Saving the materialists

[AshvinP]

For those of us in the developed world, we have to admit that we did very little (as Earthly personalities) to creatively develop our physical organism as children, to place ourselves with parents who could raise us with certain discipline and values, with various teachers who could educate our logical faculty, and so on. This is the phenomenological reality. Our creative "I" is etched into our physical organization as an act of grace, for the most part. It is similar at the collective scale. We can only speak of the end of 'kali yuga', the 'war in heaven', and so on, which heralded the withering of the materialism by the influx of etheric consciousness, because they are guided by greater Cosmic rhythms unfolding. It wasn't in the realm of human freedom to decide whether Michael would 'defeat' Ahriman in the 19th century in the spiritual worlds.

The reason this is important is because, increasingly, the details of spiritual evolution will only manifest through completely free human decisions. Thus it is not as simple as saying that thinkers are more likely to discover their intimate spiritual process because they are more closely probing the etheric spectrum. That is not guaranteed to be the case even if they are provided all the perfect intermediary, actionable steps that we can imagine providing. In a weird way, they are both closer than ever and more unlikely than ever, and the latter depends on deeper soul interest rather than logical arguments and reasoning (especially within the intellectual-quantitative domain). It is similar to how Christ appeared right amongst physical humanity 2k years ago, but the souls were in the worst state to understand the significance of his presence. Now Christ appears right amongst our etheric thinking being, but we are more conditioned than ever to keep looking for him in our finished and calculable mental pictures.

It occurred to me that, to make the above more intimate, we can all probably recall the transition we had from a default materialistic outlook, where imagined entities and mechanisms are driving the phenomenal flow, to the insight of BK's analytic idealism that our first-person conscious experience is fundamental. We can recall the lightbulbs that went off and the feeling of suddenly taking a new perspective on reality. Now we have started to understand how all the ancient philosophical and religious traditions were pointing in a similar direction of understanding. We start to see how modern scientific theories are overlaying erroneous assumptions on top of the experimental results, and so on. At the time, we surely felt like we were moving through our concepts quite freely, reasoning through the arguments and reaching new insights.

But how awake were we to this whole process? To what extent were we really making free and creative conceptual determinations along the way? Looking back now, I can sense the process unfolded in a rather dreamy way. The steps that led me into the vicinity of analytic idealist philosophy were led by a mysterious karmic attractor and any narrative I can create it for now would only be a post hoc rationalization of why I chose to pay attention to this or that speaker, pick up this or that book, join this forum, and so on. It is true that, in the process of reasoning through the flaws of materialistic philosophy and science, there was some clarity in the weaving of thought-connections. Yet that process still unfolded as a matter of necessity - the premises and basic facts led to the idealist conclusions like clockwork.

And our now extensive experience on this forum has only made clearer how conditioned modern souls have become to working exclusively within this domain. It has revealed how hesitant they are to experience a taste of free thinking, of thinking that doesn't unfold like an algorithmic computation from premises to conclusions. In the public sphere, thinkers like ML, JP, and so on seem to be the most open to new ways of understanding the cognitive knowing process. Yet this recent discussion is a good example of the momentum of the classical intellectual conditioning. It is the closest I have seen ML coming to exploring the intimate thinking process, thanks to IM, but we can see how quickly he goes back to trying to understand it as the emergent result of some other elemental process, some intermediary steps from the algorithmic mechanism to the more organic and creative problem-solving. Likewise, he remains very suspicious of the distinction between machines and organic life.

I have started it at the relevant part:

[Federica]

You mentioned to Cleric about being open with social connections, and presumably about how we can give such people tiny steps that would help them understand why the phenomenology of spiritual activity (aka Christian esotericism) is the lynchpin on which all future progress depends. Presumably inviting them to PoF-style contemplations is too much of a leap to begin with, in your view. Maybe it would help us if you elaborate more on what other actionable steps you have in mind?

To be clear, I'm not trying to arbitrarily or summarily rule out such possibilities. We are simply exploring the various intuitions that arise when stimulated by the mental pictures of such an approach. It's not about finding the one right or conclusive answer, but an ongoing process of imaginatively orienting to the various spiritual circumstances of our time, at both our individual and collective scales. One such circumstance that we have explored is the tendency to try and fix others before adequately 'cleaning our rooms' (soul space), which as mentioned before is a common thread in modern cultures. It's because I have made so many attempts to 'take action out there' on various forums, that I also inwardly recognize how this tendency can take a strong grip on the spiritual path.

