Anthroposophy for Dummies

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,
Are not manas buddi and atma the transformed bodies (etheric, astral and physical) through the work of the "I"?
Would it be correct to divide the "I" into three parts (the three soul members), or does the I reside in these soul members?

Jung's technique of active imagination provides awareness in the realm of dreams. In which area would this world, which one enters through active imagination, fall in Steiner's model?
Are the beings and images that appear in the subconscious elementary beings and if so, do they also live in the etheric realm?

Guney,

The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower. At the metaphysical level, there is nothing but the "I"-force. All bodily and soul forms are reflections and transformations of the "I". The formless I-force then makes use of these finished or almost finished forms, often many at the same time, to accomplish its purpose of inner moral perfection through cognitive awakening. Humans are now at the stage at which they have dimly awakened to the reality of their essential I-force and can progressively unveil its deeper layers. The deeper layers are experienced-understood as more and more transpersonal, encompassing broader spheres of beings and their activity. We could refer to this whole complex of organic relations within the I as the I-organism. This organism encompasses the Whole of existence from humanity through the higher hierarchies to the Godhead.

The manifest forms themselves should be understood as something like encrusted habits of spiritual activity. That includes the entire material world surrounding us and our dense body drawn from that world. It also includes the plant kingdom and our vital body and the animal kingdom and our lower astral body. These are habits developed over many millennia by the I-organism to accomplish past intents related to physical and cultural development. They were necessary habits to cultivate for that development but now they also work in opposition to our higher awakening of the I-organism, i.e. the spiritualization of the cultural (soul) and the physical (body). They are like archaeological and geological layers through which we must dig to recover their spiritual essence. The digging, in this case, comes first from steering our I-consciousness through the psyche, making inner sacrifices of the lower personality that has formed habitual attachments to the cultural and physical context. We still need to rely on the collective habitual forms of culture and nature for some time, however, we can begin spiritualizing (or purifying) our own localized soul forms right now. 

The inner nature of the dream world is what Steiner and other esotericists refer to as the astral world, which is the realm of psychic forces. When we are able to purify the lower psychic forces, develop imagination, and thereby awaken within the dream world, we are then participating within a higher level of the I-organism that is called Manas in Steiner's terminology. Manas is the transformed astral body Into its spiritual counterpart.  Now our "I"-force is no longer habituated to past conditions, but is consciously and creatively participating in the manifestation of future conditions in our own organism and that of humanity as a whole. We are then participating in the progressive redemption of human culture and the natural kingdoms. If we are also able to awaken during dreamless sleep and even deeper sleep, then we are working on transforming the etheric and physical bodies into Buddhi and Atma. Then we are creatively working on transforming the Earth as a whole. I think it's clear that Jung saw this general archetypal progression taking place and knew that the human soul structure is also a localized image of the Cosmic structure, i.e. that working on the former is also a means of comprehending the latter. However, Steiner fleshed out the details of this progression much further through rigorous esoteric training and attunement with the Christ impulse.

This is confusing.
In Steiner's Outline of Occult Science, Steiner describes that our ego is supposed to work on our lower members. Doesn't that imply that the members of our being are separate but work together in harmony?
You say, "The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower." That completely messes up my understanding of esoteric human nature, could you explain in more detail what you mean?
The "I" is the reason that our perceptions and feelings of dreams... are related to ourselves and not simply perceptions that pointlessly pass by trough consciousness. Even memory shouldn't exist without our "I", because what should the memory refer to?
Daskalos says that our "I" expresses itself through our constitutional members.
Is that what you mean with your quoted statement?

Guney,

That is true, but to be honest, I don't think it's particularly helpful to categorize these things into a rigid conceptual schema. It's great and necessary to read through Occult Science and such to get a feel for the relationships between the body members, soul members, and spiritual members, but only if we are also willing to keep this fluid and allow them to fall away when we are seeking the inner experience to which the conceptual labels are pointing. You are surely at the stage where it is still most helpful to schematically conceptualize the human organization as a means for stimulating your spiritual activity, but when you feel confusion setting in from different descriptions or terminology etc., as it inevitably will, you should also keep in mind that the schematics will have to be sacrificed by the intellect to open the door to an intuitive experience of that organization. It is only through such experience that we overcome the confusion and can work with all sorts of different labels for the same inner realities. The following passage may be helpful.

Those of us who succeed in developing the love for truth cannot fail at any given moment to move onto interaction as an essentially presupposed practice. However, precisely such action, if decisively carried out first, inevitably leads outside the dialectics [conceptual schema] by means of which it arises. It delineates an experience of the spirit that must leave behind the representations that stimulated it;  traditional representations are like the boat of Buddha's discourse, which makes no sense for ascetics to bear on their shoulders once the river has been crossed;  that boat is then useful only for turning back.

If we want to speak of the I-force very simply, then we could say that it is the means by which we carry out our own willed intents, in contrast to those of external powers of nature and culture. When you get hungry, you are driven to find food and eat something, but this is experienced as an external force of nature rather than your own willed intent. If you are learning to drive, the state requires you to pass certain exams so that you are licensed. That is experienced as less of a compulsive force than the natural drive to eat, but it still can't be experienced as arising solely within your own willed intent. There are other extraneous factors that pushed you in that direction. When you are confronted with the choice to help a stranger who has fallen down on the street or to simply walk by that person, and you choose to stop and help him, that is experienced as arising completely within your own will informed by conscience. It is that sort of moral decision that is the expression of your genuine I-force. The reason for emphasizing that the I is formless is to highlight how our concept of our I is not identical to the I-force itself. We all bear a concept of our I-force, our center of gravity, that is comprised of our desires, wishes, feelings, memories, and so forth. That concept refers us to the center of gravity but should not be confused for it. We can distinguish the concept by calling it our "personality" while calling the actual center of gravity our "individuality".

What Jung and Steiner were most interested in was directing souls towards the inner experience of their individuality, which is generally unknown to us during the course of normal life. The personality that is known to us can be said to revolve around this unknown individuality (or Self/Atma) just like our desires, emotions, and thoughts revolve around our sense of personality. Why is our individuality unknown to us? That is because we are only conscious of its expression through one of our constitutional members i.e. the dense body and its sensory system including the brain. The personality is the individuality expressed entirely within the isolated physical context. If we were to become conscious through our vital body (imagination - Manas), however, the individuality would know itself within a broader context. That context is referred to Steiner as a "time-organism" rather than a fragmented spatial organism. We then grasp the fragmented spatial frames of existence as something whole like a musical melody. If we become conscious through our astral body (inspiration - Buddhi), then the individuality knows itself within an even broader context that is beyond spatiotemporality as we experience it. And if we become conscious through the I-itself, then our individuality knows its true inner essence (intuition - Atma). 

So the individuality certainly expresses itself through our constitutional members, but we should also be clear that our personality concept is one of those members. The latter veils the inner essence of our individuality yet we can utilize the force of that individuality to unwind the layers of the personality that has been built up around it, like layers of clothing or masks. We start by undressing the psychic tendencies that were put on over our individuality most recently, like our modern opinions, assumptions, beliefs about 'reality', and our personalized emotions and desires. That is what Steiner is referring to when he says that the Ego-I can work on our lower members. It first works on purifying the personality so that we can awaken more fully to its inner essence, which takes us beyond the experiential confines of our physical context and inwardly unites us with broader spheres of beings. Our individuality is always comprised by and working with these broader spheres of beings, but when we are unconscious of that work, it becomes inefficient and disharmonious. Just like our physical body needs to be in proper health for our personality to utilize it in fulfilling various earthly tasks, our personality needs to be properly purified for the individuality to utilize it in fulfilling higher Cosmic ideals of human existence in harmonious concert with other beings.

[Federica]

Wehr's conclusions on Steiner and Jung appear arbitrary in the light of the letter Jung wrote to Frau Patzelt in 1935. He says:

- "I have found nothing in them [RS books] that is of the slightest use to me";

- "I am not interested at all in what can be speculated about experience without any proof"; and, icing on the cake:

- "So long as Steiner is or was not able to understand the Hittite inscriptions yet understood the language of Atlantis which nobody knows existed, there is no reason to get excited about anything that Herr Steiner has said".

