Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

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

User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by AshvinP »

Eugene I wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:05 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:53 pm It's not that you guys disagree with us... it's that you guys can't specify any logical reason why you disagree, other than the fact that agreeing to it limits your ability to follow whatever spiritual formulation brings you the most short-term pleasure, happiness, and comfort (egoism). If you can make one single logical argument why the pre-death consciousness should be treated as separate kind from post-death consciousness, and why that treatment does not result in metaphysical dualism, then I will give it fair consideration.
I gave it here and here. There is a reason why the pre-death consciousness exists in a different form/mode from the post-death one, even though both of these modes are fundamentally the same consciousness. The reason is that such existence in a variety of modes is the only way life can unfold into the variety of forms. There is nothing wrong with this variety of consciousness modes of existence, it is not a "fall"/sin to be saved from, or a problem to overcome. But there are two forces/motives in place to keep the process in dynamics: the motive to disintegrate into variety and discontinuity of modes, and the motive to integrate into a singular and continuous mode, and both motives co-exist (in different proportions) to maintain the dynamics of life. There is nothing wrong with aligning yourself with the integrative force (and this something you chose), likewise there is nothing wrong with the opposite alignment, it is all part of life.

The "opposite alignment" means you are denying the existence of one pole, so there is definitely something wrong with it. It is a reification of one pole into the only pole, and therefore a dangerously incomplete understanding. It is so dangerous precisely because it leads to a mindset where you can say what is in bold. Notice it is the same exact thing a materialist would say when confronted with spiritual reality - "there's nothing wrong with me, so why do I need to be redeemed from anything?". That is how one remains enslaved to the sin of purely physical desires, feelings, and thoughts, tragically never realizing they have put the chains on themselves and could easily take them off if they simply chose to admit the reality of higher forces than their own ego. That is why I value Peterson so much - he is truly an advocate for the Self-knowledge which allows one to see how they are shackling themselves so as to eventually break free of those shackles. You are going in the exact opposite direction. And clearly nothing I write here will change that - as 6+ months of writing the same exact thing to you has proven - so I won't keep bothering unless you actually come up with a new and logical argument for your position.

(this response was actually meant for the other Peterson thread, but interestingly enough it fits very well here too, so I will leave it as is)
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Eugene I »

AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:35 pm The "opposite alignment" means you are denying the existence of one pole, so there is definitely something wrong with it. It is a reification of one pole into the only pole, and therefore a dangerously incomplete understanding. It is so dangerous precisely because it leads to a mindset where you can say what is in bold. Notice it is the same exact thing a materialist would say when confronted with spiritual reality - "there's nothing wrong with me, so why do I need to be redeemed from anything?". That is how one remains enslaved to the sin of purely physical desires, feelings, and thoughts, tragically never realizing they have put the chains on themselves and could easily take them off if they simply chose to admit the reality of higher forces than their own ego. That is why I value Peterson so much - he is truly an advocate for the Self-knowledge which allows one to see how they are shackling themselves so as to eventually break free of those shackles. You are going in the exact opposite direction. And clearly nothing I write here will change that - as 6+ months of writing the same exact thing to you has proven - so I won't keep bothering unless you actually come up with a new and logical argument for your position.

(this response was actually meant for the other Peterson thread, but interestingly enough it fits very well here too, so I will leave it as is)
I agree, our disagreements are clear enough, no point of discussing them more. My position is aligned with Steve Ptermann's theology: we do not accept "salvific" and soteriological worldviews. The world exists exactly in a way God created it and intended it to exist, there is nothing wrong with it and no need to "save" it of "fix" it. Yet, it does not mean that the world is stagnant and not moving into any directions, it definitely moves and evolves in many directions, and such dynamics is part of God's creation. But obviously, many traditional religions (Christianity and Buddhism included), as well as a variety of their modern derivatives (Anthroposophy included) are fundamentally soteriological and disagree with such position.

Rejecting World Rejection

Comment: one will not remain enslaved to its egoic bubble exactly because of the dynamics of life and the variety of co-existing forces/motives/values. This dynamics and variety of forces evades stagnation in any enslaved forms of existence.
but of course I may be wrong
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1396
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Cleric K wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:19 pm We can never find the the Angel's consciousness within our mind sphere, no matter how many false beliefs we dismantle.
Therein lies the challenge to know the difference: A real Angel, or a false belief?

Such is the power of belief that some will risk the death of the corporeal form for some random one found on the internet of beliefs. And once locked in to that extent, undoing it seems a huge challenge. And when has any locked-in believer ever freed another locked-in believer? All that can happen is to convince some other to exchange one prison for another. And while no doubt one may be less restrictive and/or less suffering prone than another, none of them are actual freedom. Actual freedom has nothing to do with beliefs. What it has to do with Angels, well, one may yet be won over.
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: 1396
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:20 pm
Cleric K wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:19 pm We can never find the the Angel's consciousness within our mind sphere, no matter how many false beliefs we dismantle.
Therein lies the challenge to know the difference: A real Angel, or a false belief?

Such is the power of belief that some will risk the death of the corporeal form for some random one found on the internet of beliefs. And once locked in to that extent, undoing it seems a huge challenge. And when has any locked-in believer ever freed another locked-in believer? All that can happen is to convince some other to exchange one prison for another. And while no doubt one may be less restrictive and/or less suffering prone than another, none of them are actual freedom. Actual freedom has nothing to do with beliefs. What it has to do with Angels, well, one may yet be won over.
How about them Blue Angels?

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: 2615
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:20 pm
Cleric K wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:19 pm We can never find the the Angel's consciousness within our mind sphere, no matter how many false beliefs we dismantle.
Therein lies the challenge to know the difference: A real Angel, or a false belief?

Such is the power of belief that some will risk the death of the corporeal form for some random one found on the internet of beliefs. And once locked in to that extent, undoing it seems a huge challenge. And when has any locked-in believer ever freed another locked-in believer? All that can happen is to convince some other to exchange one prison for another. And while no doubt one may be less restrictive and/or less suffering prone than another, none of them are actual freedom. Actual freedom has nothing to do with beliefs. What it has to do with Angels, well, one may yet be won over.

Dana,

We need to stop disconnecting the spiritual from all other domains of existence. Let's say you were born with a pre-19th century understanding of living beings, where everything was basically created at the same time and no living beings change significantly. Eventually, you are introduced to a Darwinian evolutionary model which shows continuity of form and function and really makes sense of the diversity of life on Earth, as well as many other previously unexplained phenomena. How do you know the later formulation has surpassed the earlier one? How do you know it is not just another model you have chosen to believe? How do you know your knowledge of the world is not remaining exactly the same? You know because of the scientific method which tests these things against Reason and continues to encompass the empirical data of older models by way of the newer ones while making more sense of experience in general. One may respond the newest model still has errors and will eventually be surpassed, which is true, but we cannot reasonably deny the progression of increasing knowledge, or at least progression towards the understanding necessary to begin increasing knowledge. That is the history of all science and fields of inquiry. This is not a great analogy, because the higher spiritual perspective is not even a new "model", but a whole new way of experiencing without models, which only makes the conclusion of the analogy more valid.
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1396
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:17 pmWe need to stop disconnecting the spiritual from all other domains of existence.
When the doctors trained in advanced medical knowledge referenced in the 'Blue Angel' story shared above acknowledge the role of such Angels in our healing, surely there will be no turning back.
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: 2615
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:40 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:17 pmWe need to stop disconnecting the spiritual from all other domains of existence.
When the doctors trained in advanced medical knowledge referenced in the 'Blue Angel' story shared above acknowledge the role of such Angels in our healing, surely there will be no turning back.

Isn't the "blue angel" from Pinnochio? I don't think I need to watch the video to already know what sort of testimony you are referencing.

What Cleric is speaking of here does actually explain all of these experiences in the modern world. Not in some vague, speculative, and generally absurd manner of "supersensible beings are planting false visions in our brain" or anything similar, but in high resolution detail of how these archetypal idea-beings and their interweaving activity are increasingly thrust down into abstractions of the modern age, since that activity simply cannot be grasped with the flat pictures of mere intellect, and then interpreted from our perspective way out on the periphery of this shared realm of ideational activity. Like he has said often, you and others here keep searching for answers to questions which only make sense IF all higher beings and the One Mind itself are no more qualitatively experiential and active than you and I are right now staring at our computer screens and punching keys on a keyboard. That is why we even think a medical doctor could have something to do with confirming spiritual knowledge of this sort, or why Eugene thinks we can solve the riddle of "why did MAL decide to fragment and explore the infinite variety of forms" by that same typing on a keyboard.

