomic theory, I must state that I am also a specialist in the field; I have encountered the same difficulties as Dr. Rabel, and for me, too, the path from the philosophical side was the only possible one to approach it for the first time. I also openly admit that I have not yet been able to deal with the anthroposophical treatment of science.

One must ask the question: has anthroposophical science, as represented in Stuttgart, actually taken the path it must take to make itself understood to other, outside natural science? I believe that this is where the catch lies... Our young friends want us to become different people through anthroposophy, not just to concern ourselves with anthroposophy. I myself have been involved in the movement for a long time and have not yet had the time to immerse myself in the science as you have. We can only approach this science when we have become different people. —Speaker discusses further details of atomic theory.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein: Dr. Steiner pointed out in his lecture that all the individual actions of our opponents are ultimately based on the fact that they say to themselves: “How do we force the spiritual researcher to defend himself?” Dr. Rabel's remarks culminated in her request that Dr. Steiner comment on what she had said against him. Dr. Steiner should therefore defend himself.

Now, I don't know if he will do that, but I would like to present what I have to say in the way that he has asked us to behave towards our opponents. Dr. Steiner called on us to immerse ourselves with all our love in the souls of our opponents. It is far from my mind to believe that something like what I am about to mention is consciously present in Dr. Rabel. But it works in her, as in every opponent, that which Dr. Steiner just said underlies all opponents' actions. And we should pay attention to this fact. Dr. Steiner said that it is of the utmost importance to know the limits of the different states of consciousness and not to blur them. One must not carry dream consciousness into the sense world, nor what is right for the sense world into the supersensible world. One must change one's way of thinking when moving from one realm to the other. But that is precisely what Dr. Rabel does not do. What she does not understand in Dr. Steiner's work and attitude is because she uses the same habits of judgment and forms of thinking that are right for the field of ordinary science, but she also wants to include what belongs to the spiritual realm of the supersensible. Of course, this would have to be shown sentence by sentence, but one could show that Dr. Steiner's lecture answers point by point what he himself has to say about Dr. Rabel's objections, with the exception, of course, of the quotations that have been put forward, but otherwise really everything. You see, what Dr. Rabel cannot properly observe is what we call the right crossing of the threshold, that is, the actual demand of reality that one must have a different way of behaving in the sensual than in the supersensible. She says: I can sympathize with the religious, but not with the scientific. She also sees a separation between these fields. But what is the reason that forces her to speak of double bookkeeping? The reason is that she does not bring to consciousness the act that a human being must perform when crossing the threshold from one to the other in the right way. Therefore, she does not understand why Dr. Steiner behaves in one way in one area and in a completely opposite way in another area, even for the different areas of life or the objects of knowledge. For her, the areas stand side by side, and she would like to embrace them all in one way or keep double books for them, instead of recognizing the metamorphosis as factually grounded in the area. That is where the difficulty lies for her, and she does not have the right understanding for it. Nor does she have the right understanding for what Dr. Steiner discussed today: tolerance. For the essence of tolerance is that one always speaks from the heart of the matter. When Dr. Steiner arrives at certain forms of judgment in his essays in the 'Magazin', he does so on the basis of very definite presuppositions, and these must be taken into account.

I have repeatedly tried, and really tried in good faith, to make it clear to Dr. Rabel how things stand in this area. But the misunderstanding is surely due to the fact that two basic conditions have not been sufficiently taken into account.

1. As Dr. Steiner explained, the consideration of the changeover when crossing the threshold between the sensory world and the supersensible world.
2. The consideration of the changeover when moving from one area of fact to another.

Of course, all the sentences that were read by Dr. Rabel and that are quoted in the “Magazin für Litteratur” are written in such a way that Dr. Steiner could write them down today word for word exactly as they are there. For when he rejected Christianity there, he did not mean the Christianity that he later presented in his spiritual scientific works, but rather he wanted to show how he had to reject at that time the Christianity that was known at that time as the only one in the world: namely, the Christianity of Christian theologians. And these theologians reject Dr. Steiner today just as much with what they call Christianity as they reject him. So I don't see how there could be any change in Dr. Steiner's position. There is none in the sense that Dr. Rabel suggests. It is simply a matter of getting fully involved in the matter and judging it from that point of view. Then one understands Dr. Steiner, understands his behavior, and does not speak of sleight of hand out of one's own lack of understanding. But for us anthroposophists, something else is important. We must be vigilant in our society in the future. And vigilance also means noticing this powerful phenomenon, which consists of Dr. Steiner's appearance and self-defense in his lecture, and the fact that the accusation is brought forward with the demand that Dr. Steiner be forced to make a statement, to defend himself.

