Anarchosophy
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 11:04 pm
Subject: anarchosophy
My fellow subscribers,
In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects
of an extremely delicate and difficult topic, let it be said
that "Philosophy of Freedom" can only be "the
Bible of anarchism" as long as anarchism is thought of in
its purest, most spiritualized form. In this spiritualized anarchism
stand the cradles of two sisters, Anthroposophia and Anarchosophia:
http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerbomb.html
One of the noblest representatives for exoteric
anarchism was Benjamin Tucker. He was a highly cultivated gentleman
from New England who lived in New York, where he founded the
best anarchist magazine that has ever existed: "Liberty."
He translated an entire library of classical anarchist literature
into English and became the most influential anarchist in the
English-speaking world. After his life work was destroyed in
a fire in 1908 (he did not believe in capitalist insurance),
he settled in France, where he practiced his anarchism until
he died in 1939.
Tucker did not speak French very well, but
he read it with ease. German was not unfamiliar to him either.
He read Max Stirner thoroughly (which Rudolf Steiner also did),
and in the 1890's he published a German edition of "Liberty."
In 1899 he held a lecture in Berlin entitled "Der Staat
in seiner Beziehung zum Individualism." At this time he
met Rudolf Steiner through their mutual anarchist friend Henry
Mackay. Steiner hailed Ben Tucker as "one of the greatest
champions for freedom" and subsequently printed his lecture
in "Magazin für Literatur," of which he was the
editor.
Like most exoteric anarchists including the
classics, Ben Tucker was an atheist. What is noteworthy is Rudolf
Steiner's appreciation for the greatest and noblest achievements
of atheist philosophers, because such men arrived at their conclusions
empowered by personal, self-dependent effort, and not by lazy
thinking like religious people who just swallowed what had been
handed down to them from old books and established traditions.
Anarchosophy may be described as the point
where exoteric and esoteric anarchism meet in the soul of Rudolf
Steiner at the time when he wrote "Philosophy of Freedom,"
but this is only a vague picture. It is the union of anthroposophy
and anarchism in the soul of the anarchosophist. This sounds
perhaps awkward, but it brings us a little step closer to the
riddle of anarchosophy.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 3:02 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
Ho, Tarjei,
I would say that there are various reasons
for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom "the bible of anarchism".
First of all, the word anarchism doesn't appear once in the book
(a minor detail? Maybe not). Also, by calling it that, you are
redefining the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal
of anarchy; a system of government based on the free agreement
of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority."
If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no
objection - and I think that's what you mean.
I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy,
in fact I considered myself somewhat of an anarchist. However,
"Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social
Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise -
that during the present time and the immediate future at least,
the State is an unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt
from top to bottom. (I'm referring to what we call democracy
of course). It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens
from criminals and from corporate greed (that it often does the
contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in some places, it does
carry out these functions, and always should). In other words,
its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't agree with certain
laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced to) or work
to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of Freedom
and Basic Issues.
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 7:32 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:
I would say that there are various reasons
for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom "the bible of anarchism".
First of all, the word anarchism doesn't appear once in the book
(a minor detail? Maybe not).
What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates
is that a person who liberates himself is no longer under the
command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric.
One of these tyrants is government. Government
exists because the majority prefers to surrender certain parts
of their freedom - a sacrifice that makes them feel safe and
secure. For the rebels, government has a great variety of threats,
punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in line, or
at least their might-be emulators.
Also, by calling it that, you are redefining
the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal of anarchy;
a system of government based on the free agreement of individuals
rather than on submission to law and authority." If you
called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection
- and I think that's what you mean.
You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy"
is what I really mean in the context at hand. But this word is
brand new and has not reached the dictionaries or officialdom
yet. The person best suited to be called an anarchosophist, is
the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher, poet,
social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens
Bjørneboe (1920-1976) - the fiercest of social critics
who stood up for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes,
the outcasts, the outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and
self-destructive life, Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom
and his hilarious sarcasm against the police, the prison wardens,
the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie. He depicted the
poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types of
human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not
in distant corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway,
in our police stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental
hospitals, our schools, in the military, etc.
Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists,
i.e. bourgeois, middle and upper class staid etheric dreamers,
couldn't understand why Bjørneboe bothered to take an
active interest in such topics, about human rights for the "untouchables"
of society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in Norway
that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in
the teachers' room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify
an esoteric path; on the contrary, he drank himself to insanity
and committed suicide, destroyed by the very demons he had been
busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted authors
to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest Hemingway
for starters.)
But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist"
or "anarchosophy," and neither did Rudolf Steiner,
simply because it did not exist in their lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner
did however call himself an individualistic anarchist:
"Until now, I have myself
always avoided using the words 'individualistic' or 'theoretical
anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very little
for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine
such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist'
can be applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal
'yes'."
(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und
Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261)
I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy,
in fact I considered myself somewhat of an anarchist.
So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his youth.
Or at least, it looks like that. He read Tolstoy furiously and
wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he almost became an "Tolstoyan."
(That was, of course, many years before he turned to politics.)
Nixon was also strongly influenced by his mother, who was a Quaker.
And quakers are, after all, very close indeed to being Christian
anarchists.
However, "Basic Issues of the Social
Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina,
convinced me otherwise - that during the present time and the
immediate future at least, the State is an unfortunate necessity,
even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.
Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom?
In that case, I have to echo the words of Steiner's friend and
hero Benjamin Tucker:
"The state is said by
some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made unnecessary. This
century's battle, then, is with the State: the State, that debases
man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that corrupts
children; the State, that trammels love; the State, that stifles
thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State, that limits
credit; the State, that restricts exchange; the State, that gives
idle capital the power of increase, and, through interest, rent,
profit, and taxes, robs industrious labor of its products."
(Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty
1 (1881): 2.)
(I'm referring to what we call democracy
of course).
In a modern democracy, which is nothing but
an oligarchy in disguise, the power structure is less easy to
detect than in less permissive societies. Rudolf Steiner once
pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot, was so deceptive
because it fools people into believing that they are pulling
the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings
(and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes,
behind whom stand occult forces.
It's needed to make and enforce laws to
protect citizens from criminals and from corporate greed (that
it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in
some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should).
In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't
agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm
forced to) or work to change them. I see that as the message
of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.
My general problem with a theoretical apology
for statism is that it always represents the easy way out of
complex problems. In other words, it's a cop-out.
What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards
from the book "Benjamin R. Tucker & the Champions of
Liberty."
