Continued from: The Real 20th century, Part 1
Another thing that Steiner writes about in his prophecy is that new impulses will come into play:
"The Angels form pictures in man's astral body and these pictures are accessible to thinking that has become clairvoyant. If we are able to scrutinise these pictures, it becomes evident that they are woven in accordance with quite definite impulses and principles. Forces for the future evolution of mankind are contained in them. If we watch the Angels carrying out this work of theirs — strange as it sounds, one has to express it in this way — it is clear that they have a very definite plan for the future configuration of social life on earth; their aim is to engender in the astral bodies of men such pictures as will bring about definite conditions in the social life of the future."
I am not sure whether the means by which these impulses come into the world is as Steiner described it, but the point is that these new impulses will manifest themselves in human life, but the form they will take is up to human beings: we can respond to them well or badly.
If we combine this idea with the idea from the previous post, as well as Bruce Charlton, Owen Barfield and Rudolf Steiner's idea that from about 1750 human beings were supposed to develop a new form of consciousness, one thought that has occurred to me is that the entire 20th century, from 1914 onwards, was suboptimal. All of the developments in this century that have been so lauded and for which so many panegyrics have been written and broadcast are all more or less second-best.
Not only that, taking the idea of the first part of this post, all the sociological and economic explanations ultimately miss the point because all they do is describe, they do not go deep enough to search for the true causes. The only explanation is supernatural: how else could the communal ways of life that have endured for millenia go away so quickly?
So, it is an interesting thought experiment to ask the following question: If everything in the 20th century was a lesser manifestation of a good impulse, what would the real 20th century have looked like?
Good stuff - I like the taxi driver metaphor.
ReplyDelete" what would the real 20th century have looked like?" - There's nothing wrong with speculating about this, but I don't think these things are like a blueprint. I don't think God knows how he wants things to work out. He knows what is bad, but what is good is not clear because it is the product of human creativity.
To loop back to your suboptimal point; the problem was often that the geniuses were not usually affiliated with the loving creativity of God's creation; and less and less affilitaed, more and more hostile, as the century progressed.
So, if Schoenberg and Stravinsky are regarded as the great 20th century musical geniuses, of Picasso in Fine Art, or James Joyce... etc; it can be seen what I mean.
By contrast, the legacy of Tolkien shows how much general benefit can come from one genius who is aligned with Good.
At some level, that is why we do not have geniuses any more - they are immensely powerful and for a long time, the power of most geniuses has made 'things' spiritually worse, a great deal worse... so why have them?
It's interesting that you mention Stravinsky. I read a book called "Spiritual Lives of the Great Composers" and there is a chapter about Stravinsky where he is quoted saying,
Delete"I was born out of time in the sense that by temperament and talent I would have been more suited for the life of a small Bach, living in anonymity and composing regularly for an established service and for God. I did weather the world I was born to, weathered it well, you will say, and I have survived - though not uncorrupted."
So it seems as if Stravinsky later in life did realize the corrupting effects of fame and the 20th century culture.
BTW I was not criticising Stravinsky or the others in terms of their private lives, but the public effect of their art (as I feel it); and the excluding (as it seems to me) a a Christian spirit.
DeleteWhile I appreciate Rite of Spring, for example, as an original, exciting and colourful work (espcially live) it does seem to be doing me some kind of spiritual harm as I listen!
I get the same, perhaps more strongly (like a sickness, a pathology), from Mahler - whose musical language is (like Wagner and Strauss) much more congenial to me than Stravinsky's dry, harsh effects.
You get this as far back as music goes - but in the past most of the best composers exuded goodness like Buxtehude or Bach - or were neutral like Vivaldi or Telemann.
That's a good point about the lack of a blueprint because of creativity and choice. Yes, I think there were many possibilities for a better twentieth century that could have built upon each other as each unfolded. I wonder if things had gone differently, would the names we know have been the "big names" of the 20th century or not? In other words, maybe there were people who had the capability to be the leaders or geniuses who would have taken things in the right direction, but they were not able to. For instance, there's legend about Rabbi Hillel, the grandfather of Gamaliel, Paul's teacher, that Hillel was worthy to have been a prophet, but the people of his time were not worthy of a prophet, so he was not.
ReplyDelete"If everything in the 20th century was a lesser manifestation of a good impulse, what would the real 20th century have looked like?"
ReplyDeleteI've been asking myself that question for the better part of fifteen years, and I still haven't come up with a clear answer, but for the sake of the question I think the consciousness of the real 20th century would have somehow been able to return to the primacy of the spiritual without sacrificing the tremendous material gains and increased physical well-being created by the Industrial Revolution.
In any case, Wm Jas and Bruce directed me here. Great posts so far!
"I think the consciousness of the real 20th century would have somehow been able to return to the primacy of the spiritual without sacrificing the tremendous material gains and increased physical well-being created by the Industrial Revolution."
ReplyDeleteI think you are right. I've been reading your blog for about two and a half years now and I have especially enjoyed learning about Hungarian art.
Your posts about living near where Haydn worked are also interesting. Haydn is one of the great composers whom I most admire as a human being. He once said: "I have associated with kings, emperors, and many great gentlemen and have heard many flattering things from them; but I do not wish to live on an intimate footing with such persons, and I prefer people of my own status."