“Look at any process you please. I throw a stone in a horizontal direction. It moves in a curved line and falls to earth after a time. I see the stone at successive moments in different places, after it has first cost me a certain amount of effort to throw it. Through my thinking contemplation I gain the following. During its motion the stone is under the influence of several factors. If it were only under the influence of the propulsion I gave it in throwing it, it would go on forever, in a straight line, in fact, without changing its velocity. But now the earth exerts an influence upon it which one calls gravity. If, without propelling it away from me, I had simply let go of it, it would have fallen straight to the ground, and in doing so its velocity would have increased continuously. Out of the reciprocal workings of these two influences there arises what actually happens. Those are all thought-considerations that I bring to what would offer itself to me without any thinking contemplation.
In this way we have in every cognitive process an element that would present itself to us even without any thinking contemplation, and another element that we can gain only through such thinking contemplation. When we have then gained both elements, it is clear to us that they belong together. A process runs its course in accordance with the laws that I gain about it through my thinking. The fact that for me the two elements are separated and are joined together by my cognition is my affair. The process does not bother about this separation and joining. From this it follows, however, that the activity of knowing is altogether my affair. Something that I bring about solely for my own sake. Yet another factor enters in here now. The things and processes would never, out of themselves, give me what I gain about them through my thinking contemplation. Out of themselves they give me, in fact, what I possess without that contemplation. It has already been stated in this essay that I take out of myself what I see in the things as their deepest being. The thoughts I make for myself about the things, these I produce out of my own inner being. They nevertheless belong to the things, as has been shown. The essential being of the things does not therefore come to me from them, but rather from me. My content is their essential being. I would never come to ask about the essential being of the things at all if I did not find present within me something I designate as this essential being of the things, designate as what belongs to them, but designate as what they do not give me out of themselves, but rather what I can take only out of myself.
Within the cognitive process I receive the essential being of the things from out of myself. I therefore have the essential being of the world within myself. Consequently I also have my own essential being within myself. With other things two factors appear to me: a process without its essential being and the essential being through me. With myself, process and essential being are identical. I draw forth the essential being of all the rest of the world out of myself, and I also draw forth my own essential being from myself.
Now my action is a part of the general world happening. It therefore has its essential being as much within me as all other happenings. To seek the laws of human action means, therefore, to draw them forth out of the content of the “I.” Just as the believer in God traces the laws of his actions back to the will of his God, so the person who has attained the insight that the essential being of all things lies within the “I” can also find the laws of his action only within the “I.” If the “I” has really penetrated into the essential nature of its action, it then feels itself to be the ruler of this action. As long as we believe in a world-being foreign to us, the laws of our action also stand over against us as foreign. They rule us; what we accomplish stands under the compulsion they exercise over us. If they are transformed from such foreign beings into our “I’s” primally own doing, then this compulsion ceases. That which compels has become our own being. The lawfulness no longer rules over us, but rather rules within us over the happenings that issue from our “I.” To bring about a process by virtue of a lawfulness standing outside the doer is an act of inner unfreedom; to do so out of the doer himself is an act of inner freedom. To give oneself the laws of one’s actions out of oneself means to act as a free individual.
The consideration of the cognitive process shows the human being that he can find the laws of his action only within himself. * To comprehend the “I” in thinking means to create the basis for founding everything that comes from the “I” also upon the “I” alone. The “I” that understands itself can make itself dependent upon nothing other than itself. And it can be answerable to no one but itself. After these expositions it seems almost superfluous to say that with this “I” only the incarnate real “I” of the individual person is meant and not any general “I” abstracted from it. For any such general “I” can indeed be gained from the real “I” only by abstraction. It is thus dependent upon the real individual. (Benj. R. Tucker and J. H. Mackay also advocate the same direction in thought and view of life out of which my two above-mentioned books have arisen. See Tucker’s Instead of a Book and Mackay’s The Anarchists”
Elena: Is this Steiner at his best? “To bring about a process by virtue of a lawfulness standing outside the doer is an act of inner unfreedom; to do so out of the doer himself is an act of inner freedom. To give oneself the laws of one’s actions out of oneself means to act as a free individual.”
