Anthroposophy for Dummies

[Cleric K]

I must admit to being a little wary with respect to resolution through inner experience. This of course has been the tool of choice of so many religionists - the Mormon burning in the bosom and the Pentecostal manifestations of the Spirit for example. But it's certainly my intention to learn as much as I can about "spiritual science" and to diligently perform the various meditations. I had an altered state experience a month or so ago where "Steiner imaginings" appeared forcefully in my consciousness so I'm following that lead...

This gets rectified by itself once we begin to experience our conscious experience as a kind of a spectrum, where color, sound, etc. are only some of the bandwidths within it. Your wariness is probably fueled by the conviction that the sensory spectrum corresponds to the 'real' world, while the bandwidths of feelings, thoughts, ideas are completely opaque to that world and subjective. Regular science searches for correlations between the thought/concept/idea spectrum (mainly in the mathematical domain) and the sensory spectrum (additionally extended by the microscope, telescope, particle accelerators, etc.). When we realize that it is practically an arbitrary decision to designate one part of the spectrum as 'real' and another as 'mere effect', we instead begin to seek the harmony in the whole spectrum. This must be stated because it's a general misconception that spiritual science does the opposite - assumes only ideas and weird experiences as real and try to represent the sensory spectrum as mere effects (I think this is what you mean by 'resolution through inner experience'). This is not the case. The word 'spiritual' doesn't designate some specific bandwidth that we focus on but the whole spectrum - because after all, we know nothing else than a spiritual experience - colors, sounds, feelings, thoughts. This is our given. Nowhere is in the given something non-spiritual, that is, which is not a consciously experienced phenomenon. Things become non-spiritual only if we develop the idea of 'non-spiritual' and project it through thinking on selected bands of the spectrum - basically, declaring them non-spiritual. If history had run in another way, it wouldn't even be necessary to put so much emphasis on the word 'spiritual'. We would have simply spoken of the spectrum of reality. But since in our age people are practically programmed to imagine real and stable world, and orthogonal to it, chaotic and uncertain inner world, we have to constantly turn attention to these things. Hopefully, in the not so distant future, we'll be able to speak simply of the spectrum of reality (which will be implicitly of spiritual nature) without automatically presupposing some fantasized world that should 'explain' our given experience. We simply start from the given and grow outwards, bringing everything into musical harmony along the way. The sensory bandwidth is just as a part of this process, as any other part of the spectrum.

Thanks for your encouragement. After day 5, I have been able to create a fuzzy, indistinct red dot in my mind and I can make it move. I'm slightly pleased with that!

Great I'm really happy for your determination.

I'll repeat (just in case) that the fuzzy dot is not that important. It's much more important to experience that you move your thought about the dot, even if this movement of thought doesn't (yet) lead to vivid color.

[AshvinP]

FYI - I started watching some of JDE's more recent videos on "Rudolf Steiner Karmic Relationships", and they are actually really good. I wouldn't recommend them for anyone just starting with Steiner, but for anyone who wants to get a sketch of his Cosmic spiritual vision with a decent amount of detail, they will probably be helpful.

Playlist link -

[Soul_of_Shu]

FYI - I started watching some of JDE's more recent videos on "Rudolf Steiner Karmic Relationships", and they are actually really good. I wouldn't recommend them for anyone just starting with Steiner, but for anyone who wants to get a sketch of his Cosmic spiritual vision with a decent amount of detail, they will probably be helpful.

It is curious that JDE is posting such content on Karmic relationships, while concurrently posting some alcohol and psilocybin fueled rants revealing his entanglement with own Karmic bonds, involving ex-wives and a 'shitty' father, almost as if offering his own real life examples of the shadowy subliminal forces at work in driving one's behaviours. Such are these strange times we live in that so much of this stuff can no longer remain repressed, and is being forced into the light of awareness.

[AshvinP]

FYI - I started watching some of JDE's more recent videos on "Rudolf Steiner Karmic Relationships", and they are actually really good. I wouldn't recommend them for anyone just starting with Steiner, but for anyone who wants to get a sketch of his Cosmic spiritual vision with a decent amount of detail, they will probably be helpful.

It is curious that JDE is posting such content on Karmic relationships, while concurrently posting some alcohol and psilocybin fueled rants revealing his entanglement with own Karmic bonds, involving ex-wives and a 'shitty' father, almost as if offering his own real life examples of the shadowy subliminal forces at work in driving one's behaviours. Such are these strange times we live in that so much of this stuff can no longer remain repressed, and is being forced into the light of awareness.

Yeah in video 3 some of that is clarified with "astrological charts", which, just as a disclaimer. I have no idea whether he is interpreting those correctly and is not an approach Steiner himself used as far as I am aware. Of course he didn't have the computer and software back then, but also Steiner turns to his direct spritual cognition for those Karmic matters anyway. Apparently JDE ex wife or girlfriend killed herself in 2019, and he says in that video he expects this "Pluto" phase which turns our lives upside down to last until Feb 2022 for himself. Again I have no idea what to make of that.

