Saving the materialists

[Güney27]

My response:

If we were to make all human consciousness to disappear, we could not even safely say that there would still be anything at all. Any knowledge of existence is always bound to the experience of it. The universe is also always bound to experience. Our thinking plays a special role. Any perception (of the universe, earthly nature, the solar systems…) is always something given; we find it already existing as something present. Thinking, however, is something that requires our own action if we want to perceive it. If we wish to set aside all metaphysical terms and understandings, we should study the world as it appears to human consciousness, as such an appearance, and not attribute anything to it that it is not. Everything that exists is ultimately perception, which is given, that is, present, without our conscious participation in its creation. Then, there is thinking, which is not merely a voice in the brain that makes a copy of the outside world in the form of concepts, as many thinkers mistakenly assume, but an activity that plays a complementary role in relation to the given when appearances arise.

Thinking tells us what perception conceals, it reveals to us the nature of perceptions. Thinking perceives the invisible, meaningful aspect of perceptions; it is like an organ capable of perceiving the ideal. Through the symbiosis of thinking and perception, the world we recognize arises when we speak phenomenologically instead of metaphysically. It is not that we first perceive a world and then recognize it, because the world is always already recognized. We have perception and thinking (there are also, of course, feelings, desires, etc., but these are again perceptions, in the sense that they are objects of reflection, that is, of thinking), which we can call the world. However, this term, like that of the universe, is often metaphysically laden, in the sense that we imagine it as an arena into which we have been thrown, in which we move and study it. This notion implies a perception from a perspective that does not exist, because we are never in the world (in the aforementioned sense), but the world is a perception in our perspective as being, which can reveal its essence to us, piece by piece, through thinking, if we stop reducing it to abstract notions. Thinking is who we are; it is the core of our being, our self, so to speak. Not the thought, but thinking itself is meant here. Our body is also given to us, with the peculiarity that we can move it through our intentional activity (thinking) in order to traverse the world of perception and fulfill our intentions. It is a fact that thinking is part of world events, and a special one at that, because thinking must be brought forth by us. Therefore, it is also so understandable to us: it is our mental activity that brings forth thoughts.

On the other hand, perceptions are something given, which is also the reason why they remain a mystery to us. We were not the ones who created them, nor were we present when they arose. We find them as they are and are unsatisfied. We should understand the world as the symbiosis of thinking and perception, otherwise, we fall into the trap of understanding the world as a sphere inside the black box we call the universe, from a perspective that does not exist. Thinking is not consciously present to us in everyday life, because it is directed at the object of thought. When I philosophize about the world, I am aware of the world and its contents, but not of the act I am currently performing mentally, which is thinking. Every philosopher who wants to understand the world makes use of thinking, reflects on the world, but always forgets the living, intuitive activity that brings forth these thoughts. This real thinking, which is forgotten, is, however, just as real as perception; without it, we could not see perception, let alone understand it. Thus, every thinker who wishes to understand the world always leaves half of it behind, because thinking remains unconscious or is reduced to thoughts. With perceptions, we cannot understand what their secret is, the one they impose on us. We can only attempt to understand them by dedicating our thinking to them. In thinking, however, we have access to that part of world events which is available to us and is revealed to us. If we want to speak about the world and recognize it, that is, recognize its essence, we should begin with the aspect that is accessible to us and which encompasses the very act of questioning and explaining: thinking. What is the meaningfulness (meaning) that we anchor in the form of thoughts/words? What directs our thinking? Many more mysterious questions can and must be asked.

Thinking is the speech of the world, and if we explore its nature, it may answer the great questions for us. However, thinking, as the most essential part of the world, has always remained hidden in the background, and it has been seen merely as a tool to examine perception. Yet, we can observe a new trend: humans are starting to become increasingly aware of their thinking, and it is our task to explore it further and deeper. Perhaps then, instead of merely thinking about the world, we will be able to recognize how the world thinks. Therefore, our starting point should be thinking. Since thinking constitutes our essence as human beings, the proposed study leads to true self-knowledge, because we are not separate from the world, and this self-knowledge leads to true knowledge of the world. Perhaps it will open up new methods of understanding

[Güney27]

Ps:

I sent JW a passage from riddles of philosophy, where Steiner begins to speak about how ancient Greeks doesn’t split them selves from nature, they had the feeling that there are a part of nature (being/physis) and that the same power which made a seed metamorphose into a full plant, was active in their metamorphosis. I think this is what Heidegger and JW mean, when they talk about the time before metaphysics and the Subject/Object dichotomy. In the next comment I will address that it is indeed our duty to find our roots again in being, but this time in a fully lucid and conscious manner. There are many similarities in Heidegger and Steiner (of course Steiner was way more further in describing being and teaching how we can cognize the deeper aspects of being) so it is a fruitful conversation where both sides can learn much from one another. If I compare this conversation with the conversations I had in the past with skeptics/materialistic metaphysical thinker, there are really more dimensions to explore in this one. The conversations on this forum 3 years ago wasn’t really fruitful in my opinion for different reasons. One of them was that JW had to deal with different people and views at the same time.

[AshvinP]

Ps:

I sent JW a passage from riddles of philosophy, where Steiner begins to speak about how ancient Greeks doesn’t split them selves from nature, they had the feeling that there are a part of nature (being/physis) and that the same power which made a seed metamorphose into a full plant, was active in their metamorphosis. I think this is what Heidegger and JW mean, when they talk about the time before metaphysics and the Subject/Object dichotomy. In the next comment I will address that it is indeed our duty to find our roots again in being, but this time in a fully lucid and conscious manner. There are many similarities in Heidegger and Steiner (of course Steiner was way more further in describing being and teaching how we can cognize the deeper aspects of being) so it is a fruitful conversation where both sides can learn much from one another. If I compare this conversation with the conversations I had in the past with skeptics/materialistic metaphysical thinker, there are really more dimensions to explore in this one. The conversations on this forum 3 years ago wasn’t really fruitful in my opinion for different reasons. One of them was that JW had to deal with different people and views at the same time.

That's true, Guney, and I hope JW can focus more on the core issues in this conversation, which you are doing a great job of presenting.

It is only logical that the more organic, metamorphic mode of thinking exhibited by the ancient Greeks would be recoverable in our own time in full consciousness, especially if we acknowledge that the very course of "past" history is a 'delamination' of essentially superimposed and entangled consciousness from our reductive perspective. All past modes of consciousness are immanently structuring our current thinking perspective. But unfortunately what is logical isn't taken too seriously these days, rather what is comfortable, familiar, sympathetic, and so on. As long as one can feel satisfied "knowing" the evolution of consciousness through intellectual scale manipulation of mental pictures, there is no incentive or motivation to follow the threads of logic where they lead. At least that has been my experience so far with many philosophical-spiritual thinkers who I felt were otherwise probing the depth axis of spiritual activity. At best they have "agreed" with my points and I never hear from them again. Let's see what happens with JW.

[Güney27]

JW's response to my last comment :



I’ll comment on Steiner at the end of this week, but here are a few observations and questions over what you wrote:"

"If we were to make all human consciousness disappear, we could no longer even be sure that anything would still exist. Any knowledge of existence is always tied to the experience of it. The universe is also always tied to experience."

Without humans, our universe wouldn’t exist, but would that mean that nothing would exist? I think it has become clear that our universe is only a small sliver of existence. Quantum physics has shown there is a state of existence which we reduce to a universe. We can know nothing of it because it has no time or space, no causality, or individuation, and is arational. This is what Heidegger means by Being. The essence of everything that presents itself to us.

"Thinking perceives the invisible, meaningful aspects of perceptions; it is like an organ that can perceive the ideal. Through the symbiosis of thinking and perception, the world we recognize arises when we speak phenomenologically rather than metaphysically."

