From the Principled Life to the Moral Life

By Richard Cooper

Those young eyes looking up to us, eyes of trust but also of questioning: perhaps an analogous image of for
family members and friends for whose responsibility physically and mentally we have been more actively
involved with during lockdowns. Or perhaps older family members, facing fears of health and isolation in
care homes, unable to see relatives. In times where not only distance has separated us through restrictions
to travel, but where opinions separate, we are challenged socially and perhaps spiritually as never before.
Indeed, in the last 2 years, in a world for some that has increasingly since early 2020 been lived within
one’s own four walls or within those digital four walls of the computer screen, orienting to this new normal
is a process like navigating a storm, wondering when it might abate, asking perhaps again of the stars we
might trust and navigate by, if and when this process of transition will be over.

Rudolf Steiner describes pralaya as the period of rest, a time of duration, between ages where all, as it
were, all as it was, lies dormant, before again the previous world is recapitulated in a new formation. The
term is used extensively in his book Occult Science i, for the time in cosmic evolution between the former
earth embodiments of Old Moon, Old Sun and Old Saturn, and their succeeding periods, there being the
latest pralaya between Old Moon and our current embodiment Earth. Rudolf Steiner describes how
through this process he perceived how the various beings of the spiritual hierarchies are thereby able to
unfold their activities and go through stages of development, which in turn shapes the human being in
relation. We can have an experience of this in meditation as well as in the unfolding of history. In the
transition between two ages, we can recognize when the coordinates of an ‘old’ world seemingly pass over
into a new one. With the current pandemic of 2020/21, one could indeed be struck by timely events
currently unfolding in world history as we transition from an old world an old ‘normal’ to a new one.

We may take for example, the post 1945 world that emerged after the Second World War, characterized
by: The United Nations, the United States emerges as a dominant force in the world and the ensuing split
of Europe between east and west, with Russia and China forming a Communist counter pole to Capitalist
America. Yet with hindsight, among reflections on the changing shape of societies through rebuilding after
the war, we may see that a synthesis out of this polarization occurs, for when we behold the coordinates of
this post 1945 world, we see that underneath the transition to the second half of the twentieth century,
underneath the apparently incompatible societies of west and east, a new rationale for governance of
socio economic systems, a new structure for the management of civil society was emerging, Neoliberalism.

“Understanding Neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is related to laissez faire economics, a school of thought that
prescribes a minimal amount of government interference into the economic issues of individuals and
society. Laissez-faire economics proposes that continued economic growth will lead to technological
innovation, expansion of the free market, and limited state interference. Neoliberalism is sometimes
confused with libertarianism. However, neoliberals typically advocate for more government intervention
into the economy and society than libertarianism.”ii

Neoliberalism is a way of structuring society where the government defends any challenge to the
economic system by regulating away any threats to its functioning. In so doing it seeks to avert changes to
the economic system by opening up ever increasing fields of economic activity within that system. A taken
for granted assumption is that an optimised economic structure will be of benefit to all. Moral questions as
to the efficacy of such a system are effectively side-lined (or rendered obsolete) in two ways: firstly, in the
smooth running of the stories which are maintained in this system focussed on a materialistic world view
of the human being and life itself, and secondly, through the incessant pace of change and crises, which
facilitates state intervention to perpetuate ongoing economic health in response to crises.

Walter Eucken, writing in 1952 exemplifies the social scope of neoliberal world view:

“there is no doubt a limit to the action of economic policy on global facts: but each of them can be
influenced. Even the climate of a country can be modified by human intervention. A fortiori other factors,
like the size of the population, its knowledge, its capabilities, etcetera: The broadest field of action is
offered by the sixth fact the legal and social order.”iii

So, the adage “what comes after the storm”, could be applied to the post 1945 world, as much as the
previous crisis of the post 1920 world, as much as the new world after the devastation and shock of World
War One. But the question arises as to whether in a neoliberal system, the storms, the crises of society,
history and humanity – one hesitates to say simply – accentuate, extend and consolidate market
economics?

Observing thinking in meditation

When we contemplate something intently, be it life, perception, history, a book, or a person, we may then
come to a point where it is important to drive all these impressions with an act of will form the mind, to
hold them in a sense, in a pralaya. For when we do this, we may then behold the powers lying behind the
thinking processes. For example, when describing the Rose Cross Meditation Rudolf Steiner suggests the
images built up in the mind are driven out of consciousness, or the karma exercises where we behold an
event and then concentrate our mind upon it, dwelling on it, as if tasting and digesting it. More profoundly,
the transition from Atlantis (the world in time before the flood), is the perhaps best archetype we have for
how we “weather a storm”, as we put ourselves in Noah’s shoes, looking at how the rainbow silently
dawns over a new world after the flood.

There are four processes. Firstly, we understand the position of observing, as an observant independent I,
what it is we want to investigate, which in the preceding explorations has been broadly the stage of
transition from one time to another within the unfolding of time. Secondly, we recognize that this I, lives in
its spiritual environment of thinking, of the diverse ideas and reflections one may make in observing the
weaving of thinking and feeling in our reflections and contemplations of ourselves and of life. In a deeper
process, we may identify structure, hierarchies, groupings and forms of how ideas are linked to each other.
When we follow this as a desire to investigate the truth of something, this is where we may see where life
manifests from the astral world down into the etheric, which may be insight and recognition into karma,
the destiny of humanity, society and culture or of the individual. The fourth aspect of investigation is to
consciously direct our intention strategically, to hold our attention, much like the descriptions of the
pralaya above, to then see what emerges as a heightened knowledge of the object in knowledge, of what
we have been observing.
By holding questions up to the spiritual world through this process we are able to gradually descend
deeper into our bodies to explore what lives within us. In How to Know Higher Worlds Rudolf Steiner spoke
of “For every step we endeavor to make spiritually, we should make 3 steps forward morally “, which
refers to this movement from principles of spiritual development to actual moral development as an
activation of our will to knowledge. In this inner process we slowly move away from principles to morality.

In reflecting on the world and world history, what arises is perhaps a fifth challenge to the four steps of the
process outlined previously, and that is to resist falling into a polemical position, against the hindrances
and resistances we see unfolding in the world. For these are struggles and processes of history that are
calling in imagination for a deeper sense and understanding of embodied morality, rather than mere
abstract principle.

Application of Principle

In Integral Politics: A Summary of Its Essential Ingredients, Ken Wilber identifies how we may navigate this
danger of falling into polemical positions when we come to engage with political topics in the world,

“An integral politics is not an “Us against Them” politics. It’s a politics in which every unique perspective,
both of every person who is a voter who expresses their unique perspective through voting, and through
whatever sort of civic or political activism that they’re moved to do, that you can do in a democracy. That’s
an incredibly dramatic idea that never existed previously in history, and every organized group is allowed
to and encouraged to express its perspective. But what’s happened is that politics until now has become a
zero-sum game. It’s Us against Them, we’re right and they’re wrong, and the notion of listening deeply to
another person’s perspective and saying wow … I see that, you are really pointing towards something I
hadn’t thought of before. I disagree with three things you said, but one dimension of what you said has
really moved me and I really want to incorporate it. You don’t see that a lot on your classical James
Carville, Rush Limbaugh talk shows. Because it’s a zero sum, either/or game. ”iv

The question not only arises as to how our society is changing and how this process of morality versus
principle is embodied in debates around spiritual activity in the world, but also the moral technique with
which we engage it with? These are questions that every spiritual stream has to answer in terms of their
relation, indeed relationship to society, indeed humanity as a whole. Albeit perhaps easier for one man to
voice an opinion, perhaps less for an institution of a group of thinkers and writers, here is one of the
Goetheanum’s recent statements on wider social concerns of the reception of the Anthroposophical
Society in the world:

“The Anthroposophical Society continues to direct itself towards worldwide goals that have been inherent
since its founding. The history of the Anthroposophical Society and the Goetheanum is not a pure success
story and offers no cause for self-aggrandizement and idealization. The aspirations with which this Society
and its School of Spiritual Science began were high and the discrepancy between the ideal and the reality is
clear. However, it can be both a task and a motivation to live up to these aspirations ever more and more.
Rudolf Steiner emphasized that the Anthroposophical Society has to try and ‘uphold’ what it promises for
its entire membership and thus for the world. From our point of view, in addition to critical analyses of its
own social history – as part of contemporary history – and as a commitment to the present time, this also
includes making intensive efforts toward anthroposophical spiritual science itself, its inner spiritual
substance. Rudolf Steiner quotations can be used and abused for all kinds of purposes – to discredit
Anthroposophy and anthroposophical institutions, but also to back up and supposedly legitimize one’s own
opinions. The exploitation of singular statements or passages from Steiner’s texts by critics and by
followers of Anthroposophy – with diffuse political and a variety of other convictions – has a long tradition.
One of the tasks of the School of Spiritual Science is to present work for differentiated reception of the
work and to take care of the hermeneutic layers of approach to anthroposophical spiritual science. “v

The above is a pertinent example. Firstly, one may consider the context of the polemical nature of the
debate between anthroposophy and the world with regard to racism. The debate has been going on for
decades and rears its head from time to time. Protagonists will situate themselves on one side of the
debate or the other: the one outside of anthroposophy criticising Rudolf Steiner’s comments on race, while
those anthroposophists defend their position in light of course of Rudolf Steiner’s position. One senses
well in the above text the eagerness on the part of the leadership, for the anthroposophical worldview to
be accepted in the academic world, but also the wish for the membership not to be polarised, indeed
alienated on this topic. Firstly, there is the apologetic tone, and the attempt to represent those critical in
academia of anthroposophy and equally those critical of the anthroposophical societies wish to be
accepted by the academic world. So, the text treads a fine line between wanting to represent those in
favour of esoteric research and the pursuit of inner truth as opposed to those who see this process
necessarily in collaboration with outside institutions.

Debates on racism that have accompanied the past years are indeed a hot topic in contemporary media
debates. With the influx into western countries of millions of immigrants over the years such topics are
indeed a pressing concern, and the fight for equality along racial lines, as much as gender lines has been an
ongoing debate in western societies. Such debates are essential for the smooth running of our society.
Their contemplation calls indeed for a move from principle to morality, for those affected by it: the
immigrants themselves; the local people who meet them, as much as the academics who write about
them, but what of the debate itself on how that society that they integrate into look? What stands out in
the choice of such a topic, is that by the very decision to focus upon it, other topics of current historical
and social concern, are passed over.

Concerns of and about the system

Out of concern for all our children, indeed children and adults, of people of all races and religions, one has
consider the overarching system of which they are a part, through which a crises has arisen, which raises
again the question of the Neoliberalism. Perhaps the best example has been since 2020 the Great Reset, a
proposal for social renewal, outlined by Klaus Schwab (head of the World Economic Forum) in his book of
the same name.

It is as if for the last decades, the movement of society and the economy globally and locally had been
steadily orienting itself for this 2020 moment of crisis. From disasters in the Middle East, to the Financial
crisis of 2008, to the rise of China and the changing relationship of the US, UK and Russia to Europe, The
United Nations has played an overseeing role, shaping what was earlier called Agenda 21, "the agenda of
the twenty first century". Later updated to the name " Sustainable Development 2030 ".

The World Health Organization (WHO) runs a global health policy. The World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) control money and trade. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is headed by Klaus
Martin Schwab who wrote his timely book on coming changes and present crises 'The Great Reset' 2020. In
line with this Great Reset, world leaders, heads of state, banks around the globe, NGOs (non-government
organisations) philanthropic foundations, multinational corporations, even global hedge funds, are all
broadly in agreement.

52. “We the peoples” are the celebrated opening words of the Charter of the United Nations. It is “we the
peoples” who are embarking today on the road to 2030. (…) Millions have already engaged with, and will
own, this Agenda. It is an Agenda of the people, by the people and for the people – and this, we believe,
will ensure its success.vi

The Great Reset outlines a world of social and financial global interdependence, both an economic and a
societal reset. However, it is also a political, a geopolitical reset – designed to change systems of
government, perhaps beyond what we might normally understand under that term. Many of these
proposed changes have already been implemented and can be found locally, in local government goals and
plans. Their neoliberal character lies in the orientation toward conditioning facts for the market economy;
building on neoliberal thinking since at least the 1950svii they have focussed on climate change among
other legal, technological and social goals, since the 1980s viii and now respond to pandemics, and
incorporate them into longer term planning.

The plans come complete with the outer public rhetoric of ' build back better ' and ' sustainable
development ' already the repeated standard speeches given by leaders of nation states, in line with the
United Nations. At the same time, these programs for social change show an awareness of the challenges
to people's mental health and well-being as people the world over have to adapt to the shock of a change
of reality many were previously unaware of under the ' old normal '.

In a world where we perhaps have to reimagine our understanding of politics, culture and economy. For
example, it is said in 2030, about 80% of the jobs now done by people will be fully automated by robotics.
the question is, how we engage with this new world coming into being, not passively as in feeling
overwhelmed and angry, passively polemic, but actively as in getting more informed about the coming
changes, about how they might possibly gestate something new, to better orient to the world we are
moving into? In such a process we do not have to resort to polemics but rather engagement and interest
historically in what is taking place on the world stage.
Otto Lerchenfeld (1868-1938) asked Rudolf Steiner the question that led to his formulating the Threefold
idea. In his memoir, Lerchenfeld records this thought: “[The Threefold Social Organism] did not provide
what was intended to become a definitive solution of the social question, and could naturally not do this
by reason of the very nature of a living organism. Nevertheless, there did result out of this idea the way,
the only straightforward way upon which the social conditions, the social difficulties with their eternally
varying problems, might be guided again and again towards a solution appropriate to the period, towards
their curing.”ix

What kind of world arises after the storm, in reflection on Neoliberalism and how it is embodied in
changing ideas of global and indeed local governance? The answer may lie with the persistence to think
about the relevance of moral development beyond and through analysis of the phenomena before us. This
process undoubtedly asks where each of us individually focusses their attention: initially on the principled
life – in research which is itself a form of engagement – but then secondly, in the search for the moral
commitment to pursue the application of ideals, in terms of how our insights can actively engage with life.

i
Rudolf Steiner, Occult Science, GA 13, 1909

ii
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp What is Neoliberalism?

iii
See Eugen Grundsätze, p.378. Referenced In Michael Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, Lectures at the College de
France 1978-1979, p.140.

iv Ken Wilber A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality, 2000

v Anthroposophy and Racism, Peter Selg, Constanza Kaliks, Justus Wittich, Gerald Häfner. A Contribution from the
Goetheanum Leadership. https://goetheanum.co/en/news/working-paper-on-racism
vi
Seventieth session. Agenda items 15 and 116. Distr.: General 21 October 2015. Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September 2015
https://www.un.org/.../docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf

viii Our Common Future, (Brundtland Report) 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future.

ix
Rudolf Steiner, Social and Political Science, Rudolf Steiner Press, 2003, p. 7.