Anarchist movements worldwide
generally declined after the turn of the century, if not before;
two world wars hastened the centralizing process to the further
detriment of action that was independent of the State. Only in
the 1960's did serious resistance to the State recommence; the
rise of the new independent groups - dissident students, professionals
and intellectuals on the one hand and a technical/entrepreneurial
class on the other - seems to be behind the resurgence of anarchistic
and quasi-anarchistic activity.
This resurgence leads us to
the "bottom-line" question on Tucker's strategy: did
it fail? And, by extension, we may also ask, did anarchism fail?
The commonplace answer is yes; anarchism failed because it was
out of touch with historical progress - "progress"
in this sense is always a euphemism for centralization and authoritarianism.
A more knowledgeable and cautious answer is: not entirely, or
not yet. this attitude at least recognizes that twentieth century
nation-states own no guarantees of immortality not given to Ur
or Babylon. Since States can and do crumble and fail, the "question"
of anarchism cannot ever be finally resolved.
This question of failure implies
another about success, and what ideology can claim success in
the late twentieth century? True, the adherents of socialism,
fascism, liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, communism
and most of their variants, have at one time and place or another
waxed great in numbers and prestige and wealth, and ruled the
State. Each group ruled but briefly in the name of its ideology
- then they ruled in the name of the State only.
All of these ideologies had
two things in common. Each promised to meet certain goals once
its supporters seized the State; each failed to deliver the ideological
goods, despite having unquestioned, or even unopposed, control
of some very powerful state-formations. In order to hold power
to meet their ultimate goals, each set of ideological rulers
found themselves forced to betray those same goals so as to meet
the intermediate and short-term requirements of political power.
These betrayals have seen cynicism, dishonesty, treachery aplenty;
but these are more the effect of betrayal than its cause. The
true, great corruption of power is the loss of one's aim.
The State today, particularly
in America, is vastly more powerful than when Tucker finally
despaired of successfully confronting it directly. Today, its
lightest touch corrupts (in the sense that I use the term). All
of the State ideologies, from the most limited constitutional
liberalism to Marxist State Socialism, have failed, corrupted
by the logic of power. Against Nietzsche's warning, they gazed
too long - and too longingly - into the abyss and became one
with it.
Every ideology that has sought
to master and direct the State has instead become its servant.
the lesson for our time, if any would see it, is that the State
is not to be mastered. Like the Ruling Ring, in Tolkien's The
Lord of the Rings, the State allows its "wearer"
to enjoy for a time the illusion of control - and then asserts
its mastery.
Thus, triumph can be illusory;
and determining the "success" or "failure"
of a movement like anarchism depends largely on what one means
by those terms. The usual standards require that one found a
thousand-year empire or at least possess adequate fluid assets;
such considerations scarcely enable us to judge the merits of
anarchist strategies, which refuse altogether to play the "Great
Game."
The present generation of
anarchists faces anew the question of liberty - which is anarchism.
We should know how our predecessors fought the same battle; not
in order to judge failure or success, but to know both how they
lived as anarchists and how they defended their anarchism - the
two complementaty halves of the struggle. We should not expect
to gain from these studies any certainty about our own course,
however. Doubts about our strategy must plague us, even as they
have plagued Benjamin R. Tucker and the remnants of his circle
in later years. "I put the Anarchist case as a goal that
humanity moves towards. But the exact routes - ?? ah! it is not
so easy to map them!"
(Frederic J. Gould to Benjamin Tucker, quoted by Tucker in a
letter to
Joseph Ishill Jan 24 1935)
("Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty
& the Strategy of Anarchism" by Morgan Edwards.)
What this means is that anarchism is a young
impulse that is being actively discussed all over the world.
There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism for
interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of freedom
should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 4:47 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
Tarjei wrote:
At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:
I would say that there are various reasons
for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom "the bible of anarchism".
First of all, the word anarchism doesn't appear once in the book
(a minor detail? Maybe not).
Tarjei:
What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person
who liberates himself is no longer under the command of tyrants,
exoteric and esoteric.
F: In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere",
the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with
the proviso that it mind its own business, that is, civil and
human rights. But it exists.
T: One of these tyrants is government.
Government exists because the majority prefers to surrender certain
parts of their freedom - a sacrifice that makes them feel safe
and secure. For the rebels, government has a great variety of
threats, punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in
line, or at least their might-be emulators.
F: Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments,
there would also be no criminals, cause they'd have seen the
light. .
F: Also, by calling it that, you are redefining
the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal of anarchy;
a system of government based on the free agreement of individuals
rather than on submission to law and authority." If you
called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection
- and I think that's what you mean.
T: You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy"
is what I really mean in the context at hand. But this word is
brand new and has not reached the dictionaries or officialdom
yet. The person best suited to be called an anarchosophist, is
the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher, poet,
social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens
Bjørneboe (1920-1976) - the fiercest of social critics
who stood up for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes,
the outcasts, the outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and
self-destructive life, Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom
and his hilarious sarcasm against the police, the prison wardens,
the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie. He depicted the
poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types of
human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not
in distant corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway,
in our police stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental
hospitals, our schools, in the military, etc.
Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists, i.e. bourgeois, middle
and upper class staid etheric dreamers, couldn't understand why
Bjørneboe bothered to take an active interest in such
topics, about human rights for the "untouchables" of
society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in Norway
that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in
the teachers' room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify
an esoteric path; on the contrary, he drank himself to insanity
and committed suicide, destroyed by the very demons he had been
busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted authors
to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest Hemingway
for starters.)
But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist"
or "anarchosophy," and neither did Rudolf Steiner,
simply because it did not exist in their lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner
did however call himself an individualistic anarchist:
F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist",
but it could be somewhere else. But that was in his youth, before
the threefold idea.
"Until now, I have
myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic' or 'theoretical
anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very little
for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine
such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist'
can be applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal
'yes'."
(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und
Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261)
F: I knew something of anarchism before
anthroposophy, in fact I considered myself somewhat of an anarchist.
T: So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his
youth. Or at least, it looks like that. He read Tolstoy furiously
and wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he almost became an
"Tolstoyan." (That was, of course, many years before
he turned to politics.) Nixon was also strongly influenced by
his mother, who was a Quaker. And quakers are, after all, very
close indeed to being Christian anarchists.
F: Not surprising. After all, around the turn
of the century the communists and the anarchists had the same
goal - the disappearance of the state, but differed in how to
go about it. The Communists wanting a "temporary" dictatorship
of the proletariate, which would "wither away" once
humanity became good enough; the anarchists the immediate elimination
of the state, upon which people would become good because the
state is the root of all evil. The right wing (Nixon and the
Republican party in the U.S. as example) is always calling for
less government, fewer taxes, etc. , so in a sense they are following
the anarchist line.