Evening Session:

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, opens the meeting.

Dr. Hans Theberath, Stuttgart: If Dr. Rabel sees something dangerous in anthroposophical science, she cannot be referring to my atomic essays, since Dr. Steiner himself described these essays as anti-anthroposophical. However, there is no reason to oppose anthroposophical science on the basis of these essays.

Dr. Steiner has not denied the existence of atoms in the past either, but only opposed interpreting atoms into phenomena. Therefore, I referred this alleged change of heart by Dr. Steiner to the realm of myth.

Dr. Rabel asks what those gentlemen who did not believe in atoms in the past are doing now. I do not know, because I have always believed in the existence of atoms. [See Notes below.]

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: I would just like to say a few words about the fact that the events that have taken place here in the Anthroposophical Society are connected with the destruction of the Goetheanum. It has been repeatedly emphasized here that all these events are completely independent of the Dornach catastrophe, since the origins of this crisis go back to December 10, when the aforementioned conversation with Mr. Uehli took place. It is necessary to emphasize this in view of the misunderstandings that could arise if one speaks ironically about matters that should be most sacred in the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot allow ourselves to be treated in this way.⁵

In response to the polemic in the “Drei”, I would like to say that Dr. Rabel's essay has been accepted and will appear at the same time as an essay of mine that will attempt to lead this entire polemic out of the deadlock in which it has been mired.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: The words spoken by Dr. Rabel in her “Farewell Address to the Anthroposophical Society” vividly reminded me of what Dr. Rittelmeyer said during the conference when we were dealing with the question of opponents. He said that we must achieve a situation in which the many people of good will who, although they could not profess anthroposophy themselves, consciously had the attitude: “But it is something whose seriousness and high striving we have recognized too clearly to allow it to be destroyed by wickedness,” that they, as a ‘league of decent people,’ could be a wall around the movement. Well, I could feel that Dr. Rabel belongs to such people, and I sincerely hope that she will continue to belong to them! And we can be grateful that, among all the muck and filth of opponents, we were able to hear a person who has really tried to engage with anthroposophy.

I would like to address two points in Dr. Rabel's words: first, Dr. Steiner's article from the “Magazin”, and then the atomic theory.

With very few exceptions, which are also known to the public, I was previously unaware of any of the passages quoted by Dr. Rabel from the “Magazin”. However, I immediately noticed the exclusivity with which Dr. Steiner refers to the actual results of sensory research. In those articles he does not once acknowledge the mental speculations about the background of the phenomena of the senses! And conversely: at the very latest scientific course at the last turn of the year in Dornach, the call went through Dr. Steiner's entire cycle to recognize the tremendous results of sensory research, yes, it is to be redeemed at all from their sleep of magic, in which the intellectualism has banned, by spiritual research methods! If, therefore, we look closely, we see that the opposite of the alleged 'break in world-view' is the case. Nevertheless, we may perhaps wonder at first why Dr. Steiner once championed with such energy the world-view that had emerged from Darwinism. When I heard Dr. Steiner's words for the first time, as I said, I had a wonderful experience. I realized what a situation he was in with regard to a world view. And it cannot be better described than with Nietzsche's words, which he used in the speeches “On the Future of Our Educational Institutions”, already quoted on another occasion, where he talks about the grammar school. In the few words that I will quote, all you have to do is replace the word “grammar school” with “ruling world view”. With this change, the passage reads:

"We both know the prevailing worldview; do you also believe, for example, with regard to this, that the old tenacious habits could be broken up with honesty and good new ideas? Here, in fact, it is not a hard wall that protects against the battering rams of an attack, but rather the most fatal tenacity and slippery nature of all principles. The attacker does not have a visible and solid opponent to crush: this opponent is rather masked, able to transform himself into a hundred forms and in one of them to escape the gripping attack and always confuse the attacker anew through cowardly yielding and tenacious rebounding."

