A clean room for a specific exploration

[AshvinP]

"1 - How do you think of this forum? I know you commented once it is like a "front porch" with people relaxing, chatting about this and that, etc. Do you feel there is any deeper value to be gained, in terms of personal spiritual evolution and/or philosophical-spiritual knowledge to be imparted to larger communities of people?"

I do like the porch analogy. I believe these sorts of spaces can be creatively used in countless ways, depending on the unique needs of an individual and, more importantly, the unique individuals they meet in these context and, most importantly, how well they can all communicate those needs and their best ideas of how to enact them together freshly. For me one way of recognizing the unique demands and opportunities of the era of the Consciousness Soul is how it manifests in online communities. People get so angry and frustrated in these contexts in ways they simply wouldn't if they were sharing a tea on a porch.

And, again for me, my life moves in different speeds and rhythems (being single, married, different jobs, growing child) and my needs and abilities regarding what an online community means and can be change all the time. I have a few highly cultivated online contexts in which we have consciousnly worked to created our norms and expectations regarding time/conversation flow and all the tricky things that come with online life. I mean, many people get angry just if there is a few days of no comments or if somebody doesn't respond to specific comments, as if there had been a shared and conscious understanding of how these contexts are to be used. In the online contexts where we've consciously cultivated our purpose and norms and modes of feedback, yes, it can bet very deep and meaningful. However, there is still great value for many of us when we are in a simple forum devoted to a thinker that we find relevant or interesting or important. That's what brought me here. I never expect that my reasons and ways of being here should be generalized. It's one reason I try not to go in other threads and take them over with a concern or interest I have. That said, sometimes a host can make it clear that they have no problem letting the conversation go wherever it wants to go. That can be wonderful, too!

"2 - Do you feel that you personally have concrete knowledge to teach or learn. By "concrete", I mean like precise and detailed philosophical or scientific claims or perspectives that others here may be lacking. So I am not really interested in any strictly "psychological" benefits to people interacting on the forum at the moment, although I do recognize those exist as well."

I don't think of it in those terms, but there are context where I work mutually with people in a philosophical/spiritual context. I don't bring that here because it simply doesn't work for what I dive into this group for. I mainly read random people's comments and hardly comment. And, of course, you are aware of the context here when I do comment


"3 - Can you see yourself writing a post which details the thought-system of a person like Gendlin, which I am sure most, including me, are unfamilair with? I am sure we could all learn a lot from such a post, even if we disagree with the core concepts. Again, I am just generally curious why your posts never make those attempts and rather focus on deemphasizing the thought-systems of others. I know you don't perceive it as "deemphasizing", but that's genuinely how they read to me. You offer a lot of flattering remarks for Steiner, Barfield, etc., but I am wondering about more in-depth sharing of their specified ideal content with myself and others."

Maybe, but I gain value in my work with Gendlin in other contexts, mostly in real life with people I'm working with face to face. A few online contexts but those have been very carefully and intentionally cultivated. I like many of the people who chat here but I never feel this is a place where that aspect of my life needs to take time up. I'm not inherently against it, but there are only so many hours in the day.

This place is wonderful for me because I can find specific conversations about specific aspects of BK's work.
Because I explore aspects of BK's communications that I find perplexing, beautiful, problematic or just remarkable.

I gotta run now. I'll finish my last thought asap. Thanks and bye for now.

Thanks, FB. I will just say in response that my general rule of thumb is, if I ever feel like I am acting without underlying motivations and purposes to steer thought in one direction or another, then that is when I am probably acting under the influence of those subconscious motivations the most. Many of your posts here read to me personally as a directed goal of convcing others how little they know about whatever they think they know, and therefore convincing others not to take any 'metanarratives' too seriously. And I actually wrote an essay series about that precise topic, "What Do 'I' Know?", so I know where you are coming from, but I also highlighted that our realization of how little we know will impel us to seek out and expand our deep, concrete, and living spiritual knowledge IF we allow that realization to naturally unfold in us. I feel one of the biggest threats to integral spiritual evolution in modern society is the lack of trust in one's own Thinking and the corresponding lack of responsibility, ambition, and impulse to Self-determination. Based on your responses here, it doesn't seem you like have much desire to emphasize that aspect of the 'equation'. Or you feel this forum is not a suitable place for that sort of emphasis. That's fine... at least we have a better understanding of our respective approaches now.

I will conclude with a quote from Steiner 100 years ago which I think is even more poignant today. There is surely a fine line of truth between the abysses of materialistic, secular apathy and religious fanaticism on either side - "strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life" - but we must still try to walk it to the best of our ability, because the alternatives have already proven far worse.

...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)

[findingblanks]

"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."

If it wasn't Steiner who said that, we both would probably find many things to say about it, but, as it was Steiner, we can read it in his wider context. What a great quote. Nobody in this forum has been bringing pure truth (in my opinion) but we have all done a great job of firing each other up. I appreciate it very much! Thank you.

When you really take in his comments about being horrified and you compelement them with his strong statements about the growing intensity of one's equanimity on the path, it helps us understand why people who are walking the narrow path can find so much positivity even in the midst of all the imbalances and 'horrors' surrounding us. Again, much thanks.

[findingblanks]

"I will just quote a portion of Cleric's response to you again, and I hope you will at least consider his points interesting enough to be worthy of your consideration and response, instead of completely ignoring it and passive-aggressively bringing..."

This is an invitation to Shadow Dance!

For people who were reading this thread and noticing what happens when folks do not shift into shadow-dance mode, just sit and pause and notice what kinds of options you have...

Can you imagine that you might get into a debate about how a person assesses 'passive-aggressiveness'?

Can you imagine you might notice a deeper pattern as to what happened in the other's experience that suddenly changed the tone?

Can you even imagine that the other person doesn't feel very justified in sending the invitation to Shadow Dace?

I might be able to imagine that, but it isn't easy.

But I'm not sure I'll take the invitation!

For context below:

I often point out that I respect Steiner's request and demand that his students find his errors and take them very seriously. I sometimes note that it is very very difficult to find any evidence that his students have taken him seriously in this context. Sometimes people directly ask for examples of a mistake that Steiner makes. I often use the bull example because it is very clear cut. Steiner did not know that the color red isn't the cause for the bull's aggressive agitation. Steiner absorbed one myth regarding the color red and bulls. That is interesting in itself. But he also then used his clairvoyance to explain the myth. That is also very interesting. Imagine what it would have been like for Steiner to be clairvoyantly observing the 'facts' that proved that red was the cause....anyway, you can't even have such discussions if people ignore or minimize Steiner's errors.

But Cleric had said:

"Yes, Steiner was wrong about the bull. We today know that cattle are color blind to red.

To me this implies that people in Steiner's time (about 100 years ago from the lecture) all believed that red was the cause of the bull's agitation. That is not true. Just as today no ranchers believe that it is the color that causes the bull to charge, people working with bulls for centuries knew that you could put any color in front of a bull and it would remain calm as long as you didn't start drastically shaking the flag in front of them. So I don't agree with the implication that Steiner was simply being a man of his time in making that statement.

Then Cleric said:

"They react to the motion of the muleta, not to its color. But this doesn't really change the essence of what he's speaking of. The reason is that his entirely human spiritual experience of red was not based on the observations of the bull. He didn't observe the bull, noticed its supposed reaction to red and from there on started to build psychological model on how red affects humans. This is simply not how spiritual investigation proceeds and is perfectly clear even if we have the most rudimentary understanding for these matters. The color experiences are connected with very deep processes in the soul. The color spectrum is not only for the sensory light but there's spectrum also for spiritual processes. Even ordinary psychology can recognize some elements of this. The red, warm shades are much more related with the expressions of individual life. It's not coincidental that such colors are preferred by companies like MacDonald's. The blue and violet send us more towards the spiritual, the universal. Of course even here there are so many more things to be said if this is not to become one-sided dogma. So Steiner's goal was to speak of the human experience of red. He used the bull as an example, which turned out to be incorrect, but this doesn't change the essence of what he wanted to communicate about the human soul itself."

I know that Soul can answer this question, but let's see if any of the quiet people might chime in....

Can you see why the rest of Cleric's response is probably 'impossible' to respond to for many of us?

Your friend says that everybody knows that a slug dies if a blue container is waved above it its head. You show your friend that blue has nothing to do with the slugs death. Your friend says, "Well, sure, technically, but that doesn't really deal with what I'm actually saying which requires you to understand X, Y, and Z. I'm sorry if you thought I was talking about something else, but I just wanted to show you how spiritual science can explain why a blue container kills a slug."

But, hey, if somebody thinks there is a way to actually dialog here, teach me. Also, know that I assume Cleric is a very good person and isn't trying to obfuscate. He always comes across as earnest. And he puts much time and thought into teaching people here his view on Steiner.

Mostly importantly Cleric says that Steiner was wrong about the bull. Now, there is a universe where people like Cleric (and me and a growing group of others) can talk about what were the causes that led Steiner to 1) not understand the role of color in the bull's agitation and 2) believe he had explained his premise by his next comments.

Yes, there is a 57% chance this is followed by more shadow dancing, but I will note that I chose not to accept the invitation in this post.

That said, it might become hard to resist if my dance partner dangles out another assessment of my inner life

[Cleric K]

But, hey, if somebody thinks there is a way to actually dialog here, teach me. Also, know that I assume Cleric is a very good person and isn't trying to obfuscate. He always comes across as earnest. And he puts much time and thought into teaching people here his view on Steiner.

Mostly importantly Cleric says that Steiner was wrong about the bull. Now, there is a universe where people like Cleric (and me and a growing group of others) can talk about what were the causes that led Steiner to 1) not understand the role of color in the bull's agitation and 2) believe he had explained his premise by his next comments.

Yes, there is a 57% chance this is followed by more shadow dancing, but I will note that I chose not to accept the invitation in this post.

That said, it might become hard to resist if my dance partner dangles out another assessment of my inner life

FB, instead of addressing directly what you wrote above, I would like to understand more of the context from which you write all these things.
When I read your posts, if I didn't have any idea about Steiner and I had to build one upon your comments, I would have a picture of a confused man who had some good insights, while completely messed up another large portion. In other words it seems like a sparse grid where he threw darts - some were hit, some were miss. What is completely missed in such a view is that all these things have coherent inner depth structure - our own depth structure, which actually is also the structure of the Cosmos.

To me is still unclear how much of this depth structure you grasp. Maybe I'll get an idea if you answer to the following. You say that many of the things are probably wrong and shall be corrected (even by non-initiates). My question is do you sense a kind of hierarchy of the facts, some of which are probably more certain and others less so? Let me be completely concrete. You know the basics of esoteric science - the grand eons - the Saturn, Sun, Moon, Earth conditions. You know the related members of the human being - physical, etheric, astral bodies and the "I". When you wonder in your mind what else he might have been wrong about (besides the bull) do you think that, for example, he might have been completely wrong that there's such thing as Saturn condition? Or etheric body? Or soul organs? Or higher beings? Or the question may be turned around - what from esoteric science (if anything) you've come to know in your meditations as realities and not only as ramblings of a mad occultist playing darts? Do any of the things listed feel as certain as the fact that you have thoughts, feelings and will? In other words, can you imagine switching on and off (true and false) the listed facts without this having any consequence for the way you experience your consciousness right now?

These are not trick questions. I'm not testing you. I really try to understand your perspective because on that depends also the way we should understand everything you say about Steiner or Anthroposophy and will vastly help to avoid shadow dances.

[findingblanks]

Watch how Cleric described his experience of reading my comments. Notice how his experience is and then compare it with your own. I know many of you so I know the various ways we share understandings and the various ways we are still coming to understand different aspects of this topic.

And then notice that after describing his experience --- which is very very specific and based on the context of reading my comments in this forum in resposne to specific segmented topics -- Cleric says, "What is completely missed in such a view..."

This is the same structure with much of his teachings. Can you see why it is very very tricky figuring out how to have a conversation? I'm open to suggestions but the amount of presuppositions and judgements that go unnamed and simply supposed to be taken for granted...it's intense!

And neither of us (nor most people here) want to get meta and simply unpack the abstractions.

But for the heck of it:

"do you think that, for example, he might have been completely wrong that there's such thing as Saturn condition? Or etheric body? Or soul organs? Or higher beings?"

No, not completely wrong. But wrong in many intricate and uncertain ways, yes. I've used the analogy of a powerful lens that allows us to examine the surface of a far away planet for the first time. It will be able to give us new and objective information even if we haven't yet perfectly figured out that it has warps that are shaping the images unknowingly. In fact, at first we mostly never know there are warps on the lens and we take it as a basically objective fact. Steiner is the first western initiate of his kind. The first telescopes were blessings. And yet that doesn't mean the lenses were perfect. We can find evidence that Steiner's lens had warps and sometimes these could even block him for making very 'earthy' observations. In the meantime, we take comments he makes about 'facts' that nobody else is observing and we enjoy them, mull them around, compare them to other thinkers, see how it feels to take them on as true, and many other things.

But fortunately, Steiner gave us literally thousands of observations that don't need to be treated in that way because they can be directly and immediately observed and thought about. And nobody should fit into a simple pattern of what they find most relevant for anybody else's work.

The fact that I find Steiner's comments about the effect that black skin has on The Christ significant does not suggest anybody else should. The fact that I find his mistaken explanation about the bull very fascinating and helpful does not mean everybody else should.

So, while I personally believe that Steiner was being earnest and honest, I believe he clearly had blindspots and often had no idea they were functioning. The fact that he often talked about imaginations that could not be mutually studied, doesn't stop me from understanding why a filter that acts on one level could also be functioning on other levels of perception or at least have important analogs.

""Do any of the things listed feel as certain as the fact that you have thoughts, feelings and will? In other words, can you imagine switching on and off (true and false) the listed facts without this having any consequence for the way you experience your consciousness right now?"

Yes, I can imagine that.

[Cleric K]

Watch how Cleric described his experience of reading my comments. Notice how his experience is and then compare it with your own. I know many of you so I know the various ways we share understandings and the various ways we are still coming to understand different aspects of this topic.

And then notice that after describing his experience --- which is very very specific and based on the context of reading my comments in this forum in resposne to specific segmented topics -- Cleric says, "What is completely missed in such a view..."

This is the same structure with much of his teachings. Can you see why it is very very tricky figuring out how to have a conversation? I'm open to suggestions but the amount of presuppositions and judgements that go unnamed and simply supposed to be taken for granted...it's intense!

I admit that I didn't structure my first words well enough. The "What is completely missed ..." part was supposed to create some context.

But then your further words:

""Do any of the things listed feel as certain as the fact that you have thoughts, feelings and will? In other words, can you imagine switching on and off (true and false) the listed facts without this having any consequence for the way you experience your consciousness right now?"

Yes, I can imagine that.

show that it was indeed appropriate to mention this context.

So to paraphrase the above question and response: it means that that the whole body of spiritual science exists only as abstract thoughts. I gave an example about abstractness in the other thread.

For example, today physicists ponder whether the world is made of excitations in the quantum fields as per the Standard Model or as higher dimension strings. We don't have perceptions of any of these. We only interpret the gauge measurements in the LHC and other experiments. What we hold in our minds is really the mathematical model, which is abstract conceptual framework (it's worth mentioning that the average person doesn't hold even the math model but only naively realistic pictures of the supposed constituents of the world). My question above can be changed to "Can you imagine switching between the Standard Model and String theory without this having any consequence for the way you experience your consciousness right now?" The answer of any unbiased physicist would be "Yes, I can imagine that." The simple reason is because the whole theory exists only within the purely abstract intellectual layer. Changing things in that layer changes the concepts that we think but has no effect on our perceptions and feelings (not speaking of sympathies and antipathies towards the theories themselves).

Consider the opposite. Can we say for example "It's all the same if there're such things as feelings, colors, sounds. I can easily imagine that these things do or do not exists and nothing will change in my immanent consciousness."? Obviously this doesn't make any sense. Please try to feel the contrast with a statement like "super strings may or may not exist".

Now when it is said that the contents of spiritual science make no difference if they are true or false, it only shows that these contents reside entirely in the abstract layer. They are no different than ideas like super strings. It's just a fancy theory.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this in the sense of "How dare you not take the facts of spiritual science as unquestioned reality!" Not at all. Let it rest as abstract theory. As a matter of fact, when we face the concepts of SS for the first time we have no choice but see them as pure abstractions - even greater than the abstractions of modern physics. But my question, FB, is do you envision any way in which human knowledge can extend in such a way that we can speak of astral and etheric body with the same immanent reality with which we speak of feelings and thoughts. In other words - can the abstract become concrete? You made it quite clear that for you these concepts are abstract - otherwise you wouldn't be able to say that it's all the same if they correspond to reality or not. So the question is do see any way we can know these concepts as meaning extracted from concrete experiential realities or they are forever bound to remain only mental representations of the supposed reality-in-itself?

[findingblanks]

"it means that that the whole body of spiritual science exists only as abstract thoughts."

Some of us believe there is no 'body of thought' that doesn't exist as abstract thoughts. That can be debates or explored or ignored or appreciated or even more.

"My question above can be changed to "Can you imagine switching between the Standard Model and String theory without this having any consequence for the way you experience your consciousness right now?"

Yep. No matter what content is changed we can still dwell in what is alive. Nothing Steiner could ever have said could change that. We could find ten lost lectures in which he explains exactly why his explication of Saturn is very misleading and it shouldn't change a jot of our core experience.

"Let it rest as abstract theory."

Of course. And much of it wouldn't even be 'theory'. Some reaches to 'hypothesis', and much is fascinating and possibly fruitful ideas. And, then, there' the brilliant observations that are immediately available to anybody alive today with the willingness to watch how children's fingers move.

"But my question, FB, is do you envision any way in which human knowledge can extend in such a way that we can speak of astral and etheric body with the same immanent reality with which we speak of feelings and thoughts."

Yes and no. No in that I see us pushing towards a possible coming spiritual science that will make the schemas of 'astral', ''etheric' etc seem as antiquated as Aristotle's most quickly abandoned core notions. Yes in that the coming explorations and knowledge will be able to see see exactly how Steiner was taking massive steps forward while presenting a distorted image that required massive adjustment for the coming science. The yes and the no are both filled with treasures and both are fully aligned with the path Steiner was working within.

" In other words - can the abstract become concrete?"

Yes, before, during and after Steiner I think we can see beautiful examples of the abstract becoming concrete. And, hopefully, in our own lives we have personal instances of this. I'd say that most people that can track even a jot of inner development can describe wonderful ways this is happening, along with our tracking the way it leaves its marks in newly emerging fields of study.

[AshvinP]

"it means that that the whole body of spiritual science exists only as abstract thoughts."

Some of us believe there is no 'body of thought' that doesn't exist as abstract thoughts. That can be debates or explored or ignored or appreciated or even more.

I am really learning so much these days from this forum, so I am grateful! First I learned, via JW, how the smartest academic philosophers who criticize all the same metaphysics I do and appreciate much of the same poetic philosophy I do, can still end up in epistemic nihilism because the failure to understand their own Thinking as concrete spiritual activity. Now I learned someone who has been studying Steiner, PoF, Barfield, and others for decades can fall into the exact same trap and be convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no hope for Thinking as concrete activity. That is what I have learned from this fantastic exchange. Carry on!

[findingblanks]

You see: he can only want to shadow dance after a certain kind of disagreement. There's a tenderness there, yes?

[findingblanks]

Let me share one thing that my clairvoyance makes very clear to me about Ashvin: he has very good intentions.