For better or for worse?

[Soul_of_Shu]

For better or for worse, Daniel Pinchbeck (the author of
2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, a book I expect BK would have misgivings about) has come on board with BK's work, which he feels can somehow be reconciled with Steiner. They may make strange bedfellows indeed, in the renaissance of metaphysical idealism ...

Restoring Meaning to the World: Toward a Hermeneutics of Everything

[AshvinP]

For better or for worse, Daniel Pinchbeck (the author of
2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, a book I expect BK would have misgivings about) has come on board with BK's work, which he feels can somehow be reconciled with Steiner. They may make strange bedfellows indeed, in the renaissance of metaphysical idealism ...

Restoring Meaning to the World: Toward a Hermeneutics of Everything

As much as I welcome anyone who points to Steiner's writings, this article is just stunningly off the mark, failing to understand Steiner's "life work". Pinchbeck says the below from BK is an expression of that life's work.

In a mental world, the images we perceive on the screen of perception aren’t essentially different from our own imagination, except in that the former are shared across observers. This collective ‘world dream’ symbolically points to underlying transpersonal mental dynamics, just as regular dreams symbolically point to underlying personal mental dynamics. As such, the world is amenable to hermeneutics: it means something; it points to something beyond its face-value appearances; it evokes something a priori; it is not its own meaning.

It is precisely "our own imagination" (and cognitive activity in general) which Steiner was showing, through phenomenology of Thinking, is shared across all observers, by rejecting the unwarranted dualist assumption that there is a private "mental world" for each individual observer, which is the assumption that BK implicitly adopts in his own thought. It is absolutely incorrect to say - "Kastrup’s work gives us a new way to conceive of Steiner’s project, and to approach it with the seriousness it deserves." I am not saying this to negate the value of BK's work - it is through his work that I came to this forum and really discovered Steiner. But, if we want to really understand BK or Steiner, the former's work should be conceived through the overarching paradigm of the latter.

[Soul_of_Shu]

As much as I welcome anyone who points to Steiner's writings, this article is just stunningly off the mark, failing to understand Steiner's "life work".

For your perusal, here is more from DP's blog on Steiner
... I get the impression that he is far more drawn to Steiner the clairvoyant and prophetic visionary, in support of his own vision as related in 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, rather than Steiner the author of PoF. But for what it's worth, his reading recommendations from Steiner's oeuvre are: How to Know Higher Worlds then Outline of Esoteric Science. Then it is good to read his philosophy dissertation, Philosophy of Freedom, which gives a deeper understanding of his approach.

[AshvinP]

As much as I welcome anyone who points to Steiner's writings, this article is just stunningly off the mark, failing to understand Steiner's "life work".

For your perusal, here is more from DP's blog on Steiner
... I get the impression that he is far more drawn to Steiner the clairvoyant and prophetic visionary, in support of his own vision as related in 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, rather than Steiner the author of PoF. But for what it's worth, his reading recommendations from Steiner's oeuvre are: How to Know Higher Worlds then Outline of Esoteric Science. Then it is good to read his philosophy dissertation, Philosophy of Freedom, which gives a deeper understanding of his approach.

Is there anything beyond that "introduction" on there? I am not really seeing anything. Or do I need to subscribe to access more?

I can understand why some would sort of skip over PoF and focus on SS, but I am very suspicious that such people have really understood Steiner. It's somewhat hard to discern at first, but the foundation of PoF is indispensable to intellectually understanding the holistic ethical individualism and monist idealism, and certainly to developing higher cognition. I notice DP mentions Lucifer in that introduction, and it is precisely that lopsided influence which makes people feel they can bypass all the abstract intellectual concepts. We must honestly assess where we are in spiritual developement and start from there, and the intellectual philosophy is really indispensable for that - not necessarily becoming familiar with specific philosophers and thought-systems, but with the underlying concepts of philosophical thought in general, the core meaning of those concepts, and, most importantly, the logical process of that careful thinking.

Philosophy is not the only way - if one is more creatively inclined, the inner logic can also be discerned in aesthetics, which can be understood as a branch of philosophy as well. And modern analytic philosophy is especially troublesome in our times, because it really served its purpose and needs to be put aside. There is a clear lack of careful logical thinking in these traditions, an over-reliance on shortcuts and abstractions. That is why I am very surprised someone would claim BK's idealism is a helpful extension to Steiner's, since, after challenging crass materialism, it is really moving in the opposite direction. Of course there is still plenty of time for BK to change course and make what DP is saying true. He wouldn't even need to scrap too much of what he has already written - maybe a good chunk of DSM and various articles related to that. There is nothing I would welcome more than this adjustment of course. We will see what happens.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Is there anything beyond that "introduction" on there? I am not really seeing anything. Or do I need to subscribe to access more?

Nope, the blog post was just an intro/invite to a lecture and discussion about Steiner's ideas.
The recording of that is available behind a paywall—I quote 'Free to paying subscribers' Other than the blog post, I can find very little reference to Steiner from DP online. His reading recommendations were made in response to a question in the comments under the blog post.

[Jim Cross]

I have very mixed feelings about Pinchbeck.

He is something of want-a-be prophet. But his prophecies in 2012 were pretty much totally wrong. I also remember his posts on "orbs" (basically light anomalies in photos called backscatter) and a spiraling Russian rocket which he thought was heralding a new age.

Breaking Open the Head was more personal and a different matter.

I wouldn't try to judge him as a philosopher or scientist but as a cultural commentator.

[Soul_of_Shu]

That is why I am very surprised someone would claim BK's idealism is a helpful extension to Steiner's, since, after challenging crass materialism, it is really moving in the opposite direction. Of course there is still plenty of time for BK to change course and make what DP is saying true. He wouldn't even need to scrap too much of what he has already written - maybe a good chunk of DSM and various articles related to that. There is nothing I would welcome more than this adjustment of course. We will see what happens.

Further to this point, under BK's facebook post where he linked to DP's blog post, the following comment/question was made ... "So we take it that you're good with Daniel linking your ideas to the ideas of Steiner, who as far as I can recall, you've never mentioned as an influence. Does this at all incline you toward delving into Steiner's ideas, since they've now been linked to yours, as being comparable? How else would you then know whether or not they are?" ... to which, you'll be shocked to hear, there was no response from BK.

[Jim Cross]

The problem with all prophets is determining how much of the prophet's personal psychic crisis is projected to their world prophecies.

Pretty devastating review of 2012 at NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/book ... fford.html