Science and Religon via The Vault

[findingblanks]

If I saw an odd painting in which, among other things, represented Picasso making a Picasso, I personally would not publically claim that the artist was trying to sell people Picassos. Even when I can't understand your certainty or assumptions, thanks for sharing!

[findingblanks]

Ashvin I'm not mad at you at all, by the way. I simply don't share your opinion of what it means for an artist to use the word "Anthroposophy". The fact that I don't share your opinion on that matter is okay. My friends and I don't agree on artistic taste and we often have fairly contentious debates about what an artists responsibility is to society. I learn a lot from those clashes. I'm sorry you feel ignored. I notice that you and many others often don't cover every single aspect of each other's posts. And if you find that my patterns of interacting with you are upsetting or just not worth it, I'd say completely ignore me or even just ask me to no longer address you. I'd respect both of those actions. But I'm not mad or upset that you believe their use of 'Anthroposohy' means they are trying to teach Anthroposophy. That has never been my experience in reading their works. But I've seen more of it than you so many that influences my view. I do know that there are Anthroposophists who speak highly of The Vault and those who are very bitter. And, unsurprisingly, the main pattern I notice with those two responses is the difference between when the people were born!

[AshvinP]

Ashvin I'm not mad at you at all, by the way. I simply don't share your opinion of what it means for an artist to use the word "Anthroposophy". The fact that I don't share your opinion on that matter is okay. My friends and I don't agree on artistic taste and we often have fairly contentious debates about what an artists responsibility is to society. I learn a lot from those clashes. I'm sorry you feel ignored. I notice that you and many others often don't cover every single aspect of each other's posts. And if you find that my patterns of interacting with you are upsetting or just not worth it, I'd say completely ignore me or even just ask me to no longer address you. I'd respect both of those actions. But I'm not mad or upset that you believe their use of 'Anthroposohy' means they are trying to teach Anthroposophy. That has never been my experience in reading their works. But I've seen more of it than you so many that influences my view. I do know that there are Anthroposophists who speak highly of The Vault and those who are very bitter. And, unsurprisingly, the main pattern I notice with those two responses is the difference between when the people were born!

FB,

I honestly am not sure what you are even speaking of anymore. My points here are very simple and straightforward - there is no meta-analysis of artwork going on, if that's what you are saying. I don't even know how "artistic" applies here. Like I said, I am not really commenting on the Vault, because I have no idea who they are, what they do, and you have given me no further information. I am commenting on what you do whenever you "constructively" criticize Steiner, Schop, BK, or anyone else. Buying and selling are really symbols for the representation and flow of ideas. So we can take it metaphorically or literally - they are essentially the same thing according to me. Anyway, I have made my position clear. I am not mad at you either, but just want others, if not you, to perceive what is happening in this process of buying and selling ideas. As long as you continue trading in ideas which I think are extremely important for others to grasp, such as those presented by Steiner, I will keep pointing these things out. That's only fair play, right?

[findingblanks]

"I am not really commenting on the Vault..."

That's fair. It seemed you were somewhat commenting on the Vault and that caught my interest. I thought you were saying they were misrepresenting Steiner or maybe implying that they were making a mistake. I took "Then we will very quickly understand the major flaws in this Vault approach..." the wrong way. My fault. And I was probably to quick to assume you were referring to The Vault when you gave that great analogy: "If someone makes a poor replica of a Picasso and then sells it as a Picasso, the major flaw, apart from committing a felony, is defrauding whoever bought it..."

I totally get why it might frustrate you that I pick and choose which aspects of your communication I can respond to. But even the parts that I think I understand enough to pick out and ask you about, I'm so often wrong. I'm not ready to go after the super confusing stuff. That's on me.

Oh, and, yes, I fully agree that you should keep responding to any Steiner conversations that so inspire you. Of course! I don't want any of my differences of opinion to come across as if I'm suggesting you don't chime in. Not at all.

[AshvinP]

"I am not really commenting on the Vault..."

