Anarchosophy


From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 11:04 pm
Subject: anarchosophy

My fellow subscribers,

In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects of an extremely delicate and difficult topic, let it be said that "Philosophy of Freedom" can only be "the Bible of anarchism" as long as anarchism is thought of in its purest, most spiritualized form. In this spiritualized anarchism stand the cradles of two sisters, Anthroposophia and Anarchosophia:

http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerbomb.html

One of the noblest representatives for exoteric anarchism was Benjamin Tucker. He was a highly cultivated gentleman from New England who lived in New York, where he founded the best anarchist magazine that has ever existed: "Liberty." He translated an entire library of classical anarchist literature into English and became the most influential anarchist in the English-speaking world. After his life work was destroyed in a fire in 1908 (he did not believe in capitalist insurance), he settled in France, where he practiced his anarchism until he died in 1939.

Tucker did not speak French very well, but he read it with ease. German was not unfamiliar to him either. He read Max Stirner thoroughly (which Rudolf Steiner also did), and in the 1890's he published a German edition of "Liberty." In 1899 he held a lecture in Berlin entitled "Der Staat in seiner Beziehung zum Individualism." At this time he met Rudolf Steiner through their mutual anarchist friend Henry Mackay. Steiner hailed Ben Tucker as "one of the greatest champions for freedom" and subsequently printed his lecture in "Magazin für Literatur," of which he was the editor.

Like most exoteric anarchists including the classics, Ben Tucker was an atheist. What is noteworthy is Rudolf Steiner's appreciation for the greatest and noblest achievements of atheist philosophers, because such men arrived at their conclusions empowered by personal, self-dependent effort, and not by lazy thinking like religious people who just swallowed what had been handed down to them from old books and established traditions.

Anarchosophy may be described as the point where exoteric and esoteric anarchism meet in the soul of Rudolf Steiner at the time when he wrote "Philosophy of Freedom," but this is only a vague picture. It is the union of anthroposophy and anarchism in the soul of the anarchosophist. This sounds perhaps awkward, but it brings us a little step closer to the riddle of anarchosophy.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 3:02 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

Ho, Tarjei,

I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not). Also, by calling it that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal of anarchy; a system of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority." If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection - and I think that's what you mean.

I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered myself somewhat of an anarchist. However, "Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise - that during the present time and the immediate future at least, the State is an unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to bottom. (I'm referring to what we call democracy of course). It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals and from corporate greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should). In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced to) or work to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.

Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 7:32 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:

I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not).

What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person who liberates himself is no longer under the command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric.

One of these tyrants is government. Government exists because the majority prefers to surrender certain parts of their freedom - a sacrifice that makes them feel safe and secure. For the rebels, government has a great variety of threats, punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in line, or at least their might-be emulators.

Also, by calling it that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal of anarchy; a system of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority." If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection - and I think that's what you mean.

You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy" is what I really mean in the context at hand. But this word is brand new and has not reached the dictionaries or officialdom yet. The person best suited to be called an anarchosophist, is the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher, poet, social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens Bjørneboe (1920-1976) - the fiercest of social critics who stood up for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes, the outcasts, the outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and self-destructive life, Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom and his hilarious sarcasm against the police, the prison wardens, the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie. He depicted the poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types of human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not in distant corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway, in our police stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental hospitals, our schools, in the military, etc.

Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists, i.e. bourgeois, middle and upper class staid etheric dreamers, couldn't understand why Bjørneboe bothered to take an active interest in such topics, about human rights for the "untouchables" of society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in Norway that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in the teachers' room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify an esoteric path; on the contrary, he drank himself to insanity and committed suicide, destroyed by the very demons he had been busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted authors to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest Hemingway for starters.)

But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic anarchist:

"Until now, I have myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic' or 'theoretical anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very little for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist' can be applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal 'yes'."

(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261)

I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered myself somewhat of an anarchist.

So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his youth. Or at least, it looks like that. He read Tolstoy furiously and wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he almost became an "Tolstoyan." (That was, of course, many years before he turned to politics.) Nixon was also strongly influenced by his mother, who was a Quaker. And quakers are, after all, very close indeed to being Christian anarchists.

However, "Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise - that during the present time and the immediate future at least, the State is an unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.

Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom? In that case, I have to echo the words of Steiner's friend and hero Benjamin Tucker:

"The state is said by some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made unnecessary. This century's battle, then, is with the State: the State, that debases man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that corrupts children; the State, that trammels love; the State, that stifles thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State, that limits credit; the State, that restricts exchange; the State, that gives idle capital the power of increase, and, through interest, rent, profit, and taxes, robs industrious labor of its products."

(Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty 1 (1881): 2.)

(I'm referring to what we call democracy of course).

In a modern democracy, which is nothing but an oligarchy in disguise, the power structure is less easy to detect than in less permissive societies. Rudolf Steiner once pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot, was so deceptive because it fools people into believing that they are pulling the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings (and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes, behind whom stand occult forces.

It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals and from corporate greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should). In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced to) or work to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.

My general problem with a theoretical apology for statism is that it always represents the easy way out of complex problems. In other words, it's a cop-out.

What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards from the book "Benjamin R. Tucker & the Champions of Liberty."

Anarchist movements worldwide generally declined after the turn of the century, if not before; two world wars hastened the centralizing process to the further detriment of action that was independent of the State. Only in the 1960's did serious resistance to the State recommence; the rise of the new independent groups - dissident students, professionals and intellectuals on the one hand and a technical/entrepreneurial class on the other - seems to be behind the resurgence of anarchistic and quasi-anarchistic activity.

This resurgence leads us to the "bottom-line" question on Tucker's strategy: did it fail? And, by extension, we may also ask, did anarchism fail? The commonplace answer is yes; anarchism failed because it was out of touch with historical progress - "progress" in this sense is always a euphemism for centralization and authoritarianism. A more knowledgeable and cautious answer is: not entirely, or not yet. this attitude at least recognizes that twentieth century nation-states own no guarantees of immortality not given to Ur or Babylon. Since States can and do crumble and fail, the "question" of anarchism cannot ever be finally resolved.

