The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Eighth Lecture

[ 1 ] Today I would like to draw your attention to something that may be related to the assessment of what is currently being socially associated with our anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement. You are familiar with the inner connection; I have spoken of it often. I have also pointed out to you how ill-equipped a spiritual movement would truly be to meet the challenges of our time if it were now to withdraw from the great questions that must concern humanity—a movement that would have nothing to say about what are emerging as the most significant demands of the present and the near future.

[ 2 ] Yesterday I pointed out how dreamlike elements creep into human thought, and I referred to the various ways—or at least to some of the various ways—in which dreamlike elements creep into human thought. We must be particularly attentive to this creeping in whenever we are confronted with what appears to us as ready-made judgments from the outside world. After all, a large part of what we think is thought by us in such a way that it is not first examined, that it is not first brought to life within us, but rather that it is merely repeated, re-judged, and re-thought. You need only consider the numerous judgments that people of the most diverse nations have made over the past four to five years regarding the fate of the world, the value of individual nations, the causes of war, and so on. You will not be able to help but say to yourself: Of all that has been judged—even by people from whom one might have liked to assume something quite different—of all of it, the very least has actually been examined; it has merely been parroted, rejudged, and rethought.

[ 3 ] Perhaps I should take this opportunity to remind you that, whenever I have spoken here about contemporary phenomena, I have never offered ready-made judgments, but have always described aspects that could serve to help you form your own judgments. In general, we should increasingly focus on providing the world with the foundations for forming judgments, rather than ready-made judgments. But people today are particularly prone, when they hear something here or there—especially when it is presented with strong self-assurance, when it is permeated by a fanaticism that may not be entirely perceptible—to simply adopt such judgments, to think them over, and to parrot them. And especially in view of the fact that some of our English friends are still here, I must touch on the following, which may also seem important to the other friends sitting here from here and there.

[ 4 ] For example, a certain quarter has now claimed that this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which has its headquarters in Dornach, is now involved in politics—and that such a movement should not, after all, concern itself with politics. Among other things, it is said to have been pointed out that the Catholic Church entered its period of decline precisely because it had concerned itself with matters that are usually considered political.

[ 5 ] When such a judgment is made, it resonates with many things people are accustomed to thinking. And when someone hears such a judgment, it does seem somewhat plausible to them. They then say to themselves: Yes, there is something to that; perhaps it is nonsense after all when a movement in the humanities engages with questions such as the threefold structure of the social organism.

[ 6 ] Now, both the initial judgment on this matter, in the sense I have just characterized it, and the repetition of that judgment belong to the category of superficial methods of thinking that are so prevalent today. Our age is, after all, firmly convinced that we have made extraordinary progress in thinking. Yes, we have the task of raising thinking to a certain level if humanity is not to perish in disaster. But what is demanded of humanity in terms of clear, sharp thinking—and above all in terms of thinking that is inwardly truthful, for thinking that is unclear is always, at the same time, somewhat dishonest— what is set before humanity as a task with regard to clear, sharp, and inwardly truthful thinking—this is countered today by the impulse to think unclearly, to think incompletely, to think only halfway, to pass judgment after the fact, to repeat what one hears here or there, or to think it over again. But I also say: At its core, the assertion that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has strayed into the realm of politics—which does not belong to it—in the question of the threefold social order is based on extraordinary superficiality. For whoever judges in this way is judging entirely in the abstract. They simply take something that may be true for the Catholic Church and apply it to something that is entirely different. It is just as if someone had learned that something is good for a shoe that one puts on one’s foot, and then applied the judgment they had formed about the shoe to a glove; that is how sensible such a judgment is. Why? What, after all, is the original purpose of the threefold social order? It is to create a clear division within the social order between the spiritual life, which is to have its own administration; the legal or political life, which is to stand in the middle between the other two with its full independence; and the economic life, which, as the third member, is to be clearly separated from the other two.

