Conversation is the Royal Art.

Hobbes was at pains to define the nature of Civil Law, which men institute to raise themselves out of the State of Nature, which is a condition of Civil War. Civil War is a battle of each against all, in which there is no injustice in brutality or cruelty, and in which everybody is simply trying to defend himself from his neighbor. The State of Nature is the state of Primary Freedom, where everyone is a Sovereign Judge and no one is safe.

Civil Society is instituted to curtail the State of Nature. The mechanism by which this is done is to identify a Sovereign, which can be a single person (a monarch), or an aristocracy or an Assembly of Representatives. The natural rights of individual sovereignty are surrendered to an Artificial Sovereign by a Contract of each person with all others. In that way, the state of Civil War (the state of absolute freedom) is overcome, and peace and safety is established.

Civil Law is the institution that empowers the Sovereign. It is a command (a set of commands) which signals to each individual those rules which the protective Social Body intends to use for distinguishing Right from Wrong.

Now I ask, how is Anthroposophical Society, which has the potential to develop into an ethereal, delicate and sublime Domain of Free Spirits, and which in many ways is suffering the State of Nature, to be protected if not by identifying its Sovereign and the rules it is to use to distinguish right conversation from wrong conversation?

Some of the PoFers here don't seem to recognize

(1) Goethean conversation is a ritual.

No ritual can be performed without shoulds, because without them, the ritual would implode for logical reasons. Everyone sees this, right?

People here also appear loathe to recognize

(2) Conversation in general is ritual,

even the degenerate forms we see all around us and which, one hopes, we each try to avoid.

Now ritual in general is classified as cultus. Properly, according to Hobbes, this term signifies labor bestowed on something with the aim of procuring some benefit from it. The purpose of all cultus, according to Hobbes, is power.

Now with anthroposphical ritual, or Goethean conversation, we have something called a reversed cultus. A reversed cultus is a social ritual where the shoulds of the ordinary cultus are reversed, and become somewhat free. A Goethean conversation is a free ritual. It is something that free individuals make up out of their own imaginations as they go along for the purpose of an entirely new kind of power.

What sort of activity is this? What sort of power?

I think it is what we see in the form of the Fundamental Social Law, which says a community is better off the less the constituent individual receives the benefit of his labor directly, and the more his needs are met from the free activity of other such constituents. All anthroposophists know this, right? The Fundamental Social Law, as nearly as I can figure it, is the form of the reversed cultus. It is the form of Goethean conversation.

The fundamental social law is remarkable for its economic flavor. I think is follows that if we are going to understand Goethean conversation, we are going to need to understand things like private property, transaction cost, gain from trade and artificial persons. I admit not to having the conversational role of these economic elements entirely worked out, but I'm interested in thinking about it. Any takers?

Yo Jeff,

Thanks for these thoughtful and clear posts. They open some important points of discussion. Please keep them coming!

I don't understand the impulse behind "We can think about all different kinds of rituals." Of course we can do that, but why would we? We are trying to develop the ritual of anthroposophical conversation. Anthroposophical conversation is one kind of ritual, not many. Right?

Trying to impute a theory of conversation solely to me as "my ritual" seems to me to be opting for a Hobbesian state of nature. The whole idea of a theory of conversation is to try to get a social contract that lifts humanity entirely out of the state of nature. Most of the heavy lifting in that regard has already been done, of course, with what we look upon as world history and its progress toward the betterment of the human condition. You don't imagine that we are not better off on balance than our forebears of the Middle Ages were, do you?

My interest in the truth or the possible truth of my theory can't be simply a matter of my personality. Anyone who tried to work out a theory of conversation and submit it for general acceptance would need to be interested in its truth. A scientific theory's strength, generally speaking, is its claim on truth.

What is interesting about a theory of conversation is that it is not ultimately an abstraction. Ultimately, a theory of conversation is the practice of conversation itself. It's people knowing what they are doing, and following through in the right way according to what they know. Technically, this means the theory is transcendental. Both the theory and the practice of living conversation is transcendental.

You give a number of great examples of functional shoulds, but not a single example of a magical should. This suggests the idea of a magical should is not clear in your mind, and perhaps that it does not even exist. Invoking the Principle of Expressibility, I challenge you to give us an example of a magical should. To suggest an approach, you might try:

(1) That stone should not be hanging suspended in the air. It should fall to earth.

But that seems a perfectly legitimate way to use should. Here, reality really is happening incorrectly.