F: However, "Basic Issues of the Social
Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina,
convinced me otherwise - that during the present time and the
immediate future at least, the State is an unfortunate necessity,
even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.
T: Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom?
In that case, I have to echo the words of Steiner's friend and
hero Benjamin Tucker:
"The state is said
by some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made unnecessary.
This century's battle, then, is with the State: the State, that
debases man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that
corrupts children; the State, that trammels love; the State,
that stifles thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State,
that limits credit; the State, that restricts exchange; the State,
that gives idle capital the power of increase, and, through interest,
rent, profit, and taxes, robs industrious labor of its products."
(Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty
1 (1881): 2.)
F: Tucker, imo, confuses all states with the
one (or ones) he describes above. And they aren't all the same.
Finland, fe, is number 1 on the list of least corrupt states,
Argentina is something like 36. I would not recommend to anyone
that they emulate Argentina. Finland yes.
F: (I'm referring to what we call democracy
of course).
In a modern democracy, which is nothing
but an oligarchy in disguise, the power structure is less easy
to detect than in less permissive societies. Rudolf Steiner once
pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot, was so deceptive
because it fools people into believing that they are pulling
the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings
(and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes,
behind whom stand occult forces.
F: Well, people *are* stupid, aren't they
(except us of course).
F: It's needed to make and enforce laws
to protect citizens from criminals and from corporate greed (that
it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in
some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should).
In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't
agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm
forced to) or work to change them. I see that as the message
of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.
T: My general problem with a theoretical
apology for statism is that it always represents the easy way
out of complex problems. In other words, it's a cop-out.
F: I could say the same about anrachism -
in fact I will.
T: What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards from the book
"Benjamin R. Tucker & the Champions of Liberty."
(snip)
T: What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that
is being actively discussed all over the world. There are many
internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism for interested parties.
All I wish to say is this: Lovers of freedom should think at
least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.
F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism"
which, like communism, is burnt out. A threefold society would
be more possible, practical and correct.
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 5:54 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 01:47 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
F: In Basic Issues, he also includes "the
rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor
of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business,
that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate
state government. Nor does it per definiton embrace the violence
par excellance that states define themselves by.
<snip>
F: Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments,
there would also be no criminals, cause they'd have seen the
light. .
Mahatma Gandhi proposed that we move into
the neighborhoods of criminals instead of separating them from
society behind barbed wire. What I am getting at is that alternative
ideas about how to approach social problems carry the germ of
future societies. Yesteryear's ways of dealing with such problems
are indicative of mental laziness, and in the long run, such
old-fashioned solutions will become more and more destructive
and counter-productive.
<snip>
But Bjørneboe never used the word
"anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and neither
did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
anarchist:
F: The term I remember is "ethical
anarchist", but it could be somewhere else. But that was
in his youth, before the threefold idea.
It's amazing how many people bend over backwards
to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear, just
like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner was an
atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he was what
he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
<snip>
T: What this means is that anarchism is
a young impulse that is being actively discussed all over the
world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism
for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of
freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born
pearl.
F: I recommend that they trash the label
"anarchism" which, like communism, is burnt out. A
threefold society would be more possible, practical and correct.
An alternative would be to expand the definiton
of anarchism. This may be a strictly semantic argument, but the
fact remains that when Steiner and Mackay finally go in different
directions in the 1890's, it may be just as correct to claim
that Steiner's PoF represents the true further development of
anarchism and Mackay's political dreams a blind alley based upon
a false and misunderstood concept of anarchism as to claim the
opposite.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 6:16 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the
rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor
of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business,
that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto
necessitate state government.
F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes
the political state and states must have governments. The problem
is that these states are not autonomous, i.e., they are subject
to economic interests and pressure. A basic element of 3-fold
is to change this, not eliminate the state.
T: Nor does it per definiton embrace the
violence par excellance that states define themselves by.
F: OK
<snip>
F:Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments,
there would also be no criminals, cause they'd have seen the
light. .
T: Mahatma Gandhi proposed that we move
into the neighborhoods of criminals instead of separating them
from society behind barbed wire. What I am getting at is that
alternative ideas about how to approach social problems carry
the germ of future societies. Yesteryear's ways of dealing with
such problems are indicative of mental laziness, and in the long
run, such old-fashioned solutions will become more and more destructive
and counter-productive.
F: I agree, but this has nothing to do with
the point at issue.
<snip>
But Bjørneboe never used the word
"anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and neither
did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
anarchist:
F: The term I remember is "ethical
anarchist", but it could be somewhere else. But that was
in his youth, before the threefold idea.
T. It's amazing how many people bend over
backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear,
just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner
was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he
was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
F: Since this is a dispute between me and
thee, I must disappointedly conclude that you include me in the
"many people". You can write whatever you like in your
book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't conform
to you own ideology.
<snip>
T:> What this means is that anarchism
is a young impulse that is being actively discussed all over
the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism
for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of
freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born
pearl.
F: I recommend that they trash the label
"anarchism" which, like communism, is burnt out. A
threefold society would be more possible, practical and correct.
T: An alternative would be to expand the
definiton of anarchism. This may be a strictly semantic argument,
but the fact remains that when Steiner and Mackay finally go
in different directions in the 1890's, it may be just as correct
to claim that Steiner's PoF represents the true further development
of anarchism and Mackay's political dreams a blind alley based
upon a false and misunderstood concept of anarchism as to claim
the opposite.
F: Whatever.
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 7:34 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the
rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor
of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business,
that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto
necessitate state government.
F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes
the political state and states must have governments. The problem
is that these states are not autonomous, i.e., they are subject
to economic interests and pressure. A basic element of 3-fold
is to change this, not eliminate the state.
Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state.
On the contrary, he participated in the Indian parliament. He
held the view, however, that if a healthy social structure is
built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the need for police,
military, state government etc. will be severely reduced. And
if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government
and police and so on may be possible some day.
The problem with political ideologies is that
the followers believe in changing everything overnight, creating
a paradise on earth of their own making, and this always fails
and leads to chaos or to the total elimination of individual
liberty. The same goes for anarchism if it is thought of as a
political ideology. But if anarchism is thought of in "anarchosophical"
terms and thereby spiritualized, it simply means the recognition
of oneself as an anarchist: Someone who does not succumb to tyranny
or recognize any authority. The tyranny is not always external,
although those who wield the power behind external, political
tyranny know how to manipulate and exploit man's inner tyrants
as well.
T. It's amazing how many people bend over
backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear,
just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner
was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he
was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
F: Since this is a dispute between me and
thee, I must disappointedly conclude that you include me in the
"many people".