[ 7 ] Let us not think superficially, as does the person who says that anthroposophy should not concern itself with politics, but let us think the matter through clearly and objectively: What, after all, is the aim of such a strict separation? — Well, spiritual life is supposed to stand on its own; spiritual life is supposed to develop on its own ground; spiritual life is supposed to give expression only to what arises from its own impulses. The aim, then, is for spiritual life to no longer depend on political life or economic life, but rather to be free and independent—precisely as the Catholic Church never was, having always become conflated with the state and economic life. So the point is to create precisely the conditions that will enable spiritual life to give full expression to all its own impulses. Consider, then, how frivolous, how superficial it is when someone says that anthroposophy should not venture into the realm of politics, while it specifically calls for the creation of a social order that makes it possible for spiritual life to no longer concern itself with politics. The aim is precisely to create a political system through which spiritual life has its own administration, its own internal organization. And it should no longer be necessary, when one wants to found a school or develop a curriculum, to turn to the political authorities or the state curriculum; for that is precisely what makes one dependent on politics. You can see from this example what clear, sharp thinking means and how those who today pass judgment—based on whatever ideas have come their way—on what has been drawn from the impulses of spiritual life actually think. For the idea of threefolding is drawn from the science of initiation. And anyone who says that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science should not concern itself with the idea of threefold social order—first of all, does not understand how to think clearly; their thinking is confused; second, they understand nothing at all of the true impulse of spiritual science, for they do not realize that this concept has been drawn precisely from the impulse of spiritual science in connection with the great demands of our time.

[ 8 ] Today, however, numerous judgments—which are publicly expressed and simply parroted, echoed, and reflected upon by a large number of people—are caught up in such self-contradictions. Our primary task is to strive—truly independent of all forms of national chauvinism—to arrive at clear, straightforward, and inwardly truthful thinking. One will not achieve this unless one first admits that the present is far removed from it. For if one has no sense of how far the judgments that are swirling and rushing about today are from objectivity, then one will not even experience the inner drive to attain clarity and inner truthfulness in one’s thinking.

[ 9 ] I wanted to use an obvious example to illustrate—by highlighting the misunderstanding of the relationship between the threefold social order and the actual problem of spiritual science—just how many confused opinions are circulating in the world today, and I know very well that such judgments have a dazzling effect on some people, because they do not reflect on them; because they believe that if the person in question says anthroposophy should not concern itself with the threefold social order, there must be some merit to it, since it follows that a spiritual movement can only flourish if it is left to its own devices. But that is precisely what is being strived for. So anyone who makes judgments as I have described them stops halfway.

[ 10 ] Based on these premises, I would like to encourage self-examination to identify where, throughout the mind, there are incomplete judgments—judgments for which the necessary background information is entirely lacking. For—and this can be said in general—it is so easy to criticize this or that aspect of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science based on superficial assumptions. If one does not sense the depths from which these things are drawn, then one can judge anthroposophy based on the most superficial of daily moods. That is why we so often see people who have barely even dipped their toes into the field of anthroposophy immediately declaring, out of their own “cleverness”: “I can agree with this,” “I cannot agree with that”—and so on. For those who can truly feel, the task is always to attempt to penetrate deeper and deeper into the matter, to gain a sense of how initiatory truths are actually drawn from the depths of being. For if we now explore a little more deeply what I have just touched upon in its outward form, the following emerges.

[ 11 ] We have seen in recent history that intellectual life, legal life, and economic life have increasingly converged within the public social organism. Modern parliaments strive to make decisions on their own through majority votes by people who may not understand anything about the matters at hand—matters that can only be decided upon if one has some understanding of them. Decisions on everything imaginable—intellectual life, legal life, and economic life—are to be made by these unified parliaments. But the moment spiritual life—let us take this first—is separated from the other two spheres, the legal-political and the economic, spiritual life is brought entirely to the individual himself. Spiritual life becomes an organism in its own right. Intellectual life must be administered according to the very same principles from which it is continually drawn. Those who are called upon to teach this or that must also manage the way in which teachers are hired and schools are administered. Spiritual life must be left entirely to its own devices. In this way, individual human abilities are continually called upon, particularly in the realm of spiritual life. Consequently, decisions regarding spiritual life are continually made dependent on human abilities—specifically, on the abilities of the people living in any given age. This is how it should be. Those who, as individuals, are capable of this or that in any given age should not be prevented by any state or parliamentary instruments from putting their abilities to use. In this way, spiritual life is made entirely dependent on human beings. But because nothing other than human beings themselves is at work in the development of spiritual life, what I characterized yesterday—that element of spiritual life which continues to develop—comes into play. I cited Raphael as an outstanding yet also characteristic example: even when his works have long since been lost, what will remain in the world is the fact that he developed himself through his works. This inner principle of development becomes the active force in spiritual life; that is to say, everything Luciferic is eliminated from spiritual life precisely through its separation from the state. And only through this separation can the Luciferic be eliminated. Any spiritual life dependent on the state is permeated with Luciferic impulses. Majority decisions or the like then come into play in spiritual life, which always gloss over what comes from human individualities, thereby blurring the sharp thinking and sharp willing that arise from human individuality. But it is precisely through this blurring of all sharpness that the Luciferic element arises in human thinking and human willing. So that we can say: All spiritual life linked to legal life bears a Luciferic character. And it is precisely in order to overcome this Luciferic character—which must be overcome in public spiritual life—that a separation from legal life is required. The individual cannot overcome it, for dreamlike elements—as I pointed out yesterday—will always find their way into his spiritual life. But these are repelled by the fact that the individual is immersed in social spiritual life, yet this spiritual life is separated from the state.