I mentioned that to Cleric not in relation to the connecting steps for scientists, but in relation to his critique to the scientists, that they are internally split between their theories, which they put out to the public, and their inner states, which remain tabu, and totally out of focus. To which I added (and I was misunderstood): yes, but a split can also occur on the side of those on the path of living thinking, to the extent that we don't fully connect the living inner life with the social, worldly aspect, through online anonymity for example, and through being active on various forums, but not in our real-life circles, not within the circles of family friends and colleagues, where it would be somewhat discomfortable to stand out as practitioners along the path. This, in my understanding, is a split somewhat specular to the one Cleric criticized the scientists for. Shall I repeat that I am not trying to guess or judge how you live your lives when I say that. Of course, for philosophers and/or members of associations it's easier to be out there with their full name and be taken more or less seriously, because there is that worldly anchor, but still.

When it comes to the "connecting steps" to help materialists (be them our personal connections, or in the public) I don't know exactly what steps, but I aspire to figure that out, if I ever come farther ahead on this path, simply because something more has to be attempted, something that is more worldly, and not only introspective, in the face of the emergency we are facing.

[Cleric]

Happy Woman's Day, Federica!

Could you say something more here? I am not getting it.

I myself still struggle with these things, which really lie at the depth of Intuition. One way to approach this mystery is by contemplating the one and the many - unity and multiplicity. Number is like a quality that unites distinct experiences. For example, we can try to feel left and right. In quiet meditation we can try to fill with our attention the left half-universe, then roll all our attention over to the right half. There's something distinct in the two experiences, there's some quality that makes them distinguishable from one another. Yet we also feel that they form a unity, a 1, which is space. Left and right are strung together with the quality of 2 - polarity. These things are not something we can intellectually grasp as we can grasp an equation. These are deeply qualitative experiences. But at the core, numbers are qualia that unite the multiplicity. Maybe it can help if we try to feel how without the qualia of number there would be only chaos - multiplicity encompassed as inexplicable complexity. Number is like an ordering principle that allows us to intuit the chaos as a bifurcating tree or a fractal and which at the same time is intentionally used as such ordering principle. Somehow we should always be able to fold the complexity back to One. Of course, I remind that there's a danger here if we try to see the tree of complexity as emerging from our mind, that is from the intellectual self. The quest of evolution is to reach the Divine One.

I haven't spoken about "losing sight" of the outer process. What I said has nothing to do with mystical attitudes, or denial of the physical world. Indeed, the way you speak of inner processes doesn't invite such pictures. But I was not referring to such pictures either. What I was referring to is action in the world. Keeping one's actions in the world true to the practice of the inner path. That is, for example, being open about following this path with one's social connections, family, friends, colleagues, and possibly the public. This is the disconnection I have referred to. It's about being whole and consistent. For example, if someone asks "Why are you vegetarian?" It's about being willing to tell the true reasons, rather than giving some secondary reasons, to avoid difficult conversations, and being submitted to third degree by people who feel called to save you from suspicious belief systems.

Oh, got it. Excellent example with vegetarianism. Unsurprisingly, the approach should be individual. For example, when someone asks me that question, I usually say something like: "There are many factors. None of them in isolation sounds sufficient, but when they are put together they really build up." Then it's important to feel the other party. If they are being cynical, it's of little use to go into many explanations. They don't really want to know, they are most likely trying to show how stupid we are to deprive ourselves of one of the few pleasures this wicked life offers. Other people start asking questions. If we feel that they are open to the possibility that maybe there's something they can learn, we can make an attempt to explain something. But even here we should act wisely and feel our way into what exactly they are ready to hear.

The same thing holds for spiritual knowledge as a whole. The various spiritual facts are like photographs from different directions of an object. If the other person, as soon as we have presented the second picture, has already forgotten all about the first, it would be very difficult to make our point. There's little we can do here because it is all up to the person to have the goodwill and find the inner stance from whence the different pictures can be grasped as a whole.

This holds also for the list I'm working on. Although I do my best to put things into an order such that every next thing steps on the foundation of the previous, they are nevertheless of such nature that to see them as a whole, certain inner effort is needed - the Magic Eye that will help see the distinct points lying on the flat surface as becoming a unity in depth.

