Steiner's anarchism

[JustinG]

This thread is a spin-off from this one (viewtopic.php?t=744). It is intended to be about the Steiner’s views on anarchism and his philosophy as presented in The Philosophy of Freedom. It is not concerned with Steiner’s views subsequent to his involvement with theosophy.

During his pre-theosophical period Steiner was identifying as an ‘individualist anarchist’ (https://philosophyoffreedom.com/individualist-anarchism). He was also good friends with the prominent anarchists John Henry Mackay and Benjamin Tucker (who was also a libertarian socialist). In relation to Mackay's views, Steiner said 'I have the conviction that we agree, with respect to our views, every bit as far as two natures fully independent of one another can agree'. He publicly expressed his views in 1898 as follows:

Steiner wrote:
Now the state believes people can only get along if one tells them: you must be like this. And if you are not like that, then you’ll just have to be like that anyway. The individualist anarchist, on the other hand, holds that the best situation would result if one would give people free way. He has the trust that they would find their direction themselves. Naturally he does not believe that the day after tomorrow there would be no more pickpockets if one would abolish the state tomorrow. But he knows that one cannot by authority and force educate people to freeness. He knows this one thing: one clears the way for the most independent people by doing away with all force and authority.

In view of these facts, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the following argument:

- Steiner’s views in his pre-theosophical period was that The Philosophy of Freedom was consistent with anarchism.
- Anarchism entails that people should be free to decide for themselves what spiritual practices to follow, and will be capable of doing when free
from coercive authority. This entails religious and spiritual pluralism.
- Therefore, Steiner’s views in his pre-theosophical period are consistent with religious and spiritual pluralism and the view that there are many
paths to freedom.

[AshvinP]

Oh well, each to their own. Steiner called PoF his most important book and wrote in the 1918 Preface that it was suitable for those with no interest in his spiritual researches . At the time he wrote PoF he was also identifying as an anarchist (https://philosophyoffreedom.com/profile ... of-freedom), which is hardly consistent with a prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices. So I am quite comfortable with exercising the freedom I have not to delve into his later work.

But you didn't even read PoF, otherwise you would know "prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices" is 100% opposite of what he presents, and is nowhere to be found in later spiritual scientific writings either. It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to justify ignorance. You are quite literally reading books on Steiner so that you never have to understand what he himself wrote.

If you think I was saying that PoF presents a "prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices", then you clearly didn't read what I wrote. This forum would be a better place if you spent less time insulting others and more trying to understand their point of view.

Anyway, this discussion is diverging from the OP, so I will start a new thread on Steiner's anarchism.

Seriously, this playing the victim thing is really worn out. If you showed a deeper understanding of Steiner, then I would not feel insulted about you trying to share it with me. Or if you showed a willingness to engage in good faith dialogue which is intended to help you understand what you don't yet understand about his work, then we could also move further productively. As it is, you simply ignore what Cleric and myself write, saying "oh well, to each his own", and then continue to misrepresent Steiner. How can anything productive occur from there? Please think about it carefully.

I wrote clearly - "and is nowhere to be found in later spiritual scientific writings either". You and Eugene claim his spiritual science has something to do with "prescriptive" practices handed to others, not to be questioned, thereby limiting human freedom. I am explaining to you why that is absolutely false. You have not read his spiritual scientific writings or lectures. I have. Nowhere does he even hint that "prescriptive practices" are the way to evolve spiritually. It really isn't that complicated - you have misrepresented Steiner and it would be nice if you could stop or at least acknowledge you may have made a mistake.

Now you have moved on to yet another misrepresentation. You are claiming Steiner's PoF had something to do with traditional sociopolitical labels of "socialist", "anarchist", "capitalist", and what not, and from there we can deduce his conclusions about "spiritual pluralism" in your materialtic sense of, "whatever spiritual beliefs we hold are unimportant and they are all equal paths to material freedom". I am sorry, but this could only come from someone who has not read PoF or has failed to understand every single paragraph of it. Even FB, who I disagree with strongly about the core of PoF, would tell you this is absolutely wrong, because he has read it many times. There are plenty of things which can be debated about PoF, but this is not even one of them.

