Part 3 cont.
"Of course, to consider the workplace, indeed to consider any area of social life, any
human exchange, as somehow entirely devoid of emotion is highly problematic.
Greed, after all, is no less an emotional phenomenon than, say, philanthropy."
Elena: In statements like this one is where we begin to realize the superiority of esoteric systems of knowledge versus traditional knowledge. In the division of functions, the instinctive realm or centre has specific characteristics and although we could affirm that there is no such thing as greed in the animal realm, we can affirm that without consciousness when the human being acts through the ‘prism’ of the instinctive center, there is a characteristic trait to our actions in which the ‘egoness’ is strongly felt and greed, (amongst many other forms of inhuman behavior), or the excessive appropriation of things that people don’t actually need, manifests.
In greed in human beings we find the impulse to own, to keep, to protect for one’s self with a zealousness that we can also recognize in animals when they are protecting their territory. It is an instinctive emotion or what in the system is called the queen of clubs or the emotional part of the instinctive center and it has the capacity to show force, aggression and impose its ‘sovereignty’ over its possessions by killing those who threaten them.
We would live in a very different world if we declared that no one owns anything but what he needs and by that I don’t mean just food and clothing but everything that a human being would need to develop his and herself into a conscious being. In our present times owning in excess gives people the possibility of submitting others to their service, great deal of leisure time, travel opportunities, access to better education, greater production capabilities amongst other things but the whole status quo is based on an economic transaction, that is, an instinctive transaction similar to what animals would do if they were people but we are not animals, we are human beings in a process of actualizing our consciousness as such.
If instead of associating because we are determined by instinctive, economic needs, we organized ourselves to associate not with the mere consciousness of the profit of the association but with the consciousness of the human and natural benefits of the association, we would have to include the instinctive center’s needs, that is, the basic human needs for survival but also the emotional, intellectual and sovereign rights of not only the people but the natural world involved.
It’s ironic that human beings today live from their instinctive centers and yet are not nearly as smart as a cockroach at protecting nature. The destructiveness that characterizes the people of our times does not only reveal the tremendous ignorance of the people in power but the enormous greed that they incarnate in their actions.
The more we look at our world, the clearer it becomes that every realm of our lives from our families, to schools, to military, to work, business, production, show business, etc, etc, etc, are all under the control of instinctive consciousness characterized by the use of authoritarian mechanisms based on hierarchic status quos.
Parents expect to be obeyed because they use force as much as teachers from kindergarden to masters degree only that by the time people reach the masters degree they no longer have anything alive enough to protest the status quo. And in the area of education above all the others, we must be able to look clearly at the methods in which the utterly fascist structure is put in place with teachers who never, ever, ever allow their students to speak and it has become the norm that these teachers are so considered the ultra cum lauden, lauden cum ultra, that they think and act as if only they could have the right to speak while hundreds of students, thousands in a lifetime submit and obey.
What we need to realize with that is not that the teachers might not be actually prepared enough in their field. What we need to realize is that the FORM, the structure that they abide by to convey their knowledge is what produces and reproduces the authoritarian fascist structure of life characteristic of the hierarchic instinctive order of beings. Animals command their lives in such a way and in them it is a question of survival but when that is carried out by human beings, it is conducive to self-destruction. What is right in the animal realm is not right in the human realm. In the human realm such conditioning are performed in such a way that they take everything human away from our lives.
We would then ask why was it right for Kings? I am inclined to believe in Steiner’s interpretation that legitimate monarchy was indeed connected to consciousness and that we needed the guidance and protection that they were able to carry out. I also believe that the consciousness of kings is now accessible to every human being. That we are all sovereign in our world: the human world. That if to be a king is to be dignified is possible to all people especially if the true meaning of dignity is the consciousness of the divine within.
If to be gracious is the quality of kings, I believe every one of us can ingratiate our selves with the different cosmoses within and without our selves and carry the consciousness of all those dimensions with grace which is only the outer expression of our gratitude to higher cosmoses than the one we are presently dwelling in.
If it is the power of kings to be served by others, that power never came from authoritarian rule but from submission through love. Legitimate sovereignty inspires legitimate love and to submit is not submission in the same way in which people are obliged to submit today but the acknowledgement of one’s being in relation to the other. To acknowledge that there are people who are more knowledgeable, more wise, more capable than one’s self in almost every area of life is not to submit one’s self to mistreatment or undermining of one’s sovereign rights. The more wise and knowledgeable the individual, the less authoritarian he and she becomes.
That would brings us to the characteristics of sovereignty, the thin layer in which authority is legitimate or not, we can each deduce that for our selves with what we already know.
No comments:
Post a Comment