And I would like to clarify one more thing. I think the study of anthroposophy can meet anyone who would engage it with earnest interest. So I would not suggest that people steer clear of it just because they are positioned personally or socially in some particular way. When I stated that people should not meddle haphazardly with it, I m…
And I would like to clarify one more thing. I think the study of anthroposophy can meet anyone who would engage it with earnest interest. So I would not suggest that people steer clear of it just because they are positioned personally or socially in some particular way. When I stated that people should not meddle haphazardly with it, I mean two things. One, that anthroposophy should not be used to legitimize social forms that do not arise out of anthroposophical insight, and second, that those who would seek to represent anthroposophy in the world or to form communities devoted to the spirit of anthroposophy should leave it alone if they are unwilling to fulfill the kinds of requirements I have outlined. If someone approaches anthroposophy as a matter of destiny and are drawn to it by an individual representing it from within an anthroposophical community, if they find instead, a new sexual affair with that representative, and if such happenings are the accepted norm, there is simply no ground for the progressive spiritual forces to be present within such a community.
Hey Anthony - I really appreciate these additional contributions. Thanks for sharing.
One thing that's still unclear to me is what you're addressing in the article I wrote, and what you're speaking about generally and also our of your personal experience in relationship to anthroposophical community?
It's clear from what you wrote that you think I'm offering "a rational justification for [polyamory], stating that it is a new way to address the needs and desires belonging to a progressive movement towards spiritual community." I wouldn't say I've done that, and that definitely wasn't my intention. That makes it sound like I'm saying, "Go for it, it all leads to spiritual community eventually." My point was that significant aspects of it are unhealthy - the ways that it potentially spreads us thinner and makes our relationships more superficial, as well as the ways that it's used to satisfy our self-gratification. Period. That's all I concretely said about it.
I also didn't say anything positive about polygamy or pornography or AI relationships, or any of the other things I mentioned. But I did say that such things can be understood, that it makes sense that they're arising in humanity (because of the "fundamental sociological law," because of increasing individuation, and also because of oppositional forces) and that we don't actually have to freak out about them, we can see them as oppositional forces that are pointing us to what needs to be developed, calling on us to develop our consciousness, calling on us to develop inwardly.
That's also what you're saying, that we need inner activity, that we need to develop spiritually, but it seems like the main place you disagree with me is that you think I'm being irresponsible for saying that I think these developments are "for the good, even though it will lead (and is already leading) to greater suffering." It seems like you think I'm taking these things too lightly. And that makes total sense. I can see that.
I've been told that I'm perhaps overly optimistic, that I always see a "silver lining." And maybe that is irresponsible. Maybe it doens't give the things their proper weight. I also wrote an article about ChatGPT last year, and I basically said the same thing - that all these developments are wounding the human being, but they're also pointing to what we need to develop consciously. But maybe that's not the right way to look at it? I do think it's better than what I normally see people do though, which is to generally freak-out and to call on the government to outlaw these things, and to take away people's freedom. Some laws might make sense in relation to some of these phenomena, but I think we have to be really careful.
Whenever and wherever we can, we should be educating, not legislating. For instance, Steiner said that movies were definitely not a healthy development for humanity, but that we shouldn't try to outlaw them. Instead, we should be developing healthy art forms in their place. That's similar to what I was trying to say in my article about polyamory, but maybe I didn't hit the target so well...
It also seems like perhaps you think my use of the term "spiritual community" is irresponsible. If you look back at how I used it, I definitely wasn't talking about forming intentional communities or anthropsophical communities, but just the community of two people who are consciously trying to overcome themselves and meet each other selflessly.
I recognize that that means taking hold of one's sexual instincts. Again, it's what I say in the article, though I don't go as far as you do. I never say that chastity is required. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean abstinence, pure and simple? And do you think that it's a prerequisite for walking the path of spiritual development, or something that one let's go of as one walks? Should one not bother to enter into relationship if one is still struggling with it? I've never encountered, or at least I don't remember, Steiner having the same emphasis on it as you have (for instance I don't remember him mentioning it at all in Knowledge of Higher Worlds). What do you think?
I agree that none of us are in a position to compel others as to what they must do in their own lives.
I think it is only a half-truth that polyamory is a development meant to temper the excesses of sexual “liberation,” and that this development coincides with a process of Individuation destined to free us from compulsive social forms and norms. I understand that these thoughts may belong mostly to the author you cited.
