Anthroposophy as Fascio

[Stranger]

We don't artificially withhold credit or praise to you, Eugene. We get nothing out of maintaining an argument with you for no legitimate reason. There is plenty else to discuss once certain foundational matters have been settled, as the other threads show. But your comments keep revealing to us that you are thinking through the relation of the spiritual and physical in a very superficial way. The last one above included. Every time we prompt you to elaborate on your understanding, that is only further confirmed. It is the default way of thinking in most analytic idealist circles, but of course you feel that has been overcome.

So, in that above example I was talking about the concrete and practical first-person experience of willfully manifesting ideas into perceived forms in LD/OBE and from this practice learning and understanding the mechanism of manifestations of forms by spiritual beings, and then practical learning to participate in the collective spiritual activity of ideational manifestations together with higher-order beings. That is exactly applying the scientific "want to know" mindset through first-person experience in spiritual practices. How is that superficial and analytic-idealist abstract? I don't care about being praised, it's just about your default negative approach of "we do it always right, you do it always wrong" with which it is impossible to establish any constructive dialog.

Also, it turns out that I and Scott were talking about exactly the same experiential knowing of ourselves as "awareness of continuity, (relative) permanence, and repetition in you stream of consciousness", it just that Scott complained that I overemphasize the practical importance of such knowledge and capitalize the words. So, how is that superficial and analytic-idealist abstract?

[Lou Gold]

Hmmm. Are you guys actually arguing about order/chaos? From this viewpoint all civilizations and systems are collective and Fascio because individual creativity is both constructive and destructive - bread and butter, bullets and bombs. What is called a 'moral order' is an attempt to constrain unlimited creativity. A liberalism identified with individualism as sovereign is balanced with collective controls called a moral order. Even a so-called natural ecosystem is held together by check-and-balances. Ethical or moral issues arise as human consciousness separates from the garden of limitations and gains the ability to run amuck. Surely, the Wholeness contains both good and evil. How else might it be infinite? Sacrifice is to make sacred, to establish limits, to limit choice. Is there's no war going on at the so-called 'higher levels' and no need for a 'Battalion of Christ"? Is above really unlike below? How do we know?

[AshvinP]

We don't artificially withhold credit or praise to you, Eugene. We get nothing out of maintaining an argument with you for no legitimate reason. There is plenty else to discuss once certain foundational matters have been settled, as the other threads show. But your comments keep revealing to us that you are thinking through the relation of the spiritual and physical in a very superficial way. The last one above included. Every time we prompt you to elaborate on your understanding, that is only further confirmed. It is the default way of thinking in most analytic idealist circles, but of course you feel that has been overcome.

So, in that above example I was talking about the concrete and practical first-person experience of willfully manifesting ideas into perceived forms in LD/OBE and from this practice learning and understanding the mechanism of manifestations of forms by spiritual beings, and then practical learning to participate in the collective spiritual activity of ideational manifestations together with higher-order beings. That is exactly applying the scientific "want to know" mindset through first-person experience in spiritual practices. How is that superficial and analytic-idealist abstract? I don't care about being praised, it's just about your default negative approach of "we do it always right, you do it always wrong" with which it is impossible to establish any constructive dialog.

Also, it turns out that I and Scott were talking about exactly the same experiential knowing of ourselves as "awareness of continuity, (relative) permanence, and repetition in you stream of consciousness", it just that Scott complained that I overemphasize the practical importance of such knowledge and capitalize the words. So, how is that superficial and analytic-idealist abstract?

It is incorrect, Eugene. That is not the 'mechanism of manifestation of forms by spiritual beings' - it cannot be likened to your willfully manifesting ideas into perceived forms in LD/OBE. It will take some time, patience, and effort to carefully follow the reasoning for why it is incorrect and inwardly work it through. That is what is lacking here. The reasoning is being provided - again, we don't just say "you do it wrong". Cleric especially takes great pains to illustrate the flaws in the approach, in the most diverse ways.

I quote something from Steiner about maintaining consciousness during sleep to discern what processes we experience across the threshold and how those influence our waking soul-life. At this point, you can say (a) 'that is unfamiliar to me, so I will ask questions to clarify whether this is similar to LD/OBE experience or something altogether different and where the differences reside', or (b) 'that must be exactly what I already know from my LD/OBE experience and I have gone even deeper than whatever he is speaking about'. You invariably choose (b) on these threads. Then you feel insulted, attacked, etc. when we question all the presumptions underlying (b), which would not have been made if you had simply chosen (a).

