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

upside-down 3folding (was: Schichten Urteilen)

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... insights of Valentin Tomberg, who, in one of his Bible study pamplhlets [sic] presented the threefold differentiation of not only the human organism but of
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom wrote:

      >>I turn to the incisive anthropophical [sic]
      insights of Valentin Tomberg, who, in one of
      his Bible study pamplhlets [sic] presented the
      threefold differentiation of not only the human
      organism but of the social order.

      >>Let me do a chart of the three "Schichten"

      (1) SPIRIT ---THINKING-----Cultural
      Sphere -----Head/Nervous system
      (2) SOUL ------FEELING ----- Rights
      Sphere -----Heart/Lung System
      (3) BODY------WILLING ------
      Economic Sphere-----Metabolic/Limb System

      >>All the above is directly from Steiner. . . .<<

      Robert writes:

      No, that is not directly from Steiner; it is
      directly the inverse of what Steiner said about
      the 3fold social order. (It may well be
      directly from Tomberg; I don't know. But if
      so, it seems yet another confirmation of Marie
      Steiner's very apt and prescient description of
      Tomberg as being "lost in delusion" --
      prescient because she wrote those words long
      before Tomberg openly joined the Jesuitic-
      Hermetic occult "stream". [Well, not quite
      openly; he did make an inept attempt to
      maintain anonymity. But the important point is
      that he took a complete, head-first plunge into
      that anti-Anthroposophical stream and abandoned
      even the muddled claim to be doing
      Anthroposophy.] And perhaps, in fairness to
      Tomberg, I should note that the later,
      Jesuitical Tomberg effectively disowned his
      earlier, allegedly Anthroposophical writings; I
      presume that this "Bible study pamphlet" was
      among those. -- But all this is parenthetical;
      right now, the important thing is to get the
      3fold order right side up.)

      Here is what Steiner did say in his basic book
      on the 3fold order:

      ". . . . the economic member of a healthy
      social organism. This member is comparable to
      the head system of the human organism . . . ."
      (*Basic Issues of the Social Question*, Chapter 2)

      In this book he didn't explain in much detail
      why this analogy is correct and why the other
      one is upside-down; the correct analogy is
      implicit in his whole discussion. But
      elsewhere he was more explicit on this point
      (for instance, in the lecture of June 24, 1920
      [Stuttgart; published in *Polarities in the
      Evolution of Mankind*]).

      In the individual human organism the metabolic-
      limb system supplies the life forces; the
      rhythmic-heart-lung system and the head-nerve-
      sense system "live on" these life forces.
      More, the head system brings death forces into
      the organism. -- In the social organism the
      cultural-spiritual "sphere" brings the life
      forces; the other two spheres "live on" these
      social-life forces. And in the social organism
      the economic sphere brings death forces.

      So, the correct analogy puts the economic
      social sphere in correspondence to the head-
      nerve system and the cultural sphere in
      correspondence to the metabolic-limb system.
      (And the legal-political sphere corresponds to
      the rhythmic system.)

      And: making this correct analogy is not merely
      an exercise in anal-retentive pedantry. If we
      make the wrong analogy, we might miss the
      important fact that the spirit, the culture,
      supplies the essential foundation of the living
      social organism . . . and miss the important
      fact that no society can live based only on an
      economy. The wrong analogy essentially makes
      the same fundamental error that underlies
      Marxist social theory: economic determinism.
      Marxism sees economic processes as fundamental
      to society and sees "culture" as being only a
      "superstructure", an "ideology". Marx not only
      stood Hegel on his head; he stood sociology
      upside down and ontologically inverted the
      spiritual and the material.

      Society can develop an economy only because
      that social organism first comes to life
      through the spirit; when economic forces
      predominate over the cultural-spiritual in a
      society, that society is dying. This is
      fundamental. Steiner got it right; Marx and
      Tomberg got it wrong.

