I am experimenting with presenting the Philosophy of Freedom in cartoon form with Barack Obama as the guide. I believe Obama's philosophy is very close to POF so I think the cartoon would also explain Obama. This strip is the opening of chapter 13, The Value of Life.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 13-0-Barack's-World.jpg | 38.99 KB |
| 13-0-Barack's-World4.jpg | 39.19 KB |
Tom, you are certainly a
Tom, you are certainly a fountain of creativity these days. Fasting can do that, I guess :)
I'm sure you thought this through, but I just wanted to bring up a question regarding your cartoon project. Obama, by the very nature of his role, is a polarizing figure. Millions of good hearted people don't trust him and millions do.
I don't like the idea of your project cutting off such a huge segment of its potential readership just because of the choice of a highly charged mental picture. Saying that, I do understand that Obama, as a mental image, for you, works wonderfully as a symbol of what you consider PoF to be doing. An arguement about the suitibility of Obama for a PoF project would kind of make my point.
If you created a new character who guided readers into PoF principals, I imagine that the same points could be made and the auidence wouldn't need to work out their subjective confusions regarding the highly charged Obama image.
That said, your use of Obama would probably be very effective for the segment of the population who share your view about Obama.
I put this out there as a simple brainstorm. And I look forward to seeing your creations!!
Jeff
Obama is the most
Obama is the most influential and respected spokesperson in the world right now. He is probably more popular than Jesus in that he appeals to all religions. I think he may even be a better example of POF than Steiner, as Steiner was mainly a theorist while Obama goes from the intuitive selection of the moral principle all the way to application using moral technique.
The US critics of Obama are mainly the Fox News and Sara Palin supporters who aren't going to be interested in a reality-based philosophy like POF anyway. Their emotional arguments against Obama such as his health reform is bad because it is "too complicated" don't influence world opinion or serious US citizens who may have an interest in POF. These criticisms wouldn't have been considered worthy of being reported when the US media consisted of real journalists rather than today's ratings boosting entertainers seeking to get an emotional rise out of viewers.
Steiner chose the medium of theosophy 100 years ago. Today we have to communicate through the culture of our times which isn't theosophy or academic philosophy. I would hope others select a contemporary communication medium and produce something about POF we can post online. The web is POF friendly in that each year more ways are developed for an individual to express themselves.
The suppression of free expression and control of information by traditional institutions like the anthroposophical society and steinerbooks has ended.
complication is ok
No matter how much we love Obama, it is our main duty to act as a check on him. He needs this. He wasn't kidding when he said, "you are the change you're looking for"....
It scares me that people might take a text like PoF and use it justify or overlook some of the president's most misguided behaviors. I know, I know. I read how plenty of Republican Anthroposophists used PoF to support Bush's crimes. I just wish we'd not prop elected officials up on generalized pedestals. They need our opposition desperately. They don't need to be seen through a flat monolithic lens as "really good" or "really bad". We can't help it that crazy people hated Bush. We needed to oppose him no matter how crazy some people are. Same with Obama. It's not wise to lump somebody like Greenwald with Palin. Greenwald (and all the other intelligent people attempting have reasonable disourses about basic moral intuitions) deserves at least as much respect as an Obama speech. It is the actions that matter. And the most important actions of any president are the ones that will go unchecked because of sleepiness.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/30/mohamed/index.html
I always feel much more relaxed in political conversation when it's obvious that the other person can equally praise and criticize. If it can't go in one direciton....oh, brother. Well, PoF has a lot to say about that sort of thing...
But I'll be excited to see how you use your cartoon even if you use Obama to teach PoF. However, I wish you would use a cartoon of yourself. Who is doing the drawing?
Jeff
P.S. no matter how unimpressed you are by Steiner's non-PoF life, I don't think you can be serious that Steiner was primarily as "theorist". Can Obama (or most other people) hold even a candle to the practical work that Steiner brought to field after field of human endeavor? It's not like Steiner simply talked about soil; he demonstrated how to transform. Steiner didn't just talk about educational theory; he revolutionized it. Steiner didn't wax philosophical about society. He pointed to all the concrete ways that the economy, politics and culture interfaced and needed new establishment. Obama has been a hard worker no doubt, but to say his life better reflects the practical application of moral intuition is a MASSIVE claim. I know that non of this really matters. My main point, which I've made now, is simply that Obama might not be the best symbol for teaching PoF. Don't worry, I have no plan to carry out an Obama conversation on this website.
Outside the left-right straightjacket...
Outside the left/right straightjacket, beyond FoxNews, Keith Olbermann, Sarah Palin and Bill Maher, we have a different view of Obama. It is one that views Obama as a puppet for the globalist-elites.
When Obama announced he was running for office, I, like most people became very excited. Because if he could do what he said he was going to do, we would indeed be living in a wonderful world.
