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

Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 8: Commentary

Expand Messages
  • juancompostella
    I rejoined the list because I thought your invitation for a 12 Nights study was meaningful, and then when no one seemed interested and you started it alone, I
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I rejoined the list because I thought your invitation for a 12 Nights study was meaningful, and then when no one seemed interested and you started it alone, I felt inspired to extend my goodwill in your effort. I am most interested in this subject, and rest assured that I am not attempting intentionally to be contentious. My participation in the recent past on Steiner's PoF speaks for itself.

      Steiner's characterizing of anthroposophy as arising out of the left-wing camp of the "exotericists", who seek to have spiritual truths told, but with the caveat of a 'special aim',such as the Indian occultists, and the Catholic High Church party, was meant to indicate that he sought to provide the fullest and most honest presentation of spiritual knowledge without any conditions or restrictions other than the truths not yet able to be told.

      I find that the threefolding of the social order gains much by an ancillary consideration of the threefolded human soul members which are duly impacted in the struggle for a properly guided society based on the absolute validity of these objectives for a balanced and harmonious world.

      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
      >
      > ******* Juan, when I saw you just re-joined this list I figured I'd let you have another chance to participate. But what you just wrote is saying black is white. An absolute requirement for anthroposophy is clear thinking--- which is what I've tried to do here... To wit--i . . Fact #1. Steiner says "socialists" (I said "left-wingers") --- this means those who want the government to take over the economy, be they in the US, in Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, Argentina or wherever. You just read Steiner in plain English explaining why this is wrong, always creates disaster and must not exist in a healthy society. You can go back and read him state from Pt. 1 on repeatedly, and why. Fact # 2. Libertarians, conservatives and anti-leftists want freedom of people economically from government control--- once again whether in the US, Romania or wherever. (The only way I can think of that anyone could say US conservatives want ANY government control is restricting abortion-- which is a tiny fraction of the economy and which many libertarians, unlike religious conservatives, don't mind.) So Steiner's idea of separating the government and the economy is absolutely against one side, the Left, and very much embraced by the other--- and my point is all leftists MUST oppose the threefold social order, they're mutual opposites. . I have no idea what a "left wing of esoteric propagation" is supposed to mean but it sounds to me like some words (presumably of Steiner's, though I don't recall seeing them in 35 years of study), which have nothing to do with our subject which is his Threefold Social Order writings. Steiner just said here, clearly, that there's nothing wrong with concentrations of economic power and that economic titans must run the economy, that the problem is when they become entangled with government and so the economy and the State must be kept separate, THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM but a cardinal belief of the right, free-market or laissez-faire capitalism. Religious conservatives also believe in the importance of his third, independent spiritual sphere, they just don't have it defined as clearly. Marxism and socialism is totally against all of it. So it appears to me from Steiner's clear words. -starman
      > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
      > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 05:18:48
      > To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 8: Commentary
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > With assurances for success in this New Year, which will mark 600 years since the 5th cultural epoch began in 1413, let us remember that it was Rudolf Steiner himself who designated his movement as one involving the left-wing of esoteric propagation. His reasoning concerned the fact that the leftists always have a special aim for their agenda, and his was to bring forth esoteric knowledge with as much truth, and as few restrictions, as possible.
      > Accordingly, the right-wing wants to hold as much for itself as possible. If it was up to them, we would know nothing more than the debt-ridden and menial existence which exacts to a lower-class society of lesser humans. In other words, the rightists have their own aims, which involves the lawyers and the politicians and the lobbyists, and all designed to protect the few who hold the riches in their greedy grasp as if nothing else existed to make real sense of the world and its inherent struggle and striving.
      > A perspective on "Threefolding of the Social Organism" must recognize a Right as much as a Left. The reason concerns the important fact that there is a Middle Term. It is the One that extends the 'Rights Life' to both the left and the right.
      > Equanimity is the outcome.
      >  
      > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
      >  
      > > "If... the legal system grows up on independent ground out
      > > of the consciousness of rights, and if the will of the individual dwelling in
      > > the spirit is developed in a free cultural life, then the legal system,
      > > strength of spirit and economic activity work together as a unity. They will be
      > > able to do so when they can develop, each according to its own proper nature,
      > > in distinct fields of life. It is just in separation that they will turn to
      > > unity; when an artificial unity is imposed, they become estranged.
      > >
      > >
      > > Many socialist thinkers will thus dismiss such a view: "It is
