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

RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall become mature and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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.