This is great. You've really brought the Threefold idea out of the realm of abstraction and into real life! (And I love the image of the baskets.)

Thanks!

Lori

Dear Sebastian,

Thanks for so clearly stating a possible version of the Ideal of the Rights Life.   We could have a deeper discussion, if there were interested people.

For example, the reality of the Rights LIfe in America is that equality is not present.  Wealth is more equal than poverty, to give a general observation.  This means that wealth is able to "purchase" preferential treatment in the creation of laws favorable to its agenda, and in fact has for about a hundred years distorted the rules under which economics is practiced (Federal Reserve etc.) such that a hidden and permanent advantage exists.   The is no "free market", although there is an economic religion called "free market capitalism".

Another point to recognize is that contemporary laws (particularly in the Western Democracies) are heavily influenced by fundamental principles based on Roman Law.  Roman Law exists in the pesent in a kind of "out of time" form - that is it no longer is appropriate for the human being's current stage of development in the evolution of consciousness.  Law needs to be fundamentally revisited to make it appropriate for the Consciousness Soul.

An example of this is the current tension on the Internet between those young people who believe information should be free and the old principle of private property, which requires and supports the ownership of ideas as if they were "things" (copyright laws etc.).  The young have an instinctive memory of the spiritual world in which Ideas are Beings, and some sense that the evolution of consciousness is taking us in a direction in which we could realize that trying to own an Idea is to seek to possess something invisible that already offers itself to us as a gift.  This tension on the Internet, between a kind of ownership and a kind of sharing without ownership (a form of stewardship), is a social phenomena that points us in the directions Law needs to be developed in the future if the Rights Life is to remain current with the real stage of the evolution of consciousness.

joel

Hi Joel,

I recognise what you describe, it was the picture that came from studying the 3-fold in a study group I belonged to in my early twenties.  The view I have described is evolved from that, with the dual intention of being more useable in my daily life and of overcoming certain limiting constraints around this understanding of equality.

I wanted something that was useable in the distorted market we have today because I could not see any way that the distortions would be ironed out.  It is against the interests of all the people with power to sort out these issues, and generally, at least in the UK, they have learnt to not leave the poor so poor that their poverty causes social ferment and unrest.  Certain lessons from the French Revolution were well learnt.

However, working in the economy for some years now, I have realised that the 3-fold is there, and is the organising principle of all the activity that goes on.  The question is to what extent is it recognised. Usually, not at all, but you can see it if your eyes are open.  Recognising the 3-fold allows one to work with it.  It's a bit like rowing in a river.  You can row in any direction, but down-stream is easier than up-stream.  The more you can see the inner nature of the processes at work the easier it is to align your endeavour to the current.

Having said that, I didn't agree with the definition of equality that everyone else in the group favoured.  They wanted it to refer to wealth and I didn't.  Which meant it struck me as very ironic when I was accused, at a presentation the group was giving at a local group meeting, of being a Marxist!

I think the most fundamental right that the equality of the Rights Realm requires is the right to follow your own path of knowledge or spiritual development.  I see everyone in my company as deserving of the same access to learning and development.  However, this being a Cultural question, they are free to ignore or accept what is made available.  Beyond that, I think that the equality of the Rights Realm concerns the fairness of the contracts and agreements that are made.  In this sense, it is also a question of suitability for a post being assessed according to talent or ability to deliver rather than on spurious grounds such as sex, age or race.

It is possible to be successful in business by only engaging in fair relationships.  However, some business people consider it their aim to make agreements and contracts that are unfair in their favour.  I content myself with the knowledge that these people will be rowing their businesses upstream.  Indeed, of those I have met and quizzed who have this attitude, all report that staff relations are poor and that running their business is a tremendous strain.

These individuals may well experience a faster accrual of wealth because of their abusive Rights Realm relationships, but of course, money doesn't bring fulfilment, rather meeting people's needs does.  If you operate a business that is fair to staff and customers, and that meets both parties needs, then fulfilment is available aplenty.

I have been involved in a lot of discussion about how pay should be made according to need. The problem is that different people have different needs and it is hard to establish what needs they have.  You always sort of end up needing a third party to arbitrate.  My view is that people can find the level of their need for themselves, as long as they have the chance of entering in to fair relationships in the work place. Although it is easy to fail in this search, it is also easy to succeed.  It is not only Anthroposophist who realise that fair relationships in the work place lead to a more successful, less stressful business. This is a common view in the business community.

