9.1 The Criterion for the Essential
Even if one would consider what has been brought forward here with some interest, one could still object that the view represented about the course of an anthroposophical members’ meeting (and all meetings related to this archetype) harbors the danger of supplanting the essential in its course by the non-essential or less essential, and further that the self-complacency devoid of any self-criticism displayed here claims time for itself that should better be spent on more important issues. Hereby one will also base oneself on experience. According to the author’s conviction indicated here, however, one will find another judgment of the matter at hand as possible. For that conviction concerns after all the forming of a common consciousness that Rudolf Steiner since the Christmas Conference, pursuing a motive from his Philosophy of Freedom, designated as one of the main tasks of the Free School and the Society. This consciousness-raising is the pre-condition and effect of the working together of free individuals. It leads to the integration of individualization and generalization, instead of, such as in the case of one-sidedly inward or outward operating forces or their merely external connection, those processes that turn the human being as a last consequence into an earthly specter or gnome, and those other process that as a last consequence has him dissolve into a remembrance community, a sort of ancestral worship, avoiding one another or merely existing next to each other without inner connection. In the sphere of common consciousness that element should therefore be generated that is at the same time individual and super-individual, formed by the earth and born by the power of remembrance and by virtue of the penetration of opposites conscious of the present and inspired by the future. This is the task of our epoch, the great event that it is abiding or dwindling away. In this sense, the dynamism of interest offered and consultative initiative could be the society-framing and community-building event that should form the main content of an anthroposophical members’ meeting and elevate it into a feast. And this is with regard to the position and priority of the essential to be adjudged as a social-pedagogical and social-therapeutic force that will gradually have an effect on the behavior of its members.
This being said, it certainly becomes visible how far the views about the task and the nature of the Society and the Free School (consciousness center) can diverge. This divergence can put one in a serious mood, however, its significance cannot properly be dealt with through lamentation or disparagement. For every truly modern society requires such internal tensions, if it is to live and not die in overactivity or lukewarmness. Some will indeed believe that putting aside all personal interests and sensitivities with regard to the common task will overcome all pressing and divisive issues. They only overlook thereby what significance just they attach to personal interests and sensitivities. For executing a power of disposition in an administrative-technical organizational plan or a declaration of compliance with its concept does in no way say anything about the participation in the forming of a common consciousness and thereby about the affiliation with a modern mystery institution; it is not yet the metamorphosis of the personal in the superpersonal.
9.2 On New Forms of Social Cognitive and Volitional Development
Whoever overcomes the inner and outer inhibitions that oppose the publication of expositions such as these, must realize the degree of misunderstanding to which he is thereby handed over. The author believes, as far as he himself is concerned, to comply with this demand aware of the fact that some will lecture him that it is an equally dubious and ridiculous illusion to claim that through the "mystique" of a common consciousness powers of judgment by the participants in a members' meeting could be conjured up other than those that they already possess through acquired insight and life experience. Such reverie would be nothing less than a kind of by-belief in miracles. Yet such a reproach completely misses the heart of the matter. The formation of a common consciousness will in the beginning not usually lead to changed powers of judgement, but, as has already been pointed out, different moods and dispositions will gradually be developed that can steer the entire formation of judgement in a new direction capable of creating a new climate. Of course, people will even then certainly not be able to avoid errors and mistakes. The naïve infallibility belief that a majority-backed administrative mentality in the exercise of its imperative mandates always unbashfully displays, is absolutely incompatible with the view held here. But the nature of the new formative social impulse of anthroposophy shaping life and society will gradually become ever more consciously understood and adopted; it will in the unity of movement and Society be able to become an increasingly powerful reality.
Anyone who is prepared to familiarize himself with the view expressed here, at least for the time being and as a hypothesis, will recognize that there can be community-building and society-shaping processes which, with full respect for the accepted liberal legal norms, nevertheless add a new meaning and function to them. Seen and maintained in this way, motions submitted in a members' meeting can fulfill a spiritual task and also at the same time one belonging to the sphere of public law. On the other hand, this union of the esoteric and exoteric side of the right of initiative, as justified and demanded by the constitution, would be seriously violated, if the submission and treatment of motions were to be used as an administrative political measure for the formation of a majority by means of which undesired motions were to be removed from the process of shaping society and imperative mandates established. [1]
The willingness to participate in such a process, which in the sense of the "Principles" is socially constituent, presupposes, of course, confidence in one’s ability in spiritually commensurate consultation in general and above all in the preparation and guidance of a meeting and no less confidence in the receptivity for the truth among the advisers as well as the confidence for the fact that a reality-based consultation will even develop, as it were, a subterranean effect, when it is initially misunderstood or not at all heard consciously.