I used the lawyer 1st amendment metaphor as a metaphor, but you guys are applying such things literally. Again, we need to keep asking ourselves if we actually want our experiences to make sense to us or not? It's not a simple answer. Actually, it can be pretty terrifying to think what forces may be at work within all of our experience, and to know that we are not disconnected bubbles of consciousness with our own private thoughts. I know there have been many thoughts in my lifetime and still today which I do not want any others observing and incorporating into the fabric of the Cosmos which will then influence my subsequent lifetimes and experiences (this also makes the "wish fulfillment" theory Eugene expresses to explain our confidence in Anthroposophy so absurd). So "breaking bad habits" of mind or "psychic complexes" or whatever is actually much harder than changing one's diet, going to the gym, etc. But we will never give ourselves a chance of breaking such prejudicial habits if we refuse to admit they even exist, and therefore we are complete beings without any need of redemption, or we only claim to be aware of them at a very superficial level that practically makes no difference in our thoughts, feelings, and actions.
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Cleric K »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:20 pm
Cleric K wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:19 pm We can never find the the Angel's consciousness within our mind sphere, no matter how many false beliefs we dismantle.
Therein lies the challenge to know the difference: A real Angel, or a false belief?

Such is the power of belief that some will risk the death of the corporeal form for some random one found on the internet of beliefs. And once locked in to that extent, undoing it seems a huge challenge. And when has any locked-in believer ever freed another locked-in believer? All that can happen is to convince some other to exchange one prison for another. And while no doubt one may be less restrictive and/or less suffering prone than another, none of them are actual freedom. Actual freedom has nothing to do with beliefs. What it has to do with Angels, well, one may yet be won over.
This is quite pessimistic way to put it. In the above sense there's also no way to know if the Realization is real. It could be simply a false belief of a brain.

There's one common thing though - whatever we choose to believe of disbelieve, we're using our thinking.

Once we find what is truly certain - namely the self-evident thinking activity which precedes any philosophy - and we start out from there, we stand on different ground. Our thoughts are no longer attempts to build abstract picture of what reality is and how it works but they are direct testimonies of the cognitive experience itself. I won't repeat PoF here.

To go to the higher forms of cognition only the above kind of thinking is not enough. We also need the mentioned soul disposition polar to our ordinary intellectual. Clearly not everyone is willing to walk that path for himself but, as Ashvin wrote above, these things can be completely experienced in thinking and one can gain confidence by the clarity and soul strength that they provide. Even the nature of higher cognition can be very well understood by normal thinking. One simply has to use the full spectrum available to normal human consciousness.

"A real Angel, or a false belief?" This question contains a whole implicit judgment about what higher cognition is. If we have a vision of a winged creature, then this question would be valid. Vision is visual-like perception. Could it be optical illusion? Malfunction of the eye? Malfunction of the brain? A dream? These are reasonable questions. It is completely possible that we can encounter angelic being through such visionary experience - this is how it has worked through all history. What exactly were the beings that the man from the video has experienced in his vision - I don't know. They could be from the rank of the Angels although I don't know what the blue color would signify.

But what I spoke of in the previous post has to do with the modes of higher cognition. I don't think people here really take the word 'higher' in its full significance. It's true that it is impossible to convey with words the actual nature of higher consciousness (this is true even for far more trivial things from ordinary consciousness, such as conveying a feeling that the other person has never felt) but it can be quite well approached through living heartfelt thinking.

Let's look at the transition from completely instinctive state of being to that of thinking man. The intellect changes the very nature of the spiritual experience of man in ways that simply lay outside of the sphere of reality for the animal-man. While living in instinct we feel drawn by pleasant things, repelled by painful and dimly will towards one and away from the other. The intellect adds a whole new layer of being where the spirit can ask questions about the nature of reality, to raise above the instincts which were previously his only driving force. Today we're at a point where we can question if the intellect is the final word of evolution, if it is the ultimate tool for knowing reality. It's completely arbitrary decision to consider the kind of consciousness presented by the intellect to be sufficient for the understanding of the deep nature of reality. It's quite reasonable to say "Just as the development of the intellect changed the instinctive state into something that allows consciousness to experience itself in a completely new way, to experience something that we call 'understanding', to have completely different needs, goals, why couldn't it be the case that the intellect is also only a specific stage of development? Why shouldn't it be possible that another form of cognitive activity awaits us, from whose perspective our intellectual state looks as dim and limited as the instinctive when seen by the intellect? A new form of activity that once again completely changes the way we find ourselves placed in reality, which opens up completely unsuspected forms of understanding revealing aspects of reality that simply don't register in the mechanical intellect and new goals that this higher activity can pursue."

This analogy can go a long way if we give it thoughtful consideration. But as the whole topic of this thread is - such a consideration is seen as pathological from the standpoint of those who have hegemonized the intellect and have chosen to believe that it represents the final and ultimate achievement of evolution.

Now we can consider this. Does it make any sense at all to speak of the intellectual state as some kind of 'false belief' or as an illusion? The tragic thing is that modern humans have been driven into exactly such ideas - this is how devastated the ability to think is today. It takes nothing but healthy and unprejudiced thinking in order to realize that it simply doesn't make any sense for the instinctive state to claim (if that was possible) that all those talks about a higher intellectual state are just instincts mistaken for something else. This is absurd of course, because when we rise from instinct to thinking, we find ourselves as a completely different being, something which simply doesn't exist in the lower state. The very activity of thinking is the mirror in which we recognize ourselves as that being. Similarly, when we transform our current thinking mirror, we find the reflection of another being which simply doesn't exist within the intellectual state, just as the ordinary thinking ego doesn't exist in the animalistic state. It is in this transformed state that we can know the consciousness of an Angel, just as an animal can know the consciousness of a human only if it rises to the intellectual state. When the higher state is experienced it comes with its own form of spiritual activity which in itself is the proof of its reality, just as thinking is the proof of its own reality.

Really, this analogy can go a really long way but who wants to give it the thoughtful consideration needed? For instance, Eugene's example that there are forces of fragmentation and unification implicitly imagines the same intellect everywhere but either in more individuated or more unified form. This completely misses the true meaning of 'higher'. If we translate this into our analogy it will sound like "There are forces responsible for instinctive life and other that lead to the intellectual and even higher. Yet every being is free to go in whatever direction it wants." But this doesn't make sense. What would be the point of going from the intellectual state back to the instinctive if after this in the instinctive there wouldn't be any possibility to even have the awareness that a thinking ego has decided to succumb into an animalistic state. Just as time can be experienced to flow only in a direction in which memory integrates, so consciousness can experience knowingly only its evolution, since every higher stage puts into perspective the previous. Here an animal might say "But I don't want to evolve. I want to experience endlessly the dim willing towards what gives me pleasure and away from what hurts me". And this is possible - this is what we witness today - people don't want to evolve and find all kinds of clever arguments for it (like that the idea of a state higher than the intellect is sectarian).
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Eugene I »

Cleric K wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:41 pm But this doesn't make sense. What would be the point of going from the intellectual state back to the instinctive if after this in the instinctive there wouldn't be any possibility to even have the awareness that a thinking ego has decided to succumb into an animalistic state. Just as time can be experienced to flow only in a direction in which memory integrates, so consciousness can experience knowingly only its evolution, since every higher stage puts into perspective the previous. Here an animal might say "But I don't want to evolve. I want to experience endlessly the dim willing towards what gives me pleasure and away from what hurts me". And this is possible - this is what we witness today - people don't want to evolve and find all kinds of clever arguments for it (like that the idea of a state higher than the intellect is sectarian).
Cleric, your perspective on evolution is narrow and one-dimensional. There is not a single dimension and direction for evolution to unfold and not a single hierarchy to ascend. And, as many NDE accounts suggest, highly evolved spiritual beings do incarnate and descend into animalistic forms (including humans) in order to gain their unique perspectives and experiences, even though it involves certain temporary reduction of cognitive powers. There is an implicit arrogance in your position to assume that the animalistic forms are inferior to forms of higher cognition. But there is a reason the Spirit created the world of forms and disintegrated itself into the multiplicity of individuated conscious activities to experience the world from the multiplicity of perspectives, including the perspectives of animalistic forms. The evolution of Spirit unfolds through accumulation of experience of life from a variety of different perspectives, not through ascending along a single vertical dimension of hierarchy, just like our spiritual development in human life happens through having a large variety of experiences but not necessarily climbing up a hierarchy of some societal structures.
but of course I may be wrong
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

