What we Learned from JW's Monism

[AshvinP]

Rest assured by Williams’ insisting (by way of pointing a finger outward) that it’s everyone else who disagrees with him who’s in a “cult” he forgot that he blithely exposed the three fingers pointing back at himself. His lack of a substantive reason for why all cannot be accounted for under a mind only ontology is most likely his own subconscious self contempt rearing its ugly face (in other words he is actually questioning whether it’s he who is in the cult.) Or at least this is one way to read it.

I won't argue with that. But, to turn JW's shadow projection into our shadow redemption, we should see what can be learned from it. As long as "mind only ontology" remains as abstract metaphysics, it really cannot account for much, let alone all.

[JustinG]

The key insight for me was that everyone directly or indirectly involved in this discussion - JW, BK, and whoever else - is searching for what is "prior to" everything else. We all basically agree that it is very important to identify this "prior to". And JW goes further to say the "prior to" cannot be any abstract metaphysical concept, such as "consciousness", "idea", "will", "substance", "ego-I", "energy/matter", etc., and I agree with that critique of BK's idealism (although it also applies to JW). So if we must look to immanent experience for this "prior to", the only conceivable place to look, quite literally, is our own Thinking. It is impossible to conceive of another place to look, because "looking", like all other similar verbs, presuppose Thinking. One way to test of whether we are genuinely following this thinking logic to our own Thinking activity is whether a sense of joy, excitement, awe, and/or any similar feeling washes over us.

Nonlinear chess:

Steiner takes Marx.
Hegel takes Steiner.
Marx takes Hegel.

Check.

Non-reductive move:

Steiner resurrects Goethe's archetypal evolutionary idealism.
Steiner points to the concrete and immanent reality of Thinking working through all human culture over the epochs.
Steiner thereby synthesizes and concretizes Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche.

Check mate

Oh well, game over then. Might as well just pack up the board, veg out on the couch and Think .

Except http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_l ... _252b.html:

Berdyaev wrote:
It is difficult to combine creativity with the practice of Yoga, as preached by theosophists. Entering upon that “path” is deadly for creativity. In the theosophic path there is no inner upheaval in man, there is no true spiritual freedom. And just as theosophy rebels against all the traditional religious authorities and against every faith, as being exoteric, it itself asserts a principle of authority and demands from man a blind faith. The authority of teachers and faith in teachers -- this indeed is the basis of the theosophic path. The disciple must believe that which he (still) knows not, and he knows usually very little, and only the teacher knows much. The clairvoyant reading of an Akasha-Chronika within the memory of the world is a free knowledge. But the devout reading of pocket-booklets of “Akasha-Chronika” as written by Steiner, is a dreadful entangle and mixing up of Saturn with Jupiter, it is not a free knowledge, and it is rather more reminiscent of an authoritarian faith. The problem is in this, that the way of Steiner and the way of the Steinerians have little in common between them. The way of Steiner is a way of gnosis, the way however of the Steinerians is a way of faith. Theosophy and anthroposophy rebel against churchly faith, as being a childish condition, but they themselves demand faith of those lower down in their capacity. It is impossible to demand faith in an occult mere teacher-man, on an equal in faith in Christ the God-man. An uncritical, submissive attitude towards the teacher is recommended as the method, as a discipline and way towards initiation. The theosophic teachings themselves presuppose at first an acceptance on authority, on faith, without criticism and examination by one’s own experience, and they promise that with time all this will be known autonomously and by experience. But why in such case should theosophy look down upon the demands for an authoritarian faith in churchly teachings? Between man and God, and between man and the world there is a whole series of teachers, a whole complex hierarchy. We approach here a very interesting question, for my purposes, about the role and significance of the theosophic and anthroposophic current in Russia, and about the type of thought and the psychology of Russian theosophists and anthroposophists. What interests me is not an analysis of theosophic doctrines nor examination of all the theosophic schema, but rather an uncovering of the basic features of the theosophic manner of thought and experiencing of being.