This could not be more beautiful! I could not agree with it more fully but here Steiner is talking about a mature I, a developed man, one who can trace his fate all the way through his karma and in that karma, does not avoid responsibility for everything that happens to him. No one has practically understood that better than Steiner, that is why his System of knowledge is called Anthroposophy and even his System is being dogmatized and misused to reinforce separations by many an anthroposophist. The understanding of individuality does not exclude the understanding of unity amongst all beings. That is what you and I have been disagreeing about Ton. The stronger the individual, the more freedom he experiences from the struggles of his time but that freedom does not mean that he excludes his self from them but that he suffers through them and brings his own light to them. It is not by running away from mankind that the individual matures but from embracing it whole that he himself becomes the man that he has the potential to be. Human beings are different, each one has their own destiny to fulfill but they are equal in their humanity. An individual's superiority does not reside in his or her power and position but in his capacity to "love". That is why men who have had that love have been religious leaders and not politicians. Mankind today needs that all men and women reunite love and power in everyday life, religion and politics and their expression in science and art, so that the sole power of politicians does not reign over their lives.
Going back to the text, is Steiner not basically submitting the intellectual center or the mind or knowledge to the I and establishing its power and their connection? Does that mean that the individual and mankind are separate or does it mean that what Steiner needed to challenge in his time was the same tendency to follow authorities like the Church that Stirner was rightfully protesting against? “The thoughts I make for myself about the things, these I produce out of my own inner being. They nevertheless belong to the things, as has been shown. The essential being of the things does not therefore come to me from them, but rather from me. My content is their essential being. I would never come to ask about the essential being of the things at all if I did not find present within me something I designate as this essential being of the things, designate as what belongs to them, but designate as what they do not give me out of themselves, but rather what I can take only out of myself.” Elena: Is Steiner not saying that I can take the being of the things only out of myself because we are part and parcel of the whole? Let's repeat:
"I would never come to ask about the essential being of the things at all if I did not find present within me something I designate as this essential being of the things",
Is he not also including the idea that I can only perceive the being of other things according to my own “level of being”? and if he’s not, I would argue that that would be the case so what he states about what we know about other things depends solely on the place in our own selves from where we are looking at them. If we are not ourselves “whole” how could we perceive the wholeness of the world?
A child comes into this world “embedded” in other people and is strongly determined by these people throughout the first period of life. These people actualize for the individual the reality of being human in that particular period of time. As the child grows up he and she develops an outer psychological skin that will help him “participate” in the “current” of his times. This outer skin is not the individual but the “natural” response of the individuals to his environment. It “looks” like individuality but every act is conditioned by what that individual has received from others. There is no individuality until there is a mature I.
Individuality does not mean that one can protest every human enterprise for the sake of one’s selfish pleasure as Stirner proposes but that one can embrace every human enterprise and move far beyond it into the spirit that gave life to it. What I am protesting about the status quo is not the legitimate effort that men of all times have done to improve the living conditions for themselves as much as their contemporaries, what I am protesting about the status quo, is the conviction people have that humaneness, is only for the few in power and by power I don’t mean those with money, I mean those with positions of power who use it to abuse their privileges in every single institution. What matters today is not only how money is distributed but how “life giving life” is distributed: Life, culture: the creative power in each human being: the I itself, the right to be and participate without having to pay the price of submission for being under every self-imposed authority that thinks that being the doorman allows him or her to mistreat the public and from the doorman to the boss there is no difference in the inhumanity we are witnessing. There is no individuality until an individual comes into contact with his own self and when an individual does that, he confronts himself with his humanity. There is not one great man or woman that can mistreat another. The self and with it, the creative power of an individual is far from disconnected to other individuals. The individual is in a permanent and necessary dialogue between his and her self and others. You cannot isolate the individual from the rest of mankind and expect him to “create”. We are at the dawn of “creation” and the death of “the job”. The purpose of life is not to “work” but to create!
When the individual “grows up” enough to “digest” the “life” that s/he’s been “imbued” with, s/he’s not only capable of connecting to his self but to the reality of the world and the “time” in which s/he has “matured”. You cannot isolate one from the other and still pretend to understand either one. There is no society without individuals nor individuals without society. No individual is independent of his time and no individual is subject to his time all of his life. It is the power of his and her individuality what frees him from his time’s conditionings and in that freedom s/he propels a regenerative process that imbues the whole of mankind. Every single human being has this power of generation and regeneration within his and her self. Every life is a “miracle” not only for the individual living it but for all of mankind “receiving” from it. Each human being is a “gift” to all others. That is why life, each life, is sacred. We do not honor our selves when we submit each other to inhuman conditions thinking we have more “rights” than others justified by our position or imaginary “status”.
