Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

anarchosophy

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    My fellow subscribers, In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects of an extremely delicate and difficult topic, let it be said that Philosophy of
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      My fellow subscribers,

      In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects of an extremely delicate
      and difficult topic, let it be said that "Philosophy of Freedom" can only
      be "the Bible of anarchism" as long as anarchism is thought of in its
      purest, most spiritualized form. In this spiritualized anarchism stand the
      cradles of two sisters, Anthroposophia and Anarchosophia:

      http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerbomb.html

      One of the noblest representatives for exoteric anarchism was Benjamin
      Tucker. He was a highly cultivated gentleman from New England who lived in
      New York, where he founded the best anarchist magazine that has ever
      existed: "Liberty." He translated an entire library of classical anarchist
      literature into English and became the most influential anarchist in the
      English-speaking world. After his life work was destroyed in a fire in 1908
      (he did not believe in capitalist insurance), he settled in France, where
      he practiced his anarchism until he died in 1939.

      Tucker did not speak French very well, but he read it with ease. German was
      not unfamiliar to him either. He read Max Stirner thoroughly (which Rudolf
      Steiner also did), and in the 1890's he published a German edition of
      "Liberty." In 1899 he held a lecture in Berlin entitled "Der Staat in
      seiner Beziehung zum Individualism." At this time he met Rudolf Steiner
      through their mutual anarchist friend Henry Mackay. Steiner hailed Ben
      Tucker as "one of the greatest champions for freedom" and subsequently
      printed his lecture in "Magazin für Literatur," of which he was the editor.

      Like most exoteric anarchists including the classics, Ben Tucker was an
      atheist. What is noteworthy is Rudolf Steiner's appreciation for the
      greatest and noblest achievements of atheist philosophers, because such men
      arrived at their conclusions empowered by personal, self-dependent effort,
      and not by lazy thinking like religious people who just swallowed what had
      been handed down to them from old books and established traditions.

      Anarchosophy may be described as the point where exoteric and esoteric
      anarchism meet in the soul of Rudolf Steiner at the time when he wrote
      "Philosophy of Freedom," but this is only a vague picture. It is the union
      of anthroposophy and anarchism in the soul of the anarchosophist. This
      sounds perhaps awkward, but it brings us a little step closer to the riddle
      of anarchosophy.

      Cheers,


      Tarjei
      http://uncletaz.com/
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      Ho, Tarjei, I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom the bible of anarchism . First of all, the word anarchism
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Ho, Tarjei,
        I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of
        Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't
        appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not). Also, by calling it
        that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal
        of anarchy; a system of government based on the free agreement of
        individuals rather than on submission to law and authority." If you called
        it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection - and I think
        that's what you mean.
        I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered
        myself somewhat of an anarchist. However, "Basic Issues of the Social
        Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me
        otherwise - that during the present time and the immediate future at least,
        the State is an unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to
        bottom. (I'm referring to what we call democracy of course). It's needed to
        make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals and from corporate
        greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in
        some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should). In other
        words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't agree with certain
        laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced to) or work to change them.
        I see that as the message of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.
        Frank
        >
        > My fellow subscribers,
        >
        > In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects of an extremely delicate
        > and difficult topic, let it be said that "Philosophy of Freedom" can only
        > be "the Bible of anarchism" as long as anarchism is thought of in its
        > purest, most spiritualized form. In this spiritualized anarchism stand the
        > cradles of two sisters, Anthroposophia and Anarchosophia:
        >
        > http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerbomb.html
        >
        > One of the noblest representatives for exoteric anarchism was Benjamin
        > Tucker. He was a highly cultivated gentleman from New England who lived in
        > New York, where he founded the best anarchist magazine that has ever
        > existed: "Liberty." He translated an entire library of classical anarchist
        > literature into English and became the most influential anarchist in the
        > English-speaking world. After his life work was destroyed in a fire in
        1908
        > (he did not believe in capitalist insurance), he settled in France, where
        > he practiced his anarchism until he died in 1939.
        >
        > Tucker did not speak French very well, but he read it with ease. German
        was
        > not unfamiliar to him either. He read Max Stirner thoroughly (which Rudolf
        > Steiner also did), and in the 1890's he published a German edition of
        > "Liberty." In 1899 he held a lecture in Berlin entitled "Der Staat in
        > seiner Beziehung zum Individualism." At this time he met Rudolf Steiner
        > through their mutual anarchist friend Henry Mackay. Steiner hailed Ben
        > Tucker as "one of the greatest champions for freedom" and subsequently
        > printed his lecture in "Magazin für Literatur," of which he was the
        editor.
        >
        > Like most exoteric anarchists including the classics, Ben Tucker was an
        > atheist. What is noteworthy is Rudolf Steiner's appreciation for the
        > greatest and noblest achievements of atheist philosophers, because such
        men
        > arrived at their conclusions empowered by personal, self-dependent effort,
        > and not by lazy thinking like religious people who just swallowed what had
        > been handed down to them from old books and established traditions.
        >
        > Anarchosophy may be described as the point where exoteric and esoteric
        > anarchism meet in the soul of Rudolf Steiner at the time when he wrote
        > "Philosophy of Freedom," but this is only a vague picture. It is the union
        > of anthroposophy and anarchism in the soul of the anarchosophist. This
        > sounds perhaps awkward, but it brings us a little step closer to the
        riddle
        > of anarchosophy.
        >
        > Cheers,
        >
        >
        > Tarjei
        > http://uncletaz.com/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Tarjei Straume
        ... What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person who liberates himself is no longer under the command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric. One of
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:

          >I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of
          >Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't
          >appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not).

          What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person who liberates
          himself is no longer under the command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric.

          One of these tyrants is government. Government exists because the majority
          prefers to surrender certain parts of their freedom - a sacrifice that
          makes them feel safe and secure. For the rebels, government has a great
          variety of threats, punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in
          line, or at least their might-be emulators.

          >Also, by calling it that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism,
          >to wit:" he principal of anarchy; a system of government based on the free
          >agreement of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority."
          >If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection -
          >and I think that's what you mean.

          You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy" is what I really mean in
          the context at hand. But this word is brand new and has not reached the
          dictionaries or officialdom yet. The person best suited to be called an
          anarchosophist, is the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher,
          poet, social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens Bjørneboe (1920-1976) -
          http://home.att.net/~emurer/ - the fiercest of social critics who stood up
          for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes, the outcasts, the
          outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and self-destructive life,
          Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom and his hilarious sarcasm against the
          police, the prison wardens, the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie.
          He depicted the poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types
          of human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not in distant
          corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway, in our police
          stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental hospitals, our schools,
          in the military, etc.

          Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists, i.e. bourgeois, middle and upper
          class staid etheric dreamers, couldn't understand why Bjørneboe bothered to
          take an active interest in such topics, about human rights for the
          "untouchables" of society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in
          Norway that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in the teachers'
          room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify an esoteric path; on the contrary,
          he drank himself to insanity and committed suicide, destroyed by the very
          demons he had been busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted
          authors to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest Hemingway
          for starters.)

          But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and
          neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
          lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
          anarchist:

          "Until now, I have myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic'
          or 'theoretical anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very
          little for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine
          such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist' can be
          applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal 'yes'."

          (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261)

          >I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered
          >myself somewhat of an anarchist.

          So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his youth. Or at least, it looks like that.
          He read Tolstoy furiously and wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he
          almost became an "Tolstoyan." (That was, of course, many years before he
          turned to politics.) Nixon was also strongly influenced by his mother, who
          was a Quaker. And quakers are, after all, very close indeed to being
          Christian anarchists.

          >However, "Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social Renewal,
          >Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise - that during the
          >present time and the immediate future at least, the State is an
          >unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.

          Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom? In that case, I have to echo the
          words of Steiner's friend and hero Benjamin Tucker:

          "The state is said by some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made
          unnecessary. This century's battle, then, is with the State: the State,
          that debases man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that
          corrupts children; the State, that trammels love; the State, that stifles
          thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State, that limits credit;
          the State, that restricts exchange; the State, that gives idle capital the
          power of increase, and, through interest, rent, profit, and taxes, robs
          industrious labor of its products."

          (Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty 1 (1881): 2.)

          >(I'm referring to what we call democracy of course).

          In a modern democracy, which is nothing but an oligarchy in disguise, the
          power structure is less easy to detect than in less permissive societies.
          Rudolf Steiner once pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot,
          was so deceptive because it fools people into believing that they are
          pulling the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings
          (and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes, behind
          whom stand occult forces.