That was the terrible situation in which Dr. Steiner found himself at the time! No one before Haeckel had had the courage to be a materialist not only on weekdays but also on Sundays! A muggy, soft haze obscured the view of the consequences of the life of knowledge. Dr. Steiner's words swept in like a fresh spring wind. A viscous paste of philistine mental and spiritual laziness was spread by the spiritually dominant class around everything. And if Dr. Steiner saw it as his task to break down the wall of materialism, then he himself had to first help harden and erect this viscous mass into a wall. But what was the hardening agent? Consistency! Dr. Steiner first had to force the world to be consistent! No call for spiritual consistency could find resonance without materialistic consistency. And that is what is so close to the hearts of us young people, the consistency of thinking, feeling and morality that the world still does not know! And so those decades-old words of Dr. Steiner are said precisely from the heart to us youngest in the Anthroposophical Society!

And now to the controversy over the atomic theory, which Dr. Steiner has so vigorously opposed of late. What has happened here, and what has Dr. Steiner, and in fact every anthroposophist, had to oppose? In the discussions as they were conducted in the “Drei”, our scientists allowed themselves to be drawn by Dr. Rabel from the field of anthroposophy into their own field, instead of forcing them to enter the anthroposophical field! The whole battle was not at all in the anthroposophical field, but in the intellectual field! For they have fought with proofs. Just during the conference, we were able to hear again from Dr. Steiner what is to be thought of “proofs” in the field of anthroposophy. One can actually “prove” every assertion and its opposite: it just depends on one's attitude! Dr. Rabel cannot be refuted because she is right! Anyone who tries to refute her by providing evidence is wrong!

An example from a different area that I recently experienced can shed a bright light on the point at issue here. An anti-Semitic publishing house has issued a pamphlet entitled “Moses, a dynamiter and manufacturer of explosives!” It claims that Moses was a great initiate. The initiatic system consisted of certain personalities having power over the higher forces of nature. The higher forces of nature are those that have been accessible to all people since the dawn of the scientific age: the physical and chemical energies. There are no others. This explains the fire on Sinai, the untouchability of the Ark of the Covenant, etc., etc. Moses instilled in the Jewish people a fear of God by means of fireworks and the like, by which he could make himself their lord, and under the lying sign of which all Jewish development has stood since then. Etc.! Here then we have the strange fact that this book, just as we do, calls Moses a “great initiate”! But the terrible thing is that it is right in its conclusions if one asserts: there are only material energies! Can the opposite be proved? No! Two world-views are confronting each other: both call Moses a great initiate, one recognizes only material forces, the other also supersensible ones; one comes to the conclusion that Moses was a swindling explosive bomb manufacturer, the other sees in him a messenger of the gods! What alone can bring the decision here? Only by pursuing these trains of thought to the point where they become moral, where they touch on human value and human dignity. And there it shows that if you try to experience yourself in the stream of becoming human with all the consequences, with the attitude of those books, you can't do anything but hang yourself from the nearest window nail, while the other attitude lets you carry your head higher, makes your step more proud and yet lets humility and love prevail in your heart! Only in this way does Anthroposophy “prove” itself!

And only in this way can Dr. Rabel prove the validity or invalidity of the atomic theory. She continues to assert it, to pursue it, to teach it, because it is her duty, as long as she has not experienced “the other”! But she never will, as long as she is attacked where she is right by herself! Rather, I call out to her in farewell: “You spoke of your religious feeling, to which anthroposophy is so sympathetic. Now I ask you from the bottom of my heart: Go through the coming decades of your life with an ever clearer view of the souls of the people you meet! Become more and more alert in these experiences! Take them deeper and deeper into your heart and let them grow and grow in the warmth of your religious feeling! And when you begin to suffer from the fact that it is increasingly cold and unworldly souls that may still be interested in your atomic theory, but that all those whose nature you affirm from the bottom of your heart will call out to you more and more: Oh, how I suffer from your atomic theory, how it kills my noblest, how I freeze in the coldness of your science! Where, where is the science in whose warming light the flower of my life can flourish! — When these calls will resound to you, shaking you to the marrow of your life, then perhaps the reality of the atomic theory will prove itself to you!"

