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

Re: upside-down 3folding

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... processes that begin with man s relation to nature and continue down to the point where nature s products are ready for consumption - these processes and
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To Charlie M., who quoted RS:

      >>"The whole of this living complex of
      processes that begin with man's relation to
      nature and continue down to the point where
      nature's products are ready for consumption -
      these processes and these alone comprise, for a
      healthy social organism, its economic system.
      It occupies there somewhat the same place as
      that taken in the human organism by the head
      system, which conditions the individuals
      abilities. But the head system is dependent on
      the lung-and-heart system, in the same way the
      economic system is dependent on the service of
      human labor. The head, however, cannot by
      itself regulate the breathing, and neither
      should the system of human labor-power be
      regulated by the forces that operate within the
      economic life itself."<<

      And:

      >>From "The Challenge of the Times" "3. The
      Mechanistic, Eugenic and
      Hygienic Aspects of the Future (December 1,
      1918)"

      >>"...you do not understand Greek culture if
      you do not know that the situation was such:
      that the merely metabolic life which is
      expressed externally as the econonic [sic]
      structure still remained instinctive; inner and
      without the need of external reflection..."<<

      >>Charlie:
      I consider it a pointless exercise to tie the
      three members of society to the three members
      of the individual, these things are always in
      movement. Also its a bit like asking the
      question: which is the most spiritual, the head
      or the limbs?<<

      Robert writes:

      I'm guessing that you juxtaposed those two
      Steiner-saids because they seem contradictory
      and thus seem to prove the "pointlessness" of
      the "exercise"? Something like that?

      But there is no contradiction: In the second
      quote "the merely metabolic life" is in the
      individual, inner man, not in the social
      organism. In the context that surrounds that
      quote RS explains how "Men will today
      instinctively that what the human being is IN
      HIMSELF shall be REFLECTED in the social
      structure" (my emphasis). This "will" to
      "reflect" started only in the 3rd Post-Atlantean
      Epoch, when the INNER "head" was reflected in
      the outer social organism as culture, as a
      theocracy permeated by religion; the "breast"
      and the "metabolism" remained merely "inner";
      they were un-institutionalized, instinctive and
      unconscious in the social structure. In the 4th
      (Greco-Roman) Epoch this "reflection"
      progressed so that the inner "breast" was also
      reflected outwardly-socially, in the
      institutions of law and justice. In our 5th
      Epoch this process of "reflection" progresses
      so that now the INNER "metabolic" man "wills"
      to be OUTWARDLY reflected as a socially
      organized economy.

      Steiner was saying that the ancient Greek
      economic life, with its slavery and so on, was
      still "inner", instinctive; it was not
      reflected in the outer, social world as a
      consciously organized economy. He was NOT
      saying that the economic life was "metabolic"
      for the social organism. The "economy", i.e.
      the supplying of the material basis of life, is
      indeed "metabolic" for the inner, individual
      man -- but the economy does not supply life for
      the outer, social organism. Just the opposite:
      the economy brings death forces into the social
      organism. What is "metabolic" in the inner man
      becomes anti-life when it is REFLECTED in the
      outer society. -- Thus, the inner man is
      inverted, as it were, when his 3fold organism
      is reflected in the outer social organism, as I
      outlined in my previous post.

      And again: There is a larger "point" to this
      exercise: to understand what brings life and
      what brings death to the social organism.

      Robert Mason




      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Robert Mason
      ... his head up his ass, as it were?
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        To Tom, who wrote:

        >>Are you implying that Valentin Tomberg has
        his head up his ass, as it were?<<

        Robert writes:

        I'll try to reply only to your serious remarks
        and leave your jokes aside. Trouble is, I have
        such a hard time telling the difference.
        Sometimes I wonder whether you even know the
        difference . . . you and Tarjei.

        Tom wrote:

        >>. . . . I used the 3-fold man and social
        order as a way of showing that on a SOUL level,
        Bradford and Joel and everyone else is equal. .
        . .<<

        Robert writes:

        Once again, I'm not sure how serious you are
        about this. It looks kinda like a joke, but I
        get the feeling that you are not altogether
        joking. But I bypassed it the last time, and
        I'll bypass it again. Let me try to explain a
        little about myself and how I approach these e-
        lists. (This may be redundant for some of you,
        but I guess it's unavoidable.)

        I have a hard time keeping up with these e-
        lists. I subscribe to three of them, and I
        have my private email. I don't get much time
        online, and there are other things I want to do
        when I do get online. I don't even read all
        the posts; I'm doing well just to scan the
        blurbs and read the posts that look
        interesting. And I'm just plain slow anyway.
        I'm a slow typist; I'm a slow thinker; I have a
        hard time concentrating and getting things
        done. (A lifelong problem; probably ADD, but
        never formally diagnosed.)

