Anthroposophist Conner Habib

[JustinG]

Anyone one out there have any opinions on the work of Conner Habib (https://connerhabib.com/)?

He is an Anthroposophist (see, for example, here: https://connerhabib.com/2014/09/29/antr ... ing-about/ ) with very left-wing political views (see, for example, here: https://soundcloud.com/user-940109391/a ... -weeks-or ). He also used to be a gay pornstar.

I would be particularly interested to hear Cleric's opinion on Habib.

(BTW I am not trying to provoke anything here, just trying to understand whether Anthroposophy is compatible with both left and right wing political views. If this is the case then I have no antipathy towards Anthroposophy as such).

[Cleric K]

Anyone one out there have any opinions on the work of Conner Habib (https://connerhabib.com/)?

He is an Anthroposophist (see, for example, here: https://connerhabib.com/2014/09/29/antr ... ing-about/ ) with very left-wing political views (see, for example, here: https://soundcloud.com/user-940109391/a ... -weeks-or ). He also used to be a gay pornstar.

I would be particularly interested to hear Cleric's opinion on Habib.

(BTW I am not trying to provoke anything here, just trying to understand whether Anthroposophy is compatible with both left and right wing political views. If this is the case then I have no antipathy towards Anthroposophy as such).

Justin, I don't know Conner.

Asking whether Anthroposophy is compatible with this or that political system is really to misunderstand its nature. It's like asking whether physics is compatible with given political system. Or asking if botany is compatible with organic farming or industrial deforestation.

Anthroposophy is the continuation of the methods of the science of Initiation, evolved to match the demands of modern humanity. The body of Anthroposophy is the results of investigation of the deeper strata of reality. So as with regular science, we have scientific method and also results of observation.

Of course, the above will be immediately dismissed by anyone who doesn't even admit the possibility of certain spiritual depth to reality. As long as one conceives reality as a thin sensory picture floating before the eyes of flat consciousness, picture shaped merely by consensual fantasies of conscious agents, then naturally anything that speaks of depth behind the thin floating film will be outright dismissed.

Through the facts of the deeper strata of reality we are not being told to do this or that. Anthroposophy doesn't aim to establish a Church state with rigid rules inspired by higher knowledge. The goal is that every individual human being can relate the deeper facts (and they can be perfectly well related to through nothing but sound thinking) and decide freely for themselves how they want to employ their spiritual potential.

Just as botany tells objectively what the consequences of irrigating crops with water or gasoline are, so spiritual science speaks clearly about the way the metamorphic process - both individual and collective - is about to unfold if we nourish it with this or that ideals, with this or that feelings and so on. All of this becomes perfectly sensible when more and more facts of existence are brought into harmony.

In the other thread Eugene dismissed Western thought because of the look in the persons' eyes. In this one simply overlooks that he is already seeking a specific look. Let's consider a child. What is it more likely? To like the look in the eyes of a parent that allows it to eat all the candy it wants, to spend all the hours it wants on TikTok on its phone? Or the look in the eyes of a parent that tells it to eat its breakfast, clean its room, do its homework and only then go out and play? Of course, the child is not in position to judge this properly. The first offers instant gratification but ruins its later life, while the latter seems harsh and demanding but has only the long term prosperity of the child in mind.

Such is the situation of humanity today. Spiritual science presents only facts. It traces the way soul and spirit forces develop when we watch TikTok all day or when we engage in constructive activities. It goes on to describe facts that far surpass the individual incarnation. Just as all facts of child development fit together harmoniously when we think them through without prejudice, so the facts of spiritual science can be assessed through sound thinking and see how they support each other, and reveal an all encompassing picture of reality, that puts into perspective all the humanity's dramas, their causes and eventual remedies.

From this point of view, everyone can choose for themselves what to do according to their own High Ideal. This is a matter of individual freedom and Anthroposophy doesn't dictate any of this. It only outlines the eventual outcomes of one path or another, completely impartially.

[Papanca]

In the other thread Eugene dismissed Western thought because of the look in the persons' eyes. In this one simply overlooks that he is already seeking a specific look. Let's consider a child. What is it more likely? To like the look in the eyes of a parent that allows it to eat all the candy it wants, to spend all the hours it wants on TikTok on its phone? Or the look in the eyes of a parent that tells it to eat its breakfast, clean its room, do its homework and only then go out and play? Of course, the child is not in position to judge this properly. The first offers instant gratification but ruins its later life, while the latter seems harsh and demanding but has only the long term prosperity of the child in mind.

Such is the situation of humanity today. Spiritual science presents only facts. It traces the way soul and spirit forces develop when we watch TikTok all day or when we engage in constructive activities. It goes on to describe facts that far surpass the individual incarnation. Just as all facts of child development fit together harmoniously when we think them through without prejudice, so the facts of spiritual science can be assessed through sound thinking and see how they support each other, and reveal an all encompassing picture of reality, that puts into perspective all the humanity's dramas, their causes and eventual remedies.

