Conformal Cyclic Meditation

[Cleric K]

It has been said that wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. This seems to be accentuated many times over with SS. Few today are interested in things spiritual. Of those that are, they are either drawn to exoteric traditions or vague forms of new age belief. Until I encountered this forum, I don't think I have ever come across anyone propounding the ideas spoken of here. And as I've said many times, these ideas are extraordinarily difficult to grasp. Is this the domain of a select few? What is the likelihood of substantial numbers in the world advocating this approach? I guess it's a matter of exponential growth - perhaps things might be different after a few score generations.

By 'selected few' we should understand those who have reached the possibility to think about such things. As such, you are selected. If you reach the point to ask whether you're selected, then you are selected. From this point onwards any limitation is a self-imposed limitation. This doesn't mean that the obstacles are imaginary. They are real. Something must truly be transformed in our brain, in our body, in our subtle organization. But the belief that it is impossible to undertake such transformation is a self-imposed limitation. There's nothing that prevents us to make even if it is only the tiniest step in that direction, except we ourselves. The rationale of such self-imposed limitations usually goes like: "But I have so much work to do that it's impossible to make any substantial difference in this lifetime. So there's no point to even start." But with such logic we would never be able to achieve anything even on a purely sensory plan. Everything that humanity does is a work in progress. It's like Newton saying "Even if I develop celestial mechanics, I don't see space flight becoming possible in my lifetime, so there's no point to even start." This already hints at us that our human life only receives its worth when we see it as a link in a much greater evolutionary flow. And we don't even need to accept reincarnation for this. Even a materialist can sense that by making individual progress, they contribute something to the world. We only don't feel this if we're at a stage of development where we say "To hell with this world. Whether the world will flourish or perish, is all the same to me, since I won't be around to see it. So I'll just take whatever I can from it, while I still can."

The extraordinary difficulties result when we try to form a completely intellectual picture of reality. Then we accumulate more and more pebbles until we say "That's too much, I'm crushed by this weight and it still makes no sense." Many times the example with the geocentric and heliocentric perspectives has been given. It is very difficult to keep intellectual track of the bodies in the geocentric view. But in the heliocentric, by finding a different vantage point, everything becomes much more clear. Our task today is to find that vantage point within thinking itself. All scientific and philosophical problems result from the fact that man doesn't understand what thinking is. As soon as we find our concentric relations to our thought forms, we find a completely unsuspected way of looking upon what reality is and how our thinking fits in it.

[Federica]

Federica,

There is a great danger in VR for those who remain unconscious of its effects. Cleric also elaborated on that here, more than I did in my essays. If we just think of it phenomenologically, when we put on the headset and get immersed in the imagery, we are even more abstracted from our physical organism and our inner life than we are in normal non-VR waking consciousness. Most people pay little attention to what's going on with their physical body even normally, especially in relation to their own mental states, and in VR this lack of attention becomes intensified as we are bombarded with floating images which seem mostly independent of our physical organism (except our hands on the controllers and turning our head). Our inner life will probably get more stimulated for awhile, but we are likewise not paying attention to what it is doing. We will attribute the causes of that stimulation to the perceptions themselves like we generally do in the normal sensory spectrum, rather than to the depths of our inner life.

In SS terms, we could say this loosens the vital-life body from the dense (physical) body, but we remain entirely unconscious of that dynamic and this lack of consciousness makes all the difference. If we can become more self-conscious of how our active, feeling-imbued thought-life is precipitating through the physical organism into the perceptual flow, then what is a great danger can become a great pedagogical tool for us. I would still say most of the games on VR are not going to offer much, since they suck us into flattened narratives which pale in comparison to the real-world narratives we can perceive in the depth structure of non-VR phenomenal existence. Most people treat it as an 'escape' from the drudgery of normal life, not realizing how magically we can experience the latter. With the fitness games, there is the exercise factor, and with these musical exercises, I appreciate how it gives the opportunity to engage my whole body-soul-spirit in the temporally extended musical idea. Our musical thought-life can become more vitalized by feeling and will. We can remember the historical forces and anctipate the future forces which flow into the present experience and make it possible. But again this should only be a tool towards experiencing the same ideational depth structure in our non-VR waking life.

Thanks for the caution on the physical strain. Basically I use this game when it is sub-freezing outside and I can't really go for a walk/jog or play basketball. I definitely don't go as hard as the person on that video. But I am open to any suggestions you have for indoor workouts which avoid those physical strains!

Thanks for elaborating, Ashvin. I suppose I will have to revisit the question once I have a better grasp of the reasons for my aversion to VR, which is basically the same as my aversion to drugs, and other forms of 'interference with nature'. I am currently not very good at inquiring that dispassionately, although I do see there is something deeply ingrained that requires self critique. I also see that sensory perceptions are in a sense just as dreamlike as VR, powerfully catalyzing our conscious experience, but I am not motivated to go down that road. It's an effort that remains to be undertaken.


Regarding indoor workouts - my ideal would be to not need any workouts, and that enough activity comes from playing, or from working. If we think about it, there is something inherently absurd in the concept of workout. However, I agree that in real life we oftentimes need workouts, and I do them as everyone else. I even teach them as a hobby. I think the best is the workout that keeps us entertained and motivated, so I wouldn't dare to suggest anything particular. For me, like for you, music is important, but beyond that it depends on so many factors. Even the VR game above could be made into a balanced workout, if one is mindful of not tearing apart one's arms as she does in the video.

[AshvinP]

Thanks for elaborating, Ashvin. I suppose I will have to revisit the question once I have a better grasp of the reasons for my aversion to VR, which is basically the same as my aversion to drugs, and other forms of 'interference with nature'. I am currently not very good at inquiring that dispassionately, although I do see there is something deeply ingrained that requires self critique. I also see that sensory perceptions are in a sense just as dreamlike as VR, powerfully catalyzing our conscious experience, but I am not motivated to go down that road. It's an effort that remains to be undertaken.

Federica,

Regarding 'interference with nature', I am wondering how you view Klocek's description of spiritual activity as 'work against nature' in that context? How would you differentiate the two?

I have a sense that this issue may overlap with what we are also discussing on the thought-sacrifice thread, i.e. gaining more control and creatively responsibility for the 'quantum steering' of our thought-life, thereby bridging the discontinuities of consciousness. Perhaps you feel this suggests too much interference in the natural thought-landscape?