        I used to feel as though it were my job to
        straighten every twisted thought in this world,
        and especially in these e-lists. But I just
        can't do that; I'm not up to the job. It's
        sometimes painful to walk past mangled thoughts
        lying twitching in the gutter, but I have to
        practice *triage*: I try to engage in e-
        discussions only if something fairly important
        seems to be at stake and only if there seems to
        be some realistic hope of getting something
        useful done. Probably I'm not up to that job
        either . . . but ya do what ya can with what ya
        got.

        Tom wrote:

        >>. . . . The anomaly was never resolved
        because Norman kept insisting on the fact that
        Freedom in the Cultural Sphere demanded that
        the Head rule here. Otherwise you would have
        Marxism, in quite the opposite sense you meant.
        And if you recall, the motto of the French
        revolution, which we drew on then as well, was
        also used by Steiner.

        >>Liberte--------- Freedom ---------Thinking---
        - Cultural Sphere
        Egalite----------Equality-----------Feeling----
        --Rights Sphere
        Fraternite-------Brotherhood------Willing------
        --Economic Sphere<<

        Robert writes:

        I see no anomaly here. Culture (Steiner
        actually said *Geist*, spirit, didn't he?) and
        thinking are "head" (death forces) for the
        individual organism, and only the individual
        can be free. But culture is "belly" (life
        forces) for the social organism. The
        individual human organism and the social
        organism are not the same.

        Tom wrote:

        >>I piped up something to the effect that it
        was like the problem we have explaining the
        Phantom Body to anyone: that the Physical Body
        in its essence as Phantom is really this Warmth
        Body from Old Saturn, while we normally think
        of it as the Mineral Body we see today.<<

        Robert writes:

        I tried, but I really don't see the analogy.

        Tom wrote:

        >>There's also an inversion when you run the 4
        elements with the 4 bodies. And I think it has
        to do with the opposite directions of
        involution and evolution. I remember going
        round and round with Arthur M. Young (1905-
        1995)in his Theory of Process about whether the
        etheric body correlated with water or with air,
        and vice versa for the astral body. But then
        both Arthur and I ganged up on Rupert
        Sheldrake, who insisted his "morphogenetic
        field" idea was of the astral while Arthur
        maintained it was etheric, according to
        Steiner. We never resolved it, but Arthur felt
        it did have to do with the opposite directions
        of involution and evolution.<<

        Robert writes:

        I don't see this analogy either. Are you
        saying that the human organism is evolving and
        the social organism involuting? (Well,
        *involving* doesn't seem quite right either.)
        Or is it the other way 'round? I don't see the
        relevance.

        Tom wrote:

        >>Also, I recall that back at Norman's, we also
        discussed the 3-sub-folds of each fold, giving
        3 x 3 = 9. For example, within the Economic
        Sphere, you 3-fold into Head-Heart-Limbs for
        the associations, where the Heads would direct
        and manage while the hearts would "broadcast"
        and "network" and the Limbs would do the heavy
        lifting.<<

        Robert writes:

        You mean producers, distributors, and
        consumers? -- Yes, the social organism is
        really 9folded; I can go along with that.
        Exploring this idea can deepen our
        understanding. But first we need to get the
        basic 3folding right side up.

        Tom wrote:

        >>Anyway, I'm glad you brought it up, as it
        shows once again that we really can't
        systematize Steiner, no matter how hard we
        try.<<

        Robert writes:

        Yes . . . the tree looks different from
        different angles; there are the famous 12
        world-views, and all that. Sure, there's
        plenty I don't understand about the Steiner-
        saids, but we can at least try to think clearly
        about what Steiner said when what he said was
        clear enough. And in this case it was clear,
        and it makes sense when one thinks about it.
        If trying to gain clarity is what you would
        call *systematization*, I plead guilty -- but
        guiltily not guilty enough.

        Tom wrote:

        >>Something baffles me here. . . . (etc., etc.)

        >>Do you think peace might reign if we never
        discussed anything by any of these Russians?<<

        Robert writes:

        I guess this is 99% joke? But for the 1%
        seriousness, I have a serious question.

        You brought in the maternally Russkie Tomberg
        and his allegedly "incisive anthroposophical
        insights". And you have made other gestures in
        that direction since your return. I'm already
        running the risk of starting a Tomberg thread
        with G-man, but this is more of a Tom question
        than a Tomberg question.

