Steiner's anarchism

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by Cleric K »

Ben Iscatus wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:13 am There are a lot of insights here about what is called "higher cognition". I'd have said that a lot of people express this at times (when inspired to do so). Is there anyone who expresses higher cognition most of the time and with clear benefit to the world? Can anyone name names? If we can agree on good role models, I think that would be helpful to the discussion, which otherwise tends to be rather impersonal.
The difficulty is that it is up to us to take the facts to their ultimate conclusions. I suppose most of us have known the feeling at some point of our life when we had some floating task given to us by someone but since they haven't recently mentioned it, we also keep quiet, secretly hoping that they might have forgotten about it. We're in much the same situation regarding our own development. We won't be reminded of the task by our modern civilized world. Actually they will ridicule us and try to prove how wrong we are. So if we keep quiet hoping that no one will remember about this, we can actually go through our entire life, relieved that we've gone 'below the radar'.

When we look at something like the second picture of AG, we see something which for many people is deeply disturbing. Our heads are open-ended and on top of that they are part of common fabric. This is the first place we can try to get under the radar. We can say: "This doesn't seem right. I don't feel such open ends within me, thus there should be some dissociative boundary, some veil." If we overcome this dualism, which simply creates another hard problem, we may accept something like that painting, which should be logical for any monist outlook. Yet we still accept that only 'on paper', we still hope we'll go under the radar.

If we need to go even further, things begin to become scary. We're faced with the logical conclusions of our observations. As long as we keep these ideas at a distance it's easy to view them as abstract musings, even if on some level we consider them believable. But if we follow the ideas all the way, we reach a point where we simply have to face their full weight. If we follow the ideas to their conclusions it should be clear that our thoughts and feelings affect the world, and the world's thoughts and feelings affect us. Today we are forced to accept that only for our will. We can't deny that our wills confront each other in a shared stratum of reality which impresses in us through the sensory spectrum. Yet we secretly hope that when we lift to feeling and thinking, these forms of spiritual activity exist in a Faraday cage, completely shielded from the outer world.

This is the first problem. We need to work on purity. Purity of thoughts, feelings and actions. As long as we feel the need to hide something in our Faraday cage, we'll also be seeking theories that will put our conscience to sleep.

Then we need Love. We need Love for which, unfortunately, we have no good examples in the world. We need Love which makes us feel other beings even closer that we feel our own family. We need Love so strong that we're willing to live our Life for the world. As long as we want to secretly keep something for ourselves, we still prefer to stay in our shell.

We would never be able to do that if we depend on our own forces. We simply don't have that much capital. The paintings don't illustrate it, there's always some compromise when we put things into pictures, but all reality rests on a Cosmic Flow that proceeds from One and returns to One. It's a superfluid, frictionless flow, yet along the complicated convolutions of the two streams, all reality manifests.

We can't create that Love through our human capabilities. We can only align with that inexhaustible and eternal flow and become a creative channel for it. Whoever is blessed to reach this experience in this lifetime, will know the elixir of everlasting Life. This is not the enlightenment of the old. The great sages of old reached the point where they prepared their channel - pure, strong, disinterested, wise. All that was needed was to anticipate in Cosmic awe, the moment when the Water of Love will begin to flow. Wherever this stream passes, deserts turn into gardens, fruit trees grow, animals and birds come to quench their thirst. Love comes from on High, enters the soul world through the heart, takes shape through our spiritual voice organ and becomes thoughts.

The role model for our age can no longer be found in the sensory world. We can find it only when we enter the living Love flow of the Spirit. To find that role model we need to have set for ourselves a High Ideal - to understand, to work, to be free. There's a Being which already possess all these virtues. This Being is our future Cosmic Self. We become what our ideal is. If we set low ideal, we'll have mediocre results. If we set a high ideal, if we seek the Divine, we won't receive a king's mantle, a scepter and treasure chest. Instead, we'll be given work. We must become the Divine Being - bit by bit, every jewel in the crown is a virtue we must win for the benefit of the whole Cosmos through hard work. We receive that work when we step into the Love flow coming from our future Being through our heart and becomes thoughts and deeds in our present. Time is not what we think it is.

All these things are real. Compared to them our sensory-intellectual consciousness is a dim dream. Even mystical enlightenment is only a state of Cosmic anticipation of reality.

