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

Re: Pre and Post Steiner

Expand Messages
  • be23566
    Ethical Individualism is To express one s moral ideas in life . Comparing primary principles. I didn t think Ethical Individualism had a primary principle,
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life". 

      Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism had a primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see translator Hoernle puts it:

      Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas bubble up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The situations in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions, are no less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend, therefore, on the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a given situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us, the concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our ideas. In so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it constitutes the
      moral substance of the individual. To let this substance express itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards all other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of view Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7 

      "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." 


      "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code." wiki

      Tom Last
      philosophyoffreedom.com 





      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
      >
      > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
      >
      > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF. Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general public, which I do.
      > >
      > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague mysticism speaking.
      > >
      > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
      > >
      > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for POF except my website which has been limited by my personal limitations. Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was an opening for Rand.
      > >
      > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were introduced to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present POF.
      > >
      > > Tom Last
      > > philosophyoffreedom.com
      > >
      >
    • juancompostella
      ... This is very interesting Tom, as certainly Steiner s POF was meant to be much more than it was accorded by the intellectual circle in Germany at the time
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 14, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF. Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general public, which I do.
        >
        > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague mysticism speaking.
        >
        > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
        >
        > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for POF except my website which has been limited by my personal limitations. Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was an opening for Rand.
        >
        > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were introduced to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present POF.
        >
        > Tom Last
        > philosophyoffreedom.com


        This is very interesting Tom, as certainly Steiner's POF was meant to be much more than it was accorded by the intellectual circle in Germany at the time it was written. Steiner seemed to indicate that it would be this way with his introduction to it, "Truth and Knowledge", wherein the coveted 'kantian epistemology' had gained the upper hand in intellectual discernment by the last third of the 19th century.

        But, of course, Kant had been greatly influenced by David Hume, as well as the discoveries of Issac Newton, which means he found the logical empiricism of the British thinkers and scientists most appealing in his quest to supplant the "monadism" of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, the last of the great speculative metaphysicists.

        So, I believe that Steiner's main work was already doomed by the effects of the empiricism of the times, wherein theoretical materialism had made many important discoveries that made philosophy seem less important. Thus, Steiner's work, coming when it did, meant much less as a system of free thinking and being, then these discoveries espousing measure, weight, and number figures.

        And that is why Rudolf Steiner went in the direction of spiritual science. He did so in order to attempt to show the importance of POF as a thought system, while also indicating the limits of the natural science that had developed along the lines of logical empiricism.

        While always maintaining the importance of *its* discoveries for ascertaining and describing an outer external world, he would maintain until his dying day that spiritual science was an evolutionary demand brought forth out of the principles of, "The Philosophy of Freedom", or 'free spiritual activity', wherein thinking has its seat in the etheric body.

        Therefore, it can be shown that there was nothing vaguely mystical, or spiritualistic about Steiner's mature work as the logical extension of POF. The beauty is that he grew in height and depth of perception every year since age 40; and always proclaimed his conviction about the importance of his main philosophical work.

        Juan
      • juancompostella
        ... I would add mine to this: To take responsibility for what is required of one to bear in life .
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
          >
          > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".

          I would add mine to this: "To take responsibility for what is required of one to bear in life".
        • juancompostella
          I think you ll find that the main difference between objectivism in Rand, and ethical individualism in Steiner, is the issue of selfishness. As such, it seems
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 14, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you'll find that the main difference between objectivism in Rand, and ethical individualism in Steiner, is the issue of selfishness.

            As such, it seems that Steiner was all of the things that Rand would have despised, i.e., altruistic, idealistic, unselfish, visionary, and yes, mystical, in the sense of a spiritual-scientific world-view that grew in proportion to his very own 'sense of life' in its duration on the physical plane.

            Steiner was no capitalist, nationalist, or any kind of denominationalist. Rand saw America in the mold of a great nation conceived in liberty for all, and the individual. She came from a very oppressive era in modern Russian history, having experienced two failed revolutions, c. 1905, 1917, as well as the first world war and its consequences.