I don't know how Tomberg speaks of Jung, however this letter reminds me of what you said here about Jung and others being very unfamiliar with vertical thinking and higher cognition.

I actually quoted a passage from the intro by Sardello, whereas I should have quoted something from Wehr himself. He certainly did not intend to discount or downplay the differences between Jung and Steiner or force some equation of approach between them. It is a very nuanced and carefully considered book, focusing not only the content of their thought-systems but the whole set of circumstances of that pivotal time in spiritual evolution in which inner investigation became more rigorous and empirical and systematic. Here is a passage that addresses what you are pointing to in the above letter. I do think it's clear that Jung was not familiar enough with the experiential reality of intuitive thinking to recognize it as the source of Steiner's research and therefore he dismissed the latter as mostly speculative fantasy and then completely lost interest. That is another reason why I would say Jung self-awakened into some imaginative capacity, mostly from profound childhood experiences, but did not progress further to inspiration or intuition through any spiritual training. Nevertheless, in my view, our task should always be considered one of integrating what is essentially common within various systems and approaches rather than exacerbating their divisions, which has surely been taken care of by the Anthroposophists and depth psychologists of the 20th century.

Steiner and Jung never had any immediate exchange of ideas during their lifetime, although they were contemporaries for half a century (from 1875, Jung's birth year, to 1925, Steiner's death year), and lived in close proximity to each other. The Anthroposophist and the depth psychologist each speak a language that is by nature foreign to the representative of the other discipline; but aside from the technical differences in their fields, there are definitely other factors that reinforced their distance. Steiner mentioned psychoanalysis and analytic psychology in some of his lectures. He also occasionally spoke of Jung as a scientist, but never did so in the thorough and detailed manner that would have been desirable. This occurred at a time when Jung's psychology was just beginning to distinguish itself from Freud's older psychoanalysis and to come into its own. Jung on his part mentions Anthroposophy several times and refers to Steiner without showing any interest in him. One gets the impression that the circumspect depth psychologist Jung ignored the essence and significance of Anthroposophy. One can conclude this because Anthroposophy is mentioned on occasion in one breath, without any differentiation, with the Anglo-Indian Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky or with Christian Science. This is surprising and unfortunate, especially since Jung outlived Steiner for three and a half decades, and could have had occasion to observe the activities of the Anthroposophical Society from nearby.

Wehr, Gerhard. Jung and Steiner (p. 38). SteinerBooks. Kindle Edition.

I don't doubt there is much attentive consideration and future orientation in Wehr's book, and have no intention to criticize it. To be honest, I find the content and tone of Jung's letter quite disappointing, and even difficult to put in context against the background of Jung's contribution to modern thought. It seems to me practically impossible that Jung was not familiar enough with "the experiential reality of intuitive thinking" given the works he wrote, especially his later ones. But he was either not awake in those imaginations or, as you say, he self-awakened in those - thus necessarily grasping the worth of Steiner's research - but in any case remained worried about saving the appearances of showing up on the psychoanalytical scene as an empiricist, a scientist, and above all, not a philosopher (as BK convincingly expressed in his book on Jung). In any case, I believe he was offended by certain evaluations Steiner made of his early works within psycho-analysis - described by Steiner as dilettantism squared - and he was still under the effect of that feeling in 1935, more than a decade later, when he wrote the above passive-aggressive comments.

It is interesting, though, what a point this psycho-analytic, dilettante method of investigation has reached to-day. With Jung, particularly, it is extremely interesting. Jung has found out, that down below, — the ‘down below’ can't, of course, be very exactly determined, but somewhere down below (its whole being is after all very indeterminate!), — that somewhere then, man has within his being everything in the nature of undigested experience that he may have lived through since his birth; that there, down below, within his human being, he has all sorts of things, that go back to his early forefathers, that may take us back indeed all the way through the life-experiences of the various races, and further back still. So that it seems to the psycho-specialists to-day by no means improbable, for instance, that some experience which they met with, like the OEdipus problem say, in Greece, left an impression on the people; and that then it was transmitted by heredity, on and on. And to-day some poor devil comes to the psycho-analyst's clinic, and he psycho-analyses him, and gets up something that is seated so deep down in the patient, that it doesn't come out of his own, present life, but from his father and forefather and fore-forefather, and so on, away back to the time of the ancient Greeks who lived in the days of the OEdipus problem. And so it has run down through the whole blood-stream, and can be psycho-analysed out again to-day. There are the OEdipus sensations, rumbling about in the man, and can be psycho-analyzed out of him. And then they think that they will come on really very interesting trains of connection, and on something that will lead back far into the races, if they psycho-analyse it out.

Only, — you see, — these are altogether dilettante methods of investigating. For you only need a little acquaintance with Anthroposophy to know, that it is possible to bring up a very great many things out of the under depths of man's life: his pre-natal life to begin with, his pre-earthly life, what the man went through before he came down into the physical world; that one can bring up out of him what he went through in previous earth-lives. There one comes out of dilettanteism and into actual reality!

And there, too, one comes to recognize, that in Man the whole secret of the Universe is contained, involved, rolled up together, as it were, in him. It was the view, after all, of ancient times as well, that the secret of the Universe is un-rolled, when Man brings up from within him all that lies hid in his own inner depths. That was why they called Man a Microcosm, not for the sake of a fine phrase, such as people are so fond of to-day, but because it was a fact of actual experience, that from the bottom depths of Man every conceivable thing can be fetched up whatsoever, that lies spread as a secret through the width and breadth of the Cosmos.

It is in reality the merest elementary dilettanteism, which one finds to-day as psycho-analysis. For, firstly, it is psychologic dilettanteism, — they don't know, that, when you get to a certain depth, physical and spiritual life are one. They merely regard the soul-life swimming on the top, and apply abstract notions to this surface soul-life; they never get down to those lower depths, where the soul-life lives creative, weaving, pulsing in blood and in breathing, where it is one, in fact, with the so-called material functions. They study the soul's life in a dilettante way. And again, they study the physical life in a dilettante way, inasmuch as they study it merely in its external appearance to the senses, and don't know that everywhere, in all sense-life, and above all in the human organism, there is hidden spirit.

And when two dilettanteisms are so interwoven, that the one is used to throw light on the other, as is done in psycho-analysis, then the dilettanteisms do not merely add, but they multiply together, and one gets dilettanteism squared.

[AshvinP]

I don't doubt there is much attentive consideration and future orientation in Wehr's book, and have no intention to criticize it. To be honest, I find the content and tone of Jung's letter quite disappointing, and even difficult to put in context against the background of Jung's contribution to modern thought. It seems to me practically impossible that Jung was not familiar enough with "the experiential reality of intuitive thinking" given the works he wrote, especially his later ones. But he was either not awake in those imaginations or, as you say, he self-awakened in those - thus necessarily grasping the worth of Steiner's research - but in any case remained worried about saving the appearances of showing up on the psychoanalytical scene as an empiricist, a scientist, and above all, not a philosopher (as BK convincingly expressed in his book on Jung). In any case, I believe he was offended by certain evaluations Steiner made of his early works within psycho-analysis - described by Steiner as dilettantism squared - and he was still under the effect of that feeling in 1935, more than a decade later, when he wrote the above passive-aggressive comments.

It is interesting, though, what a point this psycho-analytic, dilettante method of investigation has reached to-day. With Jung, particularly, it is extremely interesting. Jung has found out, that down below, — the ‘down below’ can't, of course, be very exactly determined, but somewhere down below (its whole being is after all very indeterminate!), — that somewhere then, man has within his being everything in the nature of undigested experience that he may have lived through since his birth; that there, down below, within his human being, he has all sorts of things, that go back to his early forefathers, that may take us back indeed all the way through the life-experiences of the various races, and further back still. So that it seems to the psycho-specialists to-day by no means improbable, for instance, that some experience which they met with, like the OEdipus problem say, in Greece, left an impression on the people; and that then it was transmitted by heredity, on and on. And to-day some poor devil comes to the psycho-analyst's clinic, and he psycho-analyses him, and gets up something that is seated so deep down in the patient, that it doesn't come out of his own, present life, but from his father and forefather and fore-forefather, and so on, away back to the time of the ancient Greeks who lived in the days of the OEdipus problem. And so it has run down through the whole blood-stream, and can be psycho-analysed out again to-day. There are the OEdipus sensations, rumbling about in the man, and can be psycho-analyzed out of him. And then they think that they will come on really very interesting trains of connection, and on something that will lead back far into the races, if they psycho-analyse it out.