This question of failure implies another about success, and what ideology can claim success in the late twentieth century? True, the adherents of socialism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, communism and most of their variants, have at one time and place or another waxed great in numbers and prestige and wealth, and ruled the State. Each group ruled but briefly in the name of its ideology - then they ruled in the name of the State only.

All of these ideologies had two things in common. Each promised to meet certain goals once its supporters seized the State; each failed to deliver the ideological goods, despite having unquestioned, or even unopposed, control of some very powerful state-formations. In order to hold power to meet their ultimate goals, each set of ideological rulers found themselves forced to betray those same goals so as to meet the intermediate and short-term requirements of political power. These betrayals have seen cynicism, dishonesty, treachery aplenty; but these are more the effect of betrayal than its cause. The true, great corruption of power is the loss of one's aim.

The State today, particularly in America, is vastly more powerful than when Tucker finally despaired of successfully confronting it directly. Today, its lightest touch corrupts (in the sense that I use the term). All of the State ideologies, from the most limited constitutional liberalism to Marxist State Socialism, have failed, corrupted by the logic of power. Against Nietzsche's warning, they gazed too long - and too longingly - into the abyss and became one with it.

Every ideology that has sought to master and direct the State has instead become its servant. the lesson for our time, if any would see it, is that the State is not to be mastered. Like the Ruling Ring, in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, the State allows its "wearer" to enjoy for a time the illusion of control - and then asserts its mastery.

Thus, triumph can be illusory; and determining the "success" or "failure" of a movement like anarchism depends largely on what one means by those terms. The usual standards require that one found a thousand-year empire or at least possess adequate fluid assets; such considerations scarcely enable us to judge the merits of anarchist strategies, which refuse altogether to play the "Great Game."

The present generation of anarchists faces anew the question of liberty - which is anarchism. We should know how our predecessors fought the same battle; not in order to judge failure or success, but to know both how they lived as anarchists and how they defended their anarchism - the two complementaty halves of the struggle. We should not expect to gain from these studies any certainty about our own course, however. Doubts about our strategy must plague us, even as they have plagued Benjamin R. Tucker and the remnants of his circle in later years. "I put the Anarchist case as a goal that humanity moves towards. But the exact routes - ?? ah! it is not so easy to map them!"


(Frederic J. Gould to Benjamin Tucker, quoted by Tucker in a letter to
Joseph Ishill Jan 24 1935)

("Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty & the Strategy of Anarchism" by Morgan Edwards.)

What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being actively discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 4:47 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

Tarjei wrote:

At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:

I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not).

Tarjei:
What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person who liberates himself is no longer under the command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric.

F: In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

T: One of these tyrants is government. Government exists because the majority prefers to surrender certain parts of their freedom - a sacrifice that makes them feel safe and secure. For the rebels, government has a great variety of threats, punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in line, or at least their might-be emulators.

F: Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments, there would also be no criminals, cause they'd have seen the light. .

F: Also, by calling it that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal of anarchy; a system of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority." If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection - and I think that's what you mean.

T: You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy" is what I really mean in the context at hand. But this word is brand new and has not reached the dictionaries or officialdom yet. The person best suited to be called an anarchosophist, is the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher, poet, social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens Bjørneboe (1920-1976) - the fiercest of social critics who stood up for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes, the outcasts, the outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and self-destructive life, Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom and his hilarious sarcasm against the police, the prison wardens, the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie. He depicted the poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types of human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not in distant corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway, in our police stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental hospitals, our schools, in the military, etc.

Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists, i.e. bourgeois, middle and upper class staid etheric dreamers, couldn't understand why Bjørneboe bothered to take an active interest in such topics, about human rights for the "untouchables" of society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in Norway that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in the teachers' room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify an esoteric path; on the contrary, he drank himself to insanity and committed suicide, destroyed by the very demons he had been busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted authors to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest Hemingway for starters.)

But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic anarchist:

F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist", but it could be somewhere else. But that was in his youth, before the threefold idea.

"Until now, I have myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic' or 'theoretical anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very little for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist' can be applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal 'yes'."

(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261)

F: I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered myself somewhat of an anarchist.

T: So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his youth. Or at least, it looks like that. He read Tolstoy furiously and wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he almost became an "Tolstoyan." (That was, of course, many years before he turned to politics.) Nixon was also strongly influenced by his mother, who was a Quaker. And quakers are, after all, very close indeed to being Christian anarchists.

F: Not surprising. After all, around the turn of the century the communists and the anarchists had the same goal - the disappearance of the state, but differed in how to go about it. The Communists wanting a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariate, which would "wither away" once humanity became good enough; the anarchists the immediate elimination of the state, upon which people would become good because the state is the root of all evil. The right wing (Nixon and the Republican party in the U.S. as example) is always calling for less government, fewer taxes, etc. , so in a sense they are following the anarchist line.

F: However, "Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise - that during the present time and the immediate future at least, the State is an unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.

T: Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom? In that case, I have to echo the words of Steiner's friend and hero Benjamin Tucker:

"The state is said by some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made unnecessary. This century's battle, then, is with the State: the State, that debases man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that corrupts children; the State, that trammels love; the State, that stifles thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State, that limits credit; the State, that restricts exchange; the State, that gives idle capital the power of increase, and, through interest, rent, profit, and taxes, robs industrious labor of its products."

(Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty 1 (1881): 2.)

F: Tucker, imo, confuses all states with the one (or ones) he describes above. And they aren't all the same. Finland, fe, is number 1 on the list of least corrupt states, Argentina is something like 36. I would not recommend to anyone that they emulate Argentina. Finland yes.

F: (I'm referring to what we call democracy of course).

In a modern democracy, which is nothing but an oligarchy in disguise, the power structure is less easy to detect than in less permissive societies. Rudolf Steiner once pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot, was so deceptive because it fools people into believing that they are pulling the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings (and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes, behind whom stand occult forces.

F: Well, people *are* stupid, aren't they (except us of course).

F: It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals and from corporate greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should). In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced to) or work to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.