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer of Stuttgart, speaking on behalf of the religious movement, first expressed his deepest gratitude to Dr. Steiner for the tremendous benefit to life that he has provided to humanity through his help and advice in this movement, in the most selfless purity and greatness. He then also thanked the anthroposophists, who have prepared the way by their voluntary support in the movement's first most difficult days. In many places, it has not yet been possible to reach non-anthroposophical circles, for which one is determined to work. Also, before Dr. Steiner's Dornach lecture, Steiner's lecture in Dornach, the dangers that arise particularly from the new movement of the Anthroposophical Society were not sufficiently perceived, both in that financial help is withdrawn from it, and in that the satisfaction of human community needs in the cultic community distracts many from the Society, and above all in that many exchange the path of knowledge, which they once embarked upon, for the more beneficial path of cult. The Christian Community cannot take pleasure in Anthroposophical members who neglect their financial responsibility to the Anthroposophical Society in favor of the Christian Community, or who cannot find a way to remain fully loyal to their path of knowledge. On the other hand, he asks the Anthroposophists to regard those members of the Christian Community who, now or in the future, wish to work with both movements out of their own free will and with knowledge of the material, as fully Anthroposophical, since the cult offers many opportunities for inner participation and does not necessarily have to be celebrated only by emotionally immersing oneself in it, which is certainly un-Anthroposophical, but also spiritually, not soul-like and passive, but spiritually, actively. He further asked the Anthroposophists never to expect any special privileges as members of the Anthroposophical Society in the Christian Community, since the new movement must place itself on an equal footing with all people if it is to fight its way through successfully. And finally, Dr. Rittelmeyer asked for ongoing support in the The Christian Community finding the people it needs, and for inner understanding and support in the tremendously difficult task it has to fulfill.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart: Mr. Weishaar did not speak this morning. However, it is extremely important to me to do and say what I consider necessary on my own initiative, so that in the future, as far as my relationship with the Kerning group and its leader, Miss Völker, is concerned, there will be no further misunderstandings. I regret that remnants may still be apparent from a time when it was necessary to make a point of distancing myself from the Theosophical Society and to act against various phenomena that were connected with the unjustified mysticism or mystical eccentricity in the Anthroposophical Society. Perhaps I sometimes overshot the mark. But as far as my relationship with the group and its leader is concerned, I would like to emphasize that for many years I have always advocated that the fully-fledged working method of this working group and its efforts to carry out this work in a closed circle must be respected. As for my personal relationship, I can only say that I have known Ms. Völker for many years, that we have been together frequently and have discussed anthroposophical matters, and that I hope this will continue to happen in the future.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart: Miss Völker cannot yet be completely satisfied with these explanations. But I do not want to bother the assembly with this. I would like to hand over the whole matter to the new central committee for further action and hand over the relevant files to them.

A distinction must be made between the personal relationship between Ms. Völker and Dr. Unger. In this regard, Ms. Völker is completely satisfied and in agreement with what Dr. Unger has said. But we must also consider another point of view: that Fräulein Völker, as the chair of an old working group, is on one side and Dr. Unger, as a member of the old central committee, is on the other. It is therefore necessary to provide clarification with regard to matters that need to be addressed; but the matter will then be settled.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart: Lecture on “The Opponents” [see references below]

Our opponents want to block the source from which spiritual knowledge flows. Because they consciously or unconsciously serve a current of spiritual world view that believes the publication of spiritual knowledge must be prevented. The first sentence in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is: “There are abilities slumbering in every human being through which he can acquire knowledge of higher worlds.” This is the voice of a school of thought that wants to include all people in the transcendental knowledge, who want to attain such knowledge themselves or want to know how others attain it. In this way, anthroposophy documents itself as a spiritual path that cannot include any aspirations to power. Power arises from knowledge that is withheld from others. The schools of thought that have aspirations to power have a different cosmic goal than the school of thought that wants to develop freedom and love for all beings.