It seems to me that magical shoulds, if any exist, are probably just as good as functional shoulds. See if you can come up with a should that is legitimately used but that illegitimately imputes blame and shame and somehow misjudges reality.

Shoulds in general are the way human beings have to transcend both themselves and their environment.

All best,

Carl

Hi Carl,

You said:

I don't understand the impulse behind "We can think about all different kinds of rituals." Of course we can do that, but why would we? We are trying to develop the ritual of anthroposophical conversation. Anthroposophical conversation is one kind of ritual, not many. Right?

If I read and studied Steiner lectures on the 12 senses and then came up with a practice that I thought would be anthroposophically beneficial and community building based on my understanding of his research, I bet you would be game to partake in my activity even if you didn't agree with my interpretation of the research. As long as I wasn't doing something that you thought was harmful, I bet you could even see how my activity might be beneficial and community enriching in spite of the problems you percieve in my interpretations. That's all I'm saying about different kind of rituals.

You say that "we" are trying to develop the anthropsophical ritual of conversation. I'm wondering if you are referring to a specific group of people whom you work closely with. In regards to your statement that "anthroposophical conversation is one kind of ritual, not many", I would disagree. People have said that Steiner joked about wishing he could rename Anthroposophy every day to make a point about fixated thinking. That's how I would think about the nature of so-called anthroposophical conversations. That doesn't speak against what you are creating and wishing to share with people. Maybe you will develop a system that becomes the method of choice for the next three hundrad years on Earth. But maybe not. To me it doesn't matter, because what matters is that you are applying yourself create something you want to share. I find that I can't recieve it if I must agree with all the propositioins behind it. But, so far, it appears that one could follow the rules of the conversation and have one without needing to think about it in one particular way.

Steiner talked about anthroposophy providing the method that leads to the development of a Waldorf education AND he always pointed out that to benefit from the education it was NOT necessary for the children to study anthroposophical content. In fact he urged against it. As I understand your conversation ritual, it does not have to be about Steiner lectures, right? A group of people could get together and pick out their own truths that they agree upon and speak them in your manner. At least I imgaine you are offering something that can be applied by a wide variety of groups of people.

Carl, at first when I read the following from your post I felt annoyed at you, but then it helped me see something more clearly: You wrote:

You give a number of great examples of functional shoulds, but not a single example of a magical should. This suggests the idea of a magical should is not clear in your mind, and perhaps that it does not even exist.

My sense is that you enjoy putting together logical premises and then jumping to strong inferences based on them. You and I have very different experiences and understanding of how logic functions. My daughter was asking me to watch her ride on a two wheeler when I was finishing my post to you. So I didn't really go into examples of magical-shoulds.

In Speaker's Meaning Barfield talks about what happens to the human mind when it encrouches upon one of its most entrenched taboos. It's goes blank and does other wierd stuff to avoid thinking the unthinkable. I think my notion of "magic-should" goes to that type of place.

1) I should have done better on my test

2) The second world war should not have happend

3) You shouldn't be scared of that guy.

4) Steiner should have lived longer.

5) People shouldn't be mean when they type to each other.

6) anthroposophists are suppose to more spiritual and smart by now.

7) Humans are not suppose to be this messed up.

8) Steiner should not have said what he said about black faces

9) My daughter should not have eaten so many sweets this weekend

Those are magical-shoulds.

The type of "should" that you insist upon is fine with me, Carl. I agree. You are saying that in order to perform your process in the way you specify it there are sequences and procedures that "should" happen. I agree.

But, thus far, nobody has spoken to me from the perspective of an objective introspection about how to spot a "magical-should". We all use magicshoulds and make them the basis of our daily metaphysics, but when you turn your inner eyelight on to actually see what they refer to: nothing is there. Or, a lot is there, rather, but nothing is observed that suggests that what happened was the result of less objective laws than what we wish HAD happened.

Of course so-called bad things happen. Of course we realize that we have the ability to do things differently. Of course we don't want to repeat patterns of suffering and of course we wish to act in way that will minimize suffering and confusion in the future. Of Course.

But magic-should is much more than the simple acknowledgment of those basic facts. Magic-should says that something non-objective happened that changed the course of events. It suggests that the "bad" or unwanted event was not as lawfully arising as the thing we will try to produce next time will.

The teacher loses his temper with the class. "he should not have done that; he should have done such and such".....It's magical thinking because it wishes to overlook that the causes behind the losing of the temper are just as objective as what might cause him to control himself.....when a specific set of conditions takes place, the temper is lost.

