twin psychics

[AshvinP]

Why don't you provide us links or files to the two separate lectures cycles so we can see exactly what Steiner said and the context in which he said it in both of them?

Good point ... Being curious as to Steiner's take on the ontic essence of these 'guides' (which I'm assuming are akin to so-called 'guardian spirits') that profess to be more like magnetic fields—which may simply imply that they are non-locally transcorporeal in nature, rather than individuated loci of Mind within a locus of form, regardless of any phenomenal attributes that are projected upon them, e.g. wings and halos—I checked out an excerpt from a Steiner Q&A (below), but it doesn't really address what that ontic essence is. Can anyone point to where Steiner specifically addresses this in his body of work? And what did he tell the French physicists?

Dana,

I am thinking maybe you are non-local in nature, as you managed to quote and respond to my comment before it was posted

But, more seriously on that note, the spiritual beings of the higher heirarchies are not different in essence than you or I. They are further advanced in their evolutionary progression. There are certain spiritual influences of the modern age which attempt to thrust down all spiritual realities into the rigid intellectual abstractions of materialist mindset. A spiritual being who is working in alignment with our interests as we are preparing to evolve into the spiritual realms, according to Steiner, would never present themselves to us in the manner FB describes and say they are more like "magnetic fields" rather than actual living beings engaged in ideational activity just as we are. One could probably go to www.rsarchive.com, click on "lectures", randomly click on a lecture, and get something related to the nature of spiritual beings that verifies what I am saying.

[findingblanks]

Oh wow. This was back when I was a student at Rudolf Steiner college. If we are all in a generous spirit of actual curiosity, I bet we can track down the kind of student who has well organized files (and a great memory) and have this figured out before the weeks end. For my part, I'll send out a few emails right now to fellow Goethean students who were there at the time, many of whom are very organized individuals

[findingblanks]

Soul, regarding this question about 'essence.' My hunch is that language will betray us here, but I'd error on the side of saying there are no beings that are 'in essence' separate from each other. The differentiations we make regarding beings will mainly be along a polarity of balance and imbalance but not of fundamental essence. But as Barfield liked to point out, this kind of discussion can become lost in definitions very quickly and, to that point, I'm happy to also speak of essential differences if somebody's filter demands it. I'm merely saying that from within my experience and viewpoint, I hold this question from within a polaric framework.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana,

I am thinking maybe you are non-local in nature, as you managed to quote and respond to my comment before it was posted

But, more seriously on that note, the spiritual beings of the higher heirarchies are not different in essence than you or I. They are further advanced in their evolutionary progression. There are certain spiritual influences of the modern age which attempt to thrust down all spiritual realities into the rigid intellectual abstractions of materialist mindset. A spiritual being who is working in alignment with our interests as we are preparing to evolve into the spiritual realms, according to Steiner, would never present themselves to us in the manner FB describes and say they are more like "magnetic fields" rather than actual living beings engaged in ideational activity just as we are. One could probably go to www.rsarchive.com, click on "lectures", randomly click on a lecture, and get something related to the nature of spiritual beings.

Yeah, I added your quote retrospectively, and then realized that it put it out of sequence, so have deleted the original, and relocated it after your comment.

Guess I may just have to randomly delve into that archive, if FB can't, or won't, provide links.

[findingblanks]

Little old FP said:

" If we are all in a generous spirit of actual curiosity, I bet we can track down..." And then I went on to provide context for why this wonderful project might be a challenge.

Then Soul said,

"Guess I may just have to randomly delve into that archive, if FB can't, or won't, provide links."

"Or won't" Ah, I will never tire of the way people deny they are 'playing games' under the surface of their earnest, sparkling and well intentioned souls.

Soul, I've sent out the emails that I said I would. I will certainly get back to you if/when I hear back, and, as I said, I'll try to remember the specifics. I hope you won't think I'm evading you if I personally can't pull up the data. Steiner has more than several dozen lectures, as you may know; and, as i said, this was a long time ago. But, back to basics, I think it is a great project.

The shadow dancing never ends. But thanks for that moment of briefly surfacing honesty. Honestly, I know how annoying it can be to want something and not get it. Or, worse, to think an untrustworthy source is withholding. But I would love to hear your take on those two lecture cycles and I have no doubt even that statement comes across a bit flat. Ah, if only we had a porch and a cup of tea/wine added to these conversations! As always, thanks.

