I rejoined the list because I thought your invitation for a 12 Nights study was
meaningful, and then when no one seemed interested and you started it alone, I
felt inspired to extend my goodwill in your effort.  I am most interested in
this subject, and rest assured that I am not attempting intentionally to be
contentious.  My participation in the recent past on Steiner's PoF speaks for
itself.

Steiner's characterizing of anthroposophy as arising out of the left-wing camp
of the "exotericists", who seek to have spiritual truths told, but with the
caveat of a 'special aim',such as the Indian occultists, and the Catholic High
Church party, was meant to indicate that he sought to provide the fullest and
most honest presentation of spiritual knowledge without any conditions or
restrictions other than the truths not yet able to be told.

I find that the threefolding of the social order gains much by an ancillary
consideration of the threefolded human soul members which are duly impacted in
the struggle for a properly guided society based on the absolute validity of
these objectives for a balanced and harmonious world.

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
>
> ******* Juan, when I saw you just re-joined this list I figured I'd let you
have another chance to participate. But what you just wrote is saying black is
white.  An absolute requirement for anthroposophy is clear thinking--- which is
what I've tried to do here...  To wit--i                               .
.
Fact #1.  Steiner says "socialists"  (I said "left-wingers") --- this means
those who want the government to take over the economy, be they in the US, in
Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, Argentina or wherever. You just read Steiner in plain
English explaining why this is wrong, always creates disaster and must not exist
in a healthy society. You can go back and read him state from Pt. 1 on
repeatedly, and why.                                             Fact # 2.
Libertarians, conservatives and anti-leftists want freedom of people
economically from government control--- once again whether in the US, Romania or
wherever. (The only way I can think of that anyone could say US conservatives
want ANY government control is restricting abortion-- which is a tiny fraction
of the economy and which many libertarians, unlike religious conservatives,
don't mind.)                                                    So Steiner's
idea of separating the government and the economy is absolutely against one
side, the Left, and very much embraced by the other---  and my point is all
leftists MUST oppose the threefold social order, they're mutual opposites.
.
I have no idea what a "left wing of esoteric propagation" is supposed to mean
but it sounds to me like some words (presumably of Steiner's, though I don't
recall seeing them in 35 years of study), which have nothing to do with our
subject which is his Threefold Social Order writings.
Steiner just said here, clearly, that there's nothing wrong with concentrations
of economic power and that economic titans must run the economy, that the
problem is when they become entangled with government and so the economy and the
State must be kept separate, THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM but a cardinal
belief of the right, free-market or laissez-faire capitalism. Religious
conservatives also believe in the importance of his third, independent spiritual
sphere, they just don't have it defined as clearly. Marxism and socialism is
totally against all of it. So it appears to me from Steiner's clear words.
-starman
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 05:18:48
> To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 8: Commentary
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> With assurances for success in this New Year, which will mark 600 years since
the 5th cultural epoch began in 1413, let us remember that it was Rudolf Steiner
himself who designated his movement as one involving the left-wing of esoteric
propagation. His reasoning concerned the fact that the leftists always have a
special aim for their agenda, and his was to bring forth esoteric knowledge with
as much truth, and as few restrictions, as possible.
> Accordingly, the right-wing wants to hold as much for itself as possible. If
it was up to them, we would know nothing more than the debt-ridden and menial
existence which exacts to a lower-class society of lesser humans. In other
words, the rightists have their own aims, which involves the lawyers and the
politicians and the lobbyists, and all designed to protect the few who hold the
riches in their greedy grasp as if nothing else existed to make real sense of
the world and its inherent struggle and striving.
> A perspective on "Threefolding of the Social Organism" must recognize a Right
as much as a Left. The reason concerns the important fact that there is a Middle
Term. It is the One that extends the 'Rights Life' to both the left and the
right.
> Equanimity is the outcome.
>  
> --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
>  
> > "If... the legal system grows up on independent ground out
> > of the consciousness of rights, and if the will of the individual dwelling
in
> > the spirit is developed in a free cultural life, then the legal system,
> > strength of spirit and economic activity work together as a unity. They will
be
> > able to do so when they can develop, each according to its own proper
nature,
> > in distinct fields of life. It is just in separation that they will turn to
> > unity; when an artificial unity is imposed, they become estranged.
> >
> >
> > Many socialist thinkers will thus dismiss such a view: "It is
> > impossible to bring about satisfactory conditions through this organic
> > formation of society. It can be done only through a suitable economic
> > organization." They overlook the fact that those who work in their economic
> > organization are endowed with wills. If one tells them this, they will
smile,
> > for they regard it as self-evident. Yet their thoughts are busy constructing
a
> > social edifice in which this "self-evident fact" is ignored. Their economic
> > organization is to be controlled by a communal will. However, this must
after
> > all be the result of the individual wills of the people united in the
> > organization. These individual wills can never take effect if the communal
will
> > is derived entirely from the idea of economic organization. Individual wills
> > can expand unfettered if, alongside the economic sphere, there is a legal
> > sphere where the standard is set, not by any economic point of view, but
only
> > by the consciousness of rights, and if, alongside both the economic and
legal
> > spheres, a free cultural life can find place, following only the impulses of
> > the spirit. Then we shall not have a social order running like clockwork, in
> > which individual wills could never find a lasting place....
> >
> > ******Which is what we have gotten in every place socialism was imposed---
not LESS alienation from society, but MORE. The only reason I can think of
anthroposophists still being leftists is that they either haven't really read
Steiner's threefold Social Order works, or they've only seen the distortions of
him by other leftist anthros ---who are in denial that he declares that it, by
its nature, will always have to be the disaster it's so far always proven itself
to be.
> >
> > "...Then human beings will
> > find it possible to give their wills a social bent and to bring them
constantly
> > to bear on the shaping of social circumstances. Under the free cultural life
> > the individual will shall become social. When legal institutions are
> > self-subsisting, these socially attuned individual wills shall yield a
communal
> > will that works justly. The individual wills, socially oriented and
organized
> > by the independent legal system, will exert themselves within the economic
> > system, producing and distributing goods as social needs demand.
> >
> > Most people today still lack faith in the possibility of
> > establishing a social order based on individual wills. They have no faith in
it
> > because such a faith cannot come from a cultural life that has developed in
> > dependence on the state and the economy...
> >
> > *******If that's where all your ideas come from, you see no support for the
free spiritual life and the other 2 spheres being independent and free as
well... so why complain about the economy and the government and seek remedies
only within the economy and the government? Because that's how we're trained to
think in government schools by unimaginative bureaucrats. A free spirit I knew
named Robert Kennedy used to quote George Bernard Shaw: "Some men see things as
they are and say 'Why?'---I dream things that never were, and say, "Why not?"
Another named Sting, before he forgot to follow his own advice and descended
into leftist diatribes, sang "There is no political solution to our frustrated
evolution... There's no bloody revolution... We are spirits in the material
world."
> >
> >
> > "...The kind of spirit that does not
> > develop in freedom out of the life of the spirit itself but rather out of an
> > external organization simply does not know what are the spirit's potentials.
It
> > looks about for something to guide and manage it, not knowing how the spirit
> > guides and manages itself if it can but draw its strength from its own
sources.
> > It would like to have a board of management for the spirit — a branch of the
> > economic and legal organizations — totally disregarding the fact that the
> > economy and the legal system can thrive only when permeated with the spirit
> > that is self-subsistent."
>
> > *******Or how about Paul McCartney: "Hey Jude---the movement you seek is on
your shoulders!"
> > Here's to new impulses in a New Year.-
> starman
> To Be Continued....
> >
>

Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might
explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold
society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate
in relation to the other two realms?
Thanks, Jeff

Let us consider Steiner's speech on the evening of June 9, 1920, wherein he addresses the opposition to 'Threefolding'.

Can we really say here in the west that we have a real understanding of the issues involved?  We haven't solved it yet.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/TOBS-II/19200609p01.html

Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly placed
in the middle, then the 'Rights Life' is accorded equally to the left and the
right.  This achieves balance; but only if the 'Christ Impulse' is understood
and accepted.

If not, then Lucifer takes the central position, and this has the effect of
creating a reversal, wherein Ahriman is found to the left (east), and Azuras is
found to the right (west).

And, sadly, this latter configuraton is what we have in the world today.  Make
no mistake of it.  Lucifer begets Stalin in the East; Hitler in the Center; and
Roosevelt in the West.

Thus, how could real "threefolding" have chance against these odds?

Juan


--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "jschreib26"  wrote:
>
> Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might
explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold
society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate
in relation to the other two realms?
> Thanks, Jeff
>

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: drstarman@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:46:23
To: juancompostella<juancompostella@...>
Reply-To: drstarman@...
Subject: Re: [steiner] On Propaganda of the Threefold Social Order

******* Dr. Steiner never wanted his lectures written down, and he frequently
explained why: he spoke at that particular time to that particular group of
people. The stenographic transcript is an Ahrimanic version of his living
interaction with the feelings of that specific audience that night.
When he wrote a book for the general public, by contrast,  he enunciated general
principles true for the whole world wherever they would be read for our entire
world-age.        .                      We are studying a written work and he
wrote another even longer one on the social order. You will find principles to
contemplate there which are universal and meant to be applied throughout our
world-age like his other writings, not snapshots of the 1920s situations by a
clairvoyant. I want to study what's true for our entire times here.
.                         .                                                    .
As I've mentioned before, later in the 1920s some of his followers thought there
might be an opportunity to try for a Threefold Social Order again, and they
thought they could use the same flyers and ads printed in 1919-20, but Steiner
said no, they would have to all be re-done because events were moving so fast
that they would be found to be not just years, but CENTURIES out of date! .
.                                          This also applies to quoting 1920s
remarks about Anglo-American 'dominance', which were quite normal things to say
for a German clairvoyant right after the Treaty of Versailles. but which are
hopelessly out of date in our time with the rise of Arab oil wealth, Asian power
etc.--- except of course to provide ammunition for anti-US Marxists to deceive
other anthroposophists, as I've seen them used.   ;-) .
.                                   .                            We just went
over a work for these 12 Holy Nights  that has plenty of content to be absorbed,
discussed and debated. Why not quote some of that, or his other book on the
principles, or your thoughts on these principles he gave out?
-starman
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:19:18
To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [steiner] On Propaganda of the Threefold Social Order

 




Let us consider Steiner's speech on the evening of June 9, 1920, wherein he
addresses the opposition to 'Threefolding'.
Can we really say here in the west that we have a real understanding of the
issues involved?  We haven't solved it yet.
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/TOBS-II/19200609p01.html

******** This was true in the 1940s.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:52:22
To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 9: Commentary

 



Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly placed
in the middle, then the 'Rights Life' is accorded equally to the left and the
right. This achieves balance; but only if the 'Christ Impulse' is understood and
accepted.

If not, then Lucifer takes the central position, and this has the effect of
creating a reversal, wherein Ahriman is found to the left (east), and Azuras is
found to the right (west).

And, sadly, this latter configuraton is what we have in the world today. Make no
mistake of it. Lucifer begets Stalin in the East; Hitler in the Center; and
Roosevelt in the West.

Thus, how could real "threefolding" have chance against these odds?

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com <mailto:steiner%40yahoogroups.com> , "jschreib26"
wrote:
>
> Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might
explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold
society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate
in relation to the other two realms?
> Thanks, Jeff
>

Thanks for your comments.  I just thought the lecture, along with the one from
September of 1920, indicated the kind of progression (and yet developing
opposition) to Steiner's very cogent and objective thought-plan for
threefolding, which the article you cited gave excellent demonstration of.

The idea of propaganda against threefolding principles is what Steiner saw as
the inevitable demise in his day and age.  After 1920, he largely left it to
itself and returned to more esoteric considerations for soul-spiritual
development.  But, of course, it was still a keen subject in his mind.

For my part, I cited a lecture from 11-30-19, which accords quite nicely to the
article from "The Social Future", which formed the basis of your commentaries. 
Did you know that an alternate translation exists on the RS-Archive under the
Steiner Articles section?  It possibly uses the term 'spiritual' more than yours
does, but still conveys how important a conscious spiritual renewal is in the
offing.

We would need this for success in truly producing a threefold world view in our
time.

Regards,

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman "  wrote:
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: drstarman@...
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:46:23
> To: juancompostella
> Reply-To: drstarman@...
> Subject: Re: [steiner] On Propaganda of the Threefold Social Order
>
> ******* Dr. Steiner never wanted his lectures written down, and he frequently
explained why: he spoke at that particular time to that particular group of
people. The stenographic transcript is an Ahrimanic version of his living
interaction with the feelings of that specific audience that night.
When he wrote a book for the general public, by contrast,  he enunciated general
principles true for the whole world wherever they would be read for our entire
world-age.        .                      We are studying a written work and he
wrote another even longer one on the social order. You will find principles to
contemplate there which are universal and meant to be applied throughout our
world-age like his other writings, not snapshots of the 1920s situations by a
clairvoyant. I want to study what's true for our entire times here.
.                         .                                                    .
As I've mentioned before, later in the 1920s some of his followers thought there
might be an opportunity to try for a Threefold Social Order again, and they
thought they could use the same flyers and ads printed in 1919-20, but Steiner
said no, they would have to all be re-done because events were moving so fast
that they would be found to be not just years, but CENTURIES out of date! .
.                                          This also applies to quoting 1920s
remarks about Anglo-American 'dominance', which were quite normal things to say
for a German clairvoyant right after the Treaty of Versailles. but which are
hopelessly out of date in our time with the rise of Arab oil wealth, Asian power
etc.--- except of course to provide ammunition for anti-US Marxists to deceive
other anthroposophists, as I've seen them used.   ;-) .
.                                   .                            We just went
over a work for these 12 Holy Nights  that has plenty of content to be absorbed,
discussed and debated. Why not quote some of that, or his other book on the
principles, or your thoughts on these principles he gave out?
-starman
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juancompostella
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:19:18
> To:
> Subject: [steiner] On Propaganda of the Threefold Social Order
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> Let us consider Steiner's speech on the evening of June 9, 1920, wherein he
addresses the opposition to 'Threefolding'.
> Can we really say here in the west that we have a real understanding of the
issues involved?  We haven't solved it yet.
> http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/TOBS-II/19200609p01.html
>

Yes, it was true in the 1940's.  It even goes back to the 1930's, and the
1920's, when Steiner was so concerned about the fate of the Weimar Republic at
the hands of the western powers who had inflicted the force and punishment that
eventually made Germany capitulate and accept responsibilty for causing WWI. 
This was not true, and Steiner talked about it in a lecture from April 21, 1921,
wherein he states that this was the moment when Germany gave up its will.

As a result, a commission was established by US President, Warren G. Harding,
and Germany was assessed reparation (punishment) payments in the amount of 33
billion dollars to be paid in installmnets over the next years.  Well, of
course, Germany had no ability to pay such an amount, and that is how the Weimar
Republic eventually collapsed, and made way for the dictatorship of Adolf
Hitler.

Of interest here is that the Weimar Republic was designed to be a democracy,
following the abdication of the monarchy seen with Wilhelm the Second; the
Kaiser, in November of 1918.

After twelve brutal years of rampant inflation, economic depression, impossible
reparation payments, etc., the Democratic Republic of Germany finally collapsed
in 1932, and made way for the dictatorial regime of Hitler, beginning in January
1933.

Only then did the Western Powers begin to look the other way and allow the
provisions of the Treaty of Versailles to lapse, and even be publically
repudiated by Hitler's aims to rebuild a mighty military force.

So, go figure what that means.  The 1930's is called, "the red decade" in the
United States, which is considered to have spawned the american communist
movement as a result of Roosevelt's "new deal" to build up government and make
mankind the slave of government.

Twenty consecutive years of the Democratic party (1933-1952) in power has proven
to be the basis for "the government as the ruling power over the individual",
regardless of what party rules for the usual eight years of republican or
democratic presidencies that have followed FDR.

Thus, in our scenario, he represents Azuras when Lucifer takes center-stage, and
the Christ is left out of the middle position.  The Christ Impulse must become a
conscious force in human lives.  Then, threefolding will become a natural act
out of truly objective thinking.

Juan



--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman "  wrote:
>
> ******** This was true in the 1940s.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juancompostella
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:52:22
> To:
> Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 9: Commentary
>
>  
>
>
>
> Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly
placed in the middle, then the 'Rights Life' is accorded equally to the left and
the right. This achieves balance; but only if the 'Christ Impulse' is understood
and accepted.
>
> If not, then Lucifer takes the central position, and this has the effect of
creating a reversal, wherein Ahriman is found to the left (east), and Azuras is
found to the right (west).
>
> And, sadly, this latter configuraton is what we have in the world today. Make
no mistake of it. Lucifer begets Stalin in the East; Hitler in the Center; and
Roosevelt in the West.
>
> Thus, how could real "threefolding" have chance against these odds?
>
> Juan
>
> --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com  , "jschreib26" wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might
explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold
society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate
in relation to the other two realms?
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
>

Comments, yes.  As previously stated, I believe those pivotal 20 years from 1933
to 1952 here in the United States, in terms of government expansionist aims,
were the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", regarding any
possiblity of ever scaling back government controls in favor of the individual,
and the pure rights of the free individual human being.

To achieve these three principles, a profound recognition of a moral world order
would have to occur, wherein nature necessity (economic order) would be properly
placed where it belongs.  An objective recognition of morality from the heights
of the spiritual worlds would have to infuse consciousness as an evolutionary
imperative, which is why anthroposophically-oriented spiritual science exists
for our time.