It's interesting that you pick on intellectual property as being a throw-back concept.  Actually, it strikes me that as IP rights expire after a period of years (70 I think, usually), this is the most advanced aspect of our ownership laws.  The 3-fold as set out by Steiner shows that control of the means of production (ie companies), and of land, should be by stewardship, not by ownership.  In other words companies and land should not be bought and sold, but, rather like the Native Americans view land, should be yours while you are able to use it and look after it, and should be then handed on in due course.

This makes good sense, because when a company is handed over to new owners, everything changes. The company will be so completely different that this change can be viewed as a dying and starting again.  It was an understanding of this point that led Dr. Rudolf Hauschka and his co-owners of Wala to create a Foundation in the 1960s in to which the company, Wala, was placed.  This neutralisation of capital was a most profound deed which has meant that Wala has been able to continue its work according to the purpose it was established with, without the trauma of transference of ownership.  That's not to say life is always easy, but in my view Wala is a paramount world-example of a healthy business.

Finally, as a business person with an idea for a business, it is very hard to create a business that will meet people's needs unless your idea is protected, at least up to a point.  I absolutely don't view this as ownership of an idea, but, as with land, as stewardship.  An idea chooses the person to incarnate in to - and often an idea will incarnate in several people at once.  Then a competition ensues to see which person will create substance out of the idea first, and which will be the best.  That is, for me, an unexpected example of the competitive aspect of the Cultural realm. 

A legally protected idea has a bigger, or fuller chance of incarnating in to the physical world than an unprotected idea. Take the name of my business - Elysia.  This is protected by various laws because it is the only way that customers can understand what our business represents, so that, at a glance, they know it. The name is a symbol they can hook their understanding / knowledge on to.   Without any protection, other people can create businesses that use my name and attract customers who understand what it represents, only to find that they receive something quite different.  Another example: we have spent tens of thousands making a film about Bio-Dynamics.  Although I really don't ever expect to make a profit on this film, uploading it to u-tube does not appeal at all.

I do understand that the reason for Genetic Manipulation of crops is to allow companies to own patents on the food we eat.  I do understand that this is complete madness.  I do not think that the laws and organisation of society is perfect, I think it is terribly flawed.

Nevertheless I am trying to find an approach that allows me to successfully interact in the existing business world whilst also (hopefully) manifesting the 3-fold principles in all that we do.  Therefore, whatever craziness is going on elsewhere in the economy, I hope that we will shine out as a model for how things can be done differently, but also successfully.

Best wishes,

Sebastian

The notion of equality in the rights sphere is the notion of due process. It seems to me all Americans and all Brits share that right equally, within tolerable limits.

To ask for equality from the market or from cultural institutions suggests a confusion of categories. In both of these social spheres, natural differences between individuals are normally exploited and amplified, and nothing else should be expected. In the economic sphere, Steiner thought the mitigating solution was associations, solidarity among groups of producers or groups of consumers that would tend to make the material circumstances of all individuals more equal (remember, Steiner was obligated in his time to respond to Marx, who published in 1848, and to the rising tide of Communism (Lenin died in 1924)). Today, with the general workability of capitalism established and plowing ahead, it is debatable whether socialist approaches like associations or Georgist land-tax economics, for example, are very relevant. They will probably become relevant in the future, but right now, it's hard to see that they are. In the cultural sphere, by way of contrast, Steiner advocated competition and striving, and the amplification and outlining of individual differences as a social principle. The idea here, I think, is for these innate differences to become subject to clairvoyant perception as cosmic karma. Everyone in the cultural domain is supposed to become clairvoyantly perceptive of everyone else.

In Goethean conversation we have a model for society along these threefold lines. This model is entirely practicable by ordinary people with the right attitude and the right background, and amounts to something like building an etheric Cathedral from heaven down to earth. Here individuals strive and compete in the Cultural dimension, trying to outshine one another in terms of wisdom and understanding, of beauty and truth, of capacity and strength, in terms of penetrating one another with insight and intuition, and thus establishing a hierarchy of function within the social group. A sort of grass roots Episcopate. That hierarchy is ultimately referred to, extended into and governed by the outer, transhuman cosmic Hierarchies.

Simultaneously, in the Rights sphere (these spheres overlap and coincide on any particular social unit or social function), everyone back on earth places the Fundamental Social Law and its corollaries front and center, so individual freedom is constrained by access to the greater freedom of Life in the Social Organism. This is ensured, among other things, by the conversational techniques (rules) of universal reproduction (reproducibility) and indifferent expression (expressibility). These conventions are the paramount examples of social equality, and no more perspicuous formulation of such equality seems possible to me. The fundamental attitude, shared by all, is thus to open the whole of social life, the sensibility and perception of humanity itself, to the free expression of the inmost ideal of the individual soul.

Economically, as nearly as I can figure it, everyone under these conditions is trying to get rid of as much as possible. This is the reverse pattern from what we see in material nature. In real conversation, every word spoken, every sentence articulated, every thought impulse entertained is sacrificed to the Whole as an offering (and a hope) of Universal Acceptability and Acceptance. Here is where Grace comes in, because no one can know beforehand if an Offering is going to be given universal currency, or if someone is going to want to negate or change it.

So in Goethean conversation, which in all likelihood is the unit of future society, the Rights sphere is the central one, and the critical one to establish. The Rights sphere is the agreements we make with each other about how we will conduct ourselves as Angel men (as Angel women) for the rest of the cosmic epoch. There are a few necessary and fundamental agreements, as nearly as I can make it out, and probably thousands of ancillary agreements, for the Cathedral to get off the ground. Once it does get off the ground, new laws, social and physical, will prevail.

C.H.F.

Hi Lori,

Thanks for the good questions.

Fraternity does not necessarily entail equality. One can easily imagine two brothers who love each other but who remain unequal in social status and property holdings. The ancient law of primogeniture was an institution intended to keep vast landed estates intact, so only the oldest son inherited. Feelings of fraternity between brothers were not precluded as a result.

Economic fraternity does seem to entail groups of people banding together to promote their economic interests, and thus to counterbalance the social power of corporations and corporate interests. Instead of individual consumers making personal decisions in a gigantic global market, and determining prices as a result, Steiner’s idea is for groups of people to form associations and decide what their collective needs for a certain commodity will be, let’s say for wheat, and enter into agreements (contracts) with local producers for quantities and prices. The producers presumably would be similarly organized. It’s a sort of cartel model.

One must bear in mind that Steiner was obligated in his time to respond to Marx, who published in 1848, and the rising tide of communism (Lenin died in 1924). Today it seems unlikely that local groups of people could decide their consumption of wheat in advance more efficiently than individuals can, where supplies can be had from anywhere in the world. Although groups of people would have more market power than mere individuals, they would need something like a group mind in place actually to enter such economic contracts. Goethean conversation is probably a way to approach that group mind, but today we are a long way from an intentional power (a mind) that could be used by human groups in an economic context.

Government is certainly there to prevent excessive exploitation and social inequality from arising, but that is the point. Government just is the rights sphere. In a way, government is the mind of the social body. These different social spheres coincide simultaneously on any social group or social function. A particular social organization, say a biodynamic farm, is simultaneously a domain where the rights of humans and animals are worked out, where economic arrangements are made and where cultural elements (e.g. festivals) play their roles as well.

Indifferent reproducibility means that anything said in a conversation needs to be reproducible by anyone else in the conversation. If I utter “The cat is on the mat,” it must remain possible for anyone else in the conversation, if asked, to reproduce to an arbitrary degree of closeness what I said and what I meant by it. Everyone needs to feel satisfied that they know exactly what is being said. If this condition fails, we are talking past one another and not really having a conversation.

Expressibility is the same basic idea. If during a conversation I try to say something I don’t understand very well, and end up uttering something incoherent, a basic condition on conversation has failed to be satisfied. Only contents that are expressible are conversational. We are under a conversational obligation to sort for those contents, and leave others unexpressed.

Putting these principles and others like them into practice is a wonderful exercise. What is required is that everyone’s intentionality (willing) remain satisfied from moment to moment. That’s the group mind. There is an art to making this happen. Under such conditions, people show who they really are. That, of course, is what we want in anthroposophical community. We want to know who we are karmically. That is the idea of anthroposophical culture.

There are a number of general rules (Rights), like those above (reproducibility, expressibility), that need to be observed in conversation (they are just part of the idea of conversation), and in any particular conversational moment there is a Rights structure that is exerting a living influence, having to do with universal satisfaction, but that often needs to be left implicit. I think there are probably thousands of rules that underlie real conversation. A group of people with a handle on the Rights structure of conversation would almost certainly possess a usable group mind.

