Anthroposophy for Dummies

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Anthony66 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:16 am A couple of random questions have popped up for me in my continued research of Anthroposophy/Spiritual Science (ASS :D).

What is the understanding of God? Steiner seems to say some things about this which seem to be in tension.

At https://www.rudolfsteinerweb.com/Rudolf ... mology.php, we read:
Through a conscious strengthening and enhancing of this thinking activity (so that it no longer needs the foundation of the physical senses) it is possible to attain to knowledge of supersensory reality. The contents of knowledge are immediately given to us without any mediation of the senses. The world of supersensory beings and their deeds are then step-wise revealed to us in our consciousness where, in the act of know­ing, concept and percept are one.
What does this mean practically? Could one navigate the world with their eyes closed and ears block and function just fine?

Anthony,

We should reason through this carefully. Some steps can be 'skipped' (at least for our discussion here) since we are working from metaphysical idealism. Under the latter, physical perceptions we perceive with eyes and ears are always representations of ideal realities i.e. ideal meaning. That is true under BK's idealism as well. Then one comes to the epistemic question - can we unveil the meaningful realities giving rise to the physical images in this lifetime or not? BK says no, we must wait until physical death to see what may happen. Why is the boundary of death so fundamentally disconnected from every other state of being in our living experience, to the extent it allows this special unrestricted access which is not even the slightest bit available prior to death? That BK has no answer to, but it just "feels right" in the modern age and keeps our secular (materialist, panpsychist, idealist, etc.) philosophic and scientific friends happy, so we flow with it.

Either way, we must admit our cognitive activity is actually a sense-perceptive faculty - it is the only faculty which perceives meaning, and we have already established there is only meaning underlying physical world in our idealist framework. That also means our eyes, ears, etc. are cognitive senses in some way - our senses are not only linked to discrete, divided realms of experience, where we perceive one kind of thing with one sense and an entirely different kind of thing with another sense. The sense-activities are always interweaving each other. Just as we can work to strengthen our vision, hearing, etc., we can work to strengthen our thinking-sense. That is what is meant by "higher cognition" of the sort Steiner is describing above. It will be confusing only so long as we don't think about the whole philosophical-metaphysical framework holistically, in all its rich implications.

I'm not quite sure where the "God" understanding fits in to your question above, but Steiner conceives of the Spirit, in its living essence, just as all ancient spiritual people did. But not as the anthropomorphized, abstract, transcendant (forever remote) "God" of the modern age.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Cleric K »

Anthony66 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:16 am
Through a conscious strengthening and enhancing of this thinking activity (so that it no longer needs the foundation of the physical senses) it is possible to attain to knowledge of supersensory reality. The contents of knowledge are immediately given to us without any mediation of the senses. The world of supersensory beings and their deeds are then step-wise revealed to us in our consciousness where, in the act of know­ing, concept and percept are one.
What does this mean practically? Could one navigate the world with their eyes closed and ears block and function just fine?
Ashvin already addressed this. I'll add only a QM metaphor.

The reason the threshold of death is special is because while in a body, it's like having a detector at one slit of the two-slit experiment. Our body is in 'collapsed' state. Higher knowledge (continuing the QM metaphor) is like gaining consciousness of the hierarchical wave function of the Universe (which is not matter-wave but 'spiritual wave'). We always need the full spectrum. The reason is because the 'wave function' is not deterministic, in the sense that knowing the higher order spiritual processes doesn't deterministically yield the more convoluted states. Instead, in the process of differentiation there's always a degree of creative freedom. In a very limited sense we can take the etheric (life) body as the wave function of the physical body. They are not really separate, any more that solid and water phase of matter are separate. There are distinguishable thresholds of 'phase-transitions' but there's also continuous gradient. I say this in the sense that we should avoid thinking of both as completely different aspects of reality. It's much rather a gradual differentiation and concretization of spiritual potential.

Having said that, the physical body can't be reduced to higher order processes (or vice versa), because there's some degree of freedom in the physical spectrum which doesn't follow deterministically from the higher worlds. The higher orders shape the constraints but the spirit is active everywhere. So in this sense we can't go without the physical senses because they are our point of contact with the concrete manifestation of the physical, whose concreteness we can never know except through that which is already of the same decohered nature.