But then the campaign started and I noticed who Obama aligned himself with: Paul Volker, (founding member of the Trilateral Comission, former head of the Federal Reserve) Zbigniew Brezinski (volumes could be written about this man...suffice it to say, though he bragged about funding Pol Pot). And remember how during the debates he and McCain were arguing about how well Henry Kissinger thought of them? Did anyone ask themselves why in the world Obama would care about Kissinger? Then he was elected and announced Geithner, head of the NY Fed, to be Sec of Treasury. Then he kept Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Then he announced Vilsak, a Monsanto creature, to be Sec of Ag.
And then Obama conjured all these czars everywhere. Such as Holdren, our Science Czar who once considered the idea of "forced abortions, 'compulsory sterilization,' and the creation of a 'Planetary Regime' that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet" in a 1977 book he wrote, titled, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment"
Everyday I look at our country being dismantled in a unique, but untimately identical manner as was done during the previous 8 years. Fortunately Obama's poll numbers are sinking fast, Americans are waking up to being conned, and we're getting pissed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc
I can agree with you that
I can agree with you that the fundamentals haven't changed. I guess I'm just always shocked that people like you find reason to believe that an electible American politician will step outside the already established role established by the economic powers that be. No matter how truely amazing a person is who becomes president (at this time), his or her becoming president is already evidence that he or she will exist within the given frame. There is no evidence to the contrary, and this does not mean that these are morally compromised people. It simply means that the function of president is still reflecting the population's refusal to awaken. It's not like we are are in the current situation because we just keep making mistakes in who we elect. Our elections are barameters of our true desires. And our desire is to remain asleep, so far.
I think we got very lucky to get Obama. Sure, if we don't force him to change, he will do a few good things and he'll continue many dangerious American trends. But, considering all of the Americans out there who were actually electible in this election, Obama is easily the most shapable by an awakening population. Any anger or dissapointment one feels towards the man Obama is misplaced. Obama is the softest piece of political clay we might get for many many years. Where are the shapers? Notice that I am not saying Obama is better than you or anybody else; just that he is most likely the most shapable of those who could be elected. That is the one reality that we (as a population) have a chance to take advantage of....We've already seen examples of how easily Obama can be forced to do what is right if enough noise gets made.
To believe that the opportunity we have in our hands right now is to be saved by a special man is to continue living in the childish "save us papa" fantasy of this country (the corollary of this fantasy is to believe that our electing such a special Human reflects something special about those of us who "knew" from the start). Our political leaders are no more than reflections of the populations readiness to take responsibility for our country. We can blame all the clownish behavior of our political leaders, but our blame is a waste of time in that it cloaks the real issue. I know there will always be those who really see Obama as doing no wrong. And I know there will always be those who see him as a real mistake. Those people are operating under the above mentioned fantasy in which we place an overwhelming degree of influence on mythological leadership. But once you put that fantasy to the side, I simply don't understand how those who see the systemic problems in our political/economic/cultural sphere are able to get so red in the face about this or that individual in power. So much positive energy wasted, it seems. Obama is the most shapable option. That's all. We must get the focus off of his personality (which is a pointless hallucination anyway). It is so much healther to see Obama's stuckness as a clear image of one's own. That way, a real conversation and social effort can be made that is not based in the (rightious and WONDERFUL feeling of anger) childish "save me papa" or the adolecent "you are bad papa" fantasies.
As far as Obama's virtues
As far as Obama's virtues or flaws are concerned...I don't care either way. Yes, the man has both. But I don't care to pay attention to either virtue or flaw. We need to stop seeing these puppets dangling on strings and have whatever emotional reaction we do....we need to peel back the curtain and start paying attention to what goes on there.
My one and only problem with Obama is that he is a slick deceptor who fooled alot of people into believing that they actually changed things for the better...and meanwhile those people have stopped their Bush-era protesting and have stopped holding the President's feet to the fire because they actually believe that he is an agent of change. What a con-job the shadow government pulled in getting Obama to be their front-man.
cherry picking
yea, it's the "slick deceptor" stuff that's the giveaway. An actual conversation is impossible once we "know' that Obama is especially deceptive (comapred to, you know, nice folks like you and me). Once we "know" that Obama represents something so nefarious and advanced, it's best to just to form "teams of concern" and differntiate ourselves from those who don't see his special characteristics. Both sides (all sides) can cherry pick this one to death. If you want to see that he is a conscious liar, you take one set of quotes and behavior and hold them up to another specific set of actions and, Wala, you have proof. Anyway, it does not matter. These are symptoms. Our presidents will only ever be little pictures of what we are doing. We create a context in which we get to project onto the stage all of the crap we like to minimize in ourselves. We feel great knowing that we see how the real problem makers are. As if Cheny and Bush and Obama are demonstrating anything different than you and I or our neighbors down the street. We cherry pick and get to see them as occupying the "real" throwns of power. We shout at our reflections in the lake, secretly releived we've found the real sources of dilemma....I'm doing a bit of of it right now :)
But, yes, it's amazing to see Obama's fans let him do many of exact same things that they would not tolerate from Bush. Their reasons are amazing! Cherry Picking our Way to Salvation!!!