      > > impossible to bring about satisfactory conditions through this organic
      > > formation of society. It can be done only through a suitable economic
      > > organization." They overlook the fact that those who work in their economic
      > > organization are endowed with wills. If one tells them this, they will smile,
      > > for they regard it as self-evident. Yet their thoughts are busy constructing a
      > > social edifice in which this "self-evident fact" is ignored. Their economic
      > > organization is to be controlled by a communal will. However, this must after
      > > all be the result of the individual wills of the people united in the
      > > organization. These individual wills can never take effect if the communal will
      > > is derived entirely from the idea of economic organization. Individual wills
      > > can expand unfettered if, alongside the economic sphere, there is a legal
      > > sphere where the standard is set, not by any economic point of view, but only
      > > by the consciousness of rights, and if, alongside both the economic and legal
      > > spheres, a free cultural life can find place, following only the impulses of
      > > the spirit. Then we shall not have a social order running like clockwork, in
      > > which individual wills could never find a lasting place....
      > >
      > > ******Which is what we have gotten in every place socialism was imposed--- not LESS alienation from society, but MORE. The only reason I can think of anthroposophists still being leftists is that they either haven't really read Steiner's threefold Social Order works, or they've only seen the distortions of him by other leftist anthros ---who are in denial that he declares that it, by its nature, will always have to be the disaster it's so far always proven itself to be.
      > >
      > > "...Then human beings will
      > > find it possible to give their wills a social bent and to bring them constantly
      > > to bear on the shaping of social circumstances. Under the free cultural life
      > > the individual will shall become social. When legal institutions are
      > > self-subsisting, these socially attuned individual wills shall yield a communal
      > > will that works justly. The individual wills, socially oriented and organized
      > > by the independent legal system, will exert themselves within the economic
      > > system, producing and distributing goods as social needs demand.
      > >
      > > Most people today still 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...
      > >
      > > *******If that's where all your ideas come from, you see no support for the free spiritual life and the other 2 spheres being independent and free as well... so why complain about the economy and the government and seek remedies only within the economy and the government? Because that's how we're trained to think in government schools by unimaginative bureaucrats. A free spirit I knew named Robert Kennedy used to quote George Bernard Shaw: "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?'---I dream things that never were, and say, "Why not?" Another named Sting, before he forgot to follow his own advice and descended into leftist diatribes, sang "There is no political solution to our frustrated evolution... There's no bloody revolution... We are spirits in the material world."
      > >
      > >
      > > "...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. It
      > > looks about for something to guide and manage it, not knowing how the spirit
      > > guides and manages itself if it can but draw its strength from its own sources.
      > > It would like to have a board of management for the spirit — a branch of the
      > > economic and legal organizations — totally disregarding the fact that the
      > > economy and the legal system can thrive only when permeated with the spirit
      > > that is self-subsistent."
      >
      > > *******Or how about Paul McCartney: "Hey Jude---the movement you seek is on your shoulders!"
      > > Here's to new impulses in a New Year.-
      > starman
      > To Be Continued....
      > >
      >
    • jschreib26
      Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold
      Message 2 of 26 , Jan 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate in relation to the other two realms?
        Thanks, Jeff
      • Durward Starman
        ******* The Holy Nights are now almost over. Several people have told me they ve appreciated this study, although it hasn t really been a group study --
        Message 3 of 26 , Jan 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
             ******* The Holy Nights are now almost over. Several people have told me they've appreciated this study, although it hasn't really been a group study -- perhaps next year. I intend to keep doing some more work along these lines and those who just want to listen can just listen. 

              For these last three nights, let's reflect on what this writing of Steiner's shows now, almost 100 years after he wrote it. 

             What is anthroposophy and who are we as anthroposophists? People on a modern spiritual path. That word "modern" is a big part of what makes us different. Thousands of years ago in the East, what we yearn for would have driven us to join an ashram, practice yoga -- -- or a little more recently, in the West, to join a monastery or a nunnery. But we modern Western people have no attraction to retiring away from the world and having nothing to do with the mundane world of society, politics, the arts, ideas. We want to stand fully in the world, engaged with it, with an active career and raising a family. This goes back 500 years to the Protestant Revolution where the errors of Roman Catholicism were repealed, and we acknowledged that a man can be holy while still being married, with no need to retire away in the monastery. Our modern times call for a modern path to the spirit, the Rosicrucian path beginning with science and reason, not blind faith, and leading to increased awareness within everyday life.

             So our spiritual path begins with a rebirth of self-awareness, but will not stay locked up within the inner self. This new awareness begins to grow and look on how we are raising our children and insist upon a new way, or how we grow our food, cure illnesses, care for the elderly and retarded, practice the arts, and in short do everything in our world. We know that we are the vanguard of an entirely new humanity, this small group that has found its way to the work of Rudolf Steiner, the modern Rosicrucian apostle of the Risen Christ. The Second Coming of Christ in the Etheric World leads us as modern-day disciples to "be in the world, yet not of it."

             This movement has schools all over the world, farms, medical facilities, centers for the arts and Eurythmy, theaters, books and magazines -- -- -- yet still we are hardly known to the great world as a whole. This won't continue much longer, just as the early Christians in ancient Rome began to be noticed.

             Each age of humanity has a task to work on: the Doctor said that the age which ended 500 years ago was to work on the Mystery of Death, which is why the image of the crucified God was placed before it, who rose again on the third day. Our age is meant to wrestle with the Mystery of Evil. We who see so much benefit in the work of Dr. Steiner perhaps can hardly believe how much he was hated in his time, but it's clearly seen in the assassination attempts, the burning down of the Goetheanum, and so on. There are people who like to adopt a philosophy of naïvely denying evil has any existence, but this is not anthroposophy. We are taught about the two primary opposing powers, the one who opposed us in ancient times as shown in the legend of the Serpent and the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and the one who primarily opposes us now who Steiner called by the name of the Persian god of darkness. His greatest weapon is deception and lies, chief among which is the lie that nothing exists but the material world.

             In the old Eastern Yoga path the student was taught to recognize multiple sources of delusion in attaining to enlightenment; in the old Christian path, likewise to recognize and guard oneself against the Devil. We have to also be careful in walking our path about sources of deception and illusion knocking us off track. 

             I was very happy to find this wonderful article of Steiner's clearly describing his social ideas, because, to be blunt about it, almost every anthroposophist I have met in the past 30 years or more appeared to me to be either under the sway of Ahriman when it came to social and political reasoning, or at best indifferent to how the people taking over the movement had political beliefs diametrically the opposite of Steiner's teaching. If you've read this article, and thought through the issues connected with it, you know what his teaching is -- -- -- and if you are involved with a Waldorf school, or any other anthroposophical institution, you will probably see within a few days people are ignoring or betraying what he gave to the world. You can't follow Dr. Steiner and also Karl Marx or Lenin or any materialistic Marxism and leftism: they are like oil and water. We need to make whatever contribution we can to helping people wake up to the Ahrimanic deception, snap out of their hypnotic state when it comes to the real world. 

             This isn't just a moral necessity, but unrealistic thinking such as leftism that does not match reality is what leads to the collapse of our institutions. I saw it coming the past three years at the Rudolf Steiner Institute, now closed, which was being run by foolish socialists. After 35 years of providing a wonderful forum for anthroposophy, they ran it into the ground. If we don't understand the real world, for instance the economics of running a business, all our ideals will lead to failure, because every school or farm is a business and subject to the same laws. The Waldorf schools would never even have come into existence if it wasn't for a successful capitalist (cigarette manufacturer Emil Molt), and Dr. Steiner was never unrealistic in his thinking about making sure the financing would be there. The economic world has its own laws, and having listened to some lectures by smugly superior Marxists about how they'll set up a system that will be superior to the hated free market, does not qualify you to run a business. We can't be like the other spacey New Age people and get anywhere in the real world that so desperately needs us to renew it. 

              Steiner spent a large part of the last few years of his life emphasizing this practical knowledge so badly needed in our time, and he laid out the requirements for a successful society in writings like this article:

              The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor any people no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'. The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).  The purpose of government is, as in the courts, to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.

             These are the fundamental truths. Remember them, apply them--- and (I hate to have to say this) beware of people trying to twist them around to match political beliefs they had before they became anthroposophists. We have to overcome materialism to grasp the Spirit, and probably it's hardest of all to do in relation to money, material things and the mundane world.

          -Starman
        • juancompostella
          Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly placed in the middle, then the Rights Life is accorded equally to the left and the
          Message 4 of 26 , Jan 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly placed in the middle, then the 'Rights Life' is accorded equally to the left and the right. This achieves balance; but only if the 'Christ Impulse' is understood and accepted.

