There are many ways in which we participate in world events, both actively and passively.
One thing is certain: while we are in the world, we are participating. Our circumstances obviously change and our souls may become conditioned unconsciously by others' limiting beliefs. The apparent helplessness of our individuality alongside the power-mongers of oppression and personal profit need not depress our individual human spirit if we grow strong enough to sustain impeccability. World events mirror the individual soul and rear up before us as a many-headed teacher if we are willing to learn.
We may wonder at Marie Curie who famously said: One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done.
Reincarnation suggests that we have participated in preparing current events as we hold old wine in new bottles. Reincarnation also suggests that we will be back after this party to do the cleaning up and imbibe the vintage wine and vinegar laid down today. Rudolf Steiner suggested that anthroposophy leads us all to bear individual responsibility for the continuing evolution of the world.
A Haida saying tells us: We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.
An elegant switch of an old cliché (I have not looked up its author) says: don’t just do something, sit there. Action and contemplation are both participative. What have we learned from anthroposophy about participating in world events? I invite you to step through the needle’s eye of world symptoms and consider potent remedies.
Self Harming
In the arena of action, we are as vulnerable to our own deeds as to the deeds that we would heal in the world. The following extract from Rudolf Steiner carries an import that deserves our profound consideration.
If we become angered, vexed or annoyed, we erect a wall around ourselves in the soul-world, and the forces which are to develop the eyes of the soul cannot approach. For instance, if a person angers me he sends forth a psychic current into the soul-world. I cannot see this current as long as I am myself capable of anger. My own anger conceals it from me. We must not, however, suppose that when we are free from anger we shall immediately have a psychic (astral) vision. For this purpose an organ of vision must have been developed in the soul. The beginnings of such an organ are latent in every human being, but remain ineffective as long as he is capable of anger. Yet this organ is not immediately present the moment anger has been combated to a small extent. We must rather persevere in this combating of anger and proceed patiently on our way; then some day we shall find that this eye of the soul has become developed. Of course, anger is not the only failing to be combated for the attainment of this end. Many grow impatient or sceptical, because they have for years combated certain qualities, and yet clairvoyance has not ensued. In that case they have just trained some qualities and allowed others to run riot. The gift of clairvoyance only manifests itself when all those qualities which stunt the growth of the latent faculties are suppressed. Undoubtedly, the beginnings of such seeing and hearing may appear at an earlier period, but these are only young and tender shoots which are subjected to all possible error, and which, if not carefully tended and guarded, may quickly die.
Other qualities which, like anger and vexation, have to be combated, are timidity, superstition, prejudice, vanity and ambition, curiosity, the mania for imparting information, and the making of distinctions in human beings according to the outward characteristics of rank, sex, race, and so forth. In our time it is difficult for people to understand how the combating of such qualities can have anything to do with the heightening of the faculty of cognition. But every spiritual scientist knows that much more depends upon such matters than upon the increase of intelligence and employment of artificial exercises. Misunderstanding can result if we believe that we must become foolhardy in order to be fearless; that we must close our eyes to the differences between people because we must combat the prejudices of rank, race, and so forth. Rather is it true that a correct estimate of all things is to be attained only when we are no longer entangled in prejudice. Even in the ordinary sense it is true that the fear of some phenomenon prevents us from estimating it rightly; that a racial prejudice prevents us from seeing into a man's soul. It is this ordinary sense that the student must develop in all its delicacy and subtlety.
Every word spoken without having been thoroughly purged in thought is a stone thrown in the way of esoteric training. And here something must be considered which can only be explained by giving an example. If something is said to which we must reply, we must be careful to consider the speaker's opinion, feeling, and even his prejudice, rather than what we ourselves have to say at the moment on the subject under discussion. In this example a refined quality of tact is indicated, to the cultivation of which the student must devote his care. He must learn to judge what importance it may have for the other person if he opposes the latter's opinion with his own. This does not mean that he must withhold his opinion. There can be no question of that. But he must listen to the speaker as carefully and as attentively as he possibly can and let his reply derive its form from what he has just heard. In such cases one particular thought recurs ever and again to the student, and he is treading the right path is this thought lives with him to the extent of becoming a trait of his character. This thought is as follows: The importance lies not in the difference of our opinions but in his discovering through his own effort what is right if I contribute something toward it. Thoughts of this and of a similar nature cause the character and the behaviour of the student to be permeated with a quality of gentleness, which is one of the chief means used in all esoteric training. Harshness scares away the soul-pictures that should open the eye of the soul; gentleness clears the obstacles away and unseals the inner organs. (How to Know Higher Worlds: Chapter 4)
Bert Hellinger
Nice one, John. This, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, is my favorite text of Steiner's.
