Essay: Spiritual Retracing - Principle Overview (Part I)

[AshvinP]

When you mention the craving for gregariousness, it also makes me think of hedonism. It's interesting how so many philosophical, scientific, political, and religious frameworks seem to have been attracted around the kernel of justifying the pursuit of personal pleasures, free from the interference of higher powers and concrete responsibilities. I have noticed how many of the discussions on this forum have generally revealed an underlying feeling that personal pleasure-seeking should not be interfered with in any way, placed within any higher context that hints at sacrifice or suffering, either during earthly life or across the threshold.


This is where we also find a big difference between the modern mystical/liberal spectrum and the theistic/conservative spectrum, although even the latter can be adapted to the more hedonistic soul configuration (for ex. 'liberal theology'). The former is quite aligned with the unrestricted indulgence of sensual pleasures, even if the latter are understood as highly spiritual experiences. This reminds me of Steiner's discussion on some of the Western mystics as well, in so far as their spiritual experience had a subtext of eroticism. Perhaps this is another important factor to contemplate. It suggests that maintaining the galactic loneliness is secretly sought after since at least we can continue indulging our pleasures in isolation, or so we imagine.

Yes, a mood of rejection of duty has condensed in many parts of society over the last decades. To act as duty is felt as a lack of individual purpose. In a sense, it starts from the necessary impulse to an autonomous development of the individual consciousness, but then takes it in a Luciferic direction of indulgence in pleasures.

To attenuate that, I would say that, for many, rather than a formalized philosophical or theoretical framework, this impulse takes the more general form of "pursuit of happiness". It's not necessarily focussed on cultivation of sensual pleasures. The mood is that, as long as we don't directly harm our neighbors, or the world, it's legitimate to pursue the things that make us "happy". This is even, very commonly, the goal of life. And "the things that make us happy" is a mixed bag in which we find in no particular order: "positive contribution to the world, to feel meaning", "family and relationships", and "pleasure in whatever form, as long as it doesn't hurt others".

It's easy to condemn that, but the difficulty is, before one has identified a viable life philosophy - ready-made by religion or independently pursued - it's hard to realize how priorities matter, discipline matters, and that we actually do indirectly harm others by succumbing to the pursuit of pleasures as a main driver of life. The "bubble consciousness" makes it very hard to notice.

So it starts from an impulse of individuation. But unfortunately, if that is not guided by an intense search for meaning, it can easily degenerate in a meaningless, ultimately painful, search for "happiness". And it's a very elusive happiness, in the pursuit of which people end up even more frustrated, disgusted, purposeless, and empty than ever. I've seen in the news this morning: "I quit my dream job, spent 18 months and $34,000 traveling the world, but was burnt out and unhappy". And so the life of many people becomes a desperate sequence of attempts to find the next thing that will finally make one happy.

Hence the crucial role that anthroposophically oriented communities will have to play, offering people a chance to see and make the connection between their aspiration to individual freedom, and the appropriate way to transform it into meaningfulness....

Right, but in the context of the discussions with others on forums such as this one, I find it really interesting how the last century or so has seen the explosion of the seemingly most varied intellectual outlooks, which can become quite intricate, that conspicuously serve the pleasure-seeking impulse. In that sense, it is a pronounced intermingling of the Lu-Ahr influences.

An example that stands out is post-modernist philosophy, of which Santeri Satama was a prime representative on this forum. He may have been a little before your time. He employed very clever linguistic arguments and mathematical philosophizing, which I couldn't follow for the most part. Some notable names in this stream are Wittgenstein, Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, Foucault (although I don't know much of these particular thinkers).

For ex., after some back and forth with Cleric on this thread, he wrote the following:

I can't give categorical answer to that question. I already gave my categorical answer: better instead of worse is better. Further and more complex qualifications don't improve that simple definition. As often, less is more. And before you ask, Finnish for 'pleasure' is mielihyvä, ie. mind-good, and displeasure mind-bad. Of course in practice mind-good and mind-bad can be extremely complex processes, but what other empirical criterion can there be?
... (after Cleric's response)
That is very limited and naive understanding of pleasure and Epicurean hedonism. Of course it is not limited to instant gratification, but involves full complexity of delayed gratification that comes with comprehension of polarities and their sublation. Hedonism is natural criticism of various constructions of authoritarian Big Other, ie. projections of ego.

It's a very interesting thread to check out. We are also quite familiar with the spiritual arguments for the 'candy store' of after-death multiverses that are waiting to be explored. Apparently, there are many YT channels aimed at convincing us that the Earth is a 'soul prison' maintained by deceptive beings who don't want us to awaken to our free-wheeling hedonistic nature. And also the fascination with psychedelics, which is rife on Discord as well. The quickest way to shut down a conversation of the intuitive thinking path is to try telling a psychedelic user that maybe the substances don't lead to the deeper spiritual knowledge they imagine to have found.

[Federica]

...
I'm speaking about what in our Darwinian conception looks like the chain of mutating species that transform from chemical soup, through single-celled organisms, all the way to a human being. An interesting question that science and philosophy are concerned with, especially after the discoveries of QM, is whether we can speak of definite reality without a cognizing consciousness (the premise of realism). In this sense, can we speak of an Earthly realm populated only with lower organisms if there are no physical beings capable of perceiving and cognizing such an environment?

My present investigations lead to the view that the fossil record, for example, takes shape precisely in the way of the negative questions. As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth that are consistent with our state here and now. Every constellation of physical facts seems as part of an infinite chain of causes and effects.

This doesn't mean that the past is arbitrary. In fact, the primordial animals do exist in astral and etheric forms. These are like wavefunctions containing many possibilities. Yet when the 'negative questions' of our human crystallization were filtering the physical states, together with that are filtered also the possibilities of these beings that are consistent with our present. And it's amazing that this whole process takes place every time we incarnate.

This may seem crazy from today's perspective, but it's actually fully compatible with the facts of science. We only need to learn to think properly.

Cleric, why does it take place every time we incarnate and not at every moment?

Besides, this must mean that the usual philosophical starting question: “Why do we perceive the same world?” is actually a wrong question, because we don’t.

What is a discovery then? Probably something much more relative and less 'black or white' than it may appear. Even groundbreaking discoveries actually mean different things to different individuals. Heliocentrism, for example, or more recently, QM, and it's the same for all other discoveries. If I read Pof and discover the role of thinking, my thought-perceptions will reflect that and only then will that discovery start filtering my states. And that QM has been discovered, or elaborated, doesn’t as such align scientists at the same level. Some may experience it as a very marginal theory that doesn’t affect their concrete understanding of the world, while for others it changed everything. And that I am aware that the planet Pluto was discovered in the 1930s only remains a nominal information for me and doesn’t affect how my states collapse other than very marginally, since I don't have the relations to make sense of it. It's hardly part of my experience at this point.

By the way, would it be correct to say that "As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth [and of everything that is experienced by man on Earth, including the space and the universe] that are consistent with our state here and now"?
In other words: that the Earthly sphere comprises not only the physical states of the Earth-being but also the physical perceptions of the universe that physical man on physical Earth is having?

[AshvinP]

...
I'm speaking about what in our Darwinian conception looks like the chain of mutating species that transform from chemical soup, through single-celled organisms, all the way to a human being. An interesting question that science and philosophy are concerned with, especially after the discoveries of QM, is whether we can speak of definite reality without a cognizing consciousness (the premise of realism). In this sense, can we speak of an Earthly realm populated only with lower organisms if there are no physical beings capable of perceiving and cognizing such an environment?

My present investigations lead to the view that the fossil record, for example, takes shape precisely in the way of the negative questions. As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth that are consistent with our state here and now. Every constellation of physical facts seems as part of an infinite chain of causes and effects.

This doesn't mean that the past is arbitrary. In fact, the primordial animals do exist in astral and etheric forms. These are like wavefunctions containing many possibilities. Yet when the 'negative questions' of our human crystallization were filtering the physical states, together with that are filtered also the possibilities of these beings that are consistent with our present. And it's amazing that this whole process takes place every time we incarnate.

This may seem crazy from today's perspective, but it's actually fully compatible with the facts of science. We only need to learn to think properly.

Cleric, why does it take place every time we incarnate and not at every moment?

Briefly to add my 2 cents to this question, I would remind of the discussion here. In that sense, it does take place every moment because we are continually reincarnating in our thoughts. This also becomes less 'fantastical', I would say, when we remember it is only the 4th-level convoluted human perspective that experiences Time-integration as a series of sequential moments extending infinitely backward and forward.

Besides, this must mean that the usual philosophical starting question: “Why do we perceive the same world?” is actually a wrong question, because we don’t.