            If not, then Lucifer takes the central position, and this has the effect of creating a reversal, wherein Ahriman is found to the left (east), and Azuras is found to the right (west).

            And, sadly, this latter configuraton is what we have in the world today. Make no mistake of it. Lucifer begets Stalin in the East; Hitler in the Center; and Roosevelt in the West.

            Thus, how could real "threefolding" have chance against these odds?

            Juan


            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "jschreib26" wrote:
            >
            > Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate in relation to the other two realms?
            > Thanks, Jeff
            >
          • Durward Starman
            ******** This was true in the 1940s. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ... From: juancompostella Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013
            Message 5 of 26 , Jan 3, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              ******** This was true in the 1940s.
              Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

              -----Original Message-----
              From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
              Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:52:22
              To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 9: Commentary

               



              Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly placed in the middle, then the 'Rights Life' is accorded equally to the left and the right. This achieves balance; but only if the 'Christ Impulse' is understood and accepted.

              If not, then Lucifer takes the central position, and this has the effect of creating a reversal, wherein Ahriman is found to the left (east), and Azuras is found to the right (west).

              And, sadly, this latter configuraton is what we have in the world today. Make no mistake of it. Lucifer begets Stalin in the East; Hitler in the Center; and Roosevelt in the West.

              Thus, how could real "threefolding" have chance against these odds?

              Juan

              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com <mailto:steiner%40yahoogroups.com> , "jschreib26" wrote:
              >
              > Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate in relation to the other two realms?
              > Thanks, Jeff
              >
            • Durward Starman
              THE THREE PRINCIPLES: The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled
              Message 6 of 26 , Jan 3, 2013
              • 1 Attachment
              • 76 KB
               THE THREE PRINCIPLES: 
                 The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'. 
                 The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).  
                 The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.

              Comments on these?

            • juancompostella
              Yes, it was true in the 1940 s. It even goes back to the 1930 s, and the 1920 s, when Steiner was so concerned about the fate of the Weimar Republic at the
              Message 7 of 26 , Jan 3, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Yes, it was true in the 1940's. It even goes back to the 1930's, and the 1920's, when Steiner was so concerned about the fate of the Weimar Republic at the hands of the western powers who had inflicted the force and punishment that eventually made Germany capitulate and accept responsibilty for causing WWI. This was not true, and Steiner talked about it in a lecture from April 21, 1921, wherein he states that this was the moment when Germany gave up its will.

                As a result, a commission was established by US President, Warren G. Harding, and Germany was assessed reparation (punishment) payments in the amount of 33 billion dollars to be paid in installmnets over the next years. Well, of course, Germany had no ability to pay such an amount, and that is how the Weimar Republic eventually collapsed, and made way for the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

                Of interest here is that the Weimar Republic was designed to be a democracy, following the abdication of the monarchy seen with Wilhelm the Second; the Kaiser, in November of 1918.

                After twelve brutal years of rampant inflation, economic depression, impossible reparation payments, etc., the Democratic Republic of Germany finally collapsed in 1932, and made way for the dictatorial regime of Hitler, beginning in January 1933.

                Only then did the Western Powers begin to look the other way and allow the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles to lapse, and even be publically repudiated by Hitler's aims to rebuild a mighty military force.

                So, go figure what that means. The 1930's is called, "the red decade" in the United States, which is considered to have spawned the american communist movement as a result of Roosevelt's "new deal" to build up government and make mankind the slave of government.

                Twenty consecutive years of the Democratic party (1933-1952) in power has proven to be the basis for "the government as the ruling power over the individual", regardless of what party rules for the usual eight years of republican or democratic presidencies that have followed FDR.

                Thus, in our scenario, he represents Azuras when Lucifer takes center-stage, and the Christ is left out of the middle position. The Christ Impulse must become a conscious force in human lives. Then, threefolding will become a natural act out of truly objective thinking.