But in all cases we need an individual approach. It's not so much a question of how to convey our knowledge to the other person but to see what they need. We are all in a certain situation in the soul labyrinth. If we start speaking indiscriminately about different parts of the labyrinth, for the other person these would only be abstract pictures. But if we can find their location, we can speak of the things that are in their immediate vicinity and then we may have their attention because they feel that what we speak of is relevant to their situation. Sometimes it might be that it is we who need to learn something from the other person, even if they do not give us anything consciously. Sometimes just by them being resistive, we may learn something important. Once we spoke with Ashvin about how our lower self may be secretly sabotaging our progress. For example, sometimes we are very eager to pass certain knowledge to the other person. Not too seldom, this something is the last insight that we had and we still feel enthusiastic about, forgetting that for the other person this might be the farthest removed chamber in the labyrinth, and thus, the least relevant. If we had deeper sensitivity (being clairvoyant, so to speak), we would feel our way with the other person, as if asking the Heavens, what that soul needs and how we can help it in the best way. When we can't resist spitting out the thing that we are eager to explain, it's like we one-sidedly declare that this is what the person needs. So in a strange way we self-sabotage our own development because in this case we don't want true clairvoyance. True clairvoyance might reveal that it's useless to say to the person what we intend to say. So we secretly prefer to remain in the dark about the true state of affairs, such that we can give way to our desire. Thus we can see that secretly our lower self may not want to gain deeper knowledge because this might invalidate many of the things that we are attached to. So we see that the pedagogical question is not difficult only with respect to the other person but also to ourselves.

[Federica]

Happy Woman's Day, Federica!

Thank you!

I myself still struggle with these things, which really lie at the depth of Intuition. One way to approach this mystery is by contemplating the one and the many - unity and multiplicity. Number is like a quality that unites distinct experiences. For example, we can try to feel left and right. In quiet meditation we can try to fill with our attention the left half-universe, then roll all our attention over to the right half. There's something distinct in the two experiences, there's some quality that makes them distinguishable from one another. Yet we also feel that they form a unity, a 1, which is space. Left and right are strung together with the quality of 2 - polarity. These things are not something we can intellectually grasp as we can grasp an equation. These are deeply qualitative experiences. But at the core, numbers are qualia that unite the multiplicity. Maybe it can help if we try to feel how without the qualia of number there would be only chaos - multiplicity encompassed as inexplicable complexity. Number is like an ordering principle that allows us to intuit the chaos as a bifurcating tree or a fractal and which at the same time is intentionally used as such ordering principle. Somehow we should always be able to fold the complexity back to One. Of course, I remind that there's a danger here if we try to see the tree of complexity as emerging from our mind, that is from the intellectual self. The quest of evolution is to reach the Divine One.

Thanks Cleric. I see you've taken another route here. This one I am more familiar with.
It reminds me that Steiner, speaking of education of the child, said that numbers and arithmetics should be taught starting from oneness and then splitting it in two, rather than bringing two separate parts together to make one.

Oh, got it. Excellent example with vegetarianism. Unsurprisingly, the approach should be individual. For example, when someone asks me that question, I usually say something like: "There are many factors. None of them in isolation sounds sufficient, but when they are put together they really build up." Then it's important to feel the other party. If they are being cynical, it's of little use to go into many explanations. They don't really want to know, they are most likely trying to show how stupid we are to deprive ourselves of one of the few pleasures this wicked life offers. Other people start asking questions. If we feel that they are open to the possibility that maybe there's something they can learn, we can make an attempt to explain something. But even here we should act wisely and feel our way into what exactly they are ready to hear.

The same thing holds for spiritual knowledge as a whole. The various spiritual facts are like photographs from different directions of an object. If the other person, as soon as we have presented the second picture, has already forgotten all about the first, it would be very difficult to make our point. There's little we can do here because it is all up to the person to have the goodwill and find the inner stance from whence the different pictures can be grasped as a whole.

This holds also for the list I'm working on. Although I do my best to put things into an order such that every next thing steps on the foundation of the previous, they are nevertheless of such nature that to see them as a whole, certain inner effort is needed - the Magic Eye that will help see the distinct points lying on the flat surface as becoming a unity in depth.

But in all cases we need an individual approach. It's not so much a question of how to convey our knowledge to the other person but to see what they need. We are all in a certain situation in the soul labyrinth. If we start speaking indiscriminately about different parts of the labyrinth, for the other person these would only be abstract pictures. But if we can find their location, we can speak of the things that are in their immediate vicinity and then we may have their attention because they feel that what we speak of is relevant to their situation. Sometimes it might be that it is we who need to learn something from the other person, even if they do not give us anything consciously. Sometimes just by them being resistive, we may learn something important. Once we spoke with Ashvin about how our lower self may be secretly sabotaging our progress. For example, sometimes we are very eager to pass certain knowledge to the other person. Not too seldom, this something is the last insight that we had and we still feel enthusiastic about, forgetting that for the other person this might be the farthest removed chamber in the labyrinth, and thus, the least relevant. If we had deeper sensitivity (being clairvoyant, so to speak), we would feel our way with the other person, as if asking the Heavens, what that soul needs and how we can help it in the best way. When we can't resist spitting out the thing that we are eager to explain, it's like we one-sidedly declare that this is what the person needs. So in a strange way we self-sabotage our own development because in this case we don't want true clairvoyance. True clairvoyance might reveal that it's useless to say to the person what we intend to say. So we secretly prefer to remain in the dark about the true state of affairs, such that we can give way to our desire. Thus we can see that secretly our lower self may not want to gain deeper knowledge because this might invalidate many of the things that we are attached to. So we see that the pedagogical question is not difficult only with respect to the other person but also to ourselves.

