Steiner's strict law that occultists who start from different points may not fight one another, and that error is met with love, not assent.
Occult Tolerance in Anthroposophy is the working law Rudolf Steiner set out at Stuttgart on 16 October 1911, in the lecture cycle collected as Images of Occult Seals and Columns (GA 284): researchers who reach the spiritual world by genuine paths may not fight one another when their formulations differ. Steiner grounds the rule in occult practice itself, not in politeness. Two investigators who begin from different starting points, and who are striving rightly, cannot in fact disturb each other, because each describes the same supersensible facts from a different position. Tolerance in this sense is exact rather than soft: it does not mean granting that an error is true, but meeting the person in error with love, the only alternative being what Steiner calls a sin against the Holy Spirit. The impulse to contend belongs to the astral body and the will, which is why the law is a discipline of soul rather than of opinion.
Occult tolerance is the discipline Steiner asked of anyone doing spiritual research in company: hold your own findings exactly, and refuse the quarrel. He drew the line sharply. Where another investigator's starting point is sound and the striving genuine, a clumsy formulation is no ground for attack. Where the formulation is simply wrong, the answer is love toward the person, never assent to the error.
In Steiner's Own Words
When Theosophy becomes conviction it provides the ground upon which the most varied knowledge may blossom forth, but they have to be obtained on the paths of actual truth. Among those who understand the heart of occultism it is always the case that they cannot disturb one another; it is impossible for persons to disturb one another who are engaged in occult practice and through proceeding from different starting-points arrive at other formulations. That is a strict law. The occultist may not fight when he sees that other occultists have correct starting-points and are striving rightly, even if he finds their formulation clumsy.
What it Means Today
The nearest thing modern thought has built to Steiner's law is the principle of charity in analytic philosophy. Neil L. Wilson named it in 1959, W. V. O. Quine put it to work in the radical-translation argument of Word and Object (MIT Press, 1960), and Donald Davidson made it a condition of interpretation itself in his 1973 presidential address to the American Philosophical Association, published the following year as On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Davidson's claim is unusually strong: you cannot identify what another person means at all unless you begin by taking most of what they believe to be true. Disagreement only becomes legible against a wide background of agreement, so an interpreter who assumes the other is mostly talking nonsense has not found an opponent, he has failed to find a speaker.
Steiner reaches the same structural point six decades earlier, and from occult practice rather than semantics. Two investigators who see one supersensible fact from different starting points will produce different formulations, and a fight between the formulations is a fight about vocabulary, not about the fact.
Thalira synthesis: charity in Davidson is an epistemic necessity, a rule you keep because interpretation collapses without it, while occult tolerance is a moral one, a rule you keep because contempt closes the organ you are researching with. Steiner's version therefore carries a penalty Davidson's does not, and it binds hardest exactly where the other person is wrong. The practical residue is one habit: before objecting to a formulation, locate the starting point it came from.
Where to Read More