                Juan



                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " wrote:
                >
                > ******** This was true in the 1940s.
                > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: juancompostella
                > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:52:22
                > To:
                > Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order-Pt. 9: Commentary
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                > Jeff, please allow me to explain, if I might. When the Christ is properly placed in the middle, then the 'Rights Life' is accorded equally to the left and the right. This achieves balance; but only if the 'Christ Impulse' is understood and accepted.
                >
                > If not, then Lucifer takes the central position, and this has the effect of creating a reversal, wherein Ahriman is found to the left (east), and Azuras is found to the right (west).
                >
                > And, sadly, this latter configuraton is what we have in the world today. Make no mistake of it. Lucifer begets Stalin in the East; Hitler in the Center; and Roosevelt in the West.
                >
                > Thus, how could real "threefolding" have chance against these odds?
                >
                > Juan
                >
                > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com , "jschreib26" wrote:
                > >
                > > Thank you for your comments, Starman. I wonder if, for my benefit, you might explain the tasks the political or rights body would undertake in a three-fold society. Perhaps a practical example or two of how it might function or operate in relation to the other two realms?
                > > Thanks, Jeff
                > >
                >
              • juancompostella
                Comments, yes. As previously stated, I believe those pivotal 20 years from 1933 to 1952 here in the United States, in terms of government expansionist aims,
                Message 8 of 26 , Jan 3, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Comments, yes. As previously stated, I believe those pivotal 20 years from 1933 to 1952 here in the United States, in terms of government expansionist aims, were the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", regarding any possiblity of ever scaling back government controls in favor of the individual, and the pure rights of the free individual human being.

                  To achieve these three principles, a profound recognition of a moral world order would have to occur, wherein nature necessity (economic order) would be properly placed where it belongs. An objective recognition of morality from the heights of the spiritual worlds would have to infuse consciousness as an evolutionary imperative, which is why anthroposophically-oriented spiritual science exists for our time.

                  Juan

                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
                  >
                  > THE THREE PRINCIPLES: The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'. The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay). The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.
                  > Comments on these?
                  >
                • Durward Starman
                  ******* This is the 12th and final Holy Night. During this time, Dr. Steiner said it would be very good to take up any subject and do an intensive study,
                  Message 9 of 26 , Jan 4, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ******* This is the 12th and final Holy Night. During this time, Dr. Steiner said it would be very good to take up any subject and do an intensive study, because the spiritual world was close to us to help us gain insight. I chose a subject that is easy to carry over into the rest of the year, because it gives us the key to understanding what is being done right in our society, what wrong, and where we should go. Here's what I get out of it this year.


                     #1.   The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor any people no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'. 

                       And it must not influence the government, as well--- but of course, when politicians (by tax policy for instance) can affect your business, you're a fool not to try to influence who gets elected and what policy they will carry out. So, the only solution is a total separation of the political State from the economic processes: no rich people will try to influence a government that has no power over economic affairs, because they would get nothing in return for any bribes (er, I mean,"campaign contributions").
                        And business titans like Bill Gates can contribute money to schools, but any school they set up themselves would have no spiritual dimension at all, only economic ideas... they can put up the money, but need to find people from the spiritual sphere to do it, as Emil Molt put up the money for Steiner to start the first Waldorf School.


                    #2.  The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay). 

                         And God help us if we turn to actors and artists to make business decisions or government policy---  like actors who once in a while play doctors going to testify before Congress about health matters! This actually happens. A few years ago Meryl Streep almost ruined the US apple industry with a foolish, ignorant scare campaign about something sprayed on them that turned out to be harmless. Her total expertise in chemistry and biology was zero. And of course Michael Moore and Al Gore are experts on the economy according to the media--- the only thing Michael Moore ever ran was a leftist rag in Flint which he sold to go to work for Mother Jones magazine which then fired him, and in desperation he then turned to socialist propaganda movies filled with half-truths or outright lies to succeed by telling people what they wanted to hear. If he's a business success so was Goebbels. And Al Gore was raised in privilege in Washington DC hotels, never ran a business until the past few years---and just sold his only business venture, a failing radio network, to Al Jazeera. 
                       As for people like Barbara Streisand and Susan Sarandon, pretty Hollywood faces with empty heads, they know as much about running the legal-political State as Deepak Chopra would. Let them act or sing and stay far, far away from government and business where they know nothing real. Problem is, Hollywood people live in fantasy: Warren Beatty a few years ago did a movie playing a Senator and suddenly believed he was the perfect person to be one! Fortunately, unlike a certain unfunny Minnesota 'comedian', he didn't get anywhere.



                      The purpose of government is, as in the courts, to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.