Breaking free from social norms can be a sign of progressive or regressive development, that is the essential point. One can recall the decadence of Rome or the decadence of Versailles as a “development,” but it is essential to point out that it was not the progressive forces winning over the regressive forces that prefigured societal collapse, it was the expression of spoiled or rotten influences corrupting the social organism.
We can point to such aberrations and say, look, corruption is afoot, the once noble edifice of our cultural forms that buoyed humans aloft, no longer possess the inner vitality needed to maintain us still. To where should we turn our gaze to find the new meaning, the new life, the new impulses for our social order?
If we turn to our romantic relationships, to work through them, as you suggest, then we miss the greatest opportunity of all!
We must first turn to the Spirit!
This is the gesture every human soul would benefit from the most. This turning is best accomplished, in our time, accompanied and guided by spiritual scientific concepts.
Steiner speaks of the fact that when the modern human being looks inward, he does not find the higher, he finds the lower, his karma. It is not within the lower nor in his karma one finds the forces needed to heal himself nor his relationships. The higher is “outside” and “above” us. The spiritual content of the mystery books and of spiritual science guide human beings to those sources which can heal and uplift mankind from the regressive threats that beset him. He applies what he learns in order to conduct himself more nobly, more intensively, more purposefully in his life. Whether he is in a marriage, or partnership, or whatever, makes no difference. He becomes more to those around him, to his family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances in the measure that he works earnestly on himself.
Rudolf Steiner revealed that the principle of evolution forthwith is Initiation. Without the content of initiation becoming the leaven of the social life, there is nowhere left to turn for the positive, for the new.
We can implore and cry out from the rooftops or whisper in the most gentle of tones to love, to deepen, to express our most authentic wishes and concerns, but these can never, of themselves, create spiritual community, because only a clear consciousness of what is in fact spiritual can form the basis for such a community. Without the striving for the spiritual (which means nothing if this spiritual something is left vague and fuzzy) people are on a merry-go-round, but it begins to spin backward, in opposition to their real potential.
Chastity in the context of healthy social impulses refers to a state of soul wherein passions and desires are expunged or thwarted, that we may confront our fellow men and women free from their intrusion.
If I am married, I do not permit myself the self-gratifying luxury of being open to the arousal of sexual passions outside of my marriage.
If I am unmarried, the arousal of such forces experienced in relation to any given encounter with a potential suitor or maiden, serves as an indication among other observations and experiences of whether this other person may “suit me” as a potential spouse.
Such would be a chaste approach to romantic relationships.
Chastity can be developed further, but that needn’t be delved into, I think, to answer your question.
An ordering of the sexual is a prerequisite for a spiritual community that would be, in reality, capable of meeting the needs of the individual.
An individual does not need sexual “opportunity” and “support” from all sides. Thus the “sociological law” you cite from Steiner has Nothing to do with the sexual…at all. Spiritual love and the meeting of material needs are the resources that flow from the community to its individual members. That is the “community” envisioned by Rudolf Steiner.
Please pardon me if my understanding of your words is lacking. Please continue to feel free to clarify and correct me where that understanding may be shown lacking!
I agree that "breaking free from social norms can be a sign of progressive or regressive development." The new isn't always right, and the old isn't always wrong. There are forces working to pull us back, when we should be moving forward more quickly. And there are forces working to pull us forward too quickly, when we should be moving more slowly. This is where both progressive and conservative viewpoints can at times be right and healthy.
I do still think you're misunderstanding my view in certain basic ways. I'm not saying that we should "turn to our romantic relationships"... "to find the new meaning, the new life, the new impulses for our social order." This is only the second article I've ever written about romantic relationships on The Whole Social, and I've been writing for almost 3 years. If that was something I believed then I would have said it sooner. My point is that we have to seek the spirit, seek to develop consciousness, within social life (as well as outside of it), and that our intimate relationships are definitely one place where we should be working. (And of course, we can't really avoid this work - we're always either developing greater consciousness of slipping into unconsciousness, it's just a question of whether we'll take up this work intentionally). Do you see this differently?
I agree that "without the content of initiation becoming the leaven of the social life, there is nowhere left to turn for the positive, for the new," but that can be taken to mean, "Well we only need to work on ourselves and everything else will follow." Many "spiritual" people take this thought as an excuse to not bother to understand how social phenomena really work, and think society will take care of itself if we all just get "spiritual enough." Steiner gave very clear and challenging pictures about how social life needs to be formed in order to be healthy. In most of that work, he never explicitly points to the need for initiation (for instance, you won't find it in his two basic books "Towards Social Renewal" and "World Economy"), but it's still implicit in all of it because the very idea of free culture is the means by which spirit can enter society more broadly.