To give you an idea of what the unfolding of these effects is based on, the following should be presented to you: In his book “Exercitia spiritualia”, Ignatius of Loyola gives the following meditation: “Imagine Lucifer planting his standard on a desolate rock near Babylon, where everything is in the greatest confusion and turmoil; how he sends the demons into the world to lure human souls to follow him. Christ, on the other hand, planted the cross banner in a field near Jerusalem, where everything is at its most beautiful and peaceful; he sends out his holy “soul zealots” to invite the whole world to follow him, with the assurance that everyone who swears obedience to the cross banner, patiently endures contempt and suffering, will possess his heavenly kingdom for all eternity. Here you have initially placed two images, which will be discussed in more detail in a moment. Both show that we are dealing with a spiritual-military organization that is not based on freedom but on obedience. This obedience even extends to the ability to comprehend: “[...] it cannot be denied that obedience includes not only the execution – that one does what is commanded – and not only the will – that one does it willingly –; but also the judgment, so that everything the superior commands and judges appears both right and true to the subordinate, so that, as I said, with his strength, the will is able to bend the power of judgment.” (Quote from a letter by Ignatius of Loyola from April 1553. Cf. ‘Jesuitica’ by Roman Boos, Dreigliederungszeitung No. 40, April 1920.) So we are dealing here with a spiritual-military organization that exerts power deep into the innermost being of the human being. But now let us see – let us see by means of an historical example – how such power works. In Schiller's 'Thirty Years' War', in the first book, we read about Ferdinand II that he was educated and taught by Jesuits at the Academy of Ingolstadt. And then it says: “On the one hand, he was shown the indulgence of the Maximilian princes towards the followers of the new doctrine and the confusion in their lands, and on the other hand, the blessing of Bavaria and the relentless religious zeal of its rulers; he was given the choice between these two examples.” Here you have a historical example of how a prince received a meditation, the effectiveness of which is proven by the course of history. That was the case during the Thirty Years' War. At that time, it was necessary to eradicate a spiritual current that can be symptomatically grasped in the work of Comenius, which was entitled Pansophia. Why did Comenius call what he represented a pansophia? Because he wanted to create a wisdom for all people. He was moved by the same impulse to which the first sentence in “How to Know Higher Worlds” refers: he wanted to address what lives in every human being. That is why he spoke of a pansophia. It has been eradicated by impulses that have already been characterized.

In our age, however, people speak differently. They say to young Solothurn: “Gather together! Storm the Goetheanum!” (See “Das Goetheanum” of January 7, 1923.) These words were spoken at a meeting of Catholic associations from Dornach, Arlesheim and Reinach. It was in the afternoon of September 19, 1920 at the Hotel Ochsen in Dornach-Brugg. The speaker at this meeting was Pastor Kully. A brochure written by this pastor Kully and directed against Anthroposophy concludes with the words: Christus vincit / Christus regnat / Christus imperat.

It is not without significance that another book, the Jesuit Baumgartner's biography of Goethe, ends with the same words. I characterized the book in a lecture that was then printed in issue 8 of “Die Drei”, November 1921, first year of publication. No one would want to compare the two-volume, gold-edged, painstakingly and scientifically written biography of Goethe with Pastor Kully's pamphlet. But both books serve the same impulse. It is significant that they end with the same words. One book is directed against Goethe, the other against everything that comes from the Goetheanum. Goethe's true nature is overlooked and denied. What he himself fought against is presented as his true nature. And this is because they want something very specific in the world. Goetheanism, Pansophy, Anthroposophy have their enemies. Because they address everyone, and that must not be. For higher knowledge should be possessed only by a few, to whom the many owe obedience, obedience graduated in degree. And that is to be achieved by a spirit-military system. And the reflection of this system? Where is it? There is also a militarization of economic life. The extreme end of this is Bolshevism. What was it invented for, for example, to organize the working class? Why teach them party opinions? Because there are powers that want to eradicate individual judgment and free will. In theory, this lives as a will in the materialistic conception of history, and in practice in everything that this conception of history, which is as one-sided as can be, increasingly makes the only correct one. The mirror image of a world view built on freedom and love is an associative economy in which one selflessly sacrifices one's life experience to the other, thereby renouncing any display of power, as it lives, for example, in competitive struggle. But a militarized spiritual life is reflected in a militarized economy. However different the things of the world often are, if you look deeply enough, very dissimilar things reveal a power. We could also learn a lot from the lectures given by Father Muckermann S.J. here in Stuttgart. He spoke about scientific problems. The undertone of his remarks was that science should be a mere physical science. As such, it is rightly materialistic. But science finds its limits everywhere. Beyond these limits, the Church rules. It administers souls just as science administers the body. There is no need to talk about the spirit today. It was abolished in 869. Materialistic science serves the same impulses as the Church, which administers souls. The two belong together. If science dared to embrace body, soul and spirit, then the souls would begin to govern themselves. Therefore, there must be no spiritual science. There must only be physical science. That is, materialistic natural science is needed. It serves the same impulse as all the striving for power already mentioned.