What is a discovery then? Probably something much more relative and less 'black or white' than it may appear. Even groundbreaking discoveries actually mean different things to different individuals. Heliocentrism, for example, or more recently, QM, and it's the same for all other discoveries. If I read Pof and discover the role of thinking, my thought-perceptions will reflect that and only then will that discovery start filtering my states. And that QM has been discovered, or elaborated, doesn’t as such align scientists at the same level. Some may experience it as a very marginal theory that doesn’t affect their concrete understanding of the world, while for others it changed everything. And that I am aware that the planet Pluto was discovered in the 1930s only remains a nominal information for me and doesn’t affect how my states collapse other than very marginally, since I don't have the relations to make sense of it. It's hardly part of my experience at this point.

By the way, would it be correct to say that "As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth [and of everything that is experienced by man on Earth, including the space and the universe] that are consistent with our state here and now"?
In other words: that the Earthly sphere comprises not only the physical states of the Earth-being but also the physical perceptions of the universe that physical man on physical Earth is having?

Good points. In the occult sense, 'Earth' is all that we perceive from within the 4th convolution of cognition, so that would extend to the mineral shadows of the planets and stars. I am also reminded of recent astronomical research which has discovered the orbits and movements of the planets cannot be calculated and extrapolated in any linear way because they are always slightly different and these effects compound (similar to the 3-body problem). Basically, they are beginning to discover that we are dealing with a living organism, but as you say, this will only become evident to the researchers when they acquire the proper living ideas to apply to the perceptions.

[Federica]

...
I'm speaking about what in our Darwinian conception looks like the chain of mutating species that transform from chemical soup, through single-celled organisms, all the way to a human being. An interesting question that science and philosophy are concerned with, especially after the discoveries of QM, is whether we can speak of definite reality without a cognizing consciousness (the premise of realism). In this sense, can we speak of an Earthly realm populated only with lower organisms if there are no physical beings capable of perceiving and cognizing such an environment?

My present investigations lead to the view that the fossil record, for example, takes shape precisely in the way of the negative questions. As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth that are consistent with our state here and now. Every constellation of physical facts seems as part of an infinite chain of causes and effects.

This doesn't mean that the past is arbitrary. In fact, the primordial animals do exist in astral and etheric forms. These are like wavefunctions containing many possibilities. Yet when the 'negative questions' of our human crystallization were filtering the physical states, together with that are filtered also the possibilities of these beings that are consistent with our present. And it's amazing that this whole process takes place every time we incarnate.

This may seem crazy from today's perspective, but it's actually fully compatible with the facts of science. We only need to learn to think properly.

Cleric, why does it take place every time we incarnate and not at every moment?

Briefly to add my 2 cents to this question, I would remind of the discussion here. In that sense, it does take place every moment because we are continually reincarnating in our thoughts. This also becomes less 'fantastical', I would say, when we remember it is only the 4th-level convoluted human perspective that experiences Time-integration as a series of sequential moments extending infinitely backward and forward.

Besides, this must mean that the usual philosophical starting question: “Why do we perceive the same world?” is actually a wrong question, because we don’t.

What is a discovery then? Probably something much more relative and less 'black or white' than it may appear. Even groundbreaking discoveries actually mean different things to different individuals. Heliocentrism, for example, or more recently, QM, and it's the same for all other discoveries. If I read Pof and discover the role of thinking, my thought-perceptions will reflect that and only then will that discovery start filtering my states. And that QM has been discovered, or elaborated, doesn’t as such align scientists at the same level. Some may experience it as a very marginal theory that doesn’t affect their concrete understanding of the world, while for others it changed everything. And that I am aware that the planet Pluto was discovered in the 1930s only remains a nominal information for me and doesn’t affect how my states collapse other than very marginally, since I don't have the relations to make sense of it. It's hardly part of my experience at this point.

By the way, would it be correct to say that "As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth [and of everything that is experienced by man on Earth, including the space and the universe] that are consistent with our state here and now"?
In other words: that the Earthly sphere comprises not only the physical states of the Earth-being but also the physical perceptions of the universe that physical man on physical Earth is having?

Good points. In the occult sense, 'Earth' is all that we perceive from within the 4th convolution of cognition, so that would extend to the mineral shadows of the planets and stars. I am also reminded of recent astronomical research which has discovered the orbits and movements of the planets cannot be calculated and extrapolated in any linear way because they are always slightly different and these effects compound (similar to the 3-body problem). Basically, they are beginning to discover that we are dealing with a living organism, but as you say, this will only become evident to the researchers when they acquire the proper living ideas to apply to the perceptions.