Yes, I understand. I guess there might be even finer traps, once one tries to focus on seeing what the other person really needs, but that's part of the game of continual, active self-improvement, of course. To be completely honest - I say this in a light tone - when I tangibly notice that you and Ashvin do that, I am partly grateful for the goodwill and generosity, and partly annoyed that I'm being 'managed', that there's that barrier, if it makes any sense.

[Federica]

It occurred to me that, to make the above more intimate, we can all probably recall the transition we had from a default materialistic outlook, where imagined entities and mechanisms are driving the phenomenal flow, to the insight of BK's analytic idealism that our first-person conscious experience is fundamental. We can recall the lightbulbs that went off and the feeling of suddenly taking a new perspective on reality. Now we have started to understand how all the ancient philosophical and religious traditions were pointing in a similar direction of understanding. We start to see how modern scientific theories are overlaying erroneous assumptions on top of the experimental results, and so on. At the time, we surely felt like we were moving through our concepts quite freely, reasoning through the arguments and reaching new insights.

But how awake were we to this whole process? To what extent were we really making free and creative conceptual determinations along the way? Looking back now, I can sense the process unfolded in a rather dreamy way. The steps that led me into the vicinity of analytic idealist philosophy were led by a mysterious karmic attractor and any narrative I can create it for now would only be a post hoc rationalization of why I chose to pay attention to this or that speaker, pick up this or that book, join this forum, and so on. It is true that, in the process of reasoning through the flaws of materialistic philosophy and science, there was some clarity in the weaving of thought-connections. Yet that process still unfolded as a matter of necessity - the premises and basic facts led to the idealist conclusions like clockwork.

And our now extensive experience on this forum has only made clearer how conditioned modern souls have become to working exclusively within this domain. It has revealed how hesitant they are to experience a taste of free thinking, of thinking that doesn't unfold like an algorithmic computation from premises to conclusions. In the public sphere, thinkers like ML, JP, and so on seem to be the most open to new ways of understanding the cognitive knowing process. Yet this recent discussion is a good example of the momentum of the classical intellectual conditioning. It is the closest I have seen ML coming to exploring the intimate thinking process, thanks to IM, but we can see how quickly he goes back to trying to understand it as the emergent result of some other elemental process, some intermediary steps from the algorithmic mechanism to the more organic and creative problem-solving. Likewise, he remains very suspicious of the distinction between machines and organic life.

I have started it at the relevant part:

One can choose to emphasize the necessity or the freedom, but of course both are true. Only under a linear understanding of time, necessity and free will are in contradiction. For my part, reflecting on the phenomenological experience of my personal path, I can see both working, even though my trajectory was not very similar to yours. I have never had a materialistic outlook. Rather, I’ve been for a long time in a state of ‘suspended spiritual-philosophical inquiry’ vaguely knowing that it was due, but busy with distracting stuff. The way I came to BK’s philosophy and to this forum is not like many of you who arrived all on the same day, as it seems. I had to dig out the link, while diving into comment threads in BK’s blog, and arrived late. BK I discovered through Rupert Spira, and before him, a long series of unsatisfactory teachers - some of them I would be embarrassed to mention today. Looking back, I can really sense both impulses: one day, necessity made me bring the question to the forefront, and I realized it was time to figure out the nature of reality seriously; from there, I entered a pretty dark and difficult forest, where will, labor and intensity were required.

So I agree that it's not as simple as saying that thinkers are more likely to discover their intimate spiritual process because they are more closely probing the etheric spectrum. ML is the perfect example. I think he only seems to be close, but he's not close. He’s on a route that may appear to lead out of the labyrinth, but it doesn’t. His view is not truly phenomenological but ideological at its core. He’s driven by a powerful leading thought whose final direction goes opposite to the spiritual path, in the direction of augmenting the physical degrees of freedom for human bodies. That's where he really wants to land. In this sense, he's probably not the kind of 'materialist' who would benefit if presented with some connecting steps. But many others may, I believe there's no reason to focus too much on Levin - in a hopeful attitude I mean.