What would “Ideelle” actually be? Do ideas exist outside of our subjective modes of thought? I would agree that from the view of phenomenology that is how the world would arise, but wouldn’t that still be subject/object metaphysics? That is why Heidegger abandoned phenomenology. We cannot understand Being from Dasein, but only through the interplay of Dasein and Sein. We really shouldn’t speak of worlds before we have come to terms with the universe, but I believe we will find that worlds are always organic relationships within a universe.

"Man begins to become more and more aware of his thinking, and it is our task to continue to explore it further and more deeply. Perhaps, instead of thinking about the world, we will be able to recognize how the world thinks. Therefore, our starting point should be thinking. Since thinking constitutes our essence as humans, the proposed study leads to true self-knowledge. Since we are not separate from the world, this self-knowledge leads to true knowledge of the world. Perhaps it will open up new methods of knowledge for us."

That we aren’t separate from the world would seem to imply that thinking is also not separate from the world, but a relation of equal partners. We’re still at the hermeneutic circle from which there is no escape. That means we must learn the essence of thinking from experiencing it as it arises in partnership with the world.

[Güney27]

My reply to his Response :

"Without humans, our universe wouldn’t exist, but would that mean that nothing would exist? I think it has become clear that our universe is only a small sliver of existence. Quantum physics has shown there is a state of existence which we reduce to a universe. We can know nothing of it because it has no time or space, no causality, or individuation, and is arational. This is what Heidegger means by Being. The essence of everything that presents itself to us."

We can never say what would exist without human consciousness, only speculate. They describe the universe as a reduction, which implies that the universe is merely a dream image, created by the true essence that presses upon us. However, here they create a dualism between the perceivable and an essence which is the real (that which acts). Above all, they limit our ability to know, and the bigger problem is that they negate any possibility of knowledge when they claim that the perceived world, which is the only one we can ever know, is merely a reduced version. All their knowledge stems from the world they describe as a reduction of a true essence. I have mentioned this problem before, and it will be addressed again below.

“What would ‘Ideelle’ actually be? Do Ideas exist outside of our subjective modes of thought? I would agree that from the view of phenomenology, that is how the world would arise, but wouldn’t that still be subject/object metaphysics? That is why Heidegger abandoned phenomenology. We cannot understand Being from Dasein, but only through the interplay of Dasein and Sein. We really shouldn’t speak of worlds before we have come to terms with the universe, but I believe we will find that worlds are always organic relationships within a universe.”

Thinking, as an activity, bears a resemblance to their idea of a reduction. Thinking lives in meaning, which are not words but are reduced to them. This meaningfulness is not sensually perceivable; it is of an ideal nature and makes up the intuitive context which constantly provides orientation for our existence in the background. From this context, meanings are then reduced or focused into the symbolic form of words. It’s like when dynamic and flowing water freezes and then becomes a solid, static ice block. The problem arises when these ice blocks are viewed as separate from the water, and then ice blocks are built into an ice house. It is practical to have a worldview, but putting together ice blocks does not bring true knowledge. That’s why everything is so uncertain today. We want to throw ice blocks around instead of studying the real process that produces them. Our thinking is unconscious of its origin. We truly think it is merely a subjective commentator constantly focused on the outer world as a subject. However, this voice is an expression of a deeper reality which is completely unknown to us. Instead of juggling with the ice blocks and speaking about the world, we should realize how a part of the world produces these ice blocks. The ideal is the content, the meaning of thoughts, and thus the context in which our thinking lives. Your question implies once again a separation between the outside and the inside, as if there are two different, separate worlds. But this is again an artificial separation, not a given one. Often, we find in our questions assumptions that are of a metaphysical nature.