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman  wrote:
>
>  THE THREE PRINCIPLES:    The economic sphere of business, the production and
distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled
by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how
well-intentioned or 'spiritual'.    The spiritual sphere of education, the arts,
religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from
the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our
anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).     The legal-political
sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human
rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded
upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual
matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.
> Comments on these?
>

Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am
confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists
and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in
your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive.

More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on
the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans
heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big
government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed
-- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young
and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy"
fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real.

Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit
from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be
found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the
problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self
interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many
on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring
and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance,
showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary
Americans.

It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning
persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the
individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not
in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to
meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't
feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we
looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was
such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak
to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of
rights, economy and culture:

"The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the
greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own
accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to
their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own
efforts but through the efforts of others."

I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link
between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the
natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems
clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the
natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or
egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other
beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in
a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material
resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these
exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with
technologies like GMOs, for example.

The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow
of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations.
For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free
expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new
values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or
compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.

Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help
for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong
rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem --
egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify
this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced
way in a positive direction?

Again, thank you for this study.
Jeff

I have appreciated these thoughts as interpolations of Jeff's original message,
which I also found very sublime.  A continuation of this theme of "threefolding"
with considerations of the 'ahrimanic deception' will be looked forward to.

My immediate thoughts to consider concern how we have come to exclude a valid
"third party" as viable consideration in the presidential elections of the last
few cycles.  It seems that the most pressing consideration in attempting to
achieve a possible 'threefolding stance' in our time, is to demand that a valid
'third choice' be proffered for those that once remember how the debates once
had this third choice, which has effectively been negated since LaRouche was
imprisoned by HW in early 1989, which disabled the Libertarian party from
consideration; and then, in 1992, with Ross Perot, who was making strides
against Clinton and Bush, and then had an unusual situation occur that forced
him out of the race.

Politics will always require a third choice.  We had it once, and not too long
ago even, but it has been absorbed by the two-party system, which enables the
left-right swing to be easily manipulated by the forces that exist to effect
these swings.  Does that make sense to anyone?

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am
confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists
and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in
your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
>
> *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the
series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm
going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all
right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
>     I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists,
just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by
politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found
Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013
yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider
them as Lenin did, "useful idiots."  To the evil crooks who would destroy our
country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared
instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home
and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes
(Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-)
. I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will
not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place
in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not
much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they
should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening
silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for
which thank God!).
>      Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who
wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would
ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently
made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/  and also
http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again
Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often
hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out
the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody
was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and
bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all
representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go
to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing
were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely
to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation?  I said
it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of
judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro.     As to the issue of
homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul
illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when
growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed
until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me
whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for
years.
>
>
>
>
>
> More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those
on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay
leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach
of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate
greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the
young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew
"Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
>
> *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate
greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be
incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want
someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan.  People
who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone
should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own
business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just
stay static.
>    We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating
economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our
modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants
against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger
and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much
less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being
egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just
tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't
compete with its Search engine dominance!)
>    But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING
WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all
knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not
for the media!!!  When people say things like that, what can any sane person
reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized
the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly
benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that
connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of
themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business
pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of
individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right
as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the
last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the
problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
>
> ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted
by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed,
only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he
was charitable and generous.   There would be no businesses without egoism and
ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are
the most generous people I've ever met.   So NO. The problem is not economics,
and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The
problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the
wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap
monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions.
http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html         Leftists CREATE the
problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
>
>
>
>
> It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning
persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the
individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not
in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to
meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't
feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we
looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was
such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak
to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of
rights, economy and culture:
>
> "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the
greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own
accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to
their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own
efforts but through the efforts of others."
>
> *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described
realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working
"selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and
"self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article
about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a
whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses.     It's elementary
economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker
don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF
SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the
other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as
they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less),
and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free
market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from
the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can
see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders.   What the Social Law
said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to
do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a
free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize
the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism
or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything
from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
>
>
>
>
>
> I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link
between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the
natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems
clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the
natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or
egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other
beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in
a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material
resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these
exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with
technologies like GMOs, for example.
>
> The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free
flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching
regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the
free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new
values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or
compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
>
> Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help
for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong
rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem --
egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify
this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced
way in a positive direction?
>
>
>
> Again, thank you for this study.
>
> Jeff
>
> ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE
INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES
SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.     I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever
caused by genetic modification of plants.    There is nothing wrong with egoism,
it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity.    And our
government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power
to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet.
Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't
have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all
businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power
over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can
sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their
hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state
growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
> -starman
>

Hello Starman.

This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle
of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo machinery. The
message is quoted below. However, by now, I think you have pretty much done what
I asked for, which was to give some practical examples for one country or
another.

It is very interesting to follow what you write, and also the replies from the
commentators. I try to figure out, which one of you that is on the right
track...Maybe a combination.

I´m still curious about what you want to be done with the relations between the
three spheres of society, that you write about. If we take, for instance,the
relation between the government/law sphere and the economy, it is obvious to
each and everyone, that many relations exist, and that a lot of bad things can
happen - and has happened - if these relations are not the right ones. Do you
want to do away with these relations entirely? Or what do you mean that there
can be no influence in either direction, if all is properly organised? AS long
as you have e.g. a tax system, you have such a relation. Or do I see it in the
wrong way? And once you have a tax system it can be progressive (as in sweden)
or flat, and there are of course infinite possibilities on how to set the actual
tax levels. Who decides what levels are right? When you change the tax system,
there will be an obvious impact by the government on the economy, and it will
originate from the wish of the voters, at least in theory. Do you want to ban
economic contributions (bribes, as you call them), to the parties? This can be
done in principle, I think. And then you have all the laws that applies to the
economical sector, that originally, of course, have been decied upon be the
parlament. Environmental regulations is an obvious example, that was mentioned
by Jeff in an earlier message. Also regulations for employees is a possibility.
Very much so in Sweden, with its socialdemocratic history. Mayby not so much in
the US. Do you want to mimimize these regulations? Do away with them? And the
relations to foreign countries? Free trade or isolationism? Or a middle way?

