Criticism

[AshvinP]

I think this attempt to present spirituality as some elitist club that exploits the ignorant souls has worn out. And I'm not saying that this hasn't been the case all over the world, in the past and today, in Churches and Ashrams. But to present this as an excuse for not pursuing deeper understanding of reality is really just that - an excuse.

The point was that no philosophy can be abstracted from the social context in which it arises. Compare the breadth, scope and rigour of the social analyses of Hegel with Steiner's simplistic notion of the threefold social organism with its legal , economic and cultural domains. There is simply no comparison. Steiner's social analysis merely reflects the middle class attitudes of his day, and if Steiner's social analyses cannot be relied on then the same is likely to be the case for other areas he explored.

I'm not denying the brilliance of PoF. But it seems that after his philosophical work was ignored by the philosophical mainstream Steiner increasingly turned inward, generating inner reflections of his outer cultural world. This is not to say these insights have no value, but Hegel's philosophy is a vastly superior form of idealism IMO.

Anyway, to avoid generating further circles to nowhere, I will also bow out of this thread. Bye for now.

I suppose it is for the best this thread to naturally wind its way down now. So, for my part, I will bow out by commenting that the bold above is a) illogical and b) prideful. A, you have not even made an argument for why "Steiner's social analyses cannot be relied on", just put forth one or two assertions as pure speculative dogma. It also does not follow that, IF his social analyses were off the mark, "the same is likely to be the case for other areas he explored". These are matters of such basic logical reasoning that I don't feel the need to expand more.

B, I know this assertion is prideful because you had no idea Steiner outlined sociopolitical framework before I informed you of it a few days ago. So then you read the preface I quoted for you (which I also edited down, so it is only about 50% of the preface) and base your conclusions off of that, pretending you are now an expert on the spiritual experience and principles underlying Steiner's threefold social organism (which are the same exact spiritual experience and principles underlying the rest of his work). I may write something about this soon, because, contrary to your assertion, his insights are extremely relevant to the current state of Western financial consumer economy and cultural/sociopolitical divides.

It is clear that some people have started watching videos about Steiner and reading some of his writings for the sole purpose of finding a hook to hang their "critique" of his work on. There is nothing wrong with critiquing Steiner, but it is very naive to assume you will generate an objective and logically sound critique when you go in with that purpose from the outset, and stop reading him as soon as you feel like you know enough to express your opinion, which is basically what you said you did on the Kant v. Goethe thread. It's hard enough for us to objectively consider these matters even when we are trying to remain dispassionate, let alone when we go in consciously with assumptions and goals based on our sympathies and antipathies.

[Dojo Mojo]

So basically what we have with Jeff Williams is not criticism of idealism, so much as his own intractable naive realist “thinking in the blind spot” masquerading as criticism? It even appears that when (repeatedly) confronted with this, by senior forum members, instead of Williams addressing or acknowledging this, he denies it then pivots to another faux argumentative position? On top of all of that he also just typecast anyone else who disagrees with him as a “part of the cult.”

So this is where we are with the diehard physicalists in December of 2021. Instead of defending their position with carefully reasoned principles and plausible possibilities, they sling mud at anyone else who remains skeptical but open to a mind-only-ontology?

[AshvinP]

So basically what we have with Jeff Williams is not criticism of idealism, so much as his own intractable naive realist “thinking in the blind spot” masquerading as criticism? It even appears that when (repeatedly) confronted with this, by senior forum members, instead of Williams addressing or acknowledging this, he denies it then pivots to another faux argumentative position? On top of all of that he also just typecast anyone else who disagrees with him as a “part of the cult.”

So this is where we are with the diehard physicalists in December of 2021. Instead of defending their position with carefully reasoned principles and plausible possibilities, they sling mud at anyone else who remains skeptical but open to a mind-only-ontology?

Hello Dojo,

I think you pretty much summed it up.

As I mentioned in recent dualism essay, thinking dualistically (and naive realistically) is simply a fact of our current stage of cognitive evolution, so the question is how self-aware are we of this deep thinking habit? Clearly JW was not at all aware of how his own position mirrors the epistemology of Kant and Schopenhauer due to the same flawed dualist and naive realist assumptions. Practically everything he wrote was another formulation of what they already wrote, even about musical aesthetic. This is common in 'post-structural' linguistic philosophy, where it is assumed if one has intellectually contemplated Wittgenstein, Heidegger, etc., one has completely overcome metaphysics and its dualist abstractions. It is precisely when that assumption is made that one becomes most vulnerable to that abstracting tendency which keeps Thinking forever in the blind spot, as you correctly observed.

