{"id":21,"date":"2020-09-02T01:39:44","date_gmt":"2020-09-02T01:39:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/?page_id=21"},"modified":"2020-12-23T08:19:40","modified_gmt":"2020-12-23T08:19:40","slug":"steiner-and-wilber","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/","title":{"rendered":"Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Steiner and Wilber<\/h1>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n

Towards an Occult Interpretation and synthesis<\/h3>\n\n

of Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology<\/h3>\n\n

If, as is obvious,\u00a0Rudolph Steiner’s cosmology, when taken literally, is most patently scientific nonsense, where does its validity lie?<\/p>\n\n

There are three possible explanations here:<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n

The Geological – Biological Explanation<\/a><\/p>\n

The Psychological Explanation<\/a><\/p>\n

The Occult Explanation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n

\"bar\"<\/figure>\n\n

The Geological – Biological Explanation<\/h4>\n\n

The first is take the stages at face value and then try to correlate them with what is known of the scientific history of the Earth, adapting the latter, naturallty, to fit the former (in this regard Anthroposophy is no different to Biblical Creationism, both start from an a priori position and modify the empiroical evidence accordingly!).\u00a0 According top this interpretation, what is being described are the stages of evolution of life and consciousness on Earth, albeit on a subjective rather than a physical objective perspective.\u00a0 This is indicated by the interesting statemenst of anthroposophical thinkers like Gunther Wachsmuth and\u00a0Hermann Poppelbaum\u00a0who applied Steiner’s cosmological mythos to the scientific observations of the evolution of the Earth and life through time.\u00a0 And whilst they are compelled (through a slavish observance of Steiner’s words) to postulate a timescale that is ridiculously short (almost in the order of “Young Earth” Creationism), nevertheless their paradigm has much of interest to commend it.<\/p>\n\n

Wachsmuth and Poppelbaum\u00a0combined the\u00a0Anthroposophical cosmology\u00a0with the\u00a0Geological time-scale\u00a0and equated the different evolutionary stages of life that characterised each geological era with the consciousness of “Man” (the anthroposophical “root races”) in each of Steiner’s eras.\u00a0 This equivalence is not unreasoinable because the anthroposophical cosmology sees the kingdoms of nature as emanating from the human entity in past eras.\u00a0 Here is one form of the resulting equation.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
state of existence<\/strong>
(Poppelbaum)<\/td>\n		Anthroposophy\u00a0<\/strong>
(Steiner)<\/strong><\/td>\n		Poppelbaum –<\/strong>
A New Zoology<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n		Geological period<\/strong>
according to Poppelbaum<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
unfocused watery consciousness<\/td>\nPolarian<\/strong><\/td>\nPolarian<\/strong>
– invertebrates<\/td>\n		\u00a0Cambrian<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
dream-like watery consciousness –\u00a0
focus<\/td>\n		Hyperborean<\/strong><\/td>\nHyperborean<\/strong>
– fish<\/td>\n		\u00a0Ordovician<\/strong>
\u00a0Silurian<\/strong>
\u00a0Devonian<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
dream-like astral self
struggle between light and dark<\/td>\n		Lemurian<\/strong><\/td>\nMesozoic as Lemurian<\/strong>
– reptiles<\/td>\n		\u00a0Carboniferous<\/strong>
\u00a0Permian<\/strong>
\u00a0Mesozoic<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
modern world appears<\/td>\nAtlantean<\/strong><\/td>\nCenozoic as Atlantean<\/strong>
– mammals<\/td>\n		\u00a0Tertiary<\/strong>
\u00a0Pleistocene<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
present consciousness<\/td>\nPost-Atlantean<\/strong><\/td>\nPost-Atlantean<\/strong>
–\u00a0Man<\/td>\n		\u00a0Holocene<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n

As I have mentioned, Steiner’s elaborate cyclic cosmology, like that of the Theosophists, is a form of\u00a0emanationism: the materialisation of gross planes or worlds out of subtle ones; the difference being that the Theosophists and Anthroposphists lent a historical slant to their cosmology.\u00a0 Steiner claims that his worlds are exactly the same as the present physical Earth, but in an earlier stage of evolution.\u00a0Science\u00a0however shows that the laws of physics\u00a0were the same in the past as they are at present.\u00a0 Hence as a literal explanation the Anthroposphical = Geological eras theory doesnt hold together.\u00a0 However, this paradigm is still quite useful as a launching point for a sort of Goethian-style paleontology (which seem to be the approach Poppelbaum takes).<\/p>\n\n

\"bar\"<\/figure>\n\n

The Psychological Explanation<\/h4>\n\n

An alternative explanation, one in which, curiously, the Anthroposophists havent looked into, is to equate Steiner’s cosmic stages with psychology, especially the psychogonic stages of Depth Psychology (Freud, Jung, etc etc).\u00a0 The Transpersonal Psychologist\u00a0Ken Wilber<\/a>, a prolific and influential writer in his field, claims in his very well researched book\u00a0The Atman Project<\/em>\u00a0and elsewhere, that all psychologists and mystics are referring to basically the same thing: the development of the human rational ego-consciousness out of the universal unconsciousness of matter, and its subsequent transcendence in the stage of universal consciousness of the Absolute.\u00a0 The difference is that the psychologists (e.g. Freud,\u00a0Jung, Piaget, Fromm, and many others) are referring to the development of individual or personal ego-consciousness out of the pre-personal unconsciousness, whereas the\u00a0mystics\u00a0are referring to the transcendence of ego-consciousness and the realisation of the\u00a0Absolute Reality, which is universal consciousness (i.e. the\u00a0Monistic position\u00a0of\u00a0Advaita Vedanta,\u00a0Mahayana Buddhism, etc).\u00a0 So it is all a cycle: from universal\/prepersonal to individual\/personal to universal\/transpersonal.<\/p>\n\n

Wilber of course is by no means the first person to suggest such a thing.\u00a0 The vast cycle of\u00a0involution and evolution\u00a0is a central component of the philosophies of\u00a0Plotinus,\u00a0Kashmir Shaivism, Hegel,\u00a0Blavatsky,\u00a0Sri Aurobindo,\u00a0Meher Baba, and many many others.\u00a0 All that Wilber did was provide one more formulation of this idea, using the benefit of his encyclopaedic knowledge of comparitive psychology, and proposing a series of stages influenced in large measure by the modern-day Advaitin-style teacher\u00a0Da Free John.\u00a0 Ken Wilber’s ten stages can be represented in terms of a diagram:<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
(pre-personal)\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n(trans-personal)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a05. Normality<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a05a. Ego-Persona<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n5c. Mature Ego<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a04. Membership Self<\/strong><\/td>\nverbal-conceptual realm<\/strong><\/td>\n6. Bio-social bands<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0 3. Body-Ego<\/strong>
(pre-verbal)\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n		self verses non-self<\/strong><\/td>\n7. Centaur<\/strong>
(trans-verbal)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n2. Uroboros<\/strong><\/td>\nuniversal-“mystical”<\/strong><\/td>\n8. Subtle<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n1. Pleroma<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n9. Causal<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n10. Ultimate (Atman)<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n

I would refute Ken Wilber’s central methodological assumption: that psychologists and mystics are basically referring to different halves of the same process.\u00a0 There may indeed be a vast cycle of involution and evolution – indeed, the emanationist standpoint demands it – but that does not mean that what the psychologists are describing (the descending arc) is the same as what the yogis and mystics are describing.\u00a0 The psychologists are referring to the collective involution of the Psyche through the various Para-physical stages that are quite different to this physical reality.\u00a0 Whereas the yogis and mystics are describing a different process altogether; the individual transcendence of consciousness in this present physical Earth.\u00a0 Indeed, one cannot even call what the yogis and mystics are describing “ascent”.\u00a0 “Ascent”, like “descent”, implies an emanationist sequence of stages and planes of existence.\u00a0 But the radical monistic conception of things like Nirvana or Paramatman means that they have nothing to do with any planes of existence.\u00a0 They are something totally beyond all levels, higher as well as lower, heaven as well as hell.<\/p>\n\n

Yet that does not mean that we need reject his map of consciousness altogether.\u00a0 Far from it.\u00a0 For of particular significance are the parallels between Wilber’s early (psychological development) stages (1 through to 5) and the cosmic evolution periods and succession of Root Races of Rudolph Steiner.<\/p>\n\n

    \n
  • Steiner’s Polarians and the Hyperboreans live in a dim yet spiritual consciousness, like the\u00a0 oceanic, protoplasmic, archaic, pre-personal consciousness of Ken Wilber’s Pleromatic and Uroboric stages.<\/li>\n
  • With the Lemurians the sense of self develops for the first time, just as with Wilber’s “Body-Ego” stage, albeit in both cases in a dream-like clairvoyant (Steiner) or magical (Wilber) mode of comprehension<\/li>\n
  • The Atlanteans develop language, but in the form of magical and mantric utterances, just like Ken Wilber’s “Membership Self” stage.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n

    The parallels are just too obvious to ignore.<\/p>\n\n

    One could even correlate the stages in a table:<\/p>\n\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    state of existence<\/td>\nAnthroposophy\u00a0
    (Steiner)<\/td>\n    		Transpersonal Psychology (Wilber)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    protoplasmic universal consciousness<\/td>\nPolarian<\/strong><\/td>\nPleromatic<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    dream-like alimentary somatic consciousness<\/td>\nHyperborean<\/strong><\/td>\nUroboric<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    dream-like magical self non-self distinction<\/td>\nLemurian<\/strong><\/td>\nBody-ego (early) (late)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    clairvoyant magical mantric<\/td>\nAtlantean<\/strong><\/td>\nVerbal-Membership<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    rational verbal<\/td>\nPost-Atlantean<\/strong><\/td>\nMental-egoic<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n

    Yet Steiner claims that he is describing objective cycles of past existence and evolution of the Earth, perceived clairvoyantly, whereas Ken Wilber is citing psycho-analysts who claim to be describing the psychological development of the human individual.\u00a0 What gives?\u00a0 Was Steiner simply deluding himself, in that his so-called “clairvoyance” was nothing but a regression to his own early subconscious, confusing projected into an external world?\u00a0 That is certainly what the sceptical person would think, but I do not think it is that easy.<\/p>\n\n

    Let us go back to the psycho-analytic model and examine again in a more critical light.\u00a0 On the surface, what is being described in Ken Wilber’s various stages is the development of consciousmess and the psyche in the infant and child.\u00a0 Ever since Freud, it has been a common premise of psychologists that infants live in a sort of mystical dream-like haze, unable to think, or distinguish self from not-self.\u00a0 Yet this whole theory is only based on assumption; because infants cannot yet talk, we don’t know what they experience.\u00a0 But there is no reason why their thought-processes cannot be quite coherent.\u00a0 Indeed, young infants are often very intelligent at getting what they want.\u00a0 Similarily with animals; ever since the Greeks and Medieval Christians there has been the assumption is that because animals cannot talk they are automatically determined by instincts and physiological reactions.\u00a0 Anyone who has ever observed closley a pet dog or cat knows the fallacy of this theory.<\/p>\n\n

    Then there is the theory (espoused even by Jung) that “primitive people” lack rational thought, but instead have a sort of “magical thinking”, or that (according to Julian Jaynes, who Ken Wilber cited in his book\u00a0Up From Eden<\/em>) the people of past civilisations – e.g. the Egyptians and the Homeric Greeks – lived in a sort of hallucinatory world because the two halves of their brains weren’t connected.<\/p>\n\n

    All this is just nonsense.\u00a0 The idea that tribal people can’t think straight, or only possess a “child-like” way of thinking (Wilber’s “Membership Self”) is the reflection of the colonialist arrogance of past decades (combined with the assumption that the materialistic attitude of the West is correct and the shamanistic intuition of tribal peoples automatically wrong), as any discussion with any surviving tribal person reveals.\u00a0 As for ancient civilisations, the\u00a0Egyptians\u00a0for example built a mighty civilisation and wrote philosophy in which they pondered existential questions of life and death, hardly possible for someone living a dream-like existence with no sense of self.<\/p>\n\n

    So what then are we to make of this elaborate series of stages?\u00a0 Is it just the nonsense of an arrogant age, that became enshrined as psycho-analytical dogma?<\/p>\n\n

    Actually, I don’t think so.\u00a0 I think that what the psycho-analysts really tapped into was the same thing as what Steiner tapped into, except that the psycho-analysts described it in terms of infantile psychological development and neurosis, whereas Steiner described it in terms of the doctrines of the the\u00a0Theosophical Society, which he was at the time still trying to find favour with.\u00a0 Yet to find the real nature of what both camps are referring to, whether through subconscious intuition (psycho-analysis) or conscious clairvoyance (Steiner) it is necessary to go beyond the prejudices of both.<\/p>\n\n

    \"bar\"<\/figure>\n\n

    The Occult Explanation<\/h4>\n\n

    But the psycho-analysts speak of\u00a0psychological<\/em>\u00a0stages of development, which are the same as Steiner’s physical stages.\u00a0 So maybe his worlds do represent prior worlds, but prior worlds that are not physical in the sense our world is; that have a psychic or a somewhat psychological nature.<\/p>\n\n

    The present physical world can thus be seen as having emanated from these previous worlds, which in a sense continue to exist parallel to our own.<\/p>\n\n

    In other words, these previous worlds – Atlantean, Lemurian, etc – constitute stages equivalent to what could perhaps be considered Jung’s Collective Unconscious – the ocean or depth from which our consciousness emerges – except that this is not merely a collective, but an actual universal reality.\u00a0 And it would be wrong to call it “unconscious” at all; it is only “unconscuious” relative to our present physical consciousness.<\/p>\n\n

    So we have the higher etheric reality at one end, and the gross physical reality at the other.\u00a0 Between the two are the intermediate stages Steiner defines as “warmth”, “gaseous” and “liquid”, equivalent of course to the elements fire air and water of the Greeks and medieval Alchemists.\u00a0 Although Steiner identifies the fourth element, “earth”, and “Life Ether”, with the gross or dense physical reality, I would see it a s adistinct plane, although one very closely connected to the gross physical, being immediately adjacent to it.<\/p>\n\n

