5665RE: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order- 12th Night
- Jan 5, 2013Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
*******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro.
As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
*******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous.
There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met.
So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html
Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
"The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
*******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses.
It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders.
What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
Again, thank you for this study.
******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants.
There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity.
And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>