T: My general problem with a theoretical apology for statism is that it always represents the easy way out of complex problems. In other words, it's a cop-out.

F: I could say the same about anrachism - in fact I will.

T: What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards from the book "Benjamin R. Tucker & the Champions of Liberty."

(snip)

T: What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being actively discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism" which, like communism, is burnt out. A threefold society would be more possible, practical and correct.

Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Nov 8, 2003 5:54 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy


At 01:47 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

F: In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government. Nor does it per definiton embrace the violence par excellance that states define themselves by.

<snip>

F: Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments, there would also be no criminals, cause they'd have seen the light. .

Mahatma Gandhi proposed that we move into the neighborhoods of criminals instead of separating them from society behind barbed wire. What I am getting at is that alternative ideas about how to approach social problems carry the germ of future societies. Yesteryear's ways of dealing with such problems are indicative of mental laziness, and in the long run, such old-fashioned solutions will become more and more destructive and counter-productive.

<snip>

But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic anarchist:

F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist", but it could be somewhere else. But that was in his youth, before the threefold idea.

It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.

<snip>

T: What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being actively discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism" which, like communism, is burnt out. A threefold society would be more possible, practical and correct.

An alternative would be to expand the definiton of anarchism. This may be a strictly semantic argument, but the fact remains that when Steiner and Mackay finally go in different directions in the 1890's, it may be just as correct to claim that Steiner's PoF represents the true further development of anarchism and Mackay's political dreams a blind alley based upon a false and misunderstood concept of anarchism as to claim the opposite.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 6:16 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.

F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states must have governments. The problem is that these states are not autonomous, i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A basic element of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.

T: Nor does it per definiton embrace the violence par excellance that states define themselves by.

F: OK

<snip>

F:Yeah, yeah, and if there were no governments, there would also be no criminals, cause they'd have seen the light. .

T: Mahatma Gandhi proposed that we move into the neighborhoods of criminals instead of separating them from society behind barbed wire. What I am getting at is that alternative ideas about how to approach social problems carry the germ of future societies. Yesteryear's ways of dealing with such problems are indicative of mental laziness, and in the long run, such old-fashioned solutions will become more and more destructive and counter-productive.

F: I agree, but this has nothing to do with the point at issue.

<snip>

But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic anarchist:

F: The term I remember is "ethical anarchist", but it could be somewhere else. But that was in his youth, before the threefold idea.

T. It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.

F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly conclude that you include me in the "many people". You can write whatever you like in your book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't conform to you own ideology.

<snip>

T:> What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being actively discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

F: I recommend that they trash the label "anarchism" which, like communism, is burnt out. A threefold society would be more possible, practical and correct.

T: An alternative would be to expand the definiton of anarchism. This may be a strictly semantic argument, but the fact remains that when Steiner and Mackay finally go in different directions in the 1890's, it may be just as correct to claim that Steiner's PoF represents the true further development of anarchism and Mackay's political dreams a blind alley based upon a false and misunderstood concept of anarchism as to claim the opposite.

F: Whatever.

Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 7:34 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.

F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states must have governments. The problem is that these states are not autonomous, i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A basic element of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.

Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he participated in the Indian parliament. He held the view, however, that if a healthy social structure is built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the need for police, military, state government etc. will be severely reduced. And if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government and police and so on may be possible some day.

The problem with political ideologies is that the followers believe in changing everything overnight, creating a paradise on earth of their own making, and this always fails and leads to chaos or to the total elimination of individual liberty. The same goes for anarchism if it is thought of as a political ideology. But if anarchism is thought of in "anarchosophical" terms and thereby spiritualized, it simply means the recognition of oneself as an anarchist: Someone who does not succumb to tyranny or recognize any authority. The tyranny is not always external, although those who wield the power behind external, political tyranny know how to manipulate and exploit man's inner tyrants as well.

T. It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.

F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly conclude that you include me in the "many people".

I'm sorry it came out that way. What I had in mind was a few provocative arguments I wrote in my 1996 article about RS in an anarchist magazine. In other words, the following was written for anarchist readers (before "anarchosophy" was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois" anthroposophists like it or not:

http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

The core of anthroposophical philosophy is thoroughly anarchistic. This is not so easy to discern, because Rudolf Steiner's basic view can be very challenging to get to the bottom of. Most anthroposophists choose what appeals to them and suppress the rest. Most overlooked of all is the anarchism. This is why we have seen so many authority-loving and power-hungry bourgeois anthroposophists who have not discovered that they are sitting on a revolutionary megabomb.

And:

Mackay's theoretical anarchism had many features in common with The Philosophy of Freedom. Steiner believed, however, that he had shown in his book that thinking was a spiritual activity and that the human spirit could create free actions only through a developed thinking. It is probable that Mackay could not understand this concept of Steiner - there was in fact nobody who understood it at that time - but he seems to have been closer to Steiner in other areas.

Mackay had political ambitions with his theories, and he wanted Steiner's support and cooperation. It was a time when Steiner presented his ethical individualism as a political ideal, and it looks as if he felt tempted to use his own philosophy as a platform for Mackay's political dreams. His description of this episode in his autobiography 30 years later makes it clear that he experienced the inclination as a temptation or spiritual trial:

"Through my experience with J.H. Mackay and Stirner, my destiny caused me once more to enter a world of thought where I had to go through a spiritual test. Ethical individualism, as I had elaborated it, is the reality of moral life experienced purely within the human soul. Nothing was further from my intention in elaborating this conception than to make it the basis for a purely political view. But at this time, about 1898, my soul with its conception of ethical individualism, was to be dragged into a kind of abyss. From being a purely individual experience within the human soul, it was to become something theoretical and external. The esoteric was to be diverted into the exoteric." From then onward, he decided to tread his own paths.

