D&D 5E Renewing the D&D Next cosmology through Anthroposophy

[Yora]

[MENTION=55456]Anselyn[/MENTION], the word "science" was used by Steiner for his work, which he called "Spiritual Science," which was science in the sense that he advocated an empirical approach to spirituality, one not based upon belief or faith but experience (that said, most Anthroposophists treat Steiner's words as gospel and Anthroposophy as a religion). It wasn't science in the narrow sense that it is commonly (and perhaps erroneously) used, that is dealing only with the physical world. By the way, I'm not saying that Steiner is correct in terms of specifics, but that I agree that science need not be limited to physical, sensible realities, that there is a "science of inner domains" that manifests in different cultural contexts, from Tibetan tantra to Hermetic alchemy to Steiner's Anthroposophy.

I think the major problem is, that even the most genrous use of the word science would be "interpretation of observed evidence". And while you can observe emotions and the way people act and behave, it is really hard to tell what evidence there is that would make us hypothezies the existance of the cosmic beings mentioned in the first post.

If we're to use Coleridge's taxonomy of Imagination, I would say that the primary Imagination is a spiritual capacity that few tap into, while the secondary imagination is what could be called "true art" - that echoes and manifests the vision of the primary Imagination. But most art, most fantasy, is merely the regurgitated re-combinations of what Coleridge calls fancy which, he says, deals only with "fixities and definitives" rather than living, archetypal forms. Tolkien's work is so vital, imo, because he had a deep experience of primary Imagination, which was expressed through his secondary Imagination of Middle-earth.

Like people just painting other peoples paitings instead of coming up with new motives?

 

[nnms]

As far as mining worldviews held by occultists for the creation of fictional cosmologies goes, I'm all for it.

As far as the selection of this particular "anthroposophical science" being the one to choose, I'm not for it.

The main problem with late 19th century and early 20th century occultism is that they start with the position that they know what other people believed in previous centuries better than the people themselves did. When the use of a particular divine character changes over time, they'll often pick one and run with it as if it was a universal way of seeing that figure.

Take the use of Lucifer in the original post. He's immediately attached to evil. The Christian use of the character Lucifer is selected and made absolute while the Roman use of Lucifer as the name for Venus is ignored and the Greek origin is ignored.

If we're trying to make a rich and vital fictional setting, I think we can do much better than an approach mired in Victorian bias.

As for making an official 5E cosmology based on this stuff? Not going to happen. There are so many other options that would get priority. A trichotomy based worldview would also be pretty alien to most of the potential customers.

So would it "renew" the fictional cosmology of D&D Next? Not really. It would probably just confuse things.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the major problem is, that even the most genrous use of the word science would be "interpretation of observed evidence". And while you can observe emotions and the way people act and behave, it is really hard to tell what evidence there is that would make us hypothezies the existance of the cosmic beings mentioned in the first post.

Except if there is a reproducible modality to experience in some way those cosmic beings which, according to Steiner (and others) there is.

Now the tricky part, and I think one of the flaws or undeveloped elements of Anthroposophy, and why it remains ghettoized, by and large, is that there is little understanding or credence given to hermeneutics; Steiner was pre-postmodernism, and therefore didn't speak or seemingly understand the element of interpretation and context in his work. In other words, what he perceived as cosmic beings could be the same thing that astrophysicists see as cosmological principles, while a transpersonal psychologist might interpret them as higher states of consciousness.

In other words, it is one thing to experience a given phenomena and another thing as to how we interpret it.

Like people just painting other peoples paitings instead of coming up with new motives?

That's basically what fancy is, although it doesn't only need to be painting other peoples' paintings, it could be painting original paintings that are completely derived from other art works and media forms.

This is one of the reasons I've never been all that taken with Joss Whedon's work. Whedon seems to take all of his ideas from other media forms; there is never the feeling of the archetypal, of deep mythology and human psychology, of spiritual or esoteric traditions--beyond as those things filter down into media, into 20th/21st century recreations.

This is not to pick on Whedon in particular, especially considering that he's a bit of a geek icon. But he is a good example to me of the cleverness of Coleridgian Fancy, and how it can take on the appearance of novelty and be quite clever in its configuration of ideas, but never really tap into the wellspring of archetypal forms.

But isn't so clearly defined as to say that this or that work is "mere fancy", because even the fanciful has an element of the archetypal, of true secondary (and even primary) imagination. It is just a matter of to what degree it is alive and transparent to the deeper levels, and to what degree the external form resonates with those deeper levels.

Another way to put it is this:

Primary Imagination = Mythology
Secondary Imagination = Tolkien's Middle-earth
Fancy = Terry Brooks' Shannara books

...but...Brooks' work still has an element of "Secondary imagination," it just isn't as alive or awake or resonant as Tolkien's work.

(All of the above should be disclaimed with "IMHO").

 

[Yora]

We may have a different idea of archetypes here, but to me, they are already culturally established forms of personal (non-empiric) experience and therefore would belong to the secondary imagination. Or let's say on a level between the primary and secondary.

If I imagine a trickster deity, it is not a true creation of my mind, because the meme (in the Dawkinsian sense) is already known to me and I subconsciously make it part of the deity. Which is indeed different from when I plan "I now create an entity to occupy the position of the trickster deity", which would be regular secondary imagination.
If I just make a "re-imagining" (in the recent pop-culture term sense) of Satan or Loki, that would be a fancy.