The goal of the Earthly realm is to experience freedom. To be free means that one day we stumble upon a question which we must resolve in absolute freedom. We can't 'ask the audience'. We can't 'phone a friend'. We can't find intellectual proof - this would leave us unfree. We won't choose because of freedom but because of the compulsion of the proof. Our small Earthly self must choose what it wants to become. It must choose if it wants to step in the Love Flow and find the open-endedness of consciousness.

Of course all this is not to say that we don't need living human examples. In fact we do. Yet the goal is not simply to copy their behavior but to reach the point where we ourselves step in the Love Flow. Then we become the role model in the act of becoming its future potential. Even though the highest being is One, it is only by becoming it that we are truly unique. Just as our position in space is unique, so our soul constellation is unique and Love flows in a unique way through us. No one can take our place and do for the Cosmos what we can do from our unique perspective. If we don't take our unique place then it means that we want to take someone else's place, to be someone else. When we try to be someone outside the Love Flow, even if we don't know it, we're trying to be something which has already existed, which has already been played out. Whatever we find outside the Love Flow, belongs to the past. It has come from Love through another being, we have found the bones of it and said "This is what I want to be". We do that just because we want to feel as an authority, we want to feel that what we become is entirely under our control. But when we turn to the role model of the One, things become different. It's like saying "I want to become something new, something which no being has ever been before. If I find that something in my environment and copy it, then it is not new, it was already there, someone manifested it before me. The only way I can become something truly new is if I open up for it to flow into me. If it is truly new then even I can't know beforehand what it is. I only know that this something is full of Love, Wisdom, Truth. I can't fit it into my current conceptions but I can allow it to enter, to approach me from the future and become my present. Only in this way I'm becoming something truly new and alive. It is not that someone else chooses my future. It's that I allow myself to become without seeing it but seeking it through Love, what I myself would choose to become if I could see the future."

And this is also the dilemma of modern man. He wants to expand, he wants to know reality but he's not willing to change. He allows for a change only if he first perceives the change, examines it, approves it and then allows it to draw closer. But this is nothing new. We become something old, something that is already manifested. We're simply copying it. We can only become our true being if we understand the secret of Time and allow our Divine future to flow in us in full consciousness. This flow won't do the job instead of us but it will give us the Love, Wisdom and Strength to do the work through our own spiritual activity.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by Cleric K »

lorenzop wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:51 pm thanks for this post - will take a while to unpack . . .

Most scriptures claim that we are spiritual beings, and that our duty is to realize or reclaim this spiritual heritage. This realization does not require refined perception of subtle material (ie subtle mass, frequency, etc.), nor does it require refined perception of spiritual world (ie refined color, smells, etc.).
If we used the simple model of 'aware of x', spiritual growth is the expansion of 'aware', not the refinement of 'x', and it does not matter if we refer to 'x ' as material or spiritual.
I agree your distinction between material and spiritual (as color, smells, etc.) is more accurate - but isn't it still a trap?
Maybe my response to James here can throw some more light. Spiritual growth is not only expansion of 'aware' (Cosmic Feminine) but also of spiritual activity (Cosmic Masculine). If we only expand in awareness, x will forever remain as enigmatic as ever, no matter how refined and how categorized. X is known in the true sense only when we attain to the spiritual perspective which causes it, similarly to the way we live in a perspective where we know the cause of our thoughts (when we observe our active thinking).
JustinG
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by JustinG »

Here are some more comments on previous posts (not very comprehensive as I have not had a change to reread PoF yet as I intend to):
AshvinP wrote:
We have one person (Cleric) who is extremely familiar with both PoF and Steiner's writings and lectures on SS and higher cognition, and has arguably developed Imaginative cognition, another person who has become quite familiar at an intellectual level and is pretty rigorous logically (me), yet another person who is very familiar and would agree if he decided to comment (Scott), who all say there is perfect continuity between PoF and SS, what you have labeled "pre-Theosophical" and "post-Theosophical". In order to counter that argument, you have referred to a brief letter written to an anarchist named Mackay (which actually emphasizes resisting any generic categorization of Steiner's thoughts by labels), and are now adding reference to an anarchist pamphlet with zero connection to Steiner, apart from your assertion that Steiner probably would have agreed with it. (it's irrelevant to me whether he would have or not right now... I'm just trying to point out the huge asymmetry of supporting argument for the respective positions at play here).
The OP doesn’t argue that there is not a perfect continuity between PoF and SS. I acknowledge that I don’t know enough about the later Steiner to make a judgement on this.
AshvinP wrote:
JustinG wrote:
I agree that it is important to be clear about what Steiner means by “individualist anarchism”. So, here is some further investigation along these lines (beyond what Steiner has already said in his letter that has been previously quoted):