I think it's hygenic to just see that Obama (and everybody else we meet) is simply doing your exact shadow dance but in his way. And then, rather than becoming all impressed/worried/concerned/shocked/annoyed at Obama (and everybody else) we can get as bored by them as we are ourselves and start focusing on deeds and principals. It's such a relief once you let them be mysteries again. You can focus on actual events then. But I know, I know.....there is a great consolation in "knowing" who works for Ahriman and who works for Michael. And how are you going to really have a conversation with somebody who is fairly convinced that they know which spiritual beings are connected to whom.....? It's rough. That's why we form groups! And sub-groups....and then sub-sub groups......ect,,
Well done again Tom
I just read that link you put up about Brantano, Husserl, and Steiner. That is the stuff for the troops! Hooray for this site ,you, me, the guy whose name escapes me who wrote the article, all sentient beings, and of course Rudolph Steiner who pioneered the whole shebang.
I agree about the Obama persona being a potentially dodgy image to pin your comic around for all the reasons mentioned above. Could you not ask the magic imagination faries (who we never mention in PoF terms) for a magic flash of idea for some other central role. An animal? I am imagining Walt Kelly's aligator Albert at the mo, as a knowing, egotistical yet somehow vulnerable sort of beast.
Bryn
Steiner a theorist
I'll be glad to see your article on Obama and POF. I think much of what's happening in the world today exemplifies POF principles. However, dear Tom, calling Steiner a "theorist" seems inappropriate given Waldorf Schools, Curative Education, Biodynamic farming, etc; you know the list. vickie
Steiner, Sergei and POF
The standard operating of Steiner is to give a lecture (6000) containing the principles (indications) and then have someone else apply them to the world. He got more involved in a few things when absolutely necessary, but always preferred others to take the initiative on his theories. That is why I don't understand why a Philosophy of Freedom instutute doesn't exist to inform and expand on the indications about the working of the mind in POF beyond producing some academic papers. Imagine if only academic papers were produced about Waldorf education but no schools. POF is the work of Steiner with the broadest appeal that could have the most impact on the world. Even so called leading anthroposophists show a real ignorance of Steiner's fundamental phylosophy.
The only reason I can think of why the traditionalists have ignored Steiner's freedom philosophy is because it threatens their authoritative leadership and its emphasis of seeking your teacher as taught in Knowledge of Higher Worlds, a path for those who have fallen behind our current age of science.
The leader of traditional anthroposophy, Sergei Prokofieff, has a new book out on the Philosophy of Freedom. I hoped to discuss it on the website but now want my money back. It leaves one wondering if he read POF. It is merely a book for the "believers" where Sergei attempts to stick all the dogma of traditional anthroposophy onto POF without any serious examination of POF. It is written in the language of traditional anthroposophy rather than the language of POF which means no one will understand it except the elderly choir of believers. You have to at least study POF to be able to speak its language, a language those unfamilar with Steiner have not objected to.
His attempt to attached this dogma to POF is considered flawed by others based on his opening assumptions about what the "exceptional state" is. It appears his purpose is to show how there is no need to study the Philosophy of Freedom because it merely exists to confirm and support the faith-based dogma of the Anthroposophical Society.
yea, there is a massive
yea, there is a massive tendency to stick other frames onto the point that Steiner is making in PoF. There are WAY too many diagrams and charts and other books that purport to be about the simple human gesture of directly referring to the Human's one and only activity. I shouldn't say "too many" because there is really the perfect amount in terms of what's actually happening. But it would serve anthrpops well to really look at the underlying tendency that attracts them to so many "abouts".
Prokofieff's books are wonderful for anybody who wants to read highly creative ways in which spiritual terms can be linked to each other and to the life of Steiner. I loved it (for a while). But I'm afraid that the same thing is happening to PoF. People simply enjoy the logic of the terms but don't examine where the terms point. That's why you have people actually saying that they observe concepts coming into contact with pure percepts. You can make logic out of any idea no matter how empirical it is or not.
I like it when people have to really challenge themselves to find expression for their experience. Human experience always has a fresh edge where freedom lives and to speak and live from that space is always wider and more practical than locking terms together.
PoF and Prokofieff
I've purchases his book and have begun reading it. I will write a review and submit it to John Beck (the editor of the "Newsletter" in America). Whether he will publish it or not, I don't know. I am only 23 pages into the text of Prokofieff's book and have written all over the pages of my copy, in addition to two pages of notes on paper. A slog to be sure, but a necessary one if we don't want Prokofieff's intellectualism to bury PoF under about 300 pages of a theology of Steinerism, with over 250 footnotes - talk about intellectual soul vs. consciousness soul!!!