The time is now O:OO It’ll be good to rest! Thank you again for the opportunity to look at what I see. Hopefully you will see better what you wish to look at.
In this way we have in every cognitive process an element that would present itself to us even without any thinking contemplation, and another element that we can gain only through such thinking contemplation. When we have then gained both elements, it is clear to us that they belong together. A process runs its course in accordance with the laws that I gain about it through my thinking. The fact that for me the two elements are separated and are joined together by my cognition is my affair. The process does not bother about this separation and joining. From this it follows, however, that the activity of knowing is altogether my affair. Something that I bring about solely for my own sake. Yet another factor enters in here now. The things and processes would never, out of themselves, give me what I gain about them through my thinking contemplation. Out of themselves they give me, in fact, what I possess without that contemplation. It has already been stated in this essay that I take out of myself what I see in the things as their deepest being. The thoughts I make for myself about the things, these I produce out of my own inner being. They nevertheless belong to the things, as has been shown. The essential being of the things does not therefore come to me from them, but rather from me. My content is their essential being. I would never come to ask about the essential being of the things at all if I did not find present within me something I designate as this essential being of the things, designate as what belongs to them, but designate as what they do not give me out of themselves, but rather what I can take only out of myself.
Within the cognitive process I receive the essential being of the things from out of myself. I therefore have the essential being of the world within myself. Consequently I also have my own essential being within myself. With other things two factors appear to me: a process without its essential being and the essential being through me. With myself, process and essential being are identical. I draw forth the essential being of all the rest of the world out of myself, and I also draw forth my own essential being from myself.
Now my action is a part of the general world happening. It therefore has its essential being as much within me as all other happenings. To seek the laws of human action means, therefore, to draw them forth out of the content of the “I.” Just as the believer in God traces the laws of his actions back to the will of his God, so the person who has attained the insight that the essential being of all things lies within the “I” can also find the laws of his action only within the “I.” If the “I” has really penetrated into the essential nature of its action, it then feels itself to be the ruler of this action. As long as we believe in a world-being foreign to us, the laws of our action also stand over against us as foreign. They rule us; what we accomplish stands under the compulsion they exercise over us. If they are transformed from such foreign beings into our “I’s” primally own doing, then this compulsion ceases. That which compels has become our own being. The lawfulness no longer rules over us, but rather rules within us over the happenings that issue from our “I.” To bring about a process by virtue of a lawfulness standing outside the doer is an act of inner unfreedom; to do so out of the doer himself is an act of inner freedom. To give oneself the laws of one’s actions out of oneself means to act as a free individual.
The consideration of the cognitive process shows the human being that he can find the laws of his action only within himself. * To comprehend the “I” in thinking means to create the basis for founding everything that comes from the “I” also upon the “I” alone. The “I” that understands itself can make itself dependent upon nothing other than itself. And it can be answerable to no one but itself. After these expositions it seems almost superfluous to say that with this “I” only the incarnate real “I” of the individual person is meant and not any general “I” abstracted from it. For any such general “I” can indeed be gained from the real “I” only by abstraction. It is thus dependent upon the real individual. (Benj. R. Tucker and J. H. Mackay also advocate the same direction in thought and view of life out of which my two above-mentioned books have arisen. See Tucker’s Instead of a Book and Mackay’s The Anarchists”
Elena: Is this Steiner at his best? “To bring about a process by virtue of a lawfulness standing outside the doer is an act of inner unfreedom; to do so out of the doer himself is an act of inner freedom. To give oneself the laws of one’s actions out of oneself means to act as a free individual.”
This could not be more beautiful! I could not agree with it more fully but here Steiner is talking about a mature I, a developed man, one who can trace his fate all the way through his karma and in that karma, does not avoid responsibility for everything that happens to him. No one has practically understood that better than Steiner, that is why his System of knowledge is called Anthroposophy and even his System is being dogmatized and misused to reinforce separations by many an anthroposophist. The understanding of individuality does not exclude the understanding of unity amongst all beings. That is what you and I have been disagreeing about Ton. The stronger the individual, the more freedom he experiences from the struggles of his time but that freedom does not mean that he excludes his self from them but that he suffers through them and brings his own light to them. It is not by running away from mankind that the individual matures but from embracing it whole that he himself becomes the man that he has the potential to be. Human beings are different, each one has their own destiny to fulfill but they are equal in their humanity. An individual's superiority does not reside in his or her power and position but in his capacity to "love". That is why men who have had that love have been religious leaders and not politicians. Mankind today needs that all men and women reunite love and power in everyday life, religion and politics and their expression in science and art, so that the sole power of politicians does not reign over their lives.