In the lectures that Dr. Steiner gave in Dornach on Thomas Aquinas, it is clearly shown how Goetheanism and Anthroposophy are straightforward continuations of what was present as realism in the Middle Ages. And in brief summary, what can be said about the position of anthroposophy in relation to Catholicism can be found in the first part of the writing “The Smear Campaign Against the Goetheanum”. There, especially on pages 24 and 25, it is shown how fully in line the methodology of the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is with what the most orthodox Catholicism has declared to be correct. Nevertheless, the Catholic side declares, as does Father Zimmermann SJ, for example, that anthroposophy is incompatible with true Catholicism. There, anthroposophy is also deliberately mixed with Anglo-Indian theosophy and presented as gnosticism and all sorts of other things. In reality, however, all sorts of things have been incorporated into Catholicism that are certainly not Christian. For example, the doctrine of the eternity of hell punishments is Aristotelian and not Christian. To prove this, I quote Brentano's words here, with which he reproduces Aristotle's teaching on page 146 of his book on Aristotle and his world view: '[...] When the departed human spirits behold the plan of the world and see themselves interwoven with their life on earth, one recognizes himself as identical with one who practices the noble, and another with one who accomplishes ignoble deeds. The knowledge they attain is at the same time an eternal, glorifying or condemning judgment of the world. .. ."

Likewise, the doctrine of creatianism is Aristotelian. This doctrine consists in denying pre-existence and thinking that the higher human being that descends into the incarnation is created by God at the time of procreation. Likewise, the mass is largely a continuation of Egyptian initiation rituals. Thus a close examination would show how Catholicism contains within itself elements that are older pre-Christian spiritual material, partly of oriental origin. The assertions that say similar things about anthroposophy are not only wrong, but project onto anthroposophy precisely that which is characteristic of the accuser himself. Anthroposophy has something of a mirror in itself. The opponent sees himself in it and, by supposedly describing anthroposophy, sketches his own portrait. Anthroposophy does indeed teach pre-existence. In doing so, it goes against the Council of 869. The aim of the latter was to eradicate the spirit. All orientalism, which always pointed to the prenatal, was covered up by Aristotelianism. Only the after-death could be talked about. This also applies to Protestant theologians. They began by appealing to the soul's egoism. The soul has an interest in outliving death, but not in having existed before. A kind of horror of the prenatal, spiritual, cosmic realm emerged, from which the soul descends into birth. This horror can be clearly observed, for example, in Professor Traub. He is afraid that the ethical significance of the mystery of Golgotha will be lost if its cosmic significance is brought to the fore. This fear is based on an important fact. This fact will be demonstrated by means of a symptomatic case. Thomas More presented the results of supersensible experiences in his work Utopia (= non-locality). He describes how Egyptian and Roman ways come to his island, but not Christianity. That is, Thomas More must form the opinion through the experiences he has that in the supersensible world he describes, Christ is not to be found. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has beatified Thomas More. So the paths of those who are beatified into the higher worlds are such that they do not find Christ there. So one can understand that a kind of horror develops before entering the supersensible world. There are reasons for it when on one side the spiritual cosmos, from which Christ once descended to earth or from which the soul descends into birth, must be thought of as being incompatible with ethics or morals. And one must understand why one needed Aristotelianism from this side, which denies pre-existence. In this case, which Dr. Steiner pointed out, one can see that certain realities underlie the horrors of the opponents, which do not have to be conscious to all those who have such horror.

Another thing became clear to me in a long conversation I once had with our opponent Gogarten. He had a different horror. He took offense at the fact that we interpose hierarchies between God and people. From what Gogarten told me, I had to assume that he had inner experiences. He described how he felt united with God, indeed experienced it. He described God. If I apply his description to what we know, I would have to say that he described what we call an angel. Now we have to understand Gogarten. We do not insert hierarchies between angels and humans either. We also believe that the angel stands directly above the human being. But we do not worship this being, which is so close to man. For the angel is, after all, the higher self of man, and each person has his own special angel. So if someone prays to his angel, he would worship a god that is not the general god of man. The result would be self-idolatry, and besides, everyone would have their god and someone else would have theirs.