Post by Cleric K »

Eugene I wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:16 am Cleric, your perspective on evolution is narrow and one-dimensional. There is not a single dimension and direction for evolution to unfold and not a single hierarchy to ascend. And, as many NDE accounts suggest, highly evolved spiritual beings do incarnate and descend into animalistic forms (including humans) in order to gain their unique perspectives and experiences, even though it involves certain temporary reduction of cognitive powers. There is an implicit arrogance in your position to assume that the animalistic forms are inferior to forms of higher cognition. But there is a reason the Spirit created the world of forms and disintegrated itself into the multiplicity of individuated conscious activities to experience the world from the multiplicity of perspectives, including the perspectives of animalistic forms. The evolution of Spirit unfolds through accumulation of experience of life from a variety of different perspectives, not through ascending along a single vertical dimension of hierarchy, just like our spiritual development in human life happens through having a large variety of experiences but not necessarily climbing up a hierarchy of some societal structures.
And clearly the thought consideration of the analogy was not given :)

Yes, there're always alternations, the simplest of which is the sleep cycle. The fact remains that stream of consciousness can only result if every morning we wake up in the situation we left on the day before, even though for a while we went into states of diminished consciousness. If just because we want to be non-linear and multi-dimensional we imagine that we wake up every morning in a different body with different memories, we wouldn't even be able to tell that 'someone' is moving from body to body.

The arrogance thing is pure projection. I've spoken quite some times about the importance of every element in the Cosmic organism. I never equated 'higher' with more worthy. This is exemplified beautifully when the Christ washes the feet of the disciples. My analogy only pointed the obvious - we can't even speak of consciousness having experiences if we never leave the instinctive state. Only when the spirit finds its reflection in the body it becomes at all possible for consciousness to realize that it exists. This is the simple fact. Now if you find it arrogant to call the state of consciousness which is aware of its existence, 'higher' than the one which if never goes further, would be as if nothing ever existed, please suggest terms that capture this difference in politically correct way.

The power hierarchies remark, as always, is completely out of place. I can't even comment in any meaningful way on this because the analogy is simply not understood.

Every analogy presents something well known which is used to point attention to something unknown, which nevertheless has something in common with the known. In our case the analogy fails because even the thing that is supposed to be well known is not understood - namely, the difference between the instinctive and the intellectual state. If this is not understood how can we ever approach the higher state which relates to the intellect as the intellect to the instinctive?

How can development that leads out of the instinctive state into a spiritual state that can reflect on its existence and the fact that previously it was blindly flowing along instincts, be called narrow and one-dimensional? What would be the example of wide and multi-dimensional evolution? 'Evolution through accumulation of experience'? This is what we speak of too. It is precisely when we accumulate the necessary experiences that the actual ascent in consciousness towards a higher state can occur. I hope it is clearly seen that there's absolutely no logic to call multi-dimensional the accumulation of experience yet at the moment that this should lead to higher form of consciousness it suddenly becomes narrow and one-dimensional. This is like saying that accumulating the blind experiences of all kinds of instinctive behavior is multi-dimensional but when the spirit awakens as intellect and begins to reflect on the previous instinctive and current cognitive experiences, this becomes narrow and one-dimensional. It then is really strange what the word 'evolution' in 'evolution through accumulation of experiences' stands for? Seriously, if the development of intellectual consciousness from the instinctive state is seen as narrow and one-dimensional, then what is evolution? The intellectual state expands the spectrum of possibilities for spiritual experiences in ways unimaginable from the instinctive state. This is quite the opposite of narrowness and one-dimensionality. It's similar with higher consciousness - it expands the intellectual states in directions unconceivable through rigid intellectual thinking.

We see that the above objections are a string of absurds. This only makes me think that the analogy is simply not understood. Not because it's difficult to understand but because one doesn't want to conceive of the possibility of higher than the intellectual states of consciousness. For this reason one feels obliged to attack the base of the analogy in the most irrational ways - call it names, call evolution where there's no evolution to be found, resort to the power hierarchies lifebelt and so on.
Post Reply