This forum

[Cleric K]

Well, if the objections are against "encompassing body of living understanding" then this probably means that for many people the questions about what reality is, how it functions, what is our place in it and so on, are simply some niche activity, a tea break distraction, which has nothing to do with the real and serious life of providing the daily bread and all the rest that entails.

I suppose everyone has heard the expression "body of knowledge" and knows what it means. It is 'body' because it is connected, just like the limbs are connected to the torso. The term 'living' implies that we're dealing not simply with abstract conceptual theory but practical knowledge, just like knowing how to ride a bicycle is living knowledge, which makes sense only when our whole being is engaged and not simply having some abstract description. So the living knowledge (call it skill if you will) includes all thinking, feeling, willing and perception in their dynamic flow. It is 'encompassing' because it continually expands to include more and more phenomena, revealing how everything is interconnected within a meaningful whole.

Isn't this an ideal worth pursuing? Why would one not want to grow into reality in such a way? I don't know, maybe because they prefer to live in a world of disconnected fragments that simply appear and disappear for no reason at all. So a thread in a forum should be sealed by its title. A thread called "Wind tunnels" is allowed to receive responses like "Great stuff!", "Interesting...", "A lot to think about...", "Keep 'em coming!" and so on but when the discussion is expanded to see how the ideas align or contradict other domains of practical experience, this goes too far and requires immediate moderation police.

The goal to have a living and encompassing understanding of reality is nothing Steinerian. This is a universal human need which has been present as soon as thinking awakened in human consciousness. If someone thinks that revealing the meaningful fabric of reality is an illusionary and dangerous endeavor, which deserves to be called by the family name of a person, maybe they should simply expand on why they think this should be the case. Why growing into the meaningful lawfulness of the human soul and the Cosmos presents a danger for humanity? It will lead to more crime? To more social clashes? I'm interested to know.

[AshvinP]

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.

As Cleric explained, this is the equivalent of a pop culture forum which discusses real housewives one day, top chef the next, stock market the next, geopolitics the next, etc. It's like you want everyone's attention to remain fragmented and sucked into all sorts of pop entertainment masquerading as philosophy and science and spirituality. And it's clear that this is, in fact, what was happening prior to any attempts to pursue an encompassing body of living understanding, and what happens whenever there is a vacuum in such pursuits. It is the default state of materialistic thinking and it's not only the "materialists" who think this way, although the latter generally don't try to hide it like some others do. You are pining for the forum to become like a person who looks at tree, turns his head to the right, and immediately forgets what he was looking at before. It is then just a series of fragmented pictures with no relation to each other. That is actually the conceptual experience many people had when coming to this forum - they couldn't, for the life of them, figure out how all the topics you listed above were related to one another. Who can blame them? The whole thing is designed to make sure there are no coherent relations within the conceptual organism, so no one has to work for holistic attention and understanding and can continue mindlessly clicking through the channels whenever it brings them pleasure to do so.

It is also the height of anti-scientific, dogmatic thinking to label the 'evolution of consciousness' and 'living understanding', "Steinerian" so as to avoid actually thinking and reasoning through the topics. How did it come to this for the secular scientists, Jim? You guys are supposed to be less prejudiced and dogmatic than the religious people. You shouldn't be the one pushing to moderate/ban evolutionary theory from the public schools.

And finally to Dana's point, no one stops you from making those threads and generating your own discussion. That more people are interested in something of living, practical significance, which is not outmoded theories from 100+ years ago but pushes the limits of their creative thinking, thereby making it more difficult for you to draw unquestioning participation and pats-on-the-back from the "wind tunnels" thread, is not Dana's fault or Steiner's or anyone else's. That's just freedom of choice and thought at work.

[lorenzop]

Hopefully you can see there's a difference between the expressions "body of knowledge" and "encompassing body of living understanding" - for me the latter halts the conversation as in Whoa What What What? Sometimes it's appropriate to have a simple cup of tea and not a seeping torrent of ethereal waters.

[AshvinP]

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.

"Thinking" isn't something Steiner invented. It's unfortunate that this must be stated explicitly, but apparently it need to be. It has gotten to the point where you are writing off something that you are experiencing right this moment, and can easily verify, as a belief which one can choose to accept or reject. Everything is a 'cup of tea', external to your own being. Why is it so difficult for you to look within yourself? We aren't just giving you the answer of what you may find within yourself, but elaborating the reasons why it is so difficult for you to look for yourself. There are no external powers who want to keep you in the dark, deriving confusing terminologies which prevent you from taking a peek behind the curtain. You are simply choosing not to over and over again, despite being given every opportunity to do so. Is it a coincidence that the very thing you, Jim, and others are refusing to recognize and investigate, who seem to be perpetually confused, no matter how many posts and angles are given to you, is also the tool which allows you to make sense of various sentences and metaphors? Not at all.

Not to mention, claiming something is "unreadable" but is also something you have evaluated and decided is "not for you", "Steinarian", or whatever the case may be, is illogical to the extreme.

Anyway, since you made absolutely no effort to comprehend what I have been writing to you, yet again finding reasons to justify your lack of effort to yourself, I am going to stop answering your "questions" or requests for definitions.

[Soul_of_Shu]

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.

You conveniently avoided my question, but no surprise there ... So things here didn't turn out as you may have hoped. I had no such predisposed expectations, other than it should remain focused on metaphysics. Indeed, given the very title of the forum 'meta' (as in 'beyond' or 'transcending')-kastrup, this iteration should also come as no surprise. I never presumed to hold any sway over the direction the forum has taken, but have tried to set up sub-forums to allow for multiple directions, where any of the topics you suggested can be discussed. Anyway, should it live long enough, should Simon hand it over, who knows where it will next gravitate/evolve toward. My suggestion to all, if this current iteration has no resonance for you, rather than bemoaning it, move on. Or, alternatively, talk with Simon about taking the reins.

[Cleric K]

Hopefully you can see there's a difference between the expressions "body of knowledge" and "encompassing body of living understanding" - for me the latter halts the conversation as in Whoa What What What? Sometimes it's appropriate to have a simple cup of tea and not a seeping torrent of ethereal waters.

Of course I see the difference but what you say amounts to the following: there's a certain age until which it is allowed for the child to say "Whoa What What What?" This is natural for the child because it leads it to develop new concepts, new ways into which its thinking, feeling and will can flow. But after certain age, no new concepts and skills are allowed. Then if something provokes the "Whoa What" reaction it is the speaker's fault that he doesn't fit the ideas in already existing conceptual slots. This reminds me of this scene from Star Wars: Attack of the Clones:



So if a thing doesn't fit our current conceptual slots it simply doesn't exist.

This is a much less popular understanding of the "...Except ye be converted, and become as little children..." verse. People usually like to interpret this as if we have to become foolish, impish, emotionally swinging, carefree like a child, but rarely one considers the other important characteristic of the little child - that it is constantly learning. Even in the animal kingdom the play of the little cubs serves to develop their physique, social and hunting skills. Yet the greatest thing about life is that we can always learn. And contrary to what probably many imagine, 'Steinerian' terminology is not supposed to create the final conceptual slots into which humanity is to remain locked for all eternity. Instead, the goal is to enter the living flow of life, and embrace that we're ever entering reality, expanding and comprehending it's musical and infinite being.

[lorenzop]

Yes, but great teachers will make a point of explaining their notions in a language the intended audience can understand - even if that means making a concession to the purity of the teaching. You must be thinking your ideas are so lofty and true they are beyond reproach even if presented in a secret code.

[AshvinP]

Yes, but great teachers will make a point of explaining their notions in a language the intended audience can understand - even if that means making a concession to the purity of the teaching. You must be thinking your ideas are so lofty and true they are beyond reproach even if presented in a secret code.

This is silly. Who are the people here writing post after post, using illustration after illustration, metaphor after metaphor, quote after quote? When someone is not complaining about the sheer volume of content we provide, that same person is complaining we don't do enough to make it comprehensible. Does every single thinker I quote in my posts - Goethe, Hegel, Barfield, Jung, Bergson, Heidegger, etc. - also use this "secret code"?

Lorenzo, after a few posts back and forth with me, you already admitted to everyone what's going on with you:

even if it were possible to enhance one's thinking to perceive Ideas\sentiments\moods in nature, it's not for me...
what would be the advantage of swapping my existing WC with another WC?
There is nothing wrong with the WC I am currently provided, why should I raise a complaint and ask for an upgrade?
Yes my WC is provided-and I am every day grateful for it.

Which is exactly what Cleric once again points to above re: your desire for everything to fit into your current rigidified conceptual slots, instead of rediscovering your fluid, childlike imagination. Why are you pretending like it's something else now? Just be honest with yourself.

[Jim Cross]

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.

You conveniently avoided my question, but no surprise there ... So things here didn't turn out as you may have hoped. I had no such predisposed expectations, other than it should remain focused on metaphysics. Indeed, given the very title of the forum 'meta' (as in 'beyond' or 'transcending')-kastrup, this iteration should also come as no surprise. I never presumed to hold any sway over the direction the forum has taken, but have tried to set up sub-forums to allow for multiple directions, where any of the topics you suggested can be discussed. Anyway, should it live long enough, should Simon hand it over, who knows where it will next gravitate/evolve toward. My suggestion to all, if this current iteration has no resonance for you, rather than bemoaning it, move on. Or, alternatively, talk with Simon about taking the reins.

So where exactly have you, or anyone else, been precluded from having discussions that don't involve Steiner?

I didn't intend to avoid the question. I was primarily addressing why people might choose not to participate in the forum.

The last topic I started got plenty of comments from Ashvin, Cleric, and Federica as well as a few from lorenzo. Lou's last post had some nice back and forth with Martin before seven or eight comments from Federica, Ashvin, and Cleric that ended in an explanation of the etheric body and the nervous system (don't want to miss that one) that seems to have little to do with the Essentia article Lou posted about.

So sure anyone can post but don't expect many comments from anyone other than the usual crew. That's the problem.

[lorenzop]

I was spinning in circles trying to figure out what you are saying - now I understand enough to know I am not joining you. I am not rejecting your (and Clerics) entire premise - you (and Cleric) are not free to gaslight me or anyone else here by calling us children. But as you suggest above we are finished . . . you are too much of a bully for my tastes.