Even independent from the viewpoint considered as essential here, it could be clear that the problem arising from the incorporation of the right of initiative into the "Principles" of the General Anthroposophical Society cannot be solved by eliminating or suppressing the right to submit motions. However, this is attempted if, by means of corporate law forms of majorization, the public nature of the Anthroposophical Society (which is very well compatible with the most sensitive protection of its internal sphere) is to be suspended, by eliminating the right of initiative or at least its society-shaping effect. To confuse initiatives that are free as well as respectful of the freedom of the other with imperative mandates reveals, as has already been described in the foregoing, a dubious misunderstanding of the matter at hand. Here again, it should be stressed however that initiative cannot be manifested through an imperative command or decree, but only by means of productive reformation and revaluation, - that a presumed or actual compulsion directed against it [i.e. against productive reformation and revaluation] cannot be repudiated by means of administrative measures and implementation rules confirmed by political majorization, but only by a cognitive contribution to the formation of a common consciousness, which should turn a members’ meeting run and guided in a modern spirit into a meaningful event; only that can grant it the right to exist with regard to the main demand of our time.
If the abolition or far-reaching restriction of the right of initiative were to be implemented, then one in this way would itself use that as basis for what one rejects and exert coercion on the members, which the Council of the Society claims to keep out of the Society by being subject to it in its basic convictions. In contrast to the openness character of the Anthroposophical Society, in contrast to the task of developing consciousness and in contrast to the task of unifying both, that is to say, the union of the esoteric and the exoteric, one would blow up the problem instead of solving it and only achieve thereby that the splinters appear in new forms. As opposed to this, as has already explained from several points of view, public law can, with careful respect to its spiritual content, be applied in the life of the Anthroposophical Society according to its inherent creative power. The same applies to every other form of social life in which the old and the new must meet.
Rudolf Steiner has pointed out that the current democratic forms that underlie the development of social impulses are decisive as long as it is not yet possible to draw new principles of social design from the spiritual life. It would not yet be possible to speak about this new element "now" (that is, at the time of this statement made before the Christmas Conference). Since the Christmas Conference, however, one can speak of this new element, even though, in view of the current thinking habits, this must be associated with no few disadvantages for the speaker. After all, he exposes himself to the misunderstandings and resistance of all sorts of conventional attitudes. The new principle of community-building and society-shaping was given as an archetype by the Christmas Conference not as the termination but as the fulfilment of public law in the unity of movement and Society, of the esoteric and the exoteric. During the members' meeting of the year 1972, many members of the Anthroposophical Society, by leaving the great hall of the Goetheanum made it clear that they did not intend to endorse this loss of unity of the esoteric and the exoteric, which at that time threatened to assume an acute mode of appearance. Through this free act they have carried on the inner principle of unity of the General Anthroposophical Society, freedom in community and community in freedom, an act that is of the utmost importance for the spiritual continuity of the Society. These members have thus done the greatest conceivable service to the Council of the Goetheanum as well as to the rest of the members.
Of course, one can only stammer here about the blessing of the new formative force of community life of mankind. The active endeavor to evoke these formative forces, the effect of which is to unite the Anthroposophical Society and Movement, could however be the social meditation proclaimed by the deed, which discloses the secret that prevails here, and that is destined to expand its impact on all walks of social life. If the creation of a transcendental universal human being in a knowledge community were to be taken up as a task, it could mark the beginning of a new pronouncement of the primordial word, indicated by the beginning of the Gospel of John. That primal word contains a language that was given to all as a gift of their own, which nevertheless was spoken by everyone in a completely individual manner. Obviously, the pursuit of fulfilling this task can in the beginning only be very imperfect, but it can awaken and keep awake the seriousness without which there is no spiritual continuity of the Anthroposophical Society and no newly emerging communities through the metamorphosis of consciousness. In addition, it can save anyone seeking real progress from self-deception with regard to the value of what is usually estimated to be progress or even to be a definitive fixed form in a certain area, in which there can only be movement. In no other area is the culture of versatile thoughts and elastic decisions such an equally indispensable condition, - in no other area, however, can the "boldness of the idea" enjoy greater and more careful respect for its severity in our willingness to assume responsibility.