I'm sorry it came out that way. What I had
in mind was a few provocative arguments I wrote in my 1996 article
about RS in an anarchist magazine. In other words, the following
was written for anarchist readers (before "anarchosophy"
was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's anthroposophy
is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois" anthroposophists
like it or not:
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
The core of anthroposophical
philosophy is thoroughly anarchistic. This is not so easy to
discern, because Rudolf Steiner's basic view can be very challenging
to get to the bottom of. Most anthroposophists choose what appeals
to them and suppress the rest. Most overlooked of all is the
anarchism. This is why we have seen so many authority-loving
and power-hungry bourgeois anthroposophists who have not discovered
that they are sitting on a revolutionary megabomb.
And:
Mackay's theoretical anarchism
had many features in common with The Philosophy of Freedom. Steiner
believed, however, that he had shown in his book that thinking
was a spiritual activity and that the human spirit could create
free actions only through a developed thinking. It is probable
that Mackay could not understand this concept of Steiner - there
was in fact nobody who understood it at that time - but he seems
to have been closer to Steiner in other areas.
Mackay had political ambitions
with his theories, and he wanted Steiner's support and cooperation.
It was a time when Steiner presented his ethical individualism
as a political ideal, and it looks as if he felt tempted to use
his own philosophy as a platform for Mackay's political dreams.
His description of this episode in his autobiography 30 years
later makes it clear that he experienced the inclination as a
temptation or spiritual trial:
"Through my experience
with J.H. Mackay and Stirner, my destiny caused me once more
to enter a world of thought where I had to go through a spiritual
test. Ethical individualism, as I had elaborated it, is the reality
of moral life experienced purely within the human soul. Nothing
was further from my intention in elaborating this conception
than to make it the basis for a purely political view. But at
this time, about 1898, my soul with its conception of ethical
individualism, was to be dragged into a kind of abyss. From being
a purely individual experience within the human soul, it was
to become something theoretical and external. The esoteric was
to be diverted into the exoteric." From then onward, he
decided to tread his own paths.
Bourgeois Steiner-biographers
describe this period as a little sidestep, as a passing flirt
with anarchism, and they interpret the last quote as a goodbye
between Steiner and anarchism. This is where the anarcho-anthroposophists
protest. Because it is just as correct to present Anthroposophy
as the next stage in the evolution of anarchism and to claim
that Steiner is the one who makes anarchism a real possibility
with The Philosophy of Freedom. The anarcho-anthroposophists'
argument is, therefore, that the genuine anarchism is to be found
precisely in Anthroposophy, which is and remains a heretical
counter-culture and a rebellious dropout-society, regardless
of how various members of the fine-cultural super-bourgeoisie
wish to decorate the situation.
You can write whatever you like in your
book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't conform
to you own ideology.
What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned
quote by RS. It's like when you sit at a lecture and take notes
of certain things.
But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary
too; that's obvious from your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial
in Southern Cross Review:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm
"There are three alien
categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens and
illegal aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently
reside
legally in the United States of America, non-residents are from
other solar
systems, and "illegal aliens" is used to describe humanoids
from other
galaxies who have infiltrated the U.S."
Here you're speaking my kind of language,
Frank. But of course, there's a little bourgeois in each and
every one of us. And one such little bourgeois may even have
tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his later
years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother
used to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his
mature years, because you don't just make friends and influence
people; you're also influenced by them. And when my mother said
that, she was no youth at all, but in her early seventies. (She
passed away in '97.)
So if this little bourgeois of yours ever
tries to bother you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath
knows of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt,
which can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard
of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his
sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)
Cheers,
Tarjei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 8:50 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism
he would have risked his whole mission.
He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his
opponents could have hit him to easely,
through political means.
Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and
if he openly associated with anarchism,
it would remove the focus from the rest.
Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with
views within the anarchistic movement
which were not anthroposophic.
All these were dangers, which could endanger his mission and
destroy the anthroposophy movement.
I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer of knowledge to
those who can understand and use it,
not in itself an active and all knowing movement. It consists
of dreamers and managers which don't
change much in this world. But a few do understand (within or
outside) and interact with the rest of the world.
Kim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 10:40 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 17:50 09.11.2003, Kim wrote:
If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism
he would have risked his whole mission.
He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his
opponents could have hit him to easely, through political means.
That would have been the case if anarchism
were exclusively a political ideology rather than an existential
philosophy. Steiner thought of anarchism in the latter sense,
and this is why he was especially attracted to Max Stirner. In
the aforementioned quote with comments borrowed from Stewart
Easton's Steiner-biography, it becomes clear that the problem
with Henry Mackay's anarchism was that it was linked to a political
agenda - an agenda that endangered Steiner's mission by tempting
him.
But Steiner did not keep his organization
out of politics when the first world war was over. With the proposition
of the Threefold Social Order, Anthroposophy was right in the
middle of the political game. And once you're in the political
game, bourgeois compromises and diplomacy come into play. (Just
look at Bill Clinton, the hippie who never inhaled his marijuana,
the anti-war protester who became the commander-in-chief of the
U.S. armed forces.)
In his book "Rudolf Steiner. The Man
and His Vision," Colin Wilson, who was neither an anthroposophist
nor an anarchist, says of RS that what he was offering the people
of Europe in the midst of chaos with his Threefolding idea was
nothing other than anarchy. In other words, Steiner tried his
best to clothe as much anarchism as he could get away with into
a political agenda. And this, of course, entails severe compromises.
Anthroposophy contains a lot more than
anarchistic views and if he openly associated with anarchism,
it would remove the focus from the rest.
By the same token, it could be argued that
by openly associating with farming or with Buddhism, Christianity
or Gnosticism, other aspects of anthroposophy would be forgotten.
And there are critics, of course, who have endeavored to discredit
Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one thing or another.
But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own regardless
of such associations.
There is another aspect involved here, of
course. Anthroposophy is, and has to be, completely apolitical.
It is a path to the Spirit open to everyone regardless of vocation
(police officers, military personal, prison wardens etc.) and
political coloring, and nobody should feel alienated from this
open path because it has been hijacked by some political ideology.
In spite of this, though, I cannot help but claim that anthro-anarchism
is lightyears closer to RS and Christ-Michael than anthro-fascism,
and that in spite of the fact that the left and the right wings
of party politics should have disappeared after the 19th century,
the anthroposophical movement in the spirit of Anthroposophia
is closer to the political left than to the political right,
simply because it supports a libertarian outlook.
Anthro-anarchists have come up with the idea
that Anthroposophia has a radical sister: Anarchosophia. Then
the question arises: Is is conceivable that Anthroposophia also
has another sister, Fascistia? If so, is she good or evil?