From this point of view, everyone can choose for themselves what to do according to their own High Ideal. This is a matter of individual freedom and Anthroposophy doesn't dictate any of this. It only outlines the eventual outcomes of one path or another, completely impartially.

I'm not convinced by this example, for multiple reasons, it posits a binary between hyper-laxism and being stern for the sake of being stern, both can be problematic. An alternative is for the parent - in plus of being stern about some specific aspects - to be an example worthy of emulation, offer an alternatives and induce in his children a desire to learn : For instance instead of just "Don't go on tiktok", if we try to induce in children a love for sport, healthy playfullness, they generally themselves tend to prefer those type of activities to mindless browsing, children who grew up in home with tinkerers or scientists tend to gravitate towards those themselves, if you just forbid and restrict, the child may exactly gravitate toward the forbidden once you are not there with him. I'm not convinced by this approach (nor am i convinced by the binary opposite approach of total laxism and divestment.

Also in the cases of Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, they are way more complex than you give them credit for.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If this is the case then I have no antipathy towards Anthroposophy as such).

I find myself drawn to a spiritual path that is utterly incompatible with any fixated political identity at all.

[AshvinP]

In the other thread Eugene dismissed Western thought because of the look in the persons' eyes. In this one simply overlooks that he is already seeking a specific look. Let's consider a child. What is it more likely? To like the look in the eyes of a parent that allows it to eat all the candy it wants, to spend all the hours it wants on TikTok on its phone? Or the look in the eyes of a parent that tells it to eat its breakfast, clean its room, do its homework and only then go out and play? Of course, the child is not in position to judge this properly. The first offers instant gratification but ruins its later life, while the latter seems harsh and demanding but has only the long term prosperity of the child in mind.

Such is the situation of humanity today. Spiritual science presents only facts. It traces the way soul and spirit forces develop when we watch TikTok all day or when we engage in constructive activities. It goes on to describe facts that far surpass the individual incarnation. Just as all facts of child development fit together harmoniously when we think them through without prejudice, so the facts of spiritual science can be assessed through sound thinking and see how they support each other, and reveal an all encompassing picture of reality, that puts into perspective all the humanity's dramas, their causes and eventual remedies.

From this point of view, everyone can choose for themselves what to do according to their own High Ideal. This is a matter of individual freedom and Anthroposophy doesn't dictate any of this. It only outlines the eventual outcomes of one path or another, completely impartially.

I'm not convinced by this example, for multiple reasons, it posits a binary between hyper-laxism and being stern for the sake of being stern, both can be problematic. An alternative is for the parent - in plus of being stern about some specific aspects - to be an example worthy of emulation, offer an alternatives and induce in his children a desire to learn : For instance instead of just "Don't go on tiktok", if we try to induce in children a love for sport, healthy playfullness, they generally themselves tend to prefer those type of activities to mindless browsing, children who grew up in home with tinkerers or scientists tend to gravitate towards those themselves, if you just forbid and restrict, the child may exactly gravitate toward the forbidden once you are not there with him. I'm not convinced by this approach (nor am i convinced by the binary opposite approach of total laxism and divestment.

Also in the cases of Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, they are way more complex than you give them credit for.

Papanca,

I think you are missing the point of Cleric's example - what we perceive and think is highly influenced by our subconscious desires or our naively held beliefs. The parenting example was just used to highlight that underlying point. This point is known to all 20th century depth psychology, and of course to spiritual science. If you begin with an antipathy for something (usually unconscious), then you will begin perceiving the phenomena you are attempting to "study" with that colored lens and prematurely block the path to your own understanding of the phenomena. This is really an illustration of what has been going on for months now with certain posters. Some can admit it (like Adur), some absolutely refuse to (you know who). When I first joined the old forum summer of last year, before I had any direct knowledge of spiritual science, I made a few comments regarding Barfield, evolution of consciousness, and Western spirituality. Guess who was the first to respond with the same exact canned-responses, which are mostly devoid of internal logic and consistency and filled with personal antipathies, that he is still using today? He has "agreed" with our meticulously laid out arguments dozens of times only to later assert the exact opposite of what he claimed to "agree" with, sometimes doing both within the very same post. Anyway, I am not trying to dwell on that anymore, as there is actually more productive things to be learned from Justin's post, such as the relationship of Anthroposophy to other world-conceptions, as Cleric started exploring. I just wanted to clarify that a bit.

[AshvinP]

Anyone one out there have any opinions on the work of Conner Habib (https://connerhabib.com/)?

He is an Anthroposophist (see, for example, here: https://connerhabib.com/2014/09/29/antr ... ing-about/ ) with very left-wing political views (see, for example, here: https://soundcloud.com/user-940109391/a ... -weeks-or ). He also used to be a gay pornstar.

I would be particularly interested to hear Cleric's opinion on Habib.

(BTW I am not trying to provoke anything here, just trying to understand whether Anthroposophy is compatible with both left and right wing political views. If this is the case then I have no antipathy towards Anthroposophy as such).

Justin,

I hope you notice here how it would be really easy and convenient for us to say, "yes, Anthroposophy is totally aligned with all political views, LGBTQ, environmental movements, etc.". But that can't be said because it would be a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the spiritual scientific approach, as Cleric illustrated in his response. Anthroposophists are not immune to those misunderstandings of Steiner's spiritual science, and he frequently mentionined them and addressed them in his lectures. I think we really need to ask why such associations are necessary for us before we decide to abandon antipathy for spiritual science and give it genuine consideration without antipathy, like we would attempt to do when considering a theory of physics or any other science. IMO much of that has to do with what Cleric wrote here - "As long as one conceives reality as a thin sensory picture floating before the eyes of flat consciousness, picture shaped merely by consensual fantasies of conscious agents, then naturally anything that speaks of depth behind the thin floating film will be outright dismissed."

A major aim of my recent essays is to help orient away from the "thin sensory picture" view of Reality to the "images with interior depth" view. Here is a relevant excerpt when discussing the phenomena of wind and breath and clouds (or upper atmosphere more generally).

Integral Spiritual Mythology: Mirror Images of the Soul (Part III)

To help us with this transition from qualitative Space to Time, we will use a very simple imaginative exercise. We begin by looking at the image below and trying to sense the inner meaning conveyed by the phenomena of wind.

[image at link]

Currently we experience the wind as we also experience the abstract dimension of width. It is experienced as a purely mindless material process for our intellectual cognition, where fragmented air currents "originating" from 'over there' pass through our vicinity 'over here' and then leave us and move on to somewhere else. The fact that what I just wrote is hardly an explanation of the phenomena does not seem to concern the mere intellect. Instead of contemplating how the swift, cool breeze brings immense relief and comfort to our sweltering soul on a hot summer day, the mere intellect considers that relief as occurring only in our "personal" minds, completely separate from the phenomena itself. Every experience is broken up into tiny segments and appears to be excessively fleeting. Perhaps we feel as if we are always "fighting against the wind" when it blows through. We often remark that the wind "died" when we no longer feel the cool breeze, and this idiom is a reflection of how we actually perceive and conceive of the wind - it is as a phenomena which comes about every now and again, but keeps dying on us whenever we need it the most. The transfiguration of the width dimension is the recovery of those inner qualities of meaning which perpetually persist within our soul and keep the wind always at our backs. It then remains connected to every aspect of our surrounding environment - from the atmospheric conditions most relevant to our immediate circumstances, to the pollination of flowering plants necessary for our survival as a species, to the rhythmic airways of the entire Earth Soul. We can also then imagine how the wind interweaves and interpenetrates with our own breath, which, in turn, is the qualitative dimension of depth.

[image at link]

Try inhaling and exhaling in sync with the image above and sense the inner meaning which that process conveys. We sense the inner meaning of "integration" (inhaling) and "differentiation" (exhaling). When the Triune Divinity exhaled the breath of life into man, it was the Origin of our differentiated form within the Cosmos at large. With every single inbreath we take, we are remembering the Tri-Unity from which those forms were born. We are also remembering our interdependence on the world around us - the plants provide us oxygen to inhale, we transfigure the oxygen, and we exhale carbon dioxide back to the plants. That is one critical way in which the human soul participates in the qualitative breathing of the Earth Soul and how that Soul also participates in us. It is extremely important to take notice right now of what we are doing here with Reason and Imagination - we are Thinking. This process of Thinking is not other than the process of transfiguring the deadened abstract concepts which immerse the world of appearances. It is the process of resurrecting these appearances into the Kingdom of God and into eternal life. What we give back to the Earth Soul in our breath - as we also give to other souls in our speech which is formed from that breath - should be done so in full clarity of consciousness, as a voluntary sacrifice. As our thoughts lift the appearances of the world higher and higher into the rarefied airs of the atmosphere, we are transfiguring the abstract spatial dimension of height into its qualitative corollary. We can then adopt a 'bird's eye view' on the holistic relations of the planet that we were previously experiencing only as fish immersed in the water.

[JustinG]

Thanks for all your posts, which have given me motivation to investigate Anthroposophy further.

A separate issue which impacts on this forum is that of where the borders between religion and philosophy lie. But that has nothing to do with the OP so I won't discuss that here. Sometime or other, I might start some discussions re this issue in the Suggestions and Technical Questions part of the forum.