Tragedy, Comedy and Whimsy
in
Anthroposophia-Land
a
contemplative review of the book:
The Event in Science, History,
Philosophy & Art
by
Yeshayahu
Ben-Aharon
contemplation and review by Joel A. Wendt, author of
The Art of
God: an actual theory of Everything
introduction
- this review assumes some degree of familiarity with Rudolf Steiner’s life and works,
as
well
as
the works of those he influenced, which includes this author
-
The central question
is: Why, given Ben-Aharon's
authorship of The
Spiritual
Event of the Twentieth Century, he has now chosen
to make
prominant that far more materialistic Event which
belongs to
Ahriman's Incarntion, rather than the true Second Coming of
Christ, as
was so beautifully expressed in the above book on which his
current
reputation rests. That mystery I hope to illuminate
below.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, the year 2012
seems to be living up to some of its prognostications and
expectations.
In the USA the corn crop is failing, a couple of
bankers are
confessing they were wrong and won’t do it again if we just
pass some
laws to save them from themselves, while meanwhile a young
man opens up
with some guns at the latest Batman movie. Says he’s
the Joker,
but he really isn’t all that funny.
Then
there is Anthroposophy, the Anthroposophical
Society, an AGM meeting in Ann Arbor in August, and various
individuals
running around selling their latest version of god’s awful
truth (such
as this book called The Event, and my latest: The
Mystery of Evil in the Light of the Sermon on the Mount).
Either
Shakespeare
was an idiot, or in all of this drama on “all
the world’s a stage" there ought to be not just Tragedy, but
Comedy as
well.
Here’s
a tragedy: Rudolf Steiner was a very unusual man
who has had and is having a profound effect on modern
culture and
civilization. Ben-Aharon’s book hardly acknowledges
him, sticking
his name only in such paragraphs as this:
“Actually,
David
Hume
already discovered that Rene Descartes’ “I think” subject
could never be found at all in his mental and soul
researches.
Hume’s conclusion was that there is no mentally
substantial
“inner self” that can be grasped, taken hold of, and
represented in the
inner consciousness as an object, and would it not
have been for
Immanuel Kant’s cunning recovery of this subject, through
his
transcendental analysis, a direct phenomenological line
would have led
us from Hume to Nietzsche, Steiner, Husserl, Bergson,
Heidegger, and on
to the 20th century post-structuralist thinking that will be
studied in
our later chapters” (page
46).
I knew
another thinker and writer who wanted to place
Steiner on the same spiritual/cultural plane as Joseph
Smith, L.
Ron Hubbard, Rev. Moon, and others with whom he was familiar
in his own
biography. Can Steiner really be compared and
made the
companion of such as Hume, Nietzsche, Husserl, Bergson,
Heidegger,
Smith, Hubbard and Moon?
Someone
is having someone else on, and I think Ben-Aharon
too fell for the joke, or the cosmic whimsy if you want to
be more -
shall we say - forgiving.
Now
these two individuals, Ben-Aharon and John Sterling
Walker (who put Steiner in with Smith, Hubbard, and Moon et.
al) shared
a common biographical trait. They both experienced a
kind of
spontaneous initiation process in their youth (early
twenties), which
arose before their souls were mature enough to pursue
spiritual
attainment in a way in which they might have otherwise
earned it.
Their initiations were gifts - unearned, and as we
know the
warning: don’t
look a gift horse in the mouth,
really means
that if you do look you are not going to like what you find.
I told
John Walker a year and a half ago that in my view
he had experienced a forced initiation, which seduced him
against his
immature will, and that the Being he thought was responsible
for this
spiritual event lied - i.e. it represented itself as one of
the good
guys, rather than divulge its real nature. After all,
wouldn’t
that put the fox in the hen house, if Ahriman or Lucifer
walked up to
you and said: here is a free initiation and by the way it’s
really
going to screw up your head, because you’ll continue to grow
up
thinking you are special, when your dreams for your
destiny may
well turn out to be a Nightmare on Elm Street.
Again,
I think there is a joke here, because who among us
would fail to be foolish enough to accept this kind of
transformation,
especially if the Being involved acts as if it was one of
the good
guys? Was Walker, or is Ben-Aharon, bad or stupid?
Not in
the least. Its just that Loki and Coyote (the
trickster spirits)
are real, and some individuals will have the karma to be
touched this
way, for the world is complicated and even the Good Gods
allow for
there to be jokers in the wood pile. When I was doing
drugs in
Berkeley in the early 70‘s, and then up until 1987 when I
finally made
it into recovery, I often thought (during my intoxicated
fantasies) I
was going to be a great world-teacher of the spiritual kind.
What
I ended up doing is writing books only a few read, and
ruining my
health with junk food, coke-a-cola, and lack of
exercise.
The
truth is harder to swallow in a way. Walker and
Ben-Aharon aren’t really tools at all. They are just
human beings
with the right kind of normal vanity (something I’m very
familiar
with), and the role they are called upon to play in this
life is not
actually as special as they/we think (including me).
This role,
while whimsical (a wise recognition of the role of the
trickster
spirits), can be turned into an object lesson for others.
That’s
right. The joke, or the cosmic comedy as it
were, is that at some point we all fall from grace, perhaps
hard
(Walker died about half a year after I confronted him
with my own
excessive judgmental passion). So what this review is
about is
that. We are going to look at Ben-Aharon’s book to see
where it
gets goofy, and what the goofiness can tell us as an object
lesson.
And, by the way, if someone would do me that same
favor for some
of my works, I’d be very grateful. I know its there -
I just
can’t see it, which is one of the reasons this introduction
is
important - to remind us that we do not see ourselves as
clearly as do
others, and that their seeing is for us an act of love.
The
reality is that none of us who encounter Rudolf
Steiner, and appreciate him even a little bit, understand
that we are
never going to be of that same stature - never, however hard
we try,
however much we dream and fantasize. In a real
sense we are
“doomed” to Spiritual Science as my friend Elizabeth A.
MacKenzie likes
to say - which means we have karma and work and a personal
biography in
which we do not yet know how to work together.
Years
ago I e-mailed Ben-Aharon seeking communal
conversations and co-working, lamenting that I did not
understand why
the incarnate wise did not join forces. Funny isn’t it
how I
included both of us in that characterization: the incarnate wise. He bought into it too, but said he felt
as if it
wasn’t yet time for us to do so.
So
here we are, influenced by Rudolf Steiner, and can’t
find a way to talk to each other or somehow not compete,
while trying
to rise above the fray and stand out in some way. Like
I said
above: vanity, pride, and/or doomed, as Liz likes to put it.
Now I
am going to assert here that Ben-Aharon’s book has
been influenced by the legions over which Lucifer and
Ahriman have
dominion. Just keep in mind that we all are touched in
this way,
or as Prokofieff (another doomed and vain seeker) said to me
in Ann
Arbor in 2005: “None
of
us
are perfect”.
I hope
to make of this book The Event a better book by
exposing its flaws, and perhaps show others how to learn to
see them.
In that I won’t be perfect, I’ll just be human, as are
we all.
Such a review process is part of our doom - we really
should meet
together more often and work harder at science and
empiricism and less
at trying to stand out as individuals. Elizabeth likes
to point
out that science is a “we" effort - we don’t do it alone.
But we
don’t seem to get that, and for now this is the best that we
can do as
we try to express our individuality - for which a touch of
whimsy is
probably the best attitude. We all need to learn to
laugh at
ourselves.
In
reality this is just plain funny - all these differing
points of view proclaiming deep truths, yet which can’t seem
to agree
with each other. No wonder the new-atheists think
spiritual
people have lost their reason.
the
doubles and Ahriman - the joker is in us
Ben-Aharon seems to be writing a book on great advancements in human thinking in the 20th Century, but manages to omit completely Steiner and Steiner’s many very inspired students and their collective works: Waldorf Schools; biodynamic agriculture; anthroposophical medicine; Camphill Communities; Goethean Science; - it would be easy to write an extensive list of individuals and major advances in human understanding that far outshines what Ben-Aharon has pointed to in his book The Event. This total Steiner-inspired work far exceeds qualitatively that to which he does point, both in a practical way, and in an wise way.
This is especially egregious given that Steiner was the John
the
Baptist figure - the voice crying in the wilderness of
scientific
materialism - in the true Event of the 20th Century: the
Return of
Christ in the Etheral.
If
there is a difference to be noted, its that Ben-Aharon
does properly go to what lives in the undercurrents of the
main streams
of knowledge, while the anthroposophical stream yet remains
a minor
note in the musical themes of modern cultural life.
That still
does not justify him ignoring Steiner, however.
In
particular Ben-Aharon leaves out the extensive
discussions by Steiner of the major spiritual Beings toward
which he
pointed: Lucifer, Ahriman and Christ. He also leaves
out
Steiner’s indications about the double complex. To
read The Event
is to read someone who has every reason to be completely
familiar with
all that Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science have come to
mean, yet who
pretends none of it happened or is happening. This
missing
element is so significant and so complete that in itself it
is a finger
pointing to the great flaw. Something is encouraging
subtle
errors in Ben-Aharon’s thinking - something which itself
wants to deny
knowledge of Steiner and Christ to those human beings
needing and
hungering in the world for truth
For a
long explanation, see my most recent work: The
Mystery
of Evil in the Light of the Sermon on the Mount, which is itself a small companion to a much
longer
work: The Art of
God: an actual theory of Everything.
Here we have to go for a much shorter explanation,
which the
reader of this review should understand is based on the
details
elaborated in the two works just referenced.
An
unfortunately too short summary:
The
human I, whether we consider it to be inside us -
inside our skin - or outside in the world, moves through
life with
intimate invisible to the senses psychological/spiritual
companions:
the threefold double-complex. Here is a far too
abstract (the map
is not the territory) diagram from my research work of many
decades:
Christ Jesus
Guardian Angel
i-AM
[sense world < soul (A/d) < i-AM > (L/d) soul > spiritual world]
human double
(asuras)
the Divine Mother
...
out of which I separate for emphasis, this
sub-diagram showing the relationship between the human
essence (the
lower and higher egos as it were: - i-AM - and - i-AM) and the threefold double-complex:
i-AM
(A/d) < i-AM > (L/d)
[human (d)]
“A”
stands for ahrimanic, “L” for luciferic and “d” for
double. For brevities sake, let us concentrate
on the
ahrimanic and the Being Ahriman.
Steiner
pointed toward what he called the Ahrimanic
Deception, which I call the Ahrimanic Enchantment (an
artistic choice).
This is what brought into civilization materialism in
all its
forms, which Ben-Aharon writes about in the beginning of The
Event when
he describes the problems and worries modern civilization
swims in and
will likely face in the future.
Ahriman
is the cold intellect alone, from one point of
view. When we think, as did the original natural
philosophers, in
a kind of intellectually detached fashion, this thinking
produces all
the concepts which Ben-Aharon wants to see overcome, such
as: dead
matter, abstract space and time, mechanical (predictable)
systems and
their social consequences such as social Darwinism.
For
Ben-Aharon, we are now in a second revolution in science
(The Event),
which thinks instead that “...the human and the universe exist in
continuous state
of emergence ... in creative becoming and transformation.” (page 12).
What
Ben-Aharon hasn’t asked is how and why the old
conceptions came to be, because that would be embarrassing
given that
Steiner laid this effect on Ahriman’s Deception. To
Ben-Aharon
the old just sort of happened, and the new as well is just
sort of
happening. The causality element, which Ben-Aharon
creates as
regards The Event, is itself abstract, and mostly ambiguous
- it just
is, without bothering to explain it. This is not good
science of
philosophy.
If we
understand the past several centuries in the ways
that Steiner encouraged, we can then think our way to a much
different
and more exact process by which present conditions arose.
Take
for example the work of the Canadian anthroposophist Don
Cruse.
Cruse
pointed out (see his book: Evolution
and the New Gnosis) that within
the thinking
of Darwinian biologists there was a subtle process at work,
and this
concerned the use of the metaphors by which macro-life
processes were
described. He pointed specifically to the
term: mechanism, remarking that this word really only has one
possible
meaning, which is connected to human creation. If
biologists
wanted to really speak of a mechanism of random and chance induced process in the
development
of living organisms they should not anymore use the term mechanism, because such a term can only mean something
created
through a means similar to human intention. Human
beings create
mechanisms, something chance and the random cannot do,
having no Being,
or
capacity
for intention and purpose.
In
fact, the term selection, in the
phrase natural selection
bears the
same defect. Someone has to select, or the word has no meaning.
Biology
is littered with such defective metaphors, which then often
become
tautological in their formulations. See here the work
of the
anthroposophist Ron Brady in his article: Dogma and
Doubt.
Now
this process in the mind of the biologist, which
process chooses words to use in a metaphorical or figurative
fashion,
can be and is influenced by the threefold double-complex,
which
influence arrives in the mind via discursive thinking.
The mode
of discursive thinking (not the only possible mode of thinking)
takes the form inwardly of an internal
dialog, between our spirit and our soul, or our
self-consciousness and
our consciousness. We (our spirit or I) speaks
silently (thus the
term discursive) into our own awareness. If we lack a
certain
moral intention in the process of discursive thinking - that
is if we
are somewhat asleep when thinking discursively, we will not
notice how
we use metaphor and figurative thinking to create the
concepts, using a
variety of words and terms. Into this sleepy process of
discursive
thinking the ahrimanic and luciferic aspects of the double
can insert
their influences. (for details see The
Mystery
of Evil). Out of this
process
is then formed the Ahrimanic Enchantment of the Human Mind,
in which
all of modern civilization and culture is embedded.
This
Enchantment is the result of a battle or choice
taking place in human consciousness when the powers of the
intellect
fail to be guided intentionally by our moral nature.
When the
hunger (Anthroposophy) for the moral and the true - the
Christ Impulse
- does not purposefully move the process of thinking, the
raw power of
the intellect will think by itself. Given that the
ahrimanic is
often clever beyond our current ability to understand and
manage, human
concept creation processes are frequently deformed within us
by this
clever intellectuality - which often appears in various
fields of
thought in the simplest of ways. From this inner
enchantment process then arises the unwise use of certain
terms and
words, observed above by Cruse.
Even
with our seeming best intentions we all will suffer
failures at this level of semiconscious thinking, which is
often the
case in this otherwise wonderful book. My original
review of this
book had to be withdrawn, two days into its publication on
my website,
precisely because I was myself enjoying being so clever in
analyzing
Ben-Aharon’s book, as well as being “swept away” by my anger
at
Ben-Aharon for leaving out the true significance of Steiner.
All
of us can make these kinds of errors of thought, which is
why we need
personal encounters and critical shared thinking within
scientific
communities to navigate the obstacles to truth common to
this Age.
Scott Hicks challenged me, and this led then to the
reconsiderations appearing in this second effort to come to
terms with
Ben-Aharon’s latest work.
If we
read Ben-Aharon carefully we can come to see the
same influence still present, that was present and led in
prior
centuries to materialism. Let me give a couple of
examples of
clever thinking ...
He
writes about insects: In other words, they transcend
time and speed altogether, and control their flight as a
whole from a
virtual plane, beyond time and space (I follow Bergson and
Deleuze’s
use of the term “virtual” to mean the infinite potential of
a thing.) (page 7)
The problem here is that in standard
English the term virtual means simulation, and redefining it
is clever,
but not good. Why?
Because
we need to keep the reader’s consciousness in
mind. Regardless of how hard we try to cleverly create
brand new
concepts, or redefine terms, the naive reader will read the
term in its
ordinary meaning. So Ben-Aharon, if he wanted to wash
the feet of
his readers (have a moral relationship) would have been less
clever -
less ahrimanic, and more inclined to say what he meant than
trying to
invent new language. He doesn’t need to use “virtual”
in this new
sense ... he could say instead (in all cases when the term
“virtual” is
used): infinite
potential.
Another
example ...
He
writes on page 33, concerning Katzir’s work: That is, when the
isolated
particles are gathered together, they enter into an
interaction
of becoming, that allows “creative emergence” of something
that was not
there at least explicitly before, a whole not only much
greater but
essentially different from its parts, a new material
and new
function. And it gives expression to a singularity ,
self-creative and self-reproducing in and through its
greater
environment. Again a new use
of the
term “singularity”, but which has another meaning altogether
in general
usage - once more Ben-Aharon is clever but not good.
E.g.:
The
Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology is a 2005 update of Raymond Kurzweil’s 1999
book, The Age
of Spiritual Machines and his 1990 book The Age of
Intelligent
Machines. In it, as in the two previous versions, Kurzweil
attempts to
give a glimpse of what awaits us in the near future. He
proposes a
coming technological singularity, and how we would thus be
able to
augment our bodies and minds with technology. He describes
the
singularity as resulting from a combination of three
important
technologies of the 21st century: genetics, nanotechnology,
and
robotics (including artificial intelligence).
Now
these distortion processes through the clever use of
meaning are not just in the writing by Ben-Aharon - they are
everywhere.
What
is worse is that these influences are subtle, in
much the same way that biologists were led to use the terms
mechanism
and selection with their latent meaning of human intention,
while
trying to point toward chance and the random.
Ben-Aharon seems to
want to point to creativity and emergence and becoming, but
borrows
terms in general usage with other normal meanings. Not
only that,
if we look for a causal explanation of this “becoming”, we
are left
with what appears to be an essentially mindless process,
rooted itself
in matter.
He
frequently quotes scientists to the effect that matter
is itself becoming - in fact kind of disappearing in the
sense of the
older conceptions of thingness, going mostly toward ...
what?
From page 18: It may turn out that humanity is the
first place in the
universe as we know it, at which the infinitely creative
cosmic
formative forces become conscious of themselves.
Steiner
here is turning over in his grave, for the terms “formative forces” are his creation, and here they are borrowed
to suggest
that these forces were never before conscious of themselves.
Yet,
Ben-Aharon has to know that for Steiner nothing in the whole
Creation
is not the actions and will activity of Beings, including
the ethereal
formative forces about which Steiner spoke over and over
again, and
which have been applied in practice in all those works and
places
inspired by Steiner’s life.
Ben-Aharon
also plays loosely with the term “organic”.
He writes often of “non-organic life”. This too
turns
ordinary concepts inside out. If he was meaning to be
precise he
would write of non-material organic
life - seeking thereby to shed the older idea of
organic matter as dead matter, and while he seems to mean
this, it is
not clear, but rather confusing. He writes, page
38:
“Properties
and
functions
believed to be restricted to living organisms alone are
now discovered in all other systems. It seems that
vast fields of
“non-organic life” are penetrating deeply into realms that
were
traditionally guarded as the realms of lifeless matter.
I, for
example, have been writing about the social organism as exhibiting organic properties for decades.
That
is social forms are born and die, transform and undergo
metamorphosis -
i.e. they are living. So Ben-Aharon again doesn’t need
to create
the term “non-organic life” to describe places (such as the
social organism) where life
processes are active. In addition, if
we have understood Steiner, we will know we don’t have to
change
reality, but rather change the mode of thinking itself.
To go via
the latent potentials in thinking away from the perception
of
“thingness” (materialism in concept formation), we simple
discover how
to shift thinking from thinking-about to thinking-with.
He
also wanders into territories concerning which his
knowledge is weak, for example his use of the term
“disorder” on page
38 and then 39 as well, in this way:
In open systems that
constantly receive and exchange energy, information, and
formative
forces from their environments, entropy is just a register
that
measures the amount of disorder that a system produces as a
byproduct
of its self-generation and development. That is, it
tells us how
much disorder is needed in order to create new order out of
fresh
chaos.
If
Ben-Aharon was familiar (as he could be with modern
thinking on these questions), he would know that David
Shiang has
proven logically that the idea of disorder does not really
describe
Nature (see Shiang’s God Does
Not Play Dice and On
the
Absence of Disorder in Nature).
He
would also know that the Steiner student Ernst Lehr’s book Man
or
Matter shows that true chaos is
not random as
we are taught to think using modern terms, but rather is the
older
(pre-scientific) perception that there is a causal realm
which is
properly called the realm of the uncreated and unformed,
from which
then issues the will forces of invisible beings who organize
matter
(even the dreaded organic matter) via
the formative forces.
But
then Ben-Aharon seems to want these days to have
nothing to do with Steiner or Anthroposophy.
Please
keep in mind that I am a fan of Jesaiah Ben-Aharon,
having followed his career, and read more
than once all three previous books he wrote. I
dedicated my book
on The Art
of God, to him, and to another ...
here is what I wrote in his
portion of the dedication:
To Jesaiah Ben-Aharon, easily
one of the wisest individuals on the planet, whose books
fascinate me,
and with whom I find myself more and more wanting to engage
in furious
argument ... his book on The New Experience of the
Supersensible is
occasionally so abstract, it is nearly unreadable (but,
unfortunately,
worth the effort at deciphering); and whose book America’s
Global
Responsibility, seems to contain in the background undertow
of its
thought, some kind of ancient and terrible Jewish Mother
injunctions
radiating too frequently all manner of guilt on just about
every
American, all the while being for the most part tragically
factually
true; while his book The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth
Century will
eventually be recognized as one of the first authentic
Gospels (Good
News) of the true Second Coming of Christ ...
Now he
calls himself Yeshayahu, which
apparently he was named all along. Even so
he seems to have gone in this book The Event a bit off the
rails, which
perhaps suggests that like all of us he was always flawed
(due to his
unearned initiation?), and as he has now matured, his flaws
are
becoming more apparent. This book on The
Event is very much in opposition
to the work and
influence of Rudolf Steiner, and while I can speculate as to
how this
happened (which I on occasion do here), in this review I
will mostly be
demonstrating the problems with the text: its polemical
defects, its
illogical leaps, and what is most wrong in my view: its
denial of the
significance of Steiner’s youthful philosophical works, and
his later
in life influence on so many others.
Keep
in mind that I do this in the context of using the
review to expose general conditions applicable to all
thinkers in
contemporary times. Via the threefold double-complex
Ahriman
turns us away from the truth. He does this as part of
a process
through which we are forced to wake up inwardly, especially
in the
realm of understanding the relationship between our moral
nature and
the thought content we produce. Absent a conscious
moral
intention, thinking will slide into errors of thought
through the
influence of the sub-conscious. All of civilization is
under this
influence regarding the unrestrained and unredeemed
intellect.
Take
for example, this from page 137, in the section
called: Deleuze-Foucault (D&F):
“Now the concept of discourse delimits a path that leads to the
operation of
de-actualization in the field of the thinking of language.
It
opens the way to free the thinking of language from the
accustomed
language of thinking, while the concept of subjectivation marks the direction in which thinking
must proceed in
order to appropriately problematize the actualization of
‘subject-hood’
on the plane of immanence.”
This
made me laugh, which is why in part I used the terms
Whimsy and Comedy and Tragedy in the title of this review.
It
wasn’t just the conceptual nonsense being sold here, like so
much
new-age junk psychology, but I also knew how often in
certain phases of
my own development (especially when I was actively using
drugs) I would
write like this and believe I was making sense, and thinking
in terms
that related to real human qualities. I wasn’t.
I was
intoxicated with the luciferic - the sense of self as
sitting on high
and making pronouncements of importance for others. In
effect as
I read this (and many other similar sentences and
paragraphs) I was
also laughing at my self as much as laughing at what
Ben-Aharon wrote.
Pride of knowledge is a dangerous intoxicant for
whoever succumbs
to it, for it is something we all do at different times.
Just
consider the damage caused by the all-knowing gossip.
Again, it
isn’t just Ben-Aharon who can succumb to these temptations.
It
also may be possible to enter deeply into what he is
trying to mean here, and bring it down to Earth, out of
Lucifer’s
intoxication-realm. In addition there is much in this
book that
suffers from the curious confusion of those born in the
Center of the
Threefold Social World. This involves the tendency to
think in
the ideal (or idealistically), and believe that such created
concepts
will make sense to those who live either in the East or the
true West.
They don’t. The East lives in the memories of
the Cosmic -
the Heavenly, the Past, and the West lives in the concrete
potentials
of the Future - in the most Earthly. The Center abides
in
between, where High Art is born, but Art as we all
should now
know is not good for communicating the specific and
the concrete.
Art is too much a matter of personal taste, with the
artist’s
taste (in this case the writer’s taste) dominating.
It is
possible to live into Art and receive much, but the
Age of Science requires the concrete, the exact, the
empirical and the
reproducible. That’s why Steiner created for his
supersensible
experiences the language of Spiritual Science, rather than a
loosely
organized mysticism. That’s why Steiner began his life
with
working on and solving the problem of knowledge. And
that is also
why America is to play a special role in the future
development of
Anthroposophy. Knowledge processes in the Third
Millennium must
come down to Earth.
Steiner
was not just any other philosopher
in the stream of German Idealism, leading eventually to
French post-structuralism or post-modernism. Steiner
was the
scientific discoverer of the real nature and potential of
thinking,
appropriate to our time, and the consequences of that
discovery have
led to embryonic changes in science and culture and religion
far beyond
what Ben-Aharon seeks to point out to us in those realms of
thought he
seems to wish to use to replace Steiner’s works and cover
over
Steiner’s influence. In this Ben-Aharon has sided with
the
opponents of the Christ Impulse, who Steiner named Lucifer
and Ahriman.
There is too much of Lucifer and Ahriman that has been
allowed to
live in Ben-Aharon’s book.
You
are right to ask why. A friend of mine suggests
the following: Ahriman doesn’t bother seeking to derail the
ordinary
human spirits working in our time, but rather goes toward
those whose
genius might well tower over the rest of us, precisely
because if he
can twist their work and their destiny he accomplishes a
great deal.
In a way, it is a mark of Ben-Aharon’s genius (as with
Prokofieff
and others who seek - but failed - to accurately represent
Steiner to
the world), that Ahriman has attacked him and Lucifer
has
subverted him.
Partially
what this means is that this review seeks not
just to show the flaws, but if possible reclaim, from the
ahrimanically
and luciferically sowed confusion, the best of what
Ben-Aharon has
perceived and wishes to draw to our attention.
the choices of writers in the Age of the
Consciousness
Soul
The
central existential aspect of the Age of the
Consciousness Soul (our time) is the striving of the
individual for
spiritual (inner) freedom, in the form of uniting with the
good and the
true. Writers can write their works in a way in which
this
striving for individual inner freedom is enhanced (we wash
the
feet of the reader), or they can seek to persuade
and dominate
those who read their works - seeking to impose a specific
view as if
that is the only view that can be had. It is the mark
of the
influence of Lucifer and Ahriman when a writer uses the
power of the
word to dominate another’s thought and thinking.
This
domination is accomplished in multiple ways.
One way is by omission - that is to leave out relevant
material,
which is yet the possession of the author. Another way
is to
insist that facts have an absolute meaning, or that truths
too can be
absolute. The former is to defer to Ahriman, and the
latter is to
defer to Lucifer. See in this regard, Catherine
MacCoun’s
remarkable: On Becoming an Alchemist.
A
major saving grace is found for the writer when they
understand what Steiner called: Goetheanism, and which
Tomberg (the
author of Meditations on the Tarot:
a journey into Christian
Hermeticism) earlier in his life
recognized
in this way, as: qualitative
characterizing
picture
thinking. This
conscious mode of thinking, which sacrifices its individual
subjectivity to the phenomena, need never argue about what
is or is not
real. This thinking only describes what is
experienced, and by
doing so reveals (as Goethe proved) that the correctly
described
phenomena are the laws, and that one need never seek for any
explanations behind these most basic facts as they appear to
a
disciplined sense perception and to our careful picture
thinking.
In my
experience, the world so embodies the Divine
Mystery that in every instance this world speaks to us,
directly, all
of its secrets. They are hidden out in the open, and
thinking
only need surrender to their Being and describe what it
perceives.
We
might also note that Ben-Aharon’s books The
Spiritual
Event of the Twentieth Century,
and
the
New
Experience
of the Supersensible were both
published by Temple Lodge, while his book America’s
Global
Responsibility was published by
Lindesfarne. This book on The Event was self published
via an
Internet on-demand publishing company. No editor save
himself was
required as would have been the case with Ben-Aharon’s first
three
books.
This is a badly written book, and very likely would have been (and might have been) rejected by an actual publisher. At the same time I need to confess that this is exactly what I do - I use Lulu.com to self publish, finding editors a limitation for their not having the same artistic taste as I do myself. Yet, I do share my works with others, and from readers receive a great deal. This fact of the on-demand world - that the book consists of ones and zeros on a server - allows me to constantly upgrade and change the primary file as readers make comments. Perhaps then, the next time this book on The Event is reconfigured, Ben-Aharon will correct such obvious technical errors as calling William Blake by the name Black (see page 14), as well as reexamine certain aspects of his whole approach.
{late addendum, written on 12/9/12: It is a curious and sad
fact that
Ben-Aharon has refused to permit me to join his Facebook
discussion
group on this book. We have to wonder what he fears
about having
his works examined by someone such as myself. That he
excludes me
is a fact. Why, is a mystery.}
The
Event
What
is The Event? To a certain extent it takes the
whole book to “delimit” this concept. What he seems to
be trying
to speak to is his perception that a kind of general change
is
undergoing all knowledge processes in mankind, at least in
the leading
edges of Western Culture. Thus science, history,
philosophy and
art give evidence of this change, but the change is
happening (or about
to happen) to all of us in some way. We are changing,
and he
seeks evidentiary support for his view.
One
point he makes is what he calls the second revolution
in science - a new paradigm emerging in the latter half of
the
Twentieth Century. One problem here is that if we look
on Google
for a “second revolution in science”, we find historians of
science
referring to the years from 1830 to perhaps 1950 - not to
the 1930‘s
and toward our present. Another problem comes when
Ben-Aharon
tries to appropriate the
thinking of Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 (Ben-Aharon says
1964) book: The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, which book
reintroduced to modern language usage the
term paradigm. Ben-Aharon seems to think Kuhn redefined
that
term, which is reasonable and somewhat true, but when I read
(page 23)
Ben-Aharon’s description of Kuhn’s ideas I hardly recognized
them (this
is a book I’ve read multiple times).
That’s
why I used the term appropriate
above, and this situation with Kuhn made me wonder what
else Ben-Aharon might have appropriated
to his use and in
support of his conclusions about The Event. Another
typical
formulation involves references to “St. Paul’s
insight”, on page 126, but never
quoting the relevant verse or
verses at all. This lack of sources is everywhere.
There
are many names, but mostly Ben-Aharon seems to want us to
infer that
what he is writing is rooted in the work of others, a matter
usually
accomplished with quotes and evidence of scholarly research.
Now I
don’t mind him writing a book in which he is being
mainly intuitive - that’s what I do. What I do mind is
his
implying constantly that his thought is rooted in the work
of others
without showing, through quotes and references, just why
that is the
case.
There
is then, in the logic-tone structure of the whole
book, a kind of appearance of what very much seems to be
thinking to a
foregone conclusion. He knows where he wants to go,
and forgets
the importance of the means, concentrating only on the ends.
The
danger here is that the wish may become the father of the
thought (Shakespeare: King
Henry IV, Part Two) .
What
was particularly odd, as pointed out above,
is that in the section on Science in Ben-Aharon’s book
that there
was no mention of Goethean Science, as inspired by Steiner.
No
mention of: George Adams’ work on projective geometry; Ernst
Lehr’s
book Man or Matter;
Schad’s book Man and
Mammals; Schwenk’s book Sensitive
Chaos; Grohmann’s two volumes on The
Plant; Hauschka’s book: The
Nature
of Substance; Bott’s book on Anthroposophical
Medicine just to lay out a missing
few.
Then there is the work in agriculture: Biodynamics.
The
research on weather by Dennis Klocek, including Climate:
the
Soul of the Earth; as well as
Chester’s
recent work on the Etheric Heart and the seventh platonic
solid.
As
also pointed out above, given Ben-Aharon’s obvious
anthroposophical background and credentials, it is clear
that he
cherry-picked his sources in support of his personal view of
the meaning of The Event. To admit to the work and
direction
of Goethean Science, and Steiner’s relationship to that
impulse, would
require of Ben-Aharon a significant adjustment as to what he
is trying
to sell in this book.
An
important point to note, is this, from page 142: Since the 1930‘s,
and more forcefully since the middle
of the 20th
Century, a highly creative force has been streaming into
human becoming
[emphasis added, ed.]. My
spiritual
research (as well as Elizabeth MacKenzie’s) has shown that
Ahriman
incarnated on Christmas Day 1950, in a mockery of Christ’s
mode and
time of Birth. Would we describe the Being of Love as
forcefully
coming toward human beings? A lover does not force
on us his/her attentions - we are courted, and nothing that
we change
is involuntary (which marks Walker’s and Ben-Aharon’s
initiation
experiences - they didn’t consciously ask, seek or knock).
Here
is another quote on The Event, page 127 at the
beginning of the section: Re-actualization:
“Working on the plane of
immanence, with fully singularized forces of the event of
virtual
actualizations, we master the capacity to
perform
re-actualizations, re-incarnations and
re-territorializations on any
level and in any field of embodied matter, life, cognition
and social
life.” [emphasis added, ed.]
This
idea of us becoming masters made me think of Matthew 4: 8-9: Again, the devil
took him to
a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the
world and
their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if
you will bow
down and worship me.” This
is,
according to Steiner, the first temptation of Christ in the
desert,
belonging to Lucifer.
Or
this from page 124:
“Third, virtual
actualization’s main operative power is made of the reversed
intensive energy invested in the formed embodiment.
Now it is wholly
distilled and
purified, and becomes infinitely intensified and it directs itself to motivate
and actualize the virtual creative actualizations and
individuations of
the event itself on its own plane, with its own forces of non-organic
life.” [emphasis added, ed]
Besides all the clever use of language, to what does “it” or “its” “power” refer? Not whom or who. Not a Being, such as Christ, but a disguised nameless force?
Something is not right here!
the
core issue
Ben-Aharon
notices a problem. He notices that
ordinary consciousness seems trapped in a logical
impossibility.
Our collective view of the
world (for most of
us) had been described by those in the business of trying to
describe
this view as something some modern philosophers (such as
- perhaps
- Nietzsche,
Steiner,
Husserl, Bergson, Heidegger, Foucault and Deleuze) see to be in error. We have a view, but
the view
is in error, or so some believe. They discover this
“error”
through their own investigations of the phenomena of
consciousness, and
Ben-Aharon agrees. Steiner, by the way, does not
belong in this
list at all, which will become apparent soon.
Ben-Aharon
creates his argument
by referring to the “theory” of
this view (rather than the experience -
a significant choice). That is he takes this
view, and tries to destroy the conceptual edifice raised by
intellectuals - their theory. The theory goes like
this, using
some of Ben-Aharon’s language:
We
have sense experience. From sense experience we
make representations or mental pictures. The mental
pictures are
not the same as the object of sense experience.
Further, we make
mental pictures (representations) of ourselves as subjects
relative to
these objects of experience. But the representations
even of our
“self” are not the
real. This term: the
real, is an important term for
Ben-Aharon.
So
there is then, the
real and against this our
representations
(mental pictures), including our representations of having a
self -
which concept or theory he describes as a little man sitting
inside our
brain receiving neurological impulses from the sense organs.
Since the representation (the mental picture) is not
what is
sensed, none of our representations are the
real, including our sense of self
as the
person having experiences. Only what is out-there,
being sensed,
is the real;
and, this includes
our self, which is not in here, but instead is out there
too.
Now if
the reader of this feels a little like they have
stepped in some mental quicksand, they are correct.
The logic is,
after a fashion, flawless. The problem with
Ben-Aharon’s
statement of the problem is that he has mis-stated it right
from the
beginning. Why did he do that? How did he do
that?
As to
why I can only guess. He went looking for
something, and thought he had found it, and that it was a
great thing
he had found. Not only that, he sensed others were
finding it
too, so he called this broad cultural change
in
perception, where the real was
being
investigated outside the limits of the older theory: the Event. People in many fields, according to
Ben-Aharon,
were finding this limit and flaw of the represented mental
picture
(either instinctively inwardly or as a philosophical
assumption) and
its failure to be the actual thing perceived (the real).
Not only
that, but some were trying to develop their consciousness so
as to get
to what they thought was the real. They were seeking
to find the
real in themselves in the outside real, rather than in the
theorized
inside, which is, according to this point of view, not real.
Let us
assume for the moment that from a very limited
point of view this is all basically true. That is,
that my sense
of my I as existing in an interior place inside my skin is
not ultimately true, and that if I want to find or know my
real “I” I
have to find it outside in the same place the real is - the
place which
is not represented in mental pictures.
Ben-Aharon
seems never to have read the anthroposophist
Owen Barfield, particularly Saving
the
Appearances: a Study in Idolatry.
Barfield is smarter and wiser than Ben-Aharon,
as well as
smarter and wiser than most of the people Ben-Aharon wants
to suggest
are involved in The Event. I, for a fact, know he is
smarter and
wiser than me. Barfield saw this problem (a common
failure of
thinking and perception) coming, and having detected it,
solved it,
while at the same time not having to make wrong or in error
ordinary
consciousness and its normal mental processes of
representation.
Barfield
saved the Appearances of this
common experience/perception of there being a
world outside and a me inside my skin. He did this by
noticing
what Rudolf Steiner had pointed out, namely that
consciousness evolves.
Barfield described in a Goetheanistic manner these
changes of
consciousness. Next a brief exposition of his major
observations
...
First
there was original participation. Human
beings felt they were inside Nature, or to use Ben-Aharon’s
terms, that
they were inside what we today call the outside. In
his book on
Coleridge (What Coleridge Thought),
Barfield noted that Coleridge called the next state of human
consciousness the perception of “outness”. Namely that
we, as a
shared common experience, think the world in a way in which
we are
“separated from it”. So original participation finally
(a long
term process) gives way around 1500 to this outness or what
some call: the onlooker separation. First we are inside the world that we
perceive
with our senses, identified with it, and then that world
pushes us out
of this inside, and into a perception of “outness” or
separation.
Following this, according to Barfield’s
perception, is to
come final
participation. That is we
will once
again unite with something, which we might today call Nature
or Spirit,
but even that too is evolving.
Ben-Aharon
recognizes this, but in his hurry to get ahead
of the curve of this change, he exaggerates almost every
fact giving
evidence of this kind of change. The first 30 plus
pages of his
book are mostly polemical - that is he pushes at the reader
how
important this Event is. How unique and everywhere
seeming to fix
and overcome the dangerous past which led somehow to the
ideas of dead
matter and so forth. He is barely descriptive
(Goetheanistic),
but mostly argumentative. He wants to drown us in his
ability to
reason us toward the conclusion he has made (the wish that is
father of
the thought). Our spiritual
freedom of
thought is not as important to him as it is for him to be
the harbinger
of what is in his view a great change, which he calls: The
Event.
See
me, he says by his deeds as
a writer and thinker and philosopher. See how
smart I am to be a part of this, and to know all these
fields of
knowledge (which is not true for anyone familiar with many
of the
fields in which he finds changes supporting his
assumptions). He
doesn’t know as much as he believes he knows - a tragedy for
all of us
as he is a quite gifted individuality. He is going
around the
world now, recently in America, trying to lead us toward his
conclusions of the existence, and significance of The Event. I do not dispute his
observations,
but rather dispute his exclusion of the facts of Steiner’s
work, and
the ultimate meaning of his observations when taken account
of in the
totality of our possible understanding of our Time.
In
anthroposophical terms we have here a very peculiar
problem. Ben-Aharon seems to want to wake us up to a
state of
consciousness now, that is not really of our now. Final participation is not now, because what is now in the evolution of consciousness is “outness”
- the
experience of separation. We have much to learn in
this state,
and we need to recognize that it is this very state of
separation that
allows our I to grow and mature in freedom. It is no
accident the
good gods led us out of original participation and into the
onlooker
separation - a state that is to last for many many
centuries.
Details in support of some of this can be found in my
book: The Art of
God.
What
Ben-Aharon wants to describe, as a philosophical or
theoretical error, is necessary for human beings to go
through.
In Steiner’s works, he describes as true evil the
bringing in of
something from the future before its true time.
Ben-Aharon is
helping this evil manifest, by making the argument that our
sense of
outness is not real. This which he argues for is false
- our
sense of outness is real. Even
Christ said in
Luke: the
kingdom
of heaven is inside you.
It is
the ultimate real which changes and evolves over
time. Ben-Aharon’s real is a made up conceptual
contradiction
between ordinary consciousness and an imaginary or luciferic
fantasy
advanced state into which we will later grow naturally - in
thousands
of years. He seeks to hurry this up, and to do that he
has to
deny that the separation - the condition of outness too is
real.
Lets
come at this from another direction ...
Rudolf
Steiner wrote three books early in his life on the
problem of knowledge - the very knowing that Ben-Aharon
wants to
dispute: A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in
Goethe’s World
Conception; Truth
and
Knowledge; and, The
Philosophy
of Spiritual Activity. In
various lectures Steiner spoke of the problem of knowledge
in this way
- I paraphrase ...
The
human being is inserted in the world in such a way
that the world’s real
nature is divided in two.
From one side
(our sense organs) we experience the world of the senses,
and from the
other side (our experiences related to thinking) we
experience the
world of thoughts. The world of the senses has an
“inside” just
as we do, and it is through our own “inside” activity - i.e.
thinking -
that we directly apprehend the inside of the outer world.
Thinking is the door to perception of the inside of
the outer
world, and to understand and practice this perception in a
living way
we begin with Goetheanism - that is we just describe what we
see.
The
outer world of the senses is mostly a necessary given
of surfaces. The descriptions that thinking produces
(the
concepts) are then the inside of what the senses experience
(the
surfaces), because the
two
insides
are directly connected.
[Steiner describes the mental picture or
representation as the
bridge between percept and concept] This enables us to
reunite
what is otherwise split without ever changing the sense
experiences
(the percept) into something else. This is why Goethe
described
what he did as: reading the Book of Nature, for these
surfaces - these
appearances - are embodied.
Just
as we know we have an inside that those who look at
our bodies do not see, so the world too has an inside.
Here
are Steiner and Emerson on the fundamental question:
Steiner
writes at age 25, in The Theory
of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World Conception, published in 1886, that: What takes place in
human
consciousness is the interpretation of Nature to itself.
Thought
is the last member in the series of processes whereby Nature
is formed.
While
Emerson writes at age 33 in the essay Nature, published in 1836, 50 years
before
Steiner wrote the above: Nature is the
incarnation of
a thought, and turns to a thought again, as ice becomes
water and gas.
The world is mind precipitated, and the volatile essence is
forever
escaping again into the state of free thought.
We
also have to learn to describe the world of thoughts
as well - that is we have to think about thinking. In
this world
of thoughts we find mental pictures, generalized concepts,
pure
concepts and ideas, as well as all manner of different modes
of thinking and moods of feeling.