Another risk was, that anthroposophy could
be associated with views within the anarchistic movement which
were not anthroposophic.
The anarchistic movement does not hold a monopoly
on posing a risk like that to the anthroposophical movement.
As I see it today, the greatest danger in our time is that anthroposophy
is becoming associated with views from the fascist camp, from
the radical right, the Christian coalition and so on. There are
other anthro-lists testifying to this, and there are critics'
lists capitalizing on this claim in order to destroy anthroposophy.
All these were dangers, which could endanger
his mission and destroy the anthroposophy movement.
The dangers are still with the movement, but
the tables have turned. Rudolf Steiner is no longer a Zionist
bolshevik Jew. He is a Nazi-fascist racist anti-Semite. In Steiner's
lifetime, association with anarchism posed a danger because it
had certain common roots with Communism, which was seen as a
Jewish conspiracy plot. Today, RS and anthroposophy are being
portrayed as the opposite, as a force from the extreme right.
I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer
of knowledge to those who can understand and use it, not in itself
an active and all knowing movement.
As a path to the Spirit, the movement must
be more than a bearer of ideas and of knowledge. It must be an
impulse that awakens life in such a way that the indivuidual
acquires knowledge and wisdom from self-chosen sources. Without
being too cognizant of WE, I believe this is the aim of Waldorf:
To hellp develop self-dependence and individual power of judgement
among young people.
I also believe that the gods are anarchists.
That is why I write in my aforementioned article:
"[Steiner's] theism is
thoroughly anarchistic. The innumerable gods are man's creators,
but they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall
become mature and self-dependent enough to make it on our own.
The gods are in other words anarchists. The free spirit in man,
the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of creation."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 1:27 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism
he would have risked his whole mission.
He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his
opponents could have hit him to easely, through political means.
That would have been the case if anarchism
were exclusively a political ideology rather than an existential
philosophy. Steiner thought of anarchism in the latter sense,
and this is why he was especially attracted to Max Stirner. In
the aforementioned quote with comments borrowed from Stewart
Easton's Steiner-biography, it becomes clear that the problem
with Henry Mackay's anarchism was that it was linked to a political
agenda - an agenda that endangered Steiner's mission by tempting
him.
K: Philosophers would know, if they wanted to, politicians might,
but people as a whole would not.
But Steiner did not keep his organization
out of politics when the first world war was over. With the proposition
of the Threefold Social Order, Anthroposophy was right in the
middle of the political game. And once you're in the political
game, bourgeois compromises and diplomacy come into play. (Just
look at Bill Clinton, the hippie who never inhaled his marijuana,
the anti-war protester who became the commander-in-chief of the
U.S. armed forces.)
In his book "Rudolf Steiner. The Man and His Vision,"
Colin Wilson, who was neither an anthroposophist nor an anarchist,
says of RS that what he was offering the people of Europe in
the midst of chaos with his Threefolding idea was nothing other
than anarchy. In other words, Steiner tried his best to clothe
as much anarchism as he could get away with into a political
agenda. And this, of course, entails severe compromises.
K: He tried to persuade the political forces,
as a scientist, a philosopher, but not as a politician.
His weapon was ideas, not power. In that way he did not directly
oppose the ahrimanic forces
(political powers), but mainly the luciferic forces (political
ideas), which both could be against
or with him, and which might have swayed the political powers.
But they could not change the minds
of those in power, as they would lose their power, if they followed
his ideas.
Anthroposophy contains a lot more than
anarchistic views and if he openly associated with anarchism,
it would remove the focus from the rest.
By the same token, it could be argued that
by openly associating with farming or with Buddhism, Christianity
or Gnosticism, other aspects of anthroposophy would be forgotten.
And there are critics, of course, who have endeavored to discredit
Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one thing or another.
But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own regardless
of such associations.
K: Those areas are kept within the scientific
research, and is as such not within the political area of power.
There is another aspect involved here,
of course. Anthroposophy is, and has to be, completely apolitical.
It is a path to the Spirit open to everyone regardless of vocation
(police officers, military personal, prison wardens etc.) and
political coloring, and nobody should feel alienated from this
open path because it has been hijacked by some political ideology
(K: Right) .
In spite of this, though, I cannot help
but claim that anthro-anarchism is lightyears closer to RS and
Christ-Michael than anthro-fascism, and that in spite of the
fact that the left and the right wings of party politics should
have disappeared after the 19th century, the anthroposophical
movement in the spirit of Anthroposophia is closer to the political
left than to the political right, simply because it supports
a libertarian outlook.
Anthro-anarchists have come up with the idea that Anthroposophia
has a radical sister: Anarchosophia. Then the question arises:
Is is conceivable that Anthroposophia also has another sister,
Fascistia? If so, is she good or evil?
K: I don't understand why you want to relate
anarchism with ideologies. As I see Anarchism, it is to let people
themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives.
The ideologies behind both the political left and the political
right is luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without
any regard to the individual. I see the politicians on both left
and right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they
had power enough they could make paradise on earth, at least
for themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.
Another risk was, that anthroposophy could
be associated with views within the anarchistic movement which
were not anthroposophic.
The anarchistic movement does not hold
a monopoly on posing a risk like that to the anthroposophical
movement. As I see it today, the greatest danger in our time
is that anthroposophy is becoming associated with views from
the fascist camp, from the radical right, the Christian coalition
and so on. There are other anthro-lists testifying to this, and
there are critics' lists capitalizing on this claim in order
to destroy anthroposophy.
All these were dangers, which could endanger
his mission and destroy the anthroposophy movement.
The dangers are still with the movement,
but the tables have turned. Rudolf Steiner is no longer a Zionist
bolshevik Jew. He is a Nazi-fascist racist anti-Semite. In Steiner's
lifetime, association with anarchism posed a danger because it
had certain common roots with Communism, which was seen as a
Jewish conspiracy plot. Today, RS and anthroposophy are being
portrayed as the opposite, as a force from the extreme right.
K: Yes, and sometime in the future it will
be something else. When the children of today grow older, they
have to create something else to use. That is part of the luciferic
game. The ahrimanic game is a lot worse, in that it tries to
change the minds to a materialistic view which cannot incorporate
the anthroposophic ideas.
I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer
of knowledge to those who can understand and use it, not in itself
an active and all knowing movement.
As a path to the Spirit, the movement must
be more than a bearer of ideas and of knowledge. It must be an
impulse that awakens life in such a way that the indivuidual
acquires knowledge and wisdom from self-chosen sources. Without
being too cognizant of WE, I believe this is the aim of Waldorf:
To hellp develop self-dependence and individual power of judgement
among young people.