[AshvinP]

Nonlinear chess:

Steiner takes Marx.
Hegel takes Steiner.
Marx takes Hegel.

Check.

Non-reductive move:

Steiner resurrects Goethe's archetypal evolutionary idealism.
Steiner points to the concrete and immanent reality of Thinking working through all human culture over the epochs.
Steiner thereby synthesizes and concretizes Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche.

Check mate

Oh well, game over then. Might as well just pack up the board, veg out on the couch and Think .

Hey, you're the one who started with three three-word moves which really make no sense. I suppose "nonlinear" is now code for "nonsensical"

I'm all up for rigorous sensical discussion and Thinking!

Except http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_l ... _252b.html:

Berdyaev wrote:
It is difficult to combine creativity with the practice of Yoga, as preached by theosophists. Entering upon that “path” is deadly for creativity. In the theosophic path there is no inner upheaval in man, there is no true spiritual freedom. And just as theosophy rebels against all the traditional religious authorities and against every faith, as being exoteric, it itself asserts a principle of authority and demands from man a blind faith. The authority of teachers and faith in teachers -- this indeed is the basis of the theosophic path. The disciple must believe that which he (still) knows not, and he knows usually very little, and only the teacher knows much. The clairvoyant reading of an Akasha-Chronika within the memory of the world is a free knowledge. But the devout reading of pocket-booklets of “Akasha-Chronika” as written by Steiner, is a dreadful entangle and mixing up of Saturn with Jupiter, it is not a free knowledge, and it is rather more reminiscent of an authoritarian faith. The problem is in this, that the way of Steiner and the way of the Steinerians have little in common between them. The way of Steiner is a way of gnosis, the way however of the Steinerians is a way of faith. Theosophy and anthroposophy rebel against churchly faith, as being a childish condition, but they themselves demand faith of those lower down in their capacity. It is impossible to demand faith in an occult mere teacher-man, on an equal in faith in Christ the God-man. An uncritical, submissive attitude towards the teacher is recommended as the method, as a discipline and way towards initiation. The theosophic teachings themselves presuppose at first an acceptance on authority, on faith, without criticism and examination by one’s own experience, and they promise that with time all this will be known autonomously and by experience. But why in such case should theosophy look down upon the demands for an authoritarian faith in churchly teachings? Between man and God, and between man and the world there is a whole series of teachers, a whole complex hierarchy. We approach here a very interesting question, for my purposes, about the role and significance of the theosophic and anthroposophic current in Russia, and about the type of thought and the psychology of Russian theosophists and anthroposophists. What interests me is not an analysis of theosophic doctrines nor examination of all the theosophic schema, but rather an uncovering of the basic features of the theosophic manner of thought and experiencing of being.

1) Clearly Berdyaev is writing at a time when Steiner was still in Theosophical movement or just separated, which is hardly a great perspective to glean all of your opinions about Steiner from. As I pointed out to you before, and you completely ignored, we have much more free easily accessible writings and lectures from Steiner on these topics than Berdyaev could have possibly had.

2) Berdyaev is speaking of things like the Akasha-Chronika as if it is real, so my question to you is - do you even hold to his systematic spiritual philosophy and theology and, if so, what parts of the spiritual cosmology do you think are valid or could be validated?
...Or did you just look for the first somewhat notable person who criticized Steiner on google and decide to quote that guy?

3) Ok, what you bolded may be true... so what is the point? Do you really think people like Cleric writing amazingly detailed imaginative posts, without ever referencing Steiner, God, scripture, or anything similar, is doing so out of his "authoritarian faith"? Such an argument is so absurd that it hardly warrants any further consideration.

4) I am sure Cleric can comment more on the spiritual practice of Yoga, since he is very familiar with it.

5) I wonder if you have any thoughts on the title of this thread or my original post or anyone else's subsequent posts which managed to stay on that topic?