            The beauty is that her mother sold her jewels so she could come to the United States in 1926. I feel that Ayn Rand had a sense of belief in this country of ours that we don't appreciate like she did. Her deprivation in growing up in Russia is nothing we understand, owing to our benefit of the freedom principles that she would find here.

            And she would help to proclaim it for us with her very intense and dedicated work over the years that saw even the so-called "red decade" of FDR, which she would testify to HUAC about in 1947. This was the aspect of "collectivism" in America that disturbed her greatly; FDR' 'New Deal' government in the 1930's.

            That is how *communism* became vogue in the 30's and 40's. FDR's collectivist government reforms put us all under regulations. Objectivism would make sense to those seeing the way out in favor of selfishness and personal creativity.

            Rand saw this because she came from a kind of condition of this.

            Juan



            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
            >
            > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism had a
            > primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see translator
            > Hoernle puts it:
            >
            > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas bubble
            > up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The situations
            > in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions, are no
            > less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend, therefore, on
            > the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a given
            > situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us, the
            > concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is individual
            > in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our ideas. In
            > so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it constitutes
            > the moral substance of the individual. To let this substance express
            > itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards all
            > other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of view
            > Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7
            >
            > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand
            > meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source
            > of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to
            > action."
            >
            > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's
            > primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for
            > his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a
            > moral code." wiki
            >
            > Tom Last
            > philosophyoffreedom.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
            > >
            > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's
            > moral ideas in life".
            > >
            > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy
            > terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than
            > materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is
            > independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I
            > reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF.
            > Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the
            > potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak
            > in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general
            > public, which I do.
            > > >
            > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was
            > Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for
            > Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague
            > mysticism speaking.
            > > >
            > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert theosophy
            > meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy translators,
            > which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is obvious to anybody
            > who wants to present POF to the general public.
            > > >
            > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and turn
            > it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah movement,
            > by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's philosophy had
            > been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I believe it would
            > have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would be a major
            > movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has been done
            > over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even if you had
            > the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been a separate
            > POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that dominates
            > anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and organizations that
            > spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for POF except my
            > website which has been limited by my personal limitations. Where are the
            > fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was an opening for
            > Rand.
            > > >
            > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF pre-theosophy
            > because I think it could be taken up as a major life philosophy of the
            > younger generation today, if only they were introduced to it in the
            > modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual speculation. Ayn
            > Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present POF.
            > > >
            > > > Tom Last
            > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Stephen Clarke
            Some interesting thinking and original ideas here on these subjects, esp. on the POF. Odd, but nice.   No complaints from me. Stephen Some interesting
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 15, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Some interesting thinking and original ideas here on these subjects, esp. on the POF.

              Odd, but nice.
               
              No complaints from me.

              Stephen


            • juancompostella
              ... Odd it is, indeed. Rand might have actually been closer to Aristotle than most people even think; a latter-day disciple in the vein of Strato of
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Clarke <hozhonahasglii@...> wrote:
                >
                > Some interesting thinking and original ideas here on these subjects, esp. on the POF.
                >
                > Odd, but nice.
                >
                >  
                > No complaints from me.
                >
                > Stephen

                Odd it is, indeed. Rand might have actually been closer to Aristotle than most people even think; a latter-day disciple in the vein of Strato of Lampsachus, who succeeded Theophrastus after 35 years, when his nominee was overruled by some higher council. Apparently, Theophrastus had Neleius (his nominee for successorship) take both his and Aristotle's libraries taken away and kept until the estate of Neleius was found by the book-buyer, Apellicon in the 1st century BC.

                Thereupon, Apellicon sold them three ways; to Athens, Pergamum, and Rome.

                So, Ayn Rand could be a 'Stratos' reincarnated for the sake of the mineralized west in the 20th century, and wanting to redeem *himself* to the idea of ego consciousness as the maximum supreme, when we finally take it to the evil forces that hold sway today.

                I think Ayn Rand had the idea of an individual human being as happy and self-fulfilling as her main goal. Would that be right?

                Juan
              • be23566
                I found this in Ayn Rand s essay THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS. The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 17, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                   I found this in Ayn Rand's essay THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS.
                  "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose."

                  That sounds like Steiner's Philosophy Of Freedom, almost. Steiner adds the question: What is man's highest pleasure? This brings in the element of ideals that seems to be narrowly fixed with Rand. Steiner has a long chapter examining the pursuit of happiness in POF Chapter 13 The Value Of Life. He concludes our main concern is not the pursuit of "happiness" as such, but we are driven by a desire to achieve our moral ideals, which would be individual, and could cause us great misery with only brief moments of happiness. So this self-fulfillment doesn't necessarily lead to selfishness, but could also lead to helping others, if that was a "freely" selected ideal by the individual.

                   [46] "Moral ideals have their root in the moral imagination of man. Their realization depends on the desire for them being sufficiently intense to overcome pains and agonies. They are man's own intuitions. In them his spirit braces itself to action. They are what he wills, because their realization is his highest pleasure. He needs no Ethical theory first to forbid him to strive for pleasure and then to prescribe to him what he shall strive for. He will, of himself, strive for moral ideals provided his moral imagination is sufficiently active to inspire him with the intuitions, which give strength to his will to overcome all resistance."  

                  Tom Last
                  http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com 

                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Clarke hozhonahasglii@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Some interesting thinking and original ideas here on these subjects, esp. on the POF.
                  > >
                  > > Odd, but nice.
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > > No complaints from me.
                  > >
                  > > Stephen
                  >
                  > Odd it is, indeed. Rand might have actually been closer to Aristotle than most people even think; a latter-day disciple in the vein of Strato of Lampsachus, who succeeded Theophrastus after 35 years, when his nominee was overruled by some higher council. Apparently, Theophrastus had Neleius (his nominee for successorship) take both his and Aristotle's libraries taken away and kept until the estate of Neleius was found by the book-buyer, Apellicon in the 1st century BC.
                  >
                  > Thereupon, Apellicon sold them three ways; to Athens, Pergamum, and Rome.
                  >
                  > So, Ayn Rand could be a 'Stratos' reincarnated for the sake of the mineralized west in the 20th century, and wanting to redeem *himself* to the idea of ego consciousness as the maximum supreme, when we finally take it to the evil forces that hold sway today.
                  >
                  > I think Ayn Rand had the idea of an individual human being as happy and self-fulfilling as her main goal. Would that be right?
                  >
                  > Juan
                  >
                • Patrick Nielsen
                  I think that Fair Oaks has identified the key point: the pursuit of one s own true desire. One danger of Rand s rhetoric is that one can come to think that
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 17, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think that Fair Oaks has identified the key point: the pursuit of one's own true desire.

                    One danger of Rand's rhetoric is that one can come to think that only the most overt desires are legitimate and that the more rarified motivations that Steiner describes are phantastical or even abhorant.  This can lead to a race to the lowest common denominator of desires; those of conspicuous consumption, instant gratification, and personal domination.  When this happens, it's a shame because Rand's characters rejected empty acquisition for merited wealth, neediness for desire, and backbiting for esteem of excellence.

                    The mistake is to think of altruism as opposed to desire.  Where it is, it's sure to be poisoned, but it doesn't have to be so.  Love of others is a higher form of love of self.  Charity is a higher form of ambition.  Sacrifice is not a negation of what we want but a setting aside of one desire for the sake of a greater desire.  Rand was understandably disgusted by self-negation, but that too is a desire.

                    Steiner's genius in this is his recognition that all desires exist as a continuum.  One may cut herself and we think that is perverse.  But she does this in response to a desire.  It's pointless to say that that desire is false; it's acting in her.  What's needed is for her to break down those obstructions to realizing her underlying desire in a more immediate and less self destructive way.  If one can become able to actually experience fully what is happening, one will be better able to get what one needs from that experience and thereby be transformed.  The transformation, if allowed to take root, will lead to different desires.  In time, one's motivation can appear insane to those who have not undergone such transformation.  Thus, saints appear to sin against their own desires while in truth  swimming in a rich sensuality.

                    -Do what you want, but do what you really want.

                    -You are moral insofar as you free, insofar as you are pursuing your own truest desire.