                       And people who know the law and are good at judging what's fair between individuals belong there--- like judges whose record can be examined for fairness in their decisions. UNLIKE the biased ideologues our President puts on the Supreme Court nowadays, that say they'd judge a Latino woman different than a white man. Rigid materialist atheists like the past few lesbians he put there, are also going to be nothing but hostile to religion (which they should instead stay completely out of), because of their "religion" of moral relativism, Darwinism and Marxism. They're never going to even pretend to be unbiased in judging the economic sphere either, since they buy into the whole class warfare gospel of race, sex and class. You might as well be a white woman whose black football-player ex-husband cut your throat and expect justice from an LA jury.
                        People so easily see that the rich try to slant the laws in their direction; but success-envying lower-class people (of whom there's a lot more!), also always try to twist it in theirs as well (that's why half the country pays no income tax anymore) --- and they more often get their way, because politicians want votes and there's a lot more low-income people than rich ones. Result? Eventually no one trusts the justice system anymore, like in Russia. We need complete separation of the political state from the spiritual sphere and the economic--- as was normal in the US until the 1930s, it's hard to even remember now.

                    -Starman


                  • jschreib26
                    Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and
                    Message 10 of 26 , Jan 5, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive.

                      More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real.

                      Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans.

                      It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:

                      "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."

                      I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.

                      The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.

                      Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?

                      Again, thank you for this study.
                      Jeff
                    • Durward Starman
                      Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and
                      Message 11 of 26 , Jan 5, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment


                        Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...




                        *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff. 


                            I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots."  To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).


                             Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/  and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation?  I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. 
                            As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.





                        More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...




                        *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan.  People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static. 


                           We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)


                           But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!!  When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.






                        Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...




                        ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous.
                           There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met.
                           So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html         
                        Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more. 


                         

                        It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
                        "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."




                        *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses.
                             It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders.
                           What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.






                        I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
                        The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
                        Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?

                        Again, thank you for this study.
                        Jeff 




                        ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 
                            I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants.
                            There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity.
                            And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.


                        -starman


                      • juancompostella
                        I have appreciated these thoughts as interpolations of Jeff s original message, which I also found very sublime. A continuation of this theme of
                        Message 12 of 26 , Jan 5, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I have appreciated these thoughts as interpolations of Jeff's original message, which I also found very sublime. A continuation of this theme of "threefolding" with considerations of the 'ahrimanic deception' will be looked forward to.

                          My immediate thoughts to consider concern how we have come to exclude a valid "third party" as viable consideration in the presidential elections of the last few cycles. It seems that the most pressing consideration in attempting to achieve a possible 'threefolding stance' in our time, is to demand that a valid 'third choice' be proffered for those that once remember how the debates once had this third choice, which has effectively been negated since LaRouche was imprisoned by HW in early 1989, which disabled the Libertarian party from consideration; and then, in 1992, with Ross Perot, who was making strides against Clinton and Bush, and then had an unusual situation occur that forced him out of the race.

                          Politics will always require a third choice. We had it once, and not too long ago even, but it has been absorbed by the two-party system, which enables the left-right swing to be easily manipulated by the forces that exist to effect these swings. Does that make sense to anyone?

                          Juan

                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
                          >
                          > *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
                          > I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
                          > Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
                          >
                          > *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
                          > We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
                          > But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
                          >
                          > ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
                          >
                          > "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
                          >
                          > *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
                          >
                          > The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
                          >
                          > Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Again, thank you for this study.
                          >
                          > Jeff
                          >
                          > ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
                          > -starman
                          >
                        • robert.barnskog
                          Hello Starman. This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo
                          Message 13 of 26 , Jan 6, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Starman.

                            This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo machinery. The message is quoted below. However, by now, I think you have pretty much done what I asked for, which was to give some practical examples for one country or another.

                            It is very interesting to follow what you write, and also the replies from the commentators. I try to figure out, which one of you that is on the right track...Maybe a combination.

                            I´m still curious about what you want to be done with the relations between the three spheres of society, that you write about. If we take, for instance,the relation between the government/law sphere and the economy, it is obvious to each and everyone, that many relations exist, and that a lot of bad things can happen - and has happened - if these relations are not the right ones. Do you want to do away with these relations entirely? Or what do you mean that there can be no influence in either direction, if all is properly organised? AS long as you have e.g. a tax system, you have such a relation. Or do I see it in the wrong way? And once you have a tax system it can be progressive (as in sweden) or flat, and there are of course infinite possibilities on how to set the actual tax levels. Who decides what levels are right? When you change the tax system, there will be an obvious impact by the government on the economy, and it will originate from the wish of the voters, at least in theory. Do you want to ban economic contributions (bribes, as you call them), to the parties? This can be done in principle, I think. And then you have all the laws that applies to the economical sector, that originally, of course, have been decied upon be the parlament. Environmental regulations is an obvious example, that was mentioned by Jeff in an earlier message. Also regulations for employees is a possibility. Very much so in Sweden, with its socialdemocratic history. Mayby not so much in the US. Do you want to mimimize these regulations? Do away with them? And the relations to foreign countries? Free trade or isolationism? Or a middle way?