It was good to get a better understanding of what you mean by chastity, though I'm still not sure why the passions shouldn't also be tempered within marriage, but as you said, the topic could be "developed further." It's a big one :)
I still don't understand what you mean by "the 'sociological law' you cite from Steiner has Nothing to do with the sexual." It seems like what you're describing as healthy community - that "spiritual love and the meeting of material needs are the resources that flow from the community to its individual members" - is perhaps your way of describing what Steiner calls the "fundamental social law" and not the "fundamental sociological law"? But I'm not sure... Have you read the essay where he speaks about this law? He definitely talks about marriage and sex in relation to human beings becoming more individuated:
"All the above institutions [marriage, property, the state, language, law, and religion] arise in the first instance in such a way that the interests of the individual recede into the background, while those of the community receive particular emphasis. As a result, these institutions initially take on forms that in the further course of their development have to be counteracted." (p.22)
The counteraction he's talking about is the self-assertion of the individual, that the interests of the individual receive particular emphasis, and are no longer simply (instinctively) sacrificed for the benefit of the group. This is necessary for individuals to develop themselves.
He doesn't say it here, but he does elsewhere (i.e. in the essay "Theosophy and the Social Question" and also in "Social and Antisocial Forces/Instincts"), that this development is necessary because it means growing the capacity to chose between good and evil, between individuals serving their own lower ego on the one hand, and on the other, acting selflessly for the greater good, but now in freedom, out of their own individualized will.
And on the following page he describes in a little more detail that man has moved from "sexual communism to individual monogamy" and how this is similar to moving from "communal property" to "personal property" - the movement is towards the self-assertion of the individual.
So he definitely does speak about increasing individuation in connection to relationships, and how it is a necessary development, but also how it can go in two direction - we can lose ourselves in self-gratification, or we can consciously choose to serve others. In my essay I'm trying to point to these two choices and how many of the things that are arising are taking us towards self-gratification.
Does that make sense, or does it still seem off to you? It seems like we're basically saying the same thing (the importance of developing oneself and not falling prey to self-gratification), but that you just disagree with my way of saying them. You think I should be more clear in condemning the forms and use stronger language about the importance of initiation. Is that correct, or is there something else that I'm missing?
I think we’re getting closer to understanding one another.
Two factors in particular led to my impulse to shine a penetrating light onto the phenomena of polyamory.
The first comes from the statement that introduced your article on the anthroposophical forum:
"In the essay "The Social Question," Steiner brought what he called the fundamental sociological law: the idea that individuals once served the community, but now the community increasingly serves the individual. When I apply such a law to a phenomenon like polyamory, I think it illuminates how relationships are developing and will develop in the future."
One could easily conclude from such a statement that polyamory is a form that is meant to fulfill the obligations the community increasingly feels towards the individual. This would not be a healthy application of the “law,” rather it would be a symptomatic trend of a disease process in the social organism.
I think this still must be recognized for us to understand one another. The move from “sexual communism to individual monogamy” is a development, as you say, towards individual freedom, but the “social law” is not rightly in force to PROMOTE MORE sexuality, rather, it creates forms conducive to the SPIRITUAL PROGRESS of the Individual even in its sexual life. A love based monogamous marriage is the highest expression of that law. Do you understand this?
Further on you take the reader into Douthat’s assessment of polyamory as a natural evolutionary step in the realm of sexual relationships.
I begin to understand now that it was not your intention to highlight his work as an example of a legitimate understanding of what polyamory portends.
I think you catch my meaning rightly in regards to Initiation being the principle of modern evolution when you recognize the fact that the cultural life is meant to foster the spiritual as the leaven of all areas of human life.
Self-development, as characterized by Steiner, is always undertaken as service rendered to the whole. This is the clear distinction between the Black and White paths. It is certainly worth repeating again and again. Stating that pseudo-spiritual movements ignore the fundamental social impulses belonging to humanity cannot obscure the fact that human beings must really learn who the human being is and how he is related to the world through spiritual insight if he is to overcome the pressures of adversarial powers. The decision to work on oneself is a further step anyone can take; to take on an esoteric path of development.
“When the rose adorns itself, it adorns the garden."
And I would like to clarify one more thing. I think the study of anthroposophy can meet anyone who would engage it with earnest interest. So I would not suggest that people steer clear of it just because they are positioned personally or socially in some particular way. When I stated that people should not meddle haphazardly with it, I mean two things. One, that anthroposophy should not be used to legitimize social forms that do not arise out of anthroposophical insight, and second, that those who would seek to represent anthroposophy in the world or to form communities devoted to the spirit of anthroposophy should leave it alone if they are unwilling to fulfill the kinds of requirements I have outlined. If someone approaches anthroposophy as a matter of destiny and are drawn to it by an individual representing it from within an anthroposophical community, if they find instead, a new sexual affair with that representative, and if such happenings are the accepted norm, there is simply no ground for the progressive spiritual forces to be present within such a community.
Hey Anthony - I really appreciate these additional contributions. Thanks for sharing.
One thing that's still unclear to me is what you're addressing in the article I wrote, and what you're speaking about generally and also our of your personal experience in relationship to anthroposophical community?
It's clear from what you wrote that you think I'm offering "a rational justification for [polyamory], stating that it is a new way to address the needs and desires belonging to a progressive movement towards spiritual community." I wouldn't say I've done that, and that definitely wasn't my intention. That makes it sound like I'm saying, "Go for it, it all leads to spiritual community eventually." My point was that significant aspects of it are unhealthy - the ways that it potentially spreads us thinner and makes our relationships more superficial, as well as the ways that it's used to satisfy our self-gratification. Period. That's all I concretely said about it.
I also didn't say anything positive about polygamy or pornography or AI relationships, or any of the other things I mentioned. But I did say that such things can be understood, that it makes sense that they're arising in humanity (because of the "fundamental sociological law," because of increasing individuation, and also because of oppositional forces) and that we don't actually have to freak out about them, we can see them as oppositional forces that are pointing us to what needs to be developed, calling on us to develop our consciousness, calling on us to develop inwardly.
That's also what you're saying, that we need inner activity, that we need to develop spiritually, but it seems like the main place you disagree with me is that you think I'm being irresponsible for saying that I think these developments are "for the good, even though it will lead (and is already leading) to greater suffering." It seems like you think I'm taking these things too lightly. And that makes total sense. I can see that.
I've been told that I'm perhaps overly optimistic, that I always see a "silver lining." And maybe that is irresponsible. Maybe it doens't give the things their proper weight. I also wrote an article about ChatGPT last year, and I basically said the same thing - that all these developments are wounding the human being, but they're also pointing to what we need to develop consciously. But maybe that's not the right way to look at it? I do think it's better than what I normally see people do though, which is to generally freak-out and to call on the government to outlaw these things, and to take away people's freedom. Some laws might make sense in relation to some of these phenomena, but I think we have to be really careful.
Whenever and wherever we can, we should be educating, not legislating. For instance, Steiner said that movies were definitely not a healthy development for humanity, but that we shouldn't try to outlaw them. Instead, we should be developing healthy art forms in their place. That's similar to what I was trying to say in my article about polyamory, but maybe I didn't hit the target so well...
It also seems like perhaps you think my use of the term "spiritual community" is irresponsible. If you look back at how I used it, I definitely wasn't talking about forming intentional communities or anthropsophical communities, but just the community of two people who are consciously trying to overcome themselves and meet each other selflessly.
I recognize that that means taking hold of one's sexual instincts. Again, it's what I say in the article, though I don't go as far as you do. I never say that chastity is required. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean abstinence, pure and simple? And do you think that it's a prerequisite for walking the path of spiritual development, or something that one let's go of as one walks? Should one not bother to enter into relationship if one is still struggling with it? I've never encountered, or at least I don't remember, Steiner having the same emphasis on it as you have (for instance I don't remember him mentioning it at all in Knowledge of Higher Worlds). What do you think?
Thanks for the conversation :)
I agree that none of us are in a position to compel others as to what they must do in their own lives.
I think it is only a half-truth that polyamory is a development meant to temper the excesses of sexual “liberation,” and that this development coincides with a process of Individuation destined to free us from compulsive social forms and norms. I understand that these thoughts may belong mostly to the author you cited.
Breaking free from social norms can be a sign of progressive or regressive development, that is the essential point. One can recall the decadence of Rome or the decadence of Versailles as a “development,” but it is essential to point out that it was not the progressive forces winning over the regressive forces that prefigured societal collapse, it was the expression of spoiled or rotten influences corrupting the social organism.
