Rudolf Steiner's Fifth Gospel by John David Ebert

[Soul_of_Shu]

Is it a march, a waltz, a mazurka, a tango, a forró, a ______?

Perhaps somewhat like this ...

[AshvinP]

To insist that one should not speak about the races is like insisting that an anatomist should not speak about the male and female reproductive systems. And please, read the signs of the times well - we are already moving in a direction where it'll be considered discriminatory to speak of male and female reproductive systems. I'll be considered offensive. Other words would have to be devised. This only makes the task of Spiritual Science so much the harder.

As I said, I speak here of my own experience. Not pushing anything to anyone. But things like these can at least be considered. If they are understood, it will be at least possible to have an idea why Spiritual Science has the form it has and why it speaks of the things it does. Whether one takes any of it seriously is completely different matter.

I was going to post this in a separate thread but it seems more appropriate and relevant here. Jordan Peterson's latest interview is with Matt Ridley about his books, The Origins of Virtue and The Rational Optimist. It starts off with a pretty simple question, "why are we so inclined to be pessimistic rather than optimistic about the future?". Some factors are pointed out - 1) We are 'hardwired' to take notice of threats and dangerous situations rather than situations where everything is going well; 2) We feel more pain from loss than we do pleasure from gain; 3) Positive trends are more incremental and gradual than negative ones. Of course there are many other biological and institutional (media) factors as well, "if it bleeds it leads".

Later on they get into some real juicy discussion which I would characterize as being metaphysical. Ridley points out that humans have an instinct to be 'virtuous' just as to do 'evil', although Western culture has over-emphasized the latter through Christian dogma [and I would add secular materialism]. He discusses how human cultures have had a universal gender division of labor between 'hunting' and 'gathering', and sure enough he feels the need to add a disclaimer about not being "sexist", to which Peterson responds, "people will get upset if you point out there is any difference between genders now, regardless of what you really think, so you may as well think what you think". Priceless.

Peterson then points out that this 'biological' rooting of virtue is fundamentally optimistic, because it means we all inhabit the same realm of moral ideation (despite the obvious cultural differences), and therefore we can communicate and cooperate with each other across our tribal divisions. Ridley relates this to Adam Smith and pre-agricultural trade between tribes. A very interesting discussion of "ideas having sex" then ensues. We often talk about "fertile ground" for thinking or the "cross-pollination" or "cross-fertilization" of ideas. Ridley says this is "literally" what happens when viewed from the perspective of evolutionary biology and genetics.

I would say all of the above lines up with Steiner's ideas in The Philosophy of Freedom, which obviously go much deeper metaphysically. We all partake in the same Spirit of Thinking and Morality. True freedom is when those thoughts and moral activity naturally and consciously flow from the essence of our Being, rather than secular or religious decrees from the 'priests' on high. Of course the latter is always necessary to some extent, but it cannot be equated with the sum total of our moral capacity. We should not equate our obedience or duty to obey with morality as such, or believe that our morality is what makes us spiritual. Rather, it is our voluntary and conscious spiritual capacity which makes us moral beings.

In that sense, Steiner was a real Freedom Fighter and Optimist.

(the Peterson-Ridley podcast does not seem to be available on YouTube or his podcast website yet, but keep an eye out for it, because it turns out to be a great metaphysical discussion)

[Cleric K]

We all partake in the same Spirit of Thinking and Morality. True freedom is when those thoughts and moral activity naturally and consciously flow from the essence of our Being, rather than secular or religious decrees from the 'priests' on high. Of course the latter is always necessary to some extent, but it cannot be equated with the sum total of our moral capacity. We should not equate our obedience or duty to obey with morality as such, or believe that our morality is what makes us spiritual. Rather, it is our voluntary and conscious spiritual capacity which makes us moral beings.

Excellent extract, Ashvin!

This is the key for higher cognition!

PS: I'll bookmark your words. I don't think I could have said it so clearly and with so few words
The Spirit is working through you!

[AshvinP]

We all partake in the same Spirit of Thinking and Morality. True freedom is when those thoughts and moral activity naturally and consciously flow from the essence of our Being, rather than secular or religious decrees from the 'priests' on high. Of course the latter is always necessary to some extent, but it cannot be equated with the sum total of our moral capacity. We should not equate our obedience or duty to obey with morality as such, or believe that our morality is what makes us spiritual. Rather, it is our voluntary and conscious spiritual capacity which makes us moral beings.

Excellent extract, Ashvin!

This is the key for higher cognition!

PS: I'll bookmark your words. I don't think I could have said it so clearly and with so few words
The Spirit is working through you!

Thanks Cleric! That's very encouraging. In all seriousness, I am in deep admiration of your posts here. Like the Chief Justice said, "I know it when I see it". I don't know what inspiration is, but I know your posts are truly inspired.

[Soul_of_Shu]

(the Peterson-Ridley podcast does not seem to be available on YouTube or his podcast website yet, but keep an eye out for it, because it turns out to be a great metaphysical discussion)

For the record, this podcast is available to Spotify subscribers.

[Cleric K]

Thank you, Ashvin! I deeply appreciate this. Not for my own sake but because of the great Work that lies in front of humanity. Work that we need to do fully consciously and in complete freedom, out of Love for our Highest Ideal.

[David_Sundaram]

Are we just ignoring that part? Seriously, if he had just written "the European has a 'technological' advantage over the 'African' and 'Asian' cultures", we would think it is self-evident, at least in private where we aren't worried about being 'politically correct'.