[Stranger]

It is incorrect, Eugene. That is not the 'mechanism of manifestation of forms by spiritual beings' - it cannot be likened to your willfully manifesting ideas into perceived forms in LD/OBE. It will take some time, patience, and effort to carefully follow the reasoning for why it is incorrect and inwardly work it through. That is what is lacking here. The reasoning is being provided - again, we don't just say "you do it wrong". Cleric especially takes great pains to illustrate the flaws in the approach, in the most diverse ways.

Right, you guys do not want us to know about our divine creative powers and want us to believe that we are helpless beings in need to submit to the hierarchy and the only way we can gain access to the cosmic structures is through your hierarchy. I astral travel and I can see what happens behind the curtains.

“I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.' (Psalm 82:6)

[Anthony66]

So once again we see that the only way out is to know the higher being whose activity decoheres as it contacts the soul imagery and feels itself as a thinking self.

I've been pondering this statement all afternoon. Can you please provide some clarifications on: is "higher being" a referent to a single being or higher levels of being; and what "feels itself", the higher being or our thinking united with the higher being?

[Anthony66]

Anthony, please tell me how one should interpret a statement like this:





To me, it is more evident than evident who has one-sidedly been repeating things like:
- I am giving up on you
- I will stop replying to you
- I will leave the forum any moment
- You are a liar, you are arrogant, sectarian, …

There are numerous quotes that could be reported on the above. Conversely, I don’t remember Ashvin or Cleric ever giving up on anyone, calling people names, or threatening to do this or that. Do you? Or do you mean that I did that? Not even one question or post has been left pending from their side, or addressed rudely. So I have difficulties getting how you are receiving such impressions. Who is advocating giving up on anyone? It’s as if we were reading two different forums. Of course, I agree that understanding SS cannot be likened to learning a game of card. It's a path that extends not only across years, but most likely across multiple life cycles, and there is certainly no expectation that one would progress at a fast pace. I think this is clearly reflected in how tirelessly the topics have been addressed by Cleric and Ashvin, again and again, from many different angles, every time with unchanged availability and patience.

It was you who wrote:

Ashvin, I know, you were offering yet another concrete and well substantiated illustration to help. My point is that, at this stage, it's very likely to be useless. Let's even say, I am convinced it's useless, and maybe even counterproductive. You and Cleric have been offering countless posts, pages and pages and pages of insightful illustrations. Every post is like a pristine lake, in which reflection the intellectual arrangements jubilate and take delight in admiring themselves, without ever dipping not even the little finger, let alone letting the substance of the waters purify and inflow understanding.
I am still happy and thankful for all your attempts, insofar as they are precious for us who are interested in improving our understanding, but as far as Eugene's position goes, they defeat the purpose of helping him make any progress. As you recently noticed, he has not changed one iota in his beliefs since last year. So, unfortunately, people are not "interested in now understanding what it means more precisely, even if they didn't earlier or contradicted themselves". The pattern of these exchanges has now continued for long, and it is repeating itself ad nauseam. Enough is enough. Evidently, it's not possible to build anything at all, before the old constructions are dismantled. So the only way is to bring to the surface and under the spotlight, the continuously overlooked contradictions. It has to be made incontrovertible how one is crushed by his own abstract concepts, as soon as they are made the foundation of beliefs of choice that remain in the blind spot, taken for higher revelations. Dismantling is gross and not fun, still it is necessary groundwork. I can do it, it's unskilled work, that doesn't require much competence or expertise.

On closer inspection, you are advocating not providing substantial responses to Eugene anymore. Rather, suggesting his posts are only worthy of being dismantled and by an unskilled worker with no expertise. This is not conducive to a fruitful environment and is disrespectful and demeaning.

Not really, Anthony. Responses focused on contextual internal contradictions - which I was advocating to prioritize - are still “substantial responses”, at least from the perspective of the one who thinks of Anthroposophy what Eugene thinks, as per his own statements, which is the only perspective that counts, in this context. By the way, have you noticed my subsequent replies to Eugene? They should dispel any doubt that I was advocating to stop providing substantial responses.
Simply put, my opinion is that continuing to offer Eugene extensive, far-reaching illustrations of a territory that he has repeated, again and again, that he is not interested in exploring, can become counterproductive, because it risks to dilute the exchanges, especially when there are compelling contradictions standing in the way, that I think should be tackled first. Evidently, this is only my opinion, that Cleric and Ashvin clearly don’t share.
Regarding the dismantling - absolutely: my hope is that by tackling the contradictions, they can be brought into consideration and therefore dismantled, before any new construction, or progression in the search for truth can be pursued. How is this demeaning in any sense? And yes, the skills that Ashvin and Cleric possess and that I do not - those who come from a way more advanced position on the path - are not required, in my opinion, to point out logical or psychological contradictions in Eugene’s discourse, as I have attempted to do over the last few days or weeks. Of course, some skills are still required, so it was an exaggeration on my part to speak of unskilled work, but I hope it’s clear (and I guess it was to Eugene) I was referring to the specific senses and skills that are developed along the path of living thinking. Eugene himself seems to not see any problem in discussing his points with people who do not have Anthroposophical skills, nor does he seem to have taken offense to that specific statement of mine. So why do you take offense on his behalf?

I take offense on two fronts. The first is the growing disrespectful tone towards Eugene, particularly evident in the paragraph I've highlighted. The second is more personal - I view this forum as precious in my life, one which has been quite transformative. I resist any efforts to close down conversation fronts because someone "is not getting it" or is perceived to be resistant.

[AshvinP]

It is incorrect, Eugene. That is not the 'mechanism of manifestation of forms by spiritual beings' - it cannot be likened to your willfully manifesting ideas into perceived forms in LD/OBE. It will take some time, patience, and effort to carefully follow the reasoning for why it is incorrect and inwardly work it through. That is what is lacking here. The reasoning is being provided - again, we don't just say "you do it wrong". Cleric especially takes great pains to illustrate the flaws in the approach, in the most diverse ways.

Right, you guys do not want us to know about our divine creative powers and want us to believe that we are helpless beings in need to submit to the hierarchy and the only way we can gain access to the cosmic structures is through your hierarchy. I astral travel and I can see what happens behind the curtains.

“I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.' (Psalm 82:6)

Right, so the talk of "negativity", and "learning and evolving", etc. was all pretense to hide the actual source of your reactions - unending pride in your current level of knowledge from 'astral travel', which you equate with the highest Divine knowledge to be attained on Earth. Anything which questions the absoluteness of your current knowledge and freedom of your soul-atomic state, by delving into the precise relations of spiritual activity to physical sensory experience, will be ignored based on various pretenses. Like Cleric already said, you jumped from naive realism of the senses into naive realism of spiritual experience and believe the latter is completely pure and unadulterated. It is easy to see why no learning is possible in such an idolatrous state.

Once again we see, as soon as the living details of soul-spirit processes are explored, something arises from within your subconscious which ensures the exploration won't continue (just like the Kantian divide for the analytic or mystical idealist). Your 'true light' hierarchy convinces you it is more progressive and freeing to live in ignorance of these precise relations on Earth than to unveil them. Does that make any sense? Obviously not. Anyone who makes it through the phenomenology of PoF, also illustrated many times on this forum, with some inward relation to what is written will understand the glaring flaw here immediately. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, as they say.

[Stranger]

Right, so the talk of "negativity", and "learning and evolving", etc. was all pretense to hide the actual source of your reactions - unending pride in your current level of knowledge from 'astral travel', which you equate with the highest Divine knowledge to be attained on Earth.

Not at all, astral is actually pretty low level of knowledge quite far down from the Divine realms, but this is where we can start learning to use our manifestation powers, understand how manifested realities work and how we manifest our astral bodies. That's why I don't do much of the LD/OBE practice anymore, I already learnt what is there to learn.

But anyway, this is another example how you immediately project your misinterpretations of what other people say and mean. The more you do it this way, the more you damage the people's trust in what you say, you are shooting yourself into the foot.

[AshvinP]

Right, so the talk of "negativity", and "learning and evolving", etc. was all pretense to hide the actual source of your reactions - unending pride in your current level of knowledge from 'astral travel', which you equate with the highest Divine knowledge to be attained on Earth.

Not at all, astral is actually pretty low level of knowledge quite far down from the Divine realms, but this is where we can start learning to use our manifestation powers, understand how manifested realities work and how we manifest our astral bodies. That's why I don't do much of the LD/OBE practice anymore, I already learnt what is there to learn. But anyway, this is another example how you immediately project your misinterpretations of what other people say and mean. You know, people are not blind idiots, they can see So the more you do it this way, the more you damage the people's trust in what you say, you are shooting yourself into the foot.

The astral vehicle is manifested through the combined work of the hierarchies (including humans) which unfolded over many incarnations, consisting in the perfection of our WFT soul-capacities accomplished while on Earth. It isn't something we will into existence before birth like a watchmaker who has the idea of a watch and mechanically manifests it to use and discard before manifesting another one (or deciding not to manifest it anymore). What is embedded in your astral vehicle now is the result of that entire evolutionary process which will continue after your current incarnation - your soul-work right now will feedback into the quality of your next astral vehicle. At our current stage, humans have the responsibility of attaining immortality (continuity of consciousness) for the astral body through our gradually perfected spiritual activity.

Basically your refusal to actually develop higher cognition, by enlivening and ennobling normal thinking activity, or at least be open to the possibility that it is necessary for higher understanding, leaves you projecting materialistic ways of thinking into your experiences of the spiritual worlds. So yet again you confirm that you are confusing a cognitive misunderstanding for the highest level of understanding to be attained from experience, 'already learnt what is there to learn'. Please, Eugene, try to muster some humility and see that not everything of spiritual insight is already contained in front of your current perspective. There is a whole Universe of unsuspected details which will revolutionize your understanding of who you are and how to optimize your stream of becoming into the spiritual Cosmos.

[Federica]

I take offense on two fronts. The first is the growing disrespectful tone towards Eugene, particularly evident in the paragraph I've highlighted. The second is more personal - I view this forum as precious in my life, one which has been quite transformative. I resist any efforts to close down conversation fronts because someone "is not getting it" or is perceived to be resistant.

Anthony,

Regarding the first front of offense you are taking, I would like to ask you what it means to take offense by proxy, or on behalf of someone else, because it’s a feeling I have difficulties understanding. Maybe you had a private conversation with Eugene, when he shared that he was offended, and you sympathize with him? Or maybe you didn’t, and you are offended that he didn’t seem to be offended? In case he did not feel offended, what would your feeling consist of? I am not sure, please explain. Also, I wonder: were you offended on behalf of Ashvin, when he was called a liar, arrogant, and so on? Were you offended on behalf of Jordan Peterson, when the journalist was expressing confrontational viewpoints to him (if you have checked the video)?


Regarding the second front of offense you speak of, when you take personal offense to my “efforts to close down conversation fronts”, it seems that my previous post has gone completely unregistered. By the way, in your view, could an hypothetical sympathizer of mine feel offended on my behalf for this side-tracking? I wonder. Maybe you have noticed that I never ignore, and always reply to all posts that are addressed to me (in an open-ended way, of course). The same cannot be said of, for example, you. Does that mean that you are blocking conversations in this way? I would say, it doesn’t mean that - what do you think? Still, you are arguing that I am blocking conversation fronts, despite the fact that I continue writing substantial replies... Well, as it seems, factfulness and objectivity are suffering here.

Also, one could ask, why are you not doing much - or anything at all to be precise - to try and keep that conversation front open - yeah, that front that I am “closing off”, supposing it can be identified, you must know which one. Why don’t you contribute yourself to keeping your topics of interest open, with factual comments or questions, now that they are "threatened"? Could it be that you prefer to rely on Eugene’s ability to profusely comment and respond, and you are now afraid he won’t be providing anymore? Could this be the source of your feeling of offense? I am wondering, because, again, this transitive property that you apply to "feeling offended" remains quite incomprehensible to me.

At this rate, I could just as well feel offended on behalf of my Danish friends, because of this:

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, as they say.

I don’t get that in 2023 people keep propagating non-inclusive, discriminatory sayings of this sort, when there are so many other ways to say the exact same thing that don’t require offending the very nice Danish people, and me with them, so casually and insensitively.