[Anthony66]

Let us move along to point 2.

2. How that relation has evolved ("metamorphosed") over time, particularly from ancient Egyptian epoch to modern age.

I guess the main issue raised here is the understanding of the individuated/dissociated unit of consciousness. Is the model individual, somewhat separate streams of consciousness that repeatedly manifest in history with a primary dependency on the prior incarnations in that stream perhaps with a minimal cross fertilization from other conscious streams. Or is it more a broadly connected, entangled consciousness that is evolving through time which then gives rise to dissociations who embody the current state of evolution?

Do other sentient creates participate in this metamorphosis?

And why a focus on Egypt? What about the much older indigenous cultures around the world? What about the Indus Valley civilization?

[AshvinP]

Let us move along to point 2.

2. How that relation has evolved ("metamorphosed") over time, particularly from ancient Egyptian epoch to modern age.

I guess the main issue raised here is the understanding of the individuated/dissociated unit of consciousness. Is the model individual, somewhat separate streams of consciousness that repeatedly manifest in history with a primary dependency on the prior incarnations in that stream perhaps with a minimal cross fertilization from other conscious streams. Or is it more a broadly connected, entangled consciousness that is evolving through time which then gives rise to dissociations who embody the current state of evolution?

Do other sentient creates participate in this metamorphosis?

Anthony,

These are deep questions, and ones which may really stretch my intellectual understanding, but I will give a very broad response. In general, I think we must drop the "dissociated unit" analogy if we are trying to hone in on these very important details. There are no "conscious streams" which remain isolated from other ones, but rather they all exist within a shared 'space' of conscious activity. My understanding is that there is both a communal and individual element to soul incarnations. Since reincarnations became necessary with the dawn of self-consciousness, it is truly an individual soul who is bringing the experiences, dispositions, knowledge, deeds, etc. into new incarnations. But all of those things were also shaped by that soul's interactions with other souls in the previous incarnations. It can really be a beautiful illustration of the constant interweaving and metamorphosing qualities of existence which exist in polar Universal-particular (One-many) relation. It is also a great illustration of how we are truly shaping our own 'destinies', even if it seems like there are many things which are beyond our control in any given incarnation. Beyond that basic outline, I am really not much use for answering the other questions. All living beings are participating in the metamorphic process, as they are all evolving like we are, but beyond that the details are pretty fuzzy for me. Generally I think we need to become accustomed to recognizing that everything we can say about evolution of other beings, especially in normal cognition, is how that evolution relates to our own evolution from our own perspective. Each perspective feels itself at the "center" of the Cosmic evolution, so we are really dealing with relational qualities in this sort of spiritual science. Actually that is what all science and other knowing endeavors deal with, but only spiritual science seems to consciously recognize that fact right now.

And why a focus on Egypt? What about the much older indigenous cultures around the world? What about the Indus Valley civilization?

The 3rd Egyptian-Chaldean-Babylonian epoch is really when the seeds of self-conscious, in the way we experience it today, were planted in a way that is also easily amenable to examination by normal cognition, since many mythic-spiritual traditions have survived relatively intact from that time. Prior to that, it is much more sparse and much less similar to anything we experience during our normal waking consciousness. Eventually we should definitely broaden out to encompass more epochs, but I think it makes the most sense to start with the progression from 3rd epoch to our dawning 6th epoch.

[JustinG]

We need to go Beyond Flat MAL to Deep MAL (do not think of "alters" existing in a personal bubble of consciousness with hard separation from all other "alters") - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=279

The thing is Ashvin, if you or Cleric have made some major advance in idealist philosophy, why are you spending your time discussing it with non-specialists on an internet forum, instead of submitting papers to peer-reviewed journals (especially as you write so well)? The journal I managed to get published in (https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal), despite only holding a Bachelor's degree, has a very broad scope, so you might want to try there.

In this regard, I think there can be dangers in Anthroposophy-oriented philosophies becoming disengaged from the praxis of the broader international philosophical community, as the situation with poor John David Ebert shows. Whilst discussions we have here are fun, it's good to remember they don't have much philosophical siginificance beyond the enjoyment they bring us. Even BK's name is mentioned only once in the forthcoming The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism (https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge ... 1138502819).

[Hedge90]

We need to go Beyond Flat MAL to Deep MAL (do not think of "alters" existing in a personal bubble of consciousness with hard separation from all other "alters") - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=279

The thing is Ashvin, if you or Cleric have made some major advance in idealist philosophy, why are you spending your time discussing it with non-specialists on an internet forum, instead of submitting papers to peer-reviewed journals (especially as you write so well)? The journal I managed to get published in (https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal), despite only holding a Bachelor's degree, has a very broad scope, so you might want to try there.

In this regard, I think there can be dangers in Anthroposophy-oriented philosophies becoming disengaged from the praxis of the broader international philosophical community, as the situation with poor John David Ebert shows. Whilst discussions we have here are fun, it's good to remember they don't have much philosophical siginificance beyond the enjoyment they bring us. Even BK's name is mentioned only once in the forthcoming The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism (https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge ... 1138502819).