At the same time it won't hurt to keep in mind that part of what we are observing is the Russian Soul, which isn't instinctively a consciousness soul condition (something more natural to English speakers and Americans). In a way Prokofieff is just being Russian, which has good and bad qualities when it comes to what PoF is really about.
joel
Review
When you have finished your review please post it to this site also, please. Many of us would be very eager to read it.
Yes Sergei P was preaching to the converted in a big way.
But Steiner does the same thing.For example, one could say he re-reads the Book of Revelation into a manual on what you might describe as the dogma of traditional Anthroposophy. Or the same process with the Bhagavad Gita, or Rosicrucianism, or Freemasonry, or even the main tennets of Christianity. All of them become, after he's finished with them, discourses on concepts already outlined in his main books.
The question that strikes me though is this: Sergei Prokofieff is perfectly entitled to do that same "Anthroposophical loading" of his subject as Steiner did; but, I ask, is SP in a position to do it strictly out of his own experience?
I dont know the answer to that, only SP does. My doubt amounts to: How much is faith based dogma and how much is where PoF has actually lead Sergei, and we don't know.( I personally don't care).
What I like about this site is that, as you say, it is free-standing; no esotericism needed.The study aids you supply are magnificent; utterly and wonderfully helpful.Prokofieff's book has nothing in common with this site except the title of a book;so why slag his efforts off with terms like dogma and authoritarian?
As for the "exceptional state" we all know that if you follow through on doing POF you will certainly end up with access to one: one's mind state will be highly exceptional! Toward such souls surely Sergei is entitled, with his grand esoteric approach to scatter a few ideas?
Thank you for this site Tom
Bryn
about the "exceptional state"
I've noticed that many people think that Steiner's use of "exceptional state" is pointing to something unordinary or esoteric or profound. He's not. He says:
I must first take up a standpoint outside my own activity if, in addition to observing the table, I want also to observe my thinking about the table. Whereas observation of things and events, and thinking about them, are everyday occurrences filling up the continuous current of my life, observation of the thinking itself is a kind of exceptional state.
He is saying that compared to our normal just looking at the world and thinking about it, we are making an exception when we think about our thought process. Anybody over 8 years old does this everyday. It's an important distinction, however, because of the point Steiner makes after that. The "state" itself is readily accessible.
Jeff
exceptional state
The exceptional state is when you give your full attention to the observation of thinking --a past thought-- just as you give your full attention to a leaf when you study it. You are absorbed in the past thought just as when you seriously contemplate anything else. It is more than hearing the thought chatter in the background of our mind.
An example would be to recall a memory picture in your mind and hold it there as you contemplate it. Or to contemplate the thought "pin".
Later in chapter 3 the observation of thinking becomes the observation of thought processes, the connection between two thoughts, etc. To do this means to enter the exceptional state and to contemplate thoughts. The chapter explains that we cannot examine the actual thinking we are engaged in, but afterwards we can examine the thoughts that remain.
In a later chapter he says the materialist is unable to enter the exceptional state. Their attention is on the material world and its processes.
two massively different types of "exceptional"
Two years ago i wrote on this website about the two distinct "exceptional states" that Steiner speaks of. I think you'll have to agree with me that the first "exceptional state" Steiner is drawing the reader's attention to is not necessarily any stronger or 'fuller" than normal. Unless you have access to a translation that I don't.... I wouldn't put it past you :)
Every translation I have read is very clear in how he is using the first "exceptional", as in, "an exception". It makes sense that he isn't calling upon deeply exceptional powers in Chapter 3. He's talking about when we go, "I made a mistake in estimating when the boat would arrive because I forgot to account for it being a scrooner; my thinking made an error in that spot." Steiner says that is an exception to just looking at a boat or thinking about it.
Jeff
Try it for yourself.
Try it for yourself. Can you hold a thought in your mind and contemplate it as easily as you can hold a leaf in your hand and contemplate the leaf?
that's right
It's just that some anthroposophists seem to take "exceptional" to mean something out of the ordinary. It's very ordinary (for humans), just an exception to observation and thinking (in a naming manner) about observation.
I think you and I agree. But I would stress that people with awful attention spans very easily engage in what Steiner is referring to as "exceptional" thinking. He is not pointing to a highly cultivated attention in chapter 3.
Jeff
p.s. in terms of your question: it depends on the content of thought. I could think about my thoughts related to the play EQUIVOCATION much easier than thinking about a leaf in my hand; that is just because of the nature of my own conditioning (interest) related to leaves and EQUIVOCATION.
