This forum

[Jim Cross]

The responses on this topic illustrates exactly what is wrong.

There is a comment about the forum and why it has been reduced to a few commenters. There is some discussion about the forum, its history, and fate.

Then...

What do we end up with?

Quotes from Steiner. Debates about World Content and other terminology. Lectures from Ashvin on thinking and such.

Of course, this is General Discussion so off-topic is permitted. But the off-topic always returns to the same topic - Steiner.

I guess I'm done.

[AshvinP]

The responses on this topic illustrates exactly what is wrong.

There is a comment about the forum and why it has been reduced to a few commenters. There is some discussion about the forum, its history, and fate.

Then...

What do we end up with?

Quotes from Steiner. Debates about World Content and other terminology. Lectures from Ashvin on thinking and such.

Of course, this is General Discussion so off-topic is permitted. But the off-topic always returns to the same topic - Steiner.

And your response illustrates exactly what is wrong with society at large. Moving from the real housewives drama of forum history to substantive pursuit of living experience and realities which may shed light on our future possibilities, not simply on this forum, but in the real world of human beings, families, nations, and cultures who must work to harmonize their interests, is seen as a problem.

As a final note I would like to point out that all said above hasn't and need not be related in any way to Steiner. No special terminology needed, only metaphors based on concepts that any relatively educated person of our age should be familiar with (like electron, positron, wavefunction, etc.) All that is needed is for one to be relatively conscious of the historical process in which we're placed. Questions such as the above should come completely naturally for anyone who can encompass the state of the world with their gaze. These are the pressing issues of our times, so to speak. And if after this one still wants to call such ideas Steineriaism or any other -ism, then it simply means they are still wandering the intellectual labyrinth and feel the need to put labels on every corridor. Such a person is not yet willing to go in a perpendicular direction and investigate the real forces that weave the very being who puts the labels and tries to classify the corridors, or even negates itself.

Cleric never mentions or quotes Steiner and I only do because I'm less creative and more lazy, so that bogey man simply doesn't exist.

I guess I'm done.

I doubt that, but here's to hoping

[Cleric K]

The responses on this topic illustrates exactly what is wrong.

There is a comment about the forum and why it has been reduced to a few commenters. There is some discussion about the forum, its history, and fate.

Then...

What do we end up with?

Quotes from Steiner. Debates about World Content and other terminology. Lectures from Ashvin on thinking and such.

Of course, this is General Discussion so off-topic is permitted. But the off-topic always returns to the same topic - Steiner.

I guess I'm done.

I think there's something here that isn't well appreciated. As Ashvin said, the conversations here do not simply move into some self-enclosed Steinerian corner but we're dealing with a real and living understanding which can penetrate every aspect of existence.

Anyone can try to remember when was the last time when me of Ashvin said something of the sort "I don't understand what you're saying so it is nonsense. Instead I offer you this and this truth." Really - can anyone point at an example when they were trying to explain something and got the impression that we don't understand what they are saying?

If anyone has tried to read what is being written in this forum, they will clearly see that the responses do not simply reject the objections but in fact explain how the objections are resolved within a much more encompassing body of living understanding. This is in such a stark contrast to everything we see otherwise. When those defending certain position exhaust their logical arguments they simply declare the other party to be nonsensical, sectarian, elitist and what not. This is natural when one defends religious beliefs but I think most people come to a forum like this precisely because they feel the times of religious dogma are gone. Man today yearns not simply to believe but to know.

Jim, you as a scientifically minded person should be quite capable of appreciating this. Otherwise it is like accusing some theory of everything for being able to say something about everything. But isn't this exactly the goal of human knowledge? To approach such a cognitive perspective from which every phenomenon finds its rightful place in a harmonious whole? Now you may object that what we speak of is not viable because it doesn't offer any mathematical description of reality. But this is exactly where the 'meta' comes in. At what point we became certain that reality operates on mathematical rules which quite conveniently happen to be compatible with the thought patterns of some apes on a rocky planet? If we really want to go meta we need to step back and investigate the very thinking activity which has, consciously or not, decided to limit itself into a very specific mode of cognition.

You can at least admit that our approaches are diametrically opposite. When was the last time when me or Asvhin have ignored your posts or dismissed your essays because we don't understand them or find them nonsensical? At the same time this is what happens on regular basis to what we say. I tried several times to have a completely constructive dialog with you but when the inquiry expands further than the title of the essay, you simply ignore the other side.

This has been pointed out many times: the characteristic thing about evolutionary development of consciousness is that it has absolutely no problem to fully encompass and comprehend the past states. On the contrary - those who desire to remain within the past states have no choice but simply reject the new developments on completely irrational grounds (that is, ultimately having to do with barely conscious sympathies and antipathies, instead of conscious penetration into the intricacies of reality).

[Jim Cross]

The responses on this topic illustrates exactly what is wrong.

There is a comment about the forum and why it has been reduced to a few commenters. There is some discussion about the forum, its history, and fate.

Then...

What do we end up with?

Quotes from Steiner. Debates about World Content and other terminology. Lectures from Ashvin on thinking and such.

Of course, this is General Discussion so off-topic is permitted. But the off-topic always returns to the same topic - Steiner.

I guess I'm done.

I think there's something here that isn't well appreciated. As Ashvin said, the conversations here do not simply move into some self-enclosed Steinerian corner but we're dealing with a real and living understanding which can penetrate every aspect of existence.

Anyone can try to remember when was the last time when me of Ashvin said something of the sort "I don't understand what you're saying so it is nonsense. Instead I offer you this and this truth." Really - can anyone point at an example when they were trying to explain something and got the impression that we don't understand what they are saying?

If anyone has tried to read what is being written in this forum, they will clearly see that the responses do not simply reject the objections but in fact explain how the objections are resolved within a much more encompassing body of living understanding. This is in such a stark contrast to everything we see otherwise. When those defending certain position exhaust their logical arguments they simply declare the other party to be nonsensical, sectarian, elitist and what not. This is natural when one defends religious beliefs but I think most people come to a forum like this precisely because they feel the times of religious dogma are gone. Man today yearns not simply to believe but to know.

Jim, you as a scientifically minded person should be quite capable of appreciating this. Otherwise it is like accusing some theory of everything for being able to say something about everything. But isn't this exactly the goal of human knowledge? To approach such a cognitive perspective from which every phenomenon finds its rightful place in a harmonious whole? Now you may object that what we speak of is not viable because it doesn't offer any mathematical description of reality. But this is exactly where the 'meta' comes in. At what point we became certain that reality operates on mathematical rules which quite conveniently happen to be compatible with the thought patterns of some apes on a rocky planet? If we really want to go meta we need to step back and investigate the very thinking activity which has, consciously or not, decided to limit itself into a very specific mode of cognition.

You can at least admit that our approaches are diametrically opposite. When was the last time when me or Asvhin have ignored your posts or dismissed your essays because we don't understand them or find them nonsensical? At the same time this is what happens on regular basis to what we say. I tried several times to have a completely constructive dialog with you but when the inquiry expands further than the title of the essay, you simply ignore the other side.

This has been pointed out many times: the characteristic thing about evolutionary development of consciousness is that it has absolutely no problem to fully encompass and comprehend the past states. On the contrary - those who desire to remain within the past states have no choice but simply reject the new developments on completely irrational grounds (that is, ultimately having to do with barely conscious sympathies and antipathies, instead of conscious penetration into the intricacies of reality).

"encompassing body of living understanding"
"real and living understanding which can penetrate every aspect of existence"
"evolutionary development of consciousness"
"Man today yearns not simply to believe but to know."

What you, Ashin, etc don't appreciate is that you always bring the topic back to Steiner in one form or another even if you don't mention the name.

The topic seems to be about what is wrong with the forum, how topics could be broadened, why so few people comment. I think too lax moderation is the problem. If almost every topic wanders off into the Steiner weeds, then there is no reason for most people to engage in discussion or post questions.

I think the blame falls primarily on the moderation. I think others before have made the same point.

There is no way this topic should have wandered off into the "evolutionary development of consciousness" or "encompassing body of living understanding" or exploring what "World Content" means.

[lorenzop]

One profit from this thread has been that cryptic secret phrases like 'World Content' can be mapped to ordinary language such that an authentic human being can decide if this 'Steiner' thinking makes sense or determine if one wishes to apply it.
But as you point out (Jim), these threads are saturated with land mines like "encompassing body of living understanding" which for me makes them largely unreadable . . . or what I think is the real intent, it requires a High Priest at one's side to decipher and hopefully to give a 'nod' of approval.
I don't think this forum requires better moderation - it just needs a new more accurate name.

[Jim Cross]

Before I leave I would like to offer some concrete suggestions for improvement rather than opining on the "encompassing body of living understanding".

I think there should be a lot more topics to offer something more concrete to a broader range of interests.

Some suggestions:

- Paranormal
- Fairies, Angels, and Beings
- Alien Life
- Future
- Neuroscience
- Idealism other than BK
- Materialism
- Exotic Physics
- Psychedelics and Transformative Experiences
- Meditation and Spiritual Practices
- Ancient Civilizations

and yes Steiner

I would completely stop any more postings to General Discussions if it is going to be completely unmoderated for relevance.

Still I doubt this will bring back the vibrant community that existed about two years ago.

[Jim Cross]

One profit from this thread has been that cryptic secret phrases like 'World Content' can be mapped to ordinary language such that an authentic human being can decide if this 'Steiner' thinking makes sense or determine if one wishes to apply it.
But as you point out (Jim), these threads are saturated with land mines like "encompassing body of living understanding" which for me makes them largely unreadable . . . or what I think is the real intent, it requires a High Priest at one's side to decipher and hopefully to give a 'nod' of approval.
I don't think this forum requires better moderation - it just needs a new more accurate name.

You have it right about "cryptic". We need something like Google Translate to decode most of the posts.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The topic seems to be about what is wrong with the forum, how topics could be broadened, why so few people comment. I think too lax moderation is the problem. If almost every topic wanders off into the Steiner weeds, then there is no reason for most people to engage in discussion or post questions.

I think the blame falls primarily on the moderation. I think others before have made the same point.

There is no way this topic should have wandered off into the "evolutionary development of consciousness" or "encompassing body of living understanding" or exploring what "World Content" means.

Sigh ... someone had to bring my attention to this ... Once again, just to be clear, not speaking for anyone else of course, but my lack of recent participation here has nothing to do with some perception that there's something wrong with the forum or its content, or too many Steiner quotes, or the comprehensibility of Cleric's contributions, or the quality of the participation in general, or any dislike of certain personalities. Again, it's simply that silence is now prevailing over all else, so not just in the case of forum activity. Reading and films that I once could not get enough of, are now pretty much tuned out. Trees and grasses stirring in the wind are getting more attention.

I suspect the various reasons for others no longer being actively involved are more complicated. To name only one, why, for example, has someone like Scott Roberts, long-time participant, fully capable of eloquently delving into certain esoteric metaphysics, who had is own informed take on Steiner, quietly disappeared?

Granted, the current state of mind here is surely not conducive to being actively involved as a moderator, as I'm just not following along with every discussion. So I do feel that the forum should have someone in that role who is actively involved. Again, this has been brought to Simon's attention, and will have to be resolved fairly soon. That said, despite all this, I remind all that should they wish to start a 'topic-specific' discussion, with the stated intention to keep Steiner, or certain esoteric takes on metaphysics, out of it, and that intention is not respected, let me know, and I will moderate it according to the guidelines set out at the top of that sub-forum. However, for the record, of the last several topics started there, mostly short-lived, Ashvin has rarely commented, let alone mentioned Steiner—excepting perhaps for the topics that Cleric started there—and when he has, he has pretty much kept it pertinent to the topic. Indeed, you Jim have been far more involved there. So where exactly have you, or anyone else, been precluded from having discussions that don't involve Steiner?

[Anthony66]

After a guy brought up Jung's active imagination on BK's discord server and I mentioned Steiner in response, that same day he decided to order some of Steiner's books and then recorded a podcast about it. I haven't listened to it yet (linked below), but the general point is, no one who doesn't take the initiative like you did or this guy did will understand anything we write, no matter what terminology we use or what metaphors we employ. They must become positively enthusiastic about making their intellectual life uncomfortable and frightfully lacking of tools which, despite that lacking, do exist in the higher perspective above the intellectual labyrinth. This is what all the great religions have also tried to instill in their emphasis on the 'fear of God', humility, confession/repentance, faith, etc. It can all be understood in the framework of evolution - a being which has no motivation to recognize its limitations in the face of Cosmic realities and trust they can be overcome will never adapt to changing conditions and evolve. At our current stage of evolution, there is very little utility, even negative utility, in playing down to expectations, trying to come up with the 'perfect' terminology and what not. That runs the risk of making people feel like they have understood, or even attained, the higher perspective, when instead they have simply brought the concept of the higher perspective down into the labyrinth. I have also learned that through quite a few interactions online. People really need to sense the inner contradiction between that they are doing with their thinking, and what they they are thinking about, and the fact that it useless trying to intellectual resolve this contradiction from within the labyrinth.

In that one word "Adaptability," we have the great secret of advancement or retardation. All progress depends upon whether an evolving being is flexible, adaptable and pliable, so as to be able to accommodate itself to new conditions, or whether it is crystallized, set, and incapable of alteration. Adaptability is the quality which makes for progress, whether an entity is at a high or a low stage of evolution. Lack of it is the cause of the retardation of the spirit and retrogression of the Form. This applies to the past, present and future, the division of the qualified and the unqualified, thus, being made with the exact and impersonal justice of the law of Consequence. There never was, or ever shall be any arbitrary distinction made between the "sheep" and the "goats."

Heindel , Max. The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception

To be clear, I'm not saying the initiative must be delving into Steiner or anyone else. In fact, that the guy above immediately rushed into Steiner and making a podcast makes me feel like he is inclined to ignore the most important step, which is exactly as Cleric conveyed in the metaphor, of experiencing the deeper strata of thinking activity which structures our intellectual labyrinth. Thats why I now try to point to PoF or something similar first, and if I were more imaginatively developed, I would incline towards more of the metaphorical, illustrative approach, which are simply new ways of presenting the core phenomenology of cognition.

Yes, one must be positively enthusiastic about becoming intellectually uncomfortable, emotionally also, and the very first impulse must emerge from within. I understand that more terminology and concepts would be more of the same, never adding up to give access to any new dimension. But I am still tempted to think that, because one has to go through that intellectual ladder anyway, in the context of this forum for instance, there's maybe still something to strive for, in the particular way thought-pieces are arranged and brought forward, which is inseparable from terminology and intellectual concepts themselves - you taught me that. Not making it as much about lowering expectations, as about having the intention to infuse the thought arrangement with something else, and let it fly, so to speak. This could be oriented towards 'playing the player not the cards' or towards using language creatively. Both ways can affect terminology. Recently, that's the intention I have been trying to bring to my work, and the various discussions I have in that context, of course with a much easier goal than helping people access higher cognition.


Thanks for the podcast, I have enjoyed it! It’s tangible that this guy has discovered an ideal and an emotional strong connection with the readings, searching for a resonance with Jung’s active imagination and his own, part of which has a religious impulse. Your indication to him was nailed enough to make him go beyond his initial views, or gut reactions, admittedly prejudiced against words such as ‘occult’ and ‘esoteric’. It’s interesting to notice how, reading out loud sentence by sentence, he comes to grips with the fact that what Steiner was speaking of couldn't be more incompatible with leading a cult, indoctrinating people. That’s important to him as it seems. I guess many could appreciate this podcast (Anthony, if you are reading, maybe you’d like it) even if it’s a bit long. Apart from the sometimes annoying common approach to anything in terms of how-to, or 'the easy step-by-step guide to…’ that he succumbs to, much of what he says seems to me well-stated, personal, easy to follow. Well there’s dualism in the background. He probably couldn’t resist going to this other book he's reading from, rather than to PoF.

