Finding My Monkey

[findingblanks]

"Short answer for now; no, I don't see Jung as ascribing meta-consciousness to Abraxas at all, pretty much the opposite."

Okay, noted. I'll look more into it and get to you on that.

"I suppose I'm more drawn to the general than the specific in many ways, in the sense that I just need the pointing finger and then I'll do the rest."

Yeah, what I love about Kastrup's model is that it is very very clean and very very general. It allows me to tinker around with how various personal experiences and other reported events can fit into a clearly articulated ontology. It made me much more sensitive to when Steiner slides into various kinds of subtle dualism. Steiner wasn't a dualists but like all actual humans he was susceptible to falling back into the more subtle aspects of it now and then.

" I see it more as a phase, a necessary consequence and painful one. No need to beat people over the head about it, we're all ignorant to one degree or another.."

Well put. As you know I think there are all sorts of logical and empirical errors going on when Kastrup (and others) imply that the ontology itself is primarily pushing much of the social horrors going on these days.

"I think I need to ask myself why I am not drawn to Steiner, there are some unexamined biases in me regarding him and that is not giving him a fair shout."

I'll hold back because I'd love to hear you think outloud about that. But, after you do, I'd love to share more with you about why I am deeply drawn but also very wary of certain aspects of his work. Very grateful for the fruits he provided.

I love what you said about Jung. And since you chose the phrase 'beautifully terrifying' to describe his work, I have to find out if you live in North America. If so, I'm going to come close to begging you that I send you a novel you have to read.

Great chatting. I look forward to more.

[AshvinP]

So that's where I am at with it and I'd be interested to hear your view on Abraxas and how it might sit within idealism and certainly Schop's notion. No need for a detailed technical analysis, the general will do fine. I like to start simple and see the broad strokes before I stick my head underwater

MMM,

If you want to start really simple, then it should probably be noted that "making the unconscious conscious" is already in major tension with Schop idealism. What exactly about the unconscious "blind instinctive Will" of Schop is being made conscious in Jungian psychotherapy? If what is being made conscious has anything to do with the noumenal dynamics of this unconscious Will, then that, if actually possible in the Jungian process, negates Schop's entire understanding of the Will.

[maybe_my_monkey]

Yeah, what I love about Kastrup's model is that it is very very clean and very very general. It allows me to tinker around with how various personal experiences and other reported events can fit into a clearly articulated ontology.

I'm entirely 100% in agreement with you here. As a layman I can gain an understanding from him in a clean way that I struggle with from other philosophers. That's one of things I feel make him smart, it's a skill to do what he does in a way that I can read. I'm also grateful to him for it.

It made me much more sensitive to when Steiner slides into various kinds of subtle dualism. Steiner wasn't a dualists but like all actual humans he was susceptible to falling back into the more subtle aspects of it now and then.

I just find it hard to get jiggy with Steiner but then again I just don't know enough about him. It's more a knee jerk reaction if I'm honest.

Well put. As you know I think there are all sorts of logical and empirical errors going on when Kastrup (and others) imply that the ontology itself is primarily pushing much of the social horrors going on these days.

I suspect that is true and this is where more Jung works better for me. The individual. The group think and ideology worries me and as Jung said "A million zeroes, unfortunately, do not add up to one."

I'll hold back because I'd love to hear you think outloud about that. But, after you do, I'd love to share more with you about why I am deeply drawn but also very wary of certain aspects of his work. Very grateful for the fruits he provided.

It's probably the mention of Atlantis, Lemuria, higher spiritual beings, etc. Which goes back to why I appreciate Kastrup, his thinking is clean in that respect as he concerns himself only with that which is necessary to make his argument.

I love what you said about Jung. And since you chose the phrase 'beautifully terrifying' to describe his work, I have to find out if you live in North America. If so, I'm going to come close to begging you that I send you a novel you have to read.

No, I'm in the UK but please do feel free to post here or message me the title of that book. I can get it on Amazon if it remains in print.

Anyway, I'm off to go and watch Dune! May be back later.

Pleasure chatting with you.