Justin, I know you are capable of better thought than this. It is transparent attempt to hijack Steiner for your own pet causes. Since he has generated so much discussion on this forum, maybe you feel this is the best way to seize back control from the "bourgeois" i.e. Cleric and myself. It wasn't so long ago you expressed your concern about this very clearly and suggested a mandate to enforce your own concern on everyone else, as shown in your quote below.

Looks like the nays have it. Fair enough, but let's keep in mind that a lot of people come here wanting to learn more about BK's philosophy, not Steiner. Perhaps a separate Steiner/Barfield sub-forum would be an idea.

Also, limits are not always a bad thing, or part of a sinister social justice warrior conspiracy. They can inculcate virtues such as patience, respect and tolerance. Monastic communities are laden with limits.

You went from calling Steiner a "racist", and hoping posts about him would be mandated to a minimum (so much for your professed ideal of "freedom"), to saying, "actually his PoF supports everything I believe, and it's really not even about spiritual evolution!". It makes absolutely no sense. Nowhere does Steiner claim that his PoF-era views were wrong or inconsistent with Anthroposophy and spiritual science, which you consider "coercive". If there was any coherence in your position here, you should be able to produce such a statement somewhere in the reams of text he wrote or was transcribed from his lectures, available for free online. But you won't, and we all know why.

In view of these facts, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the following argument:

- Steiner’s views in his pre-theosophical period was that The Philosophy of Freedom was consistent with anarchism.
- Anarchism entails that people should be free to decide for themselves what spiritual practices to follow, and will be capable of doing when free
from coercive authority. This entails religious and spiritual pluralism.
- Therefore, Steiner’s views in his pre-theosophical period are consistent with religious and spiritual pluralism and the view that there are many
paths to freedom.

I will indulge just a little bit. What makes people entirely dependent on the state? It is inability to take care of our own immediate needs and/or a reliance on external authorities for 'moral guidance'. Steiner is perfectly clear in PoF what he feels will put people on a path to taking care of their own needs AND provide them moral guidance from within, IF they approach it with patience, discpline, and spiritual mood, i.e. an open heart and an open mind, with devotion born of gratitude.

An action out of inner freedom does not by any means exclude the laws of morality, but rather includes them; it only proves to be on a higher level when compared to an action which is only dictated by these laws. Why then should my action serve the universal good any less when I have done it out of love, than when I have performed it only because I feel it is my duty to serve the universal good? The bare concept of duty excludes inner freedom, because it does not want to acknowledge what is individual, but rather demands submission of the latter to a general norm. Inner freedom of action is conceivable only from the standpoint of ethical individualism.

But how is it possible for people to live together, if everyone is striving only to bring his own individuality into effect? This objection is indicative of a wrongly understood moralism. This moralism believes that a community of people is possible only when they are all united through a communally established moral order. This moralism does not, in fact, understand the unity of the world of ideas. It does not comprehend that the world of ideas active within me is no other than that within my fellowman. This oneness is, to be sure, only the result of experience of the world. But this oneness must be such a result. For were this oneness to be known through anything other than through observation, then, in the realm of this oneness, individual experience would not be in force, but rather the general norm. Individuality is possible only when each individual being knows of the other only through individual observation. The difference between me and my fellowman does not lie at all in our living in two completely different spiritual worlds, but rather in the fact that he receives other intuitions than I do out of the world of ideas common to us both. He wants to live out his intuitions, I mine. If we both really draw from the idea, and follow no outer (physical or spiritual) impulses, then we can only meet each other in the same striving, in the same intentions. A moral misunderstanding, a clash with each other, for morally free people is out of the question. Only the morally unfree person, who follows nature's drives or a commandment he takes as duty, thrusts aside his fellowmen if they do not follow the same instinct and the same commandment as he himself. To live in the love for one's actions, and to let live in understanding for the other's willing, is the basic maxim of free human beings.

[JustinG]

Ashvin,

Most of your last post is not relevant to the OP, so I'll just make a couple of comments (incidentally, I do think that the relation between Steiner's early and later work is a very important topic, but it is not within the scope of this thread):

AshvinP wrote:
You are claiming Steiner's PoF had something to do with traditional sociopolitical labels of "socialist", "anarchist", "capitalist", and what not, and from there we can deduce his conclusions about "spiritual pluralism" in your materialtic sense of, "whatever spiritual beliefs we hold are unimportant and they are all equal paths to material freedom". I am sorry, but this could only come from someone who has not read PoF or has failed to understand every single paragraph of it."