        In the dreaded year 1998 you wrote an open
        letter to Joan Almon. Here is a lengthy
        excerpt for the benefit of the onlookers:

        ***********************************************
        I myself was deeply enmeshed in the esoteric
        Christian Hermetic Tombergian cult from 1980 to
        about 1989. When I lived in Spring Valley in
        1980, I got to know Bud & Nina Remensperger,
        who were then churning out Tomberg's articles
        and lectures in English from a press in their
        garage --- which they called "Candeur
        Manuscripts." Having been born and raised
        devout Irish Catholic in NYC, and then coming
        to anthroposophy at age 28, I was very
        intrigued by a man who was an anthroposophist
        first and then became a Catholic at age 42.

        But it has really only been in the last 6
        months that I have personally come to terms
        with the insidious retrograde cult nature of
        the movement that has sprung up around Tomberg
        and his esoteric Christian legacy. Your
        citation of that Prokofieff quote on page 29
        exposes most tersely the nature of this evil
        cult and why it is so damaging to the growth of
        anthroposophy today. Allow me to reproduce it
        here since this letter to you, Joan, is going
        to appear on the Steiner98 List and there are
        even some Society members who have not yet
        received the issue.
        _______________________________________________
        "Some of the anthroposophists close to Tomberg
        felt he was living with delusions even while he
        was active in the Society, and his indications
        about his own previous incarnations and those
        of others do raise serious concerns. In any
        case he [Tomberg] came --- rightly or wrongly -
        -- to a certain conclusion that seems to me to
        explain many of his actions. [Sergei ]
        Prokofieff quotes Tomberg as having said to his
        friend Lubensky in the early 1940's: 'The
        impulse of the Consciousness Soul has failed; a
        direct path must be found from the Intellectual
        Soul to the WE-Soul (Spirit Self) [Manas]'" . .
        . . Thank you so very much, Joan, because
        exists to celebrate the spiritual and physical
        reality of the Consciousness Soul Age as it
        properly unfolds so beautifully and
        instinctively from us Americans who were born
        since the middle of this 20th Century. (See
        Lecture 6 of 6 in "Challenge of the Times.")
        (NOTE: But woe betide any of these Americans
        who dare to bypass the Consciousness Soul Age
        and whose karma it is to trip and fall down
        headlong into the treacherous snake pit, sewer
        and cesspool of Steiner98, a definite esoteric
        mudhole that exists to detain and restrain such
        irresponsible people from their drunken
        Ahrimanic rush to Philadelphia.) And as if that
        statement wasn't enough for me to celebrate, I
        then read the article by Florian Sydow and
        these sentences jumped out at me from page 7.
        (Again, Joan, please forgive me for quoting
        your own Newsletter back at you, but this
        letter is also for my audience here on S98 ---
        many of whom are not Society members at all) He
        [Florian Sydow] is discussing the 3rd round of
        the 666 year cycle in 1998 and how Ahriman
        stands in the service of this Sorath Sun-demon,
        the 2-horned Beast of the Book of Revelation:
        (my emphases in ALL CAPS)
        _______________________________________________
        "Ahriman stands in the service of this Anti-
        Christ being. The latest strategy that we can
        see unfolding from this powerful alliance is to
        forcefully introduce a PRE-MATURE 'SPIRIT SELF'
        [MANAS] AGE without allowing for the maturing
        of the human ego and individual human freedom."
        "... According to Steiner's reckoning, this
        'Spirit-Self' Age is not meant to BEGIN [I
        repeat: BEGIN!] until the MIDDLE of the FOURTH
        MILLENNIUM A.D. [i.e. 4400 A.D. = End of Kali
        Yuga in 1900 + 2500 years to the appearance of
        Maitreya Buddha!] ". . . in light of the warp
        speed acceleration that Ahriman is bringing
        about, and the FALSE VERSION OF 'SPIRIT SELF'
        THAT IS BEING IMPOSED PREMATURELY, it will
        become all the more important to cultivate the
        pre-figuration of this future stage presently
        embodied in anthroposophy."
        _______________________________________________
        I could probably formulate a very accurate
        mission statement for my Steiner98 List out of
        the above thoughts.
        ***********************************************

        Robert continues:

        I get the creepy feeling that you have fallen,
        or are falling, back into that "evil cult".
        I'm wondering what happened to you; did you get
        mugged by Joel Wendt in some dark alley of
        cyberspace, or what?

        I'm serious.