Only, — you see, — these are altogether dilettante methods of investigating. For you only need a little acquaintance with Anthroposophy to know, that it is possible to bring up a very great many things out of the under depths of man's life: his pre-natal life to begin with, his pre-earthly life, what the man went through before he came down into the physical world; that one can bring up out of him what he went through in previous earth-lives. There one comes out of dilettanteism and into actual reality!

And there, too, one comes to recognize, that in Man the whole secret of the Universe is contained, involved, rolled up together, as it were, in him. It was the view, after all, of ancient times as well, that the secret of the Universe is un-rolled, when Man brings up from within him all that lies hid in his own inner depths. That was why they called Man a Microcosm, not for the sake of a fine phrase, such as people are so fond of to-day, but because it was a fact of actual experience, that from the bottom depths of Man every conceivable thing can be fetched up whatsoever, that lies spread as a secret through the width and breadth of the Cosmos.

It is in reality the merest elementary dilettanteism, which one finds to-day as psycho-analysis. For, firstly, it is psychologic dilettanteism, — they don't know, that, when you get to a certain depth, physical and spiritual life are one. They merely regard the soul-life swimming on the top, and apply abstract notions to this surface soul-life; they never get down to those lower depths, where the soul-life lives creative, weaving, pulsing in blood and in breathing, where it is one, in fact, with the so-called material functions. They study the soul's life in a dilettante way. And again, they study the physical life in a dilettante way, inasmuch as they study it merely in its external appearance to the senses, and don't know that everywhere, in all sense-life, and above all in the human organism, there is hidden spirit.

And when two dilettanteisms are so interwoven, that the one is used to throw light on the other, as is done in psycho-analysis, then the dilettanteisms do not merely add, but they multiply together, and one gets dilettanteism squared.

It would have been great to attend the lectures where such sentences were spoken

To Steiner's credit, he did notice the significant difference between Freud and Jung and came quite close to giving the latter complements. And that was still in Jung's earliest days when he had just begun to separate out from Freud. I think he would have been even more impressed if he had witnessed Jung's later research and commentary, which indeed suggests that the Gods/Spirits are real, autonomous beings of the sub-super consciousness. We agree, though, that Jung simply couldn't recognize the spiritual scientific method of Steiner. One can develop a basic imaginative faculty and even perceive clairvoyant visions, but lacking training for inspiration and intuition, remain oblivious that the spiritual beings behind such imaginations can be communed with for objective revelations according to Divine purposes, as it also was in ancient times.

Now this subconscious lust for power leads very easily to hysterical conditions. Adler investigated the cases at his disposal from this particular standpoint, and found everywhere when hysterical symptoms appeared that somehow the lust for power had been aroused and driven into unhealthy extremes. Jung said to himself: “Oh well, one cannot say that Freud is wrong; what he observed is there, and one cannot say that Adler is wrong; what he observed is also there. So it is probably sometimes one way, and sometimes the other!”

That is quite reasonable; it is sometimes one way and sometimes another. But Jung built upon this a special theory. This theory is not uninteresting if you do not take it abstractly, simply as a theory, but see in it instead the action of our present-day impulses, especially the feebleness of our present knowledge and its inadequacy. Jung says: there are two types of people. In one type feeling is more developed, in the other thinking.

Thus an “epoch-making” discovery was made by a great scholar. It was something that any reasonable man could make for himself within his own immediate environment, for the fact that men are divided into thinking men and feeling men is sufficiently obvious. But scholarship has a different task: it must not regard anything as a layman would, and simply say: in our environment there are two types of people, feeling people and intellectuals — it must add something to that. Scholarship says in such a case: the one who feels his way into things sends out his own force into objectivity; the other draws back from an object, or halts before it and considers. The first is called the extroverted type, the other the introverted. The first would be the feeling man, the second the intellectual one. This is a learned division, is it not? ingenious, brilliant, really descriptive up to a point — that is not to be denied!
...
If you consider this subconscious element (made up of innumerable details), you get the personal or individual subconsciousness. This is the first of Jung's differentiations.

But the second is the superpersonal subconsciousness. He says: There are things affecting the soul life which are neither in the personality nor in the matter of the outside world, and which must be assumed therefore as present in a soul world.
...
Jung however goes so far as to assert that the gods, to whom man is unconsciously related, become angry and revenge themselves, this revenge showing itself as hysteria. Very well, it amounts then to this: such a present-day man who is mistreated by a demon in his subconscious mind, does not know that there are demons, and cannot achieve any conscious relation with them because — that is superstition! What does the poor modern man do then, if he becomes ill from this cause? He projects it outwardly, that is to say he looks up some friend whom he had liked quite well, and says: This is the one who is persecuting and abusing me! He feels this to be true, which means that he has a demon which torments him, and so projects it into another man.

[Federica]

(...)

It is interesting, though, what a point this psycho-analytic, dilettante method of investigation has reached to-day. With Jung, particularly, it is extremely interesting. Jung has found out, that down below, — the ‘down below’ can't, of course, be very exactly determined, but somewhere down below (its whole being is after all very indeterminate!), — that somewhere then, man has within his being everything in the nature of undigested experience that he may have lived through since his birth; that there, down below, within his human being, he has all sorts of things, that go back to his early forefathers, that may take us back indeed all the way through the life-experiences of the various races, and further back still. So that it seems to the psycho-specialists to-day by no means improbable, for instance, that some experience which they met with, like the OEdipus problem say, in Greece, left an impression on the people; and that then it was transmitted by heredity, on and on. And to-day some poor devil comes to the psycho-analyst's clinic, and he psycho-analyses him, and gets up something that is seated so deep down in the patient, that it doesn't come out of his own, present life, but from his father and forefather and fore-forefather, and so on, away back to the time of the ancient Greeks who lived in the days of the OEdipus problem. And so it has run down through the whole blood-stream, and can be psycho-analysed out again to-day. There are the OEdipus sensations, rumbling about in the man, and can be psycho-analyzed out of him. And then they think that they will come on really very interesting trains of connection, and on something that will lead back far into the races, if they psycho-analyse it out.

Only, — you see, — these are altogether dilettante methods of investigating. For you only need a little acquaintance with Anthroposophy to know, that it is possible to bring up a very great many things out of the under depths of man's life: his pre-natal life to begin with, his pre-earthly life, what the man went through before he came down into the physical world; that one can bring up out of him what he went through in previous earth-lives. There one comes out of dilettanteism and into actual reality!

And there, too, one comes to recognize, that in Man the whole secret of the Universe is contained, involved, rolled up together, as it were, in him. It was the view, after all, of ancient times as well, that the secret of the Universe is un-rolled, when Man brings up from within him all that lies hid in his own inner depths. That was why they called Man a Microcosm, not for the sake of a fine phrase, such as people are so fond of to-day, but because it was a fact of actual experience, that from the bottom depths of Man every conceivable thing can be fetched up whatsoever, that lies spread as a secret through the width and breadth of the Cosmos.

It is in reality the merest elementary dilettanteism, which one finds to-day as psycho-analysis. For, firstly, it is psychologic dilettanteism, — they don't know, that, when you get to a certain depth, physical and spiritual life are one. They merely regard the soul-life swimming on the top, and apply abstract notions to this surface soul-life; they never get down to those lower depths, where the soul-life lives creative, weaving, pulsing in blood and in breathing, where it is one, in fact, with the so-called material functions. They study the soul's life in a dilettante way. And again, they study the physical life in a dilettante way, inasmuch as they study it merely in its external appearance to the senses, and don't know that everywhere, in all sense-life, and above all in the human organism, there is hidden spirit.