I disagree that PoF has nothing to do with anarchism in the conventional sense of the term. The information and quotes in the OP and the link provided plainly indicate that Steiner considered himself an anarchist in the conventional sense (although I am not denying that Steiner also had a broader understanding of freedom than most anarchists). The resonances with anarchism are also very evident in the emphasis in the latter chapters of PoF on freedom and morality based on inner freedom.

AshvinP wrote:
Steiner is perfectly clear in PoF what he feels will put people on a path to taking care of their own needs AND provide them moral guidance from within, IF they approach it with patience, discpline, and spiritual mood, i.e. an open heart and an open mind, with devotion born of gratitude.

Sure, but he also believes that 'one clears the way for the most independent people by doing away with all force and authority'. Hence, he (in 1898 at least) is against both external and internal authority :

Steiner wrote:
..it is upon force and authority that the present states are founded. The individualist anarchist stands in enmity toward them, because they suppress liberty. He wants nothing but the free, unhindered unfolding of powers.

[Cleric K]

Sure, but he also believes that 'one clears the way for the most independent people by doing away with all force and authority'. Hence, he (in 1898 at least) is against both external and internal authority

Here we should make a clear distinction. The popular understanding of anarchism is as if human individuals are like free electrons in Brownian motion. They refuse to be aligned by external EM field, for example. We should be deeply aware that this view presupposes the fundamental separation of the particles. Seen in this way, it sounds only logical that such a kind of anarchy can produce nothing but chaos. So in our age anarchy has become synonymous to chaos. And in a certain sense, without deep understanding of human nature, it is inevitable that chaos should result. If everyone submits to their Brownian impulses it is inevitable that collisions and friction will arise.

This is the tragedy of anarchism which is not deepened by self-knowledge. As soon as there's friction, an unsolvable situation is encountered. If two electrons move against each other, they collide. One says "This is my free will". The other says "Well, this is my free will too". If one backs up, he's no longer true to his ideology because he has allowed external circumstances to dictate his behavior.

What is universally misunderstood in PoF is that we begin by questioning the hidden impulses behind our T, F, W. If a person moves in a direction, it is not enough to simply say "This is my will". This is not freedom. Why is our will this and not other? We don't know. So we shouldn't mistake lack of insight for our impulses, with freedom. In this way, someone born in a prison, will apply his will to go round his cell but he has no awareness that his will is already severely limited and shaped by external factors. At the heart of PoF is not some anarchic stubbornness to do whatever we whim while we're ignorant of the constraints within which we operate. Instead it is about the continual unveiling of the deeper 'geometry' within which our spiritual conduct flows.

Returning on the two electrons, if they were truly free beings, they would look deeper for the reasons they go against each other. At that level they'll also find the moral imagination and intuition which will result in the two electrons gently moving around each other without any friction, as if in a superfluid condition. Science has equipped us with powerful observations but people still don't dare to read them.

The greatest barrier for proper understanding is the deeply ingrained self-enclosedness which refuses to investigate the possibility that if we go beyond our limited apertures we'll also find the currents of universal harmony. When electrons remain self-enclosed, the only solution seems to be in a kind of ideology. Some electrons have certain ideas that must be spread as external EM field over other particles in order to ensure some kind of coherency.

Why do we feel that freedom can only lead to chaos? Because it is seen in the narrow sense as indiscriminate Brownian motion. And this is certainly the case at certain stage of evolution. What happens when the teacher leaves the classroom for a while? Very soon the children are all over the place screaming, running. When the teacher returns she entrains the children-electrons through her EM field. Such is the course of evolution. Man had to be cohered through religions, then ideologies.

But today we arrive at a point where each individual can be their own moral agency. This seems as impossibility only if we declare that human behavior is fundamentally weaved of blind disconnected forces to which our T, F, W must helplessly submit. The materialist submits to the laws of physics which drive the brain calculations, of which consciousness is only the final output. The idealist submits to the local vortex flow. But all of these are only excuses. There's nothing fundamental that prevents me to seek higher resolution of a conflict.

What do people fight over? Land, objects, women, etc. It's always a conflict of desires. As long as people don't investigate the nature of these desires, they'll feel that their desire is true and all others are wrong, or they'll assume that all desires are equal but it is through power that we shall dominate ours over others'. In all cases, the common thread is that no one wants to explore the deeper forces weaving into these desires. All of this results into a worldview based on primal egoism. If we go deeper we'll find that these conflicts issue because we're not free. We simply saw the object and we wished for it. It was suggested to us from the outside. We desire for it because it is the only thing we know. And if it is the only thing that also others know, conflict arises. When we move towards freedom through self-knowledge we find that for each one of us there are unique things that we can do for the benefit of the whole - things which no one else can do. In this sense, the solution to conflict is to find the deeper strata of being where we discover what is unique to our perspective and what can be contributed to the Cosmic edifice only by us.

I know that the above will be rejected with great might. It will be said "I don't believe that the universe provides the means for universal musical harmony. Chaos is fundamental. So the best we can do is to gather in groups of interests which are destined for eternal wars with other groups."

The only thing I can say to this is that it is based on a belief which only serves to preserve the sanctity of the ego. It is not believed because of some deeper investigation in the nature of reality but because the ego wants to preserve its imagined apex position - to feel as the highest authority. The ego says "I'm a lone island of order in a sea of chaos. If I find like-minded islands we can gather in a group. But if we meet groups which hold other ideas we'll have to fight to the bitter end."

If the trouble is taken to investigate the inner world it will be found that reality is fundamentally superfluidic - it flows without friction. Friction and conflict issue only when the superfluid has been convoluted several times and the egos desire for conflicting objects because they see nothing else.

[Ben Iscatus]

When we move towards freedom through self-knowledge we find that for each one of us there are unique things that we can do for the benefit of the whole - things which no one else can do. In this sense, the solution to conflict is to find the deeper strata of being where we discover what is unique to our perspective and what can be contributed to the Cosmic edifice only by us.

I agree with this - but I daren't hope that we agree!
I'm interpreting this as "the best way Nature could organise us would be in an enlightened hive mind, each with our own place in the whole." I doubt you see it this way, though, because you're very individualistic in outlook.

[Cleric K]

I agree with this - but I daren't hope that we agree!
I'm interpreting this as "the best way Nature could organise us would be in an enlightened hive mind, each with our own place in the whole." I doubt you see it this way, though, because you're very individualistic in outlook.

Can you elaborate on what the word 'enlightened' means in the above? Does it simply mean "drones which are at peace with being parts of a whole?" in comparison to "drones which are harmonic parts of a whole without even knowing it and thus they think they are being creatively free"?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Most of your last post is not relevant to the OP, so I'll just make a couple of comments (incidentally, I do think that the relation between Steiner's early and later work is a very important topic, but it is not within the scope of this thread):

AshvinP wrote:
You are claiming Steiner's PoF had something to do with traditional sociopolitical labels of "socialist", "anarchist", "capitalist", and what not, and from there we can deduce his conclusions about "spiritual pluralism" in your materialtic sense of, "whatever spiritual beliefs we hold are unimportant and they are all equal paths to material freedom". I am sorry, but this could only come from someone who has not read PoF or has failed to understand every single paragraph of it."

I disagree that PoF has nothing to do with anarchism in the conventional sense of the term. The information and quotes in the OP and the link provided plainly indicate that Steiner considered himself an anarchist in the conventional sense (although I am not denying that Steiner also had a broader understanding of freedom than most anarchists). The resonances with anarchism are also very evident in the emphasis in the latter chapters of PoF on freedom and morality based on inner freedom.

AshvinP wrote:
Steiner is perfectly clear in PoF what he feels will put people on a path to taking care of their own needs AND provide them moral guidance from within, IF they approach it with patience, discpline, and spiritual mood, i.e. an open heart and an open mind, with devotion born of gratitude.

Sure, but he also believes that 'one clears the way for the most independent people by doing away with all force and authority'. Hence, he (in 1898 at least) is against both external and internal authority :

Steiner wrote:
..it is upon force and authority that the present states are founded. The individualist anarchist stands in enmity toward them, because they suppress liberty. He wants nothing but the free, unhindered unfolding of powers.