I hope I'm not too guilty of harshness in judgment. These tendrils that we are cultivating are delicate indeed, and a gentleness of attitude is terribly important. It's just that gentleness too readily takes the form of a certain weakness and indecision in world-participation. There needs to be strength in world-participation, but you are quite right to point out that there needs to be an awareness of just how tender the shoots and buds we are trying to cultivate really are.
I'm trying to produce a plausible picture of what world-participation needs to be for the average anthroposophist, under conditions of inner organ growth and knowledge of higher worlds. It seems to me that there are some principles, some matters of fact about what's right and what's wrong under such conditions. If that's true, then a certain harshness seems almost inevitable, unless it is somehow true that judgments of right and wrong simply shouldn't be made. But that seems pretty intolerable. A human being is entitled to decide what he (she) thinks is right or wrong, and to find out about his judgments it in objective terms.
Yesterday, by the way, I attended a Constellation session. Do people here know about Bert Hellinger? The Vorstand is aware of him and his approach. It looks like it's going to be pretty important work. It's taking Europe more or less by storm. German-Jewish reconciliation is an important application.
Best wishes,
Carl
Peace of Mind
Let us hear from Bert Hellinger:
Peace of Mind
I want to say something about peace. We sometimes speak of peace of mind. What is peace of mind?
If we agree to everything that is within us, then we find peace of mind. If we don't object to anything that is within us, we have peace of mind. And if we agree to everything within our families, to our parents, to our siblings, to our ancestors, to our fates, then we have peace of mind. If nothing is opposed to anything, we have peace of mind.
If we have peace of mind, we have peace with our family as well. If you have children and you agree to them as they are, exactly as they are, to their particular fates, to their difficulties, their talents, their special love, you have peace in the family.
If you agree to your partner in this way, as he or she is, without any wish to have him or her change, you have peace of mind. And if you have to deal with other groups that sometimes seem to be difficult or to be opposing you, and you agree to them as they are, exactly as they are, you become irresistible.
Of course, you can extend this attitude to different races, to different religions, to different nations. If you agree to all of them as they are, exactly as they are, there is no opposition anymore. You are at peace with them and they, certainly, come to be at peace with you and us.
(http://www.hellinger.com/international/english/hellinger_lectures_articles/2001_new_york_alpha_omega.shtml)
Hellinger's Language
Notice that Hellinger's language here is contractualist, not individualist.
If agreement, then peace.
We need to be clear about this. Jeff? Joel? Tom?
I doubt many
I doubt many anthroposophists would be able to agree with Hellinger for very long in that line of thought.
It's a beautiful way to let the word "agree" newly say itself! What an interesting quote, John, to place at this exact point in the conversation you are having about ideals.
Ideals- as currently practiced- are fairly violent creatures. By knowing that things should be different, we are not agreeing with reality; reality is wrong...reality is wrong until we get it right. Distinctions that Matter are any distinctions (ideals) that imply that sin or blame or weakness or problems are real or are fundamental. The type of agreement that Hellinger is suggesting requires a reversal of such ideals.
We can still have ideals but they won't act as mental pictures of "should". They won't be tight or worried or unsettled. When we remain in agreement with reality, our ideals burst forth, drawn by love as simply possibilities that might come about. We act towards these new ideals not because reality needs to be different or went wrong in any way; we are moved by such ideals because we love the movement itself.
If I have mental pictures of how anthroposophists might talk in the future, I need to notice if there is any tightness or worry or mania associated with my mental pictures. If I am drawn to elaborate and share these mental pictures simply because the elaborating and sharing is how Joy moves them, freedom.