I am not suggesting that one ignore' anything. Rather I am saying that it would be wise to 'suspect' anyone's 'philosophy' (however 'logically' articulated and so seemingly comprehensive/complete/sane) as possibly (likely, IMO) being 'unbalanced' and lacking 'wholesome' relationship/connection with Life Itself if said person also believed/embraced/proclaimed (as 'true') ideas which are clearly biased/unwholesome (in some way 'crazy' in the eyes of 'sane' people).

I am advocating that the (very serious, IMO) implications of a soul believing/embracing/proclaiming any unwholesome-attitude-indicative ideas not be ignored (not be swept 'under the rug') just because said soul's other 'rationalizations' may be internally consistent. Note that 'technological advantage' is not indicative of 'higher' soul-development. And the fact that Steiner believed and said what he actually said. IMO, you grossly misunderstand and dismissively/implicatively misrepresent the nature of the issue(s) that I raise as being "political correctness" oriented, Ashvin.

Generalizing my 'argument': Anything can be 'rationalized' to anyone's satisfaction. 'Masterfully' doing so is a 'technological' feat which, along with others here, you are very 'adept' at. Being able to do and doing so is not indicative of anyone's level of soul-development - i.e of the degree of their personal mental-and-spiritual integration - the 'completeness' of one's incarnational communion - with related 'neighbor' aspects of THE FLOW of LIFE , however.

[AshvinP]

Are we just ignoring that part? Seriously, if he had just written "the European has a 'technological' advantage over the 'African' and 'Asian' cultures", we would think it is self-evident, at least in private where we aren't worried about being 'politically correct'.

I am not suggesting that one ignore' anything. Rather I am saying that it would be wise to 'suspect' anyone's 'philosophy' (however 'logically' articulated and so seemingly comprehensive/complete/sane) as possibly (likely, IMO) being 'unbalanced' and lacking 'wholesome' relationship/connection with Life Itself if said person also believed/embraced/proclaimed (as 'true') ideas which are clearly biased/unwholesome (in some way 'crazy' in the eyes of 'sane' people).

I am the (very serious, IMO) implications of a soul believing/embracing/proclaiming any unwholesome-attitude[/u-indicative ideas not be ignored (not be swept 'under the rug') just because said soul's other 'rationalizations' may be internally consistent.

Anything can be 'rationalized'!

We get that. Part of what I am saying is, no one is immune from sin or undeserving of redemption. You and I are no different from Schopenhauer or Steiner in that regard. The other part is, honestly, your attempts to discard Steiner's philosophy of 'ethical individualism' via Google searches of "Steiner and racism" strikes me as a rationalization for your particular philosophy which is clearly more oriented towards a collectivist approach.

And, for some reason, everything we write is being underlined now

[David_Sundaram]

Are we just ignoring that part? Seriously, if he had just written "the European has a 'technological' advantage over the 'African' and 'Asian' cultures", we would think it is self-evident, at least in private where we aren't worried about being 'politically correct'.

I am not suggesting that one ignore' anything. Rather I am saying that it would be wise to 'suspect' anyone's 'philosophy' (however 'logically' articulated and so seemingly comprehensive/complete/sane) as possibly (likely, IMO) being 'unbalanced' and lacking 'wholesome' relationship/connection with Life Itself if said person also believed/embraced/proclaimed (as 'true') ideas which are clearly biased/unwholesome (in some way 'crazy' in the eyes of 'sane' people).

I am the (very serious, IMO) implications of a soul believing/embracing/proclaiming any unwholesome-attitude[/u-indicative ideas not be ignored (not be swept 'under the rug') just because said soul's other 'rationalizations' may be internally consistent.

Anything can be 'rationalized'!

We get that. Part of what I am saying is, no one is immune from sin or undeserving of redemption. You and I are no different from Schopenhauer or Steiner in that regard. The other part is, honestly, your attempts to discard Steiner's philosophy of 'ethical individualism' via Google searches of "Steiner and racism" strikes me as a rationalization for your particular philosophy which is clearly more oriented towards a collectivist approach.

And, for some reason, everything we write is being underlined now

The underlining was a mistake (anyone who wanted to could recognize it as just being that) which I went back and corrected (apparenty while you were making tghe above post). I also added to my argument in the process of doing so, Ashin.

[AshvinP]

I am not suggesting that one ignore' anything. Rather I am saying that it would be wise to 'suspect' anyone's 'philosophy' (however 'logically' articulated and so seemingly comprehensive/complete/sane) as possibly (likely, IMO) being 'unbalanced' and lacking 'wholesome' relationship/connection with Life Itself if said person also believed/embraced/proclaimed (as 'true') ideas which are clearly biased/unwholesome (in some way 'crazy' in the eyes of 'sane' people).

I am the (very serious, IMO) implications of a soul believing/embracing/proclaiming any unwholesome-attitude[/u-indicative ideas not be ignored (not be swept 'under the rug') just because said soul's other 'rationalizations' may be internally consistent.

Anything can be 'rationalized'!

We get that. Part of what I am saying is, no one is immune from sin or undeserving of redemption. You and I are no different from Schopenhauer or Steiner in that regard. The other part is, honestly, your attempts to discard Steiner's philosophy of 'ethical individualism' via Google searches of "Steiner and racism" strikes me as a rationalization for your particular philosophy which is clearly more oriented towards a collectivist approach.

And, for some reason, everything we write is being underlined now

The underlining was a mistake (anyone who wanted to could recognize it as just being that) which I went back and corrected (apparenty while you were making tghe above post). I also added to my argument in the process of doing so, Ashin.

I was being serious... my post was underlined even though I didn't add any code. I'm assuming it has something to do with quoting your post but I couldn't figure out how to get rid of it.