That's fair. It seemed you were somewhat commenting on the Vault and that caught my interest. I thought you were saying they were misrepresenting Steiner or maybe implying that they were making a mistake. I took "Then we will very quickly understand the major flaws in this Vault approach..." the wrong way. My fault. And I was probably to quick to assume you were referring to The Vault when you gave that great analogy: "If someone makes a poor replica of a Picasso and then sells it as a Picasso, the major flaw, apart from committing a felony, is defrauding whoever bought it..."

I totally get why it might frustrate you that I pick and choose which aspects of your communication I can respond to. But even the parts that I think I understand enough to pick out and ask you about, I'm so often wrong. I'm not ready to go after the super confusing stuff. That's on me.

Oh, and, yes, I fully agree that you should keep responding to any Steiner conversations that so inspire you. Of course! I don't want any of my differences of opinion to come across as if I'm suggesting you don't chime in. Not at all.

You posted the Vault thing here because it aligns with your approach of how to interpret Steiner's writings and lectures. This really isn't hard to understand, FB... it's not frustrating that you can't understand it, because you are clearly intelligent enough to follow these simple English sentences, but that you intentionally refuse to.

[AshvinP]

"I am not really commenting on the Vault..."

That's fair. It seemed you were somewhat commenting on the Vault and that caught my interest. I thought you were saying they were misrepresenting Steiner or maybe implying that they were making a mistake. I took "Then we will very quickly understand the major flaws in this Vault approach..." the wrong way. My fault. And I was probably to quick to assume you were referring to The Vault when you gave that great analogy: "If someone makes a poor replica of a Picasso and then sells it as a Picasso, the major flaw, apart from committing a felony, is defrauding whoever bought it..."

I totally get why it might frustrate you that I pick and choose which aspects of your communication I can respond to. But even the parts that I think I understand enough to pick out and ask you about, I'm so often wrong. I'm not ready to go after the super confusing stuff. That's on me.

Oh, and, yes, I fully agree that you should keep responding to any Steiner conversations that so inspire you. Of course! I don't want any of my differences of opinion to come across as if I'm suggesting you don't chime in. Not at all.

You posted the Vault thing here because it aligns with your approach of how to interpret Steiner's writings and lectures. This really isn't hard to understand, FB... it's not frustrating that you can't understand it, because you are clearly intelligent enough to follow these simple English sentences, but that you intentionally refuse to.

But also note the very easy solution here - you can simply say, "this is my argument which I am formulating from things Steiner observed", rather than attributing it to Steiner. That's the real crux of the matter - Cleric and myself (less so) are pretty familiar with Steiner and we know what you are saying 100% cannot be reconciled with his overarching spiritual approach. Other people will not be so familiar and therefore would have no idea whether what you are saying is accurate representation of it or not. If you simply stopped trying to pass your own arguments off as Steiner's, I really wouldn't be responding to you so much here, if at all.

[findingblanks]

"You posted the Vault thing here because it aligns with your approach of how to interpret Steiner's writings and lectures."

Nope. I don't have a fixed method. The other night my friend and read a lecture in which Steiner talked about how early life eating patterns can metamorphose in later life. We did some research and found various ways his work was being vindicated by modern science. This was one way of working with his lecture. Another way was when I saw the truth in the method that Steiner proposed should be used to find and correct his errors. It seemed very clear and it aligned with my experience, so I interpreted as valid. When he said that we all knew that red caused bulls to go wild, I realized that I did NOT know that and I did some research. My vague understanding of what really caused bulls to go wild was affirmed. And I then began to understand why Steiner had errored. That was a different approach. I don't have one approach to him. When I read his lectures to teachers, I am in awe at his detail and I look to confirm his observations. That is a totally different approach. Anyway, your comment about my approach is wrong, but I'm not mad about it! And, to your credit, I do know that some people actually do have "a" method and think those can be fairly great too.

[findingblanks]

So I agree with Steiner about fingers. But not about non-white people and how long they must wait to evolve. I agree with him about the importance of not pushing reading too early on a child, but I think he is dead wrong when he clairvoyantly teaches why red causes a bull to go wild. I think Steiner is brilliant when he explains various approaches to arranging a farm but I think he is not correct when he says that the planets in our galaxy don't orbit the sun. In my opinion Steiner is correct that our only hope is if more people find their own unique ways toward grasping the self-sustaining nature of thinking, but I think he is wrong that we must search for the concept 'cause' and attach it to a percept. And it goes on and on. I know people who say he is only wrong. I disagree. I know people who say he was almost always correct. I disagree. I know I'm somewhat wrong in these opinions.

[AshvinP]

So I agree with Steiner about fingers. But not about non-white people and how long they must wait to evolve. I agree with him about the importance of not pushing reading too early on a child, but I think he is dead wrong when he clairvoyantly teaches why red causes a bull to go wild. I think Steiner is brilliant when he explains various approaches to arranging a farm but I think he is not correct when he says that the planets in our galaxy don't orbit the sun. In my opinion Steiner is correct that our only hope is if more people find their own unique ways toward grasping the self-sustaining nature of thinking, but I think he is wrong that we must search for the concept 'cause' and attach it to a percept. And it goes on and on. I know people who say he is only wrong. I disagree. I know people who say he was almost always correct. I disagree. I know I'm somewhat wrong in these opinions.

FB,

All you need is some more humility, which we could all use a lot more of. Notice that I have not been commenting on Steiner like I know exactly what he said, why he said it, what it meant, and whether it has been verified or disproven (and I already explained here and elsewhere why correspondence theory of "true" and "false" does not even make sense in his epistemic framework). I feel that I have a good understanding of his overall approach, but there are a million things I have not read yet, I have read but don't remember, I probably misunderstood a few, and I know for certain I do not have the cognitive capacity to verify many of the things which I have read and grasped only with intellect. I think you have also made very clear you have never developed higher cognition, even though you acknowledge it is a real cognitive capacity.

So the point is, you don't even know what you are "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with at this point. If I can discern that clearly from my very limited intellectual knowledge of his work, and Cleric can discern that clearly with his broader imaginative knowledge of his work, then what are the chances that you are maybe reaching premature conclusions on all of these things? We don't need to speculate on the answer, because it is right there in plain English we have quoted many times. For ex., when you asserted Steiner was making claims about spiritual beings as "magnetic fields", Cleric responded with lengthy quotes which flatly contradicted this claim. So it's not just you are off a little bit here and there, but you are representing Steiner as holding positions diametrically opposed to those he held.

I will say that I doubt it's consciously intentional most of the time, because that sort of misrepresentation is only born of ideological dogma. It is the true believer who simply refuses to listen to anything which is presented to him in response. It's not as if I just started in on you after one or two posts of this... it has been going on for months since the PU thread and in nearly every post which mentions Steiner. You positively ignore every response you cannot think of an answer to. There is no shadow dancing going on here. I am just calling it like it so obviously is at this point. The comment in bold clearly reflects you still lack any concrete understanding of PoF. So maybe just consider, for one second, that the better approach here is for you to argue against Steiner on certain points, admit you don't understand him on others, or leave Steiner out of it all together and present your own arguments about how cognition works in our 1st-person experience without feeling the need to mention him.

If Steiner had major racial prejudices and errors of all sort, why is it so important for you to mention him here all the time? Why does it matter if you can base your arguments in what Steiner said? It always amuses and bewilders me that the people who have the biggest criticisms of Steiner and SS are the ones who mention him the most, while Cleric and myself have been mentioning him less and less in all of our posts, and generally only mention him once someone else does (actually Cleric almost never initially mentioned him since the inception of this forum). It's like you guys need an "enemy" to prop up here and rage against, so as to avoid making your own arguments with your own logical reasoning and your own insights. Personally, I don't post any claims from Steiner here until I have first thoroughly understood them and reasoned through the logic for myself. At this stage, that ends up being a miniscule fraction of the claims he has actually made. Perhaps it's time for you to let this particular strawman burn down without erecting another one in its place.

[findingblanks]

"Notice that I have not been commenting on Steiner like I know exactly what he said, why he said it, what it meant, and whether it has been verified or disproven..."

Good point. At least we dont' have to know everything to find the aspects we are interested. Some of my Anthroposophical friends only focus on Biodynamics and hence have some deep understandings of Steiner. But they don't know it all. I have one slightly clairvoyant friend who farms Byodamically and she thinks she can somewhat confirmed aspects of his work. When I say that he's definitely wrong about non-white people in a specific context, I'm certainly not claiming he's wrong about everything else. It's like the bull; he can be wrong about the bull and still write about how learning to sew helps children. You know that. We are the same when it comes to focusing only on aspects while holding the whole. The same!

" I think you have also made very clear you have never developed higher cognition, even though you acknowledge it is a real cognitive capacity."

Nope, you believe that I've said that because so far your filter can't understand a shred of what I've said about 'higher' and about 'cognition'. Believe me, some people not only have understood me but they've educated me on this even more deeply. You are smarter than me in some ways, but in this context you simply have shown no sign of understanding my comments. The 'higher' cognition I've developed is what it is. It functions as it does and I am able to grasp aspects of some phenomena much more deeply because of it. That goes for every single one of us who has developed 'higher' cognition. Oh no.

"Then what are the chances that you are maybe reaching premature conclusions on all of these things?"

Oh I already know that is happening. That's why I qualify even some of my greatest certainties. You once scolded me for that expalining that I didn't have the confidence that comes with some kind of 'higher' knowledge. Another misunderstanding And to be generous to us all, I'd say that you, Cleric and I all come to nearly the exact same amount of premature conclusions, but in very different ways, in very different contexts, and for very different reasons. This is one of the many things that unites us.



"You positively ignore every response you cannot think of an answer to."

This is objectively false. You don't care though. It is false for several reasons, only one of which is that I simply can't read all of your responses. But there are more. Oh no.

" For ex., when you asserted Steiner was making claims about spiritual beings as "magnetic fields..."

Oh no, you misunderstood my point but should we pin that on one of us or both...or on the four beings lurking in these conversations...? Or even more?

"I will say that I doubt it's consciously intentional most of the time..."

Soul calls this psychoanalyzing but he sometimes applies it even if a person doesn't make a guess about the other person's psychology. I like that.

But here is an example of what makes me genuinely concerned about you (with none of the irony we often play with here):


"If Steiner had major racial prejudices and errors of all sort, why is it so important for you to mention him here all the time?"

I've explained to you directly at least 7 times why I don't think that Steiner was a racist and even why I wouldn't call him prejudiced. But more than that, you've obviously read at least 37% of the other times I've stated and often explained it to others. You have no reason to believe that I consider Steiner's errors (pretending he made some) to have anything to do with racial prejudice or hatred. Yet...oh jeez, yet....there you go again....

"The comment in bold clearly reflects you still lack any concrete understanding of PoF..."

Fine, believe whatever you want. Just know that you are also claiming the same about many of the thinkers you claim to admire. Not all Anthroposophists took Steiner literally in some of the ways you and Cleric do. You may not know this, but within Anthroposophy there is a bit of diversity of opinion. And this will blow your mind. Even folks who have very different understandings of PoF can be practicing it quite well. For instance, my understanding of your approach is that despite some of your intellectual fixations you're doing some great inner work with PoF as a path. You can't even extend the same kind of perception to me because when you slam into what you see as 'error' in me it immediately blocks you from also noticing what is living in my communication. Fair enough!


Excellent, I have a feeling you might be finding yourself kindly walking past me with a quiet nod, more and more, as time goes by. I also think this will be a real service. Let's see!