[AshvinP]

You mentioned to Cleric about being open with social connections, and presumably about how we can give such people tiny steps that would help them understand why the phenomenology of spiritual activity (aka Christian esotericism) is the lynchpin on which all future progress depends. Presumably inviting them to PoF-style contemplations is too much of a leap to begin with, in your view. Maybe it would help us if you elaborate more on what other actionable steps you have in mind?

To be clear, I'm not trying to arbitrarily or summarily rule out such possibilities. We are simply exploring the various intuitions that arise when stimulated by the mental pictures of such an approach. It's not about finding the one right or conclusive answer, but an ongoing process of imaginatively orienting to the various spiritual circumstances of our time, at both our individual and collective scales. One such circumstance that we have explored is the tendency to try and fix others before adequately 'cleaning our rooms' (soul space), which as mentioned before is a common thread in modern cultures. It's because I have made so many attempts to 'take action out there' on various forums, that I also inwardly recognize how this tendency can take a strong grip on the spiritual path.

I mentioned that to Cleric not in relation to the connecting steps for scientists, but in relation to his critique to the scientists, that they are internally split between their theories, which they put out to the public, and their inner states, which remain tabu, and totally out of focus. To which I added (and I was misunderstood): yes, but a split can also occur on the side of those on the path of living thinking, to the extent that we don't fully connect the living inner life with the social, worldly aspect, through online anonymity for example, and through being active on various forums, but not in our real-life circles, not within the circles of family friends and colleagues, where it would be somewhat discomfortable to stand out as practitioners along the path. This, in my understanding, is a split somewhat specular to the one Cleric criticized the scientists for. Shall I repeat that I am not trying to guess or judge how you live your lives when I say that. Of course, for philosophers and/or members of associations it's easier to be out there with their full name and be taken more or less seriously, because there is that worldly anchor, but still.

When it comes to the "connecting steps" to help materialists (be them our personal connections, or in the public) I don't know exactly what steps, but I aspire to figure that out, if I ever come farther ahead on this path, simply because something more has to be attempted, something that is more worldly, and not only introspective, in the face of the emergency we are facing.

I understand the aspiration for sure, and it's a tough situation we are placed in on the spiritual path (which is also a blessing, of course). I am sure most people on a path of intuitive thinking can sense how their experience and lives grow apart from the general stream in which many friends, family members, coworkers, etc. are involved. To begin with, we follow paths of thinking experience about supersensible ideas that aren't even suspected by others. Hopefully we come to experience our thinking becoming a spiritual force, more concrete and stretching itself in many new directions. Eventually, that expands to our feeling and willing experience as well. It becomes more and more difficult to find concrete overlaps between what we are thinking, feeling, and doing, or at least what we are interested in thinking, feeling, and doing on any given day.

Then we are faced with not only finding ways of dealing with the wider emergency, but also with our own loneliness. We may want to bring other people we know or interact with 'into the fold' so we don't feel so alone with our thoughts and feelings. This isn't like the feeling of ordinary physical loneliness but exists on a deeper soul-spiritual scale, it is a much more existential curvature of our soul life. We may not even register this feeling at first, at least not in its full intensity. Nevertheless, it is an intimation that we are approaching the threshold of spiritual reality and the latter becomes much more concrete for us when we gain flashes of consciousness as to how such deeper feelings are shaping our intellectual gestures at the surface.

I know what I am writing now can also act as a rationalization for avoiding interaction with social connections on these topics, like "I need to embrace my spiritual loneliness and realize it wouldn't do any good to reach out to others", and that's another extreme. That is not what I am suggesting. We will never know how people might engage with the deeper ideas if we don't make at least some attempts based on where they might be in the soul labyrinth, as Cleric indicated. Actually, that image reminded me of a book I just finished reading called Piranesi, which is fantastic and draws on esoteric knowledge to some extent but in a very subtle and artistic way. Recommending such artistic representations may be a good entry point to see if people we know are interested in pursuing such ideas further.

Piranesi's house is no ordinary building: its rooms are infinite, its corridors endless, its walls are lined with thousands upon thousands of statues, each one different from all the others. Within the labyrinth of halls an ocean is imprisoned; waves thunder up staircases, rooms are flooded in an instant. But Piranesi is not afraid; he understands the tides as he understands the pattern of the labyrinth itself. He lives to explore the house.

There is one other person in the house-a man called The Other, who visits Piranesi twice a week and asks for help with research into A Great and Secret Knowledge. But as Piranesi explores, evidence emerges of another person, and a terrible truth begins to unravel, revealing a world beyond the one Piranesi has always known.