Bourgeois Steiner-biographers describe this period as a little sidestep, as a passing flirt with anarchism, and they interpret the last quote as a goodbye between Steiner and anarchism. This is where the anarcho-anthroposophists protest. Because it is just as correct to present Anthroposophy as the next stage in the evolution of anarchism and to claim that Steiner is the one who makes anarchism a real possibility with The Philosophy of Freedom. The anarcho-anthroposophists' argument is, therefore, that the genuine anarchism is to be found precisely in Anthroposophy, which is and remains a heretical counter-culture and a rebellious dropout-society, regardless of how various members of the fine-cultural super-bourgeoisie wish to decorate the situation.

You can write whatever you like in your book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't conform to you own ideology.

What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned quote by RS. It's like when you sit at a lecture and take notes of certain things.

But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary too; that's obvious from your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial in Southern Cross Review:

http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm

"There are three alien categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens and
illegal aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently reside
legally in the United States of America, non-residents are from other solar
systems, and "illegal aliens" is used to describe humanoids from other
galaxies who have infiltrated the U.S."

Here you're speaking my kind of language, Frank. But of course, there's a little bourgeois in each and every one of us. And one such little bourgeois may even have tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his later years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother used to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his mature years, because you don't just make friends and influence people; you're also influenced by them. And when my mother said that, she was no youth at all, but in her early seventies. (She passed away in '97.)

So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

Cheers,

Tarjei

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 8:50 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his whole mission.

He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his opponents could have hit him to easely,
through political means.

Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and if he openly associated with anarchism,
it would remove the focus from the rest.

Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with views within the anarchistic movement
which were not anthroposophic.

All these were dangers, which could endanger his mission and destroy the anthroposophy movement.

I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer of knowledge to those who can understand and use it,
not in itself an active and all knowing movement. It consists of dreamers and managers which don't
change much in this world. But a few do understand (within or outside) and interact with the rest of the world.

Kim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 10:40 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 17:50 09.11.2003, Kim wrote:

If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his whole mission.

He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his opponents could have hit him to easely, through political means.

That would have been the case if anarchism were exclusively a political ideology rather than an existential philosophy. Steiner thought of anarchism in the latter sense, and this is why he was especially attracted to Max Stirner. In the aforementioned quote with comments borrowed from Stewart Easton's Steiner-biography, it becomes clear that the problem with Henry Mackay's anarchism was that it was linked to a political agenda - an agenda that endangered Steiner's mission by tempting him.

But Steiner did not keep his organization out of politics when the first world war was over. With the proposition of the Threefold Social Order, Anthroposophy was right in the middle of the political game. And once you're in the political game, bourgeois compromises and diplomacy come into play. (Just look at Bill Clinton, the hippie who never inhaled his marijuana, the anti-war protester who became the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces.)

In his book "Rudolf Steiner. The Man and His Vision," Colin Wilson, who was neither an anthroposophist nor an anarchist, says of RS that what he was offering the people of Europe in the midst of chaos with his Threefolding idea was nothing other than anarchy. In other words, Steiner tried his best to clothe as much anarchism as he could get away with into a political agenda. And this, of course, entails severe compromises.

Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and if he openly associated with anarchism, it would remove the focus from the rest.

By the same token, it could be argued that by openly associating with farming or with Buddhism, Christianity or Gnosticism, other aspects of anthroposophy would be forgotten. And there are critics, of course, who have endeavored to discredit Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one thing or another. But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own regardless of such associations.

There is another aspect involved here, of course. Anthroposophy is, and has to be, completely apolitical. It is a path to the Spirit open to everyone regardless of vocation (police officers, military personal, prison wardens etc.) and political coloring, and nobody should feel alienated from this open path because it has been hijacked by some political ideology. In spite of this, though, I cannot help but claim that anthro-anarchism is lightyears closer to RS and Christ-Michael than anthro-fascism, and that in spite of the fact that the left and the right wings of party politics should have disappeared after the 19th century, the anthroposophical movement in the spirit of Anthroposophia is closer to the political left than to the political right, simply because it supports a libertarian outlook.

Anthro-anarchists have come up with the idea that Anthroposophia has a radical sister: Anarchosophia. Then the question arises: Is is conceivable that Anthroposophia also has another sister, Fascistia? If so, is she good or evil?

Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with views within the anarchistic movement which were not anthroposophic.

The anarchistic movement does not hold a monopoly on posing a risk like that to the anthroposophical movement. As I see it today, the greatest danger in our time is that anthroposophy is becoming associated with views from the fascist camp, from the radical right, the Christian coalition and so on. There are other anthro-lists testifying to this, and there are critics' lists capitalizing on this claim in order to destroy anthroposophy.

All these were dangers, which could endanger his mission and destroy the anthroposophy movement.

The dangers are still with the movement, but the tables have turned. Rudolf Steiner is no longer a Zionist bolshevik Jew. He is a Nazi-fascist racist anti-Semite. In Steiner's lifetime, association with anarchism posed a danger because it had certain common roots with Communism, which was seen as a Jewish conspiracy plot. Today, RS and anthroposophy are being portrayed as the opposite, as a force from the extreme right.

I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer of knowledge to those who can understand and use it, not in itself an active and all knowing movement.

As a path to the Spirit, the movement must be more than a bearer of ideas and of knowledge. It must be an impulse that awakens life in such a way that the indivuidual acquires knowledge and wisdom from self-chosen sources. Without being too cognizant of WE, I believe this is the aim of Waldorf: To hellp develop self-dependence and individual power of judgement among young people.

I also believe that the gods are anarchists. That is why I write in my aforementioned article:

"[Steiner's] theism is thoroughly anarchistic. The innumerable gods are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall become mature and self-dependent enough to make it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of creation."

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 1:27 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

If RS has bound anthroposophy to anarchism he would have risked his whole mission.

He had to keep the organisation out of politics, otherwise his opponents could have hit him to easely, through political means.

That would have been the case if anarchism were exclusively a political ideology rather than an existential philosophy. Steiner thought of anarchism in the latter sense, and this is why he was especially attracted to Max Stirner. In the aforementioned quote with comments borrowed from Stewart Easton's Steiner-biography, it becomes clear that the problem with Henry Mackay's anarchism was that it was linked to a political agenda - an agenda that endangered Steiner's mission by tempting him.


K: Philosophers would know, if they wanted to, politicians might, but people as a whole would not.