Thanks, Ashvin. This actually answer my questions. The convolutions are somewhat half understood for me, how they fit within the rest (or how the rest fit in them ) and I haven't recently revisited any related posts or come across them in Steiner, so they don't come to mind, but I see, more or less.

[Cleric K]

Cleric, why does it take place every time we incarnate and not at every moment?

Besides, this must mean that the usual philosophical starting question: “Why do we perceive the same world?” is actually a wrong question, because we don’t.

What is a discovery then? Probably something much more relative and less 'black or white' than it may appear. Even groundbreaking discoveries actually mean different things to different individuals. Heliocentrism, for example, or more recently, QM, and it's the same for all other discoveries. If I read Pof and discover the role of thinking, my thought-perceptions will reflect that and only then will that discovery start filtering my states. And that QM has been discovered, or elaborated, doesn’t as such align scientists at the same level. Some may experience it as a very marginal theory that doesn’t affect their concrete understanding of the world, while for others it changed everything. And that I am aware that the planet Pluto was discovered in the 1930s only remains a nominal information for me and doesn’t affect how my states collapse other than very marginally, since I don't have the relations to make sense of it. It's hardly part of my experience at this point.

By the way, would it be correct to say that "As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth [and of everything that is experienced by man on Earth, including the space and the universe] that are consistent with our state here and now"?
In other words: that the Earthly sphere comprises not only the physical states of the Earth-being but also the physical perceptions of the universe that physical man on physical Earth is having?

I'm aware that expressing in this way - as if the universe crystallizes together with our incarnation (or any of the smaller rhythms) - is misleading. At this point I think it is more appropriate to conceive of the infinite possible superimposed World states, and that our experience acts like a constellation of tuning forks - only some of this infinite superposition rings back in resonance and seem like what makes our concrete world (and even this image becomes misleading if we try to picture these tuning forks as some atoms of reality).

(btw, Ashvin, do you remember from where you took the RS quote where he says that in the higher worlds we perceive other possible streams of Time? We commented on that in QM context.)

I still have many open questions in this area. For example, when we look at a distant star, does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

All this ties nicely with Matt Segall's quote from the other thread.

I think it is here where something like the sock metaphor and Moire patterns are useful. It is important to realize how our baked fourfold state relates to, say, the Saturn state. It's easy to imagine that the Saturn state is fully in the past and that no matter what we investigate through Im, Insp, Int, we can only guess about the past state. But as we have said many times, in a certain sense we are within the Saturn sphere even now (as illustrated in the sock post). Of course, there is a difference between being within a pure Saturn state and its fourfold folded state, but the important thing is to realize that its essence is present even now. This also helps us understand the role of concentration (for example through the conjunctions of the folds). This doesn't yet remove the folds (this will only happen through the evolutionary eons) but momentarily aligns them and thus the intellect can condense a concept of a higher state.

This is important to understand because otherwise, our Earthly self feels in its baked state as if we're locked into a specific compartment of reality, while the other compartments are fully in the past.

[Federica]

At this point I think it is more appropriate to conceive of ...

Which one?
Joking aside - thanks for the reminders.
The question below is the one I asked, and Ashvin said: "Yes it does".

I still have many open questions in this area. For example, when we look at a distant star, does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

All this ties nicely with Matt Segall's quote from the other thread.

I think it is here where something like the sock metaphor and Moire patterns are useful. It is important to realize how our baked fourfold state relates to, say, the Saturn state. It's easy to imagine that the Saturn state is fully in the past and that no matter what we investigate through Im, Insp, Int, we can only guess about the past state. But as we have said many times, in a certain sense we are within the Saturn sphere even now (as illustrated in the sock post). Of course, there is a difference between being within a pure Saturn state and its fourfold folded state, but the important thing is to realize that its essence is present even now. This also helps us understand the role of concentration (for example through the conjunctions of the folds). This doesn't yet remove the folds (this will only happen through the evolutionary eons) but momentarily aligns them and thus the intellect can condense a concept of a higher state.

This is important to understand because otherwise, our Earthly self feels in its baked state as if we're locked into a specific compartment of reality, while the other compartments are fully in the past.

[Federica]

At this point I think it is more appropriate to conceive of ...

Which one?