[ 12 ] Similarly, Ahrimanic elements come into play in economic life when it is administered by the state. These Ahrimanic elements, which come into play in economic life—in the administration of economic life—when the state is involved in that economic life, can be eliminated solely by building economic life, as I have often emphasized here, upon a spirit of brotherhood within corporations, associations, and so on.

[ 13 ] As you can see, this threefold division is really about upholding fundamental principles. At the center remains the actual structure of the state—that is, everything related to public law.

[ 14 ] Now, please recall something I have already explained to you here, but which I would like to repeat for those who did not hear it. The human being, living here on Earth between birth and death, is not merely this being who lives here between birth and death, but carries within themselves the echoes of what they have experienced—first, in earlier incarnations, but especially what they experienced between their last death and the birth that preceded their present life. During this time between death and a new birth, we have undergone experiences in the spiritual world, and these experiences resonate in our present life. And how do they resonate in public social life? — In such a way that everything people bring into public life through their talents and special gifts—in other words, the entire public spiritual life—does not originate from the Earth at all, but is entirely a resonance from pre-earthly life. What Goethe, as Goethe, accomplished between 1749 and 1832 is all influenced by what he experienced in the spiritual world before 1749; he brought that down with him. And what is developed here on Earth in terms of art, science, and religious impulses among human beings—that is, what is developed as earthly spiritual life—is all an echo of the super-earthly spiritual life, as people bring it in through the gateway of birth. If you take literature, if you take art, everything contained within them has been sent down from the spiritual worlds. So in this social life, with regard to the forces at work, we have an element embedded within us that is simply sent down to us from the spiritual worlds. People bring it down by entering this world through the gateway of birth, into the life between birth and death. But what is brought about in economic life through brotherhood or lack thereof—what people do for one another, how they conduct their economic affairs—has, strange as it may sound, significance not only for this life between birth and death, but also, and indeed, great significance for life after death. For example, it is significant whether I act out of envy my entire life and behave in such a way that envy is my guiding principle, or whether I act out of love for my fellow human beings. Action—insofar as it flows into public life, insofar as it brings people into contact with one another—this action is not only significant here on Earth, but its effect is carried through the gate of death and has significance throughout the entire life between the death that befalls us after this earthly life and the next earthly life. So we can say: What unfolds here as economic life is the cause of how people will live between death and a new birth.

[ 15 ] If, for example, an economic system is based solely on selfishness, this means that people become, to a high degree, recluses between death and a new birth; that they have the greatest difficulty finding other human beings; in short, the way people behave economically here has enormous significance for life between death and the next birth.

[ 16 ] Therefore, legal and political life remains the only purely earthly realm. It has no significance for life before birth or for life after death; it has significance only for what happens here on Earth. If we clearly separate this life governed by the rule of law from the other two spheres, we separate the earthly from everything supernatural that influences life here on Earth. Thus, there are also great principles in this regard within the threefold structure of the social organism. We divide into three parts for the reason that we must separate the most diverse realms—which have something to do with the supersensible—from that which has to do only with the sensible realm between birth and death. What a person can decide through the process that alone makes majority decisions possible can only have significance here on Earth. What a human being accomplishes through his talents, through his abilities—which, as one says, are innate but are acquired in the manner I have just described—he accomplishes as a human individuality. And at the very moment when majority decisions somehow impair individuality, the “prince of this world,” to use an old expression, reigns. Majority decisions can relate solely—let me say this again—to what has significance for earthly circumstances; for that which has significance after death, love for humanity, humanity, and goodwill—which are, in turn, entirely individual and can only be individual—must unfold their power.

[ 17 ] I am thus drawing your attention to what can be derived solely from the science of initiation to support the idea of the threefold social order. But on what, in fact, does the entire intrusion of the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic into our world actually rest? The intrusion of all that is Luciferic and Ahrimanic into our world is based on the fact that something flows into our world from other levels of consciousness than the normal levels of consciousness. When we pass through the gateway of birth, we emerge from a normal stage of consciousness—which is of an entirely different nature than the earthly one here—and enter this earthly stage of consciousness. Precisely now, in our fifth post-Atlantean epoch, dream consciousness is abnormal: it is the waking consciousness that is permeated by the images of dreams. If we allow dreams to enter our thinking, we mix what we should have acquired solely through our pre-birth life with what takes place between birth and death. And this mixture is particularly well-suited for Lucifer to achieve his goals—not the normal divine goals of the Earth—through us. Any intrusion of the abnormal dreamlike into the present world of consciousness can therefore only lead to the Luciferization of humanity. It is normal for our consciousness to be shaped by dreamlike influences only as long as our consciousness is still dreamlike—namely, during childhood. If we continue beyond childhood the same relationship to the world—which is perfectly fine during childhood, when, for example, we are supposed to learn to speak as if in a dream—as a large part of humanity does today, then we open the doors, gates, windows, and everything else we can possibly open to let Lucifer into our consciousness. Therefore, if we accept public opinions without a deeper foundation than is actually there—when we are merely dreaming—we thereby continually open the gates to Lucifer. If, for example, we are ordered from some quarter to regard this or that person as a “great statesman” or a “great prince” or as “innocent of the war” or as a “great military leader,” without examining the matter, then the reason we form such a judgment is no different from the reasons why we dream anything at all.

[ 18 ] Until recently, a large portion of the world’s population considered Woodrow Wilson a great man because he put the nonsense of the “Fourteen Points” out into the world. If you ask with what inner conviction people did this, you will find no difference between the conviction people felt in regarding Woodrow Wilson as a great man and the conviction you feel when you dream anything. The dream comes to you with the same inner arbitrariness or involuntariness as the judgment you formed about Woodrow Wilson and his “Fourteen Nonsenses.” There is no difference between dreaming in this way while fully conscious and dreaming while asleep. It makes no difference whether, influenced by the voices of the outside world, one considers Ludendorff a great military leader or Clemenceau a great statesman, or whether one dreams of this or that at night. But humanity must become aware of these things. For when we notice such things, the judgment arises within us at the very moment we are seized by the Luciferic forces in the world. For we are seized by the Luciferic forces in the world precisely because we dream consciously. With regard to this public judgment, a large part of present-day humanity has truly been quite childish and continues to be so.

[ 19 ] These are matters that must be taken more seriously today than many people actually realize. And on the other hand, it is a matter of learning from life. For when it comes to our will, we are constantly asleep—as I have often said. I have explained to you: You do have an idea of what you are doing, but not even of what the hand is doing internally when it moves; people usually have no idea of that. People have as little idea of this remarkable process, which is connected to human volition, as they do of what they do in deep sleep. Volition is, as a rule, a waking sleep. This volition must be raised more and more to the level of consciousness. It will still be a long process—the process of raising volition to consciousness in the context of understanding the Earth period. It is raised to consciousness in part—in a small area, and in other areas as well, but most notably in one area—for example, through our eurythmy. There, movements are performed out of full consciousness. There, the will is truly permeated by full consciousness. That is why I have often emphasized in the introduction to the eurythmy performance that it is essential for eurythmists, in particular, to combat all sleepiness and to work toward the very opposite of dreaminess. It is a great mistake if eurythmy is not performed in a state of full wakefulness, but rather if it is performed in such a way that one believes one can “mystify” even within eurythmy. “Mysteln” comes from “mysticism.” It is bad enough to let mysticism creep into ordinary life; it is even worse when something that is meant to be intentional—something that is meant to be the antithesis of a dream—is allowed to become shrouded in mysticism. Yet the will, permeated by full consciousness, must also be increasingly sought after in the rest of life as well.

[ 20 ] Once again, we have a case here where a large part of humanity is working toward the opposite—the opposite of what should be before our eyes as a fundamental requirement of our time. A fundamental requirement of our time is to permeate life with consciousness, not merely with the intellect. The intellect is something very one-sided. People today even believe they can attain supersensible truths through mystical means by using mediums—that is, by tuning their consciousness down as much as possible. There is no path to the spiritual world more Luciferic and Ahrimanic than the spiritualist one. On the one hand, this leads the medium into the vicinity of Lucifer; on the other hand, it leads those who have the medium tell them their “truths” toward Ahrimanism. And the content of such “truths”—these so-called truths—is consistent with this. For what the medium has to say about the supersensible is not, by any means, something higher than the sensible. The sensible has a certain significance throughout the entire earthly era. What mediums have to say has significance only for a very brief period of time—provided, of course, that it is based on truth. It has significance only for certain elementary spiritual effects over a brief period of time, so that… one still experiences something higher if one spends one’s entire life doing nothing but seeing through one’s healthy eyes and hearing through one’s healthy ears, than if one allows mediums to tell one something about the supersensible.