And when two dilettanteisms are so interwoven, that the one is used to throw light on the other, as is done in psycho-analysis, then the dilettanteisms do not merely add, but they multiply together, and one gets dilettanteism squared.

It would have been great to attend the lectures where such sentences were spoken

For sure! But we are almost doing it by reviving them now. After all, we can't exclude that we were there

To Steiner's credit, he did notice the significant difference between Freud and Jung and came quite close to giving the latter complements. And that was still in Jung's earliest days when he had just begun to separate out from Freud. I think he would have been even more impressed if he had witnessed Jung's later research and commentary, which indeed suggests that the Gods/Spirits are real, autonomous beings of the sub-super consciousness.

Yes, I agree.

We agree, though, that Jung simply couldn't recognize the spiritual scientific method of Steiner. One can develop a basic imaginative faculty and even perceive clairvoyant visions, but lacking training for inspiration and intuition, remain oblivious that the spiritual beings behind such imaginations can be communed with for objective revelations according to Divine purposes, as it also was in ancient times.

Now this subconscious lust for power leads very easily to hysterical conditions. Adler investigated the cases at his disposal from this particular standpoint, and found everywhere when hysterical symptoms appeared that somehow the lust for power had been aroused and driven into unhealthy extremes. Jung said to himself: “Oh well, one cannot say that Freud is wrong; what he observed is there, and one cannot say that Adler is wrong; what he observed is also there. So it is probably sometimes one way, and sometimes the other!”

That is quite reasonable; it is sometimes one way and sometimes another. But Jung built upon this a special theory. This theory is not uninteresting if you do not take it abstractly, simply as a theory, but see in it instead the action of our present-day impulses, especially the feebleness of our present knowledge and its inadequacy. Jung says: there are two types of people. In one type feeling is more developed, in the other thinking.

Thus an “epoch-making” discovery was made by a great scholar. It was something that any reasonable man could make for himself within his own immediate environment, for the fact that men are divided into thinking men and feeling men is sufficiently obvious. But scholarship has a different task: it must not regard anything as a layman would, and simply say: in our environment there are two types of people, feeling people and intellectuals — it must add something to that. Scholarship says in such a case: the one who feels his way into things sends out his own force into objectivity; the other draws back from an object, or halts before it and considers. The first is called the extroverted type, the other the introverted. The first would be the feeling man, the second the intellectual one. This is a learned division, is it not? ingenious, brilliant, really descriptive up to a point — that is not to be denied!
...
If you consider this subconscious element (made up of innumerable details), you get the personal or individual subconsciousness. This is the first of Jung's differentiations.

But the second is the superpersonal subconsciousness. He says: There are things affecting the soul life which are neither in the personality nor in the matter of the outside world, and which must be assumed therefore as present in a soul world.
...
Jung however goes so far as to assert that the gods, to whom man is unconsciously related, become angry and revenge themselves, this revenge showing itself as hysteria. Very well, it amounts then to this: such a present-day man who is mistreated by a demon in his subconscious mind, does not know that there are demons, and cannot achieve any conscious relation with them because — that is superstition! What does the poor modern man do then, if he becomes ill from this cause? He projects it outwardly, that is to say he looks up some friend whom he had liked quite well, and says: This is the one who is persecuting and abusing me! He feels this to be true, which means that he has a demon which torments him, and so projects it into another man.

Yes, he was adjusting his judgment. As you say, he would have probably appreciated Jung's late works even more.
Speaking of which, look what a neat find

Have you gone into Jung's writings as well?

Not very much. Only so that I can gain a picture of the soul-spiritual configuration of being that he's expressing. I admire his work and think that's very important contribution to humanity. But personally I'm more interested into attaining to the reality of the archetype-beings rather than building pictures of them from the side of the intellect.

Gotcha. Jung was heavily inspired by Kant and therefore took that phenomenon/noumenon divide seriously, which we see in his conception of the 'collective unconscious'. Although there is certainly wisdom in that approach, I am starting to see it more as a stumbling block for serious idealists. I like the term 'subconscious' better now. [ ]

Jung created a pretty thick intellectual gloss over his esoteric experiences and insights, no doubt because he felt it was necessary to retain 'credibility' in his professional psychiatric circles. You may appreciate The Red Book: Liber Novus, though, especially if you can shell out for an illustrated copy. [ ]

[Güney27]

Guney,

The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower. At the metaphysical level, there is nothing but the "I"-force. All bodily and soul forms are reflections and transformations of the "I". The formless I-force then makes use of these finished or almost finished forms, often many at the same time, to accomplish its purpose of inner moral perfection through cognitive awakening. Humans are now at the stage at which they have dimly awakened to the reality of their essential I-force and can progressively unveil its deeper layers. The deeper layers are experienced-understood as more and more transpersonal, encompassing broader spheres of beings and their activity. We could refer to this whole complex of organic relations within the I as the I-organism. This organism encompasses the Whole of existence from humanity through the higher hierarchies to the Godhead.

The manifest forms themselves should be understood as something like encrusted habits of spiritual activity. That includes the entire material world surrounding us and our dense body drawn from that world. It also includes the plant kingdom and our vital body and the animal kingdom and our lower astral body. These are habits developed over many millennia by the I-organism to accomplish past intents related to physical and cultural development. They were necessary habits to cultivate for that development but now they also work in opposition to our higher awakening of the I-organism, i.e. the spiritualization of the cultural (soul) and the physical (body). They are like archaeological and geological layers through which we must dig to recover their spiritual essence. The digging, in this case, comes first from steering our I-consciousness through the psyche, making inner sacrifices of the lower personality that has formed habitual attachments to the cultural and physical context. We still need to rely on the collective habitual forms of culture and nature for some time, however, we can begin spiritualizing (or purifying) our own localized soul forms right now. 

The inner nature of the dream world is what Steiner and other esotericists refer to as the astral world, which is the realm of psychic forces. When we are able to purify the lower psychic forces, develop imagination, and thereby awaken within the dream world, we are then participating within a higher level of the I-organism that is called Manas in Steiner's terminology. Manas is the transformed astral body Into its spiritual counterpart.  Now our "I"-force is no longer habituated to past conditions, but is consciously and creatively participating in the manifestation of future conditions in our own organism and that of humanity as a whole. We are then participating in the progressive redemption of human culture and the natural kingdoms. If we are also able to awaken during dreamless sleep and even deeper sleep, then we are working on transforming the etheric and physical bodies into Buddhi and Atma. Then we are creatively working on transforming the Earth as a whole. I think it's clear that Jung saw this general archetypal progression taking place and knew that the human soul structure is also a localized image of the Cosmic structure, i.e. that working on the former is also a means of comprehending the latter. However, Steiner fleshed out the details of this progression much further through rigorous esoteric training and attunement with the Christ impulse.

This is confusing.
In Steiner's Outline of Occult Science, Steiner describes that our ego is supposed to work on our lower members. Doesn't that imply that the members of our being are separate but work together in harmony?
You say, "The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower." That completely messes up my understanding of esoteric human nature, could you explain in more detail what you mean?
The "I" is the reason that our perceptions and feelings of dreams... are related to ourselves and not simply perceptions that pointlessly pass by trough consciousness. Even memory shouldn't exist without our "I", because what should the memory refer to?
Daskalos says that our "I" expresses itself through our constitutional members.
Is that what you mean with your quoted statement?

Guney,

That is true, but to be honest, I don't think it's particularly helpful to categorize these things into a rigid conceptual schema. It's great and necessary to read through Occult Science and such to get a feel for the relationships between the body members, soul members, and spiritual members, but only if we are also willing to keep this fluid and allow them to fall away when we are seeking the inner experience to which the conceptual labels are pointing. You are surely at the stage where it is still most helpful to schematically conceptualize the human organization as a means for stimulating your spiritual activity, but when you feel confusion setting in from different descriptions or terminology etc., as it inevitably will, you should also keep in mind that the schematics will have to be sacrificed by the intellect to open the door to an intuitive experience of that organization. It is only through such experience that we overcome the confusion and can work with all sorts of different labels for the same inner realities. The following passage may be helpful.