____________________________
[1] The more precise social-scientific investigation of a procedure that deviates from the "Principles" of the Anthroposophical Society by abolishing the right of initiative, is not appropriate here and must be done elsewhere. However, it has become clear here that the consequence of this approach is the complete abolition of the rights of minorities, as it removes the basis for their claim to hear and be heard, for exchanging opinions as well as for expressing consent and rejection.
9.3 On the Question of Meetings of Delegates
What is sketched here will be clarified further by delving into another question. The explanations that are possible in this regard, however, need to be supplemented even more than before. The issue at hand concerns changing the members' meeting of the General Anthroposophical Society into a meeting of delegates, an issue that has recently gained the interest of many members. Also in the considerations and decisions about this problem, the different points of view with regard to the Free School and the Society clearly stand out. This issue is therefore equally suitable for clarifying the sketch drawn here.
It is once again quite obvious to advance the argument, corresponding to habits of thought, for changing the members' meeting to a meeting of delegates that, where voting can be done at all, those entitled to vote should possess sufficient background knowledge and have amply proven to be capable of forming clear judgements. It is often believed hereby that the voting process only relates to questions of law, while spiritual questions should remain outside the sphere where voting takes place. A great deal has already been noted about this in the foregoing. However, it must also be said here that this distinction between legal and cognitive questions with respect to the question whether they can be put to the vote or not appears incomprehensible. After all, legal questions are cognitive questions, because clarity about them can only be provided with the aid of thinking. The acquisition of knowledge in this area is one of the most difficult matters that exist at all and is of the utmost consequence for the public interest. This should be clear to anyone with any healthy common sense, even if one is not familiar with the ideas of Rudolf Steiner pertaining to this question. Insofar as clarification on legal questions, as all other spiritual questions, is only possible by means of thinking, it is therefore part of the interaction between the interest shown by members and the advisory initiative by the Council at a members' meeting. A decision that is possibly to be taken by the meeting concerns therefore not this elucidation, but, as is the case with all other spiritual questions, the willingness or either unwillingness – depending on whether the clarification was achieved or not – to make the jointly conceived deliberation the basis for one's own actions and to also express this. This controversial question cannot be delved into far enough here. In order to avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted in the meantime that the characteristics of the sphere of rights are by no means misunderstood by what is put forward. This is based on the fact that a show of recognition and willingness, which is combined with intuitions pertaining to rights, describes the domain in which the conduct and actions of entire groups of people should occur in a long-term consistency. Within a knowledge community, however, any cognitive problem can at any time acquire the meaning of such a rights-forming factor motivated by joint action and fulfilling the specific field of application.
Another argument in favor of the delegation model is seen in the prevention of geographical majorization and the predominance of their specific interests. Yet the historical and karmic significance of such local majorities will only be assessed as being slight if, on the one hand, the not merely group-related interest of the members and their unselfish initiatives are disdained and, on the other hand, the formative forces of an anthroposophical members’ meeting, like any other modern general meeting, is only judged from administrative-political points of view and not as the wings of the spirit on the individual consciousness carriers. For the rest, this argument is hardly important in view of the current traffic conditions and certainly not if one trusts in the consciousness-raising dignity of an anthroposophical (or any other) members’ meeting. Obviously, this trust is only justified, if one is willing to break with everything that is connected with the administrative nature of associations) and if one has the courage to face the difficulties (by no means underestimated by the author) that are inevitable at the beginning of such a break.
As stated above, an extensive treatment of this issue is not possible in this publication and it is therefore not the intention to compile a compendium of all the arguments and counter-arguments in this case. Since the problem was only raised in order to clarify the already developed view of the nature of the Free School and the Society, the main argument under consideration here will presently be aired. It is namely put forward that it is only in the case of delegation that the whole Society could be represented in a voting process. And this, since it concerns a questions of rights, would be absolutely necessary, because these questions are of concern to all. The doubtfulness of this additional argument will not be dealt with again, especially since the concern for total representation affects every important process within the Society. Instead, the essential that in connection with this study is continually present is to be pointed to, namely to the fundamental difference that results from the assessment of the present questions, depending on whether the administrative-technical building of frameworks or the development of a social-organic process is regarded as constitutionally valid.
Now, without a doubt, representation (of the living being Anthroposophia and modern consciousness-based community-building) is a constitutionally valid basic element of the events in the Society and of membership in the Free School. In this sense, the participants of the process of refoundation of the Christmas Conference were delegates and they became such in the sense and to the extent of their participation in the enhanced meaning of representation. As a standing conference, the Christmas Conference is predisposed to constantly prove its activity from the same foundations, to always prepare itself anew and to repeat itself archetypically (as an eternal entity in alternation of appearances) at the annual members’ meetings. That is why delegation and representation in the sense of the Christmas Conference are part of the constitutive elements of an anthroposophical members’ meeting. In the meantime, there is hardly a participant in a members' meeting that does not in one way or another, as a delegate and representative, express his interest and initiative to like-minded spirits. The level of awareness and determination with which this lives in him will certainly vary from case to case. But it cannot be denied that participation in a members' meeting in reality ever happens other than in harmony with kindred spirits. In this respect it is not at all decisive whether this harmony manifests itself in certain commissions, in feelings of common responsibility or only by working on the same problems and in nurturing related convictions. However, it is easy to recognize that in this lively process of delegation and representation, the basic social-organic nature of the Society does not expresses itself yet as a fully conscious formative event, but that with the conscious decision to form a common consciousness it wants to achieve a free and completely developed form of manifestation through a constitutionally valid members' meeting. As a fellow bearer of common consciousness, the liturgical blessing of which Rudolf Steiner wanted to spread through the Christmas Conference and the social-formative events taking place within this domain, everyone is a delegate and representative, because all are delegates and representatives of this common consciousness of the living entity Anthroposophia (of the spiritually living being of a modern society).
Without the lively events brought about by this process of delegation, a modern society cannot live and work in the sense of these deliberations, and its members’ meetings would lack all seriousness and dignity, indeed, they would amount to nothing more than fictional veils hiding nothing, as no spiritual reality would offer to connect itself to their outer sheaths. However, it is of the utmost importance for the view on this social-organic life-process, that an organ of perception be opened in it for the merging of spontaneous decisions and for the effective preparation of destiny in the depth of historical events. The openness for the given situation is thereby the decisive factor.
There is therefore hardly any more effective means of inhibiting this vital process of society- shaping and community-building than the attempt through a decision based on the law of associations to straitjacket it in administrative frameworks; there are similarly few interventions that would extend deeper into the spiritual foundations of a modern society (such as the anthroposophical one) than the loss of trust in the destiny above us and the freedom of insight in us connected with the delegation bureaucracy. In the light of this, it should not be decided to replace a public mystery with an officialese competency without looking up to the highest orientational goals of responsibility. Rudolf Steiner's reference to the delegation modus as a possibility is, of course, to be understood in the sense of the Christmas Conference, not as the recommendation for bureaucratization, but as the reference to a vital process that in the given moment of the history of the Society, drawing from its evolutionary source, can take shape in a specific form. It would even be more questionable, if a members' meeting in the form of a meeting of delegates were not to be organized in a clearly institutionalized form, thus judgeable for all, but veiled and therefore unnoticed by many, in such a way that all points on the agenda would be occupied with the votes of designated or desirable representatives, thereby leaving no or very limited space within the remaining time available for those defending other views – as such the stamp of a certain concept would be put on the whole members’ meeting (such as may be associated with an administrative mindset), instead that it would awaken the free interplay of forces and their surprising modes of appearance. It hardly needs to be emphasized that such a lively course of events can unfold in a most rewarding manner, when a significant and contemporary general theme is given to the members' meeting.