K: I agree and it's also what I mean with
bearer of knowledge. With 'not active' I mean that they are not
changing the physical realities in the world directly. By 'all
knowing' I partly mean that they are not trying to indoctrinate
their view on other's, partly that nobody is all knowing. Or
in other words, they are not political active.
I also believe that the gods are anarchists.
That is why I write in my aforementioned article:
"[Steiner's] theism
is thoroughly anarchistic. The innumerable gods are man's creators,
but they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall
become mature and self-dependent enough to make it on our own.
The gods are in other words anarchists. The free spirit in man,
the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of creation."
K: I agree so far that it is part of the lesson
on the earth: Love to all created, including ourselves.
Cheers,
Kim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 1:45 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
Tarjei wrote:
At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the
rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor
of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business,
that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto
necessitate state government.
F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes
the political state and states must have governments. The problem
is that these states are not autonomous, i.e., they are subject
to economic interests and pressure. A basic element of 3-fold
is to change this, not eliminate the state.
T: Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate
the state. On the contrary, he participated in the Indian parliament.
He held the view, however, that if a healthy social structure
is built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the need for police,
military, state government etc. will be severely reduced. And
if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government
and police and so on may be possible some day.
F: I agree with Gandhi, especially the last
5 words.
(snip)
T. It's amazing how many people bend over
backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear,
just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner
was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he
was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
F: Since this is a dispute between me and
thee, I must disappointedly conclude that you include me in the
"many people".
I'm sorry it came out that way. What I
had in mind was a few provocative arguments I wrote in my 1996
article about RS in an anarchist magazine. In other words, the
following was written for anarchist readers (before "anarchosophy"
was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's anthroposophy
is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois" anthroposophists
like it or not:
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may
request it for the Dec. issue of SCR, with, for the first time:
"the contents of this article are those of the author and
SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have money
to pay the lawyers."
F: You can write whatever you like in your
book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't conform
to you own ideology.
T: What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned
quote by RS. It's like when you sit at a lecture and take notes
of certain things.
T: But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary
too; that's obvious from your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial
in Southern Cross Review:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm
"There are three alien
categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens and illegal
aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently
reside legally in the United States of America, non-residents
are from other solar systems, and "illegal aliens"
is used to describe humanoids from other galaxies who have infiltrated
the U.S."
Here you're speaking my kind of language,
Frank. But of course, there's a little bourgeois in each and
every one of us. And one such little bourgeois may even have
tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his later
years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother
used to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his
mature years, because you don't just make friends and influence
people; you're also influenced by them. And when my mother said
that, she was no youth at all, but in her early seventies. (She
passed away in '97.)
I'd rather be bourgeois than poor, despìte
the camel.
So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you
and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows
of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which
can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard of
a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his sleep,
dreaming it was a mean rat.)
How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would
that cure me?
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 2:59 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 22:45 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
F: hmm. Actually I like the article and
may request it for the Dec. issue of SCR, with, for the first
time: "the contents of this article are those of the author
and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have
money to pay the lawyers."
Well, I would have to go through the text
carefully first. You see, I wrote it in Norwegian, taking my
sweet time, and I was pleased with how it came out. I had worked
really hard with it -so hard that I considered it difficult to
transkate, because it meant I would have to re-live it and write
it afresh so to speak. In spite of this, I translated it into
English in a hurry while in the middle of a dispute with Peter
Staudenmaier on the WC list. Calling himself an anarchist, Peter
S always insists that anthroposophy is a fascist right wing ideology
and that anthroposophists are, ipso facto, fascist right wingers.
And of course he scoffs at the suggestion that RS could have
been an anarchist. No, that was when he was a rational atheist
as well, before he went nuts by embracing Blavatsky's theosophy.
So I translated my anthro-anarchism article into English in a
jiffy so I could throw a link at Peter.
Don't get me wrong: The translation is not
bad, but it's hurried, and for this reason, I'd like to bring
it up to the same standard as the original.
So if this little bourgeois of yours ever
tries to bother you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath
knows of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt,
which can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard
of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his
sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)
How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would
that cure me?
Frank
Good grief, now *you* sound like "one
of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on you!
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:15 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 22:45 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
F: hmm. Actually I like the article and
may request it for the Dec. issue of SCR, with, for the first
time: "the contents of this article are those of the author
and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have
money to pay the lawyers."
(snip)
Don't get me wrong: The translation is
not bad, but it's hurried, and for this reason, I'd like to bring
it up to the same standard as the original.
Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see
if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article there
may be too many, especially if your point is made with less.
So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother
you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows
of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which
can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard of
a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his sleep,
dreaming it was a mean rat.)
How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would
that cure me?
Frank
Good grief, now *you* sound like "one
of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on you!
It's contagious you see. That's why I jumped ship after my last
bomb there.
Btw, fruitcake is also contagious.
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:55 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 22:27 09.11.2003, Kim wrote:
K: He tried to persuade the political forces,
as a scientist, a philosopher, but not as a politician. His weapon
was ideas, not power. In that way he did not directly oppose
the ahrimanic forces (political powers), but mainly the luciferic
forces (political ideas), which both could be against or with
him, and which might have swayed the political powers. But they
could not change the minds of those in power, as they would lose
their power, if they followed his ideas.
I think you hit the bull's eye with that analysis.
The paradox here is that the social ideas of Steiner, which were
based upon keen spiritual-scientific insight and the inviolable
autonomy of the individual human being, constitute in their consequence
a threat to the established order, the power structure, "the
Establishment." What the Establishment does in a case like
that, is to incorporate such revolutionary ideas gradually while
pulling the fangs out of them so to speak, rendering them harmless
to the oligarchy. The same thing happened after the 1960's in
America.
[Tarjei]
By the same token, it could be argued that
by openly associating with farming or with Buddhism, Christianity
or Gnosticism, other aspects of anthroposophy would be forgotten.
And there are critics, of course, who have endeavored to discredit
Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one thing or another.
But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own regardless
of such associations.
[Kim]
K: Those areas are kept within the scientific
research, and is as such not within the political area of power.
Of course, but if you take another look at
your own accurate analysis above, the conclusion ought to be
that Steiner's "political" ideas were not at all political,
but spiritual-scientific. Sophia just posted a beautiful quote
by the anarchist Ben Tucker that is highly idealistic without
being overtly political either. And it was this kind of idealism
in Tucker that made Steiner proclaim him to be "the greatest
champion of freedom in our time."
According to the line of reasoning you suggest
here, everything related to religion could be construed in the
same way as politics, because the influence of religion upon
politics, or religion as a tool for political power, had not
really outlived its role until the middle of the 20th century.