But Steiner did not keep his organization out of politics when the first world war was over. With the proposition of the Threefold Social Order, Anthroposophy was right in the middle of the political game. And once you're in the political game, bourgeois compromises and diplomacy come into play. (Just look at Bill Clinton, the hippie who never inhaled his marijuana, the anti-war protester who became the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces.)

In his book "Rudolf Steiner. The Man and His Vision," Colin Wilson, who was neither an anthroposophist nor an anarchist, says of RS that what he was offering the people of Europe in the midst of chaos with his Threefolding idea was nothing other than anarchy. In other words, Steiner tried his best to clothe as much anarchism as he could get away with into a political agenda. And this, of course, entails severe compromises.

K: He tried to persuade the political forces, as a scientist, a philosopher, but not as a politician.
His weapon was ideas, not power. In that way he did not directly oppose the ahrimanic forces
(political powers), but mainly the luciferic forces (political ideas), which both could be against
or with him, and which might have swayed the political powers. But they could not change the minds
of those in power, as they would lose their power, if they followed his ideas.

Anthroposophy contains a lot more than anarchistic views and if he openly associated with anarchism, it would remove the focus from the rest.

By the same token, it could be argued that by openly associating with farming or with Buddhism, Christianity or Gnosticism, other aspects of anthroposophy would be forgotten. And there are critics, of course, who have endeavored to discredit Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one thing or another. But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own regardless of such associations.

K: Those areas are kept within the scientific research, and is as such not within the political area of power.

There is another aspect involved here, of course. Anthroposophy is, and has to be, completely apolitical. It is a path to the Spirit open to everyone regardless of vocation (police officers, military personal, prison wardens etc.) and political coloring, and nobody should feel alienated from this open path because it has been hijacked by some political ideology

(K: Right) .

In spite of this, though, I cannot help but claim that anthro-anarchism is lightyears closer to RS and Christ-Michael than anthro-fascism, and that in spite of the fact that the left and the right wings of party politics should have disappeared after the 19th century, the anthroposophical movement in the spirit of Anthroposophia is closer to the political left than to the political right, simply because it supports a libertarian outlook.

Anthro-anarchists have come up with the idea that Anthroposophia has a radical sister: Anarchosophia. Then the question arises: Is is conceivable that Anthroposophia also has another sister, Fascistia? If so, is she good or evil?

K: I don't understand why you want to relate anarchism with ideologies. As I see Anarchism, it is to let people themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives. The ideologies behind both the political left and the political right is luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without any regard to the individual. I see the politicians on both left and right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they had power enough they could make paradise on earth, at least for themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.

Another risk was, that anthroposophy could be associated with views within the anarchistic movement which were not anthroposophic.

The anarchistic movement does not hold a monopoly on posing a risk like that to the anthroposophical movement. As I see it today, the greatest danger in our time is that anthroposophy is becoming associated with views from the fascist camp, from the radical right, the Christian coalition and so on. There are other anthro-lists testifying to this, and there are critics' lists capitalizing on this claim in order to destroy anthroposophy.

All these were dangers, which could endanger his mission and destroy the anthroposophy movement.

The dangers are still with the movement, but the tables have turned. Rudolf Steiner is no longer a Zionist bolshevik Jew. He is a Nazi-fascist racist anti-Semite. In Steiner's lifetime, association with anarchism posed a danger because it had certain common roots with Communism, which was seen as a Jewish conspiracy plot. Today, RS and anthroposophy are being portrayed as the opposite, as a force from the extreme right.

K: Yes, and sometime in the future it will be something else. When the children of today grow older, they have to create something else to use. That is part of the luciferic game. The ahrimanic game is a lot worse, in that it tries to change the minds to a materialistic view which cannot incorporate the anthroposophic ideas.

I see the anthroposophy movement as a bearer of knowledge to those who can understand and use it, not in itself an active and all knowing movement.

As a path to the Spirit, the movement must be more than a bearer of ideas and of knowledge. It must be an impulse that awakens life in such a way that the indivuidual acquires knowledge and wisdom from self-chosen sources. Without being too cognizant of WE, I believe this is the aim of Waldorf: To hellp develop self-dependence and individual power of judgement among young people.

K: I agree and it's also what I mean with bearer of knowledge. With 'not active' I mean that they are not changing the physical realities in the world directly. By 'all knowing' I partly mean that they are not trying to indoctrinate their view on other's, partly that nobody is all knowing. Or in other words, they are not political active.

I also believe that the gods are anarchists. That is why I write in my aforementioned article:

"[Steiner's] theism is thoroughly anarchistic. The innumerable gods are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority so that we shall become mature and self-dependent enough to make it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of creation."

K: I agree so far that it is part of the lesson on the earth: Love to all created, including ourselves.

Cheers,

Kim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 1:45 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

Tarjei wrote:

At 15:16 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

F:In Basic Issues, he also includes "the rights sphere", the province of government, which is a factor of the state, with the proviso that it mind its own business, that is, civil and human rights. But it exists.

T: The rights sphere does not ipso facto necessitate state government.

F: I disagree. The rights sphere includes the political state and states must have governments. The problem is that these states are not autonomous, i.e., they are subject to economic interests and pressure. A basic element of 3-fold is to change this, not eliminate the state.

T: Neither did Gandhi wish to eliminate the state. On the contrary, he participated in the Indian parliament. He held the view, however, that if a healthy social structure is built from the bottom, from the grassroot, the need for police, military, state government etc. will be severely reduced. And if this line of reasoning is followed, the elimiation of government and police and so on may be possible some day.

F: I agree with Gandhi, especially the last 5 words.

(snip)

T. It's amazing how many people bend over backwards to explain away Steiner's anarchism and make it disappear, just like Peter Staudenmaier sets out to insist that Steiner was an atheist before he turned to theosophy. In my book, he was what he said he was, and he said he was an anarchist.

F: Since this is a dispute between me and thee, I must disappointedly conclude that you include me in the "many people".

I'm sorry it came out that way. What I had in mind was a few provocative arguments I wrote in my 1996 article about RS in an anarchist magazine. In other words, the following was written for anarchist readers (before "anarchosophy" was coined), where my main argument is that Steiner's anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism, whether "bourgeois" anthroposophists like it or not:

http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may request it for the Dec. issue of SCR, with, for the first time: "the contents of this article are those of the author and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have money to pay the lawyers."

 

F: You can write whatever you like in your book if you wish to ignore the facts because they don't conform to you own ideology.

T: What I wrote in my book was the aforementioned quote by RS. It's like when you sit at a lecture and take notes of certain things.

T: But Frank, you're an anarchosophical revolutionary too; that's obvious from your own "Bush-Whacking" editorial in Southern Cross Review:

http://www.southerncrossreview.org/29/editorial.htm

"There are three alien categories: resident aliens, non-resident aliens and illegal aliens. Residents are those from other planets who currently reside legally in the United States of America, non-residents are from other solar systems, and "illegal aliens" is used to describe humanoids from other galaxies who have infiltrated the U.S."

Here you're speaking my kind of language, Frank. But of course, there's a little bourgeois in each and every one of us. And one such little bourgeois may even have tried to sneak into the very soul of Rudolf Steiner in his later years, especially when he was exhausted from overwork. My mother used to think that Steiner had become a little bourgeois in his mature years, because you don't just make friends and influence people; you're also influenced by them. And when my mother said that, she was no youth at all, but in her early seventies. (She passed away in '97.)

I'd rather be bourgeois than poor, despìte the camel.

So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would that cure me?
Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2003 2:59 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 22:45 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may request it for the Dec. issue of SCR, with, for the first time: "the contents of this article are those of the author and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have money to pay the lawyers."

Well, I would have to go through the text carefully first. You see, I wrote it in Norwegian, taking my sweet time, and I was pleased with how it came out. I had worked really hard with it -so hard that I considered it difficult to transkate, because it meant I would have to re-live it and write it afresh so to speak. In spite of this, I translated it into English in a hurry while in the middle of a dispute with Peter Staudenmaier on the WC list. Calling himself an anarchist, Peter S always insists that anthroposophy is a fascist right wing ideology and that anthroposophists are, ipso facto, fascist right wingers. And of course he scoffs at the suggestion that RS could have been an anarchist. No, that was when he was a rational atheist as well, before he went nuts by embracing Blavatsky's theosophy. So I translated my anthro-anarchism article into English in a jiffy so I could throw a link at Peter.

Don't get me wrong: The translation is not bad, but it's hurried, and for this reason, I'd like to bring it up to the same standard as the original.

So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would that cure me?
Frank

Good grief, now *you* sound like "one of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on you!

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:15 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 22:45 09.11.2003, Frank wrote:

http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html

F: hmm. Actually I like the article and may request it for the Dec. issue of SCR, with, for the first time: "the contents of this article are those of the author and SCR does not necessarily agree with them, nor do we have money to pay the lawyers."

(snip)

Don't get me wrong: The translation is not bad, but it's hurried, and for this reason, I'd like to bring it up to the same standard as the original.

Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many, especially if your point is made with less.


So if this little bourgeois of yours ever tries to bother you and whisper things to you, perhaps an anarcho-homeopath knows of an antidote. (Personally, I just kick it in the butt, which can be harmful when he gets to you in your sleep. I heard of a man who broke his toe that way, kicking the wall in his sleep, dreaming it was a mean rat.)

How about Tarjei instead of The Wall? Would that cure me?
Frank

Good grief, now *you* sound like "one of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on you!

It's contagious you see. That's why I jumped ship after my last bomb there.
Btw, fruitcake is also contagious.
Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:55 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 22:27 09.11.2003, Kim wrote:

K: He tried to persuade the political forces, as a scientist, a philosopher, but not as a politician. His weapon was ideas, not power. In that way he did not directly oppose the ahrimanic forces (political powers), but mainly the luciferic forces (political ideas), which both could be against or with him, and which might have swayed the political powers. But they could not change the minds of those in power, as they would lose their power, if they followed his ideas.

I think you hit the bull's eye with that analysis. The paradox here is that the social ideas of Steiner, which were based upon keen spiritual-scientific insight and the inviolable autonomy of the individual human being, constitute in their consequence a threat to the established order, the power structure, "the Establishment." What the Establishment does in a case like that, is to incorporate such revolutionary ideas gradually while pulling the fangs out of them so to speak, rendering them harmless to the oligarchy. The same thing happened after the 1960's in America.

[Tarjei]

By the same token, it could be argued that by openly associating with farming or with Buddhism, Christianity or Gnosticism, other aspects of anthroposophy would be forgotten. And there are critics, of course, who have endeavored to discredit Steiner's work by focusing exclusively on one thing or another. But anthroposophy is strong enough to stand on its own regardless of such associations.

[Kim]

K: Those areas are kept within the scientific research, and is as such not within the political area of power.

Of course, but if you take another look at your own accurate analysis above, the conclusion ought to be that Steiner's "political" ideas were not at all political, but spiritual-scientific. Sophia just posted a beautiful quote by the anarchist Ben Tucker that is highly idealistic without being overtly political either. And it was this kind of idealism in Tucker that made Steiner proclaim him to be "the greatest champion of freedom in our time."

According to the line of reasoning you suggest here, everything related to religion could be construed in the same way as politics, because the influence of religion upon politics, or religion as a tool for political power, had not really outlived its role until the middle of the 20th century. So there are critics who claim that everything Steiner did in the religious realm was a power trip, and that his meddling in politics after the big war proves it beyond doubt.

K: I don't understand why you want to relate anarchism with ideologies.

You're losing me semantically here. Anarchism _is_ an ideology:

http://liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com/id31.htm

"One issue that remains unresolved within the anarchist movement revolves around the nature of anarchists themselves. If you've perused these pages, you by now know about social anarchism versus lifestyle anarchism as the most public schism among anarchists, with the latter deriding class struggle as fruitless, pointless, and irrelevant, and the former declaring that the latter aren't anarchists at all, but are rather bourgeois poseurs."

Personally, I belong to the latter of the two categories above, and I believe this was also Steiner's understanding of his own anarchism.

