>>172
I like how Jung talks repeatedly about being scientific and being an empiricist but he himself doesn't understand statistics at all and is really bad at doing empirical science. Both Steiner and Jung are fantasy-driven and neither of them is a scientist, and not philosopher either.
Jung is more grounded since he read a lot of ancient sources while Steiner was exclusively interested in fringe stuff that has academic value converging to zero. But when it comes to writing and imagination Steiner is much better than Jung. No wonder many of his "concepts" became standard in fantasy game settings. For example Akashic records = the Elder Scroll.
When reading Steiner one needs to salvage good stuff from bad stuff, extract the essence of ideas from that hot mix of Atlantis and Akashic records etc. But I've noticed that people are more interested in Atlantis and Akashic records than the essences. I think here Jung is committing the same error by focus on these superficial stuff than the essential core of Steiner's ideas.

>>173
A thing that occurred to me very often is why psychiatric patient cases can be considered as "proofs"[1] while the experience descriptions of individuals with spiritual/Prophetical visioning functions, like Swedenborg or Steiner, are often dismissed as insignificant mystical tricks. [2]
If scientists dismiss those experiences as "unverifiable" and therefore refuse to consider them as proofs, then those group experiments conducted by cognitive scientists are even less capable of being truly verified.
Clearly Jung himself is a clairvoyant and he was very cautious in dealing with his own mystical experiences, which deeply moved me at times. Yet he also did not regard those experiences as scientific proofs. I believe Jung could answer the why, he understood them more deeply than any clairvoyants else. I even suspect he did this on purpose, so his conclusions will not be ruled out by a future science. I think Jung is even more successful than Goethe who only exerts his influence in science in a more subtle way.
Jung is like Kant they laugh at Steiner and Swedenborg like a real philosopher. Strangely I find accusations against Steiner completely incomprehensible, as Steiner was indeed very knowledgeable about Science and art. If Steiner were alive today I guess he would likely be interested in string theory and QM stuffs in an non-shallow way. But another thing is I've noticed that Steiner fans tend to be like very obsessed with cognitive scientists and physicists, they understand no decent mathematics, so appeared very dumb like art students. They have a strong need to know all the conclusions of string theory to provide them with sort of validation and facts [3]. But it's a strage thing for me that if Steiner fans care only about facts, they could already know this from a very tinny way, they don't need to collect high theories' conclusions this much.

I find it difficult to interested in the "new religion" of Steiner el al.'s fans or modern cognition science watever. Only Steiner's philosophical writings are valuable to me for I haven't drawn any conclusions about his anthroposophical writings, much like with some of Teilhard's. I sometimes wonder whether anthroposophy has any real positive effect on fools (even who has real spiritual visioning functions, there're really many) as many anthroposophy fans clearly end up abandoning thinking and reading.

Btw Sometimes I really wish Jung would explain that one time he was in hospital after his "death" why he saw an indian sage over the sky rather than other religions' sages. But he did't explain those details.

[1] I was having some experience of studying "music cognition", the statistical methods they use to draw conclusions seem too absurd to me. Their methods should be similar to those used in psychiatry.
[2] Religious experiences be used as proofs to validate (historical) facts, but they're not sufficient to philosophy, to define sort of ideas, since that leads to one-sidedness.
[3] https://piped.itinerariummentis.org/channel/UCfkFEfvGzuMT4hK0suu_Q2g

>>174
Steiner's pedagogy approaches try to turn Ni/spiritual into a teachable thing, and to some extent this's consistent with Schelling's identity philosophy. It likes this:
- If manifest knowledge (science, mathematics, philosophy, music etc.) is teachable, then why is Ni etc. not teachable?

He may think clairvoyance can be developed through training (or he hope so) so spritual-less normies could be saved, and maybe one day it will be really possible. (although I am very skeptical about this)
If think this way - I actually think this way very much these days - I don't even think his founding of the Waldorf school is cringe.

>>173
>Steiner was exclusively interested in fringe stuff that has academic value converging to zero
It's highly possible that only his Goethe study has academic values, I'm not sure, but it's true that no modern academic researchers interested in his ideas or want to explore within.

>>174
Statistics and probability is very hard and average scientist doesn't understand them at all even if they are working in CERN. Moreover in most cases statistics shouldn't even be utilized, we can see how statistics can give plausible but utterly false patterns simply by reflecting on the behaviors of LLM.
>I even suspect he did this on purpose, so his conclusions will not be ruled out by a future science.
Yes he did it on purpose, but only in words. He had literally no interest in empirical science and knew nothing about the proper way to do statistics but he still used it. When he really tries to be scientific in the modern sense he is laughable. But you don't need to be a scientist in the modern sense to be a scientist.
>he would likely be interested in string theory and QM stuffs in an non-shallow way
I'd rather say he won't be interested in string theory. He will try to learn it, but as soon as he know how the theory is constructed he'll abandon it immediately. I think his interests would be somehow similar to Cormac McCarthy as it is shown by his the Kekule Problem: foundations of mathematics, unconscious, origin of language, etc.
>he was in hospital after his "death" why he saw an indian sage over the sky
Strange. Why focus on the religion being Hindu or not.
He saw a Hindu sat to the right of the entrace to a small antechamber. He entered a Hindu temple. Next the feeling he had was the feeling that he was finally identified with the Self, or the Atman.
Next, a king of Kos came to him to summon him back. Kos is the birth place of Hippocrates who is the primal physician. This is Greek.
Then he was brought back but was in an ecstasy for weeks. Now he was in the garden of pomegranates. Then he took part in, or was, the Marriage of the Lamb. This is Abrahamic.

> If manifest knowledge (science, mathematics, philosophy, music etc.) is teachable, then why is Ni etc. not teachable?
Actually I think it is a very delusional thinking that this can be teachable. How is seeing teachable to someone blind? How is life experienced itself teachable?