Hi Raimund and Lou
I also don't mean to keep going with this, as it is becoming off-topic. I d=
on't mean to be argumentative and I won't argue about Goethean science, as =
I don't think that would be productive. But I should just make it clear in =
case I have caused any misunderstanding about the subject or people I menti=
oned.
Steiner was indeed influenced by Goethe's science. I don't think that shoul=
d mean that Steiner's work (or his student's activities) defines Goethe's s=
cience. The scientists I mentioned from whom I learned Goethean science are=
not anthroposophists.
Brian Goodwin is a mathematician and biologist, and among other things was =
Professor Emeritus at the Open University, a key founder of a branch of mat=
hematical biology known as theoretical biology, and a founding member of th=
e Santa Fe Institute (birthplace of complexity theory). Ecologist Stephan H=
arding is one of the contributors to Gaia Theory. These fields are radicall=
y new and groundbreaking, and of course developing and functional.
Justin
--- In Lou Judson <> wrote:
>
> Not to keep going with this, but from what little I know, Stieiner
> was a work in process. When his followers took his methods and ideas
> and applied them, they got frozen in one state and were never allowed =
> to evolve further... thus became swiftly dysfunctional, mere rules,
> not a developing science (or into science, perhaps.) any more.
>
> <L>
>
> Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2009, at 2:14 AM, Raimund Specht wrote:
>
> > Dan, you wrote:
> >
> >> That way lies madness. I've studied "Goethean Science" in my critique
> >> of Waldorf schools.
> >>
> >>> Here's a link which mentions this topic of qualitative science:
> >>> http://www.natureinstitute.org/qual/index.htm
> >>
> >> Dressed up, but what they're about is Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual
> >> science."
> >
|