Joking aside - thanks for the reminders!
The question below is the one I asked, and for Ashvin the answer is positive. Anyway, at my level it was simply a musing. I can easily leave it aside and instead revise the question of the convolutions.

I still have many open questions in this area. For example, when we look at a distant star, does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

All this ties nicely with Matt Segall's quote from the other thread.

I think it is here where something like the sock metaphor and Moire patterns are useful. It is important to realize how our baked fourfold state relates to, say, the Saturn state. It's easy to imagine that the Saturn state is fully in the past and that no matter what we investigate through Im, Insp, Int, we can only guess about the past state. But as we have said many times, in a certain sense we are within the Saturn sphere even now (as illustrated in the sock post). Of course, there is a difference between being within a pure Saturn state and its fourfold folded state, but the important thing is to realize that its essence is present even now. This also helps us understand the role of concentration (for example through the conjunctions of the folds). This doesn't yet remove the folds (this will only happen through the evolutionary eons) but momentarily aligns them and thus the intellect can condense a concept of a higher state.

This is important to understand because otherwise, our Earthly self feels in its baked state as if we're locked into a specific compartment of reality, while the other compartments are fully in the past.

[AshvinP]

At this point I think it is more appropriate to conceive of ...

Which one?
Joking aside - thanks for the reminders.
The question below is the one I asked, and Ashvin said: "Yes it does".

To clarify, what I meant was that our storied 'history' of the Cosmos, for ex. the whole conception of the Kant-Laplace nebula or the Big Bang and how it gradually evolved into the current configuration we observe, is rooted in our intellectual cognition and its capacity of resonance with the superimposed phase space of eternal states. Our story of that physical history is conditioned on how we can conceive the Universal state in the here and now. Of course, this doesn't mean it is an arbitrary story or doesn't point to genuine insights, but simply that the story will evolve into something much different as our thinking consciousness grows into greater resonance with the other possible storylines that include more holistic states.

This doesn't really speak to what kind of evolution other planets or stars are undergoing as loci of spiritual beings, i.e. how it is experienced from their relative perspectives. Just because the story from our current perspective has mineral shadows doesn't necessarily mean they are all undergoing mineral phases of evolution such as we are. That is something we only discover by outgrowing our current perspective through spiritual evolution and the corresponding research. My guess would be option (2) from Cleric's question, but that's just a complete guess.

For example, when we look at a distant star, (1) does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? (2) Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

[Federica]

At this point I think it is more appropriate to conceive of ...

Which one?
Joking aside - thanks for the reminders.
The question below is the one I asked, and Ashvin said: "Yes it does".

To clarify, what I meant was that our storied 'history' of the Cosmos, for ex. the whole conception of the Kant-Laplace nebula or the Big Bang and how it gradually evolved into the current configuration we observe, is rooted in our intellectual cognition and its capacity of resonance with the superimposed phase space of eternal states. Our story of that physical history is conditioned on how we can conceive the Universal state in the here and now. Of course, this doesn't mean it is an arbitrary story or doesn't point to genuine insights, but simply that the story will evolve into something much different as our thinking consciousness grows into greater resonance with the other possible storylines that include more holistic states.

This doesn't really speak to what kind of evolution other planets or stars are undergoing as loci of spiritual beings, i.e. how it is experienced from their relative perspectives. Just because the story from our current perspective has mineral shadows doesn't necessarily mean they are all undergoing mineral phases of evolution such as we are. That is something we only discover by outgrowing our current perspective through spiritual evolution and the corresponding research. My guess would be option (2) from Cleric's question, but that's just a complete guess.

For example, when we look at a distant star, (1) does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? (2) Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

Ashvin, my question was simply the following.

In Cleric’s expression: “As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth that are consistent with our state here and now", is it right that “the physical states of the Earth” also comprise the distant star, seen by physical man from physical Earth? (that is, the star’s mineral shadow, of course)


And you answered: “In the occult sense, 'Earth' is all that we perceive from within the 4th convolution of cognition, so that would extend to the mineral shadows of the planets and stars.”