        Robert Mason




        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Charlie Morrison
        ... Hi Robert and all I had just finished listening to the second quote virtually minutes before reading your post to Tom. It aroused my curiosity so I had a
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
          >
          > To Charlie M., who quoted RS:
          >
          > >>"The whole of this living complex of
          > processes that begin with man's relation to
          > nature and continue down to the point where
          > nature's products are ready for consumption -
          > these processes and these alone comprise, for a
          > healthy social organism, its economic system.
          > It occupies there somewhat the same place as
          > that taken in the human organism by the head
          > system, which conditions the individuals
          > abilities. But the head system is dependent on
          > the lung-and-heart system, in the same way the
          > economic system is dependent on the service of
          > human labor. The head, however, cannot by
          > itself regulate the breathing, and neither
          > should the system of human labor-power be
          > regulated by the forces that operate within the
          > economic life itself."<<
          >
          > And:
          >
          > >>From "The Challenge of the Times" "3. The
          > Mechanistic, Eugenic and
          > Hygienic Aspects of the Future (December 1,
          > 1918)"
          >
          > >>"...you do not understand Greek culture if
          > you do not know that the situation was such:
          > that the merely metabolic life which is
          > expressed externally as the econonic [sic]
          > structure still remained instinctive; inner and
          > without the need of external reflection..."<<
          >
          > >>Charlie:
          > I consider it a pointless exercise to tie the
          > three members of society to the three members
          > of the individual, these things are always in
          > movement. Also its a bit like asking the
          > question: which is the most spiritual, the head
          > or the limbs?<<
          >
          > Robert writes:
          >
          > I'm guessing that you juxtaposed those two
          > Steiner-saids because they seem contradictory
          > and thus seem to prove the "pointlessness" of
          > the "exercise"? Something like that?
          >
          > But there is no contradiction: In the second
          > quote "the merely metabolic life" is in the
          > individual, inner man, not in the social
          > organism. In the context that surrounds that
          > quote RS explains how "Men will today
          > instinctively that what the human being is IN
          > HIMSELF shall be REFLECTED in the social
          > structure" (my emphasis). This "will" to
          > "reflect" started only in the 3rd Post-Atlantean
          > Epoch, when the INNER "head" was reflected in
          > the outer social organism as culture, as a
          > theocracy permeated by religion; the "breast"
          > and the "metabolism" remained merely "inner";
          > they were un-institutionalized, instinctive and
          > unconscious in the social structure. In the 4th
          > (Greco-Roman) Epoch this "reflection"
          > progressed so that the inner "breast" was also
          > reflected outwardly-socially, in the
          > institutions of law and justice. In our 5th
          > Epoch this process of "reflection" progresses
          > so that now the INNER "metabolic" man "wills"
          > to be OUTWARDLY reflected as a socially
          > organized economy.
          >
          > Steiner was saying that the ancient Greek
          > economic life, with its slavery and so on, was
          > still "inner", instinctive; it was not
          > reflected in the outer, social world as a
          > consciously organized economy. He was NOT
          > saying that the economic life was "metabolic"
          > for the social organism. The "economy", i.e.
          > the supplying of the material basis of life, is
          > indeed "metabolic" for the inner, individual
          > man -- but the economy does not supply life for
          > the outer, social organism. Just the opposite:
          > the economy brings death forces into the social
          > organism. What is "metabolic" in the inner man
          > becomes anti-life when it is REFLECTED in the
          > outer society. -- Thus, the inner man is
          > inverted, as it were, when his 3fold organism
          > is reflected in the outer social organism, as I
          > outlined in my previous post.
          >
          > And again: There is a larger "point" to this
          > exercise: to understand what brings life and
          > what brings death to the social organism.
          >
          > Robert Mason


          Hi Robert and all

          I had just finished listening to the second quote virtually minutes
          before reading your post to Tom. It aroused my curiosity so I had a
          quick look through my books for any relevant passages and found the
          first quote. I usually like time to think things through before I post
          anything but on this occasion I sent it without too much thought. I
          could see that things were more complex than were shown by a table
          linking the threefold social order with the threefold human.

          "Pointless" wasn't a very good word to use, as I do think that there
          is a point to make in linking them if there is a clear explanation of
          how they relate. And besides, why did I then continue thinking about
          the relationship if I thought that it was pointless? So I'll retract
          that statement.

          To me its a bit like Mike's dancer. I can see that the rights sphere
          with its emphasis on equality keeps the balance between the freedom of
          the cultural sphere and the necessities of the economic sphere. But
          the other two seem to flip round depending on how I look at them. I
          agree with you that economic sphere brings death to a community
          without the life-giving forces of the spiritual sphere. But I also see
          the movement of commodities in, out and around a community, as being
          very like the metabolism of the individual. The dancer's just flipped
          again.

          (By the way I saw the dancer going clockwise. To start with, the only
          way I could get her to change direction was to focus in on her lower
          foot by shielding the rest of her body with my hand. I then imagined
          her toes to be moving towards me as her foot flipped from left to
          right. Of course as soon as I looked away and then back she had
          reverted to spinning clockwise.)

          It seems your point of view would have been endorsed by Karl Konig,
          "Our skull is the image of the earth onto which we descend. The brain
          within the skull is the fully-developed economic life..." (Man as a
          Social Being, P255)

          Slainte,
          Charlie M.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.