TA 106 (Müller)


Commentary C32 (to R11)


by Maurice McCarthy
12 May 2008, posted 17 May 2008


You wrote: [3]
I guess what I am trying to say is :  an individual like you can make all sorts of personal connections, without being handicapped by dogma.  But this is quite different at the level of religious organizations, though hope is always allowed.


Yes, and my hope is that, in this age of planetisation, ideas of unity in diversity will gain currency, that religion can begin to brought under the umbrella of knowledge by means of evolutionary theory.  Since I view knowledge as a free creative act then I hold the unification of religion and science as an ideal.


Interestingly, this week's New Scientist No. 2655 (10 May 2008) carried an article by Stuart Kauffman on pages 52 to 53 to mark the publication of his new book Reinventing the Sacred. These are some the statements made :


"The process of reinventing the sacred requires a fresh understanding of science that takes into account complexity theory and the ideas of emergence. It will require a shift from reductionism, the way of thinking that still dominates our scientific world view. "


"I do not believe that the evolution of the biosphere, economy and human culture are derivable or reducible to physics."


"Yet what is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly? I find the latter proposition so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of "God". From it we can build a sense of the sacred that encompasses all life and the planet itself. From it, we can change our value system across the globe and try, together, to ease the fears of religious fundamentalists with a safe, sacred space we can share. And from it, we can, if we are wise, find means to avert wars of civilisations, the ravages of global warming, and the potential disaster of peak oil."


To your question in [4] ...  the kingdom of Lothar (Lotharingia), ...  I had not been aware of a ‘spiritual’ dimension of this political development, the relation to the trinity which you mention.  Is this your personal interpretation, or do you have historical references for this view ?


The interpretation was personal (and I've no idea whether Charlemagne had any knowledge or deliberate spiritual intent) but similar views are held by many anthroposophists since Steiner made rather a lot of 869.  The few references I have all belong to the anthroposophical movement.  Terry Boardman, an anthroposophist and historian, has recently posted an article on his personal website at <www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Council of 869.htm> His principal source appears to be


H.H.Schöffler ed., Der Kampf um das Menschenbild (Verlag um Goetheanum, 1986)

He also mentions

Markus Osterrieder, Verschweigen des Geistes (Silencing the Spirit) www.celtoslavica.org/bibliothek/trichotomie.pdf


Much of the content of Boardman’s article is esoteric, even so, I find the quasi-numerological means of grasping structure in the fabric time as arbitrary and unconvincing.  I’m not quite sure what his purpose is but it does contain a lot of factual report.  It does not answer your request though.




Maurice McCarthy
     e-mail <moss (at) mythic-beasts (dot) com>