If I am compelled to elaborate and share my mental pictures out a subtle fear or presumption of "should", unfree.
Hellinger may be saying what I am saying, but I'm not sure; peace is not something that can be cultivated and created by us. Peace is here now, already in agreement with what we are, wating for this agreement to be shared freely and infinitly. Peace waits for our busy and elaborate mental pictures to slow down enough for it to creep inside our heart. Somtimes it must wait for our mental pictures to crack under the strain of their own arguement with what is. But Peace is always here, unafraid of all that we imagine is threatening or threatened.
Hellinger's suggestion to agree is often met with logical answers by those who are in the process of streangthening their wills and thinking in order to battle the dragon. They will agree with Hellinger as long as he isn't suggesting that somethings don't need to be destroyed. I have no idea what Hellinger was saying- I only read the clip John posted- but I notice that it can be read radically in line with PoF or it can be read in a limited and, therefore, soothing way....as if he is suggesting that we just loosen up and feel a bit more gratitude in our daily lives. I think each reading would probably be useful.
If we treat our freedom as if it is something separated from our peace, if we push either into mental pictures of "the future", we are in the type of opposition that I believe PoF is calling "unreal". Happy Sunday.
Jeff
How About Giving Us An Argument?
Jesus, Jeff, that's a terrible post. I can't make out what you're saying at all, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say is interesting enough to want to try to make it out.
I can see you want to be free of compulsion, but so what? Everyone wants to be free of compulsion.
You wish you (we) were looser and more grateful? Why tell us this?
You think freedom and happiness are going to descend on us because we're already in agreement? Already in agreement with whom? About what?
What's this about infinite commitment?
How about making an actual argument so we can see where you stand on the True and the False?
Radar
The Beauty Police have been scanning this post, Carl...
Your comment comes over as more emotional than philosophical. You may wish to peruse the latest draft on site etiquette.
Beauty Court
Well, your honor, the etiquette rules, such as they are at present, admonish against derogatory personal remarks. I'm not making an attack ad hominem. Jeff's a fine fellow whom I happen to like and wouldn't want to see diminished.
In this instance, I'm objecting to the clarity of the spirit in his words. His words are muffling his spirit.
Words have a life of their own. When we express them, we breath a certain life into them, and they turn into little entelechies that then find their way into other people's minds. They affect other people.
What we want running around on this site are well-formed entelechies. No partial births; no abortions; no monsters; no deformities. Those, when discovered, should be taken up the mountain, exposed and left to die.
That at any rate is how Plato would have dealt with the problem.
I submit that the Beauty Police have nabbed the wrong man.
Let off with a caution
Thanks Carl. I noticed how the humour of invoking a fictitious authority did nothing to diminish the personal gut pain of evaluating your post.
It is interesting to see how your clarity is reflected in Jeff's response.
Language is definitely carrying other messages across the Internet and thus entelechies and egregores can rise in opposition to the intended content of our communication. It is just this hygenic responsibility that demands some ideal of an etiquette.
By the way I understand that the Beauty Police have been replaced by a Ministry of Elegance (ME).
Bad Breath
"Words have a life of their own. When we express them, we breath a certain life into them, and they turn into little entelechies that then find their way into other people's minds. They affect other people."
Posts like "Beauty Court" cast a poisonous pall over the whole website.
Carl, you say you didn't
Carl, you say you didn't understand what Jeff wrote.
Your response to his post was to hurl abuse at what he wrote, and by implication at him.
The abuse you hurled was rude, disparaging, and offensive, offensive in particular to anyone sensitive to the use of the word "Jesus".
Time and time again your posts are met by earnest striving to understand what you have written. I, and others on this site struggle to get a grip on what you mean so that we can find the wisdom in your words and also so that we can support you as we are supported. Look at John Ralph valiantly having another go here.
You throw our efforts back in our face.
MW p135 "I ask no man and no rule, 'shall I perform this action?' - but carry it out as soon as I have grasped the idea of it. This alone makes it my action. If a man acts only because he accepts certain moral standards, his action is the outcome of theprinciples which compose his moral code. He merely carries out orders. He is a superior automaton. Inject some stimulus to action into his mind, and at once the clockwork of his moral principles will set itself in motion and run its prescribed course, so as to result in an action which is Christian, or humane, or seemingly unselfish, or calculated to promote the progress of civilization".