We say, "well, the teacher made CHOICES that led him to lose his temper and those CHOICES were based on MORAL considerations."

fine. and yet the so called "choices" were made within an objective cosmos and happend percisly because of a lawful interacting of various factors; we don't need to know everything to share basic scientific presumptioins.

Even if we imagine that the teacher was not going to lose his tempter but a devil flew into his soul and influenced him in that way....we still would agree that he should have lost his tempter for all the reasons that a devil could fly into him and influence him.

magical shoulds are magical because they betray the scientific portion of spiritual science by letting the thinker drift into a metaphysic that has no objective reality. It's easy to say that Christ wants this country to destroy that Country. You can even read the bible in ways that will appear to support such wild claims, but they fall apart once you apply a rigorous introspection.

So far my experience is that magic-shoulds fall apart as well. I think one reason we clutch so tightly to magic-shoulds is that there destruction seems to imply that there is no such thing as free will (and all that that implies). I think it's more complicated than that, but many conversations have brought that into focus repeatedly.

Jeff

I reckon Goethean Conversation is working already!  I was reading up on transcending nature and I see the title here plus I was reading Steiner talking about - religion and morals 'Religion (regardless of group) refers to all that is moral' and I see religion and I see morality mentioned. 

Sorry to interrupt Jeff; will be reading through your post now.

regards

Caryn

Yo Jeff (yo Caryn my love),

OK, that's very well done. Sorry to have irritated you, but it looks like we all got a good post out of it.

I want to keep my posts short, so I'll try to confine myself to one or two points here.

I'm not convinced by the assignment of 'magical' to your examples. These are not examples of magic. Magic is something that suspends the laws of nature. These are examples of human beings showing insufficient self-control and a certain moral culpability as a result.

Generally these sorts of moral judgments are legitimate. We use them to raise children. I suppose it is true that when we impute them to an adult we tend to belittle that adult, because adults are supposed not to be child-like. But we all know, don't we, that most adults are still very child-like.

We won't get exalted anthroposophical conversation, say I, unless and until adult anthroposophists function as something even beyond the adult stage of life. We certainly won't get them as long as a.a.'s function like children. Hobbes points out that an assembly of men generally can be expected to function like a child. But we need assemblies of anthroposophists that function like angels, not like children. Generally then,

(P5) Principle of self-control (individual self-control is necessary for conversation).

I really don't see how we'll get any form of anthroposophical conversation, let alone a diversity of such forms, unless it is based on something like (P5).

Best to all,

Carl

Spontanesously, I vote for freedom and air conditioning. Anyone getting elected here?

Jeff's magician gets my vote.

X

Morning everyone :)

Determinism - 'The act of making an decision'.  Everyday we are making decisions and was it Socrates who said the pendulum of the mind often swings between sense and non-sense and not between right and wrong. I do think Christ is watching us and there is a law of righteousness and moral correctness - anything else goes against God's law.

And this makes me think of St Matthew 12:37 'For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned'. This should be the measure for everything said or done 'consciousness does weight heavy'.

Then we seek to walk in the light of God's law and feel the Christ, His Son, searching our hearts.
1 Corinthians 2:10-13 'But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual'.

I think if we attain to have and keep the Spirit of Christ within us then we have freedom and also if we don't understand a situation the 'case' should be handed over to Christ in pray for his decision.

Well, just my thoughts this morning.

Great day to everyone.

Love

Caryn

I vote that democracy is no way to determine truth.

This is a great new way to use the word vote. Try using I vote... as a substitute to replace I believe... or I think... or I feel (anthroposophical shudder)... or you should (eg I vote that you do this differently).

It has a delicious taste of doing something - voting with cream - and is a will activity isn't it?

I like that - I vote instead of I believe or I feel or I think - it gives a ring of determined confidence!   It's also an objective result of the subjective, its the outer of the inner .... although ... not a very poetic word it is strong!

Consider the following from Rudolf Steiner (October 1905, Berlin): "The time will come when man will realize that one cannot settle by votes or majority decision deep inner soul powers, of the extensive sphere of love."

I think it is more or less accepted in anthroposophy that cultural decisions are not generally accomplished through voting. The Vorstand doesn't vote. Local Branches don't vote, or at least they shouldn't. Rather, these bodies try to reach consensus and guidance by means of a sort of invocation of a spiritual presence which tells them intuitively what's true. It's a kind of direction-from-higher-beings model. Generally then,

(P6) Real anthroposophists don't vote (principle of collective intelligence).

What is collective intelligence? I think we need to open that question up. It's a question about the social contract. More than anything, we need to start to practice collective intelligence systematically in local communities. I'm hopeful that local anthroposophical initiatives will start to ask whether and how Goethean conversation can form the infrastructure of a cultural life using collective intelligence.

Hi Carl

There is an assumption in your P6. In fact the Anthroposophical Societies are free to choose how they make decisions, being emancipated from central GAS control. Sometimes voting is used. Your statement that local branches should not vote could appear to be a step further into fanatical idealism that Steiner and the GAS did not take...

You are making a specific statement that has limited application and to be accurate - not to say truthful - then it would require the special conditions to be stated within which it holds. If your P6 were to be the case, then whenever a human being votes then he is not an anthroposophist (ref. all cretans are liars logic).

I listen to your ideas and can sense the openness in your soul. Why does this not translate into the language of your list of principles? thus (P6) anthroposophists would creatively use whatever means possible to include the spirit in making decisions, including consensus.

I would be thinking differently about a principle that did not bring collective intelligence in between the individual and World Intelligence, There are many species of collective intelligence conceptualised around us. Would you define collective intelligence in your thoughtful architecture, please? Do you mean a creative act of thinking together as a reversed cultus?

I contribute this from my experience of living in a Camphill community that espouses consensus and makes all kinds of decisions in various ways. Sometimes an individual is able to make a decision on behalf of others and in their absence. This is not impoverished decision making, but empowering ethical individuality, and can involve spirit participation of great sensitivity. Consensus is one way and not the only way. In situations where a group release their personal will to a greater purpose then there is no consensus but only joining in together.

Such is my vote.

Note: GAS = General Anthroposophical Society

Dear Friends,

    Once more I find myself having to speak in direct opposition to something Carl has put forward.  It is suggested by some that all views are true within themselves, a techical concept I can accept, but it assumes that any part of that view is internally consistence with the rest.  I don't find this to be generally the case in my experience.  I find people expressing all manner of reactive views, which views will often conflict with the totality of their thought.  Moreover, I find it also to be generally true that people reason frequently to a foregone conclusion, which means often that any single statement in a collection of statements isn't there becaue the speaker or writer believes it true and essential to the internal logical coherence of their world view, but rather they find that particular statement to be momentarily useful to prop up an otherwise untenable position.

    In the light of this, I'd like to examine more carefully Carl's statement above: "Rather, these bodies try to reach consensus and guidance by means of a sort of invocation of a spiritual presence which tells them intuitively what's true. It's a kind of direction-from-higher-beings model."

    While it could be said that higher beings have an interest in what we do, I do not think that they are all that interested in giving us "guidance" or "tells" us or otherwise gives us "direction".  On the contrary, and I take this to be exactly the view of Michael according to Steiner, he (they) wait for us to think and then go with that gesture.  If we were to be passive before the views of higher beings - that is go around asking them to "tell" us what is true or what to do, there wouldn't be any point to a philosophy of freedom.

    In addition, it is clear from Ben-Aharon's Imagination of the Second Coming that Christ waited for human beings to decide how they wanted to deal with evil, and then He followed them.  If the following of the insights of the 10th Hierarchy is a relationship the spiritual world chooses to have with us, this would seem to support the basic concept of spiritual freedom which is at the root of The Philosophy of Freedom.

    It is also a fact of experience to me, several times over, that whenever I wanted the spirit to tell me what to do, or in any way to make choices for me, the inner world would grow in its darkness.  Only the shadow beings within (the double-complex) had any interest in pushing the I in a certain direction and even that gesture had its limits.  They (the shadow beings) could tempt and could prosecute (make us feel weak or incapable or sleepy), but they could not make the I do anything it did not itself choose to do.

    The only exception to this is when an egregore is created in the soul by the repeated (rite-like) giving into a tempation, such that addiction arises.  The egregore is something the I creates in the soul as a kind of psychic parasite in the astral body, and the more the addict (or alcoholic) gives into the forbidden pleasure) the stronger and more independent of the I becomes this egregorial being.  Steiner called them (in Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, last lecture) cancers or tumors of the soul.  Like a cancer or tumor this organism in the astral body becomes more and more independent of the I, but yet not entirely free, for we all know that addictions can be overcome.

    All of my spiritual experience of the higher kinds (Imaginations, Inspirations, or Intuitions) always left me feeling more free not less.  So I find I cannot support Carl's expression of our relationship to the spirit in conversation using any terms such as "guidance" or "tells" or "direction".

