{"id":58356,"date":"2024-06-06T23:27:15","date_gmt":"2024-06-06T21:27:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/?p=58356"},"modified":"2024-06-07T15:54:28","modified_gmt":"2024-06-07T13:54:28","slug":"highlights-and-other-lights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/highlights-and-other-lights\/","title":{"rendered":"Highlights and Other Lights"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A travel report from the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

After the raised hopes of last year\u2019s General Assembly, the run-up to this year\u2019s meeting was fraught with disappointment. Instead of the hoped-for small number of motions, the opposite happened. The tangle of motions, counter-motions, and declaratory motions was a huge challenge for those preparing the assembly. Nevertheless, there was a willingness to engage in dialogue among those submitting motions, which meant that more than half of the motions were converted into concerns or initiatives\u2014sometimes at the last minute, i.e., at the lectern. A general assembly has its own momentum: when things get too complicated, one can volley up a motion of order and then not deal with individual motions. But in doing so, important topics may be swept under the table. So, unfortunately, the dreaded general meeting mood returned\u2014but only for the second day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Highlights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

With his motion (No. 6),<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Uwe Werner aimed for a paradigm shift: Away from votes forcing either-or decisions towards (advisory) consultative votes. Initially, this seems to be just a formality. In my report (Motion No. 11) on the work in our \u201cTransparent Communication\u201d [Transparente Kommunikation<\/em>] working group, I asked whether we could replace the power\/defence model with an initiative\/resonance one, and I described how insinuations of power\/defence are at the ready in moments of unclarity or dimmed consciousness, while the relationship of initiative\/resonance can lead to collaboration in which unexpected perspectives emerge. Such a paradigm shift cannot, however, be brought about by a decision. Regardless, Uwe\u2019s motion also fell victim to motions of order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jonathan Neisecke justified his motion (No. 14) for an advisory board of the General Anthroposophical Society (AAG) for Weleda so objectively, and Herbert Holliger described the short biographies of the proposed advisory board members so vividly that this proposal was accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A motion for a declaratory judgement (No. 0) to ensure that work on a new constitution could continue was countered with the argument that a constitution commission or convention (proposal to call it \u201cconstitutional council\u201d or \u201cworking group\u201d) could be formed from above instead of involving those already involved in the work. The wording of the motion was changed several times. The chair of the meeting, Ueli Hurter, then ordered that a final version be submitted and a decision be made only after the break. He thereby took the pressure off the negotiations so that they could be subsequently decided in peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the reviews and words of thanks, I would like to highlight a picture by Matthias Rang<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>: he indicated that when we look into the bathroom mirror, we see ourselves and the space we\u2019re in (moon karma). He contrasted this with a window that allows us to look out into the world, i.e. into a space in which we are not. The image then expanded to include a door through which we can enter into this world (sun karma).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twilights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the motion (No. 5) from Hungary, the members were asked to make the decision that from today onward, they would link the General Anthroposophical Society with the Michael Impulse. If only this were as easy as making a resolution! In this case, the group responsible for coordinating the motions was too kind. The Hungarians were not present, and in their absence, the coordinating group did not want to simply turn their motion into a request from the outset on account of its nonsensical nature. So, it was settled by a motion of order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The initiative (No. 18) was formulated more cautiously: \u201cRequest for a commitment in the following sense: \u2018Would you like to participate in an initiative, chosen or to be chosen by you, concerning the factual approach to suprasensible perception and spiritual research?\u2019\u201d I very much welcome the concern to make current spiritual research socially acceptable (and also support it through my own initiatives<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span>), however I find it inappropriate that this attempt instrumentalised the General Meeting by way of a \u201cconcern\u201d in order to point to this wish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More intensive dialogue is clearly needed for the motions by Manfred Plewka (No. 12) (to return to sending out the newsletter Anthroposophy Worldwide<\/em> every two weeks) and Thomas Heck (No. 13) (a monthly, uncensored supplement in the newsletter). However, a consultative survey showed that the wish to read even more articles is limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blacklight<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

According to Motion No. 8, the Goetheanum Leadership should be integrated into the corporate bodies. However, the Goetheanum Leadership sees itself as a cooperation between the School of Spiritual Science leadership as an organ of spiritual life, the Goetheanum administration as an organ of economic life, and the Executive Board as an organ of legal life. For this reason, there was a counter-motion from the Goetheanum Leadership and a motion to dismiss from Uwe Werner. Mark Desaules then put forward a motion that the whole matter be rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s when I realised: this is going too far! Instead of jumping to my feet and saying: \u201cWe are currently caught between power\/defence and initiative\/resonance. Please reject this motion! We already have a motion from Uwe Werner to avoid a vote, but we should not avoid the question, \u2018What is the relationship between the School of Spiritual Science and the Society?\u2019 Let\u2019s work on creating a resonant space that is worthy of this question,\u201d I remained seated. The disappointed echo after the assembly was a shrill response to the motion of order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spot(ty)lights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes, there is also paradoxical communication, for example, when someone speaks with a raised index finger about the General Anthroposophical Society being an association without a club-like character, only to culminate in a sharp voice saying that there is no dogma in the GAS. He was \u201cclapped off.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the process facilitator Harald J\u00e4ckel asked Eckehart D\u00f6nges (Motion No. 7) to express himself differently on account of his naming different ethnicities (\u201cblack,\u201d \u201cwhite,\u201d \u201cred,\u201d \u201cyellow\u201d), Andreas Worel astonished the audience with an interjection in which he pointed out the \u201cgender imbalance\u201d of the text to be adopted. There was a spelling mistake in the text (\u201cjedermann<\/em>\u201d)[\u201ceveryone\u201d; literally, \u201ceveryman<\/em>,\u201d so not inclusive of female gender]. Instead of a relieved smile, he drew the ire of those assembled. The mood was already too tense for such a smile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taillights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Even though three days were available for the meeting, time pressure led to excessive action (motions of order) that prevented further clarification. Nevertheless, I found the beginning (Day 1) and end (Day 3) worthwhile. Day 2 still had a lot of room for improvement . . . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Translation <\/strong>Joshua Kelberman<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A travel report from the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society. After the raised hopes of last year\u2019s General Assembly, the run-up to this year\u2019s meeting was fraught with disappointment. Instead of the hoped-for small number of motions, the opposite happened. The tangle of motions, counter-motions, and declaratory motions was a huge challenge for those preparing the assembly. Nevertheless, there was a willingness to engage in dialogue among those submitting motions, which meant that more than half of the motions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9235,"featured_media":57830,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9183,8845],"tags":[11516,11506,8814],"class_list":["post-58356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-anthroposophy","category-social","tag-english-issue-23-2024","tag-ausgabe-19-2024-en","tag-musings"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9235"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58356\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/57830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}