PoF has nothing to do with belief. Belief in the power of anarchism to harmonize human relations, as opposed to the power of capitalism to do so, is still belief nonetheless, and that always serves to limit the individual power to develop spiritual freedom, i.e. to free his thinking, feeling, and willing from the chains of ignorance, and thereby discover genuine moral imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions which are common to us all. This is what is completely misunderstood about PoF and spiritual science alike... none of it is about belief in that sense and actually goes to great lengths to counter that ingrained mindset, which is natural consequence of denying the current limits of intellectual ego along with the concrete possibility of growing into more Thinking degrees of freedom through the depth structure underlying the phenomenal appearances. This was also illustrated to Eugene on the Matrix thread several times. So now Cleric has summarized this entire aspect of PoF on this thread as well, perhaps in even more accessible and illustrative way than Steiner for the 21st century understanding, so the only question is, will you seriously consider it and the possibility you have misunderstood PoF?

[Ben Iscatus]

Can you elaborate on what the word 'enlightened' means in the above? Does it simply mean "drones which are at peace with being parts of a whole?" in comparison to "drones which are harmonic parts of a whole without even knowing it and thus they think they are being creatively free"?

"Drones" is a very charged word!
But you're right - "enlightened" begs the question. Since I don't see how Earth can ever hold a 100% population of wise souls (or even 50%), then it will be down to Plato's Philosopher king or an educated liberal elite, who'd need to come up with some method of denying power to the barons and imposing a leadership that has the interests of the whole planet at heart. ("Yeah, good luck with that, Ben!")

[AshvinP]

PoF has nothing to do with belief. Belief in the power of anarchism to harmonize human relations, as opposed to the power of capitalism to do so, is still belief nonetheless, and that always serves to limit the individual power to develop spiritual freedom, i.e. to free his thinking, feeling, and willing from the chains of ignorance, and thereby discover genuine moral imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions which are common to us all. This is what is completely misunderstood about PoF and spiritual science alike... none of it is about belief in that sense and actually goes to great lengths to counter that ingrained mindset, which is natural consequence of denying the current limits of intellectual ego along with the concrete possibility of growing into more Thinking degrees of freedom through the depth structure underlying the phenomenal appearances. This was also illustrated to Eugene on the Matrix thread several times. So now Cleric has summarized this entire aspect of PoF on this thread as well, perhaps in even more accessible and illustrative way than Steiner for the 21st century understanding, so the only question is, will you seriously consider it and the possibility you have misunderstood PoF?

I also hope it goes without saying the big difference between disagreeing within Steiner's PoF and misunderstanding it. If one simply admits they disagree with it, then we can continue on to the concrete discussions about why any of this stuff matters, regardless of who the ideas are coming from, as Cleric is clearly trying to steer this towards as well. But if it is assumed one understands it and agrees with it, then there is absolutely nowhere to go from there, except in circles trying to explain where the misunderstanding is, with the other party insisting they have not misunderstood anything. If there is some humility in that regard, then we can continue on to the practical significance or lack of significance of the insights on Thinking that Steiner presents in PoF.

Unfortunately, the activity we are most intimate with in every waking moment of our lives - Thinking - is considered the least practical aspect of our existence, while organized (or not-so-organized) sociopolitical action is considered the most practical. I know the response already - "but you guys only talk about Thinking and ignore the collective active dimension". That response would only make sense if there is some emphasis on Thinking on this forum already, but there is none. Please show me the passage from Berdaeyev, or any other libertarian socialist or anarchist thinker, which parallels the most basic insights on Thinking that Steiner calls attention to in PoF. If there was any emphasis on Thinking as concrete spiritual activity, then such a passage would be easy to find (and not simply quoting something Steiner wrote in PoF).

[Cleric K]

"Drones" is a very charged word!
But you're right - "enlightened" begs the question. Since I don't see how Earth can ever hold a 100% population of wise souls (or even 50%), then it will be down to Plato's Philosopher king or an educated liberal elite, who'd need to come up with some method of denying power to the barons and imposing a leadership that has the interests of the whole planet at heart. ("Yeah, good luck with that, Ben!")

Nothing in evolution works by putting 100% of beings in the same bucket. It's like wanting to have only adults on Earth, without children or old men. There's always gradient of evolving beings. As an analogy, just few centuries ago, being able to read could also be considered privilege of the minority.