Lorenzo Ravagli talking Anthroblog, by Lorenzo Ravagli a call to provide its readers with authentic information about the mythical author available. Anthroblog: Mr. Ravagli when searching the web for your name, then we find, depending on the engine between 10,000 and 30,000 entries. How can one be found among all this information to the law and get an accurate picture of you?
Lorenzo Ravagli: The Internet is, as everyone knows, not just an information source to which one can rely on. Everyone can now set up an anonymous blog, and share in the world, just as he fits. No man can see this wealth of information and ultimately it is still more or less left to chance, to verify whether the content that you find on the net, and the truth.
Anthroblog: So much the more pleased that you give us an authorized interview in which we can ask for some subjects on which all sorts of false information circulating on the Internet. First of all, to anticipate the unappetizing: You are a supporter of NPD?
Ravagli Lorenzo: God forbid! I am neither a supporter nor a sympathizer of the NPD. Nor any other right-wing party. I detest this narrow-minded creatures who think they could the social problems of the 21st Century by falling back on completely discredited policy prescriptions to solve. National Socialism was the greatest catastrophe in human history. The crimes committed by him are unacceptable. This combination of racism and biologism, who saw in the mass extermination of Jews a way to redemption of the Aryan race, is simply atrocious. And that this salvation delusion was then also put into action and him six million Jews are the victims, which really is the ultimate in barbarism, which one could achieve in the short time that the Nazis stood for the implementation of their program available. Each of these terrible today Episode of the story is positive or LINKED to justify the Nazi ideology or trivialize investigation is correct to the sidelines.
Anthroblog: Are you a leftist?
Lorenzo Ravagli: In school I was active for several years in the Marxist League. But I realized that this form of agitation that the whole ideology of class struggle does not yield satisfactory results. The study of the history of Marxism and communism has cured me of this Sozialromantizismus.
Anthroblog: Which party is for her views on next?
Ravagli Lorenzo: I am not interested in party politics, but for democracy, for social and cultural discussions. The parties participating in these discussions, of course, but their problem is that they are always compromises and reduce complex reality to a few key words must, so that they fit into the television formats yet. I think the German Basic Law for one of the best constitutions, there are, especially concerned, what the emphasis on human dignity and the guarantee of freedoms. And as we know it has even left open the possibility to expand the forms of citizen participation, so what happens now in many states. I think we are there on the right track. Because the more citizens have the opportunity to also through legislative action (citizens'), referenda, etc. participate in the shaping of society, the better. I think the Switzerland model in this regard.
Anthroblog: You are committed to anthroposophy Rudolf Steiner, some see you as even "a" chief ideologist.
Ravagli Lorenzo: I really do not know how to get this honor. This is pure polemic. Who knows the anthroposophical scene in which everyone insists on his own opinion, even if he does not, can laugh at the idea of an anthroposophic chief ideologues only. I would never presume to the self. There are these Anthroposophenwitz: a anthroposophist, thirteen opinions. Moreover, I am committed not to anthroposophy Rudolf Steiner.
Anthroblog: How? You've already got a lot of books written to defend Anthroposophy even against the racism accusation ...
Ravagli Lorenzo: This is such a rumor. First, I do not even know what anthroposophy really is, although I have long occupied with the work of Steiner. And secondly, I'm not defending anthroposophy, but I tried the contemporary reformulation of some of its basic ideas.
Anthroblog: I find it a little ironic that you say you would not know what is anthroposophy.
Lorenzo Ravagli: I even think it is a sign that they have not understood if we are told, you know what it is. After all, I think, to have an idea of what anthroposophy is not. It is not a system of ideas, not ideology, not a collection of opinions or beliefs, but a spiritual experience. Since it is tied to the single individual - this spiritual experience, I mean - there are at least as many anthroposophy, as there are individuals that make this spiritual experience. So we can define anthroposophy nor defend. One can not enter into a conversation about their readings of what individuals think of below. What Steiner concerned, I think he has been misunderstood to the extreme, if one believes that he would produce a belief system do to where you can confess. Anthroposophy is not the "wisdom of man" in the sense of a system of abstract ideas, as some dictionaries, but the wisdom that is born in man and with man, who lives with him - and died with him. How can one take such a highly individual wisdom in a creed?
Anthroblog: But you do not claim to formulate an interpretation of anthroposophy, which is also valid for others?
Ravagli Lorenzo: I can not speak for others, but only for I myself do not believe in representation, especially of usurped or imputed. Every person represents his opinions and comments only themselves This is a radical individualism. If I have learned something from Steiner, then there is this radical individualism. Every human being, and I mean that in express terms, is a cosmos in itself, even if they are billions of cosmos in the most varied kind eineinander entangled and intertwined. How can we can talk for another?
Anthroblog: What, then, according to this view anthroposophy for a job in the world?
Lorenzo Ravagli: The liberation of individual creativity. This tendency to unleash or exemption is the radical autonomist feature of anthroposophy, Steiner has led to regard themselves as individual anarchists. When people refer to today as Anthroposophy, they must mean that they are looking for their individual wisdom, otherwise they are not self-correct. Still less do they understand of course, those who speak of anthroposophy and think they have to polemics against them or they "fight" to. You have to realize that even what they mean to fight to have, is the basis of their own human existence - the ability through individual Situate spiritual meaning in the world. In anthroposophy, as I Vesteh, it's about nothing else but for the liberation of the individual assets to the meaningfulness from their own individual knowledge.
Anthroblog: And what about the defense against the accusation Racism?
Lorenzo Ravagli: Racism is abhorrent not only as part of Nazism, he is in any form. This reduction of man to the perspective of a health philosophy is intellectually dopey and from the standpoint of humanism seen from simply undignified. From the anthroposophy of view - I mean the term of anthroposophy, the Steiner has developed to some extent - is the reduction of the individual to any collective identities objectionable. In particular, the attempt to reduce the collective to individual unique to biological characteristics, an idea born out of man, individual wisdom suggests the face. If the individual is treated as having the ability to create a cosmos of wisdom, then one can derive from the cosmos to man, but not the people from a limited part of the cosmos. I believe this is in line with Steiner, as I understand it. In his view, belong to all possible forms of collectives in the past. Humanity grows out of all the collectives, by more and more detail in the People individually. In his view, in 1879 a new "Michael age has dawned," the radicalized this individualization. The zeitgeist-Archangel Michael leads humanity to Christ, ie the birth of the divine in each individual. This in turn leads to the recognition of each individual, because it is an image of God. In this sense, Steiner spoke of the social encounter as a sacrament.
Anthroblog: But there are quite a few items in stone, in which he misses in dubious nature of the blacks or the races.
Lorenzo Ravagli: Just - what do these quotes with Anthroposophy? You may have something to do with his former listeners, but certainly not with anthroposophy, with a wisdom of man, in which he himself defines his character. I must confess that I fix all this by people who campaign against anthroposophy can not understand for a hundred years old quotes. Included because the hundred-year-old quotes anything to say about me? I let myself but not by statements of an author to define who has lived a hundred years ago, I define myself And I define my understanding of anthroposophy itself is something else left us not just when we take seriously Steiner.
Anthroblog: Now you have even a Entgegenung of Helmut Zanders' anthroposophy in Germany, "written in which they have accused him of incompetence and lack of understanding. Is that a defense of anthroposophy?
Lorenzo Ravagli: No! One can not defend anthroposophy anthroposophy because in order to emphasize again, do not exist. There are only Anthroposophy in the majority. They do exist, for example, in a Muslim because I would not deny a Muslim this specific form of human wisdom that is born of his own. What matters this generation potential of the spiritual cosmos is recognizable as such, and derive from it the appropriate self-image as a man. It can be seen, of course, stülpen wisdom that some systems, the individual people of their individual creativity, they prevent it rather to recognize that creativity and to live by. But this is a problem of self-knowledge, not a problem of anthroposophy. Once you realize that today can only go about the creative potential that every human being is innate, expose, and then derives from this course on a critical attitude toward ideologies that hinder the development of this potential, because freedom is not want to allow. I must also think such a structure in Zanders perceive, to dress with him in the attitude of the enlightened criticism. In truth This attitude is a strategy for the prevention of individual creativity. That is what my reply, which is basically no reply, but, as in Untertiel is, an analysis.
Anthroblog: But a critical analysis.
Ravagli Lorenzo: Well, an analysis is always critical. In this respect, this subtitle is actually a tautology. The people that I like to stylize today dogmatists and chief ideologue, should re-read my books, "especially my contributions to the" Yearbook of anthroposophic criticism that I have edited for 12 years. You can find all these tracks through a simple search at amazon.de. But reading the willingness and Read also takes the thinking, unfortunately, more and more. Lately one can observe even the recipient of the Internet phenomenon that there are people who can write without thinking about it. In a modification of a sentence of Kleist, one could speak of a progressive inhibition of thought while writing.
Anthroblog: An entirely different question. Are you religious?
Lorenzo Ravagli: If you see in the permanent celebration of a decent existence of a religious act, then I am religious.
Anthroblog: And what do you think of the different religions?
Lorenzo Ravagli: What is one answer to such a question? I would estimate not Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, if you are targeting with your question on something. Religions have wisdom or knowledge forms that are more or less appropriate to exempt the individual man and his unique creativity.
Anthroblog: How do you see the relationship between science and religion?
Ravagli Lorenzo: I do not believe in the fairy tale of conflict between religion and education. The historical religions have their own specific cloudy in the sciences and their specific religions. Anyone with a little more intense dealing with the history of science or the history of the Enlightenment, white, that they are far less rational than the dogmatic rationalists assert. It is not to be overlooked so that those who have written the education and science on the flags to pull against the irrationality of religion to mimic field, not just what they are fighting, but also imitate nor bad. The advanced rationality of a Buddhist sutra or a scholastic quaestio is a cultivated taste much more palatable than the platitudes of a Trivial religion of rationalism.
"We can not go on living as before." This view is also Peter Sloterdijk the basis for investigations of this book. The apocalyptic insight asks us to consider our present and future with new eyes. 