How recognised or established someone is as a thinker doesn't have much to do with the actual substance of their thoughts, right?

[AshvinP]

We need to go Beyond Flat MAL to Deep MAL (do not think of "alters" existing in a personal bubble of consciousness with hard separation from all other "alters") - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=279

The thing is Ashvin, if you or Cleric have made some major advance in idealist philosophy, why are you spending your time discussing it with non-specialists on an internet forum, instead of submitting papers to peer-reviewed journals (especially as you write so well)? The journal I managed to get published in (https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal), despite only holding a Bachelor's degree, has a very broad scope, so you might want to try there.

In this regard, I think there can be dangers in Anthroposophy-oriented philosophies becoming disengaged from the praxis of the broader international philosophical community, as the situation with poor John David Ebert shows. Whilst discussions we have here are fun, it's good to remember they don't have much philosophical siginificance beyond the enjoyment they bring us. Even BK's name is mentioned only once in the forthcoming The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism (https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge ... 1138502819).

Justin,

1 - We have not made some major advance in idealist philosophy. Everything we say here about the phenomenology of Thinking is found in Rudolf Steiner's PoF written in 1895. I also show in my essays how various other 20th century thinkers reached similar intellectual conclusions from various different ways, such as Bergson, Jung, Heidegger, and a few others. (and of course Barfield, who brilliantly expanded on Steiner's phenomenology with philology). The lack of recognition that this philosophy even exists is simply a complete prejudicial blinding to it (for the same reason there is a prejudicial blinding to one's own Thinking role in the phenomenal world), and a lack of effort to overcome that prejudice. You just read Barfield's Saving the Appearances and somehow you still think we are advancing a completely different view, which goes to show the sheer strength of that modern prejudice against Thinking as spiritual activity.

2 - Your bolded nihilistic assertion is exactly what we are trying to overcome, at least in some small measure, within ourselves. We are hoping some others here on the forum, perhaps with the assistance of our essays and posts, recognize the need to overcome that nihilism as well. A world where the detailed structure of spiritual reality has no "praxis" or "philosophical significance beyond the enjoyment they bring us" is one heading straight for unconscious egoistic-fueled disasters of all sorts, as we can already see manifesting. It really disheartens me that someone as well-read and intelligent as yourself could make such an assertion, precisely because I know that mindset is so prevalent in our culture right now.

Your approach is a thoroughly materialist one, where fragmented knowledge, mechanistic thinking, and casual dismissal of spiritual realms is the norm. Steiner himself recognized why all of these things were so popular and possessing of the intellect in his day, and much of the same reasons apply in our day. If you were to ever read Steiner with an open heart and open mind, then you may actually see the inner logic of the spiritual world which comes to manifest in your materialist ideology which tries to appropriate metaphysical idealism for itself. These things need to be confronted with courage and honesty, otherwise they will continue lurking within the collective subconscious and haunting humanity with increasingly more devastating consequences.

To get a proper idea of current events one would have to take account of a number of things. One thing to be particularly taken into account however is connected with a fact I also mentioned in my first public lecture here. [ Note 20 ] It is the fact that when it comes to their frame of mind, particularly as regards the way they form ideas, present-day people are in many, many instances continuing in a way that was only suitable for the forming of ideas during the Middle Ages. That was a great and significant way of thinking, but it is now out of date. Some people have gone very intensely into the medieval way of developing sensibilities and forming ideas. These are the people who hold more or less socialist views, and there are many of them all over the globe. The ideas current among them come to expression above all in a belief in authority that is almost limitless. They cringe before anything that assumes authority by simply taking a strong line among them. This has made it possible for people like Lenin and Trotsky [ Note 21 ] to impose their tyranny on millions of people with the help of just a few thousand. That particular movement is spreading from Eastern Europe into Asia at an incredible pace. It imposes a tyranny worse than anything seen during the worst periods of oriental tyranny.
...
Leninism knows how to put things cleverly, using rational ideas produced in the head, and there is a definite reason for this The cleverness of the human animal, the cleverness of human animal nature, is coming to the fore in human evolution through Leninism. Everything arising from human instincts, human selfishness, comes to interpretation in Leninism and Trotskyism in a form that on the surface seems very intelligent. The animal wants to work its way to the fore, to be the most intelligent of animals. All the Ahrimanic powers that aim to exclude the human element, to exclude everything that is specifically human, and all the aptitudes that exist within the animal kingdom — I have often stressed this — are to become the forces that determine humanity.

FYI - JDE, as far as I know, has never called himself an "Anthroposophist". Of course, whatever is happening with him is completely irrelevant to the truth or lack thereof of Steiner's spiritual science. This should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said.

[Ben Iscatus]

the sheer strength of that modern prejudice against Thinking as spiritual activity.

I'd suggest this is because "Machiavellian thinking" strikes nobody as spiritual. The word "spiritual" is redundant and pointless in this context.