                            Just a few examples to start with. To be continued, if there is interest on the list.

                            RB



                            Hello Starman,



                            "This is Robert B, from Sweden.



                            I tried to start thinking about the social threefolding idea one day around the turn of the century, but found out after 5 minutes that it blocked my thinking instead of supporting it. So I dropped it, and for me that worked better, and has continued to do so. Either the connections between the three parts of society were too obvious to me, or I never saw them. Not easy to know.



                            Anyway, it is interesting to hear what you have to say about it. What I think you should do, however, is to pick a country of today, and describe how you think it ought to develop and how this is related to Steiners ideas. Merely giving the passages from Steiners texts, and saying that Marxism is opposed to it, is - I believe - not enough. I think it gets to abstract, to be frank. If this idea if Steiner is still relevant as of 2012 it must be able to give some insights into what should happen in order for things to get better.



                            As I have come to understand it, you ar a US citizen, or at least live there. Correct? If so, how do you for instance view the USA in this context? Is the USA perfect? If not, what must be done and how does this relate to the imperfections of the theefold social order? Or pick another country, or several, if you have the insights. Russia? China? Saudi-Arabia? Or even Sweden, where i live.



                            And yes, I know that this is difficult and problematical. And that you generally don´t allow political discussions in this group. But when discussing social threefolding I think you have to. You discuss the future of society, not some historical fact.



                            Personally, I have tried to find good things from both right and left traditions. I think they both belong to the complete picture.



                            RB

                            Sweden"


                            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
                            >
                            > *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
                            > I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
                            > Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
                            >
                            > *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
                            > We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
                            > But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
                            >
                            > ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
                            >
                            > "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
                            >
                            > *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
                            >
                            > The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
                            >
                            > Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Again, thank you for this study.
                            >
                            > Jeff
                            >
                            > ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
                            > -starman
                            >
                          • Durward Starman
                            Hello Robert, Yes, I live in America, though I m originally from Ireland.
                            Message 14 of 26 , Jan 6, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello Robert, Yes, I live in America, though I'm originally from Ireland. I dealt with some of your questions in the last few posts. Here's some thoughts: * In Dr. Steiner's book The Threefold Social Order he says the spheres would send representatives to each other, rather as countries exchange ambassadors. * Since the purpose of Tax is to bring in the money needed for running the legal State (and made available without strings attached to the spiritual sphere), I'd say it must be a flat tax without special clauses so that the tax laws can't be used to manipulate the economic processes. . . * Steiner also said the Rights State must set a minimum wage, determining the amount a man or a family must earn to be enough to live on regardless of his kind of job-- then economic actors will have to reckon that as a fixed cost like the price of raw materials. That's about the only intrusion of the Political into the Economic besides taxes. . . * Environmental 'regulations' should come about by people demonstrating a harm done, say by pollution, by suing in court. Whatever laws are then enacted by the State, if any are determined to be needed, must apply to everyone equally so they're not used to stifle one company or another--- and should never become an excuse to take over the economic sphere, like Norway where the State runs the oil business and takes all the money so only their elite ever sees any of it. That's what happens everywhere the State intrudes too much as you know there in Sweden where the government provides lots of great benefits but keeps the economy stagnant so there's almost no new jobs or businesses created. You can look at the GDP of different countries and see almost immediately just from that alone which ones have too much regulation by the State. I said a bit about Russia in my earlier posts. I think once you see the 3 spheres clearly it is of great help in understanding why different countries succeed or fail. -starman
                              Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: "robert.barnskog" <robert.barnskog@...>
                              Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 13:34:16
                              To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                              Subject: [steiner] Re: Threefold Social Order- 12th Night

                               



                              Hello Starman.

                              This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo machinery. The message is quoted below. However, by now, I think you have pretty much done what I asked for, which was to give some practical examples for one country or another.

                              It is very interesting to follow what you write, and also the replies from the commentators. I try to figure out, which one of you that is on the right track...Maybe a combination.