[JustinG]

AshvinP wrote:
So if we must look to immanent experience for this "prior to", the only conceivable place to look, quite literally, is our own Thinking.

Berdyaev wrote:
The problem is in this, that the way of Steiner and the way of the Steinerians have little in common between them. The way of Steiner is a way of gnosis, the way however of the Steinerians is a way of faith.

AshvinP wrote:
Ok, what you bolded may be true... so what is the point? Do you really think people like Cleric writing amazingly detailed imaginative posts, without ever referencing Steiner, God, scripture, or anything similar, is doing so out of his "authoritarian faith"? Such an argument is so absurd that it hardly warrants any further consideration.

You've answered your own question. Steinerians do not look to their own Thinking, but to the pre-conceived map provided by Steiner.

[Cleric K]

You've answered your own question. Steinerians do not look to their own Thinking, but to the pre-conceived map provided by Steiner.

Justin, this is simply not serious. In the same way I can say that you don't think for yourself but simply reiterate the map provided by Marx.

Isn't it clear that cheap attacks on personalities don't lead anywhere? It's not that you're concerned about the freedom of Steinerians - it's that you dislike the direction of thinking itself. In that sense, we may completely disregard Steiner and SS, and instead you can present your arguments of why in your view there's no point to investigate the spiritual foundations of thinking? After all, this is the tool you're using all the time when working on your own ideology. Are we bound to simply have an intellectual end-user perspective and use it with the hope to devise a perfected framework for social relations between biological units and distribution of goods? Or our intellect in itself is only an aperture of reality, as if seen through a surgical drape? If the latter is the case, in principle it should be possible to gain consciousness within the deeper strata of being that lie behind the ordinary intellect. So let's put aside Steiner and simply give us your free thoughts on this subject. Do you see it as a possibility that such consciousness can be attained? If not, why not? Is it the result of careful investigation which has convinced you that thinking can look only outwards toward sensory perceptions? If yes, how would you proceed towards the acquisition of this consciousness and what would be the natural consequences of this possibility? All of theses are completely valid questions, independent of any spiritual school, and completely appropriate for a forum like this.

[JustinG]

You've answered your own question. Steinerians do not look to their own Thinking, but to the pre-conceived map provided by Steiner.

Justin, this is simply not serious. In the same way I can say that you don't think for yourself but simply reiterate the map provided by Marx.

No. I, like Marx, Hegel and Berdyaev, admit that all thinking is socially conditioned, whilst Steinerians do not admit this.

[Soul_of_Shu]

No. I, like Marx, Hegel and Berdyaev, admit that all thinking is socially conditioned, whilst Steinerians do not admit this.

And what of theThinking of transpersonal Mind, as isomorphic to the ever-present Origin? Why should that remain some exclusive state 'out there' beyond any hope of knowing here and now? I can only repeat that in this experience, whereby the One is the Many, and the Many are the One, more and more I cannot relate to being in a dissociative relationship with either. Rather, I am, as is everyOne, the dynamic inter-being, ever-evolving, feedback-looping, exploring/expressing of this locus of transpersonal Mind with other loci of transpersonal Mind, never apart from the ever-present Origin or Thinking—except insofar as conditioned, inculcated, dualistic thinking imagines it to be so. Get thee free of those shackles.

[Cleric K]

No. I, like Marx, Hegel and Berdyaev, admit that all thinking is socially conditioned, whilst Steinerians do not admit this.

OK, I see. There's no doubt that thinking is socially conditioned but to say that for all thinking is a very strong claim. This is the whole essence of PoF - that through unprejudiced survey of the given we can discover that we have all the means within ourselves to recognize these personal, social, national, cultural, religious factors and even gradually raise above them. It's quite clear that in one way or another we're slowly rising through these layers of conditioning. Otherwise how could we explain that thinking has expanded from the tribal patterns to our age when even quite disinterested people feel that we live in a global family, and before we are differentiated in color, nation, clan, we're first and foremost human? I suppose the answer would be "through natural selection of random thoughts" or something of this sort.