In the last of which sitting fairly and squarely are to be found your theories. No matter how well meaning they are, your methods for presenting them and your ideas of how they should be taken up are unfree. Unfree in the sense presented in the Philosophy of Freedom.
You are banging your head on this time and time again.
Jeff's post is perfectly clear, it's put in the way Jeff puts things and it is entirely consistent with everything he has writen before. I not only understand what he wrote but I agree with it too.
What I feel greatest antipathy for in your posting on this site is not your rudeness or your bullying arragonce, what is most off putting is that you never practice what you preach, even as you preach it. You make the truths you speak false.
That is clear, and is here for all to see.
Love and freedom,
Sebastian
Hellinger and Spirit Mind
Of course, I am not trying to push Hellinger's ideas here, yet his voice can also sound into our community debate on world participation.
Some interesting reflections by others on his ideas about encountering the world and Spirit Mind are here:
http://www.hellinger.com/international/english/hellinger_workshop_reports/Washington2007.shtml
Enough Bert Hellinger from me for now!
Agreeing - Hellinger, Healing and Peace
Thank you John for sharing this about Hellinger's work which I had not previously heard of - from the little I have read it seems to me to be to be a valuable and practical initiative in the world which is truly striving to create peace, understanding and healing from a place of profound but involved detachment.
I can see perhaps some danger in the overuse of the term "Spirit Mind" if some mystical interpretation were placed on it - however it sounds to me like the approach in practice is more experiential and letting each individual start from where they are which I feel is very healthy. Inevitably any movement of value will collect some baggage of jargon I think, e.g. anthroposophy, Christianity, science, the IT industry etc.
As for Peace, well in the Christian Community the priest touches each communicant on the cheek and intones "The Peace be with You" towards the end of our Act of Consecration (Communion service). This feels to me similar to the peace Hellinger refers to here. In Christian Community terminology it rests in the Father God, lives and dies in the Son (sun) God and strives unceasingly to achieve the permeation by and union with the Spirit God.
Carl I am wondering if your confusion about Jeff's post is based on your reading of his very first sentence "I doubt many anthroposophists would be able to agree with Hellinger for very long in that line of thought." Perhaps you are assuming that he is personally attacking Hellinger's thoughts on peace based on his adherence to anthroposophy. Is that part of the source of your confusion?
However my reading of Jeff's opening sentence in context - which includes my rough grasp of his overall approach to things on this website - is that he is actually suggesting the opposite - I think he is implying perhaps Hellinger's thoughts on peace have value despite the fact that they are not traditionally "anthroposophical". Jeff can you comment?
Carl perhaps you could reflect further on Jeff's interesting comment that "Ideals- as currently practiced- are fairly violent creatures". I think that may help you understand his perspective better.
Before agreement there must be understanding...
Carl can you explain what you mean by referring to Hellinger's language as contractualist not individualist? As I don't think I agree with you at all based on my first stab at what I think you might mean...
Tim, Let me state again; I
Tim,
Let me state again; I don't know much of anything about Hellinger's thoughts, but based on the quote that was shared with us, I am aware of the limits that that particular line of thinking has within conventional anthroposophical ideals of individuality and freedom. There can be a pleasent appreciation of such thoughts as long as the deeper epistemology isn't explored, in my experience.
In regard to what I said about ideals:
Ideals- as currently practiced- are fairly violent creatures
Carl's resonse was perfect. I do believe that there are two types of ideals. In my opinion, the way Carl responded to my post (no matter how cloudy or stupid it may have been) could only be a result of one kind of idealizing. We all suffer the same process. Carl and I could just use each other to justify Ego's work. The question is, will I use Carl's response to justify my own violence? Or will I let it remind me of the only "agreement" I truely know; this love; this simple acceptence/surrender of what I am. Let's see.
Individualism - Right and Wrong
Yo Tim,
I'm not confused about Jeff's post. I'm pretty sure that it's nonsense.
