To further develop and help institute (among other things) this new science of world economy Rudolf Steiner and his associates in 1923 refounded the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, Switzerland on the basis of the meso-social form of the new constitutional principe of civilization. As stated in the first of 15 articles, it was to be a “Union of people who wish to cultivate the life of soul in the individual as well as in human society on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world.”[1]
This independent civic society and
its many branches in the world, including Russia, America, Japan France and
England, with its R&D centre the Goetheanum, was (and still is) thus faced
with the twofold unique challenge of, on the one hand, implementing the meso-social form of this new constitutional
principle of civilization as laid down in its statutes (later called
principles)[2]
with the distinct goal to become, as Rudolf Steiner said, the most modern of
all possible societies[3],
and, on the other hand, as indicated, of further developing the macro-social form of this new social
organic paradigm from the Course on World Economy.
And again, it is the ground-breaking
research done by Herbert Witzenmann that first brought to light this conceptional
correlation between the macro- and the meso-social form, this unifying theory
of social organics. The motivation for the fact that indeed the constitution of
the newly founded Anthroposophical Society is one of a threefold social
organism on a meso-social level, he publicised in his first study entitled Charter of Humanity - The Principles of the
General Anthroposophical Society[4] of a series of four “Social Aesthetic Studies
for the Spiritualization of the Principle of Civilization” for which he wrote
an introduction entitled The Creation of
an Overworld that ends as follows: “If our world does not substitute its superstition of utilitarianism for
enthusiasm for beauty, it will encircle itself with an ever higher – and hence
more and more in danger of collapsing – robot-gigantism, and at the same time
undermine itself with the horror of modern dreariness. The only practical
approach is the aesthetic one. He who counters that life must be lived before
it can be draped with the blossoms of beauty may put up with the answer that it
would be more consequent to depart from such a senseless life that debases
itself in yielding to its fascination of fear and greed, instead of grasping
the spur of its dignity.”
After showing in the first study of
this series that of the 15 statutes, later called principles, 7 are outwardly
directed, 7 inwardly directed and 4 are double middle statutes connecting the
outer (or image) with the inner (or
identity) through style, he formulates this threefoldness as follows (again in my translation), “This
arrangement can be regarded from the
viewpoint that the ‘Principles’ are intended to be the form and expression of
the life of a free community. Such a free society bears witness in a modern
sense to itself and to the world through that already indicated unity of the
outer and the inner. Rudolf Steiner also spoke of the meaning of this unity in
connection with the new way of designing artistic forms out of which the [first]
Goetheanum building arose. Had the Goetheanum been built in styles
corresponding to artistic formative forces of earlier era’s, the
Anthroposophical Society would, as Rudolf Steiner expressed it, have manifested
itself as a sect. Only a community that out of its inner life develops its
modes of expression is a free and modern one, because it presents itself out of
its creative inner origin to the world by the evidence of its deeds. In an
architectural shell adopted from external sources, such a community could only
lead an aloof and isolated existence. Impotence in architectural design would
therefore be indicative of an even greater disability. Building a free
community is a question of style. It is a question of styling, of artistic
steadfastness and social aesthetic security in design how – equally untouched
by sectarian and fanatical refusal on the one hand and by political collaboration
on the other – a community shows itself in its positive self-representation and
defensive delineation to be what it is.
If a
free community, evolving its own style in this fashion, is to organize and
manifest itself through the spirit-like penetration of the outer with the
inner, it needs a center connecting both these polarities. This center, in as
far as it is a true center, relates itself to these polarities as a
rhythmically changing transition, which it itself provides. This allows the
center to become a kind of organ of perception for the connection between the
polarities as well as for their differences and the course of their evolving
union.
A
free community can neither be a corporate body nor a personified organization;
it can only manifest itself as the super-personal reality of a common free
consciousness such as can be formed in a knowledge community that is aware of
an experiential free play zone between the spiritual and the sense-worlds.
Super-personality hereby does not mean extinction of individual consciousness
and autonomy in a reality of a different sort. It is, on the contrary, the
common consciousness within the same striving for knowledge by associates
becoming aware of the presence of a universal spirituality that is, although
equal, only to be fathomed individually in the way that this is realized in
every individually enacted experience of a spiritual content.
