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

Anarchosophy and Anarchism

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism. This was established once and for all when Rudolf Steiner wrote his major work, The Philosophy of Freedom, in 1894.
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism. This was established once and for
      all when Rudolf Steiner wrote his major work, "The Philosophy of Freedom,"
      in 1894. In Chapter 10, "Philosophy and Monism," dr. Steiner lays the
      foundation for the individualist anarchism represented by Max Stirner, John
      Henry Mackay, and Benjamin Ricketson Tucker, although Mackay, who had
      political ambitions with his anarchist theories, does not seem to have
      understood Steiner's concept: That the human spirit could create free
      actions only through a developed thinking. What has become known as
      anarchism in the ordinary sense, fails to take this principle into account.
      This is why we call this Philosophy of Freedom "anarchosophy." In other
      words, "anarchosophy" is a word we have coined for what Rudolf Steiner had
      in mind when he called himself an individualistic anarchist in "Magazin für
      Literatur":

      "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.)

      Anarchosophy is simply a branch of anarchism that is not fettered by the
      Marxist concept of dialectical materialism, or ensnared by the illusion
      that natural science somehow proves atheism to be the only Weltanschauung
      compatible with rational, self-dependent, critical thinking. An excellent
      example of an anarchosophist is the late Norwegian poet, author, Waldorf
      teacher, anthroposophist, anarchist, social rebel, and bohemian Jens
      Bjørneboe (1920-1976).

      My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding idea is a simplified ones.
      Peter Normann Waage has written a book about it and lectured on the subject
      in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and others have also gone into the details
      of this idea. Feedback from listmates conversant with the Threefolding idea
      would be interesting.

      As I understand it, the concept of the Threefold Social Order is based on a
      slogan that became known during the French revolotion: "Liberty, Equality,
      Fraternity." (For the sake of simplicity and for my lack of thorough
      research, I'm skipping the relationship between social threefolding and the
      threefold human being here, hoping that others can fill in this gap).

      The failure of the social systems we have seen in recent centuries - and by
      "failure" I don't mean that the regimes collapse right away, but that
      social imbalances and dysfunctions develop - is to a considerable extent
      due to the ignorance of how these three concepts Liberty, Equality, and
      Fraternity should be applied. According to Rudolf Steiner, we need Liberty
      in the arts, literature, religion, *education* and so on, Equality in the
      rights sphere, i.e. in the justice system and law enforcement (everyone
      should be equal in the eyes of the law), and Fraternity in the economic
      sphere.

      In this light, we may begin to recognize some of the pathologies within
      Communism and Capitalism, for instance. In Communism, the economy is not
      ruled by Fraternity, but by an ill-conceived endeavor to enforce Equality
      upon the economy, where it does not belong. In Capitalism, Liberty is
      enforced upon the economy instead of the life of culture, education, arts,
      and religion. And unfortunately, I believe that social injustice is rampant
      within the courts system, the legal system, because Fraternity has entered
      the picture. If you're a friend of the judge and the cief of police, you
      can get away with a lot of things. Aldo if you have a lot of money because
      Liberty rules where it shouldn't.

      These are just some pointers why I think the threefolding idea may be an
      effective model for the improvement of society in the future. And if this
      model is successful, we may be evolving in the direction of spiritualized
      anarchy. Some people sem to think that anarchism was just a passing phase
      Steiner was flirting sith in the 1890's, but I recently discovered evidence
      that he was an anarchist right up to his final lectures in 1924.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1586

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

      If we get to know the essential inner meaning of the Latin word *dominus*
      we shall discover what language itself means in this instance, qute apart
      from what spiritual science has to say: A lord is someone on the earth or
      in the world who has been chosen to point the direction for another. How
      long will outer lords be needed on the earth? How long will the
      commandments of outer lords be needed, even the commandments of those who
      are outer spiritual lords of the earth? They will be needed only until the
      moment when Christ, with the name that none but he understands, shall dwell
      within the human being. Then every human being will be able to follow
      Christ in his own being, in his own soul. Then everyone will strive to
      realize *that* in himself which desires to realize the will of the human
      being out of inner love. Then will the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings
      live in each individual.