I also want to share this relevant passage from Steiner's lectures on 'Building Stones for an Understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha', which is of course fitting at this time of year. Here we could compare what cinema was in Steiner's time to what VR is for us today (except VR is admittedly less passive interaction than the cinema for most games).

A particularly powerful means of driving people towards materialism is something that has hardly been viewed from this angle at all: the cinematograph. For what one perceives in films is not reality as it is actually seen. Only an age that has so little idea of reality as ours, which worships reality as an idol in the materialistic sense, could believe that the cinematograph represents reality. A different age would consider whether people walk along the street as they do in films, whether—if one were to ask oneself what one has seen—the images that one sees really correspond to reality. Ask yourselves very honestly: is what you have seen on the street closer to a picture painted by an artist, which does not move, or to the ghastly flickering images of the cinematograph? If you are really honest, you will say to yourself: what the painter portrays in a state of rest has a much stronger resemblance to what you yourself see on the street. So when people are sitting in the cinema, what they see there comes to reside within them not through their ordinary faculties of perception but at a deeper material level than is normal for the process of perception. A person becomes etherically goggle-eyed. His eyes begin to look like those of a seal, only much bigger, when he watches lots of films. I mean etherically bigger.

This has an effect not only on what lives in his conscious mind but it has a materializing influence on his subconsciousness. Do not interpret this as a denunciation of the cinematograph. I should like to make it quite clear that it is perfectly natural that there should be cinematographs; and the art of cinematography or film-making will be developed to an ever-increasing degree. This will be the road leading to materialism. But a counterbalance needs to be sought. This can happen only if the addiction for the kind of reality that is being developed through films is connected with something else. Just as with this addiction there develops a tendency to descend below perception by way of the senses, so must there develop an ascent above sensory perception, that is, into spiritual reality. Then it will do no harm to go to the cinema, and one can see such images as often as one wishes. But if no counterbalance is created, people will be led through such things to relate to the Earth not in the way that is necessary but to become more and more closely related to it to the point where they are completely cut off from the spiritual world.

Steiner, Rudolf. Building Stones for an Understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha (The Collected Works of Rudolf Steiner) (p. 95). Rudolf Steiner Press. Kindle Edition.

[Federica]

Federica,

Regarding 'interference with nature', I am wondering how you view Klocek's description of spiritual activity as 'work against nature' in that context? How would you differentiate the two?

I have a sense that this issue may overlap with what we are also discussing on the thought-sacrifice thread, i.e. gaining more control and creatively responsibility for the 'quantum steering' of our thought-life, thereby bridging the discontinuities of consciousness. Perhaps you feel this suggests too much interference in the natural thought-landscape?

No - Using our thinking and will doesn't seem an interference to me. Our thinking is our nature. It's an endogenous means. Klocek's work against nature is simply work against our instincts. But using VR or drugs is cheating. We try to manipulate thinking through perception. It's like an infinity mirror effect. There is some turning around in circles involved, sort of getting trapped in oneself. Only thinking should manipulate thinking.

[AshvinP]

Federica,

Regarding 'interference with nature', I am wondering how you view Klocek's description of spiritual activity as 'work against nature' in that context? How would you differentiate the two?

I have a sense that this issue may overlap with what we are also discussing on the thought-sacrifice thread, i.e. gaining more control and creatively responsibility for the 'quantum steering' of our thought-life, thereby bridging the discontinuities of consciousness. Perhaps you feel this suggests too much interference in the natural thought-landscape?

No - Using our thinking and will doesn't seem an interference to me. Our thinking is our nature. It's an endogenous means. Klocek's work against nature is simply work against our instincts. But using VR or drugs is cheating. We try to manipulate thinking through perception. It's like an infinity mirror effect. There is some turning around in circles involved, sort of getting trapped in oneself. Only thinking should manipulate thinking.

So if it were possible to use VR without surrendering one's own creative thinking agency (and why wouldn't it be), by balancing the descent 'below' the sensory spectrum with an ascent into the supra-sensory, would this make it not cheating?

[Federica]

Federica,

Regarding 'interference with nature', I am wondering how you view Klocek's description of spiritual activity as 'work against nature' in that context? How would you differentiate the two?

I have a sense that this issue may overlap with what we are also discussing on the thought-sacrifice thread, i.e. gaining more control and creatively responsibility for the 'quantum steering' of our thought-life, thereby bridging the discontinuities of consciousness. Perhaps you feel this suggests too much interference in the natural thought-landscape?

No - Using our thinking and will doesn't seem an interference to me. Our thinking is our nature. It's an endogenous means. Klocek's work against nature is simply work against our instincts. But using VR or drugs is cheating. We try to manipulate thinking through perception. It's like an infinity mirror effect. There is some turning around in circles involved, sort of getting trapped in oneself. Only thinking should manipulate thinking.

So if it were possible to use VR without surrendering one's own creative thinking agency (and why wouldn't it be), by balancing the descent 'below' the sensory spectrum with an ascent into the supra-sensory, would this make it not cheating?

Yes, but... why, what is the intention? I would think that we have enough trouble with the sensory spectrum. Do we really need extra perceptions? The pedagogical value of subsidizing our sensory perceptions with VR is unclear to me. It's as if we were missing dualism in some strange way...

[AshvinP]

No - Using our thinking and will doesn't seem an interference to me. Our thinking is our nature. It's an endogenous means. Klocek's work against nature is simply work against our instincts. But using VR or drugs is cheating. We try to manipulate thinking through perception. It's like an infinity mirror effect. There is some turning around in circles involved, sort of getting trapped in oneself. Only thinking should manipulate thinking.

So if it were possible to use VR without surrendering one's own creative thinking agency (and why wouldn't it be), by balancing the descent 'below' the sensory spectrum with an ascent into the supra-sensory, would this make it not cheating?

Yes, but... why, what is the intention? I would think that we have enough trouble with the sensory spectrum. Do we really need extra perceptions? The pedagogical value of subsidizing our sensory perceptions with VR is unclear to me. It's as if we were missing dualism in some strange way...

That's an interesting question. For most people, I doubt there is any need to and I certainly wouldn't recommend it. By that same logic, I think most people could do well without TVs, computers, and cell phones, which also act as extremely mechanizing, de-individuating forces when approached unconsciously (first-person thinking activity in blind spot). Yet I doubt there is one among us who could actually do without computers and cell phones at this time (incidentally, when I visit the analytic idealism discord server, I notice most of the people are on there playing video games and mindlessly chatting). We can only limit our use when possible and, even better, seek to understand deeply how our spiritual activity, and that of humanity as a whole, is being expressed through such technologies. I don't know, but maybe VR will become a similar technology.