Such
a unity of the esoteric and the exoteric, of the universal and the particular,
linked by a rhythmic center, a beating heart, a streaming breath, can only
bring its full reality to bear in a community since the founding of
Christianity. For only through the fact that the mystery concerning the
incarnation of the spiritual and the transubstantiation of the physical in the
course of life of a God-become-man has been made public, has it become possible
that the inner and outer, mystery wisdom and public life, be the manifestations
of one and the same being. Henceforth every modern community creating in free
individual wakefulness the style of its outer appearance is a Christian
one. It cannot by solemn vow be bound
according to plan, program or dogma onto principles of its existence, but only
be called upon and encouraged to become ever more aware of its never-ending task
of progressive self-realization. For that reason the ‘principles’ of a truly
modern society, in that it is Christian, must possess dynamic-rhythmic
charisma.
A genuinely modern society will thus appear
in a threefold form as the rhythmic union between two polarities through a
center.”
In the rest of this study this is
further developed, ending as follows: Pherkydes,
with whom Greek philosophy began, beheld the spiritually living earth in the
image of an oak. For the earth is rooted as a living spiritual being in the
heavenly world and unfolds its branches, leaves and fruit in the world of the
senses. The pair of wings which grows from its trunk and carries it so that it
can hover freely, is the union of the earthly and the heavenly, of that which
is public and which is secret.
For
the meditating mind, the ‘Principles’ can appear in the image of a winged oak.
In their threefold composition, which is at the same time a living fabric of
breath, they represent the way in which a free community can have its roots in
the heavenly world and bear fruit in the earthly. Its supporting trunk, whose
streams of life and breath joins the heavenly and the earthly, is the union of
the esoteric with the exoteric that compose the center of the spirit-form. This
center-forming trunk is winged with the pinions of freedom, the spiritual
activity in which the esoteric and exoteric meet, unite and interchange with
one another.”
The third Social Aesthetic Study in
this series is entitled To Create or to Administrate
– Rudolf Steiner’s Social Organics/ A New Principle of Civilization, and
analyzes the rather disastrous proceedings of a General Assembly of the General
Anthroposophical Society in 1972, but in such a way that nevertheless important
lessons can be learned from it for future social designers. It begins with a quote from the German philosopher Hegel, “The congregation is the kingdom of Christ, whose active, present spirit
is Christ, because His kingdom has a real presence, not just a future one. The
congregation comes into being when the outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurs.”
We end this 4th phase of social organic development with paragraph 9.4, “Rudolf Steiner’s Greatest Work” from Chapter 9, “Rudolf Steiner as the Creator of a New Principle of Civilization” of this Social-Aesthetic Study as follows (in my translation): “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 behavior 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 executive on the other hand, 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 to the evolutionary happenings of cognitional 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 therefrom derived principle of civilization, 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 lets be 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 understanding for the task character of the ‘Principles’ and their related cognitional fields, the acquisition of which is confronted with a reservoir of problems for a whole epoch. Should everything what is 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.”
[1] See the
Appendix for the text of the 15 statutes.
[2] In the
discussion about these statutes during the so-called Christmas Conference 1923/24 for the
Refoundation of the Anthroposophical Society, attended by some 700-800 members and representatives
from around the world, Rudolf Steiner as its new president said on
December 27, 1923, “The executive-board will have to consider its task to be
solely whatever lies in the direction of fulfilling the Statutes. It will have
to do everything that lies in the direction of fulfilling the Statutes. This gives
it great freedom. But at the same time we shall all know what this central
executive represents, since from the Statutes we can gain a complete picture of
what it will be doing. As a result, wherever other organizations arise, for
instance the Goetheanum Building Association, it will be possible
for them to stand on realistic ground. Over the next few days there will be the
task of creating a suitable relationship between the executive-board that has come into being and the Goetheanum
Building Association.” This suitable relationship, i.e. to create an
organic division between the creative and the administrative functions of the
board as the directorate of the newly founded (spiritual) Anthroposophical
Society and the (commercial) Goetheanum Building Association, never really came about in
Rudolf Steiner’s lifetime and was abandoned altogether shortly after. It gave
rise in the seventies to the heavily debated, so-called Constitutional
question. The present board has not
solved this thorny issue and has in the working group of experts that it instituted, of which I am a member, only
dealt in legal terms with the past and not (yet) given any indication on its
plans for the future, in effect stalling the discussion on the severely damaged
social organic nature of the Anthroposophical Society and how to restore and
renew itin the manner advocated by the study To Create or to Administrate – Rudolf Steiner’s Social Organics – A New
Principle of Civilization by
Herbert Witzenmann (http://create-or-administrate.blogspot.nl)
.
[3] Later during that same lecture on
December 27, 1923.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten