Steve Diver from the USA has asked me to comment on Willi Suchers lectures to the Biodynamic Experiment Circle in 1956, as to their value for agricultural indications.
These are the lectures
Willi Sucher_Lecture One_The Working of the Stars on the Substances of the Earth, 1956
Willi Sucher_Lecture Two_The Working of the Stars on the Substances of the Earth, 1956
Willi Sucher_Lecture Three_The Working of the Stars on the Substances of the Earth, 1956
Willi Sucher_Lecture Four_The Working of the Stars on the Substances of the Earth, 1956
Four Lectures and drawings given by WILLI SUCHER to the Bio Dynamic Experimental Circle Given at Peredur, East Grinstead, Sussex, 9-12 January 1956
The energetic activites are cosmic mechanisms with no need of any ‘culturation’ ( answer to earlier question)
GA I would like to add to this statement by saying, we culturate the cosmic forces so we can characterise their manifest activities. Thus each culture has developed ‘mythologies’, or even ‘comics’ so as to provide pictures for themselves and others to ‘bring them to life’, and reflect the complexity of how we experience these astronomical forces.
While reading these Sucher lectures, I reflected on how ‘we’ are in a strange place in history, where we are still in a crossover period between unconsciousness and consciousness, or pre scientific and post scientific world views. Sucher gave these lectures 60 years ago , and it shows, as our astronomical knowledge has moved on. But on top of this point, is the Apop and Greek mythologies used to illustrate the activities he is trying to outline. Yes , the myths are great stories for providing the flesh of the story of astronomy and astrology, but we have to remember that at the source of this story, is an electro magnetic resonance, sourced from a rotating star. Yes the constant nature of the resonance allows for complex beings to form all along its path, but we now know ultimately in the begin was a ‘mechanical’ resonance / Word.
As harsh , and ‘deadening’ as that may sound it is time we face this fact. The cartoon we experience is not the beginnng of the process, it is the end.
One of the great ‘clarifications’ of astronomy in recent times is the full appreciation of the torusian sphere as the formative ‘being’ of creation. Yes there is a non spatial sucking vacuum in the middle, but the the ‘inbox’ is via the the poles while at the horizontal plane there is a outward moving flow of ‘substance’, which forms the flat disk. These ‘facts’ bring into question significant cornerstones of his subsequent Apopised thesis.
Firstly, we do not need a sucking vacuum in the centre of our solar system to receive the ‘sidereal substance’ he talks of. These are forces being beamed at us from outside stars and they flow through us regardless, of what comes from the central Sun.
Secondly, He comments that, no other Suns with planets have been found, and thus he justifies our position as ‘unique in creation’ and all the Apop thoughts on this, because of it. Which we now know is not the case. There are many ‘solar systems’ throughout creation. We can not conclude humanity is the centre of universal evolution. RS story is about the evolution of this solar system, only.
On the positive side though ,
A) He clarifies quite well that the star realm is the place of spirit. ( but then blows that on page 5 of lec 1) Which is not very clear for alot of Apops. While this story is wrapped up in ‘the great drama’ , it is indeed enough to find this same fact due to this being the realm of hydrogen, which allows us to come to the same conclusion.
B) He clarifies the difference between the ‘World Spirit’ activities coming from our Sun ( even though he calls it Cosmic Spirit) and calls it visible light, and the ‘light’ coming from the Cosmic Spirit realm of the other stars, as ‘Midnight Sun’
C) There is a nice piece on the RS perceptive process.
D) Then how the spirit activities make their way through the planetary sphere is done well, however he has caused himself problems by emphasising we visualize the solar system as a disk rather than a ‘onion’ sphere. A flat disk is a nice image for his story, but it does not represent fact. Yes we can easily imagine forces coming along a flat disk and moving as a wave, but really this wave has to be visualized as happening within the 3D spherical form, as there are fixed star reasonance coming at us continually from all sides, and it is the planetary spheres that cause the ‘resistence’ upon which all these forces are ‘altered’ . The planets placement provides a focus of attention, as its mass will bulge the sphere at that point, thus altering its overall tone, but more severly at that point. So the ‘flat disk images are a nice teaching device, but a ‘trap for young players’.