Tom, Steiner's claim about
Tom, Steiner's claim about the materialist not being able to enter into a particular state underlines the fact that the earlier use of "exceptional state" has nothing to do with superordinary experience. Nobody would deny that a materialist isn't able to do what Steiner calls "exceptional" in chapter three. This is a wonderful example of why it is very important to study closely how a writer is using words in the particular context of its use. We tend to use "exceptional" almost to mean "rare" or "outstanding", but there are other uses like the way Steiner uses early in the book. I don't see any evidence to support the idea that his chapter 3 "exceptional state" is limited to states of high concentration or focus. I'd like to know if I'm missing something, but I think I've covered the text microscopically on this issue.
My hunch is that there is a fairly clear connection between anthroposophists refusal to grow into the book (via allowing it's language to evolve) and their (most of them) need for Steiner's early use of exceptional to be referring to something magical or esoterically stimulating. Think about how much books like Occult Science satisfy that deep desire to form mental pictures of esoteric states and forms and then you can see why there would be such a strong tendency to project onto his early use of "exceptional". That said, I think it would be great if future editions of PoF would point this kind of thing out, allowing the reader to reflect on this tendency.
"The leader of traditional anthroposophy"
Prokofieff is not "the leader of traditional Anthroposophy" - one wonders about anyone who makes such a silly assertion! What is your motive to claim that?
Does Prokofieff even write in German? I believe he writes in Russian and has a translator for the German.
Prokofieff writes a lot - just as any careerist at a university does (take a look at this website) - and his speciality is combination of Steiner lecture quotations about themes of the supersensible - a usual "Anthroposophical" "method".
I am not aware that Prokofieff has any formal philosophical or even scientific training.
Prokofieff attracts many persons of insignificant intellectual stature looking for an idol and belongs to the Goetheanum power clique. He has a famous name.
As far as Prokofieff's interpretation of the Philosophy of Freedom goes, he has been accused of a wishy-washy and false interpretation by Michael Muschalle www.studienzuranthroposophie.de.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
Reflection, please!
1. The standard operating of Steiner is to give a lecture (6000) containing the principles (indications) and then have someone else apply them to the world. He got more involved in a few things when absolutely necessary, but always preferred others to take the initiative on his theories.
1. What is Steiner's concept of "theory"?
2.That is why I don't understand why a Philosophy of Freedom instutute doesn't exist to inform and expand on the indications about the working of the mind in POF beyond producing some academic papers.
2.Is that a question?
3.Imagine if only academic papers were produced about Waldorf education but no schools.
3. This is not the case. There are not enough studies of the results of Waldorf school education. These are very important for the academic community.
4.POF is the work of Steiner with the broadest appeal that could have the most impact on the world.
4. This is your wish.
5. Even so called leading anthroposophists show a real ignorance of Steiner's fundamental phylosophy.
5. Why?
6. The only reason I can think of why the traditionalists have ignored Steiner's freedom philosophy is because it threatens their authoritative leadership
6. Then you better think harder.
7. and its emphasis of seeking your teacher as taught in Knowledge of Higher Worlds, a path for those who have fallen behind our current age of science.
7. ?
8. The leader of traditional anthroposophy, Sergei Prokofieff, has a new book out on the Philosophy of Freedom. I hoped to discuss it on the website but now want my money back. It leaves one wondering if he read POF. It is merely a book for the "believers" where Sergei attempts to stick all the dogma of traditional anthroposophy onto POF without any serious examination of POF.
8. Demonstration?
9. It is written in the language of traditional anthroposophy rather than the language of POF which means no one will understand it except the elderly choir of believers. You have to at least study POF to be able to speak its language, a language those unfamilar with Steiner have not objected to.
Language of traditional Anthroposophy?
10. His attempt to attached this dogma to POF is considered flawed by others based on his opening assumptions about what the "exceptional state" is. It appears his purpose is to show how there is no need to study the Philosophy of Freedom because it merely exists to confirm and support the faith-based dogma of the Anthroposophical Society.
10. Why is he in the Leading Council of the Anthroposophical Society?
1. Steiner's concept of
1. Steiner's concept of theory is a rooted evap ontario that does not exclude the formation of new empirical substandards in parralax with logical controls.
2. A statement
3. Good point.
4. Yes, a wish that has core aspects of validity.
5. Because some have not integrated the reversed cultish wish of the un-incarnating Platonists.
6. I will also think harder.
7. an opinion. Too much to go into this month, perhaps.
8. I am not able to at this time.
9. Anthropsophy has gone through two distinct shifts in its language (some think it is stuck in a transition to the third. In November there might be time to write more about this)
10. There are probably many factors that went into that choice and most of us have almost no information to base anything more than a good guess as to that reason.
To the person who does not feel responsible for what he writes
1. Steiner's concept of theory is a rooted evap ontario that does not exclude the formation of new empirical substandards in parralax with logical controls.
1. in other words - you don't know.