As I see Anarchism, it is to let people themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives.

Exactly. Live and let live and don't try to control the lives of others. That's not politics; it's common sense.

The ideologies behind both the political left and the political right is luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without any regard to the individual.

True. That's why real anarchism is neither left nor right, it is completely apolitical and philosophical; and this is how you arrive at "anarchosophy."

I see the politicians on both left and right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they had power enough they could make paradise on earth, at least for themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.

Exactly.

But let's get back to Lucifer here. The revolutionary spirit is of necessity luciferic. Check out my article about this dynamite (no pun intended) subject at http://www.uncletaz.com/childlucifer.html and enjoy.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:57 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

Hello Tarjei
...

[Kim]

K: Those areas are kept within the scientific research, and is as such not within the political area of power.

Of course, but if you take another look at your own accurate analysis above, the conclusion ought to be that Steiner's "political" ideas were not at all political, but spiritual-scientific. Sophia just posted a beautiful quote by the anarchist Ben Tucker that is highly idealistic without being overtly political either. And it was this kind of idealism in Tucker that made Steiner proclaim him to be "the greatest champion of freedom in our time."

According to the line of reasoning you suggest here, everything related to religion could be construed in the same way as politics, because the influence of religion upon politics, or religion as a tool for political power, had not really outlived its role until the middle of the 20th century. So there are critics who claim that everything Steiner did in the religious realm was a power trip, and that his meddling in politics after the big war proves it beyond doubt.

[Kim]
Well, what 'critics can claim' don't mean that they are right. One of the things I have learnt in this life is that because everyone means something else they are not necessarily right (learnt while working i large corporations). Ideas are not political in themselves, all ideas could influence the world (ie eat your food, think of the hungry in africa). An idea is political when it takes physical form (lucifer inspires ahriman).

K: I don't understand why you want to relate anarchism with ideologies.

You're losing me semantically here. Anarchism _is_ an ideology:

http://liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com/id31.htm

...

As I see Anarchism, it is to let people themselves decide in what way they want to live their lives.

Exactly. Live and let live and don't try to control the lives of others. That's not politics; it's common sense.

[Kim] Precisely, and common sence is common sence (individual thinking) and is absolutely not 'political'.


The ideologies behind both the political left and the political right is luciferic, more or less beautiful constructions without any regard to the individual.

True. That's why real anarchism is neither left nor right, it is completely
apolitical and philosophical; and this is how you arrive at "anarchosophy."

I see the politicians on both left and right representing ahrimanic forces who think that if they had power enough they could make paradise on earth, at least for themselves, and in extreme cases, killing anybody who disagrees.

Exactly.

But let's get back to Lucifer here. The revolutionary spirit is of necessity luciferic. Check out my article about this dynamite (no pun intended) subject at http://www.uncletaz.com/childlucifer.html and enjoy.

[Kim]

Now we has arrived at the fun part!

From your article:

One of the problems with "old age" orthodox religions, especially Christianity and Islam with their explosive and potentially violent fundamentalism, is a one-sided dualism that excludes a proper understanding and appreciation for mythology.

[Kim] Here we have a connection with the other discussion about Islam. Ther first centuries Christianity was not orthodox, but the arabian world influenced the christian world on many areas. They returned a lot of the greek ideas back to the west. Their ideas of the one and only fathergod (back to duality, good and bad) and their religious law system also percolated to the west, giving the fundament for the strong political church.

In the case of Christianity, the claim is made that Yahve was a kind and benevolent deity above reproach who even is supposed to be endowed with omniscience and omnipotence.

[Kim] Here we talk about the father God of the old testhament, who were God for the Jew's, learning them to be good citizens. His job was to destroy the anarchic tendencies. And in that form, he has nothing to do with Christianity. Lucifer fought against this, and made the seed for the lower ego.Ahriman has no great role in the play, while his powers was familiar to the God of the jews. Christ took over as God for the whole earth, to continue the education, but now moving toward an anarchistic world with people who has learned to tolerate each other under the old law. Ahriman tries to continue the old principles in the new era, and thereby working against the evolution.

What I'm getting at here is that Lucifer, which means "Light Bearer,"

[Kim] Isn't Christ called the True Light Bearer?

also known as the Angel of Light, is confused with Ahriman or Satan, and for this reason he is supposed to be a liar. But this is not true. Lucifer is the bringer of ancient wisdom (the serpent has always been the symbol of wisdom in Oriental tradition), of freedom and independence, and of knowledge of good and evil which gave man the potential to become a god in his own right. This is confirmed not only by Christ himself in John 10:34, but even more poignantly by Helena Blavatsky, who went so far as to claim that Jahve was the evil god out to enslave humanity while Lucifer was the benevolent liberator.

[Kim]
Here we are at one of the biggest problems today, that is the relation between Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman.

One of the most potent scenes in the bible is the picture with Christ between the two robbers. The one to the right accepts Christ and the one on the left don't.

On the right we have lucifer, he accepts Christ, their powers are familiar with Christ as the true light bearer. On the Left we have ahriman, the primary opponent in the new era, where lucifer where the primary opponent in the old era.

Christ is between those two, in the euilibrium between Absolute Order to the left and Absolute Chaos to the right, representing life in the middle.

This is not a purely psychic thing it is also physical reality. In the later years there have been some interesting research in the chaos theories, and life is defined as an equilibrium between absolute order and absolute chaos. In our physical world it can be seen as gravitation as the power of order and the thermodynamics as the power of chaos.

This equilibrium is the golden road through life, or dharma. The Yin/Yang symbol is the symbol of order and chaos, not the symbol of good and bad. Good is the line parting chaos and order.

Good versus bad is an islamic dualistic idea, which is much liked by Ahriman. If you are against Ahriman you are for Lucifer (and indirectly for Ahriman), and if you are against Lucifer then you must be for Ahriman, and in both cases not for Christ, and its simple to associate Christ with ones own preferences,

RS has written about it, but i don't remember where, and Rosicrusians of the European school have also.