The main point is that the soul space is complicated like a labyrinth, and the thought that we need to find ways of dealing with a wider emergency may not be as simple as it seems. A common theme in our times is concern over apocalyptic scenarios and the feeling that some clever hack needs to be quickly developed to deal with the situation. The idea that devotion, prayer, faith, and patient inner work could be the most practical solution seems the most absurd to souls today, even to pious religious souls. I suppose this relates to the number discussion as well - it is only when qualitative numerology became decadent in relatively modern times that dealing with crises became a sheer numbers game. For example, Eugene would often point out how few people there are on this forum and how little Anthroposophy has spread in the wider World, as if that's an indication the whole enterprise has "failed' (and I see that sentiment on the Facebook group as well).

I still maintain faith that Steiner, with feedback from the higher worlds (the White Lodge), crafted the most fruitful path for bridging the intellectual-scientific with the higher folds of spiritual existence. There is certainly endless creative work that can be done within that overarching phenomenological bridge, but I see no need to wish for a 'more worldly' way to arrive and inspire me. The already established way of intuitive thinking is quite difficult and uncomfortable and lonely at times, so much so that we can find many different justifications for procrastinating on its path. Yet this is how we also know its fruits are working at a deeper scale, beyond the immediately measurable results of worldly affairs. Sometimes a qualitative 2 or 3 souls, working devotedly and patiently on making the paths straight for the Spirit, will deal with the modern emergency more effectively than all the mass political and spiritual movements, even if the channels by which that happens aren't so clearly defined and computable.

One can choose to emphasize the necessity or the freedom, but of course both are true. Only under a linear understanding of time, necessity and free will are in contradiction. For my part, reflecting on the phenomenological experience of my personal path, I can see both working, even though my trajectory was not very similar to yours. I have never had a materialistic outlook. Rather, I’ve been for a long time in a state of ‘suspended spiritual-philosophical inquiry’ vaguely knowing that it was due, but busy with distracting stuff. The way I came to BK’s philosophy and to this forum is not like many of you who arrived all on the same day, as it seems. I had to dig out the link, while diving into comment threads in BK’s blog, and arrived late. BK I discovered through Rupert Spira, and before him, a long series of unsatisfactory teachers - some of them I would be embarrassed to mention today. Looking back, I can really sense both impulses: one day, necessity made me bring the question to the forefront, and I realized it was time to figure out the nature of reality seriously; from there, I entered a pretty dark and difficult forest, where will, labor and intensity were required.

At our current time, the evolutionary drama rests upon becoming more clear when our activity is within the sphere of necessity and when it is within the sphere of freedom, and how the two relate to one another. We need this orientation not to abandon the etched channels of necessity that support our inner activity, but to more lucidly and effectively oscillate between these domains. Your example with approaching analytic idealism is a good one and that oscillation between inner experiences guided by necessity, which then leads into the difficult and free work, only intensifies along the spiritual path, at least for a time. This quote from Steiner sums up the general way in which we know our activity has begun the inversion and is no longer unknowingly dragged by the channels of necessity (and the whole lecture series is very relevant to this topic of how to bridge the worlds). True progress, i.e. transmutation of more of the sphere of necessity into the sphere of freedom, rests on us becoming more and more conscious of the oscillation.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA083/En ... 03p01.html

It is certainly a great disappointment to many who struggle to gain a certain spiritual vision by modern methods to find that, although they do gain glimpses of this spiritual world, these are transitory, like the sight of a real object in the outside world, which we no longer perceive when we go away from it. In this mental activity, there is no incorporation into memory in the ordinary sense, but a momentary contact with the spiritual world. If we later wish to regain this contact, we cannot simply call up the experience from our recollection. What we can do, however, is to recollect something that was an ordinary experience in the physical world: how by developing our powers we achieved our experience of the spiritual world. We can then retrace our steps and repeat the experience, exactly as we return to a sensory perception. This is one of the most important factors that authenticate this modern vision: that what we see does not combine with our physical being; for if thoughts are to gain some permanence as memories, they must always be combined with our physical being, held fast by our organism....

Here is something which, in my view, can remove certain anxieties that might arise in troubled minds about this modern spiritual vision. Many people today, with some justification, see the grandeur of the most significant riddles of existence in the very fact that they can never be completely solved. Such people are frightened of a philistinism of spiritual vision which might confront them with the assertion that the riddles of existence could be finally “solved” by a philosophy. Well, the view of life we are discussing here cannot speak of such a “solution,” for the reason that has just been given: what is always being forgotten must constantly be re-acquired.

But therein lies its vitality! We are brought back again to life as it is revealed externally in nature, as opposed to what we experience inwardly on seeing our thoughts become memories. Perhaps what I want to say will sound banal to many people; but it is not meant to be banal. No one can say: I ate yesterday and so I am full, I do not need to eat today or tomorrow or the day after; similarly, no one can say of modern spiritual vision: It is complete, it has now become part of memory, and we know where we are with it once and for all.