                    -Thou hast no right but to do as thou wilt.

                    -'Do as thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law.



                    PN


                    p.s.

                    Both self-identified conservatives and liberals can fall into any of the above-described errors.  In fact, partisanship, sectarianism, and ideology are great ways to keep us from our true individual desires.



                    On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM, be23566 <fairoaks@...> wrote:
                     


                     I found this in Ayn Rand's essay THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS.
                    "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose."

                    That sounds like Steiner's Philosophy Of Freedom, almost. Steiner adds the question: What is man's highest pleasure? This brings in the element of ideals that seems to be narrowly fixed with Rand. Steiner has a long chapter examining the pursuit of happiness in POF Chapter 13 The Value Of Life. He concludes our main concern is not the pursuit of "happiness" as such, but we are driven by a desire to achieve our moral ideals, which would be individual, and could cause us great misery with only brief moments of happiness. So this self-fulfillment doesn't necessarily lead to selfishness, but could also lead to helping others, if that was a "freely" selected ideal by the individual.

                     [46] "Moral ideals have their root in the moral imagination of man. Their realization depends on the desire for them being sufficiently intense to overcome pains and agonies. They are man's own intuitions. In them his spirit braces itself to action. They are what he wills, because their realization is his highest pleasure. He needs no Ethical theory first to forbid him to strive for pleasure and then to prescribe to him what he shall strive for. He will, of himself, strive for moral ideals provided his moral imagination is sufficiently active to inspire him with the intuitions, which give strength to his will to overcome all resistance."  


                  • juancompostella
                    Do as thou wilt was the maxim of Aleister Crowley, but maybe we should bring that in as well. Rand, Steiner, Crowley. Rand never saw a life before or beyond
                    Message 9 of 13 , Aug 17, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      'Do as thou wilt' was the maxim of Aleister Crowley, but maybe we should bring that in as well. Rand, Steiner, Crowley.

                      Rand never saw a life before or beyond the present life. Thus, she was pure Aristotle in *that* incarnation that came out of Plato's Academy after 20 years. Isn't that interesting?

                      Steiner seems to always see a happiness that relates to others, which could be due to lives after Aristotle's rather fixed point in time.

                      So, for Steiner, pain and suffering is a part of his ethical individualism, and cannot be dismissed. This is because he knew that repeated earth lives exist in the whole scheme of spiritual evolution.

                      As such, Rand and Crowley see the present life as most important, while Steiner sees the present in relation to the past, and also to the future. This can be assuredly be found in his concept of "ethical individualism".

                      He also proved it by taking it to the next level with his work as a spiritual investigator, which Rand and Crowley could hardly stake any claim on attempting.

                      Juan

                      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Nielsen <patrickrnielsen@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I think that Fair Oaks has identified the key point: the pursuit of one's
                      > own true desire.
                      >
                      > One danger of Rand's rhetoric is that one can come to think that only the
                      > most overt desires are legitimate and that the more rarified motivations
                      > that Steiner describes are phantastical or even abhorant. This can lead to
                      > a race to the lowest common denominator of desires; those of conspicuous
                      > consumption, instant gratification, and personal domination. When this
                      > happens, it's a shame because Rand's characters rejected empty acquisition
                      > for merited wealth, neediness for desire, and backbiting for esteem of
                      > excellence.
                      >
                      > The mistake is to think of altruism as opposed to desire. Where it is,
                      > it's sure to be poisoned, but it doesn't have to be so. Love of others is
                      > a higher form of love of self. Charity is a higher form of ambition.
                      > Sacrifice is not a negation of what we want but a setting aside of one
                      > desire for the sake of a greater desire. Rand was understandably disgusted
                      > by self-negation, but that too is a desire.
                      >
                      > Steiner's genius in this is his recognition that all desires exist as a
                      > continuum. One may cut herself and we think that is perverse. But she
                      > does this in response to a desire. It's pointless to say that that desire
                      > is false; it's acting in her. What's needed is for her to break down those
                      > obstructions to realizing her underlying desire in a more immediate and
                      > less self destructive way. If one can become able to actually experience
                      > fully what is happening, one will be better able to get what one needs from
                      > that experience and thereby be transformed. The transformation, if allowed
                      > to take root, will lead to different desires. In time, one's motivation
                      > can appear insane to those who have not undergone such transformation.
                      > Thus, saints appear to sin against their own desires while in truth
                      > swimming in a rich sensuality.
                      >
                      > -Do what you want, but do what you really want.
                      >
                      > -You are moral insofar as you free, insofar as you are pursuing your own
                      > truest desire.
                      >
                      > -Thou hast no right but to do as thou wilt.
                      >
                      > -'Do as thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > PN
                      >
                      >
                      > p.s.
                      >
                      > Both self-identified conservatives and liberals can fall into any of the
                      > above-described errors. In fact, partisanship, sectarianism, and ideology
                      > are great ways to keep us from our true individual desires.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM, be23566 <fairoaks@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > **
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I found this in Ayn Rand's essay THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS.
                      > > "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life
                      > > is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not
                      > > the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man
                      > > must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor
                      > > sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the
                      > > achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose."
                      > >
                      > > That sounds like Steiner's Philosophy Of Freedom, almost. Steiner adds the
                      > > question: What is man's highest pleasure? This brings in the element of
                      > > ideals that seems to be narrowly fixed with Rand. Steiner has a long
                      > > chapter examining the pursuit of happiness in POF Chapter 13 The Value Of
                      > > Life. He concludes our main concern is not the pursuit of "happiness" as
                      > > such, but we are driven by a desire to achieve our moral ideals, which
                      > > would be individual, and could cause us great misery with only brief
                      > > moments of happiness. So this self-fulfillment doesn't necessarily lead to
                      > > selfishness, but could also lead to helping others, if that was a "freely"
                      > > selected ideal by the individual.
                      > >
                      > > [46] "Moral ideals have their root in the moral imagination of man.
                      > > Their realization depends on the desire for them being sufficiently intense
                      > > to overcome pains and agonies. They are man's own intuitions. In them his
                      > > spirit braces itself to action. They are what he wills, because their
                      > > realization is his highest pleasure. He needs no Ethical theory first to
                      > > forbid him to strive for pleasure and then to prescribe to him what he
                      > > shall strive for. He will, of himself, strive for moral ideals provided his
                      > > moral imagination is sufficiently active to inspire him with the
                      > > intuitions, which give strength to his will to overcome all resistance."
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • juancompostella
                      Tom, I dreamed all last night about how important Steiner s main work was. It makes Rands objectivism an important side-note to her beliefs for what our
                      Message 10 of 13 , Aug 17, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tom, I dreamed all last night about how important Steiner's main work was. It makes Rands "objectivism" an important side-note to her beliefs for what our country means in its true perspective. In other words, America must live up to what the Consciousness Soul era means to bring forth. She saw this in a very "unblinkered way", it seems to me; albeit with the materialistic (capitalist) trappings.

                        Steiner never came to America, and possibly despised it for its preponderance of ahrimanic spiritual geography. Rand came here the year after he died, c. 1926, and she gave us something that is assuredly from the Russian Folk Soul, which Steiner knew had a future for the good, if it wasn't beaten down by the forces of evil.

                        I think she saw this before she died. She saw how much our country is in a trap that wants to force the one-sided economics on the whole world. Still, she saw this country as a far greater place than hers of the oppression years in 'bolshevik' Russia.

                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > I found this in Ayn Rand's essay THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS.
                        > "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just
                        > as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in
                        > himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and,
                        > therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing
                        > himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own
                        > sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's
                        > highest moral purpose."
                        >
                        > That sounds like Steiner's Philosophy Of Freedom, almost. Steiner adds
                        > the question: What is man's highest pleasure? This brings in the element
                        > of ideals that seems to be narrowly fixed with Rand. Steiner has a long
                        > chapter examining the pursuit of happiness in POF Chapter 13 The Value
                        > Of Life. He concludes our main concern is not the pursuit of "happiness"
                        > as such, but we are driven by a desire to achieve our moral ideals,
                        > which would be individual, and could cause us great misery with only
                        > brief moments of happiness. So this self-fulfillment doesn't necessarily
                        > lead to selfishness, but could also lead to helping others, if that was
                        > a "freely" selected ideal by the individual.
                        >
                        > [46] "Moral ideals have their root in the moral imagination of man.
                        > Their realization depends on the desire for them being sufficiently
                        > intense to overcome pains and agonies. They are man's own intuitions. In
                        > them his spirit braces itself to action. They are what he wills, because
                        > their realization is his highest pleasure. He needs no Ethical theory
                        > first to forbid him to strive for pleasure and then to prescribe to him
                        > what he shall strive for. He will, of himself, strive for moral ideals
                        > provided his moral imagination is sufficiently active to inspire him
                        > with the intuitions, which give strength to his will to overcome all
                        > resistance."
                        > Tom Last
                        > http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com <http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/>
                        >
                        > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Clarke hozhonahasglii@ wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Some interesting thinking and original ideas here on these subjects,
                        > esp. on the POF.
                        > > >
                        > > > Odd, but nice.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > No complaints from me.
                        > > >
                        > > > Stephen
                        > >
                        > > Odd it is, indeed. Rand might have actually been closer to Aristotle
                        > than most people even think; a latter-day disciple in the vein of Strato
                        > of Lampsachus, who succeeded Theophrastus after 35 years, when his
                        > nominee was overruled by some higher council. Apparently, Theophrastus
                        > had Neleius (his nominee for successorship) take both his and
                        > Aristotle's libraries taken away and kept until the estate of Neleius
                        > was found by the book-buyer, Apellicon in the 1st century BC.
                        > >
                        > > Thereupon, Apellicon sold them three ways; to Athens, Pergamum, and
                        > Rome.
                        > >
                        > > So, Ayn Rand could be a 'Stratos' reincarnated for the sake of the
                        > mineralized west in the 20th century, and wanting to redeem *himself* to
                        > the idea of ego consciousness as the maximum supreme, when we finally
                        > take it to the evil forces that hold sway today.
                        > >
                        > > I think Ayn Rand had the idea of an individual human being as happy
                        > and self-fulfilling as her main goal. Would that be right?
                        > >
                        > > Juan
                        > >
                        >
                      • Durward Starman
                        ******* Right, Tom, this is indeed the crucial point. Religious people in our world believe you have to have a fixed moral code to live by, and as soon as you
                        Message 11 of 13 , Aug 18, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ******* Right, Tom, this is indeed the crucial point. Religious people in our world believe you have to have a fixed moral code to live by, and as soon as you begin to talk about being a free human being, they react with fear because, if you stopped standing over yourself like a stern judge imposing that code on your actions, they're afraid you'd become a monster. They think every free spirit would become a libertine, doing whatever he felt like doing regardless of what it did to other people.

                             But do all people who live for themselves become monsters? If not, why not?

                              We do not because of human nature, because it is not what people fear it is. The people who join backward religions and go and commit suicide at their beckoning do so because they prefer a dictator they can believe in to being free. Wilhelm Reich saw this same phenomenon lead to the rise of Hitler.

                          *********

                            Dr. Steiner said that a person who would train himself to be able to reproduce the concepts in his philosophy of freedom the way a pianist reproduces a piece of classical music on the piano, would achieve freedom in his thinking. I've spent over 33 years doing so and can testify it is true; however, doing a very brief version of it here on the Internet is more like reducing a piano concerto to a jingle for a 30-second commercial. ;-) That said however, I'll give it a try, so that we are all on the same page.

                            Steiner wrote his book not to arrive at a theoretical answer to the question of human knowledge, but to get the answer to the question, is it possible for human beings to be free? We can be imprisoned or slaves and thus have no freedom from outside causes, but even if we don't, if we are impelled to act by subconscious motives (as the child cries for milk), then freedom is impossible. Therefore the question of whether it's possible for us to be free turns on the answer to the question, is it possible for us to know the reasons for our actions? If our knowledge is severely limited, as many philosophies teach, then we can't be free.

