I guess this document might be known to everybody but me already but I thought it quite funny. It’s a document which refers to the handling of the Anthroposophical Society’s status by the UK Charity Commission, as I understand it. (I absolutely do not have any knowledge about the details.) In it we learn that anthroposophy is ‘directed to the mental or moral improvement of man’ which sounds pretty grand. In addition, the Society itself has, in describing its aims, claimed that (and here comes the fun part):
It [ie, the Anthroposophical Society /a] was to be an entirely public organisation and in no sense a secret society. It was averse to any sectarian tendency and did not consider politics to be among its tasks. A dogmatic position in any sphere whatsoever should be excluded from the society.
Not totally succeeding, these aims, are they? How do we categorize the first class studies? No matter if the secrecy surrounding them is (or has been, rather) justified or not, the existence of them is in fact evidence the society is not ‘entirely public’. And it also makes it ‘secret’. So how is it ‘in no sense a secret society’, when it has levels of membership shrouded in some mystery, as far as the contents of the material studied, even to other ‘lower’ members? How is it ‘in no sense secret’ when its most important sources are… secret and unavailable to both the public and many members? By all means, the lessons and what they teach might be justifiably secret (I don’t, as you know, believe there’s a point in keeping them that way), but to pretend they aren’t meant to be kept away from he public eye is ludicrous. To claim that the society is in no sense secret is equally ludicrous.
And don’t get me started on dogmatism. It’s only an appropriate attitude if it’s the consequence of a canineosophical conviction. Yet, anthroposophy so often seems to excel.