The Statutes of the Anthoposophical Society:

"Members may join together in groups on any basis of locality or subject."

I wonder if their would be any value in forming an internet anthroposophical society group based on The Philosophy of Freedom?

Goetheanum spokesman Wolfgang Held told NNA that, apart from anything else, the expulsions could not be negotiated on the basis proposed by the group because they were decided in a resolution adopted by the GAS annual general meeting which could not simply be reversed by the executive council.

The executive council had their expulsion of 44 society members approved at the GAS annual general meeting which to my understanding is attended by a small group of loyal locals, many of which are employed at the Goetheanum run by the council, who rubber stamp anything the council does. Now the council uses this as the basis for saying they can't negotiate the expulsions with the expelled members.

This sounds like the kind of political maneuver we see regularly in political institutions. Couldn't they negotiate a resolution and then have it rubber stamped at the next GAS annual general meeting?

I think we already have an 'internet POF society group'.  The 'members' know who they are.  No formal roster is needed.  More will 'join' in the future.

Thank you both for giving more detail to the suppression line. Forgive my seeming ignorance of some of the issues that you have outlined, Joel. I would like to respond more fully and describe my own perspective. A longer post will hopefully come in the next hectic day or so. I have read only some of Joel's flood of background references, and I want to complete the whole picture.

My use of the word accusation was deliberate as individuals are implicated in the use of such terms as suppression and I wished to know what hard evidence of individual actions you are both bringing forward. So far you have spoken out of - what sounds to me as - inferences based on general phenomena. I have no quibble with the phenomena, and I am highly interested in your interpretations. If I am getting the wrong end of the stick, I am really keen to be put straight.

Study of PoF is bound to lead to creative action, and GAS offers considerable scope. More to follow...

Joel has recently posted some comments referring to the Circle. I cannot attempt to authoritatively put the record straight, only to represent what has come to my personal awareness and experience as a member of the Circle. In recent years I have seen internet discussion of the Circle so I am not setting a precedent by writing here. I will start from what Joel has written at http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/concerning.html about the beginnings.
 
The first micro social consequence, with which we must concern ourselves, is the confusion concerning their real significance by a certain group which calls itself in America: The Circle (it has some other names elsewhere, such as the Youth Circle and so forth).    The history here is fairly simple, since it was not at all intended to produce the grave consequences that were later to arise.  A small group, that had received the Lectures to Youth, wanted to work together in service to the spiritual world and asked Steiner for verses and/or meditations in support of their work, which he then gave.  This is certainly a fine motive, and had the social implications of the failures regarding the Philosophy and the Reverse Cultus been understood, there would have been no problem.
The group took the course that it would develop itself (or grow) only when someone who was known to its members expressed in some way a similar desire to work with the spiritual world.  They might then, having in this way identified themselves, be invited to join the work of the Circle.  The Circle would not otherwise have a public face, and not make itself open to volunteers.  Its meetings would not be advertised in anthroposophical publications, large or small, and its membership would be essentially private in support of the deep group work which was sought.
 
It is important to state the reason why the Circle is generally a silent group. Steiner indicated early on that the impulse of the group would suffer profoundly if it worked out in the open. So the group has remained silent ever since at Steiner’s behest. The esoteric material given to the Circle is currently published only in German. 
 
Joel, your history quoted above omits the fact that Steiner instructed the group to maintain a silent profile. It was not a choice made by the group. I do not fully understand why Rudolf Steiner felt it necessary to instruct the group to remain hidden at the time when he was working on the formation of GAS in 1923. The current situation where the existence of the Circle is public knowledge remains ambiguous and uncomfortable. 
 
Earlier on this thread Joel wrote:
… the Circle (sometimes called the Youth Circle), which operates mostly below the radar, and represents an essentially secret society power group behind the scenes that often sees to it that its members mostly rise to positions of institutional authority.
 
The suggestion is that Circle members work together as an invisible political force in the GAS and national societies. I know of no evidence of any power wielding in society decisions. There is no formal infrastructure to the Circle, which lives through personal contact and occasional local meetings where the esoteric lessons given to the founders by Steiner are studied. There is no exoteric policy within the group, only the commitment to individually sustain the individual esoteric practise given by Steiner. 
 