[ 21 ] From these and similar examples, you can see that, on the one hand, there are great demands in our time for a renewal of spiritual life, but that there is also what one might call a fierce opposition to the genuine sources of spiritual life that have grown out of our time. People today resist the influx of the spiritual into the physical-sensory world. This resistance is what you may encounter in all sorts of areas, and it is what you should recognize in the various forms of opposition to spiritual science as it is understood here. This spiritual science, as it is meant here, is clearly aware that even what is to enter public social life must, in the future, flow entirely from the sources of initiation. What is asserted here—such as the threefold social order—may not please certain people today. There are people who say: “I don’t like this or that about it.” — These people, in turn, should learn to understand what integral thinking is. After all, life does not depend on what we like or dislike. I once knew a lady—I have told this story many times before—who listened to all sorts of things being said about spiritual science. Then she said: “Yes, but reincarnation, repeated earthly lives—that is something I do not like; I don’t want to come back to Earth.” — Little by little, it was possible to help her understand that it didn’t depend on whether she wanted to or not—specifically, that it didn’t depend on whether she wanted to in this life, because she didn’t yet know what she would want between death and a new birth; by then, she would certainly want to come back. — Now she seemed to grasp this little by little and went on her way, saying, “Now I understand.” That was in Berlin. From Stettin she then wrote a postcard saying she didn’t believe it after all; she wouldn’t like to return to Earth again. — That’s when thinking comes to an abrupt halt; it can also come to a mechanical halt. We’ve even experienced an example of this ourselves right here. The example is very illuminating; but the fact that it applies to much of what people think is less so. I once had to explain at a gathering how human beings return in reincarnation, reappearing with their individual human souls. Animals, I had to say, have a group soul; and while it is the case with humans that they have an individual soul—which they preserve for the time between death and a new birth, reappearing with their individual soul, and so on— with animals, which have a group soul, it is the case that upon death they are absorbed into the entire group, that each individual animal is then separated out again at birth and, as it were, drawn back into the group soul after death as if by a tentacle. At that point, a lady began to argue: “Yes, I can see that for all animals, just not for my dog—whom I was particularly fond of; for I raised him in such a way that he has such a strong individual soul that he will reappear as an individual!” — Later, I had a conversation with another lady who said: “How foolish that lady was to believe that her dog, who after all has only a group soul, would return as an individual.” I realized right away that that couldn’t be true. But my parrot—he’ll surely return as an individual; that’s something else entirely!

[ 22 ] Certainly, these things are laughable; but it is precisely in these things that one notices when one makes errors in thinking. In what I have told you regarding the alleged confusion of the threefold social order with spiritual science, one does not notice his shallow thinking! I have witnessed how, over the past five years, numerous judgments have been made entirely along the lines of this “parrot-like” judgment—how people in one region have assumed that things are the same everywhere else, but for them it was always something different, exactly following the pattern of parrot-like repetition. The point is that we must take these matters seriously in the present and recognize that the science of initiation must also be able to flow into social life, so that we do not delude ourselves about the difference between what we would like to think and what is real. That is why it may be uncomfortable for many people today to advocate for the threefold social order. But there are two things in the world today, and anyone who looks at the world honestly and sincerely, who does not succumb to illusions, can see that these two things exist: either Bolshevism over the whole world or the threefold social order! You may not like the threefold social order; in that case, you are simply opting for the old world order! — But just consider for a moment what has become of a large part of Europe over the last four to five years! Take the individual parts. There is, for example, German-Austria; as it is—apart from certain individuals whom I have highlighted in my book *The Riddle of Man*—in its overall substance, this substance stems from the Catholic principle of the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. That essence was still alive there; it could be artificially preserved first under the naturally based principle of cohesion of the so-called House of Habsburg, and then under the entirely unnatural principle of cohesion of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Or take, for example, the former lands of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen—Hungary: in its entire constitution, it is exactly what it had become by the year 1000! And so we could point out, for each individual region, what the very essence of this overall substance actually rests upon. It is, in fact, quite uncomfortable to tell people these things today, for people do not wish to view such circumstances with an open mind. But how can one believe that simply by piecing together these ruins—which have grown old and rotten, since their entire substance dates back to the 8th, 9th centuries, or the year 1000, and so on—they can be fused into durable structures today! No, the only thing that helps is a genuine renewal of spiritual life. But this must actually be taken to heart. That is why we must repeatedly appeal to people’s sense of responsibility to take a look at this inner life. If they look at it, then they will also turn toward it.

[ 23 ] I will continue speaking tomorrow about these circumstances and, in particular, about how what I have said today relates to the specific understanding of the Christ Principle.