I understand when you say that you recommend PoF first. However it only works with people, like me, who have a preference for squaring the playground first, starting from the ground up, by setting the stage first, minimizing the risk of leaving unaccounted bits and pieces on the side. It’s a deductive, principle-first approach. This guy has more of an inductive, application-first approach, or how-to. He was primarily interested in finding resonance with one thing, his exploration of imaginative meditation. He probably wouldn’t have endured reading PoF as a preliminary stage, but maybe now he will.

I listened to the podcast and very much enjoyed it. You clearly haven't done the rounds of the philosophical podcasts if you think that one was long - Curt Jaimungal with his "Theories of Everything" podcast have episodes that hit 6 hours in length!

The thing that struck me most from this podcast was the statement that the "higher being is transformation itself" at around 69'. This is in contrast the the traditional view that the ground of reality is unchangeable.

[Jim Cross]

The topic seems to be about what is wrong with the forum, how topics could be broadened, why so few people comment. I think too lax moderation is the problem. If almost every topic wanders off into the Steiner weeds, then there is no reason for most people to engage in discussion or post questions.

I think the blame falls primarily on the moderation. I think others before have made the same point.

There is no way this topic should have wandered off into the "evolutionary development of consciousness" or "encompassing body of living understanding" or exploring what "World Content" means.

Sigh ... someone had to bring my attention to this ... Once again, just to be clear, not speaking for anyone else of course, but my lack of recent participation here has nothing to do with some perception that there's something wrong with the forum or its content, or too many Steiner quotes, or the comprehensibility of Cleric's contributions, or the quality of the participation in general, or any dislike of certain personalities. Again, it's simply that silence is now prevailing over all else, so not just in the case of forum activity. Reading and films that I once could not get enough of, are now pretty much tuned out. Trees and grasses stirring in the wind are getting more attention.

I suspect the various reasons for others no longer being actively involved are more complicated. To name only one, why, for example, has someone like Scott Roberts, long-time participant, fully capable of eloquently delving into certain esoteric metaphysics, who had is own informed take on Steiner, quietly disappeared?

Granted, the current state of mind here is surely not conducive to being actively involved as a moderator, as I'm just not following along with every discussion. So I do feel that the forum should have someone in that role who is actively involved. Again, this has been brought to Simon's attention, and will have to be resolved fairly soon. That said, despite all this, I remind all that should they wish to start a 'topic-specific' discussion, with the stated intention to keep Steiner, or certain esoteric takes on metaphysics, out of it, and that intention is not respected, let me know, and I will moderate it according to the guidelines set out at the top of that sub-forum. However, for the record, of the last several topics started there, mostly short-lived, Ashvin has rarely commented, let alone mentioned Steiner—excepting perhaps for the topics that Cleric started there—and when he has, he has pretty much kept it pertinent to the topic. Indeed, you Jim have been far more involved there. So where exactly have you, or anyone else, been precluded from having discussions that don't involve Steiner?

I've always enjoyed your comments even though I mostly disagreed with them. I appreciate what you have been doing but I guess the time has come to decide what really the purpose of the forum is to be. When it broke off from Bernardo, I thought it would want to go in the direction of very broad range of metaphysical and scientific topics that I think is somewhat reflected by my proposed list of topics while maintaining some inspiration from BK. It could have gone another way and focused almost exclusively on BK, closely aligned viewpoints, and maybe contemporary science that supported or does not support BK's views. Now it is almost devoid of BK except for criticism and an occasional newbie who wanders in and thinks the forum bears some relation to BK. It seems to be now mostly a continual regurgitation of the same .obtuse Steinerian view that is used like a Swiss Army knife to address any problem or issue.