Indeed, it is not just that we must always struggle afresh to perceive what seeks to manifest itself to man; but that, if we dwell continuously over a long period on the same concepts from the spiritual world, seeking them out repeatedly, it will even happen that doubts and uncertainties appear; it is characteristic of true spiritual vision that we should have to conquer these doubts and uncertainties again and again in the vital life of the soul. We are thus never condemned to the calm of completion when we strive towards spiritual vision in the modern sense.

I am sure we all here have a good intuitive sense of the above reality at this point. This is basically what it means to be free in the conceptual life, and it's thus easy to see why so many souls would rather not be free but continue working within the sphere of intellectual gestures that are easily imprinted into memory to be recalled, analyzed, computed, etc. We can see why there is constant temptation to justify the sphere of necessity as the realm where problems can be truly solved. Again, intimately learning about these things does not miraculously lift us out of (karmic) necessity, but rather gives our free supersensible individuality a more insightful vantage point from which to traverse the labyrinth of its Earthly life. We begin to intuit the deeper, longer-term threads which connect our daily thoughts, feelings, and deeds into the salvific destiny of the Earthly organism.

[Federica]

The main point is that the soul space is complicated like a labyrinth, and the thought that we need to find ways of dealing with a wider emergency may not be as simple as it seems. A common theme in our times is concern over apocalyptic scenarios and the feeling that some clever hack needs to be quickly developed to deal with the situation. The idea that devotion, prayer, faith, and patient inner work could be the most practical solution seems the most absurd to souls today, even to pious religious souls. I suppose this relates to the number discussion as well - it is only when qualitative numerology became decadent in relatively modern times that dealing with crises became a sheer numbers game. For example, Eugene would often point out how few people there are on this forum and how little Anthroposophy has spread in the wider World, as if that's an indication the whole enterprise has 'failed' (and I see that sentiment on the Facebook group as well).

I still maintain faith that Steiner, with feedback from the higher worlds (the White Lodge), crafted the most fruitful path for bridging the intellectual-scientific with the higher folds of spiritual existence. There is certainly endless creative work that can be done within that overarching phenomenological bridge, but I see no need to wish for a 'more worldly' way to arrive and inspire me. The already established way of intuitive thinking is quite difficult and uncomfortable and lonely at times, so much so that we can find many different justifications for procrastinating on its path. Yet this is how we also know its fruits are working at a deeper scale, beyond the immediately measurable results of worldly affairs. Sometimes a qualitative 2 or 3 souls, working devotedly and patiently on making the paths straight for the Spirit, will deal with the modern emergency more effectively than all the mass political and spiritual movements, even if the channels by which that happens aren't so clearly defined and computable.

Yes, I understand that patient introspective work can have powerful effects that reverberate out, to counter the decadent tendencies we are facing in the world. But how to forget all the various appeals and references Steiner made to the necessity that enough people take in spiritual science? Isn't his entire life an illustration of the importance of not only inner but also outer dissemination of spiritual science? He surely thought it was of utmost importance that a healthy movement could flourish and expand. And one can be concerned today by the extent to which the adversarial forces have labored against a healthy and truthful growth of the Anthroposophical movement, from the burning of the Gotheanum to the current general weakening and degeneration of many of his social and cultural initiatives - Waldorf school, biodynamic agriculture, medicine, and so on. Certainly not to be called a failure, but surely Steiner's hopes for the development of Anthroposophy and spiritual science in the outer world have been rather effectively opposed, so far. How do you consider these factors?

[AshvinP]

The main point is that the soul space is complicated like a labyrinth, and the thought that we need to find ways of dealing with a wider emergency may not be as simple as it seems. A common theme in our times is concern over apocalyptic scenarios and the feeling that some clever hack needs to be quickly developed to deal with the situation. The idea that devotion, prayer, faith, and patient inner work could be the most practical solution seems the most absurd to souls today, even to pious religious souls. I suppose this relates to the number discussion as well - it is only when qualitative numerology became decadent in relatively modern times that dealing with crises became a sheer numbers game. For example, Eugene would often point out how few people there are on this forum and how little Anthroposophy has spread in the wider World, as if that's an indication the whole enterprise has 'failed' (and I see that sentiment on the Facebook group as well).

