Anthroposophy, though not famous, has become quite rich even after Rudolf Steiner died. He actually set the example in first place for this richness to be noticed, releasing circa 30 books and lecturing intensively, so that the world can now avail of circa 300 books of his lectures also. (English translations are published for free at rsarchive.org, in website format, easy to convert in to book for printing. Steinerbooks, Triades and Editrice Antroposofica are 3 big references respectively for the English, French and Italian languages)
Others came after him, people who have surely understood him as he hoped for, along with people who have “understood” him in some other ways. What I think distinguishes the formers is that through their deeds the thought “This is my anthroposophy” transpires. Those I promote in this website have for sure made anthroposophy a main part of their own life, being in this ways able to adapt it for being communicated as their current age required. Along with Georg Kuhlewind and Massimo Scaligero I may name others I have come to know only partially but who still speak the thought I have already whispered : Owen Barfield, Karl Konig, Richard Bunzl. What can be noticed about these people is that they are not overwhelmed with contents, but have “digested” it profoundly instead, so that their intention, art, and presence can be felt: they are speakers talking to the individual, the reader, not just explaining things they have understood. Others again I repute pretty good: Linda Sussman, Dennis Kloceck, Friedemann Shwarzkopf, Michael Lipson, Norbert Glas, Varborg Werbeck, Stephen Tallbott.
Anyway my 2 favorites are those I feel were able to put a more emphatic stress on some main points which recent evolution calls forth. Searching the web I was only able to find one person who have actually used the term “my anthroposophy”, Robert McDermott, who has quite an eastern approach I didn’t dare to investigate yet.
People have their religion, their philosophy, their science, their culture…having one’s own anthroposophy must be just a similar quality. In an italian forum I had written about this idea, but it hasn’t proved to be very attractive. Yet, I still find it of value and what follows is a translation to English (beware!, it has a meditative character):
Anthoposophy is but a keyword meaning “wisdom of man” or “spiritual science”. With this name his founder wanted to distinguish it from the path he himself has followed, at the outset with the so called philosophy, then with the so called theosophy. The three of them, anthroposophy, philosophy and theosophy, all define something specific, that as such tend to have a name.
What is behind this name may mean a lot or a little for a person, according to the meaning she was able to assign to it. Its most profound meaning though is hardly communicable with this simple word, and so it can easily be compared to the meaning applying to the words Christian or communist, for example, that is, of party or of legacy.
And yet, not knowing this keyword may mean a big difference for the individual who has come to know it, in such a way that he could give it the proper meaning, the proper importance in her catalog. Even better, appropriately communicable, according to the recipient, who may be judged according to appearances only.
Differently from other specific or party fields, though, every person considering himself anthroposophist can give a new definition to the meaning of this word, being implicit in its foundations that anthroposophy is in reality some inner thing, not meaning subjective, that it can for this reason have new impacts on exteriority.
Man in his completeness, as a spirit-soul-body being is the center of the anthroposophical ideal, and not the ideal the center of man, be it anthroposophist or not.