I think true primary imagination is extremely difficult because of the subconscious memes we are already carrying in our minds, even if we never had the concept of a trickster deity explained to us or even heard about it.
But I think the charm of Whedon is that he purposely avoids to create at the level of archetypes between primary and secondary imagination, but concentrates on the level between secondary imagination and fancy.
Even if you never heard the terms, most people would notice that for example Buffy really looks a lot as if it is pure fancy, but behind that there's some real secondary imagination going on. Things turn out unexpectedly and different than we thought they were supposed to with such a setup. Subverting the tropes (in the Tvtropian sense) of popular fiction is where his shows shine, and I think are supposed to do so. I think altering the fundamental archetypes would actually make these efforts impossible, because you'd then be dealing with something really new where the tropes of fancies have no meaning left.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

When the use of a particular divine character changes over time, they'll often pick one and run with it as if it was a universal way of seeing that figure.

Take the use of Lucifer in the original post. He's immediately attached to evil. The Christian use of the character Lucifer is selected and made absolute while the Roman use of Lucifer as the name for Venus is ignored and the Greek origin is ignored.

Without Lucifer, we would have no Freedom. Rudolf Steiner repeatedly acknowledged the importance of Lucifer's contributions to humanity. In fact, Steiner's own magazine, which he founded and edited, was called Lucifer Gnosis.

As far as Lucifer and Venus:
"Of Lucifer we learn that his kingdom is Venus."

Man in the Light of Occultism, Theosophy, and Philosophy​

A keyword search for "Lucifer" at the Steiner Archive will reveal a vast, nuanced perception of the history, present, and future of the Archangel Lucifer. Lucifer will be redeemed, and will ally with the Sun God to defeat Mephistopheles.

I've compiled many of the anthroposophical indications of Lucifer's qualities here, including other names for Lucifer in various cultures, such as the god Eros in Greece. The page also features my own research into Lucifer as an archetype in fiction.

A trichotomy based worldview would also be pretty alien to most of the potential customers.

I suggest that a 5E setting with Mephistopheles and Graz'zt as the chief adversaries would not be so alien to many gamers. Many people have experienced The Two Towers film, with Saruman and Sauron as the pincers who aim to crush and ruin humanity.

"The world is changing. Who now has the strength to stand against the armies of Isengard and Mordor? To stand against the might of Sauron and Saruman and the union of the two towers?"

 

[jonesy]

BECMI cosmology:
Initiate
Temporal
Celestial
Empyreal
Eternal
Hierarch
The Old Ones

Ah, well now. That is an interesting example to bring up in a discussion of divinity, because all of the immortals are ascended mortals.

Have you ever played Unknown Armies? They have a saying there: "We did it." All of their gods are people like them who simply reached a level of power a mere mortal can't distinguish from a god. So those things that the gods and the cosmic horrors did? Their people like you. You can become them. You can do those things too.

It's why I've suggested that Mystara is an atheistic setting. There's no limit to how much you can investigate, research and shape it on your own as a character.

 

[nnms]

Without Lucifer, we would have no Freedom.

Or Lucifer isn't real. Why is "Freedom" capitalized?

Steiner Archive will reveal a vast, nuanced perception of the history, present, and future of the Archangel Lucifer.

*facepalm* - Right in that sentence you demonstrate that you've ignored the history of a particular divine character in favor of picking a single use of it and making it absolute. "Archangle Lucifer" -- as a proper noun complete with a title showing you mean a specific conception of it.

I'm beginning to suspect that this thread is actually about proselytizing for Anthroposophy.

Modern neuroscience has done much to explain how our sensory nerves and neurons work. And how our brain handles perception. There is simply no basis to Steiner's belief in an objective spiritual realm that can be directly experienced. Steiner believed that it was possible to combine science with occultism because he believed the spiritual realm could be objectively experienced.

He didn't know how our brains work to the degree that we do now and thus was wrong about an objectively experienceable spiritual realm. Especially given that our perception systems don't even give us an objective experience of the material universe. Our brain takes our sensory data and fills in large swathes with what we expect to perceive before passing along a framework we can use with our conscious mind.

This thread should probably be moved to some sort of politics and religion subforum as I don't think it really had anything to do with D&D Next and is actually about presenting Anthroposophy to a wider audience.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Use of the word "modality" makes any argument smell fishy to me.

In this case, I'd have to say "thanks but no thanks." The D&D cosmology should never require a 200-level course in Metaphysical Woo-Woo to fully grok.

 

[Yora]

This forum is lacking a dedicated forum section. In the last days I have seen lots of great discussions about world design, which were all completely off-topic, since there is no place where you could start threads about them.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

EN World has a "no real-world religion" rule. It usually holds for discussion of philosophical systems that attempt to explain religion as well. Yes, it means in some cases, good and interesting discussion gets shut off.

In this case, discussions of whether real-world humans can perceive a real spiritual realm, or how much Lucifer has done for real-world civilization are right out.

I'm going to close this thread. If there's enough interest, please feel free to open a new one, approaching it from the direction of whether we should use the "standard" alignment and cosmology, or something more akin to that seen in Michael Moorcock's "Elric of Melnibone" books. That line of questioning is well supported, given that old editions of the game did use such a structure.

But leave the real-world out of it, please and thank you.