findingblanks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:56 am "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!
This is just ridiculous, FB. And you must know it by now. If Steiner erroneously claimed people with white skin could only embody the Christ-impulse because of that white skin color, then his entire understanding of spiritual evolution was WAY OFF and in conflict with all esoteric Western spirituality which he claimed it was rooted in. It's the most silly attempt to save face I have ever come across. You are trying to endear yourself to people reading by mispresenting Steiner but, at the same time, showing him "compassion", so you don't come across like Eugene. You already know how quickly you would be dismissed if you misrepresented him AND were consistent with your own criticisms, pointing out how his entire spiritual scientific endeavor collapses under the weight of such egregious errors. Then you would not be able to fall back on, "but he was still brilliant and right about some things". Your arguments have never come under this sort of logical scrutiny before arriving at this forum, so I am not surprised you have skated by with others and perhaps even received admiration from others for your super "insightful and tolerant" approach. But it just doesn't fly here.
FB wrote:" 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.
Ok then that just further reinforces my point you have no understanding whatsoever of Steiner's view of higher cognition, and basically think it is identical with abstract intellect, perhaps with a more "poetic" feel like JW. Yet you pretend that his claims can be reconciled with your understanding if we just take his writings less "literally". I suppose you think his references to new "soul organs" which develop through cognitive evolution are also just metaphors for better intellectual insight into things. But your understanding defies the logical coherence of everything he has written and lectured when understood as a whole, or even 10% of a whole. So my suggestion, yet again, is you stop claiming Steiner said these things and make clear that you are saying them. This is YOUR understanding of "higher cognition" and not his. What he has said about is not even in the same ballpark as what you are saying about it.
FB wrote:"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?
So your response to my claim that you avoided addressing Cleric's quotes about this topic is to avoid addressing them yet again? Of course.
FB wrote: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....
Soul is absolutely right - you love to avoid the ideal content of a post and speculate on someone's state of mind when making a post, or writing a book, or giving a lecture. You think this is a clever way to make yourself relevant while avoiding all logical reasoning through what the other person actually said or wrote. But, as I said above, when this tactic is brought under logic scrutiny, like the "endearing" tactic of saying Steiner was not a racist or prejudiced, and criticizing Eugene for saying so, as if you are not doing the exact same thing he is doing, it is revealed for what truly is - emtpy posturing and nothing more.
FB wrote: 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!
It's not about what Anthroposophers believe. It is about what we can discern with our simple logical reasoning activity when reading PoF in a concrete and living way. We don't need to appeal to "diversity of opinion" for this core inner meaning. Ironically, it is only someone who has completely failed to grasp Steiner's phenomenology of Thinking as concrete spiritual activity who would resort to other people's opinions about the text rather than their own careful logical reasoning through the words, sentences, and paragraphs written. Someone who grasped the spirit of PoF would actually contend with our responses instead of avoiding them completely. Cleric illustrated many times on PU thread why your mechanistic understanding of "attaching concepts to percepts" is your own limitation and not Steiner's, and you did not respond to a single one of his illustrations. Did you think I forgot about that?
I think I have said just about all that can be said on this topic now. If anyone reading still feels you have the slighest clue what you are speaking of re: Steiner and PoF, that's on them. Feel free to continue shadow dancing with yourself on this thread, but I am done.