What speaks for the formation of an elite of delegates as a protective feature of an administrative framework offering a certain freedom within its limits has already been discussed. The author is not at all blind to the advantages of such an institutionalization of the delegation process. He also believes that an understanding between defenders and champions of this view in mutual openness is indeed possible, since an institutionalization of a temporary nature for certain areas of knowledge in the sense of consultation and decision-making power also seems to be worth considering – as long as the fundamental delegation model is not lost sight of and put out of action. For modern social life requires that all aspirations coming forward with a strong commitment from real convictions in this area seek mutual rapprochement. There is undoubtedly a social scientific and social formative task here. In the present context, it was only possible through an at least sketchy treatment to make a contribution to the alternative of the administrative-technical building of frameworks and the social-organic development of consciousness.
It may be added that it is not unknown to the author that such groups and working communities that gave and give a real contribution to the advancement of culture (or were and are able as well to effectively prevent this), were and are always led by elites and their exemplary representatives.
This argument, however, loses its significance against the formation of the new social organic consciousness advocated here, if it engages itself in the institutionalization of the elitist influence. For this influence only then arises and from the live-and-let-live founts of freedom, if it results from the self-confirming productivity of the deed. To always recognize and accept such an influence, which time and again arises from the unforeseeable future, to further and adopt it in one’s own educational aspirations and advance it from there, will be the main requirement of a modern consciousness community. For in nothing else will those jointly striving towards a true goal, while becoming more conscious of the dignity of their fellow man and their own, know themselves to be connected, than in respect for the achievements of creative individualities. On the other hand, nothing is more unworthy than the misunderstanding and contempt of real productivity.
At the end of this section it may be worthwhile to examine whether or not the capacity of a common consciousness to represent all, even in the physical presence of only a few, is not necessarily confronted with the delegation as a framework institution that, in spite of the best intention to represent all, runs the risk of actually representing no one. For it is not the delegation institute, but the lively delegation event that decides historically and karmically about the presence of the spirit of the consciousness of society, which is something universal and at the same time borne by the individual knowledge of free human beings.
9.4 Rudolf Steiners Greatest Work
By means of what was developed here, the (no doubt inadequate) attempt was to be made to create an understanding of how the ‘Principles’ of the general Anthroposophical Society, which are closely connected to the constitution of the Free School, can be viewed as a unique design of the most modern forms of cohabitation and cooperation. The ‘Principles’ and the ‘Constitution’ are an intimate appeal to our cognitive faculty thereby strongly encouraging us to gradually develop a mode of conduct and action corresponding to their inner nature. How unfamiliar this principal and constitutional element is to us, this living rhythmic exchange between the societal organs meeting each other in mutual respect, namely the General Assembly on the one hand and the School represented by the Council on the other, how much we are still caught up in routine notions about that what needs to happen, how little we are open for new developments that want to emerge and how great the danger is during the processes of social formation to give priority to the administrative-political setting up of frame works instead of the evolutionary happenings of cognitive clearance and consciousness society, all of that the general assemblies of the Anthroposophical Society of the last few years have painfully brought to light. They could convey the insight that with respect to the greatest work of Rudolf Steiner, his inauguration of a knowledge society and thereby the foundation of the new Christian mysteries as well as a principle of civilization derived therefrom, the same thing applies as to his other works. These are everywhere completely transparent, but yet their grounds are nowhere to be reached, for they are created from the deepest spiritual foundations. Therefore their first level of active understanding is nothing else than the entrance to a further level – and in this way the acquaintance with this work is continued from entrance to entrance, from transition to transition while constantly gaining new perspectives, whereby every acquired insight can become a problem and every problem an insight. Whoever does not go along in this evolutionary dynamic by transforming his own consciousness, robs himself of the cognitive jewels that Rudolf Steiner has lit up in front of him. Therefore we should also take the ‘Principles’ and the constitution of the Free School, the understanding of which brings the refoundation of the mysteries and thereby the culture of our epoch into view, not too lightly and while in the course of acquiring and handling them not be satisfied with the initial attempt to do so. The remarks of the author are meant to create an understanding for the task character of the ‘Principles’ and their related cognitive fields, the acquisition of which is confronted with a reservoir of problems for a whole epoch. Should everything brought forward here turn out to be insufficient, yet through their inherent disposition have created by some readers an understanding of the magnitude and the richness of the problems as well as the readiness to live in research and action with them, the author would have considered his efforts to be rewarded.”
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten