Re: Threefold Social Order Pt. 4-Commentary
In full consideration of your thoughts below, it would be well-worth reading these three lectures from December 1920:
The Bridge Between Universal Spirituality and the Physical Constitution of Man
The physical organism of man is considered today to consist of more or less solid-fluid substances; but as well as his solid, physical body, man has within him as definite organisms, a fluid body, an air-body and a warmth-body. The connections of these organisms with the members of man's whole being and with the different Ethers. Thought and Tone; Ego and circulating Blood. Man in the sleeping state. Man's relation to the universal Spirituality. Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition. The circumscribed view of the human organism prevailing today is unable to build any bridge between the physical body and the soul-and-spirit.
Herein, it will be conveyed very effectively that man can only be free if something more than nature necessity predicts his everyday, and rather deterministic activities. The Physical Body bears this in its activities, which are tied to the earth and the metabolic process that goes on therein.
But, as well, we have a higher calling, which is evident by these excellent discourses on the 'Threefold Social Order', being conveyed within these 12 Holy Nights as something rather unusual, brave, and yet, very timely considering the present situation, especially (it seems) here in our district, i.e., America.
Greetings to you, and Starman for the excellent work in these rather dark physical days, yet illuminated very well by the moral element inherent in what it truly takes to be free. Regards for the further commentaries to come.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jschreib26" wrote:
> Thank you for the response it is very helpful! Also, my name is Jeff.
> My statements were a bit rigid and materialistic, it is true. I personally feel a little better, however, using Ken Wilbur's notion of man transcending and "including" nature, rather than transcending and "dominating," as you say. We are BOTH, as you say, the creation AND a "spark of the Creator" both matter and spirit, both heaven and earth.
> While I do agree that some can transcend the physical in certain ways while conscious and alive, most of us firmly include nature in the totality of our being to some degree. Perhaps it is that part the part of us that is physical, that is in nature that I am trying to fit into these three-fold social concepts. I am young (in my early 30s) and of a (diminishing) liberal bent, and am quite attracted to the idea of disentangling these parts of society. I think there are many like me, and not only in America as the recent Occupy protests show. But what of the natural world? Turn individuals and business loose and they will set quickly to work dominating and destroying it with little attention paid to the ways that world seems to work best the "natural laws" it has been observed to follow. For evidence, one has the whole history of human civilization from which to draw.
> I guess that means that I, as Steiner says (jumping ahead a bit), "lack faith in the possibility of establishing a social order based on individual wills. They have no faith in it because such a faith cannot come from a cultural life that has developed in dependence on the state and the economy. The kind of spirit that does not develop in freedom out of the life of the spirit itself but rather out of an external organization simply does not know what are the spirit's potentials."
> But is it any wonder we lack this faith in society? What are the options for young people such as me? There seems to be no way to participate in society that does not cause harm to other people or the environment. There are no jobs in the classifieds that do not participate in some form of violence or destruction, no commodity I can buy, no service I can employ. Our very society seems ordered around these things it seems devoid of life and spirit. So, what many my age and younger seem to be doing is retracting: There is no food worth buying at the local supermarket, so we grow our own. We prefer not to wear shoddy clothes mass-produced in China, so we make our own. We try to engage in pursuits that add value to our communities, often while working other "real" jobs. If we don't know how to do these things, there's always the internet!
> This is uneconomical and anti-social. But participating in a destructive social order seems worse.