Ideals are violent? I don't think so. Ideals may lead to violence, as in the Nazi example. But ideals aren't the sort of thing that can be violent.
Before agreement there must be understanding? That's the point of Hellinger's language. Hellinger is substituting "agree" for "understand" systematically. So according to Hellinger, agreement is equivalent to understanding.
Hellinger's language is contractualist because it revolves around the notion of "agree." Agreement means turning one's freedom over to a Sovereign and exercising a will to obey the Sovereign.
A second-rate individualist will refuse to accept a Sovereign and thus will refuse to agree with anyone or anything cleanly as a matter of principle. This is because such an "individualist" is generally afraid that agreement will commit him to some future form of compulsion. But that's the wrong form of individualism.
The right form of individualism is to understand what you're agreeing to, decide if it makes sense (decide if there's a sound argument for it) and then agree to it. The right form of individualism is to act on the basis of reasons, and not out of fear of compulsion. We see entirely too much of the wrong kind of individualism here, and too little of the right kind.
Contract for Peace
Hi Carl,
As I said, I am just a little uncomfortable about your use of the word "contractual" in this context.
The closest I can come to understanding the thrust of the above quote from Hellinger is to connect it with the idea of the "peace that passeth all understanding" which is spoken of by poets and mystics but is perhaps more of an everyday experience than people realise. Acceptance seems like a good word to me, or perhaps profound or even radical acceptance. I connect it with the idea of the "Divine Ground of the World" which in a sense is the very thing which sustains the ground beneath us and "makes rain to fall on good and bad alike".
My own concept of this peace is that it requires the full development of the human individual for its realisation within society as per Hellinger's work. Perhaps as a dyed-in-the-wool individualist I just can't come at the idea that we could every write a contract that would ensure its realisation. I know that the idea of a "social contract" is broader than a piece of paper but there's still something in me that's not comfortable with this description.
As for this Sovereign... off with his head I say if he is against the realisation of the true freedom of the individual as outlined in PoF :-)
But seriously I do accept your point that there is an egotistical individualism which is counter to the realisation of true freedom. Personally I don't usually throw much mud in that direction though because I know most of it would end up sticking onto me :-)
Path of Acceptance
My view is that acceptance may not lead to peace. There is a phrase that I believe comes from professional counselling: unconditional positive regard.
In a situation where someone is obviously in pain, I can offer unconditional positive regard to that person. No agreement is implied. It may be that I am involved in that pain or not. This act of love may lead to some relief of the pain. If I am empathising with the person in pain then I am not at peace yet. Peace for me may only live as an ideal where the pain is resolved. While the person suffers, my inner peace will be coloured by my empathic feeling.
Hellinger is someone who works towards the resolution of pain. I am glad that he is able to do this. I may not agree with everything he says, yet he has written that he does not have a complete theory of his work. As his work continues, he understands it better. As he learns about it he is also teaching it. I do the same, so I can recognise that he and I share a path. I see that there is some connection to Steiner's assertion in PoF that ethical individuals will ultimately find a way to work together. Sorry, I did not trace the quote.
While I experience tension between the accepted situation and my ideal of a pain-free person, that gives me work to do. How I work on/for that person depends on my motivation and freedom within my perceived possibilities to offer aid.
In my desparate search for inner peace, I may turn my back on the pain, or even complain that the person is spoiling my peace. These actions will not lead to true peace, only the illusion of isolation. I do not seek isolation as a substitute for peace. Neither do I seek agreement nor a contractual arrangement. These do not lead to inner peace. A desparate search and agreements do not in themselves offer peace in my view. Hard soul cultivation may bring a lessening of my inner tension, and indeed at times a lessening of the other person's pain.
Yet that person has work of their own to do. Even my forgiveness does not completely remove the karma of the other, but it may enable them to do more in resolving their own karma. I wish that forgiveness were a complete cure but I do not have experiences to teach me that it is so. The lesson here is that my salvation and peace depend on the salvation and peace of all humanity. Anything else contributes to the split between myself and IAM.
I can resolve that I will not pass on the causes of pain - it stops with me. That is an act of forgiveness. It breaks the cycle of victim becoming perpetrator. It seems to me that as my soul contains all the experiences of pain that I have witnessed, it is an important role of world participation that I inwardly turn the other cheek and break the cycles of retribution. Sometimes humour is enough.