2. A statement
2. You missed the point.
3. Good point.
3. No, not merely "good point", but a requisite for dialogue in the scientific community
4. Yes, a wish that has core aspects of validity.
4. You missed the point.
5. Because some have not integrated the reversed cultish wish of the un-incarnating Platonists.
5. Wrong. Because like you they prefer to play with what they read by Steiner about his research of the supersensible and chatter about what they neither understand nor experience. They do this as you do because both - you and they - cannot fulfill the conditions needed to comprehend philosophical texts by Steiner.
6. I will also think harder.
6. in your case, you should first stop writing nonsense. Otherwise you cannot understand the problem.
7. an opinion. Too much to go into this month, perhaps.
7. You missed the point again, which is the development of character. Content is perverted by persons who are corrupt.
8. I am not able to at this time.
8. Because you do not understand the question and subject.
9. Anthropsophy has gone through two distinct shifts in its language (some think it is stuck in a transition to the third.
You like to make assertions, but you cannot provide reasons for them because you think superficially.
In November there might be time to write more about this)
You prefer to write instead of think - this you have in common with many others of your kind. What you write shows the superficiality of your thinking.
10. There are probably many factors that went into that choice and most of us have almost no information to base anything more than a good guess as to that reason.
In other words: you don't know. But that's too difficult for you to admit.
Central idea
The central idea of POF is that one must develop the capacity to think on ones thinking. Every other book and lecture of Steiner's cites the same idea, Tom. This is a fundemental of anthroposophy which Steiner repeats and develops in all of his works. vb
Rather fuzzy
to think one's thinking? That's the central idea of Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom?
that would be a way to say
that would be a way to say it for some people, yes. how would you say it for you?
Good question
First explain to me what thinking about thinking means to you.
you must be joking!
Now I know this site is cia manipulated. Obama is a clown!
You learn so much when you
You learn so much when you understand why a person is simply unable to see Obama's critical flaws (in his role as president). You learn just as much when you see why a person is forced to only see the flaws. Each are actually the same person.
There are those who simply are unable to see all the ways that we MUST oppose Obama's wishes. There are also those who simply are unable to see the ways he should be commended. Same dynamic. Tellingly, each has a bone to pick with the other. Yet: same person.
We need to anthroposophically "worry" about each because they limit the discourse related to social events.
Jeff
get actual or worry about the unreal!
worrying in a virtual box dosen't look very anthroposophical
to me. If you get off your flying horse and take a walk with
your actual feet, then you'll see the circus!
exactly! That's why we
exactly! That's why we must "worry" anthroposophically rather than "anthroposophically" worry. Otherwise, we begin to think that the flying horse is a sinner, a BAD president or a SAVIOR president. ....oh, man.
Are you for real?
Are you for real? Or even for actual. I mean haven't you heard of 'living thinking' or 'thinking in time' or 'organic thinking'etc. you've got to get beyond the
polarities man! shifting the exclamation marks is a good way for a clown to become unbalanced!
Good luck and see ya!
but don't say goodbye yet
but don't say goodbye yet because, thus far, you've failed to see our perfect agreement!!!!!!!! We are for real, sister!
The clown is a necessary projection, as you say.
Is that right?
Great! Just to make sure, I'm going for an actual walk!
see ya again!
Dear Tom
You are suggesting a project to make Obama an ambassador of anthroposophy here Tom.
Is this wholly congruent with his actual world view as you intuit it?
Are you upholding the integrity of the world view Obama holds or are you compromising it?
I would like to know more about your ethical standpoint on this. -- John.
Obama's secret to success
I have found Obama to be the best example of someone living the principles in The Philosophy of Freedom. I think the only way to understand Obama is to be familiar with POF. I keep asking myself where did he learn these things? He not only knows POF but he is applying it on a world scale with nearly no practical experience and with a stable consistency which shows he is very clear about his fundamental principles.
Many are asking what is his secret to success. It is living the principles of The Philosophy of Freedom.
Well, I just hope that
Well, I just hope that Obama will have the opportunity to be opposed by a cultural sphere that increasingly exercises its true role in society. Without an opposition that is grounded in the moral intuitions related to civil liberties and individual freedom, he won't be checked (and, unfortunately, it doesn't "really" count when people object to the right things for the wrong reasons. I wish it did!! Then I'd feel grateful for Glen Beck). If there is one thing I feel fairly certain about regarding Obama it is that he- more than most politicians- is aware of how critical it is that he be constantly checked (even though this is a slumbering intuition most likely). His attempts to silence the victims of our crimes must be opposed. Obama and Bush have tried to argue that State Secrets requires the complete abdication of human rights. There is absolutely no evidence for this pernicious stance. And it is very telling that those who strongly objected to Bush's use of this arguement are mainly remaining silent when their hero takes it up as well. Fortunately, there are signs that our culture contains a seed-resistence that is making an impact in matters such as this.