[Soul_of_Shu]

FB ... When you make claims that Steiner said this or that, based on some vague recollection from your school days, which you then claim is clear evidential support for a specific take on these phenomena, it's quite natural to wonder just how reliable such recollections may be, and that they may not even be valid at all. So if you don't want to deal with doubts about the question of whether it's a case of 'can't' or 'won't', then best provide actual evidence. I look forward to it.

[findingblanks]

With the permission of the interlocuter:

TJ: Why would Soul think you have the links but would choose not to share them?

FB: I can only guess.

TJ: Well?

FB: He either doubts that such lecture cycles exist, that I actually was a part of a study group that read and studied them or that I would genunitely like for him to be able to look at them.

TJ: But why? What have you done in the past that would make him think that?

FB: I would boil it down to a clash in our style, tastes, and specific interests regarding these subjects. He might boil it down, if he wasn't working to be to polite, as seeing me as a vague troll.

TJ: Are you a troll?

FB: Not by my understanding of the term. I am just not able or willing (in this context) to ignore that my shadow is playing various roles in these discussions as much as anybody else's. And I think there i no need to shy away from that.

TJ: I think I might find you annoying if you are always poking at people's shadows.

FB: Oh, but that's the fun part. Go back even to the long endless conversation from months ago about Steiner. Notice my very first comments. And then track when I shift from simply making statements to commenting on shadow. You'll see that something happens very specifically before I ever mention such things. You'll also notice that this pattern goes unnamed. More than that. The tender souls who start the shadow dancing are convinced that they are merely being objective and honest in their appraisals of other people's inner lives.

TJ: I'll check it out.

............ten minutes later...............

TJ: You know that even sharing our chat will be used as an example of you being a troll.

FB: Are you certain of that?

TJ: Most likely, yeah.

FB: Yes, probably. But I don't ever assume that people will just do the same kind of response. I like these guys and gals and they are obviously well intentioned and good and, I think, fun people. So I go for it.

TJ: But if you just refrained from sending our chat, isn't there more a chance that they won't get upset and annoyed?

FB: Maybe. But all of these people were involved in the endless conversation that began with me simply saying things that were certainly not 100 percent correct. I mean 'simply' in that I didn't include psychological analysis or claims about other peopel secret intentions or claims that they were guided by evil spirits.

TJ: You are saying that some of those guys said you are evil?

FB: No, but that I am in the hands/guided by evil in my comments.

TJ: Bullshit.

FB: Make yourself a cup of coffee and go over that endless conversation. You'll see the pattern. Also, I suggest just reading about five minutes a day. Otherwise you'll go bonkers. Incidentally, it's not that i think Soul is being a jerk by suggesting that I might purposefully withhold information that he wants. It's just that he actually did feel the need to express that. I can honor that in a somewhat playful way by not avoiding that it has meaning in this context. And in a group that talks about angels and all the ways they manifest in day to day activity, I think it is fine for me to gently and somewhat ironically tap on those shadow moments, especially if I acknowledge my own shadow.

TJ: Do you actually acknowledge your own shadow?

FB: Read the f-ing endless thing!

[findingblanks]

HI Soul:

"Which you then claim is clear evidential support for a specific take on these phenomena..."

While I fully get how in the context of contention and personal judgments something I said may have sounded as if I was saying:

"There is only one correct interpretation of how those two lecture cycles should be related and understood."

But could you please show me exactly what I said that came across as if I was stating I had the only understanding of how those lecture cycles were to be understood. My take was actually that I don't think I have a clear understanding. I found them fascinating and they point to what I love most about Steiner. But, please, it would help if you could take a minute to just clip out what I said that, for you, came across as so dogmatic. Thanks.

[Soul_of_Shu]

But, please, it would help if you could take a minute to just clip out what I said that, for you, came across as so dogmatic. Thanks.

I never felt, or said, you were coming across as dogmatic. I'm simply suggesting that if you don't want to deal with doubts about the accuracy of recollections from your school days, then best provide the actual evidence you are reminiscing about. Only then can I assess how dogmatic or not your claims may be.

[findingblanks]

Thanks, Soul. I should have been more specific:

Could you take a minute to just clip out my statements that lead you to say:

"...which you then claim is clear evidential support for a specific take on these phenomena."

I'm trying to track how and why people get to these conclusions about each other and then feel the need to make them part of the conversation. And, believe me or not, I really will value taking the minute or so to show me what I said that led to you saying that. I have no doubt there will be some validity in your interpretation.

Thanks.