- Steiner says in response to Mackay’s letter that the term “individualist anarchist” is applicable to him and that he agrees with Mackay ‘as far as two natures fully independent of one another can agree.’
- In Mackay’s letter, Mackay says that a ‘list of all the writings of individual anarchism’ can be found in Benjamin Tucker’s pamphlet ‘State Socialism and Anarchism’ (which is available here: https://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm )
- In view of the above, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Tucker’s pamphlet provides a useful, but by no means comprehensive or exhaustive, interpretive guide to Steiner’s views in his pre-theosophical period.
- Tucker’s pamphlet makes no mention of ‘higher cognition’ being a necessary prerequisite for advancing freedom.
I have no idea how that is a reasonable conclusion in bold. Our standards of "reasonableness" must be quite different.
Okay, let’s say I change the third point above to:

- In view of the above, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Tucker’s pamphlet provides a useful interpretive guide to Steiner’s views on individualist anarchism in his pre-theosophical period.

So, Mackay wrote a letter referring to a pamphlet which he says outlines what individualist anarchism is, Steiner responds publicly saying ‘the term “individualist anarchist” is applicable to me’, and I am arguing that it is therefore reasonable to assume that Steiner agreed with what was in the pamphlet.

If you do not think this is a reasonable assumption, then what do you think can be said about Steiner’s views on the pamphlet?

Let’s go to a ridiculous extreme and assume, for the sake of argument, that Steiner had not even glanced at the pamphlet. The letter itself still says things like ‘the best situation would result if one would give people free way’, the individualist anarchist ‘battles against the state’ and so forth. So I doubt that this would make much difference to my argument anyway.
AshvinP wrote:
The simple distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient for spiritual freedom is being collapsed into one and the same thing in your argument.
AshvinP wrote:
"Tucker’s pamphlet makes no mention of ‘higher cognition’ being a necessary prerequisite for advancing freedom" - must assume the pamphlet is exhaustive of Steiner's "pre-Theosophical" thought, if it is to provide any support for your argument that Steiner never claimed higher cognition is necessary for advancing freedom.
I agree that Steiner claimed that higher cognition was necessary for advancing freedom at the highest levels. However, this does not mean that higher cognition is necessary for advancing freedom at all levels. The fact that in the letter he endorsed “battles against the state” and asserted that “one clears the way for the most independent people by doing away with all force and authority” indicates that he believed that the principles of individualist anarchism were sufficient for advancing freedom to some extent, without higher cognition. This does not require assuming that the pamphlet or letter is exhaustive of Steiner’s pre-Theosophical thought.

When a person is acting out of moral insight, unhindered by outer or inner authority, I think that person will be frequently asking themselves the question ‘What shall I do next – act towards furthering the advancement of my own spiritual freedom, or that of others?' Steiner's individualist anarchism may provide some guidance if one takes the latter option.

I also think this holds whether, in acting out of moral insight, one’s actions are being determined by the requirements of the greatest possible good of mankind, the progress of civilization and the moral evolution of mankind, or at the higher level of pure thinking/practical reason (PoF chap. 9). The question itself is not one which anyone can answer on the behalf of another.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by AshvinP »

JustinG wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:00 am Okay, let’s say I change the third point above to:

- In view of the above, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Tucker’s pamphlet provides a useful interpretive guide to Steiner’s views on individualist anarchism in his pre-theosophical period.

So, Mackay wrote a letter referring to a pamphlet which he says outlines what individualist anarchism is, Steiner responds publicly saying ‘the term “individualist anarchist” is applicable to me’, and I am arguing that it is therefore reasonable to assume that Steiner agreed with what was in the pamphlet.

If you do not think this is a reasonable assumption, then what do you think can be said about Steiner’s views on the pamphlet?

Justin,

I think this would require a careful reading of the actual pamphlet and comparison with PoF or other relevant writings from Steiner. If we have the ideal content before us in the writings, then we don't need to speculate on the harmony between them based on a brief letter. Again, let's remember that is the first thing Steiner highlights in the letter - "I don't want my writings to be judged according to labels, but rather according to what I plainly wrote in them." I have provided a few quotes from PoF so far, and I can also tell you they align with Goethean Science, and Truth and Knowledge, which are all "pre-Theosophical", so I am wondering what you think about those in relation to this question of spiritual freedom?

Justin wrote:Let’s go to a ridiculous extreme and assume, for the sake of argument, that Steiner had not even glanced at the pamphlet. The letter itself still says things like ‘the best situation would result if one would give people free way’, the individualist anarchist ‘battles against the state’ and so forth. So I doubt that this would make much difference to my argument anyway.
AshvinP wrote:
The simple distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient for spiritual freedom is being collapsed into one and the same thing in your argument.
AshvinP wrote:
"Tucker’s pamphlet makes no mention of ‘higher cognition’ being a necessary prerequisite for advancing freedom" - must assume the pamphlet is exhaustive of Steiner's "pre-Theosophical" thought, if it is to provide any support for your argument that Steiner never claimed higher cognition is necessary for advancing freedom.
I agree that Steiner claimed that higher cognition was necessary for advancing freedom at the highest levels. However, this does not mean that higher cognition is necessary for advancing freedom at all levels. The fact that in the letter he endorsed “battles against the state” and asserted that “one clears the way for the most independent people by doing away with all force and authority” indicates that he believed that the principles of individualist anarchism were sufficient for advancing freedom to some extent, without higher cognition. This does not require assuming that the pamphlet or letter is exhaustive of Steiner’s pre-Theosophical thought.

When a person is acting out of moral insight, unhindered by outer or inner authority, I think that person will be frequently asking themselves the question ‘What shall I do next – act towards furthering the advancement of my own spiritual freedom, or that of others?' Steiner's individualist anarchism may provide some guidance if one takes the latter option.

I also think this holds whether, in acting out of moral insight, one’s actions are being determined by the requirements of the greatest possible good of mankind, the progress of civilization and the moral evolution of mankind, or at the higher level of pure thinking/practical reason (PoF chap. 9). The question itself is not one which anyone can answer on the behalf of another.

The question is, what are we doing with this argument above? At the broadest levels, it makes some sense, but at those levels I am not sure what difference it makes. What practical significance does it actually have - does it show, according to you, that development of Imaginative cognition, which any free individual can develop today, is not necessary on the path to spiritual freedom? As Steiner made clear in PoF, we are not yet free beings - freedom comes through our own evolution, which will require time and inner effort. We cannot possibly understand what serves "the greatest possible good of mankind" until we expand through the spheres of deeper imaginative, inspirative, and intuitive meaning which structure our inner experience and our relations with other humans and non-humans (plants, animals, higher spiritual beings, etc.). Imagination serves as the bridge from thinking 'tyrannized' by the senses to supersensible (or 'sense-free') Thinking. Consider the following from a lecture:

Steiner wrote:At this point there dawns in us a true understanding of why it is that man takes hold of the reality of things in Thought. For in his thoughts he possesses the dead picture of that which, working from the fully living reality of the world, builds and creates him.

It is the dead picture. But this dead picture proceeds from the work of the greatest painter — from the very Cosmos. It is true that the life remains out of it. If it did not, the Ego of man could not unfold. Nevertheless, the full content of the Universe, in all its greatness, is contained within this picture.

So far as was possible at that time and in that context, I indicated this inner relation of Thought and World-reality in my ‘Philosophy of Freedom.’ It is in the passage of that book where I say that there is indeed a bridge leading from the thinking Ego's depths to the depths of Nature's reality.

Sleep extinguishes the ordinary consciousness because it carries us into the germinating life of Earth — the Earth as it springs forth into the new, living Macrocosm. When the extinction is overcome by Imaginative consciousness, there stands before the human soul — not a sharply outlined Earth in mineral, plant and animal kingdoms of Nature — but a vital process, kindled to life within this Earth and flaming forth into the Macrocosm.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
lorenzop
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by lorenzop »

Cleric K wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:31 pm
Maybe my response to James here can throw some more light. Spiritual growth is not only expansion of 'aware' (Cosmic Feminine) but also of spiritual activity (Cosmic Masculine). If we only expand in awareness, x will forever remain as enigmatic as ever, no matter how refined and how categorized. X is known in the true sense only when we attain to the spiritual perspective which causes it, similarly to the way we live in a perspective where we know the cause of our thoughts (when we observe our active thinking).
thanks for this link - I would tend to agree with James, that spiritual powers and objects are more of a personal preference than a requirement of spiritual growth. Furthermore, spiritual powers/objects can be as much of a siren/trap as any gross power/object, maybe more so.
A while back I skimmed a lecture (supposedly) written by Steiner where he detailed the moon and planets. How these bodies were not mere rock and gas, but had human-like qualities and roles to play. Now, I don't know if Steiner actually cognized these qualities or pulled them out his arse - either way, I can't believe that such knowledge is required or has anything to do with spiritual growth . . . any more than playing guitar or golf.
Being inclined towards the 'spiritual objects/powers' is a personal preference.
All the great teachers keep the message simple The kingdom of heaven is within you. I am That. etc.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by Cleric K »

lorenzop wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:28 pm thanks for this link - I would tend to agree with James, that spiritual powers and objects are more of a personal preference than a requirement of spiritual growth. Furthermore, spiritual powers/objects can be as much of a siren/trap as any gross power/object, maybe more so.
A while back I skimmed a lecture (supposedly) written by Steiner where he detailed the moon and planets. How these bodies were not mere rock and gas, but had human-like qualities and roles to play. Now, I don't know if Steiner actually cognized these qualities or pulled them out his arse - either way, I can't believe that such knowledge is required or has anything to do with spiritual growth . . . any more than playing guitar or golf.
Being inclined towards the 'spiritual objects/powers' is a personal preference.
All the great teachers keep the message simple The kingdom of heaven is within you. I am That. etc.
That's fine, Lorenzo. Messages can indeed be simple but their consequences can be profound. For example, what does "Kingdom of Heaven" mean to you? Is it simply a metaphor for personal psychological well-being? Or is it that we can indeed find within ourselves consciousness of a higher world, of which the sensory appearances are only a mineral shadow?
Eugene I.
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:20 pm

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by Eugene I. »

this forum needs to be renamed to Metasteiner :)
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by AshvinP »

lorenzop wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:28 pm A while back I skimmed a lecture (supposedly) written by Steiner where he detailed the moon and planets. How these bodies were not mere rock and gas, but had human-like qualities and roles to play. Now, I don't know if Steiner actually cognized these qualities or pulled them out his arse - either way, I can't believe that such knowledge is required or has anything to do with spiritual growth . . . any more than playing guitar or golf.
Being inclined towards the 'spiritual objects/powers' is a personal preference.
All the great teachers keep the message simple The kingdom of heaven is within you. I am That. etc.
Lorenzo,

Isn't this the view logically necessitated by idealism? The outer appearances of anything in the Cosmos must be the inner qualitative state-activity of another conscious being. Unless we say it is solely the product of our own conscious activity, which is egoic solipsism. So it seems the main difference between Steiner and BK is the former says we can reason our way to more precise knowledge of those other beings and their conscious activity, while BK says we can only know anything about them after physical death (assuming we don't lose all individuality and merge back into 'instinctive' MAL). I think we can all agree that, IF such beings and their activity can be known, it would have quite a lot do with spiritual growth. Am I mistaken? So, again, it all comes down to the one epistemic issue of whether there is hard limits to perception-thinking in this lifetime.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
JustinG
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by JustinG »

AshvinP wrote:

We cannot possibly understand what serves "the greatest possible good of mankind" until we expand through the spheres of deeper imaginative, inspirative, and intuitive meaning which structure our inner experience and our relations with other humans and non-humans (plants, animals, higher spiritual beings, etc.).
That is like saying you cannot learn to walk until you know how to fly (according to my reading of PoF at least).

Whilst I agree that PoF can be read from an 'other-worldly' perspective which requires deference to the higher authority of those who have achieved higher cognition, it can also, in my opinion, be read from a purely 'this-worldly' perspective requiring no such deference. Both types of reading can have their place and their benefits.

To illustrate this point, here is another quote from Steiner, from this essay https://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/GA030 ... essay.html (one of the books he is referring to is PoF)::
Steiner wrote:
Benj. R. Tucker and J. H. Mackay also advocate the same direction in thought and view of life out of which my two above-mentioned books have arisen. See Tucker's Instead of a Book and Mackay's The Anarchists.
Here are links to the books of Tucker https://praxeology.net/BT-IOB.htm and Mackay https://archive.org/details/al_John_Hen ... e_of_the_N which Steiner refers to.

I haven't read these books (or the pamphlet of Tucker for that matter) and don't know to what extent I would agree with what is in them. But I think just the Table of Contents of Tucker's book in itself is enough, in conjunction with the quote from Steiner above, to demonstrate the relevance of a 'this-worldly' reading of PoF:
Tucker - Instead of a Book. Brief Table of Contents
Preface
I. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ
II. The Individual, Society, and the State
III. Money and Interest
IV. Land and Rent
V. Socialism
VI. Communism
VII. Methods
VIII. Miscellaneous
Cleric and yourself have repeatedly urged those on this forum to read PoF. Having done so, and bearing in mind that spare time is a scarce resource these days, I am happy with my decision at this point not to strive beyond achieving the level of practical reason, or to do any boring SS exercises (except insofar as they relate to the former). If aiming to develop practical reason and have the requirements of the greatest possible good of mankind, the progress of civilization and the moral evolution of mankind determine my actions makes me ‘materialist’, then I have no problem being referred to as a materialist idealist or an idealist materialist.