      Robert Mason



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • happypick2000
      ... Dear Tom, Robert and Friends, This conversation, which I apparently missed out on during Tom s posting, reminds me so very much of my very frequent
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
        >
        > Tom wrote:
        >
        > >>I turn to the incisive anthropophical [sic]
        > insights of Valentin Tomberg, who, in one of
        > his Bible study pamplhlets [sic] presented the
        > threefold differentiation of not only the human
        > organism but of the social order.
        >
        > >>Let me do a chart of the three "Schichten"
        >
        > (1) SPIRIT ---THINKING-----Cultural
        > Sphere -----Head/Nervous system
        > (2) SOUL ------FEELING ----- Rights
        > Sphere -----Heart/Lung System
        > (3) BODY------WILLING ------
        > Economic Sphere-----Metabolic/Limb System
        >
        > >>All the above is directly from Steiner. . . .<<
        >
        > Robert writes:
        >
        > No, that is not directly from Steiner; it is
        > directly the inverse of what Steiner said about
        > the 3fold social order. (It may well be
        > directly from Tomberg; I don't know. But if
        > so, it seems yet another confirmation of Marie
        > Steiner's very apt and prescient description of
        > Tomberg as being "lost in delusion" --
        > prescient because she wrote those words long
        > before Tomberg openly joined the Jesuitic-
        > Hermetic occult "stream". [Well, not quite
        > openly; he did make an inept attempt to
        > maintain anonymity. But the important point is
        > that he took a complete, head-first plunge into
        > that anti-Anthroposophical stream and abandoned
        > even the muddled claim to be doing
        > Anthroposophy.] And perhaps, in fairness to
        > Tomberg, I should note that the later,
        > Jesuitical Tomberg effectively disowned his
        > earlier, allegedly Anthroposophical writings; I
        > presume that this "Bible study pamphlet" was
        > among those. -- But all this is parenthetical;
        > right now, the important thing is to get the
        > 3fold order right side up.)
        >
        > Here is what Steiner did say in his basic book
        > on the 3fold order:
        >
        > ". . . . the economic member of a healthy
        > social organism. This member is comparable to
        > the head system of the human organism . . . ."
        > (*Basic Issues of the Social Question*, Chapter 2)
        >
        > In this book he didn't explain in much detail
        > why this analogy is correct and why the other
        > one is upside-down; the correct analogy is
        > implicit in his whole discussion. But
        > elsewhere he was more explicit on this point
        > (for instance, in the lecture of June 24, 1920
        > [Stuttgart; published in *Polarities in the
        > Evolution of Mankind*]).
        >
        > In the individual human organism the metabolic-
        > limb system supplies the life forces; the
        > rhythmic-heart-lung system and the head-nerve-
        > sense system "live on" these life forces.
        > More, the head system brings death forces into
        > the organism. -- In the social organism the
        > cultural-spiritual "sphere" brings the life
        > forces; the other two spheres "live on" these
        > social-life forces. And in the social organism
        > the economic sphere brings death forces.
        >
        > So, the correct analogy puts the economic
        > social sphere in correspondence to the head-
        > nerve system and the cultural sphere in
        > correspondence to the metabolic-limb system.
        > (And the legal-political sphere corresponds to
        > the rhythmic system.)
        >
        > And: making this correct analogy is not merely
        > an exercise in anal-retentive pedantry. If we
        > make the wrong analogy, we might miss the
        > important fact that the spirit, the culture,
        > supplies the essential foundation of the living
        > social organism . . . and miss the important
        > fact that no society can live based only on an
        > economy. The wrong analogy essentially makes
        > the same fundamental error that underlies
        > Marxist social theory: economic determinism.
        > Marxism sees economic processes as fundamental
        > to society and sees "culture" as being only a
        > "superstructure", an "ideology". Marx not only
        > stood Hegel on his head; he stood sociology
        > upside down and ontologically inverted the
        > spiritual and the material.
        >
        > Society can develop an economy only because
        > that social organism first comes to life
        > through the spirit; when economic forces
        > predominate over the cultural-spiritual in a
        > society, that society is dying. This is
        > fundamental. Steiner got it right; Marx and
        > Tomberg got it wrong.
        >
        > Robert Mason
        Dear Tom, Robert and Friends,

        This conversation, which I apparently missed out on during Tom's
        posting, reminds me so very much of my very frequent RE-discoveries so
        often found in my Steiner readings. A recent example is in regard to
        my pondering about a long time friend, my first mentor, and I told
        myself to the effect, "Well, now she's at such and such a stage in the
        Sp. Wrlds and is still in the sphere from which she could contact
        those close to her here on earth...." The reality was my close friend
        and mentor had already passed through 1/3rd of her last earthly
        incarnation and therefore was very unlikely to have remained in such
        close communication to the earthly sphere by now. Steiner's works are
        so incredibly all-encompassing and comprehensive to the point that I
        am increasingly becoming unable to always sift out, so to say, well
        known details on the spot until afterwards. Why this is so for me, I
        cannot understand, but it is the case.

        Blessings,
        Sheila
      • Robert Mason
        ... Dear Sheila: You missed it because I was cross-posting my reply from Yahoo Anthroposophy and Anthroposophy Tommorrow. There s been a lot of cross-posting
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@...> wrote:
          > This conversation, which I apparently missed out on during Tom's
          > posting. . . .

          Dear Sheila:

          You missed it because I was cross-posting my
          reply from Yahoo Anthroposophy and Anthroposophy
          Tommorrow. There's been a lot of cross-posting
          between those two lately, and I just included
          the Steiner list this time because of the
          importance of this subject.

          Robert M
        • happypick2000
          ... Robert, thank you. I found it interesting as no doubt many others also did and one can always surf over to the other sites for followups if needed. That s
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Mason" <robertsmason_99@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@> wrote:
            > > This conversation, which I apparently missed out on during Tom's
            > > posting. . . .
            >
            > Dear Sheila:
            >
            > You missed it because I was cross-posting my
            > reply from Yahoo Anthroposophy and Anthroposophy
            > Tommorrow. There's been a lot of cross-posting
            > between those two lately, and I just included
            > the Steiner list this time because of the
            > importance of this subject.
            >
            > Robert M
            >
            Robert, thank you. I found it interesting as no doubt many others also
            did and one can always surf over to the other sites for followups if
            needed. That's what I should have done, but I was pleased to see such
            a fascinating conversation taking place in Steiner where we have so
            very many deeply knowledgeable APs! Let's hope more such interesting
            points pop up. Thanks you also for the notice of Kar. Rel. Vol III
            being online at the e-lib. That is one I have pondered on over and
            over again! Which of the two types am I? Such a critical insight
            brings us incredible insights, not only into our own lives but into
            those of others as well! Some years ago when I was first loaned it to
            study, my mentors so very wisely said it was alright that I was not
            yet a Member, since I would fail to understand various points should I
            not be ready! WOW! How very true! As the more modern expression might
            have it, it blew my mind! :)

            Keep on posting,

            Sheila
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.