I am not at peace as I write this, but I am working on it. And I will continue to work on it as much as my understanding grows of how to work on it. I have learned that it is not a loving act to receive the words of another as dogma. The words and writings of another are footprints on the same path as I walk myself. We need have no agreement on that, but it is so.
Christian Path
Hi John,
Thank you - that sounds to me like a description of a truly Christian path in the sense that you take on another's pain for the purpose of working for world salvation and healing.
As I was trying to say above in my own clumsy way, I think there is a constant soul and spirit movement in each of us from Father God or Ground of the World (past) to Son God (present) to Spirit God (future). I was trying to suggest that the acceptance or agreement is in the realm of the Father God as it's already an established fact.
As I conceive it the Christ (Christ in us) holds sway between the two elements of past and future in every moment. That is where the pain and suffering is and it's real.
As Steiner formulated it drawing on the Rosicrucian formulation: from God we are born, in Christ we die, through the Holy Spirit we are reborn.
Opprobrium
OK, there's a lot to respond to here, most of it opprobrium, but which I suspect within a week will have been more or less forgotten.
Tim here extends what he means by "uncomfortable with the notion that agreement can lead to freedom." He doesn't see how writing a contract could ever result in the "peace that surpasses understanding."
What I am suggesting is that the peace that surpasses can be invoked under conditions of anthroposophical conversation. I think we can get it under these conditions, and I think we can get it more or less consistently. When we fail to get it, it will be a question of incorrect behavior. Behavior in principle can be observed and reworked to fit particular outcomes. Is this conception a source of discomfort for people generally?
John here appears to conflate "agreement" and "acceptance." This is a bit fast, but I happen to agree with it. I'm not sure, however, that the two terms are relevantly co-extensional, so I think we probably need to revisit this point.
Jeff thinks everything is perfect, and I can't object to that.
Sebastian thinks I am just applying my theory of conversation like a mechanical template to everything I see on the website. He thinks I'm out of touch with the essence of ethical individualism. He seems to think I'm basically hypocritical. Well, I hope that's not true. Maybe Sebastian can give us an argument with an example that shows what he sees.
Lori is disenchanted with some of my recent language, which I can understand. I apologize to her for using strong language with strong associations with matters which concern women particularly. I've used it because it's the sort of language one gets in Plato.
Carl, I object to your use
Carl, I object to your use of language to cast an ugly perfectionism over the website that discourages people from participating because they fear they'll be ridiculed and abused, or found to be spiritually lacking. It's inappropriate, and I'd appreciate it if you never did it again. If you think this is something that only concerns women, fine.
Lori
Behaviour Management
Hi Carl,
You said:
What I am suggesting is that the peace that surpasses can be invoked under conditions of anthroposophical conversation. I think we can get it under these conditions, and I think we can get it more or less consistently. When we fail to get it, it will be a question of incorrect behavior. Behavior in principle can be observed and reworked to fit particular outcomes. Is this conception a source of discomfort for people generally?
My level of discomfort will be dependent on your answer to the following question: How is this behaviour to be managed in practice in these groups? To what extent is this behaviour management the responsibility of the individual within the group and thus left (quite rightly in my opinion) as a task for them to manage (including self-evaluation as well as remedial action) and to what extent is it managed by some more official manifestation of the group, e.g. a facilitator, reviewing panel, subcommittee, group consensus or some other method?
I sense the fact that your guidelines are very clear in themselves but you leave their actual realisation to our imaginations may be what leads so many of us to express a level of discomfort with what you put forward.
Understanding
I know that it feels good to have everyone's attention.
Carl - I have provided evidence. I would like you to try to understand what I and others write. Actually, I think it might be a good idea if you tried to understand what Rudolf Steiner wrote. There is a difference between using words and understanding and the evidence of your contributions is that you use words, but not that you understand.
As this latest post shows you can have a good bash at understanding so I think it would be worth your while trying.
I am not joking and I am not being sarcastic.
As always, in love and freedom,
Sebastian
Post new comment