Anyways. I won't insist because it won't go anywhere. I just wanted to show the massive prejudices that rule our times. Basically the logic is "the geniuses of Marx and Hegel didn't know how they got their own thoughts, what's left for us, regular folk, who flow entirely within the mental channels that they have furrowed for us? No one understands thinking because thinking is conditioned by socio-environmental factors. Whoever says that it is possible to peel the layers of conditioning is a deluded liar." This is the situation really. The possibility for freedom is rejected not because it can't be logically justified but because modern man doesn't want this kind of freedom. To find the thinking spirit in ourselves raises questions on its own. Questions which inevitably lead to the deeper mysteries of existence. Thus, people say with great satisfaction "my brain thinks, MAL thinks, energy thinks, social conditioning thinks, the Church thinks" ... anything else but not the spiritual experience of "I think", which alone can lead us into the depths of reality.

I'm not saying this concretely to Justin or anyone else specifically but only to point attention to the critical situation of our times. We can speak of this without mentioning Steiner, although it's a real treasure for humanity that we have these things laid down in PoF. The really simple question is why we reject the thinking spirit? Why we feel obliged and even satisfied if we can project the creative spiritual activity (which today we experience in thinking) to something outside ourselves? Why we reject to give the opportunity to the Cosmos to have its I-ness through us? Most people will say that it is because we're humble, we're worried that by relating with I-ness which potentially leads to the One, we'll become prideful and intoxicated with self-importance. But what was humility yesterday, today is actually arrogance and avoidance of responsibility. Our Cosmic I-ness is first and foremost about moral responsibility. Once we step on this path there are no more excuses. Can't blame the brain, the colonialists, the tribes, the capitalists or communists. All of these are now part of our shared responsibility. This is what really man doesn't want to face today. All the talks about being humble are inept excuses. True humility demands from us to bear our moral responsibility and do what is right for the good of the Whole, no matter how small it may be.

[Soul_of_Shu]

No. I, like Marx, Hegel and Berdyaev, admit that all thinking is socially conditioned, whilst Steinerians do not admit this.

OK, I see. There's no doubt that thinking is socially conditioned but to say that for all thinking is a very strong claim.

Indeed, how can the Thinking of transpersonal Mind, as isomorphic to the ever-present Origin, which noOne is ever apart from, be socially or culturally conditioned? And yet, in its unlimited Freedom to Think, it seems to have Thought up a state of conditioned, inculcated, segregative, dissociative dualistic thinking? The good news is that everyOne can come to know, here and now, how to Think otherwise. Mind you, it does appear that for whatever reason most are waiting for some future version of here and now to do so.

[Cleric K]

No. I, like Marx, Hegel and Berdyaev, admit that all thinking is socially conditioned, whilst Steinerians do not admit this.

OK, I see. There's no doubt that thinking is socially conditioned but to say that for all thinking is a very strong claim.

Indeed, how can the Thinking of transpersonal Mind, as isomorphic to the ever-present Origin, which noOne is ever apart from, be socially or culturally conditioned? And yet, in its unlimited Freedom to Think, it seems to have Thought up a state of conditioned, inculcated, segregative, dissociative dualistic thinking? The good news is that everyOne can come to know, here and now, how to Think otherwise. Mind you, it does appear that for whatever reason most are waiting for some future version of here and now to do so.

Yes, the spirit is One, yet the thinking that we experience in our intellect is not the same kind of spiritual activity which creates worlds.



This Divine Thinking has been 'folded' on itself several time. Each fold produces a fractal I-ness which feels increasingly differentiated (but not necessarily separated) and experiences the most manifold interactions with other fractals of the One. What has been folded becomes environment for the "I". Thus what we call race, culture, nation, body, are the folds within which the fractal I-ness experiences itself. It is the task of evolution that we unfold this Cosmic structure.