Just a few examples to start with. To be continued, if there is interest on the
list.

RB



Hello Starman,



"This is Robert B, from Sweden.



I tried to start thinking about the social threefolding idea one day around the
turn of the century, but found out after 5 minutes that it blocked my thinking
instead of supporting it. So I dropped it, and for me that worked better, and
has continued to do so. Either the connections between the three parts of
society were too obvious to me, or I never saw them. Not easy to know.



Anyway, it is interesting to hear what you have to say about it. What I think
you should do, however, is to pick a country of today, and describe how you
think it ought to develop and how this is related to Steiners ideas. Merely
giving the passages from Steiners texts, and saying that Marxism is opposed to
it, is - I believe - not enough. I think it gets to abstract, to be frank. If
this idea if Steiner is still relevant as of 2012 it must be able to give some
insights into what should happen in order for things to get better.



As I have come to understand it, you ar a US citizen, or at least live there.
Correct? If so, how do you for instance view the USA in this context? Is the USA
perfect? If not, what must be done and how does this relate to the imperfections
of the theefold social order? Or pick another country, or several, if you have
the insights. Russia? China? Saudi-Arabia? Or even Sweden, where i live.



And yes, I know that this is difficult and problematical. And that you generally
don´t allow political discussions in this group. But when discussing social
threefolding I think you have to. You discuss the future of society, not some
historical fact.



Personally, I have tried to find good things from both right and left
traditions. I think they both belong to the complete picture.



RB

Sweden"


--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am
confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists
and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in
your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
>
> *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the
series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm
going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all
right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
>     I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists,
just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by
politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found
Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013
yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider
them as Lenin did, "useful idiots."  To the evil crooks who would destroy our
country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared
instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home
and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes
(Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-)
. I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will
not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place
in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not
much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they
should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening
silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for
which thank God!).
>      Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who
wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would
ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently
made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/  and also
http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again
Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often
hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out
the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody
was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and
bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all
representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go
to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing
were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely
to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation?  I said
it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of
judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro.     As to the issue of
homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul
illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when
growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed
until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me
whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for
years.
>
>
>
>
>
> More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those
on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay
leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach
of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate
greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the
young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew
"Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
>
> *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate
greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be
incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want
someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan.  People
who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone
should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own
business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just
stay static.
>    We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating
economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our
modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants
against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger
and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much
less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being
egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just
tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't
compete with its Search engine dominance!)
>    But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING
WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all
knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not
for the media!!!  When people say things like that, what can any sane person
reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized
the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly
benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that
connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of
themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business
pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of
individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right
as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the
last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the
problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
>
> ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted
by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed,
only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he
was charitable and generous.   There would be no businesses without egoism and
ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are
the most generous people I've ever met.   So NO. The problem is not economics,
and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The
problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the
wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap
monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions.
http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html         Leftists CREATE the
problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
>
>
>
>
> It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning
persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the
individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not
in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to
meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't
feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we
looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was
such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak
to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of
rights, economy and culture:
>
> "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the
greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own
accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to
their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own
efforts but through the efforts of others."
>
> *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described
realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working
"selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and
"self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article
about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a
whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses.     It's elementary
economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker
don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF
SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the
other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as
they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less),
and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free
market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from
the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can
see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders.   What the Social Law
said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to
do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a
free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize
the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism
or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything
from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
>
>
>
>
>
> I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link
between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the
natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems
clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the
natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or
egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other
beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in
a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material
resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these
exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with
technologies like GMOs, for example.
>
> The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free
flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching
regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the
free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new
values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or
compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
>
> Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help
for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong
rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem --
egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify
this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced
way in a positive direction?
>
>
>
> Again, thank you for this study.
>
> Jeff
>
> ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE
INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES
SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.     I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever
caused by genetic modification of plants.    There is nothing wrong with egoism,
it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity.    And our
government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power
to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet.
Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't
have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all
businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power
over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can
sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their
hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state
growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
> -starman
>

Hello Robert,                                          Yes, I live in America,
though I'm  originally from Ireland.
I dealt with some of your questions in the last few posts. Here's some thoughts:
* In Dr. Steiner's book The Threefold Social Order he says the spheres would
send representatives to each other, rather as countries exchange ambassadors.
* Since the purpose of Tax is to bring in the money needed for running the legal
State (and made available without strings attached to the spiritual sphere), I'd
say it must be a flat tax without special clauses so that the tax laws can't be
used to manipulate the economic processes.      .                         .
* Steiner also said the Rights State must set a minimum wage, determining the
amount a man or a family must earn to be enough to live on regardless of his
kind of job-- then economic actors will have to reckon that as a fixed cost like
the price of raw materials. That's about the only intrusion of the Political
into the Economic besides taxes.             .                    .
* Environmental 'regulations' should come about by people demonstrating a harm
done, say by pollution, by suing in court. Whatever laws are then enacted by the
State, if any are determined to be needed, must apply to everyone equally so
they're not used to stifle one company or another--- and should never become an
excuse to take over the economic sphere, like Norway where the State runs the
oil business and takes all the money so only their elite ever sees any of it.
That's what happens everywhere the State intrudes too much as you know there in
Sweden where the government provides lots of great benefits but keeps the
economy stagnant so there's almost no new jobs or businesses created.  You can
look at the GDP of different countries and see almost immediately just from that
alone which ones have too much regulation by the State. I said a bit about
Russia in my earlier posts.                         I think once you see the 3
spheres clearly it is of great help in understanding why different countries
succeed or fail.                         -starman
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "robert.barnskog" <robert.barnskog@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 13:34:16
To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order- 12th Night

 



Hello Starman.

  This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle
of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo machinery. The
message is quoted below. However, by now, I think you have pretty much done what
I asked for, which was to give some practical examples for one country or
another.

  It is very interesting to follow what you write, and also the replies from the
commentators. I try to figure out, which one of you that is on the right
track...Maybe a combination.

  I?m still curious about what you want to be done with the relations between the
three spheres of society, that you write about. If we take, for instance,the
relation between the government/law sphere and the economy, it is obvious to
each and everyone, that many relations exist, and that a lot of bad things can
happen - and has happened - if these relations are not the right ones. Do you
want to do away with these relations entirely? Or what do you mean that there
can be no influence in either direction, if all is properly organised? AS long
as you have e.g. a tax system, you have such a relation. Or do I see it in the
wrong way? And once you have a tax system it can be progressive (as in sweden)
or flat, and there are of course infinite possibilities on how to set the actual
tax levels. Who decides what levels are right? When you change the tax system,
there will be an obvious impact by the government on the economy, and it will
originate from the wish of the voters, at least in theory. Do you want to ban
economic contributions (bribes, as you call them), to the parties? This can be
done in principle, I think. And then you have all the laws that applies to the
economical sector, that originally, of course, have been decied upon be the
parlament. Environmental regulations is an obvious example, that was mentioned
by Jeff in an earlier message. Also regulations for employees is a possibility.
Very much so in Sweden, with its socialdemocratic history. Mayby not so much in
the US. Do you want to mimimize these regulations? Do away with them? And the
relations to foreign countries? Free trade or isolationism? Or a middle way?

  Just a few examples to start with. To be continued, if there is interest on the
list.

  RB

  Hello Starman,

  "This is Robert B, from Sweden.

  I tried to start thinking about the social threefolding idea one day around the
turn of the century, but found out after 5 minutes that it blocked my thinking
instead of supporting it. So I dropped it, and for me that worked better, and
has continued to do so. Either the connections between the three parts of
society were too obvious to me, or I never saw them. Not easy to know.



  Anyway, it is interesting to hear what you have to say about it. What I think
you should do, however, is to pick a country of today, and describe how you
think it ought to develop and how this is related to Steiners ideas. Merely
giving the passages from Steiners texts, and saying that Marxism is opposed to
it, is - I believe - not enough. I think it gets to abstract, to be frank. If
this idea if Steiner is still relevant as of 2012 it must be able to give some
insights into what should happen in order for things to get better.



  As I have come to understand it, you ar a US citizen, or at least live there.
Correct? If so, how do you for instance view the USA in this context? Is the USA
perfect? If not, what must be done and how does this relate to the imperfections
of the theefold social order? Or pick another country, or several, if you have
the insights. Russia? China? Saudi-Arabia? Or even Sweden, where i live.



  And yes, I know that this is difficult and problematical. And that you
generally don?t allow political discussions in this group. But when discussing
social threefolding I think you have to. You discuss the future of society, not
some historical fact.



  Personally, I have tried to find good things from both right and left
traditions. I think they both belong to the complete picture.

  RB

  Sweden"

  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com <mailto:steiner%40yahoogroups.com> , Durward
Starman wrote:
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am
confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists
and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in
your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
  >
  > *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the
series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm
going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all
right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
  > I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just
waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by
politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found
Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013
yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider
them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our
country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared
instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home
and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes
(Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-)
. I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will
not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place
in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not
much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they
should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening
silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for
which thank God!).
  > Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who
wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would
ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently
made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also
http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again
Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often
hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out
the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody
was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and
bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all
representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go
to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing
were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely
to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it
because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging
national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself:
I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is
not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it
often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I
believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the
distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those
on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay
leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach
of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate
greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the
young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew
"Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
  >
  > *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think
"corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a
business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year
than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless
slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much
money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding
your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not
just stay static.
  > We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating
economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our
modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants
against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger
and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much
less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being
egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just
tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't
compete with its Search engine dominance!)
  > But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH
THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew
it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for
the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply
except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA
Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly
benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that
connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of
themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business
pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of
individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right
as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the
last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the
problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
  >
  > ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted
by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed,
only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he
was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and
ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are
the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and
kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem
is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy
will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys;
you're trapped until you let go of the illusions.
http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they
then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning
persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the
individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not
in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to
meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't
feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we
looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was
such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak
to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of
rights, economy and culture:
  >
  > "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the
greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own
accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to
their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own
efforts but through the efforts of others."
  >
  > *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described
realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working
"selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and
"self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article
about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a
whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics,
in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver
good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST.
Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers
et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so
they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and
therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market
brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the
competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see
it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was,
each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and
receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free
economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the
value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or
the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from
his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link
between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the
natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems
clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the
natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or
egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other
beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in
a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material
resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these
exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with
technologies like GMOs, for example.
  >
  > The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free
flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching
regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the
free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new
values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or
compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
  >
  > Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to
help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a
strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem
-- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to
rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a
balanced way in a positive direction?
  >
  >
  >
  > Again, thank you for this study.
  >
  > Jeff
  >
  > ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE
INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES
SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused
by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as
necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is
mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent
childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE
egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what
customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to
convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with
promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but
the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people
like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and
crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
  > -starman
  >

I like the fact that the 'Cultural Sphere' is placed in the middle in this design, wherein the 'Rights (Political) Sphere' is to the left, and the 'Economic Sphere' is to the right.  This seems to denote how important the Central European cultural stream, or "German Folk Soul", was to the propagation of a spiritual renewal in the beginning of the 20th century.

As well, it seems that due to the misunderstanding, neglect, and profound errors of comprehension in realizing the destiny of this culture, that the Political and Economic spheres were destined to collide.  And this seems to lead quite easily to the 'ahrimanic deception' that inflicts society today, with its continuance of the "stones-into-bread mentality".  

Fortunately, most of us get it by now.  The history of the last two thousand years proves it beyond any need for description, or critical analysis. 

Yet, we here, stand to make the difference in terms of what we have to do now.  It could prove to be very important.

(Recently Rudolf Saacke sent me the English
translation [as an RTF file] of an article by
Daniel Hafner that tried to explain the police
raid on the Goetheanum a few years ago.  I am
posting my reply, together with the Hafner
article as plain text.)

***

re Lochmann article

Lieber Herr Saacke:

I received your email of Jan. 5 and the
attachment about the three organizations of the
Anthro Society.  You ask what do I think about
the article.

I have to confess that over the recent years I
have almost given up (aufgeben? verzichten?) on
the "Constitution Question".  Especially over
the past three years I have had little time for
Anthroposophy, and the little that I have had I
have spent mostly trying to learn to understand
and do the kind of "sevenfold thinking" that
Bondarev talks about.  And since the events of
2002 in Dornach I have come to the conclusion
that, in any case, I can do almost nothing about
the course that the Society will take.  The
Vorstand will do whatever they want to do, and
since I hardly read deutsch, anyway I can't even
understand much of what is happening.  I'm stuck
over here in the USA, and I can't participate
(teilnehmen?  teilhaben?) even in the USA
Society.  Maybe someday (I don't know when or
if) I might be able to participate, but for now,
I'm just trying to do my own work, and the
Society will take her course without me.

From what I understand of Hafner's article, it
seems that he is yearning for the "threefold"
organization that he thinks RS tried to set up
for the Society during the Christmas Conference
and thereafter.  But if Bondarev is right in his
*Christmas Conference* book, then RS himself,
shortly before his death, deliberately allowed
the merger of the Christmas Conference society
into the Goetheanum building society.  And if
now the "school" is also being merged under the
"Goetheanum Leadership Group", then that would
seem to be only a continuation of that process.
And it doesn't matter much to me; as far as I
can see, the "First Class" is only an empty
shell anyway.

But I gather that you disagree with Bondarev
about the merger, and I recall that you were
trying to get in contact with him to discuss
(besprechen?) all this.  But I never did hear
whether you did have this discussion with
Bondarev.  If you did, could you tell me what
was the outcome (Resultat?  Ergebnis?)?

But whatever we may do, it seems that the
Vorstand will continue to rule the Anthro
Society as the transformed Building Association.
Maybe the "Good Spirit of the Goetheanum" really
is protecting and guiding the poor, confused
Anthroposophists and the Society.  I hope so.

I will forward the Hafner article to the Yahoo
Anthro e-groups:
<>
<>

Robert aus Amerika

***

The Three Organizations of the Anthroposophical
Society
as Originally Intended by Rudolf Steiner

Daniel Hafner, Septermber 2012

First presented at the Threefold Branch, Spring
Valley, in March 2007


       There is a fine line between fusion and
confusion.

	 In March of 2007 the police raided the
Goetheanum.  The reports on this conflict ?
which is decades old, actually ? are usually so
contorted, and framed in Legalese, that they
tend to obscure the actual issue.  Which as I
see it is that Rudolf Steiner established three
organizations to form together the
Anthroposophical Society.  They are to cultivate
the spirit, soul, and body of Anthroposophy,
respectively.

       1)  The School for the Science of the
Spirit has as its task spiritual research.  It
has its own strict laws;  but these have nothing
to do with outer societal laws.

       2)  The Anthroposophical Society refounded
at the Christmas Meeting has as its task the
cultivation of the life of the soul (paragraph 1
of the original Statutes).  It has Statutes, but
these are unsuitable for entry in any sort of
legal registry.  For instance, there is no
provision about voting, nor any kind of
decision-making.  They are, as Rudolf Steiner
put it, statutes but not statutes.  Guidelines
and principles of behavior.  There is a
newsletter.  Everything bureaucratic and formal
and official is to be excluded, as we are told
more than once at the Christmas Meeting.  There
are, however, membership dues.

       3)  Then there is another organization,
formerly called Johannes Building Association,
then Goetheanum Association, then finally
renamed General Anthroposophical Society.  Its
task is the administration of real estate and
businesses (publishing house, clinic, etc.).
  (This does have a deeply spiritual dimension.)
It was entered with fully exoteric bylaws into
the Swiss Trade Registry.  There were only a few
members.

School
Member = take responsibility for Anthroposophy
in the world.
Meditate.
Spiritual research (9).


Society
Member = whoever acknowledges School.
Cultivation of soul life (1).
Experience Anthroposophy as it speaks through
others.
Members gatherings, local or based on shared
interests.
Newsletter.
Letters to Members on how to cultivate Branch
life.
Statues ? statutes.  Unsuitable for legal
registration.
Non-bureaucratic, nothing official, no
formalities.  [Leave that to the carrier
organization, below.]
Dues.

Carrier
Donating member = whoever wants to support
Society.
Member proper = guarantee dedication of
buildings and resources.
Legally incorporated.  Administration of real
estate and businesses.  By-Laws, minutes,
voting.

	 Over the years, this threefold membering
was not understood, especially since two of the
three organizations had the same name.  From
quite early on, these two were collapsed into
one.  Because of this, voting and legalistic
attitudes entered the Society, where they
actually have no place.  The annual meeting was
refunctioned into a voting body, where hundreds
of members exercised themselves in debating all
kinds of motions.  That kind of activity leads
of course to polarization and schisms.
Conflicts piled up, and by the 1930's they were
expelling members all over the place.

       The Statutes of the administrative society
(vol. 260a, pp. 560ff.) were first published
(apart from their entry in the Swiss Trade
Registry) in the members newsletter What Is
Happening in the Anthroposophical Society one
month before the expulsions of 15 April 1935.
These include:  "By a resolution of the Board of
Directors [Vorstand], a member can be excluded
from the association without explanation."
Other relevant material showing how Rudolf
Steiner intended the organizational forms,
including the minutes of the Christmas Meeting
among many other documents (vols. 260 and 260a),
were first published only in 1944 ? a year after
Ita Wegman's death.