So there are critics who claim that everything Steiner did in
the religious realm was a power trip, and that his meddling in
politics after the big war proves it beyond doubt.
K: I don't understand why you want to relate
anarchism with ideologies.
You're losing me semantically here. Anarchism
_is_ an ideology:
http://liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com/id31.htm
"One issue that remains
unresolved within the anarchist movement revolves around the
nature of anarchists themselves. If you've perused these pages,
you by now know about social anarchism versus lifestyle anarchism
as the most public schism among anarchists, with the latter deriding
class struggle as fruitless, pointless, and irrelevant, and the
former declaring that the latter aren't anarchists at all, but
are rather bourgeois poseurs."
Personally, I belong to the latter of the
two categories above, and I believe this was also Steiner's understanding
of his own anarchism.
As I see Anarchism, it is to let people
themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives.
Exactly. Live and let live and don't try to
control the lives of others. That's not politics; it's common
sense.
The ideologies behind both the political
left and the political right is luciferic, more or less beautiful
constructions without any regard to the individual.
True. That's why real anarchism is neither
left nor right, it is completely apolitical and philosophical;
and this is how you arrive at "anarchosophy."
I see the politicians on both left and
right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they had
power enough they could make paradise on earth, at least for
themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.
Exactly.
But let's get back to Lucifer here. The revolutionary
spirit is of necessity luciferic. Check out my article about
this dynamite (no pun intended) subject at http://www.uncletaz.com/childlucifer.html
and enjoy.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:57 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
Hello Tarjei
...
[Kim]
K: Those areas are kept within the scientific
research, and is as such not within the political area of power.
Of course, but if you take another look
at your own accurate analysis above, the conclusion ought to
be that Steiner's "political" ideas were not at all
political, but spiritual-scientific. Sophia just posted a beautiful
quote by the anarchist Ben Tucker that is highly idealistic without
being overtly political either. And it was this kind of idealism
in Tucker that made Steiner proclaim him to be "the greatest
champion of freedom in our time."
According to the line of reasoning you
suggest here, everything related to religion could be construed
in the same way as politics, because the influence of religion
upon politics, or religion as a tool for political power, had
not really outlived its role until the middle of the 20th century.
So there are critics who claim that everything Steiner did in
the religious realm was a power trip, and that his meddling in
politics after the big war proves it beyond doubt.
[Kim]
Well, what 'critics can claim' don't mean that they are right.
One of the things I have learnt in this life is that because
everyone means something else they are not necessarily right
(learnt while working i large corporations). Ideas are not political
in themselves, all ideas could influence the world (ie eat your
food, think of the hungry in africa). An idea is political when
it takes physical form (lucifer inspires ahriman).
K: I don't understand why you want to relate
anarchism with ideologies.
You're losing me semantically here. Anarchism
_is_ an ideology:
http://liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com/id31.htm
...
As I see Anarchism, it is to let people
themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives.
Exactly. Live and let live and don't try
to control the lives of others. That's not politics; it's common
sense.
[Kim] Precisely, and common sence is common
sence (individual thinking) and is absolutely not 'political'.
The ideologies behind both the political left and the political
right is luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without
any regard to the individual.
True. That's why real anarchism is neither
left nor right, it is completely
apolitical and philosophical; and this is how you arrive at "anarchosophy."
I see the politicians on both left and
right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they had
power enough they could make paradise on earth, at least for
themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.
Exactly.
But let's get back to Lucifer here. The
revolutionary spirit is of necessity luciferic. Check out my
article about this dynamite (no pun intended) subject at http://www.uncletaz.com/childlucifer.html
and enjoy.
[Kim]
Now we has arrived at the fun part!
From your article:
One of the problems with "old
age" orthodox religions, especially Christianity and Islam
with their explosive and potentially violent fundamentalism,
is a one-sided dualism that excludes a proper understanding and
appreciation for mythology.
[Kim] Here we have a connection with the other
discussion about Islam. Ther first centuries Christianity was
not orthodox, but the arabian world influenced the christian
world on many areas. They returned a lot of the greek ideas back
to the west. Their ideas of the one and only fathergod (back
to duality, good and bad) and their religious law system also
percolated to the west, giving the fundament for the strong political
church.
In the case of Christianity,
the claim is made that Yahve was a kind and benevolent deity
above reproach who even is supposed to be endowed with omniscience
and omnipotence.
[Kim] Here we talk about the father God of
the old testhament, who were God for the Jew's, learning them
to be good citizens. His job was to destroy the anarchic tendencies.
And in that form, he has nothing to do with Christianity. Lucifer
fought against this, and made the seed for the lower ego.Ahriman
has no great role in the play, while his powers was familiar
to the God of the jews. Christ took over as God for the whole
earth, to continue the education, but now moving toward an anarchistic
world with people who has learned to tolerate each other under
the old law. Ahriman tries to continue the old principles in
the new era, and thereby working against the evolution.
What I'm getting at here is
that Lucifer, which means "Light Bearer,"
[Kim] Isn't Christ called the True Light Bearer?
also known as the Angel of
Light, is confused with Ahriman or Satan, and for this reason
he is supposed to be a liar. But this is not true. Lucifer is
the bringer of ancient wisdom (the serpent has always been the
symbol of wisdom in Oriental tradition), of freedom and independence,
and of knowledge of good and evil which gave man the potential
to become a god in his own right. This is confirmed not only
by Christ himself in John 10:34, but even more poignantly by
Helena Blavatsky, who went so far as to claim that Jahve was
the evil god out to enslave humanity while Lucifer was the benevolent
liberator.
[Kim]
Here we are at one of the biggest problems today, that is the
relation between Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman.
One of the most potent scenes in the bible is the picture with
Christ between the two robbers. The one to the right accepts
Christ and the one on the left don't.
On the right we have lucifer, he accepts Christ, their powers
are familiar with Christ as the true light bearer. On the Left
we have ahriman, the primary opponent in the new era, where lucifer
where the primary opponent in the old era.
Christ is between those two, in the euilibrium between Absolute
Order to the left and Absolute Chaos to the right, representing
life in the middle.
This is not a purely psychic thing it is also physical reality.
In the later years there have been some interesting research
in the chaos theories, and life is defined as an equilibrium
between absolute order and absolute chaos. In our physical world
it can be seen as gravitation as the power of order and the thermodynamics
as the power of chaos.
This equilibrium is the golden road through life, or dharma.
The Yin/Yang symbol is the symbol of order and chaos, not the
symbol of good and bad. Good is the line parting chaos and order.