It is clear that Circle members are active in the Society. There is no doubt that active society membership is one way that many Circle members commit themselves to the anthroposophical movement. As far as I know members act as individuals in the societies. If a group that comes together around a single esoteric impulse appears to speak outwardly in chorus, this is not altogether surprising.  However, that does not demonstrate that members plan political strategies beforehand. The suggestion that Circle members work together behind the scenes as manipulators of position and power entirely contradicts what the Circle actually represents.  
 
I acknowledge that I have no insight into Joel’s inquiries. He may be in possession of facts unknown to me, but I would be profoundly saddened if the purely esoteric work in the Circle has been so completely distorted from its founders’ intentions.
 
 

I find no serious flaws in Joel's reasoning.

The whole idea of this 'in-group' turns my stomach (literally I find it nauseating).

If there is a 'secret in group' which is by invitation only, functioning within the Society with 'members' in upper echelon positions I would have half a mind to drop my own membership.

The only reason I wouldn't is that I still feel strongly that Anthroposophia is still trying to work  through the Anthroposophical Society, and therefore deserves my support.

On that note, one wonders how She experiences the existence of such a little, egoistic power group?

The mental image of a thorn in the side comes to mind.

That's a good question...

Your analogy may be more true even than you know, as (it seems to me) alot of people in the Society (the 'dyed in the wool' anthroposophists) figure that when the Steiner individuality 'comes back', 'he' will take up the reigns and start from where 'he' left off...

Sort of like the Jews thinking that the Messiah would come back and rescue them from the tyranny of rome, elevate the Jewish people back to their accorded status (where they 'should' be) and essentially give the Romans (and the rest of the world) a real ass-whooping.  After which of course the entire world would all bow down to them (the jewish people) and say -" Gee, I guess you guys were right all along - you are better than us..."

Well, of course, it didn't quite turn out that way for the jewish people when Christ returned.

And it likely won't be 'like that' (an analogous version) when the Steiner individuality returns, if 'he' is not back already.

I see 'him' as probably being peripherally involved in anthroposophy, not necessarily even being a member of the AS...but hell, I don't know.  I'm just hypothesizing.

With my view that Anthroposophia is still trying to do something thru the AS, I have to say that when 'he' comes back he will be involved in some way, but I don't know how or to what extent.

The thing is, Steiner was so burned out when he crossed, it's anyones bet as to how much 'power' he will have when he returns...I almost wouldn't be surprised if Steiner hasn't reincarnated and is like a misunderstood teenager somewhere, with (obviously) an immense potential, but is having difficulty accessing her (oooops - I said it) spiritual powers because of the hell she put herself thru in her previous incarnation.

Steiner talks about the sacrifice a person makes when they step forward on the world stage and offers themselves and their esoteric knowledge to the world.  For to the extent that they are identified as the supplier of knowledge, to that extent do they 'lose consciousness' in their next incarnation.  To the extent that they 'do good in secret' (random fact - this is called intoku in japanese) they gain consciousness in their next incarnation. 

That's why the so called secret societies are, well, secret. 

Like in Freemasonry - they tell you things that you are absolutely not to tell anyone else.  By practicing this, getting a feel for it (ie - keeping the secret), you learn to keep other things secret, and to yourself, and thereby make certain steps 'forward' that can't really be made in any other way...

We are skirting round some significant self-awareness issues here. The GAS and the Circle are a specific stimulus for the factors that I am raising.

One issue is that there is a lot of antipathy of feeling towards the GAS. As proponents of PoF, that obviously will have no influence on our thinking or our actions as striving ethical individuals. Anthroposophy is about creative transformation and the GAS is full of potential there. It highlights the role of individual action in a large group. This is a very interesting area of action research that could teach us a thing or two that might be useful in other situations outside the GAS. Can we rise through this emotive mire – not entirely of our own making – and show that there is a spirited way forward? Before anyone thumps on their keyboard to say that they are personally not emotivated, I assure you that I realise that you would not be participating on this site if you were the kind of person to let emotions get the better of moral intuitions. The fact remains that there are a lot of Globally Warming Emotions in the air around the GAS.
 
Another issue is that we have before us reported facts that that are difficult to reconcile with our strongly held and lovingly polished views. As proponents of PoF it makes no difference what Steiner would or would not be hypothetically doing today as only moral intuitions are our guides. So what moral intuitions do we have about this?  How can we distinguish moral intuitions from thinking what we prefer to think? 
 
I wonder if anyone asked Steiner about his personal esoteric practice?  If so, how much did Steiner tell them?
 

It is a natural law among all initiates to withhold from no man the knowledge that is due him but there is an equally natural law which lays down that no word of esoteric knowledge shall be imparted to anyone not qualified to receive it. And the more strictly he observes these laws, the more perfect is an initiate. The bond of union embracing all initiates is spiritual and not external, but the two laws here mentioned form, as it were, strong clasps by which the component parts of this bond are held together. You may live in intimate friendship with an initiate, and yet a gap severs you from his essential self, so long as you have not become an initiate yourself. You may enjoy in the fullest sense the heart, the love of an initiate, yet he will only confide his knowledge to you when you are ripe for it. You may flatter him; you may torture him; nothing can induce him to betray anything to you as long as you, at the present stage of your evolution, are not competent to receive it into your soul in the right way. (KoHW Chapter 1)

If these two laws referred to in KoHW continue to hold validity in our time, is it good to make public all spiritual communications?

Joel suggests that I do something that contradicts my personal mores: to ask someone to do a specific action. This is one reason why I am not a driving instructor. I might, however, invite someone to consider the relevant issue and act in freedom towards a resolution.  I suggest to Joel that you could ask any individual if they are a member of the Circle. You will undoubtedly get an honest answer. You could then ask a member how their membership influences their conduct in society matters. Let us assume that you have asked me. The answer is that I act as ethically as I am enabled out of the principles that are embodied in the context of the matters at hand. For example, I have offered information about the Circle in this discussion.
 
What are the criteria for admission into the Circle? The one criterion is that a person is willing to take up the esoteric work involved to the best of their ability. Information about the Circle is shared according to the conscience of each member. I have witnessed this in individual and group conversations. The admission of new members is based on mutual respect and integrity between individuals. A member will work with a person who is interested, to ensure that they understand what they are taking on. There is no pressure to continue if at any point in that process the person decides to withdraw. This was also the process that the founders followed with Rudolf Steiner. There are no officers or hierarchy; it is a Circle of individuals working quietly at a specific practice. 
 
19. Surely our best citizens must be our least recognized. The real work is not for show. – William Ferraiolo in Cynical Maxims and Marginalia, page 3
During a lunchtime conversation here in Aberdeen recently it was observed that while secrecy may invite questions, the trend of those questions usually arises from the nature of the individual’s response to other life experiences. This is surely an influential factor for which we all here need to be vigilant.
 
 

Dear John Ralph,

Yes, our emotional life has very interesting effects on our consciousness.  Coming from deeper in the soul life, they influence thought in subtle ways, not always apparent.  In my own practice, I found that any crucial thinking, especially where I needed to form a moral intuition or do something particular in my social research, a cultivated feeling was first essential as a foreground out of which to ask the moral question, or the question of knowledge.

In a practical sense it became better to cultivate certain general attitudes of soul, because the wind (the holy spirit) comes when it wills, so often that a certain mastery  of the feeling life is a principle way in which what Steiner calls control of thoughts can quietly rest.  We need ultimately to manage our feeling life such that we mostly approach life out of love and gratitude, as a constant discipline.  This is not always possible, however, for life is full of challenges that pull at our feelings, and they can sometimes easily be moved away from where we would otherwise will it.

The most difficult moral questions are often not easy, but very hard.  It is not so much knowing what is right to do that is the problem, but that what is right to do asks of us something that disturbs our equilibrium.  Ahriman (through his double aspect) encourages us to love a life of moral ease, to not have to face difficult questions, questions which require courage, questions which put us at risk, physically or socially or emotionally.  Better, says the ahrimanic double, to not go into these troublesome places.

The Society's membership, as does the Circle's membership, as does every I on the planet, finds itself facing these kinds of trials in the Age of the Consciousness Soul.  In fact, as the film Pay It Forward so eloquently dramatized, the truest moral questions often require the greatest sacrifices.  Christ went to the Cross.  What crosses are we willing to carry?