We should be clear on this basic principle - no product of human culture is absolutely harmful or irredeemable, independent of our approach towards it as intentional thinking agencies. It is that approach which decides whether it will be a curse or a blessing - whether our Fall will lead to extinction or freedom. And we may develop our spiritual activity to the point where we are able to descend into the realm of abstractions and rescue our Father from the belly of the whale, as Pinocchio, thereby laying hold of our true human nature. Then we may seek to explore VR, or computer games, movies, etc. for the purpose of extracting useful illustrations and metaphors and general lessons for the spiritual worlds and the path to their attainment. This sacrificial descent must always be made by some if the forces of the 'future' are to redeem those of the 'past'.

[Federica]

Yes, but... why, what is the intention? I would think that we have enough trouble with the sensory spectrum. Do we really need extra perceptions? The pedagogical value of subsidizing our sensory perceptions with VR is unclear to me. It's as if we were missing dualism in some strange way...

That's an interesting question. For most people, I doubt there is any need to and I certainly wouldn't recommend it. By that same logic, I think most people could do well without TVs, computers, and cell phones, which also act as extremely mechanizing, de-individuating forces when approached unconsciously (first-person thinking activity in blind spot). Yet I doubt there is one among us who could actually do without computers and cell phones at this time (incidentally, when I visit the analytic idealism discord server, I notice most of the people are on there playing video games and mindlessly chatting). We can only limit our use when possible and, even better, seek to understand deeply how our spiritual activity, and that of humanity as a whole, is being expressed through such technologies. I don't know, but maybe VR will become a similar technology.

We should be clear on this basic principle - no product of human culture is absolutely harmful or irredeemable, independent of our approach towards it as intentional thinking agencies. It is that approach which decides whether it will be a curse or a blessing - whether our Fall will lead to extinction or freedom. And we may develop our spiritual activity to the point where we are able to descend into the realm of abstractions and rescue our Father from the belly of the whale, as Pinocchio, thereby laying hold of our true human nature. Then we may seek to explore VR, or computer games, movies, etc. for the purpose of extracting useful illustrations and metaphors and general lessons for the spiritual worlds and the path to their attainment. This sacrificial descent must always be made by some if the forces of the 'future' are to redeem those of the 'past'.

Ashvin,

I have to admit, I am not fully convinced by this reply. Not to make it a personal question, I have now been seeking to understand, as you suggested, how human spiritual activity in general is expressed in VR and in the metaverse. I have seriously attempted to go beyond my antipathy and to inquire what could be attractive in VR from various perspectives.


First, I have to disagree that the logic behind VR is the same logic underlying the use of smartphones, TVs, computers, or the cinema, as in Steiner’s quote, and that these are all more or less inevitable features of contemporary life. The difference is that with these common technologies we are dealing with added manifestations of our thinking that we interact with as an integrated part of our overall perceptual spectrum. Our phone appears in a continuum, integrated in the flow of perceptions. Incidentally, it’s still a matter of choice to use these technologies or not. It’s not convenient, but definitely possible to do without them, and still have a rich social and professional life, even in the countries where we live. To provide a concrete example, in the US for instance, there is someone called Rob Greenfield, who has made such a choice. He doesn’t have a credit score or credit card, not an insurance card, not a computer, not a phone, not a TV, not a car, etc. but he’s not homeless, he works, drives projects, and improves the communities in which he operates. Anyway, no doubt these are compelling technologies. But VR and the metaverse share very little of this compelling nature. When we buy a piece of meta-real estate for millions, or a virtual Gucci outfit with Gucci price tag for our character to look good in the meta-life, it’s different from going to the movies, isn't it? The type of spiritual activity we are expressing is, I believe, very different.


In my view VR is not really “a realm of abstractions”. That the virtual world doesn't exist in the same way our natural world does is irrelevant from an experiential perspective. In VR, instead of expanding in thinking to encompass perceptions and us with them, we narrow perceptions, to make them fit our restricted thoughts within the boundary of the self. So we manufacture this very peculiar, perceptual kingdom. In other words, we are ready to renounce full awareness in exchange for the comfort of a mental replica (as per Cleric’s last post: "Here, take everything, but please leave me my strange loop. I promise I'll give it back at the gate of death"). We build the Great Dissociative Wall - outwardly, the VR kit - and declare unlimited ownership of everything within its borders. And we decide to live in that strange loop, that we refuse to give up. It's our banana republic.


From the perspective of the materialist and the analytic idealist, we can understand that, the anxiety of trying to master reality, in the absence of, and renunciation to, self-mastery (mastery of consciousness). In this sense, VR is both a capitulation and a glorification of duality. But we can understand that, the discomfort, and the push to make up a reality within the boundaries of our limited thinking control. By building reality under our direct creative agency, we ease that dualistic discomfort, and we protect the illusion of mastery and knowledge. But the open question for me is, how does the anthroposophist end up sharing that discomfort? How does VR match the picture for someone who realizes the unitary character of experience, the oneness of inner and outer reality within us?


When we aspire to Oneness on one side, but feel on the other that real oneness, all-integrating, is off-limits (like BK) then VR is attracting, because it allows us to make up a mini-oneness inside us, in which both the screen of perception and reality-in-itself, are inbuilt within the dissociative boundary. However, we have to let everything else become a waste product of that process. We leave everything else out. We give it up. We sacrifice our spiritual expansion to be able to keep our intellectual strange loop. In this sense I understand what Steiner said in his time about the cinematograph, that it was promoting materialism. Instead of expanding in thinking, we shrink in perceptions and we hope the boundary will be thick enough to keep us cozy inside. Yes, we get perfectly overlapping spheres, but what do we do with the accumulating waste on the other side of the wall? It’s a disruptive system. We cling to the illusion of knowledge and mastery, but we pay it with an enormous crack that we fill up with wasted spiritual growth. We hope we’ll feel lighter by renouncing the full spectrum view, but the ‘waste’ will get back at us and submerge us eventually. I think that present-day focus on climate activism and waste reduction can be seen as a desperate attempt to somehow reintegrate that ideal mass we are accumulating in the crack, as dropped ballast.


But how does it work from the perspective of someone on the path of living knowledge? Because I don’t think there’s anything additional to explore in VR either. How could there be, it’s a restricted kingdom. What new useful metaphors and spiritual lessons could be extracted from it that are not already available to us?
And just as an addicted person is not rescued from their habits by someone descending with them in their addictive behaviors, I don’t believe there is anyone to rescue in the belly of VR. We are alone there. Also, the basic principle that no human expression is totally unredeemable and bad seems unable to explain just VR. By that token, we could just as well forget everything from Knowledge of the higher worlds and explore any possible unvirtuous human behavior, because “someone has to do it”. So my question remains, is it possible for an anthroposophist to rule out the dashboard only to end up missing it somehow, to explore a fully gated, dualistic representation of reality-in-itself, recreated just one level up the full sensory spectrum? And if it's not that, what is it?

[AshvinP]

Yes, but... why, what is the intention? I would think that we have enough trouble with the sensory spectrum. Do we really need extra perceptions? The pedagogical value of subsidizing our sensory perceptions with VR is unclear to me. It's as if we were missing dualism in some strange way...

That's an interesting question. For most people, I doubt there is any need to and I certainly wouldn't recommend it. By that same logic, I think most people could do well without TVs, computers, and cell phones, which also act as extremely mechanizing, de-individuating forces when approached unconsciously (first-person thinking activity in blind spot). Yet I doubt there is one among us who could actually do without computers and cell phones at this time (incidentally, when I visit the analytic idealism discord server, I notice most of the people are on there playing video games and mindlessly chatting). We can only limit our use when possible and, even better, seek to understand deeply how our spiritual activity, and that of humanity as a whole, is being expressed through such technologies. I don't know, but maybe VR will become a similar technology.

We should be clear on this basic principle - no product of human culture is absolutely harmful or irredeemable, independent of our approach towards it as intentional thinking agencies. It is that approach which decides whether it will be a curse or a blessing - whether our Fall will lead to extinction or freedom. And we may develop our spiritual activity to the point where we are able to descend into the realm of abstractions and rescue our Father from the belly of the whale, as Pinocchio, thereby laying hold of our true human nature. Then we may seek to explore VR, or computer games, movies, etc. for the purpose of extracting useful illustrations and metaphors and general lessons for the spiritual worlds and the path to their attainment. This sacrificial descent must always be made by some if the forces of the 'future' are to redeem those of the 'past'.

Ashvin,

I have to admit, I am not fully convinced by this reply. Not to make it a personal question, I have now been seeking to understand, as you suggested, how human spiritual activity in general is expressed in VR and in the metaverse. I have seriously attempted to go beyond my antipathy and to inquire what could be attractive in VR from various perspectives.


First, I have to disagree that the logic behind VR is the same logic underlying the use of smartphones, TVs, computers, or the cinema, as in Steiner’s quote, and that these are all more or less inevitable features of contemporary life. The difference is that with these common technologies we are dealing with added manifestations of our thinking that we interact with as an integrated part of our overall perceptual spectrum. Our phone appears in a continuum, integrated in the flow of perceptions. Incidentally, it’s still a matter of choice to use these technologies or not. It’s not convenient, but definitely possible to do without them, and still have a rich social and professional life, even in the countries where we live. To provide a concrete example, in the US for instance, there is someone called Rob Greenfield, who has made such a choice. He doesn’t have a credit score or credit card, not an insurance card, not a computer, not a phone, not a TV, not a car, etc. but he’s not homeless, he works, drives projects, and improves the communities in which he operates. Anyway, no doubt these are compelling technologies. But VR and the metaverse share very little of this compelling nature. When we buy a piece of meta-real estate for millions, or a virtual Gucci outfit with Gucci price tag for our character to look good in the meta-life, it’s different from going to the movies, isn't it? The type of spiritual activity we are expressing is, I believe, very different.


In my view VR is not really “a realm of abstractions”. That the virtual world doesn't exist in the same way our natural world does is irrelevant from an experiential perspective. In VR, instead of expanding in thinking to encompass perceptions and us with them, we narrow perceptions, to make them fit our restricted thoughts within the boundary of the self. So we manufacture this very peculiar, perceptual kingdom. In other words, we are ready to renounce full awareness in exchange for the comfort of a mental replica (as per Cleric’s last post: "Here, take everything, but please leave me my strange loop. I promise I'll give it back at the gate of death"). We build the Great Dissociative Wall - outwardly, the VR kit - and declare unlimited ownership of everything within its borders. And we decide to live in that strange loop, that we refuse to give up. It's our banana republic.


From the perspective of the materialist and the analytic idealist, we can understand that, the anxiety of trying to master reality, in the absence of, and renunciation to, self-mastery (mastery of consciousness). In this sense, VR is both a capitulation and a glorification of duality. But we can understand that, the discomfort, and the push to make up a reality within the boundaries of our limited thinking control. By building reality under our direct creative agency, we ease that dualistic discomfort, and we protect the illusion of mastery and knowledge. But the open question for me is, how does the anthroposophist end up sharing that discomfort? How does VR match the picture for someone who realizes the unitary character of experience, the oneness of inner and outer reality within us?


When we aspire to Oneness on one side, but feel on the other that real oneness, all-integrating, is off-limits (like BK) then VR is attracting, because it allows us to make up a mini-oneness inside us, in which both the screen of perception and reality-in-itself, are inbuilt within the dissociative boundary. However, we have to let everything else become a waste product of that process. We leave everything else out. We give it up. We sacrifice our spiritual expansion to be able to keep our intellectual strange loop. In this sense I understand what Steiner said in his time about the cinematograph, that it was promoting materialism. Instead of expanding in thinking, we shrink in perceptions and we hope the boundary will be thick enough to keep us cozy inside. Yes, we get perfectly overlapping spheres, but what do we do with the accumulating waste on the other side of the wall? It’s a disruptive system. We cling to the illusion of knowledge and mastery, but we pay it with an enormous crack that we fill up with wasted spiritual growth. We hope we’ll feel lighter by renouncing the full spectrum view, but the ‘waste’ will get back at us and submerge us eventually. I think that present-day focus on climate activism and waste reduction can be seen as a desperate attempt to somehow reintegrate that ideal mass we are accumulating in the crack, as dropped ballast.


But how does it work from the perspective of someone on the path of living knowledge? Because I don’t think there’s anything additional to explore in VR either. How could there be, it’s a restricted kingdom. What new useful metaphors and spiritual lessons could be extracted from it that are not already available to us?
And just as an addicted person is not rescued from their habits by someone descending with them in their addictive behaviors, I don’t believe there is anyone to rescue in the belly of VR. We are alone there. Also, the basic principle that no human expression is totally unredeemable and bad seems unable to explain just VR. By that token, we could just as well forget everything from Knowledge of the higher worlds and explore any possible unvirtuous human behavior, because “someone has to do it”. So my question remains, is it possible for an anthroposophist to rule out the dashboard only to end up missing it somehow, to explore a fully gated, dualistic representation of reality-in-itself, recreated just one level up the full sensory spectrum? And if it's not that, what is it?

Federica,

I think we really need to assess the foundational principles here, as we are also doing on the other thread. I understand all of the concerns you are expressing and feel they can be perfectly valid ones, IF they are not generalized into broad metaphysical conclusions about the 'nature' of VR. If we allow such a process to creep into our thinking on VR, then it can easily remain there when approaching other aspects of evolving human culture. To be clear, I am not arguing for the use or non-use of VR as such, which will really depend on the specific path/circumstances of any given individual and their intentions, ideals, aims, etc., but using it as a general illustration to illuminate the underlying spiritual principles. So it's really not about convincing you or anyone else to try VR as a path for spiritual development.

We can take a few different angles.

1) How could it be that we have created a fundamentally "restricted kingdom" in VR which is impenetrable against and irredeemable by the ascension to living cognition? This in itself suggests that we are masters of our strange loop, creating our own thought-kingdoms which are beyond the purview of Cosmic thinking. It means the atomized human thinking perspective can tunnel right through the Earth and end up in a parallel Universe which is free from the fourfold lawfulness of Intuitive spiritual activity.

Instead, we can understand all these cultural materialistic developments are only further sub-convolutions or 'distentions' of the intuitive spiritual landscape - they are constellated through certain interference patterns of Cosmic spiritual activity just as other human cultural institutions (like cinema, computers, etc.), the sensory spectrum, and our own seemingly 'private' soul-life and thought-life. The VR perspective is a perfectly valid and unique intuitive 'shape' which the Spirit has taken on.

Since it is Christmas, let's use some Christo-centric concepts. I have quoted this from Jung before:

"No one should deny the danger of the descent, but it can be risked. No one need risk it, but it is certain that someone will. And let those who go down the sunset way do so with open eyes, for it is a sacrifice which daunts even the gods. Yet every descent is followed by an ascent; the vanishing shapes are shaped anew, and a truth is valid in the end only if it suffers change and bears new witness in new images, in new tongues, like a new wine that is put into new bottles."
- Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation

Technically speaking, I think it's clear that VR is an additional descent into the sensory spectrum just like cinema. We are creating additional images of normal sensory images (elemental spectrum), copies of copies, and then immersing our spiritual activity in that spectrum. Actually in VR we can experience playing games in which we are watching videos and looking at photos, paintings, etc., so in that case we have descended even further into the elemental spectrum. We are experiencing copies within copies of copies.

It is a central aspect of the Mystery of human evolution that, as one descends further, one also attains the potential to ascend further. This relates to the other quote I shared from Steiner about abstract thinking as highly spiritual, in a paradoxical sort of way. 

To-day it is head-knowledge. Therefore on the one side it is abstract, dry, and does not fill a man's whole life to the end, yet on the other side it is very spiritual. This dual nature is really present, so that we actually do engender what is most spiritual; for these abstract ideas are the most spiritual that can be, yet they are incapable of grasping the Spirit. It is astonishingly easy to perceive the cleavage in which man is involved through the spiritual ideas he has developed. It is precisely in them that he has become so remarkably materialistic. When these ideas come in the right way, however, materialism never arises from them. The simple existence of abstract ideas is the first refutation of materialism.

The more copies of copies of copies we create through our imagination which then influence the practical course of our lives, the more we have established the living and foundational reality of spiritual activity - the only question is whether we are aware that we have done so. This is a deeper meaning of Christ being victorious over the forces of Satan - suffering, evil, decay, death - on the Cross. In fact, the physical body decays and dies because the Spirit is ceaselessly at work. And it is given a new, resurrected life when the Spirit becomes self-conscious in this work. The soul then meets the forces of death voluntarily and with living knowledge. Everything that was touched by the corrupting forces of sin and death - the entire elemental spectrum - is then beautified and glorified by the Spirit's self-awakening in us. 


"For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him."


2) We can look at the specific example of VR fitness games with musical ideas. I am not sure if you had a chance to check out the previous essays yet. But here is a question to consider - in what other setting could one join into a musical idea with other people and engage their thought, feeling, will - their head, chest, limbs - as that idea unfolds in a visual stream of imagery tied to the beat-rhythm? This simply isn't possible outside the VR setting. Does this alone make it some super useful spiritual tool? Probably not, but it does point to a unique significance of these new virtual technologies in the stream of human spiritual evolution. It at least points to the manner in which humans are now longing to experience their shared environments, even if it's an unconscious or only semi-conscious longing for most. 

As Steiner said, it can only become useful for those who balance the descent into the sub-sensory (elemental) worlds with an ascent into the supra-sensory (archetypal) worlds (of course we are not speaking metaphysically here - there is only One metaphysical world). Then we can sense the depth structure of our own thinking, feeling, willing - spirit, soul, body - while we engage the musical idea. We can sense how our intuitive intents collapse through the fourfold convolutions and manifest as spatio-temporal sequences of perceptions which we endure and work through, returning our efforts to the supra-sensory and fulfilling the intuitive intents. All of this will sound like mostly useless abstract concepts until we experience that depth structure for ourselves. Then we can basically have an interactive experience of Cleric's illustrations while we play the game, albeit a very dim one compared to what can be attained in quiet contemplation and meditation. It is only through the latter that we will get any value from the former, and the same holds for the normal sensory spectrum. 

3)  

What new useful metaphors and spiritual lessons could be extracted from it that are not already available to us?

And just as an addicted person is not rescued from their habits by someone descending with them in their addictive behaviors, I don’t believe there is anyone to rescue in the belly of VR. We are alone there. Also, the basic principle that no human expression is totally unredeemable and bad seems unable to explain just VR. By that token, we could just as well forget everything from Knowledge of the higher worlds and explore any possible unvirtuous human behavior, because “someone has to do it”. So my question remains, is it possible for an anthroposophist to rule out the dashboard only to end up missing it somehow, to explore a fully gated, dualistic representation of reality-in-itself, recreated just one level up the full sensory spectrum? And if it's not that, what is it?

Similar to what we asked above, we can ask - how is it possible that such a revolutionary development in human culture would have no spiritual lessons to teach us? What would need to be true of reality itself for this to be valid? Regardless of our antipathy for VR (and I share such an antipathy for VR and video games in general), there is no doubting that it is a technological revolution in progress and we have barely scratched the surface. At this stage, the valuable metaphors and spiritual lessons may be few and far between, but that can only be as a result of its early development and our own unfamiliarity with it. Nevertheless, I would say what Cleric extracted from the non-Euclidean geometry used in certain games is an extremely valuable metaphor for how our normal spatial experience precipitates from our lawful spirtual activity, that one cannot experience through the normal sensory spectrum or non-VR video games. 

I think it goes without saying that our intentional agency, our moral disposition, when approaching these tools is of utmost importance. If we are approaching anything spiritual with impure intentions, even if we have living knowledge of the spiritual dynamics, then we are on the road to black magic. Unfortunately this is done very frequently. But the point is, if someone with living self-knowledge and with pure intentions does choose to approach such things, then I see no reason to arbitrarily separate out VR from any other technology or cultural development in terms of potential value to be mined. This exchange reminds me a bit of our earlier discussion about writing vs. speech - you took a similar position on writing being outside the 'continuum' of the normal flow of spiritual activity, although I know you weren't nearly so antipathetic to writing as to VR. Do you see how a similar thing might be happening here?

[Federica]

Federica,

I think we really need to assess the foundational principles here, as we are also doing on the other thread. I understand all of the concerns you are expressing and feel they can be perfectly valid ones, IF they are not generalized into broad metaphysical conclusions about the 'nature' of VR. If we allow such a process to creep into our thinking on VR, then it can easily remain there when approaching other aspects of evolving human culture. To be clear, I am not arguing for the use or non-use of VR as such, which will really depend on the specific path/circumstances of any given individual and their intentions, ideals, aims, etc., but using it as a general illustration to illuminate the underlying spiritual principles. So it's really not about convincing you or anyone else to try VR as a path for spiritual development.

We can take a few different angles.

1) How could it be that we have created a fundamentally "restricted kingdom" in VR which is impenetrable against and irredeemable by the ascension to living cognition? This in itself suggests that we are masters of our strange loop, creating our own thought-kingdoms which are beyond the purview of Cosmic thinking. It means the atomized human thinking perspective can tunnel right through the Earth and end up in a parallel Universe which is free from the fourfold lawfulness of Intuitive spiritual activity.

Instead, we can understand all these cultural materialistic developments are only further sub-convolutions or 'distentions' of the intuitive spiritual landscape - they are constellated through certain interference patterns of Cosmic spiritual activity just as other human cultural institutions (like cinema, computers, etc.), the sensory spectrum, and our own seemingly 'private' soul-life and thought-life. The VR perspective is a perfectly valid and unique intuitive 'shape' which the Spirit has taken on.

Since it is Christmas, let's use some Christo-centric concepts. I have quoted this from Jung before:

"No one should deny the danger of the descent, but it can be risked. No one need risk it, but it is certain that someone will. And let those who go down the sunset way do so with open eyes, for it is a sacrifice which daunts even the gods. Yet every descent is followed by an ascent; the vanishing shapes are shaped anew, and a truth is valid in the end only if it suffers change and bears new witness in new images, in new tongues, like a new wine that is put into new bottles."
- Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation

Technically speaking, I think it's clear that VR is an additional descent into the sensory spectrum just like cinema. We are creating additional images of normal sensory images (elemental spectrum), copies of copies, and then immersing our spiritual activity in that spectrum. Actually in VR we can experience playing games in which we are watching videos and looking at photos, paintings, etc., so in that case we have descended even further into the elemental spectrum. We are experiencing copies within copies of copies.

It is a central aspect of the Mystery of human evolution that, as one descends further, one also attains the potential to ascend further. This relates to the other quote I shared from Steiner about abstract thinking as highly spiritual, in a paradoxical sort of way. 

To-day it is head-knowledge. Therefore on the one side it is abstract, dry, and does not fill a man's whole life to the end, yet on the other side it is very spiritual. This dual nature is really present, so that we actually do engender what is most spiritual; for these abstract ideas are the most spiritual that can be, yet they are incapable of grasping the Spirit. It is astonishingly easy to perceive the cleavage in which man is involved through the spiritual ideas he has developed. It is precisely in them that he has become so remarkably materialistic. When these ideas come in the right way, however, materialism never arises from them. The simple existence of abstract ideas is the first refutation of materialism.

The more copies of copies of copies we create through our imagination which then influence the practical course of our lives, the more we have established the living and foundational reality of spiritual activity - the only question is whether we are aware that we have done so. This is a deeper meaning of Christ being victorious over the forces of Satan - suffering, evil, decay, death - on the Cross. In fact, the physical body decays and dies because the Spirit is ceaselessly at work. And it is given a new, resurrected life when the Spirit becomes self-conscious in this work. The soul then meets the forces of death voluntarily and with living knowledge. Everything that was touched by the corrupting forces of sin and death - the entire elemental spectrum - is then beautified and glorified by the Spirit's self-awakening in us. 


"For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him."


2) We can look at the specific example of VR fitness games with musical ideas. I am not sure if you had a chance to check out the previous essays yet. But here is a question to consider - in what other setting could one join into a musical idea with other people and engage their thought, feeling, will - their head, chest, limbs - as that idea unfolds in a visual stream of imagery tied to the beat-rhythm? This simply isn't possible outside the VR setting. Does this alone make it some super useful spiritual tool? Probably not, but it does point to a unique significance of these new virtual technologies in the stream of human spiritual evolution. It at least points to the manner in which humans are now longing to experience their shared environments, even if it's an unconscious or only semi-conscious longing for most. 

As Steiner said, it can only become useful for those who balance the descent into the sub-sensory (elemental) worlds with an ascent into the supra-sensory (archetypal) worlds (of course we are not speaking metaphysically here - there is only One metaphysical world). Then we can sense the depth structure of our own thinking, feeling, willing - spirit, soul, body - while we engage the musical idea. We can sense how our intuitive intents collapse through the fourfold convolutions and manifest as spatio-temporal sequences of perceptions which we endure and work through, returning our efforts to the supra-sensory and fulfilling the intuitive intents. All of this will sound like mostly useless abstract concepts until we experience that depth structure for ourselves. Then we can basically have an interactive experience of Cleric's illustrations while we play the game, albeit a very dim one compared to what can be attained in quiet contemplation and meditation. It is only through the latter that we will get any value from the former, and the same holds for the normal sensory spectrum. 

3)  

What new useful metaphors and spiritual lessons could be extracted from it that are not already available to us?

And just as an addicted person is not rescued from their habits by someone descending with them in their addictive behaviors, I don’t believe there is anyone to rescue in the belly of VR. We are alone there. Also, the basic principle that no human expression is totally unredeemable and bad seems unable to explain just VR. By that token, we could just as well forget everything from Knowledge of the higher worlds and explore any possible unvirtuous human behavior, because “someone has to do it”. So my question remains, is it possible for an anthroposophist to rule out the dashboard only to end up missing it somehow, to explore a fully gated, dualistic representation of reality-in-itself, recreated just one level up the full sensory spectrum? And if it's not that, what is it?

Similar to what we asked above, we can ask - how is it possible that such a revolutionary development in human culture would have no spiritual lessons to teach us? What would need to be true of reality itself for this to be valid? Regardless of our antipathy for VR (and I share such an antipathy for VR and video games in general), there is no doubting that it is a technological revolution in progress and we have barely scratched the surface. At this stage, the valuable metaphors and spiritual lessons may be few and far between, but that can only be as a result of its early development and our own unfamiliarity with it. Nevertheless, I would say what Cleric extracted from the non-Euclidean geometry used in certain games is an extremely valuable metaphor for how our normal spatial experience precipitates from our lawful spirtual activity, that one cannot experience through the normal sensory spectrum or non-VR video games. 

I think it goes without saying that our intentional agency, our moral disposition, when approaching these tools is of utmost importance. If we are approaching anything spiritual with impure intentions, even if we have living knowledge of the spiritual dynamics, then we are on the road to black magic. Unfortunately this is done very frequently. But the point is, if someone with living self-knowledge and with pure intentions does choose to approach such things, then I see no reason to arbitrarily separate out VR from any other technology or cultural development in terms of potential value to be mined. This exchange reminds me a bit of our earlier discussion about writing vs. speech - you took a similar position on writing being outside the 'continuum' of the normal flow of spiritual activity, although I know you weren't nearly so antipathetic to writing as to VR. Do you see how a similar thing might be happening here?

Ashvin,

I’ve now read your two VR essays. I don't know if something is different for you in connection with this topic, or if something is happening to me now, upon reading the essays, or both, but one thing is sure, to me they don’t seem to be consistent with your usual MO. I will try to explain, referring to the essays as needed while addressing your comments here. Preliminarily, I note that you warn me against “generalized metaphysical conclusions”, but you seem to do something very similar when you, for example, refer to “the foundational principles” of spiritual practice, or the principles of the Mystery of human evolution, like the furthest the descent, the biggest the ascent. One can wonder what makes my VR thoughts metaphysical, while the thought that VR can be

a fantastic pedagogical tool for cognition which is dwelling near the threshold of the reasoning intellect and the higher Imagination.

is not.

I understand all of the concerns you are expressing.

I was not expressing any concerns. I was inquiring what features in people’s ‘black boxes’ could explain a preference for, and an attraction to, VR. You seem to agree it's an interesting question, so what I've found all the more surprising in the essays, to start with, is that you are not interested in inquiring what soul attitudes might explain a preference for locking oneself in these virtual augmentations of the perceptual layers. It’s not even augmentation we are dealing with, it’s a prosthetic perceptual spectrum, aiming to replace the natural world. Kind of an intermediary stage between the traditional approach to natural perceptual spectrum and transhumanism, a more advanced stage of descent into the illusion of mastery and knowledge mentioned in my post above, where the extra layers are not simply externally and exclusively imposed to our senses through a VR kit, but they are grafted into the body, they are pushed through to the other side of the threshold of the physical boundary, as to give a double turn and a double lock to the dissociative boundary. Anyway, in your essays you don’t consider any of that. Instead, you prefer to go into the analysis of what happens when you start the game, while bashing the why-question quite strangely: VR can be a “fantastic pedagogical tool for cognition” still the essay is only for those who are either curious, or have an acquaintance who has bought the kit, or for some reason have it already at home. Equally strangely, you also state that we cannot remain luddites in the face of this pervasive new technology - which importance is “hard to overestimate” in a culture where we are so short of “beauty and courage” but, with all this being said, for most people it’s actually best to remain luddites. I find this a confused introduction, and I wonder: what’s going on here? I am reminded of “metaphysical conclusions on the nature of VR” when reading this: “the most critical spiritual lesson we can mine from the virtual environment is that of trust in the Thinking-Spirit”. You explain:

In the virtual game, the ideal content of the music is 'decohering' into objects within space-time through our imaginative thinking activity. We then visualize it as a steady, rhythmic flow of beat-cubes and other objects.

Wait a second. Are you sure it’s the “ideal content” that you visualize as steady flow of objects? The steady flow of objects is of exact same nature (correct me if I’m wrong) no matter if it’s Beethoven in the background, a pop song, or a rock one, provided that they are run on a similar metronome tap. At most, it’s the beat of the music that is mimicked, or marked, or augmented by the pace and cadence at which the objects come at you. The beat is the only thing the flow of objects can convey. How do you mean the objects convey the musical idea?

When we take off our headsets, walk outside, and encounter the world's manifold phenomena, we should also sense that we are visualizing a symphony of ideational activity and content which weave together the natural world; we should sense how all the appearances reflect back to us meaningful qualities of our own soul. The dense qualities of meaning are flowing through our thinking-"I" into the perceptual structures. It is that same Thinking-"I" which 're-coheres' the meaning implicit in the physical appearances, metamorphosing them into their higher spiritual essence. There is a depth structure in this overall process which involves many ideational beings.

Yes. Does this have any element of connection with VR? Is the VR experience specifically supposed to enhance such realization? Better than, for example, waking up to a new day every morning? Or are you arguing for something similar to “let’s get sick, so that when we are healed again, we can really appreciate how good it feels to be healthy”. I was expecting more from an illustration of VR’s fantastical pedagogical properties.


In general, what I notice in the essays is a preponderance of descriptions of the virtues VR has in common with other experiences and their spiritual qualities, such as listening to music, for example. The thing is, we don't need VR to listen to music. Why not have focused more on what supposedly makes the VR experience unique? That would have been more relevant. Could the reason be that there's not much of such nature to be found in VR specifically? I still think so.

How could it be that we have created a fundamentally "restricted kingdom" in VR which is impenetrable against and irredeemable by the ascension to living cognition?

Ashvin, you haven’t read carefully, I didn’t say that. It’s certainly redeemable. What I said is that putting forward that every cultural phenomenon is redeemable as a justification for adopting just VR, doesn’t hold up. It doesn’t explain why you stay away from a song like The dolphin’s cry because Ahrimanic, but smashing the air on the beat of a distorted version of Beethoven is higher imagination. What I mean is, you need to come up with a better reason why just this cultural phenomenon of VR more than others, is valuable to you / is valuable as a fantastic tool for cognition.

The VR perspective is a perfectly valid and unique intuitive 'shape' which the Spirit has taken on.

Ok, but we could also mention other equally valid phenomena of human Culture, that also are unique intuitive shapes taken by the Spirit. Still, for some reason you prefer VR. Why?

Technically speaking, I think it's clear that VR is an additional descent into the sensory spectrum just like cinema. We are creating additional images of normal sensory images (elemental spectrum), copies of copies, and then immersing our spiritual activity in that spectrum. Actually in VR we can experience playing games in which we are watching videos and looking at photos, paintings, etc., so in that case we have descended even further into the elemental spectrum. We are experiencing copies within copies of copies.

Agreed, copies of copies of copies are created, but you are missing the core aspect of VR, which makes it non at all “just like cinema”. The distinctive aspect is the gated nature of the copied perceptual layers. Why don’t you want to acknowledge that? There is a blatant dualism, there is a fastening of the dissociative boundary that is absent in cinema, computers, or phones. I will repeat, from my previous post: in VR, instead of expanding in thinking, encompassing the wide perceptual spectrum and us with it, we narrow and sharpen perceptions by blocking out the natural world, to make perceptions fit our restricted thought-scope, within the limited boundary of the subject-self. So we manufacture this very peculiar, sharp perceptual kingdom. In other words, we are ready to renounce full awareness in exchange for the comfort of a dense mental replica, as if it was giving us more and better knowledge (as per Cleric’s last post: "Here, take everything, but please leave me my strange loop. I promise I'll give it back at the gate of death"). We build the Great Dissociative Wall - outwardly, the VR kit - we declare unlimited ownership of everything within its borders, and we decide to live in that strange loop. From the perspective of the materialist and the analytic idealist, we can understand that, the anxiety of trying to master reality, in the absence of, and renunciation to, self-mastery (mastery of consciousness).
There is an intention that needs to be elucidated here. This is not metaphysics.

The more copies of copies of copies we create through our imagination which then influence the practical course of our lives, the more we have established the living and foundational reality of spiritual activity.

It seems to me yet to be proven that multiplying and sharpening perceptions better establishes the living foundational reality of spiritual activity. But beyond that, what matters, what makes VR unhelpful, even more than the extra focus on perceptions, is the dream of seclusion. It’s the capitulation in the face of the mystery of knowledge. Mystery of knowledge is too intimidating, so we prefer to make up a world and--- here we go, let’s slip in it, and let’s know ‘the world’ now, and feel we have ‘everything’ under control. It’s like I’ve lost an earring during a night walk, I go back and search for it, but not along the path I have walked, I’ll search under the nearby streetlights, because, well, that’s where I have light.

how is it possible that such a revolutionary development in human culture would have no spiritual lessons to teach us?

It's like the advent and development of positivism, or materialism. There are obviously crucial spiritual lessons to learn from such episodes of evolution. But it’s not necessary to live the materialistic life and to adopt materialistic beliefs, in order to comprehend them. Likewise, there are clearly spiritual lessons to learn from many present-day cultural phenomena. However, to refer to your most recent examples from the other thread, it’s not required that we make a career in the meat consumption industry, or that we undergo gender affirming/mitigating surgery, in order to mine those lessons is it?

Nevertheless, I would say what Cleric extracted from the non-Euclidean geometry used in certain games is an extremely valuable metaphor for how our normal spatial experience precipitates from our lawful spiritual activity, that one cannot experience through the normal sensory spectrum or non-VR video games.”

Of course, we don’t need the least VR to understand and experience non-Euclidean geometry. This is a completely arbitrary assertion that only can emerge from a metaphysical position that VR is a fantastic cognitive tool of the future. It’s curious that at the same time you say that you share my antipathy for it, but still spend 30-45 minutes in virtual reality every day.

This exchange reminds me a bit of our earlier discussion about writing vs. speech - you took a similar position on writing being outside the 'continuum' of the normal flow of spiritual activity, although I know you weren't nearly so antipathetic to writing as to VR. Do you see how a similar thing might be happening here?

I do see how you have come to connect the two exchanges. It’s certainly because I haven’t explained my point well enough in my previous posts. I hope I got better now at showing that I am not separating VR technology from the rest of human physical and spiritual activity, as an exception or discontinuity. It is definitely part of a continuum. As I mentioned, I think the next ring in the materialistic chain, expanding on VR and the metaverse, is transhumanism. There are certainly subconscious reasons why we are engaging more and more in such types of self-secluded worlds, and I tried to sketch some initial reflections that could open to those lessons in my previous post (reflections that you seem to have ignored completely, misinterpreting them as concerns related to VR usage). What I’m saying is, it’s completely unnecessary, and at the very least a time waster, to engage in VR as a practice, hoping to extract spiritual lessons from regular use. And I maintain that: I don't think that adding more copies of copies of copies, inundating our senses with augmented perceptual flows (basically more of the same, but worse) will ever provide metaphors or lessons that are not already available to us through the sensory spectrum of the first-level world content. And so I am left with the same question I had at the end of my previous post. For a materialist VR is understandably a lure and a comfort, but how

is it possible for an anthroposophist to rule out the dashboard only to end up missing it somehow, to explore a fully gated, dualistic representation of reality-in-itself, recreated just one level up the full sensory spectrum?