Going back to the text, is Steiner not basically submitting the intellectual center or the mind or knowledge to the I and establishing its power and their connection? Does that mean that the individual and mankind are separate or does it mean that what Steiner needed to challenge in his time was the same tendency to follow authorities like the Church that Stirner was rightfully protesting against? “The thoughts I make for myself about the things, these I produce out of my own inner being. They nevertheless belong to the things, as has been shown. The essential being of the things does not therefore come to me from them, but rather from me. My content is their essential being. I would never come to ask about the essential being of the things at all if I did not find present within me something I designate as this essential being of the things, designate as what belongs to them, but designate as what they do not give me out of themselves, but rather what I can take only out of myself.” Elena: Is Steiner not saying that I can take the being of the things only out of myself because we are part and parcel of the whole? Let's repeat:
"I would never come to ask about the essential being of the things at all if I did not find present within me something I designate as this essential being of the things",
Is he not also including the idea that I can only perceive the being of other things according to my own “level of being”? and if he’s not, I would argue that that would be the case so what he states about what we know about other things depends solely on the place in our own selves from where we are looking at them. If we are not ourselves “whole” how could we perceive the wholeness of the world?
A child comes into this world “embedded” in other people and is strongly determined by these people throughout the first period of life. These people actualize for the individual the reality of being human in that particular period of time. As the child grows up he and she develops an outer psychological skin that will help him “participate” in the “current” of his times. This outer skin is not the individual but the “natural” response of the individuals to his environment. It “looks” like individuality but every act is conditioned by what that individual has received from others. There is no individuality until there is a mature I.
Individuality does not mean that one can protest every human enterprise for the sake of one’s selfish pleasure as Stirner proposes but that one can embrace every human enterprise and move far beyond it into the spirit that gave life to it. What I am protesting about the status quo is not the legitimate effort that men of all times have done to improve the living conditions for themselves as much as their contemporaries, what I am protesting about the status quo, is the conviction people have that humaneness, is only for the few in power and by power I don’t mean those with money, I mean those with positions of power who use it to abuse their privileges in every single institution. What matters today is not only how money is distributed but how “life giving life” is distributed: Life, culture: the creative power in each human being: the I itself, the right to be and participate without having to pay the price of submission for being under every self-imposed authority that thinks that being the doorman allows him or her to mistreat the public and from the doorman to the boss there is no difference in the inhumanity we are witnessing. There is no individuality until an individual comes into contact with his own self and when an individual does that, he confronts himself with his humanity. There is not one great man or woman that can mistreat another. The self and with it, the creative power of an individual is far from disconnected to other individuals. The individual is in a permanent and necessary dialogue between his and her self and others. You cannot isolate the individual from the rest of mankind and expect him to “create”. We are at the dawn of “creation” and the death of “the job”. The purpose of life is not to “work” but to create!
When the individual “grows up” enough to “digest” the “life” that s/he’s been “imbued” with, s/he’s not only capable of connecting to his self but to the reality of the world and the “time” in which s/he has “matured”. You cannot isolate one from the other and still pretend to understand either one. There is no society without individuals nor individuals without society. No individual is independent of his time and no individual is subject to his time all of his life. It is the power of his and her individuality what frees him from his time’s conditionings and in that freedom s/he propels a regenerative process that imbues the whole of mankind. Every single human being has this power of generation and regeneration within his and her self. Every life is a “miracle” not only for the individual living it but for all of mankind “receiving” from it. Each human being is a “gift” to all others. That is why life, each life, is sacred. We do not honor our selves when we submit each other to inhuman conditions thinking we have more “rights” than others justified by our position or imaginary “status”.
The time is now O:OO It’ll be good to rest! Thank you again for the opportunity to look at what I see. Hopefully you will see better what you wish to look at.
No comments:
Post a Comment