You see, but these are again things that one accuses anthroposophy of. It promotes self-redemption, yes, self-deification. There are already such things, Dr. Steiner has also pointed this out - but they are not to be found in anthroposophy. If you say something about anthroposophy – that it is this or that – and it isn't, then it is just some thought form that people think, and so it must come from somewhere. Usually, those who claim something about anthroposophy that is not true attach to anthroposophy something that characterizes them. So Anthroposophy is a being that defends itself, with a shield that shines brightly, that reflects, that holds out its true face to everyone. And when you see the true face in the mirror, then you know how all our opponents are striving towards the same goal.

They live in a spiritual cosmos that they consider immoral because the Christ does not appear to them in this spiritual cosmos, or because they do not want him to appear through the paths they take. Therefore, they deny the entire prenatal spiritual world, or at least want to admit only a few into it. They lay claim to the souls for an earthly church. They teach a mere physical science and shape social economic life in such

that initiative of the will weakens and individuality dies. And over this a network of power is organized. Where does this lead? It leads to the fact that after the spirit and soul have been killed, mere bodily automatons remain, without judgment, without their own will, subordinated to higher ones, whom they obey. A subhuman race, directed and led by one or more directing group souls. They want to encircle the Earth, the Earth that will one day disintegrate into dust, and eternalize it and populate it with those subhuman beings. That is a terrible cosmic goal. They are all working towards it, consciously or unconsciously. Then the Earth's goal will be gone. Then no Jupiter development will be possible.

These powers that strive for this create a fog. A fog in which error and truth become indistinguishable. Flocks of thoughts and emotions swirl in this fog. Snatches of quotes and thoughts, enveloped in what instincts can provide as a cover, an elementary flood of fog, sweeps around the earth. In this fog, power is born. All dishonest power is based on campaigns of lies. These power instincts today arise from all kinds of group souls. Family and racial souls stand up against the movement that is based on the individuality struggling for freedom. Anthroposophy fights for a cosmic goal. Last time I was able to show you how the Zeitgeist wants to take hold of our society, today I must point to the spirit of the planet. Anthroposophy fights for the future of the earth. Its shield shines brightly, its sword flashes brightly. But this sword is the word of truth, which unfolds no power that rules, which develops love that forms. Those who fight for the future of the Earth must feel themselves to be knights not of the sword but of the word. For heaven and Earth will pass away, even if dark forces seek to perpetuate what should become dust – but the word of truth will remain if we feel responsible for the evolution and future of the Earth and humanity through love for all beings who are human beings and fellow human beings.

Rector Moritz Bartsch, Breslau: Dr. Rabel said that we are too dependent on the authority of Dr. Steiner in our views and decisions. We faithfully accept everything from him, do not see the contradictions in his work, etc. Is that right? Are we so unfree as people or do we have a different concept of freedom than many people today? Well, many of you will have felt the same way I did. If you take a superficial look at Steiner's works, you will initially come across contradictions. Many years ago, I asked Dr. Steiner about this myself. Dr. Steiner is a true modern educationalist. He does not point the facts out to you, but expects you to make an effort to find the solution to the riddle yourself. Dr. Steiner also pointed out to me that if I understood such sayings in context, I would recognize that there are no real contradictions. I did so, and after years of arduous searching I succeeded in finding the red, uninterrupted thread of development in Steiner's career: the “contradictions” dissolved. Today it is almost incomprehensible to me how one could once be so foolish, so terribly superficial. In the introductions to Goethe's scientific writings, which were written by Dr. Steiner as early as the 1880s, the idea of communion with the world spirit in the act of knowledge is put forward, among other things. In my defense, however, I must say that I had not yet studied these books at the time. — When studying spiritual science, one has strange experiences in general. Our intellectually steeped consciousness initially finds it quite difficult to understand Steiner; since we see ourselves as very clever people, we consider the spiritual-scientific writings to be unclear, confused or foolish and wrong. Over time, however, we realize that such obscure passages express very profound truths. One realizes that Fichte is right when he says that a person must be born or educated to philosophize. Indeed, a person must mature to receive the truth. One must recognize, as Fichte did, that a person's world view is what he is like. Wisdom alone knows nothing of the content of the world; thinking only provides the form for the idea content of being. In order to be able to receive it, a person must purify his character, and above all, he must have respect and reverence for the wisdom of the world. The path from modesty to reverence can be found by experiencing one's own maturing during the study of Steiner's writings and by realizing that the limits of one's own knowledge are not yet the limits of knowledge for all people, that there are spirits with much broader horizons than one's own. One becomes modest and grateful to people whose horizon extends beyond the portals of the beyond into the supersensible world. In the presence of such a person, a feeling of reverence arises as a human matter of course. And is it such a great crime for modern man to learn to look up to a greater being again, to be cured of his self-important subjectivism!? Does he thereby surrender his freedom? Not at all! Even today I have a completely free relationship with Dr. Steiner. I represent that part of spiritual science that I have made my own through years of work, and what I do not yet understand, I leave for the time being in the hope that I may yet mature to these deeper truths. Of course, before one has gained this point of view, one sometimes fears for one's independence. I once had a conversation with Dr. Steiner about this matter years ago. I believed that I would become somewhat dependent on representing Steiner's spiritual ideas in lectures. But I was persuaded that in the spiritual realm it is similar to the physical plane: the farmer did not produce the field, but he regards what he produces on it through his labor as his own. Spiritual wealth is also given to the majority of people by a few creative minds; what the individual acquires through his own efforts he may regard as his own. Today man has a false concept of freedom. He seeks it in that subjectivism which believes it knows everything better and criticizes everything. But only the person who has made the content of the world his own, and allows it to become the motivation for his actions, is truly free. Such a person follows his own path and is allowed to follow it; he is free. But this freedom is not achieved through arrogance, but through humility. Sophia only condescends to the one who worships her. — One can see: our worship of Dr. Steiner does not lead to bondage, on the contrary, it is the forerunner of true freedom. — The speaker then humorously comments on the youth movement and declares his approval of the election to the board of the Free Anthroposophical Society.

Final words from Mr. Emil Leinhas

(The event cost an awful lot of money... there are baskets set up outside for collecting money.

The committee has made a decision: to provide a report on this assembly of delegates shortly in the form of a newsletter that can then be made available to all members.

I believe that we are all convinced that we have lived through an important piece of the history of the Anthroposophical Society together during these days. After the intense preparations that have taken place, we entered the delegates' meeting with anxious concerns. And the delegates' meeting itself proved that these concerns were not unfounded. And if we emerged unscathed from some of the chaos that occurred, we owe that primarily to the fact that Dr. Steiner himself intervened in the right way at the right moment. We must therefore express our gratitude to him for his active help at the end of this delegates' meeting. If we can look to the future with joyful confidence, it is thanks first and foremost to Dr. Steiner's intervention.

We also thank Dr. Steiner and the eurythmists who contributed to the fact that not only unpleasant things were dispelled but that there was also the opportunity to find recreation in the realm of art and beauty.

Thanks on behalf of the committee to the various speakers, who, whether they received more or less applause, made a sincere effort to deliver their presentation.

Thanks also to the speakers in the discussion, who have ensured that things have got into a certain flow here. In addition to the speakers, we must not forget the delegates and members who have come here and who have made an effort to endure a great deal as hosts. We must give special thanks to the youth, who, through their intervention, have brought a certain freshness and liveliness into the deliberations of the Anthroposophical Society for the first time. May they retain this, for there are some signs of it.

It is still the most beautiful society in the world, one of our friends told me yesterday, and his joy was evident despite all the clouds. Another friend from out of town said, “Yes, when I was here in the summer, my throat felt like it was tied up, that was because of the icy air; but now I have hope again.

This gathering has had some success after all. May it also have the effect that an understanding of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society takes root in all our hearts and souls in the right way. May there not only be understanding, but may the will be ignited to fulfill the tasks. A start must be made, then the right action will also be found through the work. The progress of the work cannot come out of discussions and deliberations, but only by finding the strength in the work itself and through the work itself for ever greater and more extensive work.

The blessing must lie in the doing, not in talking about what others have to do. The doing itself, not talking, but working, should be our task. If we look at things this way, we can look forward to the future with joy.

May we all look up to our cause with great enthusiasm, and also to the example set before us, which can give us courage and strength in the face of the difficult tasks that lie ahead. May this conference help to make it very real in all our hearts, so that we all say and feel, not only when we are together here, but also when we go out to our work, that our work must be ennobled by the conviction that we represent the most glorious cause in the world today.

With that, I declare the meeting closed.

Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger, Dr. phil. Walter Johannes Stein *

---

Raw Markdown · ← Previous · Next → · ▶ Speed Read