Note that Ben-Aharon stopped at mental
pictures or representations in his presentation on the
so-called error
in the theory, as if that was the totality of thinking’s
inner creative
experience of thought. Lets examine an example:
I see a specific book, and I make a mental picture or representation of that particular book. I also acquire the generalized concept of books, which allows me to recognize all such quite distinct objects as members of the same category, namely they are books even though I can also have a separate mental picture of each individual book. My mind can go further in that I can create the concept: bookness. With this pure concept I can make a metaphor (what poets and true philosophers do), and which Goethe did when he said he learned to read the “Book” of Nature. This use of bookness as a metaphor draws us toward what can be called a pure concept as against a generalized concept.
Beyond this comes the “idea”. Steiner called “ideas” complexes
of
concepts. So for example the
idea of
Darwinian Evolution, while having a simple name as a
totality, is in
its details many quite different concepts combined (for the
philosophy
of science significance of this see Brady’s Dogma
and
Doubt mentioned above.
Eventually the
seeking to perceive the real nature of “ideas” leads us to
what I
metaphorically call: the garment
of
Beings. These thought-forms
are the
clothes of otherwise invisible Beings (revisit in this
regard Plato’s
Allegory of the Cave).
Now
this perception of the world of thoughts, and its
many kinds of forms of thoughts (mental pictures -
representations;
generalized concepts; pure concepts; and, ideas) requires
that the
thinking/perceiving/beholding pay attention to the content
of the mind,
in much the same way we pay attention to the sense world.
We seek
a science of the mind and discover there much that otherwise
we would
not notice. Ben-Aharon, and those upon whom he relies
-
especially the French post-modernists, seem not to have made
a very
good empirical introspective observation of the mind.
I
always thought that Ben-Aharon understood this need for
an empirical study of the own mind, given his writings.
It is now
beginning to seem that he mostly accomplished his writing as
an act of
pure intellect, not on the basis of a true introspective
science of the
mind. Keep in mind what the nature of the pure
intellect is,
absent the Christ Impulse - i.e. absent a conscious moral
intention in
the thinking. This pure untamed and unredeemed
intellect is
naturally ahrmanic.
Here -
in an empirical investigation of the mind - we
again encounter the concept/idea of an “inside”, via the
term introspection, or
looking within (the related word to
introspection in English, in German means: soul observation,
which is
what Steiner uses in his The
Philosophy of Spiritual Activity).
Even
the term or concept within does not need to have the spacial limit
Ben-Aharon wants
to give it. Steiner, for example, also pointed out the
importance
of a new geometry - projective geometry, which gives us the
spacial
laws of this within that we encounter when we examine the mind
properly.
These spacial laws establish that this “within”
actually leaves
three dimensional space behind. It is at its beginning
two
dimensional, which turns us again to Tomberg’s
characterization of
Goetheanism as: qualitative
characterizing
picture thinking.
Further,
if we read (and why Ben-Aharon apparently has
not is a wonderment) George Adams Kaufmann’s (a Steiner
pupil) Physical
and Ethereal Spaces, we will come
to the
knowledge that projective geometry describes accurately this
transition, and further that it accurately describes the
peripheral
cosmic life forces (or Steiner’s “formative forces”).
The
imagination activity in Goethe’s exact sensorial fantasy
(picture
thinking) is filled with these peripheral cosmic life forces
as they
arise in the mind. When we think in the right way, we
are within
the world of spirit in its ethereal form.
Like a
lot else he does, Ben-Aharon appropriates
projective geometry concepts in support of his foregone
conclusions, such as here on page 140:
“The process by means of
which subjectivity is produced is, according to Foucault, a
real
projective-geometrical inversion of the
external-world-circumference
outside in, creating an inner space as a ‘fold’ of the open
infinite
world.”
What
is this picture thinking in reality? It is our
imagination, which if we investigate the pictures we create
with this
power of imagination we will discover them to be “flat” as
against
having any depth similar to what we see when we look at the
sense world
with our “pair” of eyes. The mind’s creative and
imaginative
spiritual eye is singular, and in a way sees all. The
return of
the imagination or picture thinking, in our time, is part of
the return
of the Divine Sophia, or sometimes of Anthroposophia (which
is why the
title to this review is: Tragedy,
Comedy and Whimsy in Anthroposophia-Land)
There
is more, which Ben-Aharon has overlooked and which
his sources of inspiration (Ahriman and Lucifer) would seem
to want to
have us never see “inside” ourselves. This includes
the role and
influence of feeling and willing on the nature of concept
creation.
Details of this, and other modes of thinking which we
can
discover “within”, will be found in my book: The
Art of
God.
What’s
the problem here? It would appear that
Ben-Aharon never made the adventure of self-knowledge which
Steiner
urged we take in a scientific and empirical fashion through
his
early-in-life three books on the problem of knowledge.
As a
consequence Ben Aharon cannot see in himself, or recognize
in others,
the Christ centered evolution of consciousness potential in
our time.
That Ben-Aharon finds sympathy with certain writers
and artists
only shows that they too have not made this scientific
(empirical)
introspective adventure, and have only been able to find a
new
development of their intellectual prowess through embracing
the
ahrimanic aspect of their soul life (see my book: The
Mystery
of Evil in the Light of the Sermon on the Mount, for details).
This
is precisely what Steiner meant with:
“From
the
kingdom
served by Michael himself Christ descends to the sphere of
the Earth, so as to be there when the intelligence is wholly
with the
human individuality. For man will then feel most strongly
the impulse
to devote himself to the power which has made itself fully
and
completely into the vehicle of intellectuality. But Christ
will be
there; through His great sacrifice He will live in the same
sphere in
which Ahriman also lives. Man will be able to choose between
Christ and
Ahriman. The world will be able to find the Christ-way in
the evolution
of humanity.” R.S. Anthroposophical
Leading
Thoughts.
can we redeem the non-confused aspects
of
what Ben-Aharon was trying to point out?
Ahriman,
the Father of Lies, does not tell completely
false stories, but rather twists and turns matters, which
otherwise
contain great portions of the true. All of us have in
our world
conceptions (or paradigms), aspects of the false and the
true mixed in
together. I am certain my own writings would not pass
everyone’s
judgment as to their accuracy.
Also,
especially in Ben-Aharon’s case, I had the feeling
that it was important to Ahriman to destroy the righteous
aspects of
Ben-Aharon’s early works, as well as to interfere with the
general
cultural understanding of the significance of Rudolf
Steiner.
Ben-Aharon, for example, plans to write another book:
Cognitive
Yoga, which I assume is a how-to
book on
thinking-cognition. I suspect the ahrimanic
hierarchies want,
especially given Ben-Aharon’s mostly well-earned reputation
for his
book The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth
Century, to halt any possible
development of a Christ-centered
cognition from becoming known.
Recall
once more the quote from page 142: Since the 1930‘s,
and more forcefully since the middle
of the 20th
Century, a highly creative force has been streaming into
human becoming
[emphasis added, ed.]. The
1930‘s
Ben-Aharon understands as the beginning point of the
experience by
human beings of the Return of Christ in the Ethereal - what
to the
naive Christian is called: the Second Coming. What
Ben-Aharon
does not yet know (apparently) is that Ahriman incarnated in
the
physical, as pointed out above, on Christmas Day, 1950,
bearing the
name Karl Christian Rove (see my book American
Anthroposophy, and the essay
therein called: Outrageous Genius for
details).
As
Elizabeth MacKenzie’s research points out, this
Ahriman Event was preceded by Ahriman’s Star in the form of
atomic
explosions in America and Japan - another mockery of the
Christ-birth
Events. She has also noted that post his incarnation,
and in the
apocalyptic year 2012, we have had from theoretical physics
the fantasy
discovery of the so -called God-particle. This is
perhaps why so
many (such as Ben-Aharon) having noticed the more forceful aspect
appearing in the middle of the 20th Century, such
that the French Post-modernists experienced this directly in
their
philosophical discoveries as an enhancement of intellectual
potential.
Please
keep in mind that what is being pointed out here
is a general condition in humanity that is not recognized in
practice
even in the Anthroposophical Society, where knowledge of
Ahriman’s
Incarnation is resisted, and as well accurate knowledge of
the working
of the double is resisted. Ben-Aharon and the French
philosophers
are all caught up in the intensity of Ahriman’s Incarnation
and its
effects on the intellectual consciousness throughout
humanity.
The Ahrimanic influence is everywhere in human
intellectuality,
although in many souls this is balanced out by other Christ
Impulse
elements which too are appearing. Many people
naturally and
instinctively refuse to be guided by this cold and powerful
intellectuality, and instead prefer those thoughts that come
from their
warm hearts.