       Some people tried to point out that the
unspoken merger of the Society with its
administrative body was a gross structural
error.  The response, finally, in 2002, was a
vote by the members to make the fusion of the
two organizational levels official.  Other
groups of members promptly challenged this in
court ? and won.  The court upheld the position
of these minority groups that legally speaking,
the Anthroposophcial Society of the Christmas
Conference does not exist!

       The police inspection of March 2007 was
merely a further extension of the conflict mode.

	 My position is that the tactics employed by
some of these plaintiff groups, and the tone in
which they communicate, have been deplorable.
  On the other hand, as far as the objective
question goes, they are actually in the right.
They have latched on to a fragment of truth,
namely that the Society and its administrative
body are intended to be two different things.
  It is sad that the Anthroposophical Society had
to be sued in order to be made to see that.  And
even sadder that it is still mostly not seen.

       Of the three organizations mentioned
above, only the one on the bodily level was ever
meant to be incorporated legally.  It is there
to protect and serve and house the other two.
  That frees the other two from having to operate
on that level.

       The next step toward a centralized,
onefold body is the further fusion of the School
with the Society.  A new unified leadership
committee has now been announced.  One
announcement was translated in the previous
issue of this newsletter;  the other, more
official announcement appeared in the
July/August 2012 issue of Anthroposophy
Worldwide.  There the following summary appears
below the announcement:

The Goetheanum Leadership Group
The consultations of Executive Council and
Collegium, which took place under the moderation
of Friedrich Glasl, have yielded the following
results:
– It is the aim of the Executive Council and the
Collegium of the School of Spiritual Science at
the Goetheanum to enhance integration of the
areas where anthroposophy is applied in
practice, the School of Spiritual Science and
the Anthroposophical Society.  This union and
its representation at the Goetheanum is to be
strengthened in the anthroposophical movement
and in public.
– A new organ was formed in addition to the
Executive Council and the Collegium of the
School of Spiritual Science:  in accordance with
the Statutes of the Christmas Conference of
1923/24 it will be referred to as the
"Goetheanum Leadership Group."  "Leadership" is
a term that appears in the principles of the
General Anthroposophical Society.
– The Goetheanum Leadership Group is composed of
the members of the Executive Council and the
members of the Collegium of the School of
Spiritual Science.
– The Goetheanum as a building is owned
officially by the General Anthroposophical
Society and is under the direction of the
Executive Council.  The Executive Council
resigns its responsibility for the
administration of the Building and transfers
this responsibility to the Goetheanum Leadership
Group with the stipulation that the Goetheanum
Leadership Group is authorized to confer the
responsibility for administrative tasks at the
Goetheanum on individual persons (members of the
Executive Council or Section Leaders).
– The newly created Goetheanum Leadership Group
therefore has the following tasks:
• to set the basic direction for the work of the
School of Spiritual Science, the General
Anthroposophical Society and the Goetheanum.
• to assign responsibilities that concern the
administration of the Goetheanum as a building.

	 In other words, the following is stated
rather clearly:
* The Executive Council and the Collegium of the
School for Spiritual Science have been going in
for some organizational development counseling.
* As a result, they are rearranging the organism
Rudolf Steiner created (even more than it had
already been rearranged).
* The two organs will continue to exist
separately, but are also partially fusing into
one joint committee ("integration").
* Thus the bureaucracy Rudolf Steiner warned
against at the Christmas Foundation Meeting is
growing itself a large additional organ.
* The threefold organization created by Rudolf
Steiner -- School of Spiritual Science (spirit),
Anthroposophical Society (soul), and Goetheanum
Building Administration (body) -- which long ago
collapsed into a twofold organization, is now
well on the way to complete fusion into one
central body.
       Originally, the Goetheanum Building
Administration was the only one of the three
levels with anything like bylaws.  It provided
the legally registered protective sheath for the
other two, so that these would not have to deal
with motions, voting, and so on.  It had few
members.  Now we have that kind of stuff
occupying our Anthroposophical Society, for
instance at the Annual General Meetings.

       If we would just apply what we learn in
Anthroposophy and think a little more
organically, we would all see the whole
threefold differentiation right away, and how it
does justice to the being of man.
5

Exactly.  As you have expressed before, and maybe even from the beginning, the
American system of government and its quite specific formulation of the three
branches, i.e, executive, legislative, and judicial, more than indicates the
specific and conscientious effort to establish the basis for a threefold social
order in our country, in order to reflect its example for the world to follow.

Thus, an effort to recognize and "work within the system" is not a bad idea. 
Our country has formulated its best possibilities over the years in order to
achieve it, and yet, what we all know is that some insidiously evil element is
out there working against its full achievement.

So, what is it?  Anthroposophy helps to understand, of course, but the tangle of
chaos still remains something to consider.  The system exists extant, and
America represents its best intentions best, and that looks like an excellent
starting point for making threefolding a world realization.

I like very much what this effort this year could mean for all of us.

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> THE THREE PRINCIPLES:
>    The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of
commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the
government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how
well-intentioned or 'spiritual'.
>
>    The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be
kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which
is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who
can't afford to pay).
>
>    The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to
decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of
his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right
to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of
business.
>

Starman, you currently have 15 links to porn sites on your 'links page'.

As well, you have 103 members who are bouncing, which means that they have
abandoned their subscription to this list.

Thirdly, when are we going to move on in order that you and me and Jeff and
Robert B. can begin to remake the world?

Threefolding is a matter that begins here and proceeds there.

Juan

There is an interesting new hypothesis about the formation

of the earth which is consistent with Steiners descriptions.

You can read the article as PDF here:

    http://innovative-planetary-science.page.tl/Home.htm

or Google:

     "Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home"

Some anti-virus software products give general warning
when a file from the upload-area is opened. But there is
definitely no virus on these files. You can open the page,
click on the link to the  PDF in the upload-area and read
the article. I guarantee this is safe because the uploads
come from my own PC.

You will find most interesting new ideas and discoveries.