Then there is the piece of page 7 lec 1, about our present Pisces age beginning in 1413AD . I am not sure where he got this from. A Apop thing I guess, but we are approximately 200 years from the end of the 2160 years Piscean Age , by the reckoning of most other commentators.
The bit about Pegasus rising from andromendas forehead is also a little strange, as I have always understood Pegasus arose from Medusa’ neck , with a griffin, once Perseus had cut off her head, and this is how Perseus could then ride off to save Andromeda, before going off and liberating his mother. Hence Perseus is a ‘liberator of the persecuted feminine’. Medusa /wrongly cursed by Pallas Athene, Andromenda /wrongly sacrificed by her parents, and his mother / was being abused by her second husband. Interestingly Persus goes on the cheat on Andromeda ( if my memory serves me correctly ). This is a very interesting myth series, of interest to all Pluto Moon Venus people, with the beginning being, Why was medusa cursed by Pallas Athene? and then, Why did she feel the need to arm Perseus to liberate her? These questions are not answered in Greek mythology, so I got to write this part of the myth, which can be found at http://old.garudabd.org/books/4_11.html
It appears that Sucher had not heard of Lievegoed’s presentation to the Experimental circle in 1951, as he makes no reference to his view, which I have to say is of much more use to Agriculture than Sucher’s offerings.
Sucher is a human astrologer, and thus his references are human based as we can see in these lectures. All very well, however the rest of these lectures appear to provide very little of use in Biodynamics. Lecture 2 is mostly about the zodiac as manifest in humans. Yes a nice archetypal description, but as I have shown the ‘external’ Aries Pisces zodiac is of limited application to ‘nature’, where the Cancer Leo ‘real’ zodiac has a far greater application.
Lecture 3 is a very interesting discourse on the ‘journey through the planets’, and provides a new insight into the diagram in lec 2 (pg 29 /green one,) and a very interesting twist on RS evolution story, however I am not sure how this would be practically applied to agriculture. Again one of those ‘interesting stories but’ moments one constantly meets with Apopism.
There is one problem though. Sucher has not ‘done the story’ the same as RS diagram. Sucher goes Saturn Jupiter Mars Earth Moon Venus Mercury Sun – which is an accepted order, as it is what happens coming from outside inwards. However RS diagram is Saturn Jupiter Mars, Sun (see Adams) Moon Mercury Venus Sun. So Sucher has ‘adapted’ the diagram for his purposes, in a couple of ways. Nothing wrong with that, but lets just note that, and we could discuss it later. What do we have to take away from this though is, that we dont just transplant a belief that Sucher has ‘made Steiner’s diagram ‘right’, and start building mythologies around this diagram. He has not. RS is making a specific point. Sucher has ‘adapted’ this point to his own story.
Sucher’s comments about the Moon being on both sides of the ‘central’ Earth. Thus acting as the carrier of the outer planet, midnight Sun activity, during the Full Moon period; while at New Moon it would emphasis the ‘Day Sun’ activity, could be worth persuing. References to the activity of eclipses could help here.
Then interesting weather observations, and this approach would be worth exploring, however what is in use today based upon Thun, and the elemental relationship to the planets and constellations, seems to offer a adequate and more straight forward approach.
Lecture 4 is an interesting story, but just how would it be applied to agriculture ?
So overall, interesting, but………Astrology is a very multi faceted discipline, and Sucher’s approaches here are perfectly valid, within their contexts, which are mostly human psychospiritual references. However are these contexts the most appropriate for agriculture?
I suggest Lievegoed is a far better avenue for approaching an in depth and usable understanding of the planetary activity, and due to my making the association of his suggestions to the zodiac, Kolisko, Hauschka and chemistry, ‘we’ now have a very clear avenue to establish practical applications, without the maya of mythology, in all its forms. Mythologies are to inform the ‘texture’ of our understanding, but the bones are very well described by RS in the ag and medical lectures, all made without it.
I hope this is of value. I would appreciate yours or anyone elses view on things of value found in these lectures.