          >It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals
          >and from corporate greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the
          >point; sometimes, in some places, it does carry out these functions, and
          >always should). In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I
          >don't agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced
          >to) or work to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of
          >Freedom and Basic Issues.

          My general problem with a theoretical apology for statism is that it always
          represents the easy way out of complex problems. In other words, it's a
          cop-out.

          What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards from the book "Benjamin R. Tucker
          & the Champions of Liberty."

          ***************************************************************************************

          Anarchist movements worldwide generally declined after the turn of the
          century, if not before; two world wars hastened the centralizing process to
          the further detriment of action that was independent of the State. Only in
          the 1960's did serious resistance to the State recommence; the rise of the
          new independent groups - dissident students, professionals and
          intellectuals on the one hand and a technical/entrepreneurial class on the
          other - seems to be behind the resurgence of anarchistic and
          quasi-anarchistic activity.

          This resurgence leads us to the "bottom-line" question on Tucker's
          strategy: did it fail? And, by extension, we may also ask, did anarchism
          fail? The commonplace answer is yes; anarchism failed because it was out of
          touch with historical progress - "progress" in this sense is always a
          euphemism for centralization and authoritarianism. A more knowledgeable and
          cautious answer is: not entirely, or not yet. this attitude at least
          recognizes that twentieth century nation-states own no guarantees of
          immortality not given to Ur or Babylon. Since States can and do crumble and
          fail, the "question" of anarchism cannot ever be finally resolved.

          This question of failure implies another about success, and what ideology
          can claim success in the late twentieth century? True, the adherents of
          socialism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, communism
          and most of their variants, have at one time and place or another waxed
          great in numbers and prestige and wealth, and ruled the State. Each group
          ruled but briefly in the name of its ideology - then they ruled in the name
          of the State only.

          All of these ideologies had two things in common. Each promised to meet
          certain goals once its supporters seized the State; each failed to deliver
          the ideological goods, despite having unquestioned, or even unopposed,
          control of some very powerful state-formations. In order to hold power to
          meet their ultimate goals, each set of ideological rulers found themselves
          forced to betray those same goals so as to meet the intermediate and
          short-term requirements of political power. These betrayals have seen
          cynicism, dishonesty, treachery aplenty; but these are more the effect of
          betrayal than its cause. The true, great corruption of power is the loss of
          one's aim.

          The State today, particularly in America, is vastly more powerful than when
          Tucker finally despaired of successfully confronting it directly. Today,
          its lightest touch corrupts (in the sense that I use the term). All of the
          State ideologies, from the most limited constitutional liberalism to
          Marxist State Socialism, have failed, corrupted by the logic of power.
          Against Nietzsche's warning, they gazed too long - and too longingly - into
          the abyss and became one with it.

          Every ideology that has sought to master and direct the State has instead
          become its servant. the lesson for our time, if any would see it, is that
          the State is not to be mastered. Like the Ruling Ring, in Tolkien's *The
          Lord of the Rings,* the State allows
          its "wearer" to enjoy for a time the illusion of control - and then asserts
          its mastery.

          Thus, triumph can be illusory; and determining the "success" or "failure"
          of a movement like anarchism depends largely on what one means by those
          terms. The usual standards require that one found a thousand-year empire or
          at least possess adequate fluid assets; such considerations scarcely enable
          us to judge the merits of anarchist strategies, which refuse altogether to
          play the "Great Game."

          The present generation of anarchists faces anew the question of liberty -
          which is anarchism. We should know how our predecessors fought the same
          battle; not in order to judge failure or success, but to know both how they
          lived as anarchists and how they defended their anarchism - the two
          complementaty halves of the struggle. We should not expect to gain from
          these studies any certainty about our own course, however. Doubts about our
          strategy must plague us, even as they have plagued Benjamin R. Tucker and
          the remnants of his circle in later years. "I put the Anarchist case as a
          goal that humanity moves towards. But the exact routes - ?? ah! it is not
          so easy to map them!"
          (Frederic J. Gould to Benjamin Tucker, quoted by Tucker in a letter to
          Joseph Ishill Jan 24 1935)

          ***************************************************************************************
          ("Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty & the Strategy of Anarchism" by Morgan
          Edwards.)

          What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being actively
          discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated
          to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of
          freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

          Cheers,

          Tarjei
          http://uncletaz.com/
        • Frank Thomas Smith
          ... of ... doesn t ... F:In Basic Issues, he also includes the rights sphere , the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Tarjei wrote:

            > At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:
            >
            > >I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy
            of
            > >Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism
            doesn't
            > >appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not).
            >
            Tarjei:
            > What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person who liberates
            > himself is no longer under the command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric.
            >
            F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of
            government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind
            its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

            T:> One of these tyrants is government. Government exists because the
            majority
            > prefers to surrender certain parts of their freedom - a sacrifice that
            > makes them feel safe and secure. For the rebels, government has a great
            > variety of threats, punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in
            > line, or at least their might-be emulators.

            F:Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments, there would also be no
            criminals, cause they'd have seen the light. .
            >
            F:> >Also, by calling it that, you are redefining the definition of
            anarchism,
            > >to wit:" he principal of anarchy; a system of government based on the
            free
            > >agreement of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority."
            > >If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection -
            > >and I think that's what you mean.
            >
            T:> You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy" is what I really mean
            in
            > the context at hand. But this word is brand new and has not reached the
            > dictionaries or officialdom yet. The person best suited to be called an
            > anarchosophist, is the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher,
            > poet, social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens Bjørneboe (1920-1976) -
            > http://home.att.net/~emurer/ - the fiercest of social critics who stood up
            > for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes, the outcasts, the
            > outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and self-destructive life,
            > Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom and his hilarious sarcasm against the
            > police, the prison wardens, the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie.
            > He depicted the poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types
            > of human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not in
            distant
            > corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway, in our police
            > stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental hospitals, our schools,
            > in the military, etc.
            >
            > Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists, i.e. bourgeois, middle and upper
            > class staid etheric dreamers, couldn't understand why Bjørneboe bothered
            to
            > take an active interest in such topics, about human rights for the
            > "untouchables" of society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in
            > Norway that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in the
            teachers'
            > room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify an esoteric path; on the contrary,
            > he drank himself to insanity and committed suicide, destroyed by the very
            > demons he had been busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted
            > authors to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest
            Hemingway
            > for starters.)
            >
            > But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and
            > neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
            > lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
            > anarchist:

            F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist", but it could be somewhere
            else. But that was in his youth, before the threefold idea.
            >
            > "Until now, I have myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic'
            > or 'theoretical anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very
            > little for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to
            determine
            > such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist' can be
            > applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal 'yes'."
            >
            > (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p.
            261)
            >
            F:> >I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I
            considered
            > >myself somewhat of an anarchist.
            >
            T:> So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his youth. Or at least, it looks like
            that.
            > He read Tolstoy furiously and wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he
            > almost became an "Tolstoyan." (That was, of course, many years before he
            > turned to politics.) Nixon was also strongly influenced by his mother, who
            > was a Quaker. And quakers are, after all, very close indeed to being
            > Christian anarchists.

            F:Not surprising. After all, around the turn of the century the communists
            and the anarchists had the same goal - the disappearance of the state, but
            differed in how to go about it. The Communists wanting a "temporary"
            dictatorship of the proletariate, which would "wither away" once humanity
            became good enough; the anarchists the immediate elimination of the state,
            upon which people would become good because the state is the root of all
            evil. The right wing (Nixon and the Republican party in the U.S. as example)
            is always calling for less government, fewer taxes, etc. , so in a sense
            they are following the anarchist line.
            >
            F:> >However, "Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social Renewal,
            > >Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise - that during the
            > >present time and the immediate future at least, the State is an
            > >unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.
            >
            T:> Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom? In that case, I have to echo
            the
            > words of Steiner's friend and hero Benjamin Tucker:
            >
            > "The state is said by some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made
            > unnecessary. This century's battle, then, is with the State: the State,
            > that debases man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that
            > corrupts children; the State, that trammels love; the State, that stifles
            > thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State, that limits credit;
            > the State, that restricts exchange; the State, that gives idle capital the
            > power of increase, and, through interest, rent, profit, and taxes, robs
            > industrious labor of its products."
            >
            > (Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty 1 (1881): 2.)

            F: Tucker, imo, confuses all states with the one (or ones) he describes
            above. And they aren't all the same. Finland, fe, is number 1 on the list of
            least corrupt states, Argentina is something like 36. I would not recommend
            to anyone that they emulate Argentina. Finland yes.

            F:> >(I'm referring to what we call democracy of course).
            >
            > In a modern democracy, which is nothing but an oligarchy in disguise, the
            > power structure is less easy to detect than in less permissive societies.
            > Rudolf Steiner once pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot,
            > was so deceptive because it fools people into believing that they are
            > pulling the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings
            > (and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes, behind
            > whom stand occult forces.

            F: Well, people *are* stupid, aren't they (except us of course).
            >
            F:> >It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals
            > >and from corporate greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the
            > >point; sometimes, in some places, it does carry out these functions, and
            > >always should). In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If
            I
            > >don't agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced
            > >to) or work to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of
            > >Freedom and Basic Issues.
            >
            T:> My general problem with a theoretical apology for statism is that it
            always
            > represents the easy way out of complex problems. In other words, it's a
            > cop-out.

            F: I could say the same about anrachism - in fact I will.
            >
            T:> What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards from the book "Benjamin R.
            Tucker
            > & the Champions of Liberty."
            (snip)
            >
            T:> What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being
            actively
            > discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated
            > to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of
            > freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

            F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism" which, like communism,
            is burnt out. A threefold society would be more possible, practical and
            correct.

            Frank
          • Tarjei Straume
            ... The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government. Nor does it per definiton embrace the violence par excellance that states define
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              At 01:47 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

              >F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of
              >government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind
              >its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

              The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government. Nor
              does it per definiton embrace the violence par excellance that states
              define themselves by.

              <snip>

              >F:Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments, there would also be no
              >criminals, cause they'd have seen the light. .

              Mahatma Gandhi proposed that we move into the neighborhoods of criminals
              instead of separating them from society behind barbed wire. What I am
              getting at is that alternative ideas about how to approach social problems
              carry the germ of future societies. Yesteryear's ways of dealing with such
              problems are indicative of mental laziness, and in the long run, such
              old-fashioned solutions will become more and more destructive and
              counter-productive.

              <snip>

              > > But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and
              > > neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
              > > lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
              > > anarchist:
              >
              >F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist", but it could be somewhere
              >else. But that was in his youth, before the threefold idea.

              It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away Steiner's
              anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to
              insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my
              book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.

              <snip>

              >T:> What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being
              >actively
              > > discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated
              > > to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of
              > > freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.
              >
              >F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism" which, like communism,
              >is burnt out. A threefold society would be more possible, practical and
              >correct.

              An alternative would be to expand the definiton of anarchism. This may be a
              strictly semantic argument, but the fact remains that when Steiner and
              Mackay finally go in different directions in the 1890's, it may be just as
              correct to claim that Steiner's PoF represents the true further development
              of anarchism and Mackay's political dreams a blind alley based upon a false
              and misunderstood concept of anarchism as to claim the opposite.


              Tarjei
              http://uncletaz.com/
            • Frank Thomas Smith
              ... F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states must have governments. The problem is that these states are not autonomous, i.e.,
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                > >F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of
                > >government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind
                > >its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
                >
                >T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.

                F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states
                must have governments. The problem is that these states are not autonomous,
                i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A basic element
                of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.

                T: Nor
                > does it per definiton embrace the violence par excellance that states
                > define themselves by.

                F: OK

                >
                > <snip>
                >
                > >F:Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments, there would also be no
                > >criminals, cause they'd have seen the light. .
                >
                T:> Mahatma Gandhi proposed that we move into the neighborhoods of criminals
                > instead of separating them from society behind barbed wire. What I am
                > getting at is that alternative ideas about how to approach social problems
                > carry the germ of future societies. Yesteryear's ways of dealing with such
                > problems are indicative of mental laziness, and in the long run, such
                > old-fashioned solutions will become more and more destructive and
                > counter-productive.

                F: I agree, but this has nothing to do with the point at issue.
                >
                > <snip>
                >
                > > > But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy,"
                and
                > > > neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
                > > > lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
                > > > anarchist:
                > >
                > >F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist", but it could be somewhere
                > >else. But that was in his youth, before the threefold idea.
                >
                T.> It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away
                Steiner's
                > anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to
                > insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my
                > book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.

                F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly
                conclude that you include me in the "many people". You can write whatever
                you like in your book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't
                conform to you own ideology.
                >
                > <snip>
                >
                > >T:> What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being
                > >actively
                > > > discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups
                dedicated
                > > > to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers
                of
                > > > freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born
                pearl.
                > >
                > >F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism" which, like
                communism,
                > >is burnt out. A threefold society would be more possible, practical and
                > >correct.
                >
                T:> An alternative would be to expand the definiton of anarchism. This may
                be a
                > strictly semantic argument, but the fact remains that when Steiner and
                > Mackay finally go in different directions in the 1890's, it may be just as
                > correct to claim that Steiner's PoF represents the true further
                development
                > of anarchism and Mackay's political dreams a blind alley based upon a
                false
                > and misunderstood concept of anarchism as to claim the opposite.

                F: Whatever.

                Frank
              • Tarjei Straume
                ... Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he participated in the Indian parliament. He held the view, however, that if a healthy
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

                  > > >F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of
                  > > >government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind
                  > > >its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
                  > >
                  > >T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.
                  >
                  >F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states
                  >must have governments. The problem is that these states are not
                  >autonomous, i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A
                  >basic element of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.

                  Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he
                  participated in the Indian parliament. He held the view, however, that if a
                  healthy social structure is built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the
                  need for police, military, state government etc. will be severely reduced.
                  And if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government and
                  police and so on may be possible some day.

                  The problem with political ideologies is that the followers believe in
                  changing everything overnight, creating a paradise on earth of their own
                  making, and this always fails and leads to chaos or to the total
                  elimination of individual liberty. The same goes for anarchism if it is
                  thought of as a political ideology. But if anarchism is thought of in
                  "anarchosophical" terms and thereby spiritualized, it simply means the
                  recognition of oneself as an anarchist: Someone who does not succumb to
                  tyranny or recognize any authority. The tyranny is not always external,
                  although those who wield the power behind external, political tyranny know
                  how to manipulate and exploit man's inner tyrants as well.

                  >T.> It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away
                  >Steiner's
                  > > anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to
                  > > insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my
                  > > book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
                  >
                  >F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly
                  >conclude that you include me in the "many people".

                  I'm sorry it came out that way. What I had in mind was a few provocative
                  arguments I wrote in my 1996 article about RS in an anarchist magazine. In
                  other words, the following was written for anarchist readers (before
                  "anarchosophy" was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's
                  anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois"
                  anthroposophists like it or not:

                  http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

                  *****************************************************************************************
                  The core of anthroposophical philosophy is thoroughly anarchistic. This is
                  not so easy to discern, because Rudolf Steiner's basic view can be very
                  challenging to get to the bottom of. Most anthroposophists choose what
                  appeals to them and suppress the rest. Most overlooked of all is the
                  anarchism. This is why we have seen so many authority-loving and
                  power-hungry bourgeois anthroposophists who have not discovered that they
                  are sitting on a revolutionary megabomb.

                  *****************************************************************************************
                  And:
                  *****************************************************************************************
                  Mackay's theoretical anarchism had many features in common with The
                  Philosophy of Freedom. Steiner believed, however, that he had shown in his
                  book that thinking was a spiritual activity and that the human spirit could
                  create free actions only through a developed thinking. It is probable that
                  Mackay could not understand this concept of Steiner - there was in fact
                  nobody who understood it at that time - but he seems to have been closer to
                  Steiner in other areas.

                  Mackay had political ambitions with his theories, and he wanted Steiner's
                  support and cooperation. It was a time when Steiner presented his ethical
                  individualism as a political ideal, and it looks as if he felt tempted to
                  use his own philosophy as a platform for Mackay's political dreams. His
                  description of this episode in his autobiography 30 years later makes it
                  clear that he experienced the inclination as a temptation or spiritual trial:

                  "Through my experience with J.H. Mackay and Stirner, my destiny caused me
                  once more to enter a world of thought where I had to go through a spiritual
                  test. Ethical individualism, as I had elaborated it, is the reality of
                  moral life experienced purely within the human soul. Nothing was further
                  from my intention in elaborating this conception than to make it the basis
                  for a purely political view. But at this time, about 1898, my soul with its
                  conception of ethical individualism, was to be dragged into a kind of
                  abyss. From being a purely individual experience within the human soul, it
                  was to become something theoretical and external. The esoteric was to be
                  diverted into the exoteric." From then onward, he decided to tread his own
                  paths.

                  Bourgeois Steiner-biographers describe this period as a little sidestep, as
                  a passing flirt with anarchism, and they interpret the last quote as a
                  goodbye between Steiner and anarchism. This is where the
                  anarcho-anthroposophists protest. Because it is just as correct to present
                  Anthroposophy as the next stage in the evolution of anarchism and to claim
                  that Steiner is the one who makes anarchism a real possibility with The
                  Philosophy of Freedom. The anarcho-anthroposophists' argument is,
                  therefore, that the genuine anarchism is to be found precisely in
                  Anthroposophy, which is and remains a heretical counter-culture and a
                  rebellious dropout-society, regardless of how various members of the
                  fine-cultural super-bourgeoisie wish to decorate the situation.

                  *****************************************************************************************

                  >You can write whatever you like in your book if you wish to ignore the
                  >facts because they don't conform to you own ideology.

                  What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned quote by RS. It's like when
                  you sit at a lecture and take notes of certain things.

                  But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary too; that's obvious from
                  your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial in Southern Cross Review:

                  http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm

                  "There are three alien categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens and
                  illegal aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently reside
                  legally in the United States of America, non-residents are from other solar
                  systems, and "illegal aliens" is used to describe humanoids from other
                  galaxies who have infiltrated the U.S."

                  Here you're speaking my kind of language, Frank. But of course, there's a
                  little bourgeois in each and every one of us. And one such little bourgeois
                  may even have tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his
                  later years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother used
                  to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his mature years,
                  because you don't just make friends and influence people; you're also
                  influenced by them. And when my mother said that, she was no youth at all,
                  but in her early seventies. (She passed away in '97.)

                  So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper
                  things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote.
                  (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets
                  to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking
                  the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

                  Cheers,

                  Tarjei
                • Kim Munch Michelsen
                  If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his whole mission. He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his opponents
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Message
                    If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his whole mission.
                     
                    He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his opponents could have hit him to easely,
                    through political means.
                     
                    Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and if he openly associated with anarchism,
                    it would remove the focus from the rest.
                     
                    Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with views within the anarchistic movement
                    which were not anthroposophic.
                     
                    All these were dangers, which could endanger his mission and destroy the anthroposophy movement.
                     
                    I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer of knowledge to those who can understand and use it,
                    not in itself an active and all knowing movement. It consists of dreamers and managers which don't
                    change much in this world. But a few do understand (within or outside) and interact with the rest of the world.
                     
                    Kim
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Tarjei Straume [mailto:anthrouncle@...]
                    Sent: 9. november 2003 16:34
                    To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

                    At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

                    > > >F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of
                    > > >government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind
                    > > >its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
                    > >
                    > >T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.
                    >
                    >F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states
                    >must have governments. The problem is that these states are not
                    >autonomous, i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A
                    >basic element of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.

                    Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he
                    participated in the Indian parliament. He held the view, however, that if a
                    healthy social structure is built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the
                    need for police, military, state government etc. will be severely reduced.
                    And if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government and
                    police and so on may be possible some day.

                    The problem with political ideologies is that the followers believe in
                    changing everything overnight, creating a paradise on earth of their own
                    making, and this always fails and leads to chaos or to the total
                    elimination of individual liberty. The same goes for anarchism if it is
                    thought of as a political ideology. But if anarchism is thought of in
                    "anarchosophical" terms and thereby spiritualized, it simply means the
                    recognition of oneself as an anarchist: Someone who does not succumb to
                    tyranny or recognize any authority. The tyranny is not always external,
                    although those who wield the power behind external, political tyranny know
                    how to manipulate and exploit man's inner tyrants as well.

                    >T.> It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away
                    >Steiner's
                    > > anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to
                    > > insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my
                    > > book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
                    >
                    >F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly
                    >conclude that you include me in the "many people".

                    I'm sorry it came out that way. What I had in mind was a few provocative
                    arguments I wrote in my 1996 article about RS in an anarchist magazine. In
                    other words, the following was written for anarchist readers (before
                    "anarchosophy" was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's
                    anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois"
                    anthroposophists like it or not:

                    http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

                    *****************************************************************************************
                    The core of anthroposophical philosophy is thoroughly anarchistic. This is
                    not so easy to discern, because Rudolf Steiner's basic view can be very
                    challenging to get to the bottom of. Most anthroposophists choose what
                    appeals to them and suppress the rest. Most overlooked of all is the
                    anarchism. This is why we have seen so many authority-loving and
                    power-hungry bourgeois anthroposophists who have not discovered that they
                    are sitting on a revolutionary megabomb.

                    *****************************************************************************************
                    And:
                    *****************************************************************************************
                    Mackay's theoretical anarchism had many features in common with The
                    Philosophy of Freedom. Steiner believed, however, that he had shown in his
                    book that thinking was a spiritual activity and that the human spirit could
                    create free actions only through a developed thinking. It is probable that
                    Mackay could not understand this concept of Steiner - there was in fact
                    nobody who understood it at that time - but he seems to have been closer to
                    Steiner in other areas.

                    Mackay had political ambitions with his theories, and he wanted Steiner's
                    support and cooperation. It was a time when Steiner presented his ethical
                    individualism as a political ideal, and it looks as if he felt tempted to
                    use his own philosophy as a platform for Mackay's political dreams. His
                    description of this episode in his autobiography 30 years later makes it
                    clear that he experienced the inclination as a temptation or spiritual trial:

                    "Through my experience with J.H. Mackay and Stirner, my destiny caused me
                    once more to enter a world of thought where I had to go through a spiritual
                    test. Ethical individualism, as I had elaborated it, is the reality of
                    moral life experienced purely within the human soul. Nothing was further
                    from my intention in elaborating this conception than to make it the basis
                    for a purely political view. But at this time, about 1898, my soul with its
                    conception of ethical individualism, was to be dragged into a kind of
                    abyss. From being a purely individual experience within the human soul, it
                    was to become something theoretical and external. The esoteric was to be
                    diverted into the exoteric." From then onward, he decided to tread his own
                    paths.

                    Bourgeois Steiner-biographers describe this period as a little sidestep, as
                    a passing flirt with anarchism, and they interpret the last quote as a
                    goodbye between Steiner and anarchism. This is where the
                    anarcho-anthroposophists protest. Because it is just as correct to present
                    Anthroposophy as the next stage in the evolution of anarchism and to claim
                    that Steiner is the one who makes anarchism a real possibility with The
                    Philosophy of Freedom. The anarcho-anthroposophists' argument is,
                    therefore, that the genuine anarchism is to be found precisely in
                    Anthroposophy, which is and remains a heretical counter-culture and a
                    rebellious dropout-society, regardless of how various members of the
                    fine-cultural super-bourgeoisie wish to decorate the situation.

                    *****************************************************************************************

                    >You can write whatever you like in your book if you wish to ignore the
                    >facts because they don't conform to you own ideology.

                    What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned quote by RS. It's like when
                    you sit at a lecture and take notes of certain things.

                    But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary too; that's obvious from
                    your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial in Southern Cross Review:

                    http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm

                    "There are three alien categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens and
                    illegal aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently reside
                    legally in the United States of America, non-residents are from other solar
                    systems, and "illegal aliens" is used to describe humanoids from other
                    galaxies who have infiltrated the U.S."

                    Here you're speaking my kind of language, Frank. But of course, there's a
                    little bourgeois in each and every one of us. And one such little bourgeois
                    may even have tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his
                    later years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother used
                    to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his mature years,
                    because you don't just make friends and influence people; you're also
                    influenced by them. And when my mother said that, she was no youth at all,
                    but in her early seventies. (She passed away in '97.)

                    So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper
                    things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote.
                    (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets
                    to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking
                    the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

                    Cheers,

                    Tarjei




                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Tarjei Straume
                    ... That would have been the case if anarchism were exclusively a political ideology rather than an existential philosophy. Steiner thought of anarchism in the
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 17:50 09.11.2003, Kim wrote:

                      >If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his whole
                      >mission.
                      >
                      >He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his opponents
                      >could have hit him to easely,
                      >through political means.

                      That would have been the case if anarchism were exclusively a political
                      ideology rather than an existential philosophy. Steiner thought of
                      anarchism in the latter sense, and this is why he was especially attracted
                      to Max Stirner. In the aforementioned quote with comments borrowed from
                      Stewart Easton's Steiner-biography, it becomes clear that the problem with
                      Henry Mackay's anarchism was that it was linked to a political agenda - an
                      agenda that endangered Steiner's mission by tempting him.

                      But Steiner did not keep his organization out of politics when the first
                      world war was over. With the proposition of the Threefold Social Order,
                      Anthroposophy was right in the middle of the political game. And once
                      you're in the political game, bourgeois compromises and diplomacy come into
                      play. (Just look at Bill Clinton, the hippie who never inhaled his
                      marijuana, the anti-war protester who became the commander-in-chief of the
                      U.S. armed forces.)

                      In his book "Rudolf Steiner. The Man and His Vision," Colin Wilson, who was
                      neither an anthroposophist nor an anarchist, says of RS that what he was
                      offering the people of Europe in the midst of chaos with his Threefolding
                      idea was nothing other than anarchy. In other words, Steiner tried his best
                      to clothe as much anarchism as he could get away with into a political
                      agenda. And this, of course, entails severe compromises.

                      > Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and if he
                      > openly associated with anarchism, it would remove the focus from the rest.

                      By the same token, it could be argued that by openly associating with
                      farming or with Buddhism, Christianity or Gnosticism, other aspects of
                      anthroposophy would be forgotten. And there are critics, of course, who
                      have endeavored to discredit Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one
                      thing or another. But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own
                      regardless of such associations.

                      There is another aspect involved here, of course. Anthroposophy is, and has
                      to be, completely apolitical. It is a path to the Spirit open to everyone
                      regardless of vocation (police officers, military personal, prison wardens
                      etc.) and political coloring, and nobody should feel alienated from this
                      open path because it has been hijacked by some political ideology. In spite
                      of this, though, I cannot help but claim that anthro-anarchism is
                      lightyears closer to RS and Christ-Michael than anthro-fascism, and that in
                      spite of the fact that the left and the right wings of party politics
                      should have disappeared after the 19th century, the anthroposophical
                      movement in the spirit of Anthroposophia is closer to the political left
                      than to the political right, simply because it supports a libertarian outlook.

                      Anthro-anarchists have come up with the idea that Anthroposophia has a
                      radical sister: Anarchosophia. Then the question arises: Is is conceivable
                      that Anthroposophia also has another sister, Fascistia? If so, is she good
                      or evil?

                      >Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with views within
                      >the anarchistic movement which were not anthroposophic.

                      The anarchistic movement does not hold a monopoly on posing a risk like
                      that to the anthroposophical movement. As I see it today, the greatest
                      danger in our time is that anthroposophy is becoming associated with views
                      from the fascist camp, from the radical right, the Christian coalition and
                      so on. There are other anthro-lists testifying to this, and there are
                      critics' lists capitalizing on this claim in order to destroy anthroposophy.

                      > All these were dangers, which could endanger his mission and destroy the
                      > anthroposophy movement.

                      The dangers are still with the movement, but the tables have turned. Rudolf
                      Steiner is no longer a Zionist bolshevik Jew. He is a Nazi-fascist racist
                      anti-Semite. In Steiner's lifetime, association with anarchism posed a
                      danger because it had certain common roots with Communism, which was seen
                      as a Jewish conspiracy plot. Today, RS and anthroposophy are being
                      portrayed as the opposite, as a force from the extreme right.

                      >I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer of knowledge to those who can
                      >understand and use it,
                      >not in itself an active and all knowing movement.

                      As a path to the Spirit, the movement must be more than a bearer of ideas
                      and of knowledge. It must be an impulse that awakens life in such a way
                      that the indivuidual acquires knowledge and wisdom from self-chosen
                      sources. Without being too cognizant of WE, I believe this is the aim of
                      Waldorf: To hellp develop self-dependence and individual power of judgement
                      among young people.

                      I also believe that the gods are anarchists. That is why I write in my
                      aforementioned article:

                      "[Steiner's] theism is thoroughly anarchistic. The innumerable gods are
                      man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority so that we
                      shall become mature and self-dependent enough to make it on our own. The
                      gods are in other words anarchists. The free spirit in man, the anarchist
                      soul, is the goal and purpose of creation."

                      Cheers,


                      Tarjei
                      http://uncletaz.com/
                    • Kim Munch Michelsen
                      ... That would have been the case if anarchism were exclusively a political ideology rather than an existential philosophy. Steiner thought of anarchism in the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Message
                        >If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his
                        whole
                        >mission.
                        >
                        >He had to keep the organisation out of
                        politics, otherwise his opponents
                        >could have hit him to
                        easely,
                        >through political means.
                          
                        That would have been the case if anarchism were exclusively a political
                        ideology rather than an existential philosophy. Steiner thought of
                        anarchism in the latter sense, and this is why he was especially attracted
                        to Max Stirner. In the aforementioned quote with comments borrowed from
                        Stewart Easton's Steiner-biography, it becomes clear that the problem with
                        Henry Mackay's anarchism was that it was linked to a political agenda - an
                        agenda that endangered Steiner's mission by tempting him.
                        K: Philosophers would know, if they wanted to, politicians might, but people as a whole would not.

                        But Steiner did not keep his organization out of politics when the first
                        world war was over. With the proposition of the Threefold Social Order,
                        Anthroposophy was right in the middle of the political game. And once
                        you're in the political game, bourgeois compromises and diplomacy come into
                        play. (Just look at Bill Clinton, the hippie who never inhaled his
                        marijuana, the anti-war protester who became the commander-in-chief of the
                        U.S. armed forces.)
                         
                        In his book "Rudolf Steiner. The Man and His Vision," Colin Wilson, who was
                        neither an anthroposophist nor an anarchist, says of RS that what he was
                        offering the people of Europe in the midst of chaos with his Threefolding
                        idea was nothing other than anarchy. In other words, Steiner tried his best
                        to clothe as much anarchism as he could get away with into a political
                        agenda. And this, of course, entails severe compromises.
                         K: He tried to persuade the political forces, as a scientist, a philosopher, but not as a politician.
                        His weapon was ideas, not power. In that way he did not directly oppose the ahrimanic forces
                        (political powers), but mainly the luciferic forces (political ideas), which both could be against
                        or with him, and which might have swayed the political powers. But they could not change the minds
                        of those in power, as they would lose their power, if they followed his ideas.
                          

                        Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and if he
                        >
                        openly associated with anarchism, it would remove the focus from the rest.

                        By the same token, it could be argued that by openly associating with
                        farming or with Buddhism, Christianity or Gnosticism, other aspects of
                        anthroposophy would be forgotten. And there are critics, of course, who
                        have endeavored to discredit Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one
                        thing or another. But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own
                        regardless of such associations.
                         K: Those areas are kept within the scientific research, and is as such not within the political area
                        of power. 

                        There is another aspect involved here, of course. Anthroposophy is, and has
                        to be, completely apolitical. It is a path to the Spirit open to everyone
                        regardless of vocation (police officers, military personal, prison wardens
                        etc.) and political coloring, and nobody should feel alienated from this
                        open path because it has been hijacked by some political ideology  (K: Right) . In spite
                        of this, though, I cannot help but claim that anthro-anarchism is
                        lightyears closer to RS and Christ-Michael than anthro-fascism, and that in
                        spite of the fact that the left and the right wings of party politics
                        should have disappeared after the 19th century, the anthroposophical
                        movement in the spirit of Anthroposophia is closer to the political left
                        than to the political right, simply because it supports a libertarian outlook.
                         
                        Anthro-anarchists have come up with the idea that Anthroposophia has a
                        radical sister: Anarchosophia. Then the question arises: Is is conceivable
                        that Anthroposophia also has another sister, Fascistia? If so, is she good
                        or evil?
                         K: I don't understand why you  want  to relate anarchism with ideologies. As I see Anarchism, it is to let people
                        themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives. The ideologies behind both the political left and
                        the political right is luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without any regard to the individual. I see the
                        politicians on both left and right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they had power enough
                        they could make paradise on earth, at least for themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.
                         

                        >Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with views
                        within
                        >the anarchistic movement which were not
                        anthroposophic.

                        The anarchistic movement does not hold a monopoly on posing a risk like
                        that to the anthroposophical movement. As I see it today, the greatest
                        danger in our time is that anthroposophy is becoming associated with views
                        from the fascist camp, from the radical right, the Christian coalition and
                        so on. There are other anthro-lists testifying to this, and there are
                        critics' lists capitalizing on this claim in order to destroy anthroposophy.

                        >  All these were dangers, which could endanger
                        his mission and destroy the
                        > anthroposophy movement.

                        The dangers are still with the movement, but the tables have turned. Rudolf
                        Steiner is no longer a Zionist bolshevik Jew. He is a Nazi-fascist racist
                        anti-Semite. In Steiner's lifetime, association with anarchism posed a
                        danger because it had certain common roots with Communism, which was seen
                        as a Jewish conspiracy plot. Today, RS and anthroposophy are being
                        portrayed as the opposite, as a force from the extreme right.
                         K: Yes, and sometime in the future it will be something else. When the children of today grow older, they have
                        to create something else to use. That is part of the luciferic game. The ahrimanic game is a lot worse,
                        in that it tries to change the minds to a materialistic view which cannot incorporate the anthroposophic
                        ideas.

                        >I see the anthroposophy
                        movement as a bearer of knowledge to those who can
                        >understand and use
                        it,
                        >not in itself an active and all knowing movement.

                        As a path to the Spirit, the movement must be more than a bearer of ideas
                        and of knowledge. It must be an impulse that awakens life in such a way
                        that the indivuidual acquires knowledge and wisdom from self-chosen
                        sources. Without being too cognizant of WE, I believe this is the aim of
                        Waldorf: To hellp develop self-dependence and individual power of judgement
                        among young people.
                         K: I agree and it's also what I mean with bearer of knowledge. With 'not active'  I mean that they are
                         not changing the physical realities in the world directly. By 'all knowing' I partly mean that they are not trying to
                        indoctrinate their view on other's, partly that nobody is all knowing. Or in other words, they are not political active.

                        I also believe that the gods are anarchists. That is why I write in my
                        aforementioned article:

                        "[Steiner's] theism is thoroughly anarchistic. The innumerable gods are
                        man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority so that we
                        shall become mature and self-dependent enough to make it on our own. The
                        gods are in other words anarchists. The free spirit in man, the anarchist
                        soul, is the goal and purpose of creation."
                         K: I agree so far that it is part of the lesson on the earth: Love to all created, including ourselves.

                         Cheers,
                         
                        Kim 




                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • Frank Thomas Smith
                        ... of ... mind ... T: Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he ... a ... and ... F: I agree with Gandhi, especially the last 5
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tarjei wrote:

                          > At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
                          >
                          > > > >F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province
                          of
                          > > > >government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it
                          mind
                          > > > >its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.
                          > > >
                          > > >T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.
                          > >
                          > >F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states
                          > >must have governments. The problem is that these states are not
                          > >autonomous, i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A
                          > >basic element of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.
                          >
                          T:> Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he
                          > participated in the Indian parliament. He held the view, however, that if
                          a
                          > healthy social structure is built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the
                          > need for police, military, state government etc. will be severely reduced.
                          > And if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government
                          and
                          > police and so on may be possible some day.

                          F: I agree with Gandhi, especially the last 5 words.
                          (snip)
                          > >T.> It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away
                          > >Steiner's
                          > > > anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out
                          to
                          > > > insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In
                          my
                          > > > book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.
                          > >
                          > >F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly
                          > >conclude that you include me in the "many people".
                          >
                          > I'm sorry it came out that way. What I had in mind was a few provocative
                          > arguments I wrote in my 1996 article about RS in an anarchist magazine. In
                          > other words, the following was written for anarchist readers (before
                          > "anarchosophy" was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's
                          > anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois"
                          > anthroposophists like it or not:
                          >
                          > http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
                          >
                          F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may request it for the Dec. issue of
                          SCR, with, for the first time: "the contents of this article are those of
                          the author and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have
                          money to pay the lawyers."


                          F:> >You can write whatever you like in your book if you wish to ignore the
                          > >facts because they don't conform to you own ideology.
                          >
                          T: > What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned quote by RS. It's like
                          when
                          > you sit at a lecture and take notes of certain things.
                          >
                          T:> But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary too; that's obvious
                          from
                          > your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial in Southern Cross Review:
                          >
                          > http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm
                          >
                          > "There are three alien categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens
                          and
                          > illegal aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently
                          reside
                          > legally in the United States of America, non-residents are from other
                          solar
                          > systems, and "illegal aliens" is used to describe humanoids from other
                          > galaxies who have infiltrated the U.S."
                          >
                          > Here you're speaking my kind of language, Frank. But of course, there's a
                          > little bourgeois in each and every one of us. And one such little
                          bourgeois
                          > may even have tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his
                          > later years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother
                          used
                          > to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his mature years,
                          > because you don't just make friends and influence people; you're also
                          > influenced by them. And when my mother said that, she was no youth at all,
                          > but in her early seventies. (She passed away in '97.)

                          I'd rather be bourgeois than poor, despìte the camel.
                          >
                          > So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper
                          > things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote.
                          > (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets
                          > to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking
                          > the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

                          How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would that cure me?
                          Frank
                        • Tarjei Straume
                          ... Well, I would have to go through the text carefully first. You see, I wrote it in Norwegian, taking my sweet time, and I was pleased with how it came out.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 9, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 22:45 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

                            > > http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
                            > >
                            >F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may request it for the Dec. issue of
                            >SCR, with, for the first time: "the contents of this article are those of
                            >the author and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have
                            >money to pay the lawyers."

                            Well, I would have to go through the text carefully first. You see, I wrote
                            it in Norwegian, taking my sweet time, and I was pleased with how it came
                            out. I had worked really hard with it -so hard that I considered it
                            difficult to transkate, because it meant I would have to re-live it and
                            write it afresh so to speak. In spite of this, I translated it into English
                            in a hurry while in the middle of a dispute with Peter Staudenmaier on the
                            WC list. Calling himself an anarchist, Peter S always insists that
                            anthroposophy is a fascist right wing ideology and that anthroposophists
                            are, ipso facto, fascist right wingers. And of course he scoffs at the
                            suggestion that RS could have been an anarchist. No, that was when he was a
                            rational atheist as well, before he went nuts by embracing Blavatsky's
                            theosophy. So I translated my anthro-anarchism article into English in a
                            jiffy so I could throw a link at Peter.

                            Don't get me wrong: The translation is not bad, but it's hurried, and for
                            this reason, I'd like to bring it up to the same standard as the original.

                            > > So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper
                            > > things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote.
                            > > (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets
                            > > to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking
                            > > the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)
                            >
                            >How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would that cure me?
                            >Frank

                            Good grief, now *you* sound like "one of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on
                            you!


                            Tarjei
                            http://uncletaz.com/
                          • Frank Thomas Smith
                            ... of ... (snip) ... Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many,
                            Message 13 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > At 22:45 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:
                              >
                              > > > http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
                              > > >
                              > >F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may request it for the Dec. issue
                              of
                              > >SCR, with, for the first time: "the contents of this article are those of
                              > >the author and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have
                              > >money to pay the lawyers."
                              (snip)

                              > Don't get me wrong: The translation is not bad, but it's hurried, and for
                              > this reason, I'd like to bring it up to the same standard as the original.

                              Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of the
                              RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many, especially if your
                              point is made with less.
                              >
                              > > > So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and
                              whisper
                              > > > things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote.
                              > > > (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he
                              gets
                              > > > to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way,
                              kicking
                              > > > the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)
                              > >
                              > >How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would that cure me?
                              > >Frank
                              >
                              > Good grief, now *you* sound like "one of those creeps from PLANS". Shame
                              on
                              > you!
                              >
                              It's contagious you see. That's why I jumped ship after my last bomb there.
                              Btw, fruitcake is also contagious.
                              Frank
                            • Tarjei Straume
                              ... I think you hit the bull s eye with that analysis. The paradox here is that the social ideas of Steiner, which were based upon keen spiritual-scientific
                              Message 14 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 22:27 09.11.2003, Kim wrote:

                                > K: He tried to persuade the political forces, as a scientist, a
                                > philosopher, but not as a politician.
                                >His weapon was ideas, not power. In that way he did not directly oppose
                                >the ahrimanic forces
                                >(political powers), but mainly the luciferic forces (political ideas),
                                >which both could be against
                                >or with him, and which might have swayed the political powers. But they
                                >could not change the minds
                                >of those in power, as they would lose their power, if they followed his ideas.

                                I think you hit the bull's eye with that analysis. The paradox here is that
                                the social ideas of Steiner, which were based upon keen
                                spiritual-scientific insight and the inviolable autonomy of the individual
                                human being, constitute in their consequence a threat to the established
                                order, the power structure, "the Establishment." What the Establishment
                                does in a case like that, is to incorporate such revolutionary ideas
                                gradually while pulling the fangs out of them so to speak, rendering them
                                harmless to the oligarchy. The same thing happened after the 1960's in America.

                                [Tarjei]

                                > > By the same token, it could be argued that by openly associating with
                                > > farming or with Buddhism, Christianity or Gnosticism, other aspects of
                                > > anthroposophy would be forgotten. And there are critics, of course, who
                                > > have endeavored to discredit Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on
                                > one
                                > > thing or another. But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own
                                > > regardless of such associations.

                                [Kim]

                                > K: Those areas are kept within the scientific research, and is as such
                                > not within the political area
                                >of power.

                                Of course, but if you take another look at your own accurate analysis
                                above, the conclusion ought to be that Steiner's "political" ideas were not
                                at all political, but spiritual-scientific. Sophia just posted a beautiful
                                quote by the anarchist Ben Tucker that is highly idealistic without being
                                overtly political either. And it was this kind of idealism in Tucker that
                                made Steiner proclaim him to be "the greatest champion of freedom in our time."

                                According to the line of reasoning you suggest here, everything related to
                                religion could be construed in the same way as politics, because the
                                influence of religion upon politics, or religion as a tool for political
                                power, had not really outlived its role until the middle of the 20th
                                century. So there are critics who claim that everything Steiner did in the
                                religious realm was a power trip, and that his meddling in politics after
                                the big war proves it beyond doubt.

                                > K: I don't understand why you want to relate anarchism with ideologies.

                                You're losing me semantically here. Anarchism _is_ an ideology:

                                http://liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com/id31.htm

                                "One issue that remains unresolved within the anarchist movement revolves
                                around the nature of anarchists themselves. If you've perused these pages,
                                you by now know about social anarchism versus lifestyle anarchism as the
                                most public schism among anarchists, with the latter deriding class
                                struggle as fruitless, pointless, and irrelevant, and the former declaring
                                that the latter aren't anarchists at all, but are rather bourgeois poseurs."

                                Personally, I belong to the latter of the two categories above, and I
                                believe this was also Steiner's understanding of his own anarchism.

                                >As I see Anarchism, it is to let people themselves decide in what way they
                                >want to live their lives.

                                Exactly. Live and let live and don't try to control the lives of others.
                                That's not politics; it's common sense.

                                >The ideologies behind both the political left and the political right is
                                >luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without any regard to the
                                >individual.

                                True. That's why real anarchism is neither left nor right, it is completely
                                apolitical and philosophical; and this is how you arrive at "anarchosophy."

                                >I see the politicians on both left and right representing ahrimanic forces
                                >who think that if they had power enough they could make paradise on earth,
                                >at least for themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.

                                Exactly.

                                But let's get back to Lucifer here. The revolutionary spirit is of
                                necessity luciferic. Check out my article about this dynamite (no pun
                                intended) subject at http://www.uncletaz.com/childlucifer.html and enjoy.

                                Cheers,



                                Tarjei
                                http://uncletaz.com/
                              • Kim Munch Michelsen
                                Hello Tarjei ... [Kim] ... Of course, but if you take another look at your own accurate analysis above, the conclusion ought to be that Steiner s political
                                Message 15 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Message
                                  Hello Tarjei 
                                   
                                  ...
                                   
                                   [Kim]

                                  >  K:
                                  Those areas are kept within the scientific research, and is as such
                                  > not
                                  within the political area
                                  >of power.

                                  Of course, but if you take another look at your own accurate analysis
                                  above, the conclusion ought to be that Steiner's "political" ideas were not
                                  at all political, but spiritual-scientific. Sophia just posted a beautiful
                                  quote by the anarchist Ben Tucker that is highly idealistic without being
                                  overtly political either. And it was this kind of idealism in Tucker that
                                  made Steiner proclaim him to be "the greatest champion of freedom in our time."

                                  According to the line of reasoning you suggest here, everything related to
                                  religion could be construed in the same way as politics, because the
                                  influence of religion upon politics, or religion as a tool for political
                                  power, had not really outlived its role until the middle of the 20th
                                  century. So there are critics who claim that everything Steiner did in the
                                  religious realm was a power trip, and that his meddling in politics after
                                  the big war proves it beyond doubt.
                                   
                                  [Kim]
                                  Well, what 'critics can claim' don't mean that they are right. One of the things I have learnt in this life is that because everyone means something else they are not necessarily right (learnt while working i large corporations).
                                  Ideas are not political in themselves, all ideas could influence the world (ie eat your food, think of the hungry in africa). An idea is political when it takes physical form (lucifer inspires ahriman).

                                  >  K: I don't understand why you 
                                  want  to relate anarchism with ideologies.

                                  You're losing me semantically here. Anarchism _is_ an ideology:

                                  http://liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com/id31.htm

                                   ...
                                   
                                  >As I see Anarchism, it
                                  is to let people themselves decide in what way they
                                  >want to live their
                                  lives.

                                  Exactly. Live and let live and don't try to control the lives of others.
                                  That's not politics; it's common sense.
                                   [Kim] Precisely, and common sence is common sence (individual thinking) and is absolutely not 'political'.
                                   
                                  >The ideologies behind both the
                                  political left and the political right is
                                  >luciferic, more or less
                                  beautiful constructions without any regard to the
                                  >individual.

                                  True. That's why real anarchism is neither left nor right, it is completely
                                  apolitical and philosophical; and this is how you arrive at "anarchosophy."

                                  >I see the politicians on both left and
                                  right representing ahrimanic forces
                                  >who think that if they had power
                                  enough they could make paradise on earth,
                                  >at least for themselves, and
                                  in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.

                                  Exactly.

                                  But let's get back to Lucifer here. The revolutionary spirit is of
                                  necessity luciferic. Check out my article about this dynamite (no pun
                                  intended) subject at http://www.uncletaz.com/childlucifer.html and enjoy.
                                   
                                  [Kim]
                                   
                                  Now we has arrived at the fun part!
                                   
                                  From your article:
                                  One of the problems with "old age" orthodox religions, especially Christianity and Islam with their explosive and potentially violent fundamentalism, is a one-sided dualism that excludes a proper understanding and appreciation for mythology.
                                  [Kim] Here we have a connection with the other discussion about Islam. Ther first centuries Christianity was not orthodox, but the arabian world influenced the christian world on many areas. They returned a lot of the greek ideas back to the west. Their ideas of the one and only fathergod (back to duality, good and bad) and their religious law system also percolated to the west, giving the fundament for the strong political church.
                                   In the case of Christianity, the claim is made that Yahve was a kind and benevolent deity above reproach who even is supposed to be endowed with omniscience and omnipotence.

                                  [Kim] Here we talk about the father God of the old testhament, who were God for the Jew's, learning them to be good citizens. His job was to destroy the anarchic tendencies. And in that form, he has nothing to do with Christianity. Lucifer fought against this, and made the seed for the lower ego.Ahriman has no great role in the play, while his powers was familiar to the God of the jews. Christ took over as God for the whole earth, to continue the education, but now moving toward an anarchistic world with people who has learned to tolerate each other under the old law. Ahriman tries to continue the old principles in the new era, and thereby working against the evolution.

                                  What I'm getting at here is that Lucifer, which means "Light Bearer,"  

                                  [Kim] Isn't Christ called the True Light Bearer?  

                                   also known as the Angel of Light, is confused with Ahriman or Satan, and for this reason he is supposed to be a liar. But this is not true. Lucifer is the bringer of ancient wisdom (the serpent has always been the symbol of wisdom in Oriental tradition), of freedom and independence, and of knowledge of good and evil which gave man the potential to become a god in his own right. This is confirmed not only by Christ himself in John 10:34, but even more poignantly by Helena Blavatsky, who went so far as to claim that Jahve was the evil god out to enslave humanity while Lucifer was the benevolent liberator.

                                    [Kim]
                                  Here we are at one of the biggest problems today, that is the relation between Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman.
                                   
                                  One of the most potent scenes in the bible is the picture with Christ between the two robbers. The one to the right accepts Christ and the one on the left don't.
                                   
                                  On the right we have lucifer, he accepts Christ, their powers are familiar with Christ as the true light bearer. On the Left we have ahriman, the primary opponent in the new era, where lucifer where the primary opponent in the old era.
                                   
                                  Christ is between those two, in the euilibrium between Absolute Order to the left and Absolute Chaos to the right, representing life in the middle.
                                   
                                  This is not a purely psychic thing it is also physical reality. In the later years there have been some interesting research in the chaos theories, and life is defined as an equilibrium between absolute order and absolute chaos. In our physical world it can be seen as gravitation as the power of order and the thermodynamics as the power of chaos.
                                   
                                  This equilibrium is the golden road through life, or dharma. The Yin/Yang symbol is the symbol of order and chaos, not the symbol of good and bad. Good is the line parting chaos and order.
                                   
                                  Good versus bad is an islamic dualistic idea, which is mutch liked by ahriman. If you are against Ahriman you are for Lucifer (and indirectly for Ahriman), and if you are against Lucifer then you must be for Ahriman, and in both cases not for Christ, and its simple to associate Christ with ones own preferences,
                                   
                                  RS has written about it, but i don't remember where ,and Rosicrusians of the european school have also.
                                    

                                   Cheers,
                                   
                                  Kim 


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                • Tarjei Straume
                                  At 13:15 10.11.2003, Frank wrote: [Tarjei] ... [Frank] ... For an _anthroposophical_ publication, it would have to be re-written. It was written for
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 13:15 10.11.2003, Frank wrote:

                                    [Tarjei]

                                    > > Don't get me wrong: The translation is not bad, but it's hurried, and for
                                    > > this reason, I'd like to bring it up to the same standard as the original.

                                    [Frank]

                                    >Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of the
                                    >RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many, especially if your
                                    >point is made with less.

                                    For an _anthroposophical_ publication, it would have to be re-written. It
                                    was written for _anarchists_ in an anarchist magazine. I had been working
                                    with fellow anarchists - well, with people attracted to anarchism (none of
                                    us ever agreed what anarchism is), and among these, I was the only person
                                    with a Christian outlook. The others were very anti-Christian. They were
                                    atheists or orientalists who frequently travelled to India. And I
                                    discovered how privileged I was to be among people with such a rich variety
                                    of outlooks and philosophies with a common interest in liberty,
                                    avant-garde, anarchism, non-conformity, and counter-culture. It has made me
                                    totally non-sectarian and non-conformist what anthroposophy is concerned,
                                    because I had to defend it as my personal individual view against the
                                    sharpest criticism from people who were my closest friends. And they gave
                                    me a free hand to express my views in our magazine.

                                    The first piece I wrote in this vein was an article about Christian
                                    anarchism entitled "Christos Anarchos" -
                                    http://www.uncletaz.com/norsktaz/christanarch.html (in Norwegian). This is
                                    one of those articles I cannot translate into English because I've borrowed
                                    heavily from books that were lent to me (in this case, Peter Marshall's
                                    "Demanding the Impossible" and other sources), and I can't translate it
                                    back into the language in which it was written without doing a gross
                                    injustice to the credited authors.

                                    The second article was about Rudolf Steiner's anarchism, entitled
                                    "Anthropos Anarchos" - http://www.uncletaz.com/norsktaz/antroposanark.html
                                    (the N. original). Because it was written for anarchists unfamiliar with
                                    the radical message embedded in the PoF, my main argument was:

                                    "For an anarchist, Steiner can be as relevant as Bakunin, Proudhon,
                                    Stirner, or Tolstoy."

                                    If my argument about the PoF being the real Bible of Anarchism is to be
                                    presented to anthroposophical readers, the article at hand would have to be
                                    completely re-written (although students at Steinerhøyskolen - the
                                    institution that trains Norwegian Waldorf teachers - told me when I ran
                                    into them in a bar shortly after publication that they would paste the
                                    article on the school's bulletin board. Bet some teachers tore it down, but
                                    I also received enthusiastic phone calls from other students (future
                                    Waldorf teachers) who experienced the article as a breath of fresh air.

                                    > > Good grief, now *you* sound like "one of those creeps from PLANS". Shame
                                    > > on you!
                                    > >
                                    >It's contagious you see. That's why I jumped ship after my last bomb there.
                                    >Btw, fruitcake is also contagious.

                                    This reminds me: "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" is a wide open forum based upon
                                    the principle of free speech and choice of topic. I would like to suggest
                                    that the moderator clarifies our policy with regard to the possibility of
                                    hardcore critics signing up and posting here.

                                    Cheers,


                                    Tarjei
                                    http://uncletaz.com/
                                  • Frank Thomas Smith
                                    Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review is *not* an anthropsophical publication, but an e-review of literature, education, book reviews, science, current
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review is *not* an anthropsophical
                                      publication, but an e-review of literature, education, book reviews,
                                      science, current events _and_ anthroposophy. It's just one of the sections.
                                      Frank
                                      > >Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of
                                      the
                                      > >RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many, especially if your
                                      > >point is made with less.
                                      >
                                      > For an _anthroposophical_ publication, it would have to be re-written.
                                      (snip)
                                    • Tarjei Straume
                                      ... I understand. On my own website, anthroposophy is also just one of the sections. Thanks for the clarification. Tarjei http://uncletaz.com/
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 00:28 12.11.2003, Frank wrote:

                                        >Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review is *not* an anthropsophical
                                        >publication, but an e-review of literature, education, book reviews,
                                        >science, current events _and_ anthroposophy. It's just one of the sections.

                                        I understand. On my own website, anthroposophy is also just one of the
                                        sections. Thanks for the clarification.


                                        Tarjei
                                        http://uncletaz.com/
                                      • Tarjei Straume
                                        ... This reminds me of a funny dialogue from the musical Fiddler on the Roof. It s about matchmaking, love and marriage among young Russian Jews, and one of
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Nov 12, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 00:57 11.11.2003, Kim wrote:

                                          >[Kim]
                                          >Well, what 'critics can claim' don't mean that they are right. One of the
                                          >things I have learnt in this life is that because everyone means something
                                          >else they are not necessarily right (learnt while working i large
                                          >corporations).
                                          >Ideas are not political in themselves, all ideas could influence the world
                                          >(ie eat your food, think of the hungry in africa). An idea is political
                                          >when it takes physical form (lucifer inspires ahriman).

                                          This reminds me of a funny dialogue from the musical "Fiddler on the Roof."
                                          It's about matchmaking, love and marriage among young Russian Jews, and one
                                          of the courtships proceeds as follows:

                                          He: May I ask you a political question?

                                          She: What's that?

                                          He: Will you marry me?

                                          She: Is that a political question?

                                          He: Everything is political!

                                          Earler, you expressed concern about how people might react to Steiner's
                                          mixture of anthroposophy and anarchism. This reminds me of one of my
                                          favorite countrymen of yours, Piet Hein, whose "gruks" [short limericks]
                                          became legendary and enjoyed wide popularity:

                                          En ting som røver manges ro,
                                          er problemet om hvad folk må tro,
                                          til det er der kun ét at sige til -
                                          folk må tro hvad fa'en de vil.

                                          > [Kim] Now we has arrived at the fun part!

                                          The fun part about "Children of Lucifer" is the mails I've received from
                                          furious christian fundies, calling me a Satan-worshipper and promising me
                                          eternal hellfire.

                                          >[Kim] Isn't Christ called the True Light Bearer?

                                          Lucifer means Light Bearer, and with this in mind, RS published his
                                          Akasha-Chronicles ("Cosmic Memory") in a magazine called "Luzifer-Gnosis"
                                          (The Wisdom of Lucifer). In one of his many lectures about life between
                                          death and rebirth, RS tells us that on the other side of the threshold,
                                          i.e. between death and rebirth, Lucifer does not have a hamrful influence
                                          on man; on the contrary, he is our guide through the Zodiac,
                                          indistiguishable from Christ, being his twin brother so to speak. Lucifer
                                          is only potentially harmful to man between birth and death.

                                          Check out my Norwegian article, "Christos Anarchos"
                                          http://www.uncletaz.com/norsktaz/christanarch.html

                                          ***************************************************************

                                          Det er fullt ut forsvarlig å vifte anarkismens sorte flagg med den ene
                                          armen og Kristi sverd med den andre så lenge det kun er snakk om Kristus
                                          som åndelig revolusjonær frigjører. Kristus som konge hører kirken til og
                                          Kristus som lærer hører losjene til. I anarkistisk forstand kan det aldri
                                          være snakk om Kristus som noen som helst belærende autoritet.

                                          Den anarkistiske Kristus er en luciferisk Kristus. Den åndsbevisste
                                          anarkist er en gud i sin egen rett. Han er sin egen Kristus akkurat som den
                                          Førstefødte i Palestina. I denne forstand blir den historiske Jesus fra
                                          Nazareth ingen autoritet, men en inspirasjon. Denne åndsretningen innenfor
                                          anarkismen kan kalles esoterisk eksistensialisme.

                                          ***************************************************************

                                          >Good versus bad is an islamic dualistic idea, which is mutch liked by
                                          >ahriman. If you are against Ahriman you are for Lucifer (and indirectly
                                          >for Ahriman), and if you are against Lucifer then you must be for Ahriman,
                                          >and in both cases not for Christ, and its simple to associate Christ with
                                          >ones own preferences,

                                          True. I'll try to get around to corroborating this in a response to
                                          Dottie's latest post about Islam.


                                          Tarjei
                                          http://uncletaz.com/
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.