                              I?m still curious about what you want to be done with the relations between the three spheres of society, that you write about. If we take, for instance,the relation between the government/law sphere and the economy, it is obvious to each and everyone, that many relations exist, and that a lot of bad things can happen - and has happened - if these relations are not the right ones. Do you want to do away with these relations entirely? Or what do you mean that there can be no influence in either direction, if all is properly organised? AS long as you have e.g. a tax system, you have such a relation. Or do I see it in the wrong way? And once you have a tax system it can be progressive (as in sweden) or flat, and there are of course infinite possibilities on how to set the actual tax levels. Who decides what levels are right? When you change the tax system, there will be an obvious impact by the government on the economy, and it will originate from the wish of the voters, at least in theory. Do you want to ban economic contributions (bribes, as you call them), to the parties? This can be done in principle, I think. And then you have all the laws that applies to the economical sector, that originally, of course, have been decied upon be the parlament. Environmental regulations is an obvious example, that was mentioned by Jeff in an earlier message. Also regulations for employees is a possibility. Very much so in Sweden, with its socialdemocratic history. Mayby not so much in the US. Do you want to mimimize these regulations? Do away with them? And the relations to foreign countries? Free trade or isolationism? Or a middle way?

                              Just a few examples to start with. To be continued, if there is interest on the list.

                              RB

                              Hello Starman,

                              "This is Robert B, from Sweden.

                              I tried to start thinking about the social threefolding idea one day around the turn of the century, but found out after 5 minutes that it blocked my thinking instead of supporting it. So I dropped it, and for me that worked better, and has continued to do so. Either the connections between the three parts of society were too obvious to me, or I never saw them. Not easy to know.



                              Anyway, it is interesting to hear what you have to say about it. What I think you should do, however, is to pick a country of today, and describe how you think it ought to develop and how this is related to Steiners ideas. Merely giving the passages from Steiners texts, and saying that Marxism is opposed to it, is - I believe - not enough. I think it gets to abstract, to be frank. If this idea if Steiner is still relevant as of 2012 it must be able to give some insights into what should happen in order for things to get better.



                              As I have come to understand it, you ar a US citizen, or at least live there. Correct? If so, how do you for instance view the USA in this context? Is the USA perfect? If not, what must be done and how does this relate to the imperfections of the theefold social order? Or pick another country, or several, if you have the insights. Russia? China? Saudi-Arabia? Or even Sweden, where i live.



                              And yes, I know that this is difficult and problematical. And that you generally don?t allow political discussions in this group. But when discussing social threefolding I think you have to. You discuss the future of society, not some historical fact.



                              Personally, I have tried to find good things from both right and left traditions. I think they both belong to the complete picture.

                              RB

                              Sweden"

                              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com <mailto:steiner%40yahoogroups.com> , Durward Starman wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
                              >
                              > *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
                              > I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
                              > Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
                              >
                              > *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
                              > We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
                              > But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
                              >
                              > ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
                              >
                              > "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
                              >
                              > *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
                              >
                              > The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
                              >
                              > Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Again, thank you for this study.
                              >
                              > Jeff
                              >
                              > ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
                              > -starman
                              >
                            • Durward Starman
                              THE THREE PRINCIPLES: The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by
                              Message 15 of 26 , Jan 7, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                THE THREE PRINCIPLES: 
                                   The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'. 


                                   The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).  


                                   The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.


                              • juancompostella
                                Exactly. As you have expressed before, and maybe even from the beginning, the American system of government and its quite specific formulation of the three
                                Message 16 of 26 , Jan 7, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Exactly. As you have expressed before, and maybe even from the beginning, the American system of government and its quite specific formulation of the three branches, i.e, executive, legislative, and judicial, more than indicates the specific and conscientious effort to establish the basis for a threefold social order in our country, in order to reflect its example for the world to follow.

                                  Thus, an effort to recognize and "work within the system" is not a bad idea. Our country has formulated its best possibilities over the years in order to achieve it, and yet, what we all know is that some insidiously evil element is out there working against its full achievement.

                                  So, what is it? Anthroposophy helps to understand, of course, but the tangle of chaos still remains something to consider. The system exists extant, and America represents its best intentions best, and that looks like an excellent starting point for making threefolding a world realization.

                                  I like very much what this effort this year could mean for all of us.

                                  Juan

                                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > THE THREE PRINCIPLES:
                                  > The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'.
                                  >
                                  > The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).
                                  >
                                  > The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.