We can point to such aberrations and say, look, corruption is afoot, the once noble edifice of our cultural forms that buoyed humans aloft, no longer possess the inner vitality needed to maintain us still. To where should we turn our gaze to find the new meaning, the new life, the new impulses for our social order?
If we turn to our romantic relationships, to work through them, as you suggest, then we miss the greatest opportunity of all!
We must first turn to the Spirit!
This is the gesture every human soul would benefit from the most. This turning is best accomplished, in our time, accompanied and guided by spiritual scientific concepts.
Steiner speaks of the fact that when the modern human being looks inward, he does not find the higher, he finds the lower, his karma. It is not within the lower nor in his karma one finds the forces needed to heal himself nor his relationships. The higher is “outside” and “above” us. The spiritual content of the mystery books and of spiritual science guide human beings to those sources which can heal and uplift mankind from the regressive threats that beset him. He applies what he learns in order to conduct himself more nobly, more intensively, more purposefully in his life. Whether he is in a marriage, or partnership, or whatever, makes no difference. He becomes more to those around him, to his family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances in the measure that he works earnestly on himself.
Rudolf Steiner revealed that the principle of evolution forthwith is Initiation. Without the content of initiation becoming the leaven of the social life, there is nowhere left to turn for the positive, for the new.
We can implore and cry out from the rooftops or whisper in the most gentle of tones to love, to deepen, to express our most authentic wishes and concerns, but these can never, of themselves, create spiritual community, because only a clear consciousness of what is in fact spiritual can form the basis for such a community. Without the striving for the spiritual (which means nothing if this spiritual something is left vague and fuzzy) people are on a merry-go-round, but it begins to spin backward, in opposition to their real potential.
Chastity in the context of healthy social impulses refers to a state of soul wherein passions and desires are expunged or thwarted, that we may confront our fellow men and women free from their intrusion.
If I am married, I do not permit myself the self-gratifying luxury of being open to the arousal of sexual passions outside of my marriage.
If I am unmarried, the arousal of such forces experienced in relation to any given encounter with a potential suitor or maiden, serves as an indication among other observations and experiences of whether this other person may “suit me” as a potential spouse.
Such would be a chaste approach to romantic relationships.
Chastity can be developed further, but that needn’t be delved into, I think, to answer your question.
An ordering of the sexual is a prerequisite for a spiritual community that would be, in reality, capable of meeting the needs of the individual.
An individual does not need sexual “opportunity” and “support” from all sides. Thus the “sociological law” you cite from Steiner has Nothing to do with the sexual…at all. Spiritual love and the meeting of material needs are the resources that flow from the community to its individual members. That is the “community” envisioned by Rudolf Steiner.
Please pardon me if my understanding of your words is lacking. Please continue to feel free to clarify and correct me where that understanding may be shown lacking!
Hey Anthony,
I agree that "breaking free from social norms can be a sign of progressive or regressive development." The new isn't always right, and the old isn't always wrong. There are forces working to pull us back, when we should be moving forward more quickly. And there are forces working to pull us forward too quickly, when we should be moving more slowly. This is where both progressive and conservative viewpoints can at times be right and healthy.
I do still think you're misunderstanding my view in certain basic ways. I'm not saying that we should "turn to our romantic relationships"... "to find the new meaning, the new life, the new impulses for our social order." This is only the second article I've ever written about romantic relationships on The Whole Social, and I've been writing for almost 3 years. If that was something I believed then I would have said it sooner. My point is that we have to seek the spirit, seek to develop consciousness, within social life (as well as outside of it), and that our intimate relationships are definitely one place where we should be working. (And of course, we can't really avoid this work - we're always either developing greater consciousness of slipping into unconsciousness, it's just a question of whether we'll take up this work intentionally). Do you see this differently?
I agree that "without the content of initiation becoming the leaven of the social life, there is nowhere left to turn for the positive, for the new," but that can be taken to mean, "Well we only need to work on ourselves and everything else will follow." Many "spiritual" people take this thought as an excuse to not bother to understand how social phenomena really work, and think society will take care of itself if we all just get "spiritual enough." Steiner gave very clear and challenging pictures about how social life needs to be formed in order to be healthy. In most of that work, he never explicitly points to the need for initiation (for instance, you won't find it in his two basic books "Towards Social Renewal" and "World Economy"), but it's still implicit in all of it because the very idea of free culture is the means by which spirit can enter society more broadly.
It was good to get a better understanding of what you mean by chastity, though I'm still not sure why the passions shouldn't also be tempered within marriage, but as you said, the topic could be "developed further." It's a big one :)
I still don't understand what you mean by "the 'sociological law' you cite from Steiner has Nothing to do with the sexual." It seems like what you're describing as healthy community - that "spiritual love and the meeting of material needs are the resources that flow from the community to its individual members" - is perhaps your way of describing what Steiner calls the "fundamental social law" and not the "fundamental sociological law"? But I'm not sure... Have you read the essay where he speaks about this law? He definitely talks about marriage and sex in relation to human beings becoming more individuated:
"All the above institutions [marriage, property, the state, language, law, and religion] arise in the first instance in such a way that the interests of the individual recede into the background, while those of the community receive particular emphasis. As a result, these institutions initially take on forms that in the further course of their development have to be counteracted." (p.22)
The counteraction he's talking about is the self-assertion of the individual, that the interests of the individual receive particular emphasis, and are no longer simply (instinctively) sacrificed for the benefit of the group. This is necessary for individuals to develop themselves.
He doesn't say it here, but he does elsewhere (i.e. in the essay "Theosophy and the Social Question" and also in "Social and Antisocial Forces/Instincts"), that this development is necessary because it means growing the capacity to chose between good and evil, between individuals serving their own lower ego on the one hand, and on the other, acting selflessly for the greater good, but now in freedom, out of their own individualized will.
And on the following page he describes in a little more detail that man has moved from "sexual communism to individual monogamy" and how this is similar to moving from "communal property" to "personal property" - the movement is towards the self-assertion of the individual.
So he definitely does speak about increasing individuation in connection to relationships, and how it is a necessary development, but also how it can go in two direction - we can lose ourselves in self-gratification, or we can consciously choose to serve others. In my essay I'm trying to point to these two choices and how many of the things that are arising are taking us towards self-gratification.
Does that make sense, or does it still seem off to you? It seems like we're basically saying the same thing (the importance of developing oneself and not falling prey to self-gratification), but that you just disagree with my way of saying them. You think I should be more clear in condemning the forms and use stronger language about the importance of initiation. Is that correct, or is there something else that I'm missing?
(And if you want to read the essay I'm referring to ("The Social Question") I have it on my website here: https://thewholesocial.substack.com/more-resources)
All the best - Seth
I think we’re getting closer to understanding one another.
Two factors in particular led to my impulse to shine a penetrating light onto the phenomena of polyamory.
The first comes from the statement that introduced your article on the anthroposophical forum:
"In the essay "The Social Question," Steiner brought what he called the fundamental sociological law: the idea that individuals once served the community, but now the community increasingly serves the individual. When I apply such a law to a phenomenon like polyamory, I think it illuminates how relationships are developing and will develop in the future."
One could easily conclude from such a statement that polyamory is a form that is meant to fulfill the obligations the community increasingly feels towards the individual. This would not be a healthy application of the “law,” rather it would be a symptomatic trend of a disease process in the social organism.
I think this still must be recognized for us to understand one another. The move from “sexual communism to individual monogamy” is a development, as you say, towards individual freedom, but the “social law” is not rightly in force to PROMOTE MORE sexuality, rather, it creates forms conducive to the SPIRITUAL PROGRESS of the Individual even in its sexual life. A love based monogamous marriage is the highest expression of that law. Do you understand this?
Further on you take the reader into Douthat’s assessment of polyamory as a natural evolutionary step in the realm of sexual relationships.
I begin to understand now that it was not your intention to highlight his work as an example of a legitimate understanding of what polyamory portends.
I think you catch my meaning rightly in regards to Initiation being the principle of modern evolution when you recognize the fact that the cultural life is meant to foster the spiritual as the leaven of all areas of human life.
Self-development, as characterized by Steiner, is always undertaken as service rendered to the whole. This is the clear distinction between the Black and White paths. It is certainly worth repeating again and again. Stating that pseudo-spiritual movements ignore the fundamental social impulses belonging to humanity cannot obscure the fact that human beings must really learn who the human being is and how he is related to the world through spiritual insight if he is to overcome the pressures of adversarial powers. The decision to work on oneself is a further step anyone can take; to take on an esoteric path of development.
“When the rose adorns itself, it adorns the garden."