That
which is the dream and hope of the beginning of this
book on The Event contains many elements of the Christ
Impulse.
The Event is real, but the description of The Event in
this book
lacks subtle discernments, which this review/contemplation
is hoping
to reveal. Ahriman does want to continue the
Enchantment of
the Human Mind, and this book does not oppose that but
rather furthers
it.
Ben-Aharon’s
The Event then notices the battlefield, but
cannot yet discern the spectrum of seeming opponents.
Christ and
Ahriman together make for the The Event, while Ben-Aharon is
somewhat
predisposed to see only the positive Christ side (the wish that
fathers the
thought) - a confusion common to
almost all
of humanity, and one that only really consciously can be
overcome via
Steiner’s work on the problem of knowledge. This
age is
after all, even as recognized by Steiner, Ahriman’s Time.
The
Event could not but be stamped with his presence.
Further,
Ahriman is not evil, but rather resistance and
excessive order. Read The Event carefully and you will
see how at
one moment Ben-Aharon has a grip on the free and life giving
aspects of
The Event, and then in the next moment slips and slides into
metaphors
of power and dominance and control - anything but Love.
Ben-Aharon was able to write as a much younger man of
the Return
of Christ in the Ethereal, but not of the Second Eucharist
in the
Ethereal regarding humanity's adventure toward the discovery
of
personal and individual moral freedom (see my work).
To be
more concrete: We need to recognize that the
will-in-thinking is not about intellectual power (or
genius), but about
attention and intention. In addition it is the moral
intention
that creates Christ-centered thinking. Ben-Aharon
knows
renunciation is involved, but not having traveled as far
down that road
as is possible, and have his own intellect be so strong (his
genius),
the difference within the soul life between Ahriman and
Christ is not
so easily visible in its effects. So a thinking that
is
Christ-centered involves the intention of love, as well as a
renunciation of certain aspects of our “self”.
All of
this to some degree Ben-Aharon senses, but cannot
fully grasp. He studies middle-European philosophers,
but not
American comics and anthroposophists. Wisdom wears
many guises
and thinking manifests the sacred in a variety of ways.
People
of the Center (the middle sphere of the threefold
Earth) as well do not have doubles as strong and as vivid as
those in
the true West. No research on the threefold
double-complex
since Steiner has been done, except mine (once more: The
Mystery of Evil in the Light of the Sermon on the Mount). The ahrimanic is therefore far more
subtle in
the Center, and requires greater discernment for not being
so obvious.
We in the true West - the Americas - have an
advantage, as it
were. Being pragmatic rather than idealistic, our
relationship to
flaws and such is more common - more ordinary. This is
one of the
reasons Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Steps were born
here.
The journey to the earthly (the
non-ideal-imagined-real or
heavenly) is normal, where in the Center their idealism
seldom
acknowledges that it can be fallen. Certainly the
French
post-modernists did not think of their philosophical
discoveries as
polluted with the dark as well as the light. Yet, they
most
certainly were, for to repeat Prokofieff: none of us are
perfect.
The
Event, as conceived by Ben-Aharon, is embryonic, but
not supposed to arrive. The consciousness of outness
and
separation needs to have time to unfold all its potentials.
Humanity is not yet ripe enough to step across the
boundary and
threshold once more into unity with the All (Barfield’s
Final
Participation).
Ben-Aharon
recognizes individuality, but only as a
general case. Yes, we individualize, but more than
that we are
becoming over multiple biographies highly differentiated.
No
human being is destined to be like any other human being.
The
general characteristics of human beings will be overwhelmed
with the
unique characteristics of each separate individual spirit.
All
can love and be wise, but no one will love or be wise like
any other.
Steiner suggested each individual human being is as
unalike any
other as are different species of animals. We are as
different
from each other as are an ant and an elephant.
That
we have DNA and bi-lateral symmetry are superficial
similarities. Our individual spirit is to be unlike
any other.
This knowledge Ahriman and his hierarchies wants to
deny us.
Better we should seem all the same, a theme deep in
the
background of this book on The Event. If all the same,
then how
silly is love. But true love is hard precisely because
we are so
unalike. Being hard - that makes it all the more
worthy to
pursue.
thought
as noise
As I
read the last quarter of this book I found myself no
longer making notes in the margins - no longer trying to
grasp any
meaning. I had, years ago, taught myself how to enter
into the
thoughts of a writer and to surrender to that thought-stream
- how
to set aside self-thought for other-thought.
As I
read Ben-Aharon now, I am left simply dizzy. I
grasp no meaning, and oddly can’t find him at all. I
realize that
were I to ask him a question, if and when face to face,
there is no way
he would answer me but with more noise. He would
speak, but
no meaning would arise. As a reader I mean nothing to
him, for he
wants not to tell me anything, but rather only to take me up
into the
whirlwind of his own too often chaotic thoughts as if that
was a place
were the meaning of The Event would grab me and heal me of
my no longer
viable or useful ordinary and separate
I-consciousness.
There
is no room to breath as a reader - no space for me.
I don’t exist in his view’s assumptions and neither
does he.
The words too often rush down the page, tumble and
fall rapidly
unconnected to any point or purpose and then next rise
like a
rocket seeking to leave the earth behind for some kind of
space he
alone inhabits. In these moments all is untempered
speed.
And this done with the uber-idea that he is giving me
something I
need, which only he has.
We
don’t need more well-intentioned spiritual teachers.
We really only need for individuals, who have begun
the
exploration of new kinds of knowledge, to provide a service
as guides.
Why does he not realize he is torturing his readers?
So
much of the language has been crafted with new meanings,
such as
“virtual”, “non-organic life” and in particular the very
strange usage:
“reversing the reversals”, that it is nearly impossible to
identify
with his thought stream and find thereby its meaning.
Years
ago I read, in Tomberg’s Meditations
on
the
Tarot - an extraordinary work of
religious meaning, that to meditate upon or contemplate evil was
to lose
one’s creative elan. Tomberg there describes true evil
as a
luxuriant jungle, all unbound growth and chaos. Until
I read this
book of Ben-Aharon’s I had never known a thought-stream that
so often
felt this way.
Always
before in my reading of the higher principled
writers, such as Steiner and his many coherent pupils, they
meant me no
harm, but rather only wanted to illuminate. To read
George Adams
or Ernst Lehrs was to be lifted higher into the sublime
world of
thought. Ben-Aharon seems to think I need to be
destroyed in an
unrestrained undisciplined outpouring of concepts and ideas,
formed in
alien ways, lacking coherence and beauty.
If
Ben-Aharon is accurate in his understanding of many
French post-modernists, then they too have succeeded in so
far
deconstructing meaning as to fall into the deepest
thought-abyss
possible. Each quote of their’s Ben-Aharon gave me
felt filled
with the same conceptual chaos. No wonder the French
of late have
had such a hard time relating to the non-French. The
shared
meaning
of human relationships is, on their undisciplined path, been
shredded.
Just consider how many of the French post-modernists
lived
isolated lives. This isolation from others is what the
undisciplined ahrimanic intellectuality creates.
I can’t recommend to others to read this book, and I fear for those who do. With luck they will not surrender to his thought-stream, but rather go inwardly asleep in some way to be thus saved from what has to be called: the too frequently chaotic rushing thought-life. Again, there is truth here, but the style of presentation belongs not to the Christ Impulse.
Once
more, Tomberg’s Meditations
on
the
Tarot illuminates the underlying
problem. In that book Tomberg speaks of the luciferic
legions as
creating a stream of thought and of consciousness where
those so
influenced are: swept
away. The I consciousness of
modern
human beings needs to be loved and honored, not swept away
by a point
of view that believes itself right for this time, and which
wants to be
bowed before. Again, it is not the individual
concepts, but the
manner in which they are presented - their frequent
breathless rush and
high level of abstraction.
I can
love Ben-Aharon, but will not join him. I can
see parts of what he saw that ought to be noticed and
reclaimed from
this disaster and tragedy, where some turns of phrase are so
convoluted
as to be comic, in the way comedic pseudo-violence (such as
by the
Three Stooges) endlessly makes us laugh because otherwise we
would cry.
Ahriman
would destroy the I, leave our physical human
existence empty of spirit, and Ben-Aharon has unconsciously
given him a
great tool with which to reach such a terrible goal.
Nor is
Ben-Aharon the only modern thinker pushed in this direction.
At
the same time, if we can discern the subtle themes living in
this book,
then it can serve purposes beyond The Event, and become a
wise
cautionary tale regarding all excessive excursions into pure
intellectuality.
some
last words, his and mine
Ben-Aharon
uses over and over again an unusual word:
virtual. In the summa of his book he uses it many
times, and
prior to that he suggests he is using virtual as an analog
for
spiritual. The book seems to have been written in
English, and
the word virtual is apparently an invention of a French
playwright
Antonin Artaud. In his seminal book The Theatre and
Its Double (1938),
Artaud described theatre as “la réalite virtuelle”....” (from Wikipedia) In common English
usage today
the English word virtual means a simulation, i.e. not real
(for
understanding, look to the three films on The
Matrix).