                             So Steiner then goes through the whole process of knowing, step-by-step. Untold numbers of philosophies starting with some of the ancient Greeks in the fourth century BC all begin the same way, by criticizing perception as unreliable. Steiner deliberately does not do this, but instead begins with thinking. We can have no doubt about its existence, BECAUSE WE PRODUCE IT. (Of course people who want to start by denying everything objective find a way to even do this these days, but then if they believe their thinking may come from unknowable sources and have no rational basis, I believe other people have no need to listen to them.) ;-)  When we think, we draw a concept from the ideal world by intuition and match it to whatever we perceive -- -- -- such as the concept "triangle" is matched to the perception of all triangular objects ( figures of three sides whose inner angles add up to 180°). All thinkers thinking the concept triangle are thinking the same idea. We participate in something universal when we think, unlike our perception which differs from one person to another -- the exact opposite of what philosophers usually try to enunciate as the truth who start out with the perceived world as the one common to all and our thinking as a little subjective world inside us. 

                            Our consciousness is a constant matching up of the ideas gained through pure thinking and our perceptions. An idea related to a physical perception is what Steiner calls by the German term "vorstellungen", representation or mental picture. There is only one concept "lion", but my mental picture of a lion is that concept related to all my perceptions of lions. Then, our feeling of ourselves as individuals makes this whole cognitive process an individual one. So he describes 4 levels, as I see it:

                          CONCEPTS & IDEAS                                  SPIRITUAL or IDEAL WORLD

                          MENTAL PICTURES                                   Spiritual related to Physical

                          PERCEPTIONS                                           PHYSICAL WORLD

                          FEELING of all this as personal                    Individual having the cognition.


                            Once he establishes this outline of how we know anything, in the second half of the book he goes on to consider what influences our action, and how conscious we are of acting. He draws a distinction between two things: the motive, something temporarily chosen for a particular action, and the driving force of a person, the permanent drives in us which result in our character, that inclines us to prefer one or another motive for action. These four levels he has established are 4 types of driving forces which may make us act:

                          Ideas and concepts gained by pure thinking (intuition)

                          Percepts gained by the senses

                          Mental pictures gained by combining ideas and percepts

                          Feeling-sensations of pleasure/pain accompanying percepts

                             A preponderance of one or the other in a person makes one type of "characterological disposition" or temperament. (Yes, that's the four temperaments.) So there are four types of people and four types of driving forces they may have.

                             Here is how he describes moral knowledge: observation shows us a percept (a situation); we draw by moral intuition the idea of what is right and match it to the situation (just as in general knowing our thinking intuits a concept which we match to a given observation). We create a moral imagination as we do so (just as combining the concept and percept makes a "mental picture"). Then, our feelings experience all this on a personal level--- in moral knowing this leads us to moral technique or how to make the Good a reality in our individual circumstances.

                          (Here, for comparison, is how Lievegood pictured his understanding of Steiner's moral cognition in his "Forming Curative Communities":
                          General Knowing                                                                     Moral Knowing
                          Concept or Idea----Intuition                                                   Moral Intuition

                          Mental Picture ---concept related to various percepts               Moral Imagination-A picture of this related to the perceived individual     
                                                                                                                                               situation

                          Feeling ---How concepts gain concrete life                              Moral Technique -how to make that image a reality

                          PERCEPTS                                                                            SITUATIONS)


                            Now,when the percept passes directly into being the driving force of an action, that is "instinct" or blind urge; or, feeling may be made the driving force; or mental pictures of deeds done by self or by others seen before may be. In all these cases, the subjective disposition affects the choice of a motive for one's actions. But when pure ideas are made the driving force for an action, the acting is out of the universal, not the personal. The highest driving force thus is "...an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content. Such an action presupposes the capacity for moral intuitions (Ch. 9)."

                            Acting out of the ideal world of pure ideas therefore is free action, not influenced by the body or subjective drives as it still is in the other three cases. This is why Steiner suggested the title for his book in English should be the philosophy of "spiritual activity", because only action that has as its basis an idea intuited from the ideal or spiritual world is free. 