Good versus bad is an islamic dualistic idea, which is much liked
by Ahriman. If you are against Ahriman you are for Lucifer (and
indirectly for Ahriman), and if you are against Lucifer then
you must be for Ahriman, and in both cases not for Christ, and
its simple to associate Christ with ones own preferences,
RS has written about it, but i don't remember where, and Rosicrusians
of the European school have also.
Cheers,
Kim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:15 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 13:15 10.11.2003, Frank wrote:
[Tarjei]
Don't get me wrong: The translation is
not bad, but it's hurried, and for this reason, I'd like to bring
it up to the same standard as the original.
[Frank]
Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you
see if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article
there may be too many, especially if your point is made with
less.
For an _anthroposophical_ publication, it
would have to be re-written. It was written for _anarchists_
in an anarchist magazine. I had been working with fellow anarchists
- well, with people attracted to anarchism (none of us ever agreed
what anarchism is), and among these, I was the only person with
a Christian outlook. The others were very anti-Christian. They
were atheists or orientalists who frequently travelled to India.
And I discovered how privileged I was to be among people with
such a rich variety of outlooks and philosophies with a common
interest in liberty, avant-garde, anarchism, non-conformity,
and counter-culture. It has made me totally non-sectarian and
non-conformist what anthroposophy is concerned, because I had
to defend it as my personal individual view against the sharpest
criticism from people who were my closest friends. And they gave
me a free hand to express my views in our magazine.
The first piece I wrote in this vein was an
article about Christian anarchism entitled "Christos
Anarchos" (in Norwegian). This is one of those articles
I cannot translate into English because I've borrowed heavily
from books that were lent to me (in this case, Peter Marshall's
"Demanding the Impossible" and other sources), and
I can't translate it back into the language in which it was written
without doing a gross injustice to the credited authors.
The second article was about Rudolf Steiner's
anarchism, entitled "Anthropos
Anarchos" (the N. original). Because it was written
for anarchists unfamiliar with the radical message embedded in
the PoF, my main argument was:
"For an anarchist, Steiner
can be as relevant as Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner, or Tolstoy."
If my argument about the PoF being the real
Bible of Anarchism is to be presented to anthroposophical readers,
the article at hand would have to be completely re-written (although
students at Steinerhøyskolen - the institution that trains
Norwegian Waldorf teachers - told me when I ran into them in
a bar shortly after publication that they would paste the article
on the school's bulletin board. Bet some teachers tore it down,
but I also received enthusiastic phone calls from other students
(future Waldorf teachers) who experienced the article as a breath
of fresh air.
Good grief, now *you* sound like "one
of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on you!
It's contagious you see. That's why I jumped
ship after my last bomb there.
Btw, fruitcake is also contagious.
This reminds me: "Anthroposophy Tomorrow"
is a wide open forum based upon the principle of free speech
and choice of topic. I would like to suggest that the moderator
clarifies our policy with regard to the possibility of hardcore
critics signing up and posting here.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:28 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review
is *not* an anthropsophical publication, but an e-review of literature,
education, book reviews, science, current events _and_ anthroposophy.
It's just one of the sections.
Frank
Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you
see if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article
there may be too many, especially if your point is made with
less.
For an _anthroposophical_ publication,
it would have to be re-written.
(snip)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:53 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 00:28 12.11.2003, Frank wrote:
Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review
is *not* an anthropsophical publication, but an e-review of literature,
education, book reviews, science, current events _and_ anthroposophy.
It's just one of the sections.
I understand. On my own website, anthroposophy
is also just one of the sections. Thanks for the clarification.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:04 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy
At 00:57 11.11.2003, Kim wrote:
[Kim]
Well, what 'critics can claim' don't mean that they are right.
One of the things I have learnt in this life is that because
everyone means something else they are not necessarily right
(learnt while working i large corporations). Ideas are not political
in themselves, all ideas could influence the world (ie eat your
food, think of the hungry in africa). An idea is political when
it takes physical form (lucifer inspires ahriman).
This reminds me of a funny dialogue from the
musical "Fiddler on the Roof." It's about matchmaking,
love and marriage among young Russian Jews, and one of the courtships
proceeds as follows:
He: May I ask you a political question?
She: What's that?
He: Will you marry me?
She: Is that a political question?
He: Everything is political!
Earler, you expressed concern about how people
might react to Steiner's mixture of anthroposophy and anarchism.
This reminds me of one of my favorite countrymen of yours, Piet
Hein, whose "gruks" [short limericks] became legendary
and enjoyed wide popularity:
En ting som røver manges
ro,
er problemet om hvad folk må tro,
til det er der kun ét at sige til -
folk må tro hvad fa'en de vil.
[Kim] Now we has arrived at the fun part!
The fun part about "Children of Lucifer"
is the mails I've received from furious christian fundies, calling
me a Satan-worshipper and promising me eternal hellfire.
[Kim] Isn't Christ called the True Light
Bearer?
Lucifer means Light Bearer, and with this
in mind, RS published his Akasha-Chronicles ("Cosmic Memory")
in a magazine called "Luzifer-Gnosis" (The Wisdom of
Lucifer). In one of his many lectures about life between death
and rebirth, RS tells us that on the other side of the threshold,
i.e. between death and rebirth, Lucifer does not have a harmful
influence on man; on the contrary, he is our guide through the
Zodiac, indistiguishable from Christ, being his twin brother
so to speak. Lucifer is only potentially harmful to man between
birth and death.
Check out my Norwegian article, "Christos
Anarchos"
Det er fullt ut forsvarlig
å vifte anarkismens sorte flagg med den ene
armen og Kristi sverd med den andre så lenge det kun er
snakk om Kristus
som åndelig revolusjonær frigjører. Kristus
som konge hører kirken til og
Kristus som lærer hører losjene til. I anarkistisk
forstand kan det aldri
være snakk om Kristus som noen som helst belærende
autoritet.
Den anarkistiske Kristus er
en luciferisk Kristus. Den åndsbevisste
anarkist er en gud i sin egen rett. Han er sin egen Kristus akkurat
som den
Førstefødte i Palestina. I denne forstand blir
den historiske Jesus fra
Nazareth ingen autoritet, men en inspirasjon. Denne åndsretningen
innenfor
anarkismen kan kalles esoterisk eksistensialisme.
Good versus bad is an islamic dualistic
idea, which is mutch liked by Ahriman. If you are against Ahriman
you are for Lucifer (and indirectly for Ahriman), and if you
are against Lucifer then you must be for Ahriman, and in both
cases not for Christ, and its simple to associate Christ with
ones own preferences,
True. I'll try to get around to corroborating
this in a response to Dottie's latest post about Islam.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