      Seen spiritually, this is the time in which we ourselves are now living.
      The fact that we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way
      human beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much as they
      can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells in them."

      *****************************************************************************************************************
      - "The Book of Revelation and the Work of the Priest" (Lecture 10, Dornach
      14 Sept 1924, GA 346 )

      What Rudolf Steiner has done here is to demonstrate that the message of
      Anarchosophy, or Divine Anarchism if you like, is embedded in John's
      apocalypse. This lends further credence to my own words from the 1996
      article "Anthropos Anarchos":

      "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. "

      Or as RS put it in the 10th chapter of the PoF:

      "Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim berufen
      ist, Rose zu werden."

      Cheers,


      Tarjei
      http://uncletaz.com/
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      ... If this is so, you and Peter are indeed strange bedfellows. This was established once and for ... John ... account. ... für ... Some time later, Steiner
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 29, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Tarjei wrote:
        > Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism.

        If this is so, you and Peter are indeed strange bedfellows.

        This was established once and for
        > all when Rudolf Steiner wrote his major work, "The Philosophy of Freedom,"
        > in 1894. In Chapter 10, "Philosophy and Monism," dr. Steiner lays the
        > foundation for the individualist anarchism represented by Max Stirner,
        John
        > Henry Mackay, and Benjamin Ricketson Tucker, although Mackay, who had
        > political ambitions with his anarchist theories, does not seem to have
        > understood Steiner's concept: That the human spirit could create free
        > actions only through a developed thinking. What has become known as
        > anarchism in the ordinary sense, fails to take this principle into
        account.
        > This is why we call this Philosophy of Freedom "anarchosophy." In other
        > words, "anarchosophy" is a word we have coined for what Rudolf Steiner had
        > in mind when he called himself an individualistic anarchist in "Magazin
        für
        > Literatur":

        Some time later, Steiner came up with the Tripartite Society, in which the
        political state, though reduced to its legitimate functions, still exists
        and is operative. I would call this a development from impractical anarchism
        to a more sophosticated, practical (if tried) alternative.

        >
        > "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.)

        pre-threefold society

        >
        > Anarchosophy is simply a branch of anarchism that is not fettered by the
        > Marxist concept of dialectical materialism, or ensnared by the illusion
        > that natural science somehow proves atheism to be the only Weltanschauung

        > compatible with rational, self-dependent, critical thinking. An excellent
        > example of an anarchosophist is the late Norwegian poet, author, Waldorf
        > teacher, anthroposophist, anarchist, social rebel, and bohemian Jens
        > Bjørneboe (1920-1976).
        >
        > My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding idea is a simplified ones.
        > Peter Normann Waage has written a book about it and lectured on the
        subject
        > in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and others have also gone into the
        details
        > of this idea. Feedback from listmates conversant with the Threefolding
        idea
        > would be interesting.

        You got mine.
        >
        > As I understand it, the concept of the Threefold Social Order is based on
        a
        > slogan that became known during the French revolotion: "Liberty, Equality,
        > Fraternity." (For the sake of simplicity and for my lack of thorough
        > research, I'm skipping the relationship between social threefolding and
        the
        > threefold human being here, hoping that others can fill in this gap).
        >
        > The failure of the social systems we have seen in recent centuries - and
        by
        > "failure" I don't mean that the regimes collapse right away, but that
        > social imbalances and dysfunctions develop - is to a considerable extent
        > due to the ignorance of how these three concepts Liberty, Equality, and
        > Fraternity should be applied. According to Rudolf Steiner, we need Liberty
        > in the arts, literature, religion, *education* and so on, Equality in the
        > rights sphere, i.e. in the justice system and law enforcement (everyone
        > should be equal in the eyes of the law), and Fraternity in the economic
        > sphere.