In terms of Tom's desire to use Obama as the best example of PoF in action, I feel wary. I have no doubt it will please anybody who shares Tom's feelings about Obama. In that sense, it will function as a motivating tool for those who see him as a man utterly lacking in weakness. But there are so many people like myself who have very warm feelings for Obama the man, but who simply can not ignore that the very function that his office carries with it- tendencies and activities that require healthy opposition. For people like me (let's not include the knee jerk haters for they are no different than the knee jerk lovers of Obama), there is nothing served by speculations regarding Obama's inner status as a human being. When he breaks a law or violates a moral principal he must be opposed as strongly as he must be applauded when he supports a moral principal or corrects a moral transgression. I have every reason to believe that Obama is a man who will be able to own up to his actions regarding State Secrets. Bush will go to his grave insisting that he was protecting us by silencing our victims. I can actually see Obama correcting this violation. But whether or not Obama ever reverses his notion on this subject, the culture at large must demand the correction. I can't see one good reason that our public discourse include personality-guesses regarding our politicans. Obama as herold of PoF is, for me, too tightly tied to subjective mental pictures regarding the man. However, I'd be the ultimate hypocrite if simply because Tom is choosing Obama as PoF representative I was unable to follow the core of his cartoon's message. In that spirit, I plan to disregard my own subjectivity regarding Obama when I read them. I am going to substitue Tom in the place of Obama because I think that will feel more personal and engaging. With Obama, I just keep thinking about his actions regarding Telecom Immunity (and then his utter silence) and it goes downhill from there.
Jeff
p.s. I must emphasize that my comments regarding Obama come from my own analysis of how political functions operate in our culture at large, not from a personal set of beliefs regarding Obama. I have all sorts of personal feelings and ideas about Obama as a man that have nothing to do with the various ways he is functioning politically. Unlike those who oppose him from the standpoint of personality-hallucinations, my opposition is independent of anything to do with the nature of his inner life. If it turned out tomorrow that he was a Robot or the Second Coming, it wouldn't change my opposition to the ways he is continuing some of the most unpleasant and damaging policies related to social justice and economics. To expect anybody who is electible to veer into uncharted territory is simply delusional. As far as I'm concerned Obama is about as good as we should realistically expect. If anybody thinks otherwise, I'd like to see their list of electible politicians who they think would be Saving Us as president.
I am going to substitute Tom
By using Obama my cartoons come out more positive. I tend to be more cynical in my humor which has a limited appeal. The captions for the cartoons is from POF so the philosophy is as accurate as possible. I then put the philosophy into modern examples.
These cartoons will make the principles of POF and anthroposophy available to anyone. This knowledge has been hidden as no has or is presenting them. Sergei's boook on POF is a good example how many talk about POF without saying anything about it.
Fair enough, Tom. I
Fair enough, Tom. I admire your creative and multi-faceted approach. I don't think using Obama will work very well for anybody who is disturbed by his actions regarding civil liberties (in the context of our crimes). I doubt they will want to visualize him as their teacher in morality.
But I understand why you are motivated by the choice and look forward to following it.
Jeff
Obama is the most respected
Obama is the most respected and admired human being in the world right now. The only people who complain about him is Al-Qaeda, Jewish settlers in Israel, and the far right and far left in US politics. These are all stubborn extremists who will only have it their way.
no way
you are kidding, I hope. PoF receives almost no respect around the world. The only people who embrace this books are people who embrace Anthroposophy. These are all stubborn extremists who will only have it their way. Tom, to characterize the public's response Obama in that manner is really intense! You should apply the same logic to the public's response to Obama as you did your Project B situation.
Jeff
Thanks Tom
Thank you for your forthright response Tom.
In my academic work it is not ethical to make claims or put words into the mouth of someone else without their permission. I can see that the cartoon format suggests that Obama is being 'set up' not quoted. This raises the the possible view that Tom is jumping on Obama's bandwagon. I do not hold this view because I have communicated with Tom long enough to perceive that he would not just hitch onto the success of a fresh world leader. Nevertheless I can see some reasonable justification in such a view from others without a specific product or principle endorsement from the man himself. This will certainly be seen as discrediting the author - Tom - in the academic and educational field. If you wish to take the further educational or academic path of promoting PoF, Tom, this may backfire on your good work there.
Why not just switch the name around to show it is not the real thing? The cartoons could still appear to some folk as being politically motivated towards promoting/satirising the big man's principles rather than the other way round.
It is tough to get a serious point across in what is usually such a superficial medium although Waking Life succeeded in my view. It is creative - no doubt about that. I advise care in the political media jungle, Tom.
I was thinking about using
I was thinking about using a variation off Obama's name but using a cartoon format tends to be a signal that you are dealing with a caricature rather than the real person.
My audience is the younger generation who I found out love Steiner's ideas if they get them in their pure form in The Philosophy of Freedom. I find them much smarter than the old spiritualists and new agers who I used to think knew so much. Of course everybody is smarter than the academics.
I am regularly expressing my amazement of Obama's grasp of POF principles around here. I have not seen anybody else on the public scene who I would consider a good rep of POF. I don't even think Steiner is a good rep as he is an extreme theorist in the sense he intuitively derives principles which others then apply. His life was mainly writing books and giving lectures. That is why it is important that those who like Steiner don't try to be like Steiner and just lecture and study but take these principles and do things. This is what Obama does, to the point he is criticized for "doing" too much.
but Steiner (love him or
but Steiner (love him or hate him) was involved with a 1000 times more practical work than Obama (And Obama has been very practical)..........
it's hard to grasp. Steiner's lectures came FROM his practical work (where do you think he came up with his ideas?)... THEN (after his experiences) he looked for patterns that could be taught (hence the lectures). You don't seriously think that he just made up the critical point in PoF about actual experience VS abstract theory, do you? I seriously can't tell if you are being serious about Steiner not being a good example of a practical man. But then again, I just now remembered that you have admited to not learning about his work outside of philosophical theory, so maybe you really haven't read about what he did with his days when he wasn't teaching. Tom, he used to study soil by eating it. The guy was the exact opposite of abstract. Obama......has done great community service work. But from his weak economic understanding (rooted in neoliberalism; i mean look who he has surrounded himself with)...not a very wide range of practical experience. I don't see much evidence that Obama has emerged himself into the phenomena of child education or medicine. Obama's social perspective is informed by his basic conceptions of social theory (rooted in some moral intuitions, no doubt). Even people who don't like Steiner could get away with saying he wasn't the picture of a practical guy. Anyway, I imagine your perspective on Obama is locked in at this point. I don't even pretend to know the guy. But I am darn clear what he can't be allowed to do. That's our job.
Is it because of your refusal (perfectly justified by the way) to study Steiner's life outside his theoretical work in epistemology that you don't know about his day to day way of being in the world (the practical stuff).
Is tasting soil an
Is tasting soil an occupation?
Steiner's deeds
certainly not a job that acedemics enjoy :)
So I was right: I thought you were joking about Steiner being primarily a nerd!! It's hard to read you in cyberspace, Tom! Yea, there's some wonderful stories about what Steiner would do when visiting farms of folks who wanted to learn new ways of farming. He did not read to them out of books on farm theory. He would reach down and taste the soil and all sorts of other hands on things. I'm sure Obama like hearing about farming. Steiner was in there. And you probably haven't read about the medical clinic Steiner formed. He did not just read about the human body via old texts. He started a clinic and talked to and examined the patients on a regular basis (when he wasn't farming or starting multiple schools). There are descriptions by doctors who worked with him as to what it was like watching Steiner work with patients. I have no doubt that Obama reads about medicine. Oh and when working with actors, Steiner would certainly gives long talks about the evolution and function of drama in society, but what you probably haven't read about is how he worked with the actors. You'd love it. There are a few different descriptions of how Steiner would spend long hours working with the most minute details of the actor's performances, and how he would somtime act himself in order to make demonstrations. Obama has seemingly enjoyed making jokes on Saturday Night Live, so I'm not suggesting Obama is only abstract when it comes to drama's role in society. Also, and maybe of most interest to you, Steiner did not only talk about education. He went into schools and observed the children directly and then worked with the teachers in practical matters dealing with each individual child. He would not only create and found schools in different countries, but he would work with the details of the local communities involved. But not only that: he would make himself familiar with the local politics and adapt the formation of the school to the necessities of those areas. Obama certainly has ideas about education and has voted on laws regarding education, so I am in no way suggesting that he has no practical experience. When Steiner was just beginning to find his voice regarding PoF (before he wrote the first version of the text), he worked with various aged children in their homes regarding their education. He also worked politically with worker's movements in a leadership position (hardly any lectures, just hard work). Did you know that Steiner took over and also founded a magazine? That's why I was shocked when you said he worked from theory, letting others figure out the details. That's true in that he wasn't able to duplicate himself all over the world, but I actually thought you were suggesting that his theory wasn't founded in his intense and contast practical daily activities.
In regards to having a job,
In regards to having a job, perhaps you could say Steiner was a life coach as he coached villagers who had vocations. I think he maximized his effectiveness by coaching others to develop his theories.
Obama developed his theories, then achieved the most significant job on the planet to apply his theories on a world scale with his choice of the top practical talent in the various fields to carry out his moral intuitions.
Obama
I agree with John - any activity that CAN be construed as 'political agitation' or flagwaving WILL be so construed. It is an unneccessary distraction to what I understand to be the true work of this site. It will be seen as hyperbole by many.
But that being said - its Tom's site and he can obviously do whatever he wants with it.
Post new comment