Those of us who succeed in developing the love for truth cannot fail at any given moment to move onto interaction as an essentially presupposed practice. However, precisely such action, if decisively carried out first, inevitably leads outside the dialectics [conceptual schema] by means of which it arises. It delineates an experience of the spirit that must leave behind the representations that stimulated it;  traditional representations are like the boat of Buddha's discourse, which makes no sense for ascetics to bear on their shoulders once the river has been crossed;  that boat is then useful only for turning back.

If we want to speak of the I-force very simply, then we could say that it is the means by which we carry out our own willed intents, in contrast to those of external powers of nature and culture. When you get hungry, you are driven to find food and eat something, but this is experienced as an external force of nature rather than your own willed intent. If you are learning to drive, the state requires you to pass certain exams so that you are licensed. That is experienced as less of a compulsive force than the natural drive to eat, but it still can't be experienced as arising solely within your own willed intent. There are other extraneous factors that pushed you in that direction. When you are confronted with the choice to help a stranger who has fallen down on the street or to simply walk by that person, and you choose to stop and help him, that is experienced as arising completely within your own will informed by conscience. It is that sort of moral decision that is the expression of your genuine I-force. The reason for emphasizing that the I is formless is to highlight how our concept of our I is not identical to the I-force itself. We all bear a concept of our I-force, our center of gravity, that is comprised of our desires, wishes, feelings, memories, and so forth. That concept refers us to the center of gravity but should not be confused for it. We can distinguish the concept by calling it our "personality" while calling the actual center of gravity our "individuality".

What Jung and Steiner were most interested in was directing souls towards the inner experience of their individuality, which is generally unknown to us during the course of normal life. The personality that is known to us can be said to revolve around this unknown individuality (or Self/Atma) just like our desires, emotions, and thoughts revolve around our sense of personality. Why is our individuality unknown to us? That is because we are only conscious of its expression through one of our constitutional members i.e. the dense body and its sensory system including the brain. The personality is the individuality expressed entirely within the isolated physical context. If we were to become conscious through our vital body (imagination - Manas), however, the individuality would know itself within a broader context. That context is referred to Steiner as a "time-organism" rather than a fragmented spatial organism. We then grasp the fragmented spatial frames of existence as something whole like a musical melody. If we become conscious through our astral body (inspiration - Buddhi), then the individuality knows itself within an even broader context that is beyond spatiotemporality as we experience it. And if we become conscious through the I-itself, then our individuality knows its true inner essence (intuition - Atma). 

So the individuality certainly expresses itself through our constitutional members, but we should also be clear that our personality concept is one of those members. The latter veils the inner essence of our individuality yet we can utilize the force of that individuality to unwind the layers of the personality that has been built up around it, like layers of clothing or masks. We start by undressing the psychic tendencies that were put on over our individuality most recently, like our modern opinions, assumptions, beliefs about 'reality', and our personalized emotions and desires. That is what Steiner is referring to when he says that the Ego-I can work on our lower members. It first works on purifying the personality so that we can awaken more fully to its inner essence, which takes us beyond the experiential confines of our physical context and inwardly unites us with broader spheres of beings. Our individuality is always comprised by and working with these broader spheres of beings, but when we are unconscious of that work, it becomes inefficient and disharmonious. Just like our physical body needs to be in proper health for our personality to utilize it in fulfilling various earthly tasks, our personality needs to be properly purified for the individuality to utilize it in fulfilling higher Cosmic ideals of human existence in harmonious concert with other beings.

,,That is true, but to be honest, I don't think it's particularly helpful to categorize these things into a rigid conceptual schema. It's great and necessary to read through Occult Science and such to get a feel for the relationships between the body members, soul members, and spiritual members, but only if we are also willing to keep this fluid and allow them to fall away when we are the inner experience to seeking which the conceptual labels are pointing. You are surely at the stage where it is still most helpful to conceptualize the human organization as a means for stimulating your spiritual activity, but when you feel confusion setting in from different descriptions or terminology etc., as it inevitably will, you should also keep in mind that the schematics will have to be sacrificed by the intellect to open the door to an intuitive experience of that organization. It is only through such experience that we overcome the confusion and can work with all sorts of different labels for the same inner realities. The following passage may be helpful."

I understand.
Steiner himself said that spiritual scientific writings should be received differently than any system or metaphysical explanation of the universe like Kastrup. One should form ideas that come to life in ones soul. Doesn't that mean that you should visualize what you read or hear from lectures. Today I have heard a lecture (Audio) by rudolf steiner which is about the development of the earth and how the earth separated from the sun ect. The idea that forms in my mind is a pictorial one, representing a splitting of a planet similar to the Sun and Earth. Although this notion is probably not accurate, we have a tendency to represent these things in a sensual way.
What does Steiner mean when he emphasizes that we have to bring the anthroposphic message to life in us?
How does this relate to the intuitive thinking that cleric is describing here viewtopic.php?p=13631#p13631
?

[AshvinP]

This is confusing.
In Steiner's Outline of Occult Science, Steiner describes that our ego is supposed to work on our lower members. Doesn't that imply that the members of our being are separate but work together in harmony?
You say, "The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower." That completely messes up my understanding of esoteric human nature, could you explain in more detail what you mean?
The "I" is the reason that our perceptions and feelings of dreams... are related to ourselves and not simply perceptions that pointlessly pass by trough consciousness. Even memory shouldn't exist without our "I", because what should the memory refer to?
Daskalos says that our "I" expresses itself through our constitutional members.
Is that what you mean with your quoted statement?

Guney,

That is true, but to be honest, I don't think it's particularly helpful to categorize these things into a rigid conceptual schema. It's great and necessary to read through Occult Science and such to get a feel for the relationships between the body members, soul members, and spiritual members, but only if we are also willing to keep this fluid and allow them to fall away when we are seeking the inner experience to which the conceptual labels are pointing. You are surely at the stage where it is still most helpful to schematically conceptualize the human organization as a means for stimulating your spiritual activity, but when you feel confusion setting in from different descriptions or terminology etc., as it inevitably will, you should also keep in mind that the schematics will have to be sacrificed by the intellect to open the door to an intuitive experience of that organization. It is only through such experience that we overcome the confusion and can work with all sorts of different labels for the same inner realities. The following passage may be helpful.

Those of us who succeed in developing the love for truth cannot fail at any given moment to move onto interaction as an essentially presupposed practice. However, precisely such action, if decisively carried out first, inevitably leads outside the dialectics [conceptual schema] by means of which it arises. It delineates an experience of the spirit that must leave behind the representations that stimulated it;  traditional representations are like the boat of Buddha's discourse, which makes no sense for ascetics to bear on their shoulders once the river has been crossed;  that boat is then useful only for turning back.

If we want to speak of the I-force very simply, then we could say that it is the means by which we carry out our own willed intents, in contrast to those of external powers of nature and culture. When you get hungry, you are driven to find food and eat something, but this is experienced as an external force of nature rather than your own willed intent. If you are learning to drive, the state requires you to pass certain exams so that you are licensed. That is experienced as less of a compulsive force than the natural drive to eat, but it still can't be experienced as arising solely within your own willed intent. There are other extraneous factors that pushed you in that direction. When you are confronted with the choice to help a stranger who has fallen down on the street or to simply walk by that person, and you choose to stop and help him, that is experienced as arising completely within your own will informed by conscience. It is that sort of moral decision that is the expression of your genuine I-force. The reason for emphasizing that the I is formless is to highlight how our concept of our I is not identical to the I-force itself. We all bear a concept of our I-force, our center of gravity, that is comprised of our desires, wishes, feelings, memories, and so forth. That concept refers us to the center of gravity but should not be confused for it. We can distinguish the concept by calling it our "personality" while calling the actual center of gravity our "individuality".

What Jung and Steiner were most interested in was directing souls towards the inner experience of their individuality, which is generally unknown to us during the course of normal life. The personality that is known to us can be said to revolve around this unknown individuality (or Self/Atma) just like our desires, emotions, and thoughts revolve around our sense of personality. Why is our individuality unknown to us? That is because we are only conscious of its expression through one of our constitutional members i.e. the dense body and its sensory system including the brain. The personality is the individuality expressed entirely within the isolated physical context. If we were to become conscious through our vital body (imagination - Manas), however, the individuality would know itself within a broader context. That context is referred to Steiner as a "time-organism" rather than a fragmented spatial organism. We then grasp the fragmented spatial frames of existence as something whole like a musical melody. If we become conscious through our astral body (inspiration - Buddhi), then the individuality knows itself within an even broader context that is beyond spatiotemporality as we experience it. And if we become conscious through the I-itself, then our individuality knows its true inner essence (intuition - Atma). 

So the individuality certainly expresses itself through our constitutional members, but we should also be clear that our personality concept is one of those members. The latter veils the inner essence of our individuality yet we can utilize the force of that individuality to unwind the layers of the personality that has been built up around it, like layers of clothing or masks. We start by undressing the psychic tendencies that were put on over our individuality most recently, like our modern opinions, assumptions, beliefs about 'reality', and our personalized emotions and desires. That is what Steiner is referring to when he says that the Ego-I can work on our lower members. It first works on purifying the personality so that we can awaken more fully to its inner essence, which takes us beyond the experiential confines of our physical context and inwardly unites us with broader spheres of beings. Our individuality is always comprised by and working with these broader spheres of beings, but when we are unconscious of that work, it becomes inefficient and disharmonious. Just like our physical body needs to be in proper health for our personality to utilize it in fulfilling various earthly tasks, our personality needs to be properly purified for the individuality to utilize it in fulfilling higher Cosmic ideals of human existence in harmonious concert with other beings.

,,That is true, but to be honest, I don't think it's particularly helpful to categorize these things into a rigid conceptual schema. It's great and necessary to read through Occult Science and such to get a feel for the relationships between the body members, soul members, and spiritual members, but only if we are also willing to keep this fluid and allow them to fall away when we are the inner experience to seeking which the conceptual labels are pointing. You are surely at the stage where it is still most helpful to conceptualize the human organization as a means for stimulating your spiritual activity, but when you feel confusion setting in from different descriptions or terminology etc., as it inevitably will, you should also keep in mind that the schematics will have to be sacrificed by the intellect to open the door to an intuitive experience of that organization. It is only through such experience that we overcome the confusion and can work with all sorts of different labels for the same inner realities. The following passage may be helpful."

I understand.
Steiner himself said that spiritual scientific writings should be received differently than any system or metaphysical explanation of the universe like Kastrup. One should form ideas that come to life in ones soul. Doesn't that mean that you should visualize what you read or hear from lectures. Today I have heard a lecture (Audio) by rudolf steiner which is about the development of the earth and how the earth separated from the sun ect. The idea that forms in my mind is a pictorial one, representing a splitting of a planet similar to the Sun and Earth. Although this notion is probably not accurate, we have a tendency to represent these things in a sensual way.
What does Steiner mean when he emphasizes that we have to bring the anthroposphic message to life in us?
How does this relate to the intuitive thinking that cleric is describing here viewtopic.php?p=13631#p13631
?

Guney,

I find it most helpful to contemplate these dynamics in relation to our own individual development. We actually do recapitulate these ancient events in our own development between childhood and adulthood. As children, we have a Sun-like inspired faith in the World around us and other people.  Everything is experienced vividly, fluidly, and with great imaginative life. Ideas and perceptions are still one, rather than split into an inner world and an outer world. We can say, however, that life in childhood vibrates too rapidly for us to form discrete and well-defined concepts. It is like our rapid childlike intuition presents us with the final answer to a math problem, but the whole reasoning process that led to the answer is embedded within that answer and indistinguishable from it. The answer is simply given and we cannot develop our own free will in these circumstances. The next stage of development gives us an opportunity to ask the proper questions and work through the proper steps that lead to the same answer. The life of rapid intuition 'cools down' to a lower vibration through our adolescent life of lower passions and intellect. The dazzling Light of intuition is now reflected through the cooler and dimmer light of images and concepts. It is all a matter of inner development and perfection.

That is the stage when the Sun casts out the Earth and Moon from itself. The Moon represents the life of selfish passions and these also need to be tamed through a higher life of more selfless reasoning in adulthood, where we take an interest in the World and other people, seeking to become productive members of society. The adolescent self exerts its intellect only for personal pleasure and narrow interests, to consume knowledge for itself. It is still ruled over by selfish passions. That is when the Earth casts out the Moon so that it does not descend into a complete hardening of form through the life of selfish passions and thoughts. Notice how the danger here is the polar opposite of that which was presented by the rapid vibrations of the Sun-life - in the latter we risked evaporating our form before it could serve as a proper vehicle for our moral willpower, now we risk hardening our form so that it becomes too rigid to serve as the proper vehicle for reintegration with the more rapidly vibrating Cosmic impulses. The Earthly stages that Steiner discusses simply signify what occurred for humanity as a whole that also echoes itself in our individual development. He makes these same comparisons throughout his lectures.

Although I criticized schematic thinking in my previous post, there is definitely a vital purpose served by such thinking when we don't confuse it for an end in itself but rather a means of disciplining our thinking and organizing our inner soul forces so that we can prepare for higher stages of development in later epochs of our life. You are particularly at the stage that may benefit more from the rigorous schematic discipline than loose spatial pictures of the Sun, Moon, and Earth which lack any precise meaning or inner significance. The spatial pictures keep us bound to an atemporal form of thinking that veils the underlying inner dynamics that are always non-spatial and temporally extended. The individual ego must come into its own thinking element before preparing to recover the childhood vibrations of intuition, inspiration, and imagination at a more conscious level. When we think of the ancient stages of Earth's evolution, we should always keep in mind this living progression of moral development that is recapitulated in our own lives through definite rhythms. The average person can only begin to integrate the Sun, Earth, and Moon forces after the age of 42 when they have fully developed the consciousness soul. 

Since you are on a path of esoteric development, however, you may be able to significantly advance this integration by consciously working towards these higher purposes. It is not about skipping any steps but working them out more consciously through rigorous thinking and, above all, in faith, humility, and purity of intent. We can have faith that, although the Spiritual Sun had to separate out from us for a time, he has still accompanied us on every step of our inner/outer journey and will continue to, just like the physical sun accompanies us through the day's arc of trials and tribulations that we must endure in the sensory spectrum. The overall plan and path by which we reintegrate with the Moon and Sun forces, becoming a Sun ourselves (at the Venus stage), has already been accomplished, and now it is only a matter of faithfully and humbly working out the stages of our already attained salvation, just as we work out the stages of our day before returning to the Spirit at night during sleep. "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

[LukeJTM]

Hi everyone, is anyone able to give suggestions or advice with regards to this section from Steiner's "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" titled Control of Thoughts and Feelings? Here is the relevant passage below. If you don't want to read all of it, just skip to the part I have highlighted in bold because that is what I am addressing.

Once the student has found the beginnings of spiritual vision by means of such exercises, he may proceed to the contemplation of man himself. Simple phenomena of human life must first be chosen. But before making any attempt in this direction it is imperative for the student to strive for the absolute purity of his moral character. He must banish all through of ever using knowledge gained in this way for his own personal benefit. He must be convinced that he would never, under any circumstances, avail himself in an evil sense of any power he may gain over his fellow-creatures. For this reason, all who seek to discover through personal vision the secrets in human nature must follow the golden rule of true spiritual science. This golden rule is as follows: For every one step that you take in the pursuit of higher knowledge, take three steps in the perfection of your own character. If this rule is observed, such exercise as the following may be attempted:

Recall to mind some person whom you may have observed when he was filled with desire for some object. Direct your attention to this desire. It is best to recall to memory that moment when the desire was at its height, and it was still uncertain whether the object of the desire would be attained. And now fill your mind with this recollection, and reflect on what you can thus observe. Maintain the utmost inner tranquility. Make the greatest possible effort to be blind and deaf to everything that may be going on around you, and take special heed that through the conception thus evoked a feeling should awaken in your soul. Allow this feeling to rise in your soul like a cloud on the cloudless horizon. As a rule, of course, your reflection will be interrupted, because the person whom it concerns was not observed in this particular state of soul for a sufficient length of time. The attempt will most likely fail hundreds and hundreds of times. It is just a question of not losing patience. After many attempts you will succeed in experiencing a feeling In your soul corresponding to the state of soul of the person observed, and you will begin to notice that through this feeling a power grows in your soul that leads to spiritual insight into the state of soul of the other. A picture experienced as luminous appears in your field of vision. This spiritually luminous picture is the so-called astral embodiment of the desire observed in that soul. Again the impression of this picture may be described as flame-like, yellowish-red in the center, and reddish-blue or lilac at the edges. Much depends on treating such spiritual experiences with great delicacy. The best thing is not to speak to anyone about them except to your teacher, if you have one. Attempted descriptions of such experiences in inappropriate words usually only lead to gross self-deception. Ordinary terms are employed which are not intended for such things, and are therefore too gross and clumsy. The consequence is that in the attempt to clothe the experience in words we are misled into blending the actual experience with all kinds of fantastic delusions. Here again is another important rule for the student: know how to observe silence concerning your spiritual experiences. Yes, observe silence even toward yourself. Do not attempt to clothe in words what you contemplate in the spirit, or to pore over it with clumsy intellect. Lend yourself freely and without reservation to these spiritual impressions, and do not disturb them by reflecting and pondering over them too much. For you must remember that your reasoning faculties are, to begin with, by no means equal to your new experience. You have acquired these reasoning faculties in a life hitherto confined to the physical world of the senses; the faculties you are now acquiring transcend this world. Do not try, therefore, to apply to the new and higher perceptions the standard of the old. Only he who has gained some certainty and steadiness in the observation of inner experiences can speak about them, and thereby stimulate his fellow-men.

The exercise just described may be supplemented by the following: Direct your attention in the same way upon a person to whom the fulfillment of some wish, the gratification of some desire, has been granted. If the same rules and precautions be adopted as in the previous instance, spiritual insight will once more be attained. A spiritual insight will once more be attained. A spiritual flame-form will be distinguished, creating an impression of yellow in the center and green at the edges.

By such observation of his fellow-creatures, the student may easily lapse into a moral fault. He may become cold-hearted. Every conceivable effort must be made to prevent this. Such observation should only be practiced by one who has already risen to the level on which complete certainty is found that thoughts are real things. He will then no longer allow himself to think of his fellow-men in a way that is incompatible with the highest reverence for human dignity and human liberty. The thought that a human being could be merely an object of observation must never for a moment be entertained. Self-education must see to it that this insight into human nature should go hand in hand with an unlimited respect for the personal privilege of each individual, and with the recognition of the sacred and inviolable nature of that which dwells in each human being. A feeling of reverential awe must fill us, even in our recollections.

What are some steps I can take to develop or deepen feelings of respect and reverence, as Steiner is describing? Presumably it would be helpful to have those feelings whilst doing the seed/plant exercise he described earlier in the same chapter?
And I know at the start of the book he kept emphasising that it is important to develop respect or reverence for the higher knowledge and beings (I think gratitude is another important feeling as well), which for sure is important.
I suppose it would help to make sure I develop those feelings towards my own inner self first? Like how I've noticed when I develop compassion towards my self for a fault or a personal issue, the compassion flows easily towards my fellow-man who have the same issue in themselves. So that same 'law' I'm sure would apply for the respect and reverence.

I am trying my best to keep working on my personal process (self-development) because I feel that is very important for connecting consciously with Spirit. Plus, Steiner was stressing that over and over, so that is another reason I am taking it seriously.

If anyone has advice or suggestions for this please let me know.

[Federica]

I have a short note to share, and this thread, coming up to the top of the list just now, seems perfect for this purpose.
Question: should we attempt to tweak Anthroposophy, to make it more usable for "dummies", to the point that we alter the translation of Steiner's work, trying to make it more convenient, and to avoid confusion?

I have just noticed a recent comment on the "Anthroposophy" FB goup, by Andrew Linnell, suggesting precisely that, and that the Rudolf Steiner Archive should implement "cleanups" in this perspective. I hope it's clear why I couldn't leave that suggestion unreplied. Here you can see comment and reply (if you are a member of the group). I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well, if not on the FB group, then here in the thread.

To preserve the spirit of Anthroposophy, wrong, detrimental, entitled thoughts like these should be opposed as clearly and as strongly as possible.


I also want to quote OMA's daily meditation for today:

Daily Meditation: Thursday, November 30, 2023

Fear - the only legitimate fear is the fear of breaking the divine laws
"When you find yourself faced with great difficulties or in a very dangerous situation, you must not give way to apprehension and anxiety. React; link yourself to divine Providence and ask for light. Thanks to the light, you will see with greater clarity and feel more peaceful, and once your heart and your head are calmer, you will be able to do what has to be done.
Every danger or obstacle the human soul has to face can be summed up in two words, fear and darkness, and you must do everything possible to overcome them. There is only one legitimate fear that you must not only tolerate but welcome and that is the fear of disrupting the divine order of things. If you are still afraid of hunger and thirst, of public opinion, of dying of illness or in an accident, you are not yet a disciple. The one thing a disciple fears is to break the divine laws.*"

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

[AshvinP]

I have a short note to share, and this thread, coming up to the top of the list just now, seems perfect for this purpose.
Question: should we attempt to tweak Anthroposophy, to make it more usable for "dummies", to the point that we alter the translation of Steiner's work, trying to make it more convenient, and to avoid confusion?

I have just noticed a recent comment on the "Anthroposophy" FB goup, by Andrew Linnell, suggesting precisely that, and that the Rudolf Steiner Archive should implement "cleanups" in this perspective. I hope it's clear why I couldn't leave that suggestion unreplied. Here you can see comment and reply (if you are a member of the group). I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well, if not on the FB group, then here in the thread.

To preserve the spirit of Anthroposophy, wrong, detrimental, entitled thoughts like these should be opposed as clearly and as strongly as possible.


I also want to quote OMA's daily meditation for today:

Daily Meditation: Thursday, November 30, 2023

Fear - the only legitimate fear is the fear of breaking the divine laws
"When you find yourself faced with great difficulties or in a very dangerous situation, you must not give way to apprehension and anxiety. React; link yourself to divine Providence and ask for light. Thanks to the light, you will see with greater clarity and feel more peaceful, and once your heart and your head are calmer, you will be able to do what has to be done.
Every danger or obstacle the human soul has to face can be summed up in two words, fear and darkness, and you must do everything possible to overcome them. There is only one legitimate fear that you must not only tolerate but welcome and that is the fear of disrupting the divine order of things. If you are still afraid of hunger and thirst, of public opinion, of dying of illness or in an accident, you are not yet a disciple. The one thing a disciple fears is to break the divine laws.*"

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

Thanks for bringing attention to this FB group, Federica! For some reason, it didn't occur to me to join before. I see the karmic entanglement with Linnell continues and has gone to the next level

I can see both of your perspectives on the issue pretty clearly. At this point, I lean toward your position because of the slippery slope argument. It's not that big of a deal for readers to distinguish what sort of time period Steiner is referring to based on the context, regardless if it is called "epoch" or "age". And a switch from "epoch" to "age" in this context wouldn't be a big deal either, IMO, but if taken as a general 'cleanup' program for the Archive, it could certainly lead to detrimental alterations of the lectures/translations.

Needless to say, I don't think Linnell suggested such a sweeping program or made the suggestion at issue with any malintent (not saying you are ascribing that to him either). I certainly don't think it is an issue to have such thoughts and express them publicly, asking for feedback. We should never be afraid that we are 'breaking divine laws' by simply having thoughts and expressing them, as long as we remain open to the feedback and the possibility that our thoughts were misguided.

I am also surprised you haven't responded yet to Viktor's post on using Chat GPT to "aid our understanding and catch a new aspect/etc. what we might missed" in PoF I may get around to posting on that myself. In my view, such a phenomenology is only usefully approached by readers struggling through the ideas and inner experiences for themselves, without relying on GPT-created diagrammatic charts of loose conceptual relations. It's clear that the latter is positively misleading because the intellectual pathways that went into the GPT programming simply don't recognize the essence of our first-person intuitive thinking experience. (he also tried a similar thing with Steiner's "epistemology" in general)

My prompt:
Create the knowledge graph of Rudolf Steiner's "Philosophy of Freedom" Chapter 1.; use the most sophisticated methods for relationship extraction based on best of your knowledge. additionally try to be accurate as much as possible regarding the named entity recognition and relationship extraction processes!

ChatGPT answer:
Creating a knowledge graph from a complex philosophical text like "Philosophy of Freedom" by Rudolf Steiner involves numerous challenges. Given the limitations of automated processes and the need for deep understanding, the approach here will be a simplified representation, focusing on key entities and relationships in Chapter 1.

Entities:
Concepts/Philosophical Ideas: Represented as nodes in the graph.

Key Terms: Important words or phrases.

Sentences/Paragraphs: Represented as nodes for context.

Relationships:

Association: Connection between concepts that are mentioned closely.

Dependency: Dependency relationships between sentences or terms.

This is a simplified representation, and the actual understanding of philosophical texts involves a deep grasp of the nuances, which automated processes might not fully capture. Additionally, the actual "Philosophy of Freedom" text is more complex, so this is a high-level overview.

[Federica]

I have a short note to share, and this thread, coming up to the top of the list just now, seems perfect for this purpose.
Question: should we attempt to tweak Anthroposophy, to make it more usable for "dummies", to the point that we alter the translation of Steiner's work, trying to make it more convenient, and to avoid confusion?

I have just noticed a recent comment on the "Anthroposophy" FB goup, by Andrew Linnell, suggesting precisely that, and that the Rudolf Steiner Archive should implement "cleanups" in this perspective. I hope it's clear why I couldn't leave that suggestion unreplied. Here you can see comment and reply (if you are a member of the group). I would appreciate reading your perspectives as well, if not on the FB group, then here in the thread.

To preserve the spirit of Anthroposophy, wrong, detrimental, entitled thoughts like these should be opposed as clearly and as strongly as possible.


I also want to quote OMA's daily meditation for today:

Daily Meditation: Thursday, November 30, 2023

Fear - the only legitimate fear is the fear of breaking the divine laws
"When you find yourself faced with great difficulties or in a very dangerous situation, you must not give way to apprehension and anxiety. React; link yourself to divine Providence and ask for light. Thanks to the light, you will see with greater clarity and feel more peaceful, and once your heart and your head are calmer, you will be able to do what has to be done.
Every danger or obstacle the human soul has to face can be summed up in two words, fear and darkness, and you must do everything possible to overcome them. There is only one legitimate fear that you must not only tolerate but welcome and that is the fear of disrupting the divine order of things. If you are still afraid of hunger and thirst, of public opinion, of dying of illness or in an accident, you are not yet a disciple. The one thing a disciple fears is to break the divine laws.*"

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

Thanks for bringing attention to this FB group, Federica! For some reason, it didn't occur to me to join before. I see the karmic entanglement with Linnell continues and has gone to the next level

I can see both of your perspectives on the issue pretty clearly. At this point, I lean toward your position because of the slippery slope argument. It's not that big of a deal for readers to distinguish what sort of time period Steiner is referring to based on the context, regardless if it is called "epoch" or "age". And a switch from "epoch" to "age" in this context wouldn't be a big deal either, IMO, but if taken as a general 'cleanup' program for the Archive, it could certainly lead to detrimental alterations of the lectures/translations.

Needless to say, I don't think Linnell suggested such a sweeping program or made the suggestion at issue with any malintent (not saying you are ascribing that to him either). I certainly don't think it is an issue to have such thoughts and express them publicly, asking for feedback. We should never be afraid that we are 'breaking divine laws' by simply having thoughts and expressing them, as long as we remain open to the feedback and the possibility that our thoughts were misguided.

Ashvin, There's nothing fun in this story. I can't believe you don't see that one position is morally right, and the other one is the manipulative intention to make Steiner lectures an instrument of one's own wishes of influence and agenda. One feels entitled, from a position of 'power', to put pressure on the Archive to arbitrarily rationalize what Steiner wrote and replace a word with another, systematically! (yes that was the exact suggestion), that they do a "huge cleanup job", since Steiner (poor him) "uses different expressions to refer to the same period of time", so this is a problem. And nobody seems to bother! I will copy the posts here, so everyone can see. If it's against the FB group rules, they can try to expel me. The suggestion not only lacks any imaginable ground, it is also plain dangerous. These things should not be minimized. Also note: there were no request for feedback whatsoever.

In the initial post, someone was quoting from this lecture.

Andrew Linnnell wrote:
I would like to suggest that the word "epoch" be replaced with "cultural age" throughout this quote (and throughout the entire translation). It has been very confusing for many which time period is meant in some lecture cycles based on different terminology used. RS himself sometimes used "cultural-epoch" (or at least it was recorded as such) and other times used "cultural-age". In geological terminology, an Epoch is much greater than an Age. I think we should follow this for it to be a Spiritual Science. Thus, it would be "Lemurian Epoch" and "Atlantean Epoch" which contain seven cultural ages. Today these "cultural ages" are 2160 years long. It would be a huge cleanup job - @Rudolf Steiner Archive.

Federica wrote:
Andrew Linnell To the extent the suggestion wants to override existing distinctions of vocabulary in the original text, I completely disagree with it. If Steiner used the German word “Epoche”, in this lecture and elsewhere, this choice should be respected through a translation consistent with it. The role of a proper and respectful translation cannot be that of sacrificing the original choices of vocabulary in order to rationalize the terminology, based on the presupposition that we know everything that there is to know about why certain vocabulary was chosen in the first place, and that our criteria know better and are more important than Steiner’s. The goal to make life easier for the reader, and to prevent confusion for many cannot be an admissible one. I find it worrying that partial agendas and the reader’s convenience are valued higher than the author’s own expressions. I hope and wish that the @Rudolf Steiner Archive will never feel entitled to proceed to “cleanups” of this sort.

Andrew Linnell wrote:
Federica ----- You make a good point. Perhaps I did not elaborate sufficiently the issue that I have raised. In some lectures, RS used the expression "cultural age" and in others "cultural-epoch" to mean the same period of time. It would be acceptable if the word "cultural" was maintained throughout the translation but in some cases the translator (not RS) truncated to "epoch".

Federica wrote:
Andrew Linnell You suggested that “the word "epoch" be replaced with "cultural age" throughout this quote (and throughout the entire translation).” Now, in the entire translation, the word “epoch” recurs 19 times:

In 15 cases, it is a translation of the German word “Epoche”
In 1 case, “in every epoch” is a translation of “zu allen Zeiten”
In 1 case, “in this epoch” is a translation of “in dieser Zeitepoche”
In 1 case, “preceding epoch” is a translation of “vorhergehenden Evolution”
In 1 case, “epoch of civilisation” is the translation of “Kulturepoche”

There seems to be no trace of truncation here. This translation is careful and doesn't need any standardizing amendments. And the dedicated English speaking reader doesn't deserve that either.

As I see it, Steiner may have had plenty of reasons to use different expressions to refer to the same period of time in different contexts. The reader who doesn't understand it should live with that, and keep working through the texts as they are. Moreover, the translator who decided to consistently render “Kulturepoche” with “epoch of civilisation” might have had their valuable reasons too, that should be organically considered. This is not a truncated word, and doesn't entitle to ask the Archive that the text is arbitrarily altered through a huge cleanup job, so as to suit the rational expectations of the many. Mindless translation errors and truncations, if discovered in other lectures, should be considered and corrected one by one.