[findingblanks]

Monkey, great stuff. I'll respond to the details soon. Also, I direct message you the title of the book. But you must not read one word about it. Just order it if you can and read it

[AshvinP]

It made me much more sensitive to when Steiner slides into various kinds of subtle dualism. Steiner wasn't a dualists but like all actual humans he was susceptible to falling back into the more subtle aspects of it now and then.

Should I even ask for you to provide examples to back up the above claim? ... is there any possibility, however slight, that any such examples will ever be provided, in this lifetime, if I ask for them?

(1) It's probably the mention of Atlantis, Lemuria, higher spiritual beings, etc. Which goes back to why I appreciate Kastrup, his thinking is clean in that respect as he concerns himself only with that which is necessary to make his argument.
...
(2) I just find it hard to get jiggy with Steiner but then again I just don't know enough about him. It's more a knee jerk reaction if I'm honest.

I don't think I need to spell out why it is very odd of you to assert the 1st part if you genuinely mean the 2nd part. How can you know what is "necessary to make [Steiner's] argument" if you don't know either the argument he is making or why those other details are mentioned in the context of making it? I think you guys may want to redraft the plays in the playbook

[Soul_of_Shu]

Monkey, great stuff. I'll respond to the details soon. Also, I direct message you the title of the book. But you must not read one word about it. Just order it if you can and read it

I do have to wonder about why you resort to all these cryptic references. First we have those unprovided, unspecified points that Steiner told with French physicists. Then the mention of twin psychics who shall remain nameless, even though there's a good chance we know who they are, in which case why the suspense? Now there's a book that you feel is a must-read for m_m_m, which you want to share with him, while keeping it from the rest of us. Clearly this is a deliberate pattern, the intention of which seems highly dubious. Is there some reasonable point to it that I'm missing?

[findingblanks]

"As a layman I can gain an understanding from {Kastrup} in a clean way that I struggle with from other philosophers. That's one of things I feel make him smart, it's a skill to do what he does in a way that I can read. I'm also grateful to him for it."

Agreed. I love that Kastrup does everything in his power to speak plainly. One of Steiner's great attributes was always being willing to try to boil down his more complex understandings and be able to adapt his metaphors and frameworks for very different audiences. His critics love to use this flexibility against him, but that is unfair.

"I just find it hard to get jiggy with Steiner but then again I just don't know enough about him. It's more a knee jerk reaction if I'm honest."

Life is short. We have to find those thinkers that we connect to even if we don't agree with them completely. The massive amount of wonderful human beings who are living deeply helpful and generous lives but who haven't read Steiner proves reading him isn't necessary. However, the fact that you keep sniffing around the Steiner plate might mean there is some good karma there to kick around. For the longest time there has really on been one primary narrative in which to view who "Rudolf Steiner" was. But even in just the last seven years this seems to be loosening and different narratives are possibly coming into being. I find this very exciting.

"It's probably the mention of Atlantis, Lemuria, higher spiritual beings, etc. Which goes back to why I appreciate Kastrup, his thinking is clean in that respect as he concerns himself only with that which is necessary to make his argument.:

Kastrup's model can even help us understand ways in which Steiner's clairvoyance was acting like a very rare and powerful telescope lens (back before those even existed) that had some natural warps and woofs. That lens would absolutely be able to observe objective realities that nobody else had yet seen. And that doesn't contradict that it might take some time for others to observe ways in which the lens was warped and, in different ways, 'bending' those realities accordingly. This is one of the ways that I begin to understand how Steiner could have made various errors and yet that doesn't make him a fraud or suggest everything he said was wrong. He himself acknowledged that his development took place in a very specific time/place/tradition.

I DM'd you the name of the novel and I hope someday to hear you speak to what it was like reading it.

Carol Jung's autobiography is a work of art, not to mention filled with helpful ways of understanding some of his core notions. I have no doubt you've read it. Steiner's autobiography is similar. One of the many delightful things about Steiner's is the detailed physical and emotional descriptions he gives of his friends and acquaintances. He can describe a handshake or the timber of a voice in very exact and compelling ways that help the reader grasp some essential quality in the person.

