Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Catharsis
- At 14:14 02.09.2004, Goffredo wrote:
>One has to be aware of a possible descent into a sort of sophistry whichYou've got a good point. Diana keeps insisting on some weird notion of hers
>can only give munitions to those who wish to discredit the message given
>by R. S. -
that I'm somehow working for the WE establishment and that I'm responsible
for what Waldorf staffers say to parents. I've been trying my best to
remind her that I'm just a Tazist and anarchosophist, but to little or no
avail. Gary and Dan keep linking to my skulls from the PLANS site -
especially http://www.uncletaz.com/skullpage.html - because they figure it
sends a warning to prospective Waldorf parents about how deadly dangerous
and wacky anthros are. And in 2001, when my son who was 11 years old at the
time, made a spooky webpage with dungeons and dripping blood, the WC people
went completely berserk and threw themselves into a long long thread about
him being mentally ill and needing psychiatric intervention, being sick and
crying for help, and they wanted to use his webpage as a warning to
prospective Waldorf parents, making it necessary to remove the webpage.
They didn't ascribe the spooky webpage to his normal adolescent artistry or
to his genes, but to the Waldorf school. Look what they teach the kids in
To his credit, Dan Dugan seemed to back me up, but those malicious,
hysterical, and slanderous tirades against a minor are still on the Topica
and PLANS websites. The webmasters will probably hear from him when he's
18. We can wait.
The PLANS cult has no morals, no scruples whatsoever. Their war of smears
and slander knows no limits:
"Peter has studied Steiner's work in depth and has pointed out that it is
peppered with racism. He is calling for the Anthroposophical movement to
thoroughly revise, rescind, repudiate or replace Steiner's racist content.
He is drawing attention to an organization that holds up such work as
spiritually enlightened. He is placing Steiner's worldview in its
ideological and historical context because racial thinking, within
alternative spiritual movements, needs to see the light of day." - Sharon,
Sep 01, 2004
The members of the PLANS cult have precious little sense of humor, however,
and ZERO self-irony. That's their Achilles' heel, which is why I'm putting
them into musicals. I grew up in the theater; both my parents were actors.
Dan Dugan is a sound technician, so he ought to join in with some
suggestions of his own. But just like when they see the skull page linked
up above, they don't seem to get the content. They see the image of the
skull, and they see the word "death" mentioned, and they expect their
target audience to be equally tunnel-visioned.
Naturally, representatives of WE, AS, and other types of organized and/or
official aspects of anthroposophy may feel justified in exercising caution
when engaged in combat with these people. The same may apply to anyone who
feels called to be the communicator of Steiner's message. But I don't think
that's the case for the majority of us. I do communicate a message of
Steiner from time to time when I quote or paraphrase the Doctor, but I'm
also the communicator of Benjamin Tucker's message, Jens Bjørneboe's
message, Max Stirner's message, Shakespeare's message, Samuel Becket's
message, William Burrough's message, Jack London's message, John
Dillinger's message, Jessie James' message, Abbie Hoffman's message,
Timothy Leary's message, Noam Chomsky's message etc. etc. but first and
foremost MY OWN message. This message of mine may have adopted an awful lot
from Steiner and the others just mentioned, but when you've made the ideas
your own, it's YOUR message and nobody else's.
Incidentally, I've never been a Waldorf student, and I've never worked in a
Waldorf school nor in any other affiliated institution. I'm not a member of
any organization except Futurum Ministries, i.e. the Church of Tazism or
the Cult of Uncle Taz. That's right; Uncle Taz is my guru and occasional
alter-ego. So if the hardcore critics want to use Uncle Taz and his
lawlessness and criminality over in Norway as a scarecrow against Waldorf
enrolment in the US, so be it. The people who are scared away in this way
would probably have become troublemakers anyway, so I'm most likely doing
everybody a favor.
But back to the theater. Let's make a move, shall we, from musicals to
symbolic and satirical drama. A very interesting French playwright, Eugène
Ionesco (1909-1994), who, like Samuel Beckett, had a keen sense for the
Theater of the Absurd, wrote a mind-boggling play in 1959 called "Les
Rhinocéros". It was described by the author as an anti-Nazi play, but it
made every totalitarian regime jumpy. In Moscow, they wanted Ionesco to
rewrite it and make sure that it dealt with Nazism and not with their kind
of totalitarianism. In Buenos Aires, the military government thought it was
an attack on Peronism. And in England they accused him of being a petit
When Rhinoceros was produced in Germany, however, it had fifty curtain
calls. The next day the papers wrote, "Ionesco shows us how we became Nazis."
I hope those of you who followed our exchange with Peter Staudenmaier this
spring may be able to recognize what I'm getting at here. As you remember,
I pointed out that Staudenmaier's reading technique is strikingly similar
to that of Adolf Hitler a technique the future Führer developed when he was
in prison. He insisted that his method of reading, better than any other,
consisted of "remembering the essential and forgetting the unessential
completely". In practice, this meant defining what is essential, based upon
an intuitive process of comprehension, which he skillfully united with
whatever appealed to his own prejudices.
This is the spooky thing about this kind of karma of untruthfulness: By
falsely accusing the founder of a large international organization of
racism, anti-Semitism, pan-Germanism, and national socialism, certain
aspects of these lies creep up on them from behind, transformed and almost
imperceptible. It's not easy to grasp or recognize; only art can accomplish
such exposure - the art of the theater. What happens in Ionesco's play,
"Les Rhinocéros" ?
Bérenger, an average middle-class citizen, shows little interest in the
fact that a rhinoceros is loose in the city. He is surrounded by people who
willingly transform themselves into rhinoceroses. He quarrels with his
friend Jean and Daisy, his pretty secretary. In the office Bérenger
witnesses that the staff is gradually joining the rhinoceroses. Finally
Daisy and he are the only human beings, and when Daisy too turns into
rhinoceros, Bérenger decides to defend his humanity with a gun.
In our context, the interpretation of "Les Rhinocéros" may be twofold. On
one level, the play depicts the hardcore Waldorf critic's worst fear -
namely, that the entire world population will become anthroposophists and
evolve into some dangerous and dominant creatures on future Jupiter,
leaving the lonely hardcore Waldorf critic all alone with his huamity,
common sense, and skeptical reason. On a different level, the hardcore
Waldorf critics are themselves dreaming about evolving into rhinoceroses,
chasing all anthroposophists down to the last man. One by one, they convert
anthros (humans into anti-anthros (rhinoceroses), but when ther'e only one
anthro left in the world, they're facing a new fear: How to find a life
when anthroposophy has been totally wiped out. How to find a new purpose.
So they don't know what to do about the last man. And that's how the play
ends, when he says, "I'll never surrender."
>Perhaps when our sensitivity to what is beyond the physical begins toIn "Les Rhinocéros", the beasts, incredibly fast, large, THICK-SKINNED, and
>develop, we tend to become more susceptible. This changes our personality
>in different ways. Some become hypercritical, others become more arrogant
>and feel superior to other mortals, etc..
dangerous, are perceived as superior to man. That's what makes everyone
want to emulate them, and as a consequence, they all become rhinos. I saw
the play when I was 10 or 11 years old with my dad in one hell of a role,
Bérenger boss, who is transformed from human to rhino before his very eyes.
He starts pacing the stage, eating on a cactus, goes off-stage and returns
with a horn on his nose, goes off stage again to the bathroom, and Bérenger
blocks the door, but a huuuuuge rhino horn penetrates the door while he's
yelling and growling, and Bérenger makes a run for it.
>The study of anthroposophy and of other esoteric sources seem to beWell, according to the first level of interpretation mentioned above, the
>conducive to these temporary changes.
hardcore Waldorf critics seem to think that's it's precisely
anthroposophical studies that cause people to change into rhinos.
>Hopefully, they disappear when a real catharsis is accomplished..In reality, the rhinos disappear when the curtain falls, but the PLANS
cultists don't. They're humans on the outside but apparently thick-skinned
rhinos on the inside waiting to pop out.
>I met good Anthros and Theosophists when I was in Europe. Some appeared toCome to think of it, the fear of death is a decisive factor when masses of
>feel like a prima donna or a first fiddle. Some managed to get out of it.
>The most notable sign of their progress seems to be an absence of fear of
>death and of the unknown.
people are transformed into rhinos. That's the link between the story and
the rise of Nazism.