If you understand the phenomenal as a reduced essence, it is natural to think that this implies a separation between subject and object. First, there is the essence before it was reduced, and then there is the reduced version, which we designate as phenomenal. However, this is just an assumption. You create a certain separation between Being (noumenal) and Dasein (phenomenal), which again implies a subject/object separation. For even when you say there is no separation, but an interplay, you still claim that our perception is merely a reduction of an essence that acts upon us. If we do not make this assumption, as it is not necessary, but merely a speculation and not a fact, we can study phenomenologically. We would then study what is given and the only knowable: our conscious experience as humans. You have referred in the past to the neurophysiological theory of Anil Seth, which states that our brain generates perceptions by interacting with impressions to create our reality. Even though you use these theories as analogies, I see the same separation in your statements, in the form of an essence that impresses itself on the “sense organs,” and the phenomenal, which arises from the interplay between essence and "sense organs." I have mentioned the problems with this line of thought, and I pointed out that this statement does not stem from the facts of our existence (the given), but from speculation that attempts to explain a certain content of the world. When you say that we reduce Being, this is already a finished thought, a completed product that you want to impose on perceptions, a seemingly finished knowledge. However, this statement again presupposes thinking, presupposes knowledge, which again escapes consciousness, and in retrospect, an attempt is made to explain thinking through thoughts, such as through the brain, quantum fields, or whatever other terms may be used. However, we can never explain the thinking activity through finished thoughts formed into understandable constructs. For even when we try, in the moment we explain, our intentional activity is in the background, and is the reason for the appearing explanation. So, we are like a dog chasing its own tail. If, however, we understand thoughts as extracts that appear in concentrated form (in the form of words), giving visible shape to invisible meaning, we truly see the depth of our being. There are so many factors that flow into a single thought, and we are unconscious of them.

You try to think about the world in the usual sense; you go one step further and try to think poetically. However, our assumptions are not visible to us; they guide our thinking from a deeper part of our being. We should never think that we have set aside all metaphysical assumptions and thoughts, and are free from them. If we do this, we give them a space in which they can dwell undisturbed by us. Even if you consider it a waste of time to create worldviews, your statements are part of your own. As long as we try with our thoughts to capture a snapshot of the world, we are creating mental worldviews. Only when we try to fathom the depth of our being and learn to see thoughts as the condensate of our being can we take the next step in the evolution of thinking.

"That we aren’t separate from the world would seem to imply that thinking is also not separate from the world, but a relation of equal partners. We’re still at the hermeneutic circle from which there is no escape. That means we must learn the essence of thinking from experiencing it as it arises in partnership with the world."

Here, it is important to remain vigilant in distinguishing. Your statement implies that thinking and the world are separate, and coexist in symbiosis. The world and thinking are not two partners in relation; that would imply a separation. The world is one; the ideas added to perceptions through thinking are the world. They are two sides of the same coin. We never perceive a finished world that we then think about; rather, we first perceive a world, and can only speak of a world once thinking merges with perceptions. The perception of a rose becomes a rose when the mere perception evokes the concept of a rose in my thinking. Only then can we speak of a rose, only then can we recognize it. If we assume that the rose exists independently of us, and we recognize it by thinking about it, we create a dualism between the "I" and the world. The world is always a recognized world, and any speculation about its state before recognition is pure speculation. Knowledge is the symbiosis of thinking and perception; the result, we call the world. In your statement, there is the assumption that our thinking meets a finished world, and then creates an image of it. Thus, we have a strong dualism between us as knowing beings and the world that we know. We are in a subject/object dichotomy. As long as we do not set this aside, we will never perceive ourselves as part of the world, and our thinking will be nothing more than a voice commenting on the world. If we set aside this unfounded assumption, which is easier said than done, we gain the possibility of seeing ourselves, that is, thinking, as an integral part of the world, and thus we realize that behind a thought, the whole world stands, which brought it forth. There is so much more to say, but I do not want to exceed your time frame. Please note, even though I criticize certain lines of thought, I have the utmost respect for them as a thinker and value them greatly. You have come a long way with your thoughts, further than most seekers and thinkers of our time. It is interesting that when we look at the history of philosophy, we can observe a metamorphosis in thinking. From a mythological image-consciousness to abstract thinking, which orients itself fully self-consciously towards perceptions, and today, a new trend, where thinking itself becomes ever more self-reflective of its own activity."

[Federica]

Merry Christmas! Ashvin, Cleric, Güney, Anthony, Max, and everyone reading, may Christmas be merry all around you!

[Cleric]

Merry Christmas! Ashvin, Cleric, Güney, Anthony, Max, and everyone reading, may Christmas be merry all around you!

PS - Merry Christmas and Holy Nights to all on the forum!

Merry Christmas everyone! May the Light and Warmth be abundant in your souls!

[Güney27]

I wish you all a merry Christmas too!

[Güney27]

JW’s response:

We can never say what would exist without human consciousness, only speculate. They describe the universe as a reduction, which implies that the universe is merely a dream image, created by the true essence that presses upon us. However, here they create a dualism between the perceivable and an essence which is the real (that which acts). Above all, they limit our ability to know, and the bigger problem is that they negate any possibility of knowledge when they claim that the perceived world, which is the only one we can ever know, is merely a reduced version. All their knowledge stems from the world they describe as a reduction of a true essence. I have mentioned this problem before, and it will be addressed again below.

“I’ve been having trouble finding blocks of time big enough for a comprehensive answer, so I’ll be sending my response in sections to day and tomorrow. Here’s the first part.



It is true we can’t say what it is, but we can say something exists beyond our reductive universe. Delayed choice quantum experiments clearly show that outcomes other than the Eigenstate we observe do exist. For example, Elitzur’s Canon thought experience shows something not happening in our universe still has an observable impact of existing beyond our time and space. The idea concerns a canon that has not fired (a metaphor for a quantum event) and we can tell it hasn’t fired through the observance of events outside our universe. This thought experiment has subsequently been proven experimentally, and Zeilinger won a Nobel Prize for it. In addition, we routinely manipulate superposition and entanglement, which are clearly impossible in our reductive universe but real beyond it. We know quantum primacy exists, but we cannot understand it because it operates outside our sensibilities of space and time, and is arational.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9305002


We can distinguish between the universe and a dream because we perceive the universe in time and causality, whereas in a dream time and reason are characteristically fluid. Our dreams our limited to our past experiences for raw material, whereas our waking perception is constantly perceiving things not already in our consciousness.

It would be more accurate to consider our picture of the universe as a constructed projection in cooperation with what reality presents to us. The essence of things stems from that unapproachable physical reality. Esthetic thought remains our only means to essential truth.”



I think it is clear that he makes a split between reality as quantum whatever, and our representation trough our brain or something other than the brain, like the whole organism. I don’t feel that he is really engaging with the topics I try to address because he picks something up, and explain his own views, rather than accurately deconstructing my criticism, or even try to investigate my ideas more. I’ll wait until his next part, and then try one more time to write something more extensive.

[Federica]

That's where I think the fundamental discontinuity comes in, that linguistic forms are somehow different from thought-forms, the latter preserving its flow along the contextual elastic tensions while the former has somehow dropped out of it into their own isolated layer of elastic tensions which necessitate an attraction that takes over the steering. I don't see any possible scenario in which that could be the case... but I will wait for your further comment.

Doesn't there exist a 'discontinuity' between incarnated and disincarnated state? and, at a smaller scale, between waking and sleeping? At an even smaller scale, can't it be said that we continually awaken to our thoughts, coming from another state - call it intuitive-contextual, unconscious, or distracted state - in which the thought was not present? You wouldn't imagine calling any of these rhythms "fondamental discontinuities" I am sure. What I'm referring to is of this same nature: it is a thought cycle of descending below clear, reasoning consciousness in the middle of a thought-picture concatenation, only to reemerge at a discontinuous point of the contextual matrix. I am simply describing one modality of what we are already familiar with, that you definitely agreed with: our continuous awakening to our formed thought-images. The difference is only that in the process I refer to, the passages from consciousness to unconsciousness along the parabola of reasoning happen inopportunely, in the middle of the curve, so to say. You find no fundamental discontinuity in the following, I am sure:

What's interesting is that even our thinking trains are of the same nature. This we can notice when in meditation we investigate the nature of our distractions. Just like falling asleep, we're never clearly conscious of being distracted. We say "I used to concentrate on that thought but now I awakened to the fact that there has been an interruption and I have switched to thinking of something else". So in a strange way we constantly reincarnate in our thoughts.

