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

4292Re: Questions concerning feminism and freedom

Expand Messages
  • Jenny
    Apr 15 6:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you, Robert, for this wealth of information!

      I appreciate your bringing me back to The Philosophy of Freedom. You
      are right...the freedom Steiner speaks about is inner. I am a
      product of my culture, it would seem, in thinking of freedom as "the
      freedom to live the life you choose". <sigh>

      In my further ruminations, I hit upon another snarl
      concerning "freedom" and "spirituality". I was reading some posts in
      the archives, and there was one that mentioned sacrafice...this
      really hit home. It would seem that freedom today IS sold as "the
      freedom to live the life you choose" and that sacrafice is only
      acceptable when it enhances your personal ability to have what you
      want (a sort of cost/benefit analysis). "Follow your bliss" is sold
      as a spiritual roadmap. To relate this to my earlier questions, it
      is a very strong sentiment in the world today, especially for women,
      that you won't achieve your potential unless you "be all you can
      be." We came here for a reason, (the thinking goes) and your dreams
      and desires point you in that direction. SO...if a woman has a
      family but also wants to climb the corporate ladder this is
      fine...and it would in fact be backwards to deny her the opportunity.
      (SO the thinking goes). The world will be a LESSER place if it is
      denied your contributions.
      Sacrafice is frowned upon these days...even
      called "unspiritual"...and yet the Christ made the ultimate sacrafice
      for the survival of man.
      SO...which is the correct path? Is it more spiritual to become the
      most self-actualized person with the most experiences for the growth
      of soul(let's just say that these experiences are all healthy) or is
      it more spiritual to deny yourself --in other words, sacrafice --
      your own ambitions for something higher such as family or community?

      Just trying to dig myself out of a quagmire of conditining....

      Jenny


      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > To "Jenny", who wrote:
      >
      > > Children have been abandoned to child-care because both
      > parents are
      > > pursuing careers.
      >
      > I seem to recall (don't have the quote handy) that in
      > his discussions of the 3fold social order RS said that
      > wages should be fixed so a man could support himself
      > and his family. It seems that RS had the opinion that
      > *in general* children are much better off in the care
      > of the parents than under the rule of the political
      > state, and that even formal education should be freed
      > from the political state and placed in the spiritual
      > (cultural) sphere of the 3fold society. Today, in the
      > USA, the horrors of "day care", the public schools, and
      > especially of "child protective services" would seem
      > to support that opinion.
      >
      > > Is a woman UN-free if she has chosen to depend on her husband
      > to
      > > support her? Is having your own source of money necessary to
      > be a
      > > free person?
      >
      > The "freedom" that Steiner teaches is primarily an inner
      > freedom, a state of consciousness and inner activity. Of
      > course his primary work of this theme is the "basic book"
      > *The Philosophy of Freedom*:
      > <http://www.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004>
      >
      > Steiner elaborates his concept of *social* freedom mainly
      > within his concept of the 3fold commonwealth. The basic
      > book here is:
      >
      <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA023/English/SCR2001/GA023_index.html>
      > Also some explanatory essays:
      >
      <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA024/English/AP1985/GA024_index.html>
      >
      > Here is an early lecture on "the woman question":
      > <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Woman_index.html>
      >
      > > And to my understanding Steiner also mentioned that
      > > in the future, there would cease to be a distinction in the
      > sexes.
      > > But does that mean that we ignore the biological/psychological
      >
      > > constitutions of the sexes now? Do we aim for androgeny? Or
      > is
      > > there a true spiritual distinction between that sexes that
      > needs to
      > > be honored and which is being ignored in this present day? Is
      > that
      > > all part of the leftist-multicultural-marxist levelling of
      > ALL?
      >
      > These are big questions; I could hardly try to answer
      > them all here. Yes, the sexes are destined to re-unite,
      > but only in the distant future, when conditions on this
      > planet will be very different. You might want to read
      > this contemporary treatment of the social-sexual situation
      > by the controversial Russian Anthroposophist Gennady
      > Bondarev, especially in the section "The Division of the
      > Sexes":
      > <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1105/GoodEvil.htm>
      > Bondy does give a lot of Steiner-saids with GA citations
      > that you can follow up.
      >
      > All this probably doesn't answer your question, but maybe
      > it's a start.
      >
      > Robert Mason
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
      >
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic