The basics again 2

[AshvinP]

I don't think people can actually experience a subject\object dualism, but rather, our speech and philosophies take the subject\object model too seriously, so we might become inclined to think (on a surfacy level) the subject\object model is true.
However, no one experiences a division between subject and object, no one experiences 2 things . . . there isn't a line of separation between me and seeing . . . there is only seeing, touching, tasting, etc.
All we need to do is point this out. It doesn't require a proof or a change in philosophy.

What we experience, without a doubt, is a varying degree of causal responsibility within the lawful transformations of the perceptual flow. The lawful sensory transformation feels much more inert or unresponsive to our inner activity, for ex. the rhythm of day followed by night followed by day, etc. The emotional transformations between states of joy, states of sadness, states of gratitude, and so on, feel more responsive to our inner activity than much of the sensory flow, but still somewhat inert. We have to dig pretty deep to transform from a state of sadness or cynicism to a state of gratitude and joy. Then there is the lawful transformation of our mental state from certain conceptual configurations to others. We can quite easily transform from states of thinking about politics to states of thinking about history to thinking about mathematics, etc. We feel like, if we stopped doing something inwardly, this whole panorama of thought-states would be much less diverse and rich. The math problems wouldn't do themselves without our participation, unlike the transformation from day to night or the rhythm of our heartbeat.

It is from that entirely valid intuition of the varying responsivity of the perceptual flow to our inner activity, that people begin to conceive that the inert sensory flow must exist independently of our inner activity, as an 'object' set against our 'subject'. They say, "If I can't do something inwardly to modify this perceptual flow right now, then it must have nothing to do with my inner activity, it must be an inherent structure of reality itself". That is a failure to remain faithful to the experiential facts and continue exploring them, instead settling on the easiest possible way to 'explain' the facts away. At the other extreme, people try to remove all distinctions between the 'subject' and the responding perceptual flow, in reaction to the first extreme, and throw out the valid experiential intuition that we began with in the process. Then they start to conceive the human agency as an illusion, a passive witness of inner phenomena that just come and go but that we mistakenly claim responsibility for. This conception practically leads to a similar sort of dualism that can never make sense of our participation in the perceptual lawfulness.

All of this happens mostly in theoretical thought, whereas in the flow of like people instinctively pay attention to the feedback from the variable perceptual flow and modulate their inner activity accordingly. Nevertheless, what begins in thought gradually also grows to influence our feelings and actions and we can already see the consequences of that.

[lorenzop]

I don't think people can actually experience a subject\object dualism, but rather, our speech and philosophies take the subject\object model too seriously, so we might become inclined to think (on a surfacy level) the subject\object model is true.
However, no one experiences a division between subject and object, no one experiences 2 things . . . there isn't a line of separation between me and seeing . . . there is only seeing, touching, tasting, etc.
All we need to do is point this out. It doesn't require a proof or a change in philosophy.

What we experience, without a doubt, is a varying degree of causal responsibility within the lawful transformations of the perceptual flow. The lawful sensory transformation feels much more inert or unresponsive to our inner activity, for ex. the rhythm of day followed by night followed by day, etc. The emotional transformations between states of joy, states of sadness, states of gratitude, and so on, feel more responsive to our inner activity than much of the sensory flow, but still somewhat inert. We have to dig pretty deep to transform from a state of sadness or cynicism to a state of gratitude and joy. Then there is the lawful transformation of our mental state from certain conceptual configurations to others. We can quite easily transform from states of thinking about politics to states of thinking about history to thinking about mathematics, etc. We feel like, if we stopped doing something inwardly, this whole panorama of thought-states would be much less diverse and rich. The math problems wouldn't do themselves without our participation, unlike the transformation from day to night or the rhythm of our heartbeat.

It is from that entirely valid intuition of the varying responsivity of the perceptual flow to our inner activity, that people begin to conceive that the inert sensory flow must exist independently of our inner activity, as an 'object' set against our 'subject'. They say, "If I can't do something inwardly to modify this perceptual flow right now, then it must have nothing to do with my inner activity, it must be an inherent structure of reality itself". That is a failure to remain faithful to the experiential facts and continue exploring them, instead settling on the easiest possible way to 'explain' the facts away. At the other extreme, people try to remove all distinctions between the 'subject' and the responding perceptual flow, in reaction to the first extreme, and throw out the valid experiential intuition that we began with in the process. Then they start to conceive the human agency as an illusion, a passive witness of inner phenomena that just come and go but that we mistakenly claim responsibility for. This conception practically leads to a similar sort of dualism that can never make sense of our participation in the perceptual lawfulness.

All of this happens mostly in theoretical thought, whereas in the flow of like people instinctively pay attention to the feedback from the variable perceptual flow and modulate their inner activity accordingly. Nevertheless, what begins in thought gradually also grows to influence our feelings and actions and we can already see the consequences of that.

Again, I must admit I've never had a talent for deciphering your writings . . . "lawful transformations of the perceptual flow" is a $25 expression where a $2 more understandable expression would likely work just as well.
My point is that in the example of grieving - - we don't experience 2 things, we don't experience a subject AND a grieving -> there is grieving. In retrospect we can say I was grieving or even I am grieving. However, even in the retrospect there is not a subject and an object. The subject/object model has been mistaken for reality.

[AshvinP]

I don't think people can actually experience a subject\object dualism, but rather, our speech and philosophies take the subject\object model too seriously, so we might become inclined to think (on a surfacy level) the subject\object model is true.
However, no one experiences a division between subject and object, no one experiences 2 things . . . there isn't a line of separation between me and seeing . . . there is only seeing, touching, tasting, etc.
All we need to do is point this out. It doesn't require a proof or a change in philosophy.

What we experience, without a doubt, is a varying degree of causal responsibility within the lawful transformations of the perceptual flow. The lawful sensory transformation feels much more inert or unresponsive to our inner activity, for ex. the rhythm of day followed by night followed by day, etc. The emotional transformations between states of joy, states of sadness, states of gratitude, and so on, feel more responsive to our inner activity than much of the sensory flow, but still somewhat inert. We have to dig pretty deep to transform from a state of sadness or cynicism to a state of gratitude and joy. Then there is the lawful transformation of our mental state from certain conceptual configurations to others. We can quite easily transform from states of thinking about politics to states of thinking about history to thinking about mathematics, etc. We feel like, if we stopped doing something inwardly, this whole panorama of thought-states would be much less diverse and rich. The math problems wouldn't do themselves without our participation, unlike the transformation from day to night or the rhythm of our heartbeat.

It is from that entirely valid intuition of the varying responsivity of the perceptual flow to our inner activity, that people begin to conceive that the inert sensory flow must exist independently of our inner activity, as an 'object' set against our 'subject'. They say, "If I can't do something inwardly to modify this perceptual flow right now, then it must have nothing to do with my inner activity, it must be an inherent structure of reality itself". That is a failure to remain faithful to the experiential facts and continue exploring them, instead settling on the easiest possible way to 'explain' the facts away. At the other extreme, people try to remove all distinctions between the 'subject' and the responding perceptual flow, in reaction to the first extreme, and throw out the valid experiential intuition that we began with in the process. Then they start to conceive the human agency as an illusion, a passive witness of inner phenomena that just come and go but that we mistakenly claim responsibility for. This conception practically leads to a similar sort of dualism that can never make sense of our participation in the perceptual lawfulness.

All of this happens mostly in theoretical thought, whereas in the flow of like people instinctively pay attention to the feedback from the variable perceptual flow and modulate their inner activity accordingly. Nevertheless, what begins in thought gradually also grows to influence our feelings and actions and we can already see the consequences of that.

Again, I must admit I've never had a talent for deciphering your writings . . . "lawful transformations of the perceptual flow" is a $25 expression where a $2 more understandable expression would likely work just as well.
My point is that in the example of grieving - - we don't experience 2 things, we don't experience a subject AND a grieving -> there is grieving. In retrospect we can say I was grieving or even I am grieving. However, even in the retrospect there is not a subject and an object. The subject/object model has been mistaken for reality.

Yes, that's correct. When we are in a state of rage or grief, we are completely united with the rage/grief. There is no experiential justification to speak of some entity that beholds the emotional state of "rage", as two separate things. The same can be said of the perceptual state of "redness", but it's more difficult to notice because we naturally developed a certain cognitive distance from sensory impressions. The experience of being 'merged with redness' seems a lot more unstable and fleeting than being 'merged with rage'. The least distance occurs in our conceptual states, for ex. when we are reading these words and following their meaning. In fact, we are so merged with the experience of these conceptual states that many people often forget they are thinking when interacting with perceptual experience throughout the day. We are like fish in the [mental] water, entirely merged with the stream of inner voice. Then we may feel like thoughts just pop in and out of our heads without us doing anything inwardly, without making any inner gestures.

Do you see this variability I am pointing to? That was the point of my previous post as well. There is variability that makes us feel less merged with the sensory meaning of 'redness' than we do with the emotional meaning of 'rage' and even less so than we do with the mental state of 'thinking politics' or whatever. If we are absorbed in a stream of intellectual ideas, for ex. about theoretical physics, hours can pass by with us hardly noticing because we are so merged into this stream. Another example is when we daydream and nearly forget that 'we' exist. This is why the subject-object duality assumption most often arises in relation to sensory experience. Most people will be incredulous if you tell them they are merged with color impressions when observing them, but those same people will find it easier to understand they are merged with the emotional state of grief, and it's even easier to understand how we are merged with our inner thinking voice IF we do something inwardly active to lift our heads above the mental water for a few moments (not much unlike what we are doing now).

Such exercises that give us a few degrees of separation from the inner thinking voice are what hold the hope of overcoming the subject-object duality, as we then become more and more sensitive to how we are also merged with deeper emotional and sensory experiences, and how we are also doing something inwardly to bring all those states about. We can't just tell people "You are not a separate thing from your perceptual states, so quit thinking you are". This is obvious - if it were that easy, no one would think dualistically about the flow of experience anymore ('flow' just indicates that our experience is not static but is always changing in a lawful way).

[lorenzop]

As you suggest some experiences seem more intimate, closer then other experiences. And, if asked to maintain 'mindfulness' in activity, some may find it easier to be mindful while strolling in woods vs navigating rush-hour traffic.
However, I don't think this variability stems from the nature of the experiences themselves, but from the clarity, coherence and presence of the finite mind.
Some folks are more equanimous and mindful - and if desired , these skills/arts can be learned. One can train the mind.
I don't think folks need exercises in 'overcoming the subject-object duality' - - I would suggest most people are overwhelmed by experience - - overwhelmed = the subject/object are muddled.
Oneness\Unity is not the muddling of subject\object - - I'd suggest duality is better than a mess.

[AshvinP]

As you suggest some experiences seem more intimate, closer then other experiences. And, if asked to maintain 'mindfulness' in activity, some may find it easier to be mindful while strolling in woods vs navigating rush-hour traffic.
However, I don't think this variability stems from the nature of the experiences themselves, but from the clarity, coherence and presence of the finite mind.
Some folks are more equanimous and mindful - and if desired , these skills/arts can be learned. One can train the mind.
I don't think folks need exercises in 'overcoming the subject-object duality' - - I would suggest most people are overwhelmed by experience - - overwhelmed = the subject/object are muddled.
Oneness\Unity is not the muddling of subject\object - - I'd suggest duality is better than a mess.

Aren't these two - 'the nature of the experiences themselves' and 'presence of the mind' - one and the same? As we had discussed, there is no 'mind' that is beholding 'experiences themselves' as two separate entities.

What I'm saying is that the way our experiences are experienced depends on how we modulate our spiritual activity. If we make that activity more clear and present within the flow of experience, then the Unity of experience becomes more easily discerned at an intuitive level. It's not because we have had the thought, "everything is unified and there is no subject different from the object", but because we have done something inwardly to change the way we approach experience. And, moreover, we have to do this on a consistent basis - one brief meditative session is not enough. I think you basically agree, based on the above.

Then other questions arise, like to what extent can we modulate our spiritual activity to heighten sensitivity to the Unity of experience? Is there some fundamental limit to this? Where does this feeling for Unity arise from - the nebulous merging with experience, or the rhythmic feedback between activity and experience that makes us feel like the latter is always pointing back to, enriching, and orienting the former? What are the practical consequences of this Unity that extend, not only for our personal overcoming of 'duality', but for our ability to help others discern in what direction they can move to liberate from dualistic tendencies? We don't need to go into these questions now, but just leave them as something to contemplate.

[lorenzop]

I think we are in agreement - if a more unified and less duality of experience is desired, culture clarity and presence of mind and opening of the heart.
One could structure the perfect preferred philosophy, all the right words in the right order - but the true honest 'measurement' is clarity, coherence and presence of mind (and heart).
This would also be my response to the Are you moving closer or farther from God thread.

[Federica]

We could also remember the clay pot metaphor. As long as our thinking is passive, we are immersed in the imaginative panorama (clay substance) and discern the lowest common denominator of meaning conveyed by the World flow. We rely on the concepts educated into our sensory organism through basic natural and cultural development. We will our bodily movements and this feeds back on us as the sensory panorama which, for the most part, feels like a morphing pot that has nothing to do with our hand movements (and we hardly even question the relationship). Our thoughts simply imitate the sensory flow as a commentary on it. When we begin actively intending our thinking in a certain direction, however, the mental pictures that feedback start to be reflected in the imaginative panorama, i.e. we begin to spiritually 'see' (as a negative image) inner aspects of the World flow.

This most clearly happens in philosophy, theology, and science and what feeds back on the resistance of active thinking are 'laws', 'principles', 'doctrines', etc. that cohere the sensory appearances across time. The natural scientists resist the usual curvature of flowing along with sensory impressions and associated 'subjective' feelings and instead concentrate their thinking to propose hypotheses, set up experiments, analyze the results, and so on. In that sense, since the very dawn of thinking, gaining insights into the World flow has always been an exercise in meditative resistance. The impulse of modern initiation is to simply extend and intensify that exercise within the domain of the spiritual activity that is presupposed in all other domains of inquiry.

The essential point in the foundations of Anthroposophy is that one starts from completely normal human experiences, that one has a good knowledge of modern scientific truths, of modern ethical life, and develops these very things more intensively, so that one can penetrate into the higher worlds through an intensification of the cognitive forces which already exist less intensely in ordinary life and in science. One must of course have an understanding for these ordinary human experiences. One must pay attention to thoroughly ordinary normal experiences, which, however, we are not very much interested in observing carefully. Things must, so to speak, become enigmas and problems. Although they form part of ordinary life, one easily fails to see their enigmatic character.

I am aware that, since a certain juncture not too long ago, you are committed to highlighting smooth continuity in everything, and I agree there is often a way to do that with insight. But when that results in: “the natural scientists resist the usual curvature of flowing along with sensory impressions and associated 'subjective' feelings and instead concentrate their thinking to propose hypotheses, set up experiments, analyze the results, and so on”, the intention has compensated for what the facts cannot deliver. Surely there are individual exceptions, still I think it's safe to say that “the natural scientists” in general exhibit precisely that type of passive, not active, thinking that flows along the naive-realistic lines of least resistance which need to be abandoned, to used Steiner's word. Not simply intensified and extended.


There is no possible smooth transition between naive realism that only wants to rely on “objective” observation of phenomena (as the majority of natural scientists still openly aspire to) and spiritual science. Naive realism does precisely that: flowing along with sensory impressions, without resistance. The resistance you are crediting tha natural scientists and philosophers with, is the exception, not the rule. Just because the natural scientist (or philosopher for that matter) may not be giving in to sensual physical or psychological cravings while proposing hypotheses, or laying out experiments and analyses, doesn’t mean their thinking is active in the spiritual scientific sense, that is, the expression of resistance against the world flow, the expression of freedom in the PoF sense.


Therefore, I don’t agree with the blue text. I'm not pointing this out because of an etched soul path of being a contrarian, as you would say. Rather, it's because I think that calling the impulse of modern initiation a simple extension and intensification of an already present impulse, is misleading. How many times have yourself referred to the need to be open to an entirely new approach, offering previosuly unsuspected new vistas? After all, humanity will be split in two. And unfortunately there will be no way to smooth that out or patch that up by way of extension, intensification, redemption, or any other way.

***

PS: The snippet from GA79 is out of context. That sentence was part of a specific comment Steiner made about a scientist who had written that the elaborations of Anthroposophy had an "irresistibly comical effect". So Steiner noted that Anthroposophy starts from ordinary experiences from ordinary life but reads them in a new way, which may elicit an irresistibly comical effect in rigid thinkers, who can’t accept that Anthroposophy inevitably starts from normal human experiences of everyday life and science. For some, the mere proposition to reconsider ordinary experiences and vocabulary with fresh eyes may very well trigger hysterical-like reactions. Had you included couple more words above or below the quoted text, the sense would have been clear, and also unsuitable for your quoting purposes.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA079/En ... 28p02.html

[AshvinP]

We could also remember the clay pot metaphor. As long as our thinking is passive, we are immersed in the imaginative panorama (clay substance) and discern the lowest common denominator of meaning conveyed by the World flow. We rely on the concepts educated into our sensory organism through basic natural and cultural development. We will our bodily movements and this feeds back on us as the sensory panorama which, for the most part, feels like a morphing pot that has nothing to do with our hand movements (and we hardly even question the relationship). Our thoughts simply imitate the sensory flow as a commentary on it. When we begin actively intending our thinking in a certain direction, however, the mental pictures that feedback start to be reflected in the imaginative panorama, i.e. we begin to spiritually 'see' (as a negative image) inner aspects of the World flow.

This most clearly happens in philosophy, theology, and science and what feeds back on the resistance of active thinking are 'laws', 'principles', 'doctrines', etc. that cohere the sensory appearances across time. The natural scientists resist the usual curvature of flowing along with sensory impressions and associated 'subjective' feelings and instead concentrate their thinking to propose hypotheses, set up experiments, analyze the results, and so on. In that sense, since the very dawn of thinking, gaining insights into the World flow has always been an exercise in meditative resistance. The impulse of modern initiation is to simply extend and intensify that exercise within the domain of the spiritual activity that is presupposed in all other domains of inquiry.

The essential point in the foundations of Anthroposophy is that one starts from completely normal human experiences, that one has a good knowledge of modern scientific truths, of modern ethical life, and develops these very things more intensively, so that one can penetrate into the higher worlds through an intensification of the cognitive forces which already exist less intensely in ordinary life and in science. One must of course have an understanding for these ordinary human experiences. One must pay attention to thoroughly ordinary normal experiences, which, however, we are not very much interested in observing carefully. Things must, so to speak, become enigmas and problems. Although they form part of ordinary life, one easily fails to see their enigmatic character.

I am aware that, since a certain juncture not too long ago, you are committed to highlighting smooth continuity in everything, and I agree there is often a way to do that with insight. But when that results in: “the natural scientists resist the usual curvature of flowing along with sensory impressions and associated 'subjective' feelings and instead concentrate their thinking to propose hypotheses, set up experiments, analyze the results, and so on”, the intention has compensated for what the facts cannot deliver. Surely there are individual exceptions, still I think it's safe to say that “the natural scientists” in general exhibit precisely that type of passive, not active, thinking that flows along the naive-realistic lines of least resistance which need to be abandoned, to used Steiner's word. Not simply intensified and extended.

There is no possible smooth transition between naive realism that only wants to rely on “objective” observation of phenomena (as the majority of natural scientists still openly aspire to) and spiritual science. Naive realism does precisely that: flowing along with sensory impressions, without resistance. The resistance you are crediting tha natural scientists and philosophers with, is the exception, not the rule. Just because the natural scientist (or philosopher for that matter) may not be giving in to sensual physical or psychological cravings while proposing hypotheses, or laying out experiments and analyses, doesn’t mean their thinking is active in the spiritual scientific sense, that is, the expression of resistance against the world flow, the expression of freedom in the PoF sense.

Therefore, I don’t agree with the blue text. I'm not pointing this out because of an etched soul path of being a contrarian, as you would say. Rather, it's because I think that calling the impulse of modern initiation a simple extension and intensification of an already present impulse, is misleading. How many times have yourself referred to the need to be open to an entirely new approach, offering previosuly unsuspected new vistas? After all, humanity will be split in two. And unfortunately there will be no way to smooth that out or patch that up by way of extension, intensification, redemption, or any other way.

Naive realism is not equivalent to natural science. We need to think through this carefully because the 'smooth continuity' is extremely important to inwardly experience. If we don't grasp this smooth continuity, we simply haven't grasped the nature of meditation and higher cognitive development, and that can then form the basis of misleading expectations that continually block our inner efforts.

I was not speaking of any particular natural scientist or their naive realism, their false assumptions (like sensory phenomena are the totality of what can be precisely investigated), their passive habits (like proposing speculative theories based on limited sensory data rather than patiently observing and researching for many years), etc. These types of assumptions and habits can also steer spiritual scientific pursuits and probably do for many people. So clearly I was not trying to somehow analyze the soul constitution of any particular natural or spiritual scientist and hold them out as examples.

I was speaking of the endeavor of natural science as such (or likewise the endeavors of philosophy and theology as such), which extend well beyond the era of passive habits into the Middle Ages. These endeavors provide us genuine insights into the inner constraints of the World flow, and the level of insight they give us is proportionate precisely to how much we have purified the soul of selfish assumptions, habits, tendencies, etc. that lead us to impose our preferred judgments on the meaningful feedback. This reminds me of something from Steiner's epistemic works that was elaborated by Ron Brady (and I highly recommend this article to anyone who hasn't read it yet):


https://www.natureinstitute.org/ronald- ... -the-world

The correction to the usual notion of “optical illusions” reveals a cognitive act where the popular notion of a “deception of the senses” misses it. Sense appearances are often said to be deceptive, but since they merely present and do not interpret, they cannot in themselves be erroneous. The case in point is that the moon looks larger on the horizon. This observation could only be mistaken if the moon did not in fact look larger on the horizon. I am mistaken, however, if I suppose that measurements, let us say in degrees of arc, of the width of the two appearances of the moon (on the horizon and at zenith) will show a discrepancy. Under certain conditions an optical distance or width will accurately foretell the measurements of the same. Under the conditions met in what is termed “optical illusion” this coordination between optical impression and measurement is lost. But such a situation represents an “illusion” — a mistake — only for the individual judge’s measurement by optical impression. His unrealistic expectations arise from the judgment he has made. They are no more an error of sense than the apparent bending of a stick that extends through the surface of water. I must add a false cognitive judgment — such as, the stick will be bent when I take it out of the water — to constitute an error. The look of something cannot be mistaken because it makes no judgment, but the judgment by which we connect further expectations to that appearance can easily err.

So the thinking mind that turns its concentrated attention to the sensory spectrum and its lawful transformations is indeed engaged in the same principle we engage in meditative resistance, and that is the inner reason why natural science works. As long as we can avoid imposing our selfishly steered cognitive judgments on the inner experiences that feedback, whether in natural science or meditation, we gain immense insights into the higher worlds and their continual modulation of ordinary sensory life. Our intended thinking flow conflicts with the wider World flow and that feeds back on us as panoramic meaningful images of the inner constraints, which are automatically condensed into verbal scientific commentary. Of course, most natural scientists are unconscious that this is what is happening, and that is why everything generally gets reduced to the lowest common denominator of meaningful feedback, i.e. seemingly external 'laws' that govern nature.

But that shouldn't prevent us from becoming more conscious of the inner reasons for our philosophical and scientific thinking experience (and Steiner's early works, and some later ones, are clearly centered around building this smooth continuity). Many esoteric scientists are engaged in natural science and can form more expansive intuitions against their perceptions and research precisely for that reason, i.e. they have become more conscious of the inner movements that the meaningful sensory feedback points to. As Goethe wrote, "each new object, well contemplated, opens a new organ in me." In this way we can penetrate the archetypal foundations that elucidate the ordinary experiences that we normally assume are 'obvious' or take for granted as something we can 'just do' (like scientific thinking), exactly as Steiner said in that quote. He makes it pretty clear - "so that one can penetrate into the higher worlds through an intensification of the cognitive forces which already exist less intensely in ordinary life and in science." There is endless value that can come from experiencing the inner Unity that brings all these diverse domains of inquiry into harmony with one another.

Cleric mentioned in a recent comment to you, "It is a strange feeling because the more clear it becomes, the more I see how... well.. simple it really is (not the complexity of the World flow but our proper stance within it)." And I feel this is truly the case as well - there is an elegant and profound simplicity to the vertical axis of spiritual activity, which allows us to take the principle of 'meditative resistance' and practically gain insights into the reason why all human thinking inquiries since the dawn of human culture have yielded fruits for progressive cultural development. To know the principle of 'meditative resistance', of course, is to inwardly experience it radiating into our thinking efforts. Steiner often remarked on how higher beings are meditating our current phenomenal space into existence, the same space we meditate on through natural science to recursively reveal insights into the core inner lives and movements of those higher beings. The human initiates seeded the impulses for future epochs through their meditations as well. Modern natural science is simply a less intense manifestation of that same principle - after all, it is precisely through these sciences that the sensory landscape has been and is being transformed. What was once occult has become exoteric.

But as we know, "simple" does not mean "easy" or "without obstacles". The transition from natural scientific thinking to spiritual scientific thinking ((in our modern era, because even in the Middle Ages the nature-spirit dichotomy was more united), will indeed be experienced as a qualitative jump, because to reach the insight of the smooth continuity requires a sacrificial and selfless effort, a complete reorientation of one's perspective on the meaningful landscape and its relation to our inner activity. The smooth continuity is something to be gradually attained through inner experience and cultivated virtues, not postulated from the outset as some theoretical statement about how we can continue in our same inner habits and somehow reach higher knowledge.

[Federica]

Allright Ashvin, you have made your rhetorical methods and epistemic exultations clear enough by now. There’s nothing more I could usefully add in this thread at this point.

[Güney27]

I wanted to share a essay (series) I currently reading on Substack:
https://open.substack.com/pub/arranroge ... medium=ios

It’s very interesting, because he speaks about the thinking activity that really makes up the world around us. I don’t think that he has knowledge about PoF or other writings from Steiner, but more a jungian perspective, but it’s very interesting how things overlap in the new streams of spiritual wisdom. I would find it interesting to hear some of your thoughts.