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

RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
      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they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall become mature and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      they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall become mature and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 2 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
        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 3 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
          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 4 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
            > 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 5 of 11 , Mar 1, 2004
              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.