It is very interesting how we can now use QM metaphors as a matter of course for describing such things. We have a conceptional palette that was non-existent a little more than a century ago. Just imagine the time when scientists were pretty certain that atoms and few forces could quite well explain everything in reality. Such were the times when Steiner worked. It is very interesting to see in many places how he struggles to describe things from spiritual perception, which he could do only with the vocabulary available at the time. Consider this:
Steiner wrote:When human beings pass through the portal of death, they first have certain experiences. Their first experience is the feeling that they are growing larger or that they are growing out of their skin. This has the effect of the human being attaining another perception of things than was the case earlier in physical life. Everything in the physical world has its definite place — either here or there — outside the observer, but that is not so in this new world. There, it is as if the human being were inside the objects, extended with or within them, whereas earlier he or she was only a separate object in its own place. The second experience after death consists of a human being's attaining a “memory tableau” of the life just completed, so that all events in it recur in comprehensive memory.
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA109 ... 21p01.html
Who can fail to imagine something like the two-slit experiment when reading this? Yet Steiner didn't have these scientific concepts at his time and he struggled to explain things that in the face of the ruling materialistic scientific wisdom of the time, seemed like complete craziness.

Make no mistake, it's not that QM will explain reality. Such an explanation will always remain on the intellectual surface. Instead, we can understand the deep reasons behind QM thanks to higher cognition. It's higher cognition that throws light and must gradually spiritualize all the sciences, not that the intellectual interpretations of the math and experiments will in itself yield higher consciousness.
Anthony66
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:43 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Anthony66 »

AshvinP wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:56 am
Anthony66 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:16 am A couple of random questions have popped up for me in my continued research of Anthroposophy/Spiritual Science (ASS :D).

What is the understanding of God? Steiner seems to say some things about this which seem to be in tension.

At https://www.rudolfsteinerweb.com/Rudolf ... mology.php, we read:
Through a conscious strengthening and enhancing of this thinking activity (so that it no longer needs the foundation of the physical senses) it is possible to attain to knowledge of supersensory reality. The contents of knowledge are immediately given to us without any mediation of the senses. The world of supersensory beings and their deeds are then step-wise revealed to us in our consciousness where, in the act of know­ing, concept and percept are one.
What does this mean practically? Could one navigate the world with their eyes closed and ears block and function just fine?

Anthony,

We should reason through this carefully. Some steps can be 'skipped' (at least for our discussion here) since we are working from metaphysical idealism. Under the latter, physical perceptions we perceive with eyes and ears are always representations of ideal realities i.e. ideal meaning. That is true under BK's idealism as well. Then one comes to the epistemic question - can we unveil the meaningful realities giving rise to the physical images in this lifetime or not? BK says no, we must wait until physical death to see what may happen. Why is the boundary of death so fundamentally disconnected from every other state of being in our living experience, to the extent it allows this special unrestricted access which is not even the slightest bit available prior to death? That BK has no answer to, but it just "feels right" in the modern age and keeps our secular (materialist, panpsychist, idealist, etc.) philosophic and scientific friends happy, so we flow with it.

Either way, we must admit our cognitive activity is actually a sense-perceptive faculty - it is the only faculty which perceives meaning, and we have already established there is only meaning underlying physical world in our idealist framework. That also means our eyes, ears, etc. are cognitive senses in some way - our senses are not only linked to discrete, divided realms of experience, where we perceive one kind of thing with one sense and an entirely different kind of thing with another sense. The sense-activities are always interweaving each other. Just as we can work to strengthen our vision, hearing, etc., we can work to strengthen our thinking-sense. That is what is meant by "higher cognition" of the sort Steiner is describing above. It will be confusing only so long as we don't think about the whole philosophical-metaphysical framework holistically, in all its rich implications.

I'm not quite sure where the "God" understanding fits in to your question above, but Steiner conceives of the Spirit, in its living essence, just as all ancient spiritual people did. But not as the anthropomorphized, abstract, transcendant (forever remote) "God" of the modern age.
I'm not sure you are being entirely fair to BK wrt physical death. He suggests that upon death our "whirlpool" is dispersed into the broader conscious environment with the Markov blanket being dissolved. After death, we have access to other conscious states that were formerly "outside" our boundary. Admittedly this strikes me as a bit of hand waving but it paints a feasible picture of what may happen.

The picture you paint here of higher cognition sounds like perceiving the superimposed wave function before collapse in QM speak. Is that in any way in the ball park? (EDIT: I note now that Cleric's response seems to be suggesting this)

Sorry I didn't structure my post well. There are two distinct and broadly unrelated questions. Given what you have said about "God", how do we understand prayer? I think Cleric has mentioned prayer a few times and it doesn't make much sense without the personal God with a distinct conscious center from our own.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Cleric K »

Anthony66 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:21 pm Sorry I didn't structure my post well. There are two distinct and broadly unrelated questions. Given what you have said about "God", how do we understand prayer? I think Cleric has mentioned prayer a few times and it doesn't make much sense without the personal God with a distinct conscious center from our own.
As with any polarity in Nature, we also have two polar attitudes of consciousness. Think of an hourglass. With our "I" we're in the middle, at the point point of inversion. What is below is what we can grasp concretely in consciousness, everything that we are 'larger' than. In certain respect this is the past. We can only grasp that which we have outgrown and which is already in the past. This is true also for our thoughts - we can perceive our thoughts only when they are already our past thoughts.

Things become very different when we turn our gaze towards the future. When we look towards the future we can only know our willful becoming. We never perceive what we are becoming into. We're only dimly willing our way towards something and as we become that something it passes into memory - into the past - and becomes perceptible. That is, we have outgrown it and now we're larger than it, we contain it as part of our being.

We don't have full control of our becoming. Everyone knows this when we're on an exam and we can't solve the problem. We're pushing with our will towards the solution but we can't find it. We don't have control over this. If we had control we would simply exercise that control and get the solution effortlessly. But instead, we must grope in the dark. What if we never find the solution? We can do nothing about it. We know that as potential the solution exists. Actually what exists is our own potential future state of being in which we are thinking the solution. Our blind groping is the search for this state of being.

Prayer is the healthy attitude towards the future. When we look towards the past we're as old man who looks on his past life and understands what he's gone through. When we look towards the future we're as a small child that is becoming something which can't yet fit into its conceptions. One of the major disbalances in our epoch is that humans live primarily in the former state. Even at very early age, we already become old. We look from the pedestal of the ego only towards what is smaller than us, which we can grasp. We don't have the humility to look above, towards what we have not yet become and which is greater than us and which we can't even understand at this time.

As long as we pretend that we're in control and everything is in our own power, we're blinded by pride. There's no guarantee that we'll become the state of being that we grope for. Why not? Because we don't know in what part of the invisible landscape we are. We may as well be in some local minimum and try in vain to find the desired state of being in our immediate vicinity. What we need is something analogous to quantum annealing. In real terms this is what the mood of prayer is. It is the humble realization that there's no guarantee that we can reach the state of being that we hope for if we pretend that we're in control and we know very well where we're going. The fact that the gradient rises in certain direction doesn't yet mean that we'll find the sought state there. It might be only a local maximum, while the true peak that we seek might be in a very different direction.

In prayer we open up in humility for something to flow in us. We acknowledge that by brute-force groping in the dark we can reach only the more trivial states. To pray means to focus on the idea of the future state of being that we want to become. We don't possess this state, it is outside us, spread everywhere. Yet we can seek resonance with this state and allow our current state to be attracted towards it. This can give direction of becoming which we might never stumble upon otherwise.

We shouldn't expect that things will happen in real time. Actually any expectation that something will happen any moment, only paralyzes us and closes us. In some cases it may really happen in real time but we should not expect it. We simply don't know how far we're separated from the sought state. There might be the need for many other intermediate states before we reach the goal. This is also and the reason that prayer doesn't equal passivity. We must indeed surrender in receptivity in the act but then it is still our "I" that will have to walk every step. Prayer attunes us. The things that lead us towards the desired state begin to shine in special light and we know where to walk.

We reach the idea of God when we don't desire only some things for our personal benefit but search for the state that makes perfect sense of the Whole, where everything will find its rightful place in the great Cosmic puzzle. We realize that there's such a future state of being which far surpasses our current human consciousness. This state encompasses the whole evolutionary arcs as something whole. If we imagine that we are already in that future state, the whole Time structure of the living Cosmos will lie before us as something that has become part of us, just like our thoughts are now part of us. We'll see the spirals of time as living ideas and we'll see our incarnations as pulses within these spirals, embedded into larger pulses of the evolutionary epochs and so on. This is not exactly the same as our current ability to remember as pictures our childhood. These Time structures will be then our structure, similarly to how we can now feel our heart and lungs to be our structure.

So this potential state of being exists even in this moment. All potential exists in the eternal now. Time is only a Divine technique to experience this infinite potential in differentiated streams of experience, which integrate as memory. This future Divine state is something living and we can interact with it, speak with it, and pray that we move towards it, to be attracted towards this state.

The mood of prayer is the rightful conscious attitude for that which is greater than us, in respect to which we're not even children yet. As long as humans pretend to be old, to have everything below them, they walk with their back towards the future. They try to fix the future by rearranging the past. This is only because, blinded by pride, they don't dare to turn with their face towards the future and conceive in awe and humility the long path in front of us, which leads to states of existence which simply don't fit in the conceptual shards of the intellect.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Anthony66 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:21 pm I'm not sure you are being entirely fair to BK wrt physical death. He suggests that upon death our "whirlpool" is dispersed into the broader conscious environment with the Markov blanket being dissolved. After death, we have access to other conscious states that were formerly "outside" our boundary. Admittedly this strikes me as a bit of hand waving but it paints a feasible picture of what may happen.

The picture you paint here of higher cognition sounds like perceiving the superimposed wave function before collapse in QM speak. Is that in any way in the ball park? (EDIT: I note now that Cleric's response seems to be suggesting this)

Sorry I didn't structure my post well. There are two distinct and broadly unrelated questions. Given what you have said about "God", how do we understand prayer? I think Cleric has mentioned prayer a few times and it doesn't make much sense without the personal God with a distinct conscious center from our own.

Anthony,

What we disagree with BK about is whether we can know for certain (or very close to certain), before physical death, what occurs across the threshold of death. It is our position that higher cognition allows one to cross that threshold. By all accounts, BK is unaware of this argument for higher cognition or has only considered it superficially - he has never actually addressed it anywhere that I am aware of.

re: QM - yes I think it is fair to say the experimental results and associated concepts of QM reflect abstractly what is actually occurring in our cognitive experience, as also indicated in Cleric's post.

re: prayer - I am sure Cleric can expand on this (*now I see that he already did in post above), but in general Anthroposophy does not deny the existence of personal agencies of spiritual beings (including the highest Spirit) to which we pray. What is denied is that each being, including ourselves, has its own personal center, rather than the shared Center of the Spirit. There is a real sense in which we are praying to our future-Self so as to attract its qualities and manifest some tiny but ever-increasing portion of them in the present. This is really the core meaning underlying the concept and practice of "sacrifice" in spiritual traditions as well.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Anthony66
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:43 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Anthony66 »

AshvinP wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:31 pm re: prayer - I am sure Cleric can expand on this (*now I see that he already did in post above), but in general Anthroposophy does not deny the existence of personal agencies of spiritual beings (including the highest Spirit) to which we pray. What is denied is that each being, including ourselves, has its own personal center, rather than the shared Center of the Spirit. There is a real sense in which we are praying to our future-Self so as to attract its qualities and manifest some tiny but ever-increasing portion of them in the present. This is really the core meaning underlying the concept and practice of "sacrifice" in spiritual traditions as well.
What can you say about the "highest Spirit"?
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Anthony66 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:41 pm
AshvinP wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:31 pm re: prayer - I am sure Cleric can expand on this (*now I see that he already did in post above), but in general Anthroposophy does not deny the existence of personal agencies of spiritual beings (including the highest Spirit) to which we pray. What is denied is that each being, including ourselves, has its own personal center, rather than the shared Center of the Spirit. There is a real sense in which we are praying to our future-Self so as to attract its qualities and manifest some tiny but ever-increasing portion of them in the present. This is really the core meaning underlying the concept and practice of "sacrifice" in spiritual traditions as well.
What can you say about the "highest Spirit"?

:) What can I not say about it? All is Spirit. I think what is most important for our purposes here is to recognize the function of the Spirit in our immanent experience. For that, I will quote Steiner.

Steiner wrote:In thinking [activity of Spirit] we have given to us the element which fuses our particular individuality into one whole with the cosmos. Inasmuch as we experience and feel (and also perceive), we are separate beings; inasmuch as we think, we are the all-one being; which permeate all. This is the deeper basis of our twofold nature: we see an utterly absolute power come into existence within us, a power which is universal; but we learn to know it, not where it streams forth from the center of the world, but rather at a point on the periphery. If the first were the case, then the moment we came to consciousness, we would know the solution to the whole riddle of the world. Since we stand at a point on the periphery, however, and find our own existence enclosed within certain limits, we must learn to know the region which lies outside of our own being with the help of thinking, which projects into us out of the general world existence.
Last edited by AshvinP on Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Anthony66
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:43 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Anthony66 »

AshvinP wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:49 pm
Anthony66 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:41 pm
AshvinP wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:31 pm re: prayer - I am sure Cleric can expand on this (*now I see that he already did in post above), but in general Anthroposophy does not deny the existence of personal agencies of spiritual beings (including the highest Spirit) to which we pray. What is denied is that each being, including ourselves, has its own personal center, rather than the shared Center of the Spirit. There is a real sense in which we are praying to our future-Self so as to attract its qualities and manifest some tiny but ever-increasing portion of them in the present. This is really the core meaning underlying the concept and practice of "sacrifice" in spiritual traditions as well.
What can you say about the "highest Spirit"?

:) What can I not say about it? All is Spirit. I think what is most important for our purposes here is to recognize the function of the Spirit in our immanent experience. For that, I will quote Steiner.

Steiner wrote:In thinking [activity of Spirit] we have given to us the element which fuses our particular individuality into one whole with the cosmos. Inasmuch as we experience and feel (and also perceive), we are separate beings; inasmuch as we think, we are the all-one being; which permeate all. This is the deeper basis of our twofold nature: we see an utterly absolute power come into existence within us, a power which is universal; but we learn to know it, not where it streams forth from the center of the world, but rather at a point on the periphery. If the first were the case, then the moment we came to consciousness, we would know the solution to the whole riddle of the world. Since we stand at a point on the periphery, however, and find our own existence enclosed within certain limits, we must learn to know the region which lies outside of our own being with the help of thinking, which projects into us out of the general world existence.
All my be Spirit, but what is the highest Spirit? If the highest Spirit is a personal agency, what is my relationship to it?
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Anthony66 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:57 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:49 pm
Anthony66 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:41 pm
What can you say about the "highest Spirit"?

:) What can I not say about it? All is Spirit. I think what is most important for our purposes here is to recognize the function of the Spirit in our immanent experience. For that, I will quote Steiner.

Steiner wrote:In thinking [activity of Spirit] we have given to us the element which fuses our particular individuality into one whole with the cosmos. Inasmuch as we experience and feel (and also perceive), we are separate beings; inasmuch as we think, we are the all-one being; which permeate all. This is the deeper basis of our twofold nature: we see an utterly absolute power come into existence within us, a power which is universal; but we learn to know it, not where it streams forth from the center of the world, but rather at a point on the periphery. If the first were the case, then the moment we came to consciousness, we would know the solution to the whole riddle of the world. Since we stand at a point on the periphery, however, and find our own existence enclosed within certain limits, we must learn to know the region which lies outside of our own being with the help of thinking, which projects into us out of the general world existence.
All my be Spirit, but what is the highest Spirit? If the highest Spirit is a personal agency, what is my relationship to it?

I added this to the previous comment while you were responding, but will post it here instead:

In relation to the previous comments, we should see here how there is nothing "impersonal" about our own Thinking activity, in the sense of a nebulous force-field that we are somehow tapping into. That is unfortunately how modern people are habitually inclined to perceive their own spiritual activity. That is because we focus on the end results of that activity, i.e. the abstract verbal chatter we perceive in our heads, rather than the activity itself. If we are never inclined to turn our attention towards that activity, then obviously it will remain as something dark and nebulous, something vague and impersonal. Prayer offered to the Spirit, i.e. prayer that one's own Thinking can become a more choice offering, is one great way of directly turning towards that activity. It is true that this activity fuses our individuality into the Whole, but that gradual process of becoming is no less personal than a child becoming an adult. The adult is [hopefully] a more integrated form of the child. That is also your relation to the highest Spirit, who is not coincidentally referred to as the Father.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Ben Iscatus
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:15 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Ben Iscatus »

A Prayer For Old Age

God guard me from those thoughts men think
In the mind alone;
He that sings a lasting song
Thinks in a marrow-bone;
From all that makes a wise old man
That can be praised of all;
O what am I that I should not seem
For the song's sake a fool?
I pray — for word is out
And prayer comes round again —
That I may seem, though I die old,
A foolish, passionate man.
W B Yeats
Post Reply