The Seven Stages of the Passion of Christ are: washing the feet, the scourging, the crowning with thorns, the carrying the cross, the crucifiction, the entombment and then finally, the resurrection.  If our soul is not being born out of such trials, we are probably traveling a path of moral ease.

For example, I was recentlyy at a Branch meeting were the most terrible kind of thinking was going on.  It was quite painful to experience - to take in thought that was essentially being given over to ahriman, albeit mostly sub-consciously. These people could even be seen as innocent in a way, for the didn't know what they were doing (Father forgive them for they know not what they do).  The Society membship, lacking the actual practical experiences of PoF, lives more in a vain Steinerism, or an intellectualization of the Cosmic Michaelic Intelligence than it does in the Way, the Truth of the Life.

The question for me in such situations is quite difficult, for it is a question of moral technique, the hardest moral question of all.  How do I oppose the lies living in the thoughts in the room, without attacking the individuals more or less innocently (often in good faith, for they follow what has been modelled for them by the leadership) trying so hard to be "anthroposophical".  For those with a glimpse of the meaning of this, for me it is an experience of "the crowning with thorns".  My thinking, in letting in the dark materialistic thoughts of the group, becomes penetrated and stabbed with these lies.  The world of thought which I have struggled to come into intimate contact with for 35 years, this ethereal substance to which my I always yearns to surrrender, is speared by these thoughts that I have to let in, because part of the work is to take in evil and transform it into love.  I have to let it in, before I can seek the healing thoughts and utter them into the circle of those present.

Often, as a result, I make an impassioned speech, for I wait sometime before responding.  After this speaking of the truth, in which I strive to find the right technique so as to not speak out of antipathy to the individuals present, then comes the counter attact.  Since what I utter often must contradict untruths, several in the group still take personally having their sub-conscious lies opposed.  The result then is a "scourging",  Harsh words are spoken to me out of antipathy, and sometimes this continues (as it did this weekend at a meeting of the Social Science Section where I had to counter lies about technology) even if I am silent, or if I reply.  Something that can take the appearance of an argument arises, but in reality it is simply poorly thought out thoughts being confronted by someone who has spend a lot more time thinking about the subject under discussion.

In both recent instances it was poorly thought thoughts about the Internet and its relation to human social life.  Most people don't understand organic thinking (goetheanism), much less spiritual (moral) thinking as is developed under the influence of PoF.  They don't know how to control their thoughts, much less have even an introspective glimmer of their feeling life so as to work on that influence in the soul (and certainly not the least idea of the influence of the threefold double-complex on the will-in-thinking, feelings and thoughts).

I was saying to Tom yesterday, that I am near to ready to simply retire to the country-side in New Hamshire, where a friend has a nice little apartment in her gargage that fits my social security.  Many anthroposophist are too asleep, and then get too angry when you ask them to wake up a little.  You disturb their moral comfort zone, and this releases their own doubles in an attack.  At the Branch meeting I so disturbed the Christian Community priest (a man for whom I have great affection by the way and have always treated with great respect) that he was shouting at me.  The saddest effect is later when it all goes forward as if the prior discussion never happened.   People seem to want to sleep as to the recent past, and then act as if a discussion, that ought to have resulted later in long careful dialogs, never happened.  To be ignored in this way is also very painful.  It is in fact highly likely that my anthroposophical writings (in fact a great deal of the work that has been produced) will simply be ignored (entombed).

The Society is a place of a great deal of moral ease when it comes to questions of the truth.  There is no scientific discipline, and no one really demands that people who write and speak actually know.  In spite of Steiner's requests not to be made into an authority, it is his authority in which nearly every idea is nested.  A clairvoyant friend once told me that in the ethereal Steiner can in Imagination be found standing, weeping and in chains.  He cannot speak.  He weeps for us.  The chains we make everytime we say "Steiner said".  However, in the astral world (Inspiration) he is a voice of warmth, and will speak to you (or so said my friend), for he remains our teacher and our guide.  These are the consequences for his immortal spirit in having joined his karma to ours.  Our karma is a huge weight, a cross he will bear for a long long time.  Every act we do that makes us independent of his thought, lifts a part of this weight.  Every act we do that moves anthroposophy forward, out of the forces of our own I, in its evolutionary sense, lets us share in the carrying of this load.

joel