If you think, in terms of what is in PoF, that this is a bad decision then I would be interested in textual references which support your position (if you happen to have the Rudolf Steiner Press eighth English edition of PoF, then page number references would be great).
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Steiner's anarchism

Post by AshvinP »

JustinG wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:16 am
AshvinP wrote:

We cannot possibly understand what serves "the greatest possible good of mankind" until we expand through the spheres of deeper imaginative, inspirative, and intuitive meaning which structure our inner experience and our relations with other humans and non-humans (plants, animals, higher spiritual beings, etc.).
That is like saying you cannot learn to walk until you know how to fly (according to my reading of PoF at least).

Whilst I agree that PoF can be read from an 'other-worldly' perspective which requires deference to the higher authority of those who have achieved higher cognition, it can also, in my opinion, be read from a purely 'this-worldly' perspective requiring no such deference. Both types of reading can have their place and their benefits.

So you are equating discernment of "the greatest possible good of mankind" with "learning to walk"? What exactly would be "flying", then?

Justin wrote:To illustrate this point, here is another quote from Steiner, from this essay https://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/GA030 ... essay.html (one of the books he is referring to is PoF)::
Steiner wrote:
Benj. R. Tucker and J. H. Mackay also advocate the same direction in thought and view of life out of which my two above-mentioned books have arisen. See Tucker's Instead of a Book and Mackay's The Anarchists.
Here are links to the books of Tucker https://praxeology.net/BT-IOB.htm and Mackay https://archive.org/details/al_John_Hen ... e_of_the_N which Steiner refers to.

I haven't read these books (or the pamphlet of Tucker for that matter) and don't know to what extent I would agree with what is in them. But I think just the Table of Contents of Tucker's book in itself is enough, in conjunction with the quote from Steiner above, to demonstrate the relevance of a 'this-worldly' reading of PoF:
Tucker - Instead of a Book. Brief Table of Contents
Preface
I. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ
II. The Individual, Society, and the State
III. Money and Interest
IV. Land and Rent
V. Socialism
VI. Communism
VII. Methods
VIII. Miscellaneous
Cleric and yourself have repeatedly urged those on this forum to read PoF. Having done so, and bearing in mind that spare time is a scarce resource these days, I am happy with my decision at this point not to strive beyond achieving the level of practical reason, or to do any boring SS exercises (except insofar as they relate to the former). If aiming to develop practical reason and have the requirements of the greatest possible good of mankind, the progress of civilization and the moral evolution of mankind determine my actions makes me ‘materialist’, then I have no problem being referred to as a materialist idealist or an idealist materialist.

If you think, in terms of what is in PoF, that this is a bad decision then I would be interested in textual references which support your position (if you happen to have the Rudolf Steiner Press eighth English edition of PoF, then page number references would be great).

Ok, Justin. That's fine. I have no interest in trying to persuade you to change your decision. It seems like you were never genuinely interested in understanding PoF more deeply, and I neither can nor want to make you interested by way of rational arguments. If your mindset is, "maybe I can develop higher cognition and perceive the spiritual beings who have sacrificed for my existence, but it's sounds pretty boring... so I'll stick with my practical reason, thank you very much", then that's your decision and I have no interest in searching out more quotes which will be ignored.

In closing summation, you have ignored every direct Steiner quote I provided, instead responding with brief letters, fragments of quotes, and tables of contents from another person's book, and it's still not even clear what your argument is, other than "I don't like the idea of higher cognition and maybe Steiner would have agreed with me for a couple years". Even if that's true, does it actually have any relevance for what each individual can be doing today to approach higher spiritual realms? Not at all.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the real other-worldly view is the one which remains satisfied with practical reason, even with full awareness of higher cognitive modes. That means you will be forced to turn to external powers for your support, meaning, and 'freedom', because you have cut yourself off from the possibility of making yourself free from within. This simply perpetuates the other-worldly dependence of human souls on foreign spiritual powers. Instead, we can take responsibility for our own freedom and, eventually, we can grow into a stage where we are able to voluntary sacrifice for the freedom of other spiritual beings, just as higher spiritual beings have sacrificed for us.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Post Reply