Cheers,

Kim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:15 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 13:15 10.11.2003, Frank wrote:

[Tarjei]

Don't get me wrong: The translation is not bad, but it's hurried, and for this reason, I'd like to bring it up to the same standard as the original.

[Frank]

Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many, especially if your point is made with less.

For an _anthroposophical_ publication, it would have to be re-written. It was written for _anarchists_ in an anarchist magazine. I had been working with fellow anarchists - well, with people attracted to anarchism (none of us ever agreed what anarchism is), and among these, I was the only person with a Christian outlook. The others were very anti-Christian. They were atheists or orientalists who frequently travelled to India. And I discovered how privileged I was to be among people with such a rich variety of outlooks and philosophies with a common interest in liberty, avant-garde, anarchism, non-conformity, and counter-culture. It has made me totally non-sectarian and non-conformist what anthroposophy is concerned, because I had to defend it as my personal individual view against the sharpest criticism from people who were my closest friends. And they gave me a free hand to express my views in our magazine.

The first piece I wrote in this vein was an article about Christian anarchism entitled "Christos Anarchos" (in Norwegian). This is one of those articles I cannot translate into English because I've borrowed heavily from books that were lent to me (in this case, Peter Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible" and other sources), and I can't translate it back into the language in which it was written without doing a gross injustice to the credited authors.

The second article was about Rudolf Steiner's anarchism, entitled "Anthropos Anarchos" (the N. original). Because it was written for anarchists unfamiliar with the radical message embedded in the PoF, my main argument was:

"For an anarchist, Steiner can be as relevant as Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner, or Tolstoy."

If my argument about the PoF being the real Bible of Anarchism is to be presented to anthroposophical readers, the article at hand would have to be completely re-written (although students at Steinerhøyskolen - the institution that trains Norwegian Waldorf teachers - told me when I ran into them in a bar shortly after publication that they would paste the article on the school's bulletin board. Bet some teachers tore it down, but I also received enthusiastic phone calls from other students (future Waldorf teachers) who experienced the article as a breath of fresh air.

Good grief, now *you* sound like "one of those creeps from PLANS". Shame on you!

It's contagious you see. That's why I jumped ship after my last bomb there.
Btw, fruitcake is also contagious.

This reminds me: "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" is a wide open forum based upon the principle of free speech and choice of topic. I would like to suggest that the moderator clarifies our policy with regard to the possibility of hardcore critics signing up and posting here.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:28 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review is *not* an anthropsophical publication, but an e-review of literature, education, book reviews, science, current events _and_ anthroposophy. It's just one of the sections.
Frank

Good idea. While doing so, I suggest you see if you can delete some of the RS PoF quotes. For an article there may be too many, especially if your point is made with less.

For an _anthroposophical_ publication, it would have to be re-written.

(snip)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:53 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 00:28 12.11.2003, Frank wrote:

Just a clarification: Southernc Cross Review is *not* an anthropsophical publication, but an e-review of literature, education, book reviews, science, current events _and_ anthroposophy. It's just one of the sections.

I understand. On my own website, anthroposophy is also just one of the sections. Thanks for the clarification.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:04 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] anarchosophy

At 00:57 11.11.2003, Kim wrote:

[Kim]
Well, what 'critics can claim' don't mean that they are right. One of the things I have learnt in this life is that because everyone means something else they are not necessarily right (learnt while working i large corporations). Ideas are not political in themselves, all ideas could influence the world (ie eat your food, think of the hungry in africa). An idea is political when it takes physical form (lucifer inspires ahriman).

This reminds me of a funny dialogue from the musical "Fiddler on the Roof." It's about matchmaking, love and marriage among young Russian Jews, and one of the courtships proceeds as follows:

He: May I ask you a political question?

She: What's that?

He: Will you marry me?

She: Is that a political question?

He: Everything is political!

Earler, you expressed concern about how people might react to Steiner's mixture of anthroposophy and anarchism. This reminds me of one of my favorite countrymen of yours, Piet Hein, whose "gruks" [short limericks] became legendary and enjoyed wide popularity:

En ting som røver manges ro,
er problemet om hvad folk må tro,
til det er der kun ét at sige til -
folk må tro hvad fa'en de vil.

[Kim] Now we has arrived at the fun part!

The fun part about "Children of Lucifer" is the mails I've received from furious christian fundies, calling me a Satan-worshipper and promising me eternal hellfire.

[Kim] Isn't Christ called the True Light Bearer?

Lucifer means Light Bearer, and with this in mind, RS published his Akasha-Chronicles ("Cosmic Memory") in a magazine called "Luzifer-Gnosis" (The Wisdom of Lucifer). In one of his many lectures about life between death and rebirth, RS tells us that on the other side of the threshold, i.e. between death and rebirth, Lucifer does not have a harmful influence on man; on the contrary, he is our guide through the Zodiac, indistiguishable from Christ, being his twin brother so to speak. Lucifer is only potentially harmful to man between birth and death.

Check out my Norwegian article, "Christos Anarchos"

Det er fullt ut forsvarlig å vifte anarkismens sorte flagg med den ene
armen og Kristi sverd med den andre så lenge det kun er snakk om Kristus
som åndelig revolusjonær frigjører. Kristus som konge hører kirken til og
Kristus som lærer hører losjene til. I anarkistisk forstand kan det aldri
være snakk om Kristus som noen som helst belærende autoritet.

Den anarkistiske Kristus er en luciferisk Kristus. Den åndsbevisste
anarkist er en gud i sin egen rett. Han er sin egen Kristus akkurat som den
Førstefødte i Palestina. I denne forstand blir den historiske Jesus fra
Nazareth ingen autoritet, men en inspirasjon. Denne åndsretningen innenfor
anarkismen kan kalles esoterisk eksistensialisme.

Good versus bad is an islamic dualistic idea, which is mutch liked by Ahriman. If you are against Ahriman you are for Lucifer (and indirectly for Ahriman), and if you are against Lucifer then you must be for Ahriman, and in both cases not for Christ, and its simple to associate Christ with ones own preferences,

True. I'll try to get around to corroborating this in a response to Dottie's latest post about Islam.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

November/December 2003

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind