Anthroposophy for Dummies

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

JustinG
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by JustinG »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:33 pm
JustinG wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:10 pm(Adapted from Straight to Hell by the Clash)
Clearly I'm faced with a generational disconnect here, but my eclectic appreciation for poetry of all sorts can still embrace a poet at heart.
Maybe not much of a connection there, but I think Papa Shu has a nice ring to it and should be adopted as your new nickname ;)
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

AshvinP wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:38 pm

"Sympathy For The Devil"

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tzar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made

I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reach Bombay

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, hit it

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
Cause I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
And with that from Jagger and Jones, this thread has surely been possessed by the anti-Christ.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

JustinG wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:01 amMaybe not much of a connection there, but I think Papa Shu has a nice ring to it and should be adopted as your new nickname ;)
Why not? Our Papa Shu who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name, etc, etc ;)
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:29 am And with that from Jagger and Jones, this thread has surely been possessed by the anti-Christ.

Hey, let's not forget Jagger was a real artist... he was being subtly critical of the "revolutionary" pop culture icons of that time and all their fans who indulge in those de-spiritualized images. Hence the explicit reference to the Bolshevik revolution.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

AshvinP wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 4:08 amHey, let's not forget Jagger was a real artist... he was being subtly critical of the "revolutionary" pop culture icons of that time and all their fans who indulge in those de-spiritualized images. Hence the explicit reference to the Bolshevik revolution.
Always loved The Stones; fancied myself as a Jagger-ish persona, large lips and all, in the late 60s daze of one's life. But by the time The Clash had their day I was living on a small island off the coast of BC and almost entirely into pre-20th century classical music. And while I can appreciate Joe Strummer's evocative lyrics in Straight to Hell, I must agree there is simply no comparison with The Stones in terms of overall musical artistry.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:11 pm
AshvinP wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 4:08 amHey, let's not forget Jagger was a real artist... he was being subtly critical of the "revolutionary" pop culture icons of that time and all their fans who indulge in those de-spiritualized images. Hence the explicit reference to the Bolshevik revolution.
Always loved The Stones; fancied myself as a Jagger-ish persona, large lips and all, in the late 60s daze of one's life. But by the time The Clash had their day I was living on a small island off the coast of BC and almost entirely into pre-20th century classical music. And while I can appreciate Joe Strummer's evocative lyrics in Straight to Hell, I must agree there is simply no comparison with The Stones in terms of overall musical artistry.

Yeah, I used to like The Clash, Rage Againt the Machine, etc. The beats and melodies are still good, but that's only if you ignore all the lyrics and how shallow they are. I think once you hit 33 or so it gets really hard to ignore. My playlist is 100% pre 19th century classical music right now.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
JustinG
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by JustinG »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:38 am
JustinG wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:01 amMaybe not much of a connection there, but I think Papa Shu has a nice ring to it and should be adopted as your new nickname ;)
Why not? Our Papa Shu who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name, etc, etc ;)



_______


Papa Shu

Oh Papa Shu

Lead us Home

Oh Papa Shu

Oh Papa Shu

Papa Papa Papa Papa Papa Shu


Let us break on, break on through

With Papa Papa Papa Shu

With Papa Papa Papa Shu

Me and you and Papa Papa Papa Shu



_______
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

JustinG wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:26 amMe and you and Papa Papa Papa Shu
Ok JG, this bit of fun has run its course.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Anthony66
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:43 pm

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by Anthony66 »

We've hit the halfway mark!
AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:28 pm 5. The role of imaginative cognition, i.e. "image-consciousness" which is reflected in all mythology and aesthetics, as applied to our current perception-cognition of the world.
I've read the last few of your essays and I think I have a reasonable handle on this one. I guess the main concern, and what I see reflected from various posters here, is what are the safeguards on these imaginings? The world of the mythical exists without bounds it seems. I know you see this as a matter of rightly developing the imaginative faculties, but there are numerous examples of mental/spiritual developmental schemes which don't arrive on the same shore. I'm not an expert in Buddhist philosophy but from what I do know, the imaginative vistas that you describe are quite foreign to their schema.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Anthroposophy for Dummies

Post by AshvinP »

Anthony66 wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:58 pm We've hit the halfway mark!
AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:28 pm 5. The role of imaginative cognition, i.e. "image-consciousness" which is reflected in all mythology and aesthetics, as applied to our current perception-cognition of the world.
I've read the last few of your essays and I think I have a reasonable handle on this one. I guess the main concern, and what I see reflected from various posters here, is what are the safeguards on these imaginings? The world of the mythical exists without bounds it seems. I know you see this as a matter of rightly developing the imaginative faculties, but there are numerous examples of mental/spiritual developmental schemes which don't arrive on the same shore. I'm not an expert in Buddhist philosophy but from what I do know, the imaginative vistas that you describe are quite foreign to their schema.

Anthony,

Yes and I think we have made some real progress! Thanks for reading the essays. What is most important to grasp throughout all of these points is the role of our own Thinking (Spiritual) activity in the task of knowing anything about the world we experience. Our logical and reasoning faculties are always the safeguards in any field of inquiry. This is the most difficult thing for us to accept in the modern age (we don't need to get into the reasons why right now, but those are discussed at length by Steiner). We are somehow blind to our own Thinking and its role in creating the meaningful unities from the experience of manifold and seemingly disparate phenomena. We imagine instead that the totality of perceptual content for those meaningful unities are "out there" and our thinking amounts to figuring out by thoughts "in here" what is already out there. The real situation is as follows - only one half of the perceptual content necessary for the meaningful unities approaches us from without, and the other half (the meaningful content which unites the fragmented phenomena) approaches us from within as concepts. Most of that happens unconsciously as we go about our day, but if we engage in any sort of systematic inquiry at work, on this forum, or wherever, and if we pay attention to what is happening in our thoughts as we produce them, we will notice how that spiritual activity unfolds. That is especially true if we pay attention to perceptual content which comes from our own Thinking like the mathematical object of "triangle" - then we have perceptual content which we have willed into existence and can be immediately united with its meaning without referring to any other perceptions. Here is a helpful illustration from Steiner in his book, Goetheaen Science:


https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA001/En ... 1_c10.html
"All the concepts that the intellect creates — cause and effect, substance and attribute, body and soul, idea and reality, God and world, etc. — are there only in order to keep unified reality separated artificially into parts; and reason, without blurring the content thus created, without mystically obscuring the clarity of the intellect, has then to seek out the inner unity in the multiplicity. Reason thereby comes back to that from which the intellect had distanced itself: to the unified reality. If one wants an exact nomenclature, one can call the formations of the intellect “concepts” and the creations of reason “ideas.” And one sees that the path of science is to lift oneself through the concept to the idea. And here is the place where the subjective and the objective element of our knowing differentiates itself for us in the clearest way. It is plain to see that the separation has only a subjective existence, that it is only created by our intellect. It cannot hinder me from dividing one and the same objective unity into thought-configurations that are different from those of a fellow human being; this does not hinder my reason, in its connecting activity, from attaining the same objective unity again from which we both, in fact, have taken our start. Let us represent symbolically a unified configuration of reality (figure 1). I divide it intellectually thus (figure 2); another person divides it differently (figure 3). We bring it together in accordance with reason and obtain the same configuration.




Image




This makes it explainable to us how people can have such different concepts, such different views of reality, in spite of the fact that reality can, after all, only be one. The difference lies in the difference between our intellectual worlds. This sheds light for us upon the development of the different scientific standpoints. We understand where the many philosophical standpoints originate, and do not need to bestow the palm of truth exclusively upon one of them. We also know which standpoint we ourselves have to take with respect to the multiplicity of human views. We will not ask exclusively: What is true, what is false? We will always investigate how the intellectual world of a thinker goes forth from the world harmony; we will seek to understand and not to judge negatively and regard at once as error that which does not correspond with our own view. Another source of differentiation between our scientific standpoints is added to this one through the fact that every individual person has a different field of experience. Each person is indeed confronted, as it were, by one section of the whole of reality. His intellect works upon this and is his mediator on the way to the idea. But even though we all do therefore perceive the same idea, still we always do this from different places. Therefore, only the end result to which we come can be the same; our paths, however, can be different. It absolutely does not matter at all whether the individual judgments and concepts of which our knowing consists correspond to each other or not; the only thing that matters is that they ultimately lead us to the point that we are swimming in the main channel of the idea.

And all human beings must ultimately meet each other in this channel if energetic thinking leads them out of and beyond their own particular standpoints. It can indeed be possible that a limited experience or an unproductive spirit leads us to a one-sided, incomplete view; but even the smallest amount of what we experience must ultimately lead us to the idea; for we do not lift ourselves to the idea through a lesser or greater experience, but rather through our abilities as a human personality alone. A limited experience can only result in the fact that we express the idea in a one-sided way, that we have limited means at our command for bringing to expression the light that shines in us; a limited experience, however, cannot hinder us altogether from allowing that light to shine within us."
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
Post Reply