                          ******So you're quite right, Tom, Rand & Steiner are quite complementary up to a point. In fact, I would say their philosophies are very complementary, but in trying to live out their philosophy, Rand failed. A person can only be a free spirit and live a good life, meaning doing good to others, only if they have the capacity for moral intuition, in other words being able to draw from the ideal world what is the correct thing to do in each given situation, and not simply following ones drives, feelings or old images of what was supposedly good. ( Of course, from Steiner's point of view, Goethe may have been a good 'philosopher' but certainly didn't practice what he 'preached'. Goethe humiliated his mistress for years by refusing to marry her, as I heard Albert Schweitzer point out; Ayn Rand humiliated her husband and drove him into alcoholism by following a blind urge for an affair with a younger man. )

                            I think that is the catch with a philosophy of freedom: it is dependent on having moral intuition, on being able to intuit what is the moral thing to do in each given situation and make that the driving force of your own actions. If we make blind urges, feelings, or mental pictures the motivation for our deeds, we will not truly be being free. This is Steiner's take on the old contradiction between freedom and necessity: "I can be free only when I make myself do only what is right". When people hear this for the first time it sounds contradictory, because they involuntarily picture it as standing over yourself imposing morality on yourself --- but as the Master said, "My burden is easy, my yoke is light." Or as Goethe said, "It is easy, but the easy is hard." What is hard and brings misery, as Ayn Rand demonstrated in her life, is insisting on keeping lower motivations while trying to be a free spirit. 

                            To put it all simply, her philosophy and Aristotle's is absolutely true, that the purpose of man's life is to be happy and to live up to his own ideals, no one else's -- but first a man must know himself (Gnothi seauton!), what his nature is, and what will truly make him happy.

                          -starman

                          www.DrStarman.com


                          To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                          From: fairoaks@...
                          Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:59:06 +0000
                          Subject: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner

                           


                           I found this in Ayn Rand's essay THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS.
                          "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose."

                          That sounds like Steiner's Philosophy Of Freedom, almost. Steiner adds the question: What is man's highest pleasure? This brings in the element of ideals that seems to be narrowly fixed with Rand. Steiner has a long chapter examining the pursuit of happiness in POF Chapter 13 The Value Of Life. He concludes our main concern is not the pursuit of "happiness" as such, but we are driven by a desire to achieve our moral ideals, which would be individual, and could cause us great misery with only brief moments of happiness. So this self-fulfillment doesn't necessarily lead to selfishness, but could also lead to helping others, if that was a "freely" selected ideal by the individual.

                           [46] "Moral ideals have their root in the moral imagination of man. Their realization depends on the desire for them being sufficiently intense to overcome pains and agonies. They are man's own intuitions. In them his spirit braces itself to action. They are what he wills, because their realization is his highest pleasure. He needs no Ethical theory first to forbid him to strive for pleasure and then to prescribe to him what he shall strive for. He will, of himself, strive for moral ideals provided his moral imagination is sufficiently active to inspire him with the intuitions, which give strength to his will to overcome all resistance."  
                          Tom Last
                          http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com 

                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Clarke hozhonahasglii@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Some interesting thinking and original ideas here on these subjects, esp. on the POF.
                          > >
                          > > Odd, but nice.
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > > No complaints from me.
                          > >
                          > > Stephen
                          >
                          > Odd it is, indeed. Rand might have actually been closer to Aristotle than most people even think; a latter-day disciple in the vein of Strato of Lampsachus, who succeeded Theophrastus after 35 years, when his nominee was overruled by some higher council. Apparently, Theophrastus had Neleius (his nominee for successorship) take both his and Aristotle's libraries taken away and kept until the estate of Neleius was found by the book-buyer, Apellicon in the 1st century BC.
                          >
                          > Thereupon, Apellicon sold them three ways; to Athens, Pergamum, and Rome.
                          >
                          > So, Ayn Rand could be a 'Stratos' reincarnated for the sake of the mineralized west in the 20th century, and wanting to redeem *himself* to the idea of ego consciousness as the maximum supreme, when we finally take it to the evil forces that hold sway today.
                          >
                          > I think Ayn Rand had the idea of an individual human being as happy and self-fulfilling as her main goal. Would that be right?
                          >
                          > Juan
                          >

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