    The saying from astrology is: the stars incline, they do not compell.

    Carl's implication that groups working in anthroposophy ought not to vote, for there is a higher will that should be obeyed, takes us far away from being grounded in reality.  He is always seeking to make his observations axioms, which in effect drives his ideas away from their probable living intuitive source, and into fixed form, essentially making them ahrimanic (dogmatic) in nature.  "(P6) Real anthroposophists don't vote (principle of collective intelligence)."  This is probably why many people have such difficulty with Carl.  They want to turn away from the fixed, and are more attracted to the living.

    That said, we should recognize in Carl that his approach to conversation has been modeled on certain linguistic views among modern thinkers that try very hard to be imitative of natural science.  This results in the attempt to reduce seemingly emperical observations of conversation (in the community of scholars working with these views) to a fixed system of ideas (axiomatic statements), because this makes these thinkers believe they are being "scientific".  Carl then imitates this approach.

    We then receive from Carl a window into a field of thinking about conversation and human consciousness that is already highly ahrimanic in character.  Were Carl to make a more intimate acquaintence with Steiner's A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, and the works of Owen Barfield on language, this would help him move away from the ahrimanic character of modern conversational linguistics, and toward a more living (organic) approach to the same field of inquiry.

    Also at the same time, Carl's love of the questions regarding conversation is infectious, in the best sense of that word.  He constantly stimulates us, and we should be grateful (as I am) for all that he contributes.  I have known him for many years, and he is a most persistent and original thinker, and should he find a way to liberate himself, from the limits of modern conversation linguistics in that it imitates many of the worst tendencies of natural science, I suspect he will surprise us all.

    Having wandered this far of the trail of the question of voting, let me finally return to it.

    The only question that matters, in my view, is how does the group want to conduct itself.  Otherwise it is none of our business imposing on the processes of any anthroposophical group anything which it does not choose for itself.  If the experience of the members of any group is that certain decisions they wish to put to a vote, that is up to them and strictly their own responsibility.  Our seeking for a rule (axiom) that needs to apply in all situations is, to me, a vain exercise, since we are not in that group and need to keep our own house in order before we impose any assumed superior view on others.

    There is, however, a caveat.  Some groups processes have a wider influence on others, and do not just affect themselves.  If a group has an influence on me, I have an interest in how they make decisions regarding me.

    Voting, which seems to be "democratic" as a process, is therefore common in all kinds of situations.  And, we should notice that it is used sometimes to actually gain power over minorities, so one needs always to look at its actual use in the particular instance, not its theory.  At the same time, there are many anthroposophical institutions where the "tradition" of not voting is used by a small group to maintain its own power at the expense of others.  The fact that groups in anthroposophical institutions perpetuate their ways of thinking by selecting their successors is a matter that ought to cause us worry.  Those who hold the reins of considerable social power in our institutions are not perfect beings by any measure, and they have all kinds of motives for keeping away from their circles that which would oppose their dominance over others impulses (regardless of how often they proclaim their motives are of "service").

    Speaking as a spiritual social scientist, it is common to observe, in the patterns of thinking of institutional hierarchical groups in our time, the presence of egregorial beings - what we sometimes might call the double of that institution.  This psychic parasite then is able to directly influence the double-complex of the individual members of the group, keeping them embroiled in their karma and essentially unfree within their own biographies.  The Vorstand and the leaders of the School of Spiritual Science are not immune to this influence.  Few modern human beings are, regardless of how high sounding they make it appear are their motives.

    The real confrontation with evil takes place in the own soul, not in the outer world.  Steiner puts it this way in his book Ahriman and Lucifer, at the beginning of lecture two: "...the very purpose of our Fifth Post-Atlantean epoch is that man should become increasingly conscious of what takes effect through him in earthly existence."  What "takes effect through him"!  Evil and Good enter the world through us, and we need to focus on that first (thus Christ's teaching on the mote and the beam).

    What I mean to suggest by this, is that we would be justified (in this time) to require of anthroposophical institutions that they become democratic for the present, until it becomes clear that those who are to have such free authority over the running of our institutions are actually as awake and selfless as many (through rose-colored glasses) would like to believe.  if we go only by existing behaviors and consequences, it becomes possible to find significant fault with most of our hiearchical structures, and especially with their desire to constantly perpetuate their collective views by being able to pick their successors.  This process effectively blocks any new spiritual forces from entering these centers of power over our institutional social life, for these groups will not draw into them that which they consider dangerous to their self-assumed correct views of anthroposophical conduct.

    Alas, i do not expect this kind of change to arise, for the centers will resist and blame the periphery for being anti-Steiner (the group always justifies its views with dogmatic phrases).  Karma will then continue to possess our centers; and, as has been pointed out in the notes from the lectures of Ben-Aharon in Jarna recently posted to this website, the hope for new and living spiritual inspiration in Anthroposophy has to be found in the periphery for a time (of which this website is a wonderful example). 

joel

And again I agree with Carl.  Rudolf Steiner in Polarities of Evolution speaks about preparing for the Christ Event which we are beginning to feel, yes feel, happening now.  And when we talk about collective consciousness and collective intelligence we are talking about collective Christ consciousness.

Joel, dear heart I hear what you say here;

While it could be said that higher beings have an interest in what we do, I do not think that they are all that interested in giving us "guidance" or "tells" us or otherwise gives us "direction".  On the contrary, and I take this to be exactly the view of Michael according to Steiner, he (they) wait for us to think and then go with that gesture.  If we were to be passive before the views of higher beings - that is go around asking them to "tell" us what is true or what to do, there wouldn't be any point to a philosophy of freedom.

This is freedom, but alas we are not free, in the past after the World Wars human beings thought they were free and experimented with free love and walking an esoteric path tuning in and out with creation – going with the flow – nothing wrong with that; it is the way it should be but man is weak and his soul blows in the wind and now in our 21st century we are left with a mish-mash of spiritual essences – the King of mixed metals left in a heap.  Even to the point where good is seen as bad and bad is seen as good.

The higher beings do want to give us guidance – they are in the spiritual realms and have a far higher understanding of the world view then we do.  They want us to contact them through intuition.  I can’t but help think they are extremely frustrated in waiting for us to think and expecting them to go with that gesture!  Man lives in a fog how can we expect the higher beings to move in a fog of mixed emotions played upon by the malefic spirits.  The higher beings are out of the malefic spirits, the malefic spirits are their footstools.  Not only the higher beings the great people who are now living in the spiritual world, who we can call higher beings – Plato, Goethe, Rudolf Steiner, Aristotle, people like Carl Jung, Robert Flood, Christian Rosencruz, many many more – the stream of higher knowledge and the stream of higher beings ‘The Sun Hero’s’ indeed.   They are dwelling in collective intelligence and cannot we not think;  Rudolf Steiner came to Earth and gave over 6000 lectures – serious lectures – can we fathom just how seriously interested he is in what is happening on Earth?  All these people that came to earth with one message -they are very much part of the collective Christ consciousness.

And you said this very same thing here Joel;
The real confrontation with evil takes place in the own soul, not in the outer world.  Steiner puts it this way in his book Ahriman and Lucifer, at the beginning of lecture two: "...the very purpose of our Fifth Post-Atlantean epoch is that man should become increasingly conscious of what takes effect through him in earthly existence."  What "takes effect through him"!  Evil and Good enter the world through us, and we need to focus on that first (thus Christ's teaching on the mote and the beam).
What I mean to suggest by this, is that we would be justified (in this time) to require of anthroposophical institutions that they become democratic for the present, until it becomes clear that those who are to have such free authority over the running of our institutions are actually as awake and selfless as many (through rose-colored glasses) would like to believe.  if we go only by existing behaviors and consequences, it becomes possible to find significant fault with most of our hiearchical structures, and especially with their desire to constantly perpetuate their collective views by being able to pick their successors.  This process effectively blocks any new spiritual forces from entering these centers of power over our institutional social life, for these groups will not draw into them that which they consider dangerous to their self-assumed correct views of anthroposophical conduct.

Reading Ben-Aharon’s ‘The World Situation at Present’ why do you think people choose Hitler over Steiner?  I would be straight forward and say because man is weak and lives in a fog.  And Global Responsibility: Individuation, Initiation, and Threefolding – how do you think this is going to happening without collective Christ Consciousness?

Rudolf Steiner in polarities said; today people think they are Christian but they are not – sobering thoughts.  That is why the young generation will have nothing to do with Christianity – the plan worked did it not.  The good seen as bad.

There is a wrath building and the wrath is great – God will not be mocked.

The Michael spirit impulse has been mentioned; there are many matured souls connecting with the higher beings who will guide the mature spirits out of the fog.  That’s all we can ask ‘out of the fog into the light of the day’.

This is why I agree with collective consciousness in Christ in preparing for the Christ Event.  It is not without reason we speak about this.