As it seems to me, your clarification above speaks of something else. This something else appears obvious, at this point. What you tought you would clarify here has been the whole essence of this sub-discussion since its beginning. It's not a clarification of the previous Question and your Answer to it. Now reading Cleric's formulation very carefully, I found it confusing:

For example, when we look at a distant star, does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

Is it not ascertained that spiritual beings never experience mineralized states anyway? Even less "there"? They understand them, possibly ideate them, create them etc, but they never experience the mineral star in the sense that we normally intend with the verb "experience". It’s only mineral in our (or should I say mine) collapsed Earthly perspective… It seems to me that, in the specific environment of this sub-discussion, "does it mean that the star also goes through a mineral phase" means nothing.... that a star goes or does not go through a phase seems void of meaning to me since it doesn't exist as an object, and we can only say that it may go through this or that state in such generic terms if we conceive it as an object...

[AshvinP]

Which one?
Joking aside - thanks for the reminders.
The question below is the one I asked, and Ashvin said: "Yes it does".

To clarify, what I meant was that our storied 'history' of the Cosmos, for ex. the whole conception of the Kant-Laplace nebula or the Big Bang and how it gradually evolved into the current configuration we observe, is rooted in our intellectual cognition and its capacity of resonance with the superimposed phase space of eternal states. Our story of that physical history is conditioned on how we can conceive the Universal state in the here and now. Of course, this doesn't mean it is an arbitrary story or doesn't point to genuine insights, but simply that the story will evolve into something much different as our thinking consciousness grows into greater resonance with the other possible storylines that include more holistic states.

This doesn't really speak to what kind of evolution other planets or stars are undergoing as loci of spiritual beings, i.e. how it is experienced from their relative perspectives. Just because the story from our current perspective has mineral shadows doesn't necessarily mean they are all undergoing mineral phases of evolution such as we are. That is something we only discover by outgrowing our current perspective through spiritual evolution and the corresponding research. My guess would be option (2) from Cleric's question, but that's just a complete guess.

For example, when we look at a distant star, (1) does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? (2) Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

Ashvin, my question was simply the following.

In Cleric’s expression: “As human consciousness crystallizes in the Earthly sphere, together with it crystallize the physical states of the Earth that are consistent with our state here and now", is it right that “the physical states of the Earth” also comprise the distant star, seen by physical man from physical Earth? (that is, the star’s mineral shadow, of course)


And you answered: “In the occult sense, 'Earth' is all that we perceive from within the 4th convolution of cognition, so that would extend to the mineral shadows of the planets and stars.”

Yes, and that is correct. The way we conceive-perceive the stellar spheres is unique to our Earthly perspective at any given time. As Steiner often remarks, these spheres are understood as within us when we expand out across the threshold, and as we contract back to the Earthly sphere they crystallize as our 'outer' environment.

Perhaps I simply misunderstood what was meant by - "The question below is the one I asked, and Ashvin said: "Yes it does"." It seemed like you were saying there is some tension between Cleric's post/question and my answer. So I was trying to elaborate on my previously brief answer to reveal why there is no tension there.

I'm also confused as to what else the perceptions of distant stars could be if not symbols of our crystallized physical consciousness. Would our physical consciousness simply end at the upper boundary of the atmosphere and then we would be perceiving through something else altogether?

As it seems to me, your clarification above speaks of something else. This something else appears obvious, at this point. What you tought you would clarify here has been the whole essence of this sub-discussion since its beginning. It's not a clarification of the previous Question and your Answer to it. Now reading Cleric's formulation very carefully, I found it confusing:

For example, when we look at a distant star, does this mean that it also goes through a mineral phase? Or it could be going through a more spiritual state (like for example our old Sun state) but from our perspective we resonate with what that more spiritual state could physically collapse into, even though no spiritual beings there experience the mineralized state?

Is it not ascertained that spiritual beings never experience mineralized states anyway? Even less "there"? They understand them, possibly ideate them, create them etc, but they never experience the mineral star in the sense that we normally intend with the verb "experience". It’s only mineral in our (or should I say mine) collapsed Earthly perspective… It seems to me that, in the specific environment of this sub-discussion, "does it mean that the star also goes through a mineral phase" means nothing.... that a star goes or does not go through a phase seems void of meaning to me since it doesn't exist as an object, and we can only say that it may go through this or that state in such generic terms if we conceive it as an object...

I don't think that is necessarily the case. We are spiritual beings experiencing a mineralized phase, and all other spiritual beings go through their respective 'human' stages (when self-consciousness lights up) but only Earthly humans awaken to self-consciousness within the mineralized phase of this Solar evolution. The distant stars are perhaps the arenas of 'previous' Solar evolutions and, who knows, perhaps those spiritual beings went through a mineral phase during their 'human' stage as well, and we perceive those stages as distant stars.