The other thing I will say is that he showed up here with the mentality that everyone else has something to learn from him and he has nothing to learn from anyone else. That was pretty clear when his first post was basically his academic resume, although I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt to begin with. I suppose he assumed he would encounter a bunch of analytic idealist enthusiasts who had never heard his arguments before. Anyway, I am still grateful he participated because we got some really excellent content from this thread, as others have also remarked. It motivated a sort of cognitive awakening on this forum which we really need more of going forward, so I really hope all who remain standing in the 'aftermath' can keep the momentum going and build on it.

...humanity needs to be given something today that truly changes the present state of soul to the same extent as the dreamer's state of soul changes to being fully awake and alive for the day, when he wakes in the morning.

People hear of deeply significant things that must inevitably lead to ruin, to decline and fall, and they do not even feel indignation. Things are going on in the world, intentions are alive in German lands that should horrify people — yet they do not. Anyone incapable of being horrified at these things also lacks the power to develop a sense of truth.

It has to be pointed out that healthy indignation over things that are not healthy should be the source and origin of enthusiasm, of the new truths that are needed. It is actually less important to convey truths to people than it is to bring fiery energy into their lethargic nervous systems. Fiery energy is needed today, not mystical sleep.

- Steiner, Polarities in Evolution (1920)

[Mark Tetzner]

To all on this board:
For the most part I have enjoyed my stay here, but at this point I need to move on. My original purpose here was to discuss Kastrup, who really no longer interests me. If his recent actions to evade opposition haven’t convinced you he is a fraud in search of a cult following, consider yourself part of the cult. I do wish you all the best.

Well that wound up pretty much how I anticipated it might, with the us-vs-them cult as prevalent as ever.

JW is actually just one, WE are the cult.

[Soul_of_Shu]

JW is actually just one, WE are the cult.

True enough ... The us-vs-them cult being at the core of all cults, while belonging to it we are our own worse enemies.

[Cleric K]

I hope you have proof of source of funds, though. I don't want to do time for money laundering

You said the desire to seek proof was a bad trait. "Sorry, m'lud, the defendant must be declared not guilty because our society does itself a disservice by seeking proof of his crimes..."

Ben, I don't know if you're just being picky or you really didn't grasp the whole thing about proof In case it's the latter, let me try to explain once more.

The flow of money is objective part of the world content. In the same way the tap water in your home comes from somewhere. The source can be investigated. This is part of what was many times called 'the harmony of the facts'. This is what we must continually unveil.

The obsession with proof refers to something else. I'll try to illustrate it with mathematical analogy. Let's say I don't know anything about math but still want proof of the Pythagoras theorem. I don't want to enter in the mathematical thoughts themselves (which alone can provide the proof) because I'm afraid that I'll become as deluded as all these members of the mathematical cult. I want to have proof 'from distance'.

Alas, whatever this non-math proof might be, it can only serve to reinforce my belief. For example the math cult can show me many examples of architecture, technology and so on and say "See, none of this would be possible if Pythagoras theorem wasn't true". At some point I find that the evidence is overwhelming and I simply concede "OK, I believe you, I guess that theorem is true after all". But note that being convinced didn't move me to enter the mathematical thoughts where the truth is really to be found. The indirect evidence simply tipped my scale of belief.

It is in this sense that I spoke about the obsession with proof. I was not criticizing the attempts to unveil the harmony of the facts in all possible directions. This we must do continuously. What I pointed out was that only too often, people look on proofs as means to tip the scales of belief but don't do the next step which would be to follow the consequences of what they have come to believe.

In this sense, I have no problem that the essays on 'proof of afterlife' try to point at facts which make sense if afterlife indeed exists. The point is that the whole mood if inquiry is such that it implicitly says "We, as intellectual beings, can not and will never be able to know if afterlife exists until we cross the threshold of death. But we can at least gather some facts which can reinforce our belief that the afterlife is real."

This is the core issue. The obsession with proof is not about the desire to unveil the Truth, which is to be found in the harmony of the facts, but that this harmony is sought only at a particular self-enclosed layer. And more importantly - even if the facts tip our scale towards the pole of belief, our cognition still remains in the same layer. So really - what's the difference between the naive pious man who believes in afterlife by default and me, who decided to believe in the same thing only after long resistance? The difference is that I had to pay $500k in order to secure my belief (I'm speaking in symbols).

Today we're in urgent need not only of belief about what may or may not exist beyond the veil of death but of real inner transformation, which shall awaken the germinal forces of the spirit within us. We don't need abstract theory of afterlife but living bridging of the split in consciousness. This should be the primary goal of any endeavor to enter deep into reality, endeavor which is non-dual/monistic in the true sense and not only on words.

[Martin_]

So basically what we have with Jeff Williams is not criticism of idealism, so much as his own intractable naive realist “thinking in the blind spot” masquerading as criticism? It even appears that when (repeatedly) confronted with this, by senior forum members, instead of Williams addressing or acknowledging this, he denies it then pivots to another faux argumentative position? On top of all of that he also just typecast anyone else who disagrees with him as a “part of the cult.”