    Since Jung’s term “Collective Unconscious” hs already been so misused, and is in any case rather inapproppriate to describe these realities, despite certain points of connection, I would rather cast around for an alternative term.\u00a0 I would suggest calling the four stages between the Physical and the Etheric the Paraphysical.<\/p>\n\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    plane of existence<\/strong><\/td>\nsubstance<\/strong><\/td>\nMetamorphosis<\/strong>
    (Steiner)<\/strong><\/td>\n    		Era\u00a0<\/strong>
    (Steiner)<\/strong><\/td>\n    		Psychogenic stage<\/strong>
    (Wilber)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Noetic<\/strong>
    Noeric<\/strong>
    Psychic<\/strong><\/td>\n    		Beyond time, space, and form<\/strong><\/td>\npralaya<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nUltimate<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Etheric Plane\u00a0– Pure formative forces<\/strong>Four\u00a0 Para-Physical Planes;\u00a0
    The four\u00a0 Elements or\u00a0 Tanmatras<\/td>\n    		“Warmth” Ether – “Fire”\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nOld Saturn<\/strong><\/td>\nPolarian<\/strong><\/td>\nPleromatic\u00a0psyche<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    “Light” Ether\u00a0 – “Air”\u00a0 (“Gaseous”)<\/strong><\/td>\nOld Sun<\/strong><\/td>\nHyperborean<\/strong><\/td>\nUroboric\u00a0psyche<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    “Chemical” Ether “Water” (“Liquid”)<\/strong><\/td>\nOld Moon<\/strong><\/td>\nLemurian<\/strong><\/td>\nTyphonic psyche<\/strong>
    (early) (late)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    “Life” (=Form)\u00a0 Ether\u00a0 “Earth” (“Solid”)<\/strong><\/td>\nEarth<\/strong><\/td>\nAtlantean<\/strong><\/td>\nMembership\u00a0psyche<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Dense Physical\u00a0– time,\u00a0 space, and laws of physics\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nPhysical World<\/strong><\/td>\nPost-Atlantean<\/strong><\/td>\nMental-egoic\u00a0psyche<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n

    Seen from this perspective, what both Steiner and Wilber are describing is\u00a0the involution of consciousness.\u00a0 Only each is using a different mythological framework – Steiner the Theosophical paradiogm and Wilber the psycho-developmental one.\u00a0 Both paradigms have elements of the truth, but neither conveys the complete picture.<\/p>\n\n

    \"bar\"<\/figure>\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    Anthroposophical Cosmology<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    Rudolph Steiner<\/strong><\/td>\n
    Ken Wilber<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Steiner and Wilber Towards an Occult Interpretation and synthesis of Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology If, as is obvious,\u00a0Rudolph Steiner’s cosmology, when taken literally, is most patently scientific nonsense, where does its validity lie? There are three possible explanations here: The Geological – Biological Explanation The Psychological Explanation The Occult Explanation The Geological – Biological<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":18,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"elementor_header_footer","meta":{"footnotes":""},"yoast_head":"\nSteiner's Cosmology and Wilber's psychology - Kheper<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Steiner's Cosmology and Wilber's psychology - Kheper\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Steiner and Wilber Towards an Occult Interpretation and synthesis of Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology If, as is obvious,\u00a0Rudolph Steiner’s cosmology, when taken literally, is most patently scientific nonsense, where does its validity lie? There are three possible explanations here: The Geological – Biological Explanation The Psychological Explanation The Occult Explanation The Geological – Biological\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Kheper\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-12-23T08:19:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/\",\"name\":\"Steiner's Cosmology and Wilber's psychology - Kheper\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-02T01:39:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-12-23T08:19:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Topics\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/\",\"name\":\"Kheper\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Steiner's Cosmology and Wilber's psychology - Kheper","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Steiner's Cosmology and Wilber's psychology - Kheper","og_description":"Steiner and Wilber Towards an Occult Interpretation and synthesis of Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology If, as is obvious,\u00a0Rudolph Steiner’s cosmology, when taken literally, is most patently scientific nonsense, where does its validity lie? There are three possible explanations here: The Geological – Biological Explanation The Psychological Explanation The Occult Explanation The Geological – Biological","og_url":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/","og_site_name":"Kheper","article_modified_time":"2020-12-23T08:19:40+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/","url":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/","name":"Steiner's Cosmology and Wilber's psychology - Kheper","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif","datePublished":"2020-09-02T01:39:44+00:00","dateModified":"2020-12-23T08:19:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif","contentUrl":"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140825180243im_\/http:\/\/www.kheper.net\/images\/thinrain.gif"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/steiner-and-wilber\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Topics","item":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy","item":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/anthroposophy\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Steiner’s Cosmology and Wilber’s psychology"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/","name":"Kheper","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/21"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/21\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}