CHF

Hello Carl,

These are marvelous insights you have shared here. I truly thank you for these thoughts and the  perspective you have given to Goethean Conversation.

Regards,

Cisco

 Hi Lori, and thanks, Cisco, for the kudos.

Yes Lori, that’s the idea, but there’s more in it. The problem in a social organism (in a Goethean conversation) is not just not to waste everyone’s time. The problem is not to waste anyone’s energy. The problem is analogous to accomplishing satisfactory sex. Generally, a Goethean conversation cannot be expected to have more than one moment in which the heavens open and insight from the spiritual world comes flooding in. After something like that happens, it’s normally not possible for it to happen again (in sex, this is called a refractory period, and applies generally to the male).

Managing energy in a Goethean conversation is really what’s central, because what you want is to create conditions under which the heavens open for everyone at the same moment. You want everyone to be looking into the same part of the cosmos simultaneously. That is how you can expect to get a real science out of it. Science comes about when social consensus develops about what certain phenomena are, and about what it is that are likely to be causing them. Consensus about causes is scientific theory.

Now to get the social organism into the right state where something really sexy can happen, there needs to be artful foreplay. Everybody needs to begin to sense that something is really happening vis a vis the direction of thought. Everyone, moreover, needs to be contributing actively to the current. If anyone is left out or is working in a countervailing direction, the current is interrupted, the whole thing deflates and everyone goes home unsatisfied (I’m exaggerating here, to make the point). It’s a kind of principle of the weakest link. Everyone is treated equally because everyone has the potential to break the continuity of energy (the continuity of thought).

So now you see why the Principle of Expressibility and the Principle of Reproducibility are important. They are there for the sake of the Whole. In a real Goethean conversation, the next thing to be said is something everybody intuits. It doesn’t matter who says it. It is indifferently expressible. After it is said, if someone calls for it, it is indifferently reproducible. Hearing it again from someone else (from someone else’s position in the twelve-fold) is like having the orgasm all over again, with increased nuance. So the conversation is like a perpetual orgasm.

That of course is an idealized and tongue-in-cheek way of describing it, but there is probably a deep truth in it. Goethean conversation, and social intercourse generally, is an interplay of sex and morality. Sex is individual and peculiar, morality is universal and transcendental. These are very important cosmic elements, having to do with life on Earth, that human beings in their evolution need to learn to play with socially and culturally.

All best, Carl

What's it called when a word or phrase completely isn't exactly the thing it is trying to represent?

Principle of Expressibility and the Principle of Reproducibility

Thanks Tim, Lori and Patri.

Hi Sebastian, thanks for the great question.

The answer here would be to follow John Locke (1632-1702). Words are voluntary signs of ideas in the mind. They are arbitrary marks that represent perceptions in the understanding. Perceptions in the understanding, ideas, are generally all we have knowledge of.

A word or phrase that isn't exactly what it is trying to represent is thus an involuntary sign.  Patri's "Hogwash" today in response to me will probably prove be an example, although we'd need to know if Patri really had something coherent in mind when he wrote it at 12:47 or not. I think probably we'll find that "Hogwash" in this context was an involuntary sign. If Patri can't give an argument for "Hogwash" in this context, we'll be justified in assigning it that status. As a result, Patri's social score (his deontic status) will fall measurably. He won't be taken seriously by people who don't think what I'm saying is hogwash. He'll be pushed to a social periphery. If he realizes he was confused, wrong or momentarily under the influence of an anti-social impulse when he made the judgment, Patri can always retract the statement, and if he does it will be as though it never happened. We all, I am sure, subscribe to the Principle of Tolerance (another important principle in high conversation which we should probably discuss).

"Deontic" means that by which an action is authorized or legitimized. Deontic scores are what we use to guide us in our free social behavior vis a vis others. If we know that so-and-so is mentally ill, or a fool or is prone to involuntary signs, we tend to exclude him (her) from certain company, like high conversation. Deontic scores can also qualify individuals for certain kinds of remedial and therapeutic contexts. These are realities it is important to be aware of. There is a tremendous amount of social science to develop around the concept of deontic scorekeeping.

Involuntary signs should generally be kept out of anthroposophical conversations (Principle of Expressibility), although in small doses they can be instructive. They do tell us something about the person with whom we are in transaction.

 Best to all,

Carl