        Anarchism wishes to eliminate the state toot sweet, i.e., immediately,
        whereas Communism
        opted for a withering away after the dictrtorship of the prolitariate does
        its dirty work.
        "Equality in the rights sphere, i.e. in the justice system and law
        enforcement (everyone
        should be equal in the eyes of the law". And who's to administer this rights
        sphere, including law enforcement, defence, anti-trust and other laws, if
        not the state?

        > In this light, we may begin to recognize some of the pathologies within
        > Communism and Capitalism, for instance. In Communism, the economy is not
        > ruled by Fraternity, but by an ill-conceived endeavor to enforce Equality
        > upon the economy, where it does not belong. In Capitalism, Liberty is
        > enforced upon the economy instead of the life of culture, education, arts,
        > and religion. And unfortunately, I believe that social injustice is
        rampant
        > within the courts system, the legal system, because Fraternity has entered
        > the picture. If you're a friend of the judge and the cief of police, you
        > can get away with a lot of things. Aldo if you have a lot of money because
        > Liberty rules where it shouldn't.


        >
        > These are just some pointers why I think the threefolding idea may be an
        > effective model for the improvement of society in the future. And if this
        > model is successful, we may be evolving in the direction of spiritualized
        > anarchy. Some people sem to think that anarchism was just a passing phase
        > Steiner was flirting sith in the 1890's, but I recently discovered
        evidence
        > that he was an anarchist right up to his final lectures in 1924.
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1586
        >
        Steiner said that the threefold society was meant for the present and
        immediate future, not forever. I am inclined to agree that he foresaw
        anarcism for the distant future - but not now (the immediate future for
        him).

        Frank
      • Tarjei Straume
        Hi Frank, ... Is Peter S a representative of spiritualized individual autonomy as this comes to expression in the PoF? ... You don t seem to have grasped what
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Frank,

          >Tarjei wrote:
          > > Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism.

          Frank:
          >If this is so, you and Peter are indeed strange bedfellows.

          Is Peter S a representative of spiritualized individual autonomy as this
          comes to expression in the PoF?

          >Some time later, Steiner came up with the Tripartite Society, in which the
          >political state, though reduced to its legitimate functions, still exists
          >and is operative. I would call this a development from impractical anarchism
          >to a more sophosticated, practical (if tried) alternative.

          You don't seem to have grasped what I mean by anarchosophy, i.e. Rudolf
          Steiner's understanding of anarchism. The impractical *political* anarchism
          you're talking about was pursued by Steiner's Scottish-German friend Henry
          MacKay.

          It should also be noted that the anarchistic-anarchosophical remarks by RS
          (in connection with the Apocalypse) that I quoted previously were made in
          September 1924, i.e. *after* the Threefolding idea had been launched.

          Tarjei:
          > > My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding idea is a simplified ones.
          > > Peter Normann Waage has written a book about it and lectured on the subject
          > > in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and others have also gone into the details
          > > of this idea. Feedback from listmates conversant with the Threefolding idea
          > > would be interesting.

          Frank:
          >You got mine.

          I'm sorry, but I don't see it. What I was asking for was a detailed
          elaboration of the Threefolding idea beyond my simplified summary.

          >Anarchism wishes to eliminate the state toot sweet, i.e., immediately,
          >whereas Communism opted for a withering away after the dictrtorship of the
          >prolitariate does its dirty work.

          Although RS did agree with his MacKay that the state was an evil which
          encumbered individual freedom, he did not propose the immediate elimination
          of the state by force. And yet he called himself an anarchist. I cannot
          avoid getting the impression that your conception of anarchism is rigid and
          inflexible and oversimplified, and that you don't recognize that the
          movement may be split into many different schools of thought. It was
          precisely because of such rigid misconceptions that I stopped using the
          word "anarchist" about myself many years ago and coined the word
          "anarchosophist" instead. Anarchosophy is therefore a type of anarchism,
          but it is not identical to the type you describe in your post here.

          >Steiner said that the threefold society was meant for the present and
          >immediate future, not forever. I am inclined to agree that he foresaw
          >anarcism for the distant future - but not now (the immediate future for him).

          That is highly disputable:

          [repost]

          "Seen spiritually, this is the time in which we ourselves are now living.
          The fact that we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way
          human beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much as they
          can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells in them."

          - "The Book of Revelation and the Work of the Priest" (Lecture 10, Dornach
          14 Sept 1924, GA 346 )


          Tarjei
          http://uncletaz.com/
        • Frank Thomas Smith
          Me again, Tarjei, ... Not likely, but let s skip down a bit to show you what I mean. ... the ... anarchism ... anarchism ... You wrote, that RS said: : The
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Me again, Tarjei,
            > >Tarjei wrote:
            > > > Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism.
            >
            > Frank:
            > >If this is so, you and Peter are indeed strange bedfellows.
            >
            > Is Peter S a representative of spiritualized individual autonomy as this
            > comes to expression in the PoF?

            Not likely, but let's skip down a bit to show you what I mean.

            > >Some time later, Steiner came up with the Tripartite Society, in which
            the
            > >political state, though reduced to its legitimate functions, still exists
            > >and is operative. I would call this a development from impractical
            anarchism
            > >to a more sophosticated, practical (if tried) alternative.
            >
            > You don't seem to have grasped what I mean by anarchosophy, i.e. Rudolf
            > Steiner's understanding of anarchism. The impractical *political*
            anarchism
            > you're talking about was pursued by Steiner's Scottish-German friend Henry
            > MacKay.
            >
            > It should also be noted that the anarchistic-anarchosophical remarks by RS
            > (in connection with the Apocalypse) that I quoted previously were made in
            > September 1924, i.e. *after* the Threefolding idea had been launched.

            You wrote, that RS said: : "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. "

            Saying that the goal and purpose of creation is the free man, the anarchist
            soul, is not the same as saying that "Anthroposophy is a branch of
            anarchism". Anthroposophy is now (as well as tomorrow) and the fact that RS
            metamorphosed his anarchist leanings into the threefold society and even
            tried to put it into practice, indicates to me that what he said above
            referred to the ultimate goal of creation, as is clearly stated, and that
            the idea of social threefolding is for now, a step on that road. One's
            personal experiences influence thinking on such subjects, and I'm certanly
            not immune. I called myself an anarchist once (didn't do anythng, just read
            the literature and it seemed to make a lot of sense). Then I came to
            Argentina, which has passed through stages of anarchy, when the state
            collapses and the thugs takes over, whether they call themselves Peronists,
            anarchists, communists, Guevaraists, it doesn't make any difference, the
            result is blood and death, and the inevitable outcome is a dictatorship.
            When "Basic Issues of the Social Question" fell into my hands, I thought:
            fuck anarchism, socialism, communism and all the isms. This is it. Get what
            I mean? Now, when you make a blunt, flat out statement such as
            "Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism", it's raises hackles. Maybe that's
            what you want, to provoke a reaction from reactionaries like me, (I wouldn't
            put it past you :) ) . So IMHO, if you said something like "Anthroposophy
            and the concept of the threefold society is a preview of anarchism" I would
            have no objection whatsoever, would even agree with you. And btw, I think I
            do grasp what you mean by anarchosophy - but that's not the word you used in
            your Dickensian opening statement.
            >
            > Tarjei:
            > > > My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding idea is a simplified
            ones.
            > > > Peter Normann Waage has written a book about it and lectured on the
            subject
            > > > in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and others have also gone into the
            details
            > > > of this idea. Feedback from listmates conversant with the Threefolding
            idea
            > > > would be interesting.
            >
            > Frank:
            > >You got mine.
            >
            > I'm sorry, but I don't see it. What I was asking for was a detailed
            > elaboration of the Threefolding idea beyond my simplified summary.

            Not sorry to have disappointed you.
            >
            > >Anarchism wishes to eliminate the state toot sweet, i.e., immediately,
            > >whereas Communism opted for a withering away after the dictrtorship of
            the
            > >prolitariate does its dirty work.
            >
            > Although RS did agree with his MacKay that the state was an evil which
            > encumbered individual freedom, he did not propose the immediate
            elimination
            > of the state by force. And yet he called himself an anarchist. I cannot
            > avoid getting the impression that your conception of anarchism is rigid
            and
            > inflexible and oversimplified, and that you don't recognize that the
            > movement may be split into many different schools of thought. It was
            > precisely because of such rigid misconceptions that I stopped using the
            > word "anarchist" about myself many years ago and coined the word
            > "anarchosophist" instead. Anarchosophy is therefore a type of anarchism,
            > but it is not identical to the type you describe in your post here.

            See above: your opening.
            >
            > >Steiner said that the threefold society was meant for the present and
            > >immediate future, not forever. I am inclined to agree that he foresaw
            > >anarcism for the distant future - but not now (the immediate future for
            him).
            >
            > That is highly disputable:

            So dispute it.
            >
            > [repost]
            >
            > "Seen spiritually, this is the time in which we ourselves are now living.
            > The fact that we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way
            > human beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much as they
            > can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells in them."

            I assume, but am not sure because you don't say so, that this follows the
            above quote about the goal of creation. If it does, it seems to mean that we
            have already reached the goal of creation, but we live in our old ways. I
            agree that we live in our old ways, or worse, but not that we have reached
            the goal of creation, no matter who says it. If it's from a different
            context, then I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.

            Frank
          • Mike Helsher
            ... Mike: Ever seen the movie K-Pax? In it there s a scene when Prot is asked what kind of societal structure there is on his home planet - what kind of laws
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 29, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Frank wrote:
              > Steiner said that the threefold society was meant for the present and
              > immediate future, not forever. I am inclined to agree that he foresaw
              > anarcism for the distant future - but not now (the immediate future for
              > him).
              >
              > Frank

              Mike:

              Ever seen the movie K-Pax? In it there's a scene when Prot is asked what
              kind of societal structure there is on his home planet - "what kind of laws
              do you have?"

              His answer was, "We have no laws - and no lawyers."

              Boy, did a light-bulb light up in my mind with that one.

              And I think it was Steve Martin (can't remember the movie) that said that
              "all of life's riddles can be solved in the movies."

              Laws and Lawyers (for now anyway)

              Mike
            • Tarjei Straume
              ... No I didn t. I was quoting myself, not RS. ... That s why those are two separate statements of mine. ... [He didn t say the above] ... It was written for
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Frank, you wrote:

                >You wrote, that RS said: : "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. "

                No I didn't. I was quoting myself, not RS.

                >Saying that the goal and purpose of creation is the free man, the anarchist
                >soul, is not the same as saying that "Anthroposophy is a branch of
                >anarchism".

                That's why those are two separate statements of mine.

                >Anthroposophy is now (as well as tomorrow) and the fact that RS
                >metamorphosed his anarchist leanings into the threefold society and even
                >tried to put it into practice, indicates to me that what he said above

                [He didn't say the above]

                >Now, when you make a blunt, flat out statement such as
                >"Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism", it's raises hackles. Maybe that's
                >what you want, to provoke a reaction from reactionaries like me, (I wouldn't
                >put it past you :) ) .

                It was written for anarchists in an anarchist magazine, but if it raises
                the hackles of others, so be it.

                >And btw, I think I
                >do grasp what you mean by anarchosophy - but that's not the word you used in
                >your Dickensian opening statement.

                Of course not - people don't know what it is yet.

                > > That is highly disputable:
                >
                >So dispute it.
                > >
                > > [repost]
                > >
                > > "Seen spiritually, this is the time in which we ourselves are now living.
                > > The fact that we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way
                > > human beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much as they
                > > can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells in them."
                >
                >I assume, but am not sure because you don't say so, that this follows the
                >above quote about the goal of creation. If it does, it seems to mean that we
                >have already reached the goal of creation, but we live in our old ways. I
                >agree that we live in our old ways, or worse, but not that we have reached
                >the goal of creation, no matter who says it. If it's from a different
                >context, then I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.

                You're mixing up my own statement with the RS quote from the Apocalypse cycle.


                Tarjei
                http://uncletaz.com/
              • Tarjei Straume
                ... Clarification: I quoted myself from my own article Anthropos Anarchos - http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html - here is the complete passage in
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Frank wrote:

                  > >You wrote, that RS said: : "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. "

                  I wrote:

                  >No I didn't. I was quoting myself, not RS.

                  Clarification:

                  I quoted myself from my own article "Anthropos Anarchos" -
                  http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html - here is the complete passage in
                  question:

                  ********************************************************************************
                  Human freedom, the inviolable sovereignty of the individual - this was
                  Steiner's basic philosophical point of departure. It was precisely on the
                  premises of freedom that he praised Nietzsche, Stirner, and Tucker. Steiner
                  claimed, paradoxically enough for many people, that traditional religious
                  ideas in terms of theology and the like, belong to a bygone age and must
                  yield to self-dependent thinking, totally independent of external or
                  internal authority.

                  The paradox here is Steiner's considerable contribution to Christian
                  theology, which was, however, a result of special requests. Even his 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.

                  Steiner's theism may seem self-contradictory in relation to monism, which
                  takes only the empirical world into consideration. This was no problem for
                  the initiated occultist, considering the fact that all his statements were
                  based upon supersensory research. Traditional religion, on the other hand,
                  is dualistic because phenomena beyond man's empirical potential become
                  objects of blind faith.

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


                  Tarjei
                  http://uncletaz.com/
                • Frank Thomas Smith
                  ... cycle. ... Sorry, my mistake - I guess. If you ll re-read your original post, however, you ll see how the mistake was understandable. I ll redo my reply
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tarjei wrote:
                    > You're mixing up my own statement with the RS quote from the Apocalypse
                    cycle.
                    >
                    Sorry, my mistake - I guess. If you'll re-read your original post, however,
                    you'll see how the mistake was understandable. I'll redo my reply with this
                    in mind.

                    Frank
                  • Frank Thomas Smith
                    Tarjei, ... and ... Sorry, but your mail seems to indicate Steiner, with all the quotation marks and gospels. (Maybe you re reading too much Steiner, if I
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tarjei,


                      > Hi Frank, you wrote:
                      >
                      > >You wrote, that RS said: : "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. "
                      >
                      > No I didn't. I was quoting myself, not RS.

                      Sorry, but your mail seems to indicate Steiner, with all the quotation marks
                      and gospels. (Maybe you're reading too much Steiner, if I can't even tell
                      you apart.) Anyway, I wrote my opionons "no matter who says it", if you
                      remember. If you wish to reply to my mail with that in mind, please do.
                      Frank
                    • Frank Thomas Smith
                      ... however, ... this ... On second thought, my reply would be the same, only substituting Tarjei for Rudolf. Frank
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Sorry, my mistake - I guess. If you'll re-read your original post,
                        however,
                        > you'll see how the mistake was understandable. I'll redo my reply with
                        this
                        > in mind.

                        On second thought, my reply would be the same, only substituting Tarjei for
                        Rudolf.
                        Frank
                      • Tarjei Straume
                        ... I once read a book by Harry Browne entitled How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. I m not going to talk about the content of the book, but its title.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 21:09 01.03.2004, Frank wrote:

                          >On second thought, my reply would be the same, only substituting Tarjei
                          >for Rudolf.

                          I once read a book by Harry Browne entitled "How I Found Freedom in an
                          Unfree World." I'm not going to talk about the content of the book, but its
                          title. Anthroposophy, anarchism, anarchosophy, call it anything you like or
                          delete all the labels and isms altogether. We're talking about a quest for
                          liberty here, which was once so beautifully expressed by Ben Tucker:

                          ***************************************************************************************************
                          Our Purpose

                          Liberty enters the field of journalism to speak for herself because she
                          finds no one willing to speak for her. She hears no voice that always
                          champions her; she knows no pen that always writes in her defence; she sees
                          no hand that is always lifted to avenge her wrongs or vindicate her rights.
                          Many claim to speak in her name, but few really understand her. Still fewer
                          have the courage and the opportunity to consistently fight for her. Her
                          battle, then, is her own to wage and win. She accepts it fearlessly, and
                          with a determined spirit.

                          ***************************************************************************************************
                          - Benjamin R. Tucker, Liberty, August 6, 1881.

                          From this quote alone, it is easy to see why Benjamin Tucker was praised
                          by Rudolf Steiner as the greatest champion for freedom and given a column
                          and platform by him when he was in Berlin. For Tucker and MacKay, this
                          quest for liberty entailed a political agenda. Steiner, however,
                          experienced MacKay's ambitions to involve him in this agenda by
                          politicizing the PoF and making a social ideology out of it, as an
                          ahrimanic temptation:

                          "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."
                          - Mein Lebensgang, GA 28, Chapter 28.

                          This is the difference between anarchosophy - or esoteric anarchism - and
                          political anarchism. It is legitimate to call Steiner's ethical
                          individualism a branch of anarchism because he did acknowledge that if he
                          had to say whether or not he was an anarchist, his answer would be an
                          unequivocal 'yes'. So although you have problems with these isms, that can
                          be ditched altogether for all I care, I'm only trying to use the language
                          in the best way I can. Personally, I think it's beside the point whether
                          Peter S is an anarchist or a communist or both. What is interesting is
                          whether or not he is a dialectical materialist. Steiner argued that
                          dialectical materialism made freedom impossible because it enslaved
                          thinking in a mechanical universe:

                          "If the hypothetically assumed entity is conceived as in itself unthinking,
                          acting according to purely mechanical laws, as materialism would have it,
                          then it must also produce out of itself, by purely mechanical necessity,
                          the human individual with all his characteristic features. The
                          consciousness of freedom can then be nothing more than an illusion. For
                          though I consider myself the author of my action, it is the matter of which
                          I am composed and the movements going on in it that are working in me. I
                          believe myself free; but in fact all my actions are nothing but the result
                          of the material processes which underlie my physical and mental
                          organization. It is said that we have the feeling of freedom only because
                          we do not know the motives compelling us."

                          - Die Philosophie der Freiheit 1894, GA 4: Chapter 10: Freiheitsphilosophie
                          und Monismus.

                          Over on the WC list, Walden just wrote about our list (Sun, 29 Feb 2004):

                          "What a wonderful chance for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism,
                          anti-Semitism - or not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition
                          complete with character attacks and paranoia."

                          Walden has apparently ignored my long essays about the complexity of Jewry,
                          anti-Semitism, assimilation, Christianity, Rudolf Steiner's ideas about
                          these things, my personal ideas about the same, etc. etc. All we're
                          discussing according to these people is whether or not Peter S is a
                          crocodile. And because they don't understand our anthro-babble, they return
                          to their jungle drum and continue beating on the worn-out racist doctrine
                          slogans and the racism slogans, and they keep doing their Nazi war dance
                          against us waving swastikas at us, crying anti-Semitism, totally ignorant
                          of what anti-Semitism is. These attacks come from a variety of life
                          conceptions and political colors, but their choir tends to howl after the
                          loudest voice, so if this voice is atheist-agnostic and anarchist, they're
                          all atheist-agnostic and anarchists as long as it gives them the illusion
                          that Anthroposophy is taking a beating.

                          For this reason, I believe it's important to establish that Rudolf Steiner
                          has a rightful place in the anarchist camp, and to wipe the lies against
                          him out of this camp.

                          Cheers,


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