I still maintain faith that Steiner, with feedback from the higher worlds (the White Lodge), crafted the most fruitful path for bridging the intellectual-scientific with the higher folds of spiritual existence. There is certainly endless creative work that can be done within that overarching phenomenological bridge, but I see no need to wish for a 'more worldly' way to arrive and inspire me. The already established way of intuitive thinking is quite difficult and uncomfortable and lonely at times, so much so that we can find many different justifications for procrastinating on its path. Yet this is how we also know its fruits are working at a deeper scale, beyond the immediately measurable results of worldly affairs. Sometimes a qualitative 2 or 3 souls, working devotedly and patiently on making the paths straight for the Spirit, will deal with the modern emergency more effectively than all the mass political and spiritual movements, even if the channels by which that happens aren't so clearly defined and computable.

Yes, I understand that patient introspective work can have powerful effects that reverberate out, to counter the decadent tendencies we are facing in the world. But how to forget all the various appeals and references Steiner made to the necessity that enough people take in spiritual science? Isn't his entire life an illustration of the importance of not only inner but also outer dissemination of spiritual science? He surely thought it was of utmost importance that a healthy movement could flourish and expand. And one can be concerned today by the extent to which the adversarial forces have labored against a healthy and truthful growth of the Anthroposophical movement, from the burning of the Gotheanum to the current general weakening and degeneration of many of his social and cultural initiatives - Waldorf school, biodynamic agriculture, medicine, and so on. Certainly not to be called a failure, but surely Steiner's hopes for the development of Anthroposophy and spiritual science in the outer world have been rather effectively opposed, so far. How do you consider these factors?

Mostly such questions are above my 'paygrade', i.e. what I could respond would only be loose speculation. This is also part of the faith - knowing when some things must remain mysteries and don't necessarily demand immediate explanations. How does the adversarial resistance contribute to the overall progressive development in the longer-term? These are deep questions involving many factors, some of which I probably don't even suspect to exist yet.

That said, it's helpful to contemplate what it means to 'take in spiritual science'. The negative outcomes in the Anthroposophical society that you mention seem to be revealed in the taking in of spiritual science in a mostly theoretical, academic, schematic, etc. way. That is surely a way in which the adversarial forces steer the higher Light into dead ends, by leveraging the modern intellect's tendency to flatten and abstract everything, focusing only on the arrangement of mental pictures about the 'higher worlds', rather than experiencing how the higher worlds are interfering in the very flow of one's mental pictures. Thus Steiner meant something very specific by 'taking in' and it was not necessarily correlated with the number of people who start studying spiritual science. I can think of a few people who are deep into Steiner's work but only use it to build ever-more complex correspondences and systematic frameworks. That is a highly seductive endeavor for the intellect.

There's a concept in gambling known as 'throwing good money after bad', i.e. one gets so agitated over past losses that one doubles down with the same sort of losing betting patterns in the hopes of quickly winning it back. In poker, it's called going 'on tilt'. Steiner may have hoped for a wider range of souls to livingly embrace and be inspired by the results of supersensible research in the 20th century, but now that this particular aim has fallen short and is part of the receded past, what is the way forward? Do we present supersensible experience more theoretically and semi-quantitatively so it's easier to consume? In that case, we would simply be doubling down on the losing betting patterns. It's possible that, instead, we need to remain patient and wait for the underlying rotation of the impulse Steiner was working with, the opportunity many failed to take hold of, to come back around so we can catch it on the way up, so to speak.

[Federica]

Have you noticed that FB has published a piece called "The Phenomenological Standpoint"?
I haven't listened to it yet, but I will soon, I am curious.




PS: OK, I've watched it now. It has nothing in common with true phenomenology. Rather is shows the condition of a mind who had the desire to detach from matter, but stumbled upon itself, and remained head turned down to the Earth.

[AshvinP]

Have you noticed that FB has published a piece called "The Phenomenological Standpoint"?
I haven't listened to it yet, but I will soon, I am curious.


PS: OK, I've watched it now. It has nothing in common with true phenomenology. Rather is shows the condition of a mind who had the desire to detach from matter, but stumbled upon itself, and remained head turned down to the Earth.

Yeah, I read the article and it's certainly a starting point for a true phenomenology - "I must abandon all my beliefs about other minds and mind-independent worlds, and instead focus on studying consciousness from within." The question is whether he will see that forming more mental pictures about 'a priori categories of understanding' and so on, remains studying consciousness from without as a detached spectator. He mentions Gurdjieff and that may be an indication that he is open to esoteric science, but from our conversations so far, he seems perfectly comfortable leaving all of that to the side and focusing his efforts on dismantling metaphysical idealism. And even esoteric science will remain a wall of mental pictures until the phenomenological perspective is inverted so the concepts feel like more intimate testimonies to how our contextual inner experience morphs, moves, and feels.