Over the last ten years I've searched high and low for other students of Steiner who could read Steiner's 'forbidden' lecture on the effect of skin color on one's relationship to The Christ Impulse, students who by inclination and experience revered Steiner but who had experiences that clashed with some of the claims Steiner makes in that lecture. I had friends and acquaintances who fit the bill, but it took quite a while to find eight or nine others (whom I did not know from the past) who were inclined to find such a study worthwhile. It is noteworthy to me that in the last 12 months alone that number doubled. I think there are some very interesting changes going on. Not just within his movement but I think such a change might reflect a wider global pattern.

[maybe_my_monkey]

Life is short. We have to find those thinkers that we connect to even if we don't agree with them completely.

Agreed and could we also agree to have at least a number of posts which do not mention Rudolph Steiner?

I'd be interested in your response to my earlier post where I gave you my answer to your question on Jung/Schop/Abraxas and meta-consciousness. It's useful to have feedback from those more scholarly than myself. If not, that's fine. But please do bear in mind my aim is to learn some things rather than to be involved in a Steiner sideshow that fucks with anyones mojo

[AshvinP]

Life is short. We have to find those thinkers that we connect to even if we don't agree with them completely.

Agreed and could we also agree to have at least a number of posts which do not mention Rudolph Steiner?

I'd be interested in your response to my earlier post where I gave you my answer to your question on Jung/Schop/Abraxas and meta-consciousness. It's useful to have feedback from those more scholarly than myself. If not, that's fine. But please do bear in mind my aim is to learn some things rather than to be involved in a Steiner sideshow that fucks with anyones mojo

It should be made clear here that, apart from the thread started by Anthony re: "Anthroposophy for Dummies", Cleric nor myself ever bring up Steiner, Anthroposophy, spiritual science, etc. first in these discussions. It is always you guys (FB, you, Eugene), and generally in the context of very specific misrepresentations of him. Cleric's essays never mention those things and mine only quote Steiner once in awhile alongside many other similar idealist thinkers. I don't think I even bring up Barfield, who was Anthroposophist, before FB, Justin, or someone else. So maybe a little self-assessment and inventory is required here for those who lament all the talk about Steiner. Speaking for myself, I would like nothing more than to move past discussions of isolated, out-of-context claims made by Steiner and stick with the pure phenomenology of Thinking-Cognition and an evolutionary idealist understanding of human affairs. Specific spiritual science claims re: Atlantis, Lemuria, so on and so forth, never need to be mentioned, let alone discussed, for these purposes. And, for my part, I suppose my own Wisdom needs to be stepped up, as I really keep your threads alive by engaging with them. It's very hard for me to ignore blatant misrepresentations, but I am going to try and stop responding to every single one. Fortunately, a few others here have really delved into the phenomenology of perception-cognition and that is what attracts most of the interest, for obvious reasons, while these other threads are clear attempts to derail that productive discussion by making it all about Steiner and spiritual science, which cannot possibly be understood without much more context... context which is never provided by those bringing up the claims.

[findingblanks]

Hi Monkey. You said:

"Agreed and could we also agree to have at least a number of posts which do not mention Rudolph Steiner? I'd be interested in your response to my earlier post where I gave you my answer to your question on Jung/Schop/Abraxas and meta-consciousness. It's useful to have feedback from those more scholarly than myself. If not, that's fine. But please do bear in mind my aim is to learn some things rather than to be involved in a Steiner sideshow that fucks with anyones mojo..."

I understand. I think that I misunderstood you from the beginning and assumed that your main interest in talking to me was grounded in things you came across in the endless Steiner thread. Now I see that it is quite the opposite and your feedback is helpful.

Unfortunately, I'm much less a scholar that you are. In that sense, anything I have to say about Jung, especially wants we start digging into detailed questions about his more esoteric metaphysical writings, will be flimsy and based more in my own naivete than any systematic knowledge I have of Jung.

So if your main hope is that via me you can get a better handle on Jung, I'm afraid I'm not your guy. But maybe there is a conversation to be had about Jung. Let me go back and read how you framed your core questions. I might be able to amplify the questions in a way that is at least interesting. Thanks for the clarity regarding Steiner.