And I'm saying, language plays a central role in how the micro-derailments happen. Perhaps this phenomenon is on an even smaller scale compared to what Cleric described above as constant reincarnation in our thoughts. This is a particularly fragmented mode of checking in and off the conscious parabola of reasoning, perhaps even one magnitude below the normal distraction patterns in our standard cognition. Where are we with our willed, steering consciousness when a normal distraction kicks in? We are at a less dense and pregnant level than the one in which attention is maintained without interruption, for example to solve a geometrical problem, correct? I'm saying, there is an hyper-distracted state, where the distraction doesn't correspond to a (short and erratic, but still present) emergence in consciousness, within the context of the distracting thought. In this hyper-distracted state the thinker believes the main train of thoughts has never been abandoned. It's believed that continuity of reasoning was maintained. How is this possible? Because the space of distraction in which the mind is dreaming has been hijacked by some distracting force, and language is used as a proxy of thought, that makes us feel as if there is meaningfulness, as if there is continuity of reasoning. But there is not necessarily. Then, we awaken again from that dream, somewhere else closer to our preferences. The loose ends are patched together and the discontinuity remains unrealized. Even scientific work is sometimes executed in this mode, often, but not always, with the great complicity of LLMs (as it's been demonstrated time and again, like when it turns out that papers in major scientific publications have been written with Chat GPT, as an example).

I generally understand these principles you are discussing above. The issue I have been trying to better understand and address is always related to the more subtle indications that are given, like the bold. I am curious about a few things:

- If we take JW's last post (or the Heidegger quote) about how scientific thinking (which you have also referenced several times) has separated out from the more artistic-poetic layer of thinking in its function of reducing integrated meaning, do you see any echoes of that in your indications here? In other words, how would you differentiate what you are indicating from what he is expressing? Where does he go astray in his reasoning?

- If we take the weather example before which leads into a dreamy, associative, etc. conversation, and imagine this conversation happens entirely in sign language (or, more implausibly, between people drawing animated pictorial storyboards), how would this differ from the conversation unfolding through verbal language, from your perspective? Would the latter be a significantly different kind of 'derailment' than the former? If so, what is the reason for that?

- Earlier you mentioned that language can be redeemed from both the side of thinking and the side of feeling. How do you distinguish these two? I understand artistic pursuits involve the side of feeling, but how can such feeling-based pursuits spiritualize our language without first being illumined through the side of thinking?

Of your three questions, I can only address the second and third. On the first: I haven't carefully followed the discussion about JW and I don't know Heidegger, therefore I can't say much on a few lines that I am not able to properly contextualize. In general, I would think that a remarkable quote from a phenomenologist philosopher is probably not the best example of dreaming in language, but again, I don't know the context and I can't tell.

On the weather example, I am still under the impression that we are talking about different things. Since you have not given a dialogue, featuring particular words, to illustrate that example, but only the generic flow of topics addressed, it's not possible to get a sense whether or not "mere words" have taken over the orientation of the thought flow, that is whether or not the associative attraction exerted by the word-symbols in use, has overpowered a more high-level, fully conscious, logically sustained, concatenation of thoughts. Nevertheless, beyond the weather example, I think that a dialogue entertained through visual storyboards exclusively, would work around this problem of letting word use, word associations, overpower sound reasoning, since concepts and ideas would be expressed through visual representations and pour ideal material more directly from the pictorial/intuitive flow - supposing the subjects are sensitive enough to their pictorial thoughts, and good enough at sketching to convey that flow in a compelling and dynamic way to their counterpart. The question is more complex for signed language, because some of them are pictorial, and some reproduce word-symbols through the letters of the alphabet. In this latter case, I believe the risks involved are similar to those present in spoken/written language. If the signed language has no iconicity and simply "writes" letters in the air with hand gestures, rather than with hand gestures with ink and paper, or gesturing on a keyboard, then there's no major difference. Words, and their associative attractive power, may still unconsciously influence the expressive flow, damaging the flow of meaning to variable degrees.

Finally, on the question of feeling language rather than thinking language, as a way to spiritual progression, there would be much to say. I was particularly referring to art forms that resound, when practiced with humility, so that they don't become mere outlets for lower nature. I believe the most direct and accessible way to spiritualize language is precisely by redeeming it through feeling (the Victoria Hanna video you recently shared is one possible entry point in this direction) whilst thinking initially gains from being set free from the attractive spell (look at this word, or, should I say, feel it) of word-symbols. With meditation and concentration, the linguistic concatenations are broken apart, only to be later re-imbued with appropriate forms, from a higher place of wisdom. Only when this starts to happen, thinking can be more easily re-pressed into language sequences, for communications that the intellect can take in. Then, the language sequences still convey something of the life of thinking. They are more free from the spell of words, and more likely to elicit fruitful intuitions in others.

On the contrary, attempting to spiritualize language from within the intellectual concatenations first, seems an herculean task without higher cognition. The development of appropriate feelings seems a more accessible, natural, and direct way. In short, it's my understanding that, for the many, the most fruitful and effective treatment of language today is to soak it with feeling, to break apart the word-symbols at their level, so to say, and let the sounds in them recover their intrinsic power. In parallel, the concentration and meditation pursuits progressively clean up the stale spells crawling within the word-symbols (words we hang from, Steiner says), from a higher level, enabling the student to consciously repurpose the worded expressions in more luminous, musical, and purer sequences. This is possible to the extent that the expression is crafted from a higher activity, taking place above the level of language. As Steiner said, through higher cognition, we have to stop thinking in language, so that we can feel language:

this is the state of affairs over a great portion of mankind. Thoughts are not there at all; men only think in words, and to think in words is no way to Michael. We only come to Michael when we get through the words to real inner experiences of the spirit—when we do not hang on the words, but arrive at real inner experiences of the spirit.

This is the very essence, the secret of modern Initiation: to get beyond the words to a living experience of the spiritual. It is nothing contrary to a feeling for the beauty of language. Precisely when we no longer think in language, we begin to feel it; we begin to have it streaming in us, and out from us, as an element of feeling. That, however, is a thing to which the man of to-day must first aspire. Perhaps, to begin with, he cannot attain it in his actual speech, but through his writing. For in respect of writing, too, it must be said: To-day men do not have the writing but the writing has them. What does it mean, ‘the writing has them’? It means that in our wrist, in our hand, we have a certain train of writing. We write mechanically, out of the hand. This is a thing that fetters man. He only becomes unfettered when he writes as he paints or draws—when every letter beside the next becomes a thing that is painted or drawn ... Then there is no longer what is ordinarily called ‘a handwriting.’ Man draws the form of the letter. His relation to the letter is objective; he sees it before him—that is the essential thing.

For this reason, strange as it may sound, in certain Rosicrucian schools learning-to-write was prohibited until the fourteenth or fifteenth year of age; so that the form, the mechanism which comes to expression in writing, did not enter the human organism. Man only approached the form of the letter when his spiritual vision was developed.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/Michaelm ... 13p01.html

I can say I am particularly sensitive to this linguistic spell. I learned to write very very early in life, and I know with clarity what he means, that writing starts to come from the hand and wrist. In a similar way the spoken word often comes out of the templated body itself, as if crystallized - spelled (in its two meanings).

"Precisely when we no longer think in language, we begin to feel it; we begin to have it streaming in us, and out from us, as an element of feeling". Coming back to your question, I think I’ve illustrated how feeling-based pursuits can be the most direct way to spiritualize language. The side of thinking comes in parallel, but less directly, since it requires more solid higher development, to rise above the linguistics level, and then descend in it again, in purified words. As Steiner said in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, about feeling-developing exercises:

When he practices listening without criticism, even when a completely contradictory opinion is advanced, when the most hopeless mistake is committed before him, he then learns, little by little, to blend himself with the being of another and become identified with it. Then he hears through the words into the soul of the other. Through continued exercise of this kind, sound becomes the right medium for the perception of soul and spirit.

https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA010/Engli ... 2.html#2-1