So this is where we are with the diehard physicalists in December of 2021. Instead of defending their position with carefully reasoned principles and plausible possibilities, they sling mud at anyone else who remains skeptical but open to a mind-only-ontology?

I think you're totally misrepresenting JW in this.
If you'd listen carefully to him, and not just apply your own prejudices onto his words, you'd see he has a point.
Also, this thread quickly lost track of the specific criticism vs BK, and veered in other directions.

And no, I don't want to discuss that position any furhter. I think this thread should wind down. I'm just posting this to show that there is not an easily formed consensus or summary of what this thread was about and whether someone was right or wrong.


The "part of the cult" was more of Eugene's thing than JW's. methinks.

Also, I don't like your usage of "senior". <- Edit: a bit too harsh. Instead: I question the necessity of the word "senior". This forum is not an Authority, and therefore "Senior" is irrelevant. This is a place which is suposed to facilitate the flow of free ideas. A good idea can come from anywhere, and has nothing to do with whether someone is senior or not. In fact, new, transformative ideas many times comes from those who are Not senior, since they aren't stuck in old patterns. But that's a discussion for another thread...

rambling,
peace.

[Martin_]

The other thing I will say is that he showed up here with the mentality that everyone else has something to learn from him and he has nothing to learn from anyone else.

Funny, Ashvin, because that's exactly what I think about you quite often.
I'm not saying this to be a jerk. I'm just saying this to make a point. Focus on that frustration you're (presumably) feeling right now because "Martin just doesn't get it." (which might be correct), and imagine jW feeling the same thing.

Then remember the trap of dualism, and that there is only one Thinking.

[AshvinP]

The other thing I will say is that he showed up here with the mentality that everyone else has something to learn from him and he has nothing to learn from anyone else.

Funny, Ashvin, because that's exactly what I think about you quite often.
I'm not saying this to be a jerk. I'm just saying this to make a point. Focus on that frustration you're (presumably) feeling right now because "Martin just doesn't get it." (which might be correct), and imagine jW feeling the same thing.

Then remember the trap of dualism, and that there is only one Thinking.

The difference is I don't feel JW has that mentality, like you feel I do, but I have concluded that from carefully reasoning through the content (or lack of conent) and patterns of his comments, which frequently misstated, misunderstood, or altogether avoided my arguments (as Dojo also pointed to), because he was not already familiar with them and therefore assumed he had nothing to learn from them. JW frequently responded with one sentence or one word comments so as to avoid presenting his reasoning (or lack of reasoning) behind his assertions. I respond with at least a few sentences, usually a few paragraphs and sometimes entire essays to show the reasoning behind my assertions. That is what I am doing now for you, even though you provided no reasoning behind your feeling about me. I cannot help if you choose not to read my essays or longer comments and therefore follow the reasoning of my arguments. On the other hand, even if I write an entire essay, and then someone comments with constructive feedback or criticism and presents their careful reasoning which underlies it, like Cleric did on the dualism essay, then I immediately recognize I have something to learn from them.

[Martin_]

The other thing I will say is that he showed up here with the mentality that everyone else has something to learn from him and he has nothing to learn from anyone else.

Funny, Ashvin, because that's exactly what I think about you quite often.
I'm not saying this to be a jerk. I'm just saying this to make a point. Focus on that frustration you're (presumably) feeling right now because "Martin just doesn't get it." (which might be correct), and imagine jW feeling the same thing.

Then remember the trap of dualism, and that there is only one Thinking.

The difference is I don't feel JW has that mentality, like you feel I do, but I have concluded that from carefully reasoning through the content (or lack of conent) and patterns of his comments, which frequently misstated, misunderstood, or altogether avoided my arguments (as Dojo also pointed to), because he was not already familiar with them and therefore assumed he had nothing to learn from them. JW frequently responded with one sentence or one word comments so as to avoid presenting his reasoning (or lack of reasoning) behind his assertions. I respond with at least a few sentences, usually a few paragraphs and sometimes entire essays to show the reasoning behind my assertions. That is what I am doing now for you, even though you provided no reasoning behind your feeling about me. I cannot help if you choose not to read my essays or longer comments and therefore follow the reasoning of my arguments. On the other hand, even if I write an entire essay, and then someone comments with constructive feedback or criticism and presents their careful reasoning which underlies it, like Cleric did on the dualism essay, then I immediately recognize I have something to learn from them.

Let's just say that it's more about my perception of what you think other people are saying, and not what you're saying yourself that I have a beef with. Anyway, I'm taking JW's side because i don't think we welcomed JW as well as we could've. That's all.