On
page 205 he writes, concerning a new organ of
consciousness:
The forming process of this
organ condenses a clear and transparent space of stability
and
peacefulness, at the crossing point of the cosmic and
macrocosmic
streams, through which the vortex is formed as described
above.
It is formed right where the two streams meet and
fight each
other. The place in which the vortex of
metamorphosis is
formed, is in the midst of mutually exchanging, replacing,
constantly
reversing, forces. There, through the mutual life and
death and
rebirth processes, a virtual organ of metamorphosis is
formed. I
wish to call it here the crystal of consciousness.
Here
is the great clue as to whom this work owes its
inspiration. There are no Beings here ... only forces and processes. This is Ahriman’s version of Steiner’s
Occult
Science: an outline. Steiner
shows in
that book how all of The Creation comes from Beings and is
given to the
human being, but in Ben-Aharon only nameless forces and
processes,
whose object is to create a crystal-like organ. This
is the
hallmark of materialism in physics and biology - no creative
spiritual
Beings, just blind forces and processes, lacking
intention and
purpose, character and love.
Here
is from my article Outrageous Genius, on
Ahriman’s Incarnation, in my book
American
Anthroposophy:
To fill out this picture,
think on Nature. In tooth and claw, in flood and
earthquake, in
all that seems as powers of death and radical sudden change,
we see in
the processes of Nature what appears as an absence of either
compassion
or love. The Natural World (as against the Social
World*) is a
world of profound and complicated laws, which seem in their
results to
have not at all the same consciousness that one human being
might bear,
out of compassion and love, toward another. In this
indifferent
power of Nature and nature’s lawfulness, lives Ahriman as he
manifests
as an aspect of the sense world. ... Into the world the
power, the
tone, the sound of number, and the searing light of geometry
incarnated, with its naturally given mission to draw
downward the heart
of the developing social organism into rigid form and
lifeless
brilliance - what Rove called “the math” ...
Ahriman
wants to create a vehicle for his kind of
consciousness to occupy - without compassion or love, and
essential
indifferent. This is because he is the near-God of the
lawfulness
of geometry - all that we know and experience is rooted in
the nature
of Beings. The laws of geometry do not care ... they
just are.
And Ahriman is the source of these uncaring and
indifferent laws.
It
should come then as no surprise that the being-less
forces and processes seeking to create a virtual (simulated)
organ of
consciousness, would cause it to take the form of a crystal.
As the
book concludes, all manner of anthroposophical
understandings are turned on their head. There
is,
according to Ben-Aharon, only one Guardian of the Threshold,
not two,
not a Lesser and a Greater Guardian. Only the Lesser
Guardian,
only the double: “Arial
Hirschfeld
offers
a fine description of such a self-meeting with the
double ...” (page 212).
Rudolf
Steiner is said to agree with with Nietzsche: Like Nietzsche,
Rudolf
Steiner also contended that modern, rational, historical
science, born
in the 19th century, and the historiography written it its
vein is but
a dream convinced that it is full wakefulness. (as with most implied quotes of this kind, no
source is
given).
Much
of his last words imply, as a source, that he has a
special form of perception. Here he finally states
this claim
plainly (page 205):
“What is described in this
very book is being perceived and researched by means of this
organ
of
consciousness.” [emphasis added,
ed.]
This
organ refers to the “crystal of consciousness”, and
the
sentences noted above about that language of forces and
processes, were
in fact preceded by the sentence just quoted. Where
this takes us
now is to the hidden question in the whole text: By what
means does
Ben-Aharon claim to know that of which he writes?
Certainly
not by the means of research fostered and
modeled by Rudolf Steiner. Ben-Aharon has gone out on
his own,
and seems to want us to believe (without actually stating
it) that he
alone is now the spiritual leader of humanity that was to
have
succeeded Steiner. Yet, in his own biography we find
admitted
that his initiation experience was by Grace and not earned.
Only
after does he take up the study of Spiritual Science and
Anthroposophy.
Here are his own words from an interview edited by
Scott Hicks
and then published on the Facebook page for this book on The
Event.
After some remarkable but unconscious preparatory soul- and
life-experiences and processes, I felt one early evening of
spring 1975
that the inner and outer walls surrounding and blocking my
soul were
beginning to crumble down. I felt that my entire soul was
opening up
and that a stream of unknown life of great beauty and
intensity was
flowing in and through me. It was a true revelation that
continued off
and on for a whole week. [emphasis
added,
ed.]
http://www.facebook.com/groups/186975218067906/doc/204345506330877/
The
reader of this review needs to keep in mind that what
is being suggested here is that Ahriman initiated
Ben-Aharon, helped
him to understand the Second Coming in a particular but
limited way,
yet at the same time was ready to betray his pupil when the
time
required it, by making Ben-Aharon into the vehicle for the
overshadowing of Steiner’s work, and for a hiding of the
reality of the
Christ Impulse on the Dawn of the Third Millennium.
resurrection
The
last section of Ben-Aharon’s book is called: resurrection.
But neither he (apparently) nor Ahriman
(certainly) understand this profound act, which was modeled
for all
time over 2000 years ago. Only human feeling can
understand
resurrection, and Ahriman has no human feeling. Here
is something
from my own works on modern thinking (from In
Joyous
Celebration of the Soul Art and Music of Discipleship):
Thought is a flower rooted in
the soul-soil of feeling, and filled from within by the
blossoming life
of the will-in-thinking. Where an excess of unconsciousness
infects
this soil and this life, the Shadow is given free play. ...
With a cultivated feeling we
transform the soul-soil from which the thought is born and
then flowers
(which is also why the ideal is expressed as: thinking with
the heart).
...
The purified will (an
appropriately moral intention and attention) creates heart
warmth in
the soul-soil of feeling, out of which the light and life
filled flower
of thought is born.
Resurrection
is preceded by Descent. Christ on
Saturday falls (surrenders) to/through Hell into the arms of
the Mother
(expressed so eloquently in Michelangelo’s Pieta).
From the
Mother He then receives the Love needed for Resurrection.
However,
this just written cannot be understood in an act
of the intellect. Nor can it be communicated by mere
words.
I cannot give you this, nor can Ahriman or Ben-Aharon.
Only
when we surrender to letting ourselves feel love from
another human
being does there arise in our experience what all this
means. We
do not experience it in loving, but only in receiving the
feeling that
goes with being loved. This knowledge is pure
experience, to
which we may later attach a concept, but without the
experience we are
empty.
In the
Pieta She holds the fallen God, which in our
deepest reality we all are. She receives Him but does
not judge
Him. All that She is, is living in that act of
receiving and
holding. She abandons Her Self to this act.
That
this book on The Event approaches this Divine
Mystery without noting that it is a Divine Mystery tells us
all we need
to know. Here is the sin against the Holy Spirit that
cannot be
forgiven. Whether Ben-Aharon has committed this sin is
an open
question, but surely Ahriman has, which reveals the destiny
I once saw
for him in a by-grace gifted vision, with Ahriman curled up
in a ball,
lying at the feet of the Holy Mother sobbing and begging for
forgiveness at the End of all Time.
we are all fallen
incomplete
unknown even to ourselves
strangers to all that is,
until some odd time
some faint dream
when once more
we abide at peace
no longer striving
Ben-Aharon’s
book, The Event
in Science, History, Philosophy and Art
wisely notices a major part of the cultural impact of the
untamed
intellect and its struggles to redeem itself. The real
Event is with
us, not outside or inside, but with. To tame and redeem
the power of the intellect we need Him as much as He needs
us: “I am
with you, every day until the culmination of time.”
The last
sentence of the Gospel According to Matthew.
But
the power of the intellect is part of us, not outside
or inside, but part. It is in the realm of the human,
of the
tenth hierarchy, where the creative struggle to overcome the
division
between Self and Other is played out. So we have then
been
created able to give birth to that which unites in love and
in peace -
the Christ Impulse - to the end that we are no longer parts,
but rather
whole.
In
Rudolf Steiner’s statue: the Representative of
Humanity, Christ is neither holding at bay or beckoning
Lucifer and
Ahriman. Rather Christ is acknowledging them and with
them, just
as He acknowledges and is with us. As my friend
Elizabeth
MacKenzie likes to say, quoting Steiner: We
are
seen.
Tomberg,
again in Mediations,
has put the whole matter very beautifully. For
love to exist, there must be three: the lover, the beloved
and the love
that lives between them.