Fighters for the Spirit

[AshvinP]

However, once I have understood and constructed the proof myself internally, I find new ways through my internal activities to explain why we choose any two numbers (a and b) and first assume that they are coprime, only to show, by navigating and following my inner activity, that these two numbers are ultimately not coprime, which is where the "proof idea" lies, the key to the proof.

Another good example of this principle can be illustrated with Chess. The top-level players who teach the game have generally realized that memorization of openings, move orders, etc., and rigid rules for 'how to play chess' are not conducive to improving chess-playing skill. I was somewhat surprised to see how many YT commentators are attuned to the fact that improvement only comes by understanding the ideas that can steer the game in optimal directions, and that memorization comes at the expense of this attunement. For example, we find videos like these that are centered around observing and optimizing the thinking process:



Once we become more attuned to the underlying inner process that works within the chess constraints (like mathematical constraints), we can 'prove' why certain move orders, responses, positioning of the pieces, and so on are optimal in various board positions. We don't need to have seen these principles laid out for us by others and have memorized them as the 'correct thing to do', but they are born from within our intuitive thinking process, refined by many iterations of games. When we watch other players making various moves and counter-moves, we can intuitively understand the ideal curvatures along which the soul flows.

This is the only viable way for the game to be taught, in my view. Attention should be directed toward the real-time thinking process. It's not only presenting a chess game and hoping the soul decides to eventually introspect on what it is doing to navigate the positions, but this element of the optimizing process must become explicit. The rarest thing would be for a soul to 'naturally' orient toward the game in this introspective way, because everything about it feels 'unnatural' to default memorization habits. True teachers should make the presentation a commentary on their real-time thinking process as the game unfolds, which the enthusiastic pupil's soul can then move along with and co-experience.

[Federica]

Yes, this is the fine line we have discussed before, between intellectual combinatorics of dream image sequences and approaching the sequences as imaginative symbols for something that should be done inwardly and the corresponding experiences (like proving the mathematical theorem in Kaje's example). Many metaphors can be used to help us get a more refined sensitivity to this subtle distinction - thought asanas, riding the bicycle analogy (or learning any new skill), developing new mathematical intuition, etc. All these try to help us feel how a different stance can be taken by the intellect within the flow of experience, which renders the dream sequences more thick, as if their sphere of meaning is expanding slightly off the horizontal plane into the supersensible domain. The point is that no dream images can lead to awakening out of their own power, out of their own logical persuasiveness stemming from incremental step-by-step combinations. What can happen, however, is that the enthusiastic soul adopts a different intention and corresponding perspective on the sequences, aiming to use the meaning conveyed by the dream images in an entirely different asanic way.

We can look at the paper you recently shared on QM as a way to model the broad strokes of universal consciousness and its dynamics. If these same QM mathematical concepts were worked into a phenomenological essay, they could become excellent symbolic tools for prompting introspection. We could imagine all the same pictorial illustrations are employed, as well. Indeed, Cleric has already crafted more than a few such introspective tools based on similar concepts in QM, GR, etc. Even though they both employ very similar image sequences at the content level, we would be dealing with very different (even polar opposite) intentions and perspectives on that content. The same could be applied to DH's 'trace logic', 'Markov kernels', and so on. These precise mathematical constructs could be imaginatively repurposed as ways of anchoring our intuition for the contextual symphony of intelligences that project into our real-time intellectual interface as the lawful flow of experience, including the very flow of thoughts about QM, Markov kernels, and so on. 

Of course, Steiner was not misleading, because he is literally the Godfather of the phenomenological-introspective approach we keep emphasizing. He constantly cautioned potential listeners/readers from approaching the image sequences in a discursive way. He was more sensitive than anyone to the fine line we have been discussing. The introspective element is like the blood coursing through the organism of his books and lecture cycles. He never presented experiences across the threshold in a non-phenomenological way. To do so would be immediately self-defeating, because these supersensible concepts are stripped of all pedagogical value when divorced from corresponding inner experiences. That doesn't mean we need to clairvoyantly access the akashic record when reading its description, for example, but if we don't at least try to relate such a concept to our inner stream of memory images that are left as 'traces' of experiences we have lived through, the concept will be destined to remain a theoretical construct that we have associatively linked with other mysterious esoteric concepts.

I suppose this focus on Steiner brings us back to PoF. You previously mentioned how you felt it first went 'east then north', which I suppose means the first sections were 'non-phenomenological' in the sense you are describing now. Yet already in Ch 1 and Ch 2, we are dealing with 'conscious human action' and the 'fundamental desire for knowledge'. Do you think these initial sequences can be understood in a living way without any introspection by the reader? Without the reader pausing to truly imagine and feel how they experience mental pictures as the gateway to expressions of pity or love (which is something habitually overlooked by default), for example? Or when Steiner discusses monism, dualism, materialism, etc. in Ch 2, the sequences prompt us to introspect how these outlooks are shaped by our thinking process and how the resultant thoughts are set against one another, reduced to one another, and so on. To understand any of that in a living way, the reader must leverage the sequences to truly observe their inner process, to experience such characteristic thoughts and their relations. Correct?

In my view, and in Steiner's view (as characterized by him later), these PoF sequences simultaneously provide a preparatory thought-context and prompt an introspective-meditative effort. Indeed, they only serve the former function when they prompt the latter. Without an introspective orientation to the thought sequences, they are no longer preparing the soul for unfamiliar degrees of imaginative freedom, but reinforcing the theoretical molds that tightly constrain those degrees and prevent a Spirit-open stance. Generally, I feel that you are seeking a 'best of both worlds' approach. The thought sequences should appeal to the default intellect, to captivate its interest and enthusiasm, but should also be understood in a living way that speaks to spiritual dynamics along the depth axis. What we are saying is that this is the phenomenological approach, and the introspective observation of inner activity is where the two worlds collide. It leverages the familiar World Content in a self-conscious, imaginative way to prompt the contemplative soul toward becoming introspective as second nature. Then the soul feels like it is emerging more into its native state of existence, that it is becoming more conscious of the life that it has always been leading. A new wineskin - new intuitions, feelings, habits, and impulses - is fashioned to act as a worthy receptacle of the new wine.

Indeed, we have discussed this many times already. I thought that an example could help, but no. What I am desperately trying to convey from all possible angles is: if one does not see the thought-sequences as imaginative symbols for inner activity, the metaphors and exercises that only insist in helping get the distinction you speak of will most likely not work. They end up not helping, as real-life interactions have demonstrated again and again. What I am saying, again and again, is that the thought-sequences that are themselves metaphors, exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect, are not the only way. You seem stuck with them, and don't want to contemplate the fact that it can be worthwhile to accept for a time that those metaphors aren’t graspable in the intended way. They are misunderstood. The chess game is another one of those metaphors. If the other metaphors have not worked, there is no reason for chess to be understood as metaphor for inner activity. If we keep stacking the metaphors anyway, they simply repulse the mind. In many cases, prompting introspection in a thousand different ways, would trigger a thousand times the same reaction, because it’s not about the particular metaphor. It’s about “prompting introspection”. The introspective capacity is not ready to be prompted. When this is the situation, it may be more effective to present larger overviews that don’t starve the ordinary consciousness but give them some food for thought - literally - some vistas to contemplate and become interested in. Again, Steiner did it his entire life. He nourished the mind with a vision that could be taken in cognitively, emotionally and hopefully in the fullness of life, by phenomenologists and by complete novices alike.

And I wouldn’t say that no dream images can lead to awakening. No dream images contain or constitute awakening themselves, but some can lead to awakening, out of their own power. The power to lead, not the power to themselves be that. You keep oscillating on this point. Above you have recognized that “There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection” and now you seem to deny it again.

Steiner may be the Godfather of the phenomenological approach, and yet, if we look at his deeds, he spent his life building that bridge, publicly presenting what you call risky and misorientating - when I suggest it - but when Steiner constantly does it, it’s not misleading. It only becomes terrible when I dare to propose that we today try to live up to his legacy. Steiner may have constantly cautioned potential readers, but the reality of hundreds of his public lectures - often held in front of foreign audiences - shows us exactly how he articulated those vistas of anthroposophical thought that the intellect can wrestle with. He never tired of illustrating the spiritual scientific applications in the domains of life understandable by everyone, regardless of their being aware or unaware of PoF, phenomenology, and concentrative-meditation.

To say that Steiner “never presented experiences across the threshold in a non-phenomenological way” is almost tautological. Of course he didn’t. It simply has no sense to imagine otherwise, and I don’t see what it does for you to state that. The point is not that. The point is, who was receiving those accounts, and how? What was the phenomenological understanding on the side of those receiving ends? Steiner knew very well that many of those audiences had no phenomenological understanding. I am not speaking of the esoteric classes behind the closed doors of the Anthroposophical Society of course, but of many public lectures. He intentionally presented life after death (and all sorts of other realities) for people who only had their ordinary will, thinking, and feeling to take them in. And that was not a careless mistake. He did it because it was worth it, to inaugurate the construction of the bridge. It was worth spreading certain concepts, even if they were to be received by the unawakened consciousness at first.

You have said yesterday that presenting the reality of life across the threshold outside the guidelines of phenomenology "can only be misunderstood in the worst possible ways", and "can only be seen as unabated arrogance and pride". But if you now agree that Steiner is not misleading when he does exactly that - presenting these openly controversial examples of anthroposophical understanding, including death, to the intellect of a never-seen-before general public - then you should also agree that we can look at that approach as an example today? So that his legacy doesn't evaporate, as it risks doing today, be it in the fortress of the individual self, the privacy of secret circles, or the various dispersing cultural shells.

Regarding PoF, when I said that its direction is east-north rather than north-east, I did not mean that it goes east for a few chapters only to veer northward after a bit. I will cite Steiner's words to hopefully convey what I meant:

And it will become clear that a purely philosophical approach—as it is commonly understood—cannot approach what these questions, so profoundly rooted in every human soul, actually seek to address. I myself, esteemed attendees, if I may mention this in my introduction, have been grappling with the question of human free will for decades, and a quarter of a century has passed since I attempted, in my book "The Philosophy of Freedom," to point out, at that time in a purely philosophical-scientific manner, those points through which one can at least approach this question of human freedom. What I presented then, a quarter of a century ago, in what I would call an abstract-philosophical way, I would like to substantiate in this evening's discussion in a spiritual-scientific manner—in the spiritual-scientific way that was intended throughout the many years during which I was privileged to give annual lectures here in Munich on anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

So I agree that the questions in PoF require that the reader observes their inner processes, and verifies, and experiments. But this can be done in philosophy, psychology, in ordinary consciousness, to an extent. This introspection can be done by the ordinary consciousness. The thinking process becomes the momentary content of the mind. This is not yet the experience of inversion that is required to emerge on the other side of subject and object. This is not yet “living” in the sense that we mostly use it here, speaking of living thinking. This is not imaginative. Imaginative consciousness is not a requirement to genuinely benefit from reading PoF. However, the “philosophical-scientific” efforts prompted by such reading are made of thought-sequences that can lead to awakening, although they don’t themselves contain or constitute awakening.

I am not seeking the best of both worlds. When a bridge is necessary, one has to accept that living thinking properly so-called is not at hand yet, and can’t be experienced just yet. There is a renunciation. The thought-sequences should appeal to the default intellect, yes, to captivate its interest and enthusiasm, and often cannot be understood in a living way that speaks to spiritual dynamics along the depth axis, yet. In many cases, it must be accepted that emerging in the native state of existence must be postponed to later. When stacking countless variations of the same phenomenological prompt is not the solution, alternative methods must be invented (or re-invented).

[AshvinP]

Indeed, we have discussed this many times already. I thought that an example could help, but no. What I am desperately trying to convey from all possible angles is: if one does not see the thought-sequences as imaginative symbols for inner activity, the metaphors and exercises that only insist in helping get the distinction you speak of will most likely not work. They end up not helping, as real-life interactions have demonstrated again and again. What I am saying, again and again, is that the thought-sequences that are themselves metaphors, exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect, are not the only way. You seem stuck with them, and don't want to contemplate the fact that it can be worthwhile to accept for a time that those metaphors aren’t graspable in the intended way. They are misunderstood. The chess game is another one of those metaphors. If the other metaphors have not worked, there is no reason for chess to be understood as metaphor for inner activity. If we keep stacking the metaphors anyway, they simply repulse the mind. In many cases, prompting introspection in a thousand different ways, would trigger a thousand times the same reaction, because it’s not about the particular metaphor. It’s about “prompting introspection”. The introspective capacity is not ready to be prompted. When this is the situation, it may be more effective to present larger overviews that don’t starve the ordinary consciousness but give them some food for thought - literally - some vistas to contemplate and become interested in. Again, Steiner did it his entire life. He nourished the mind with a vision that could be taken in cognitively, emotionally and hopefully in the fullness of life, by phenomenologists and by complete novices alike.

And I wouldn’t say that no dream images can lead to awakening. No dream images contain or constitute awakening themselves, but some can lead to awakening, out of their own power. The power to lead, not the power to themselves be that. You keep oscillating on this point. Above you have recognized that “There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection” and now you seem to deny it again.

Steiner may be the Godfather of the phenomenological approach, and yet, if we look at his deeds, he spent his life building that bridge, publicly presenting what you call risky and misorientating - when I suggest it - but when Steiner constantly does it, it’s not misleading. It only becomes terrible when I dare to propose that we today try to live up to his legacy. Steiner may have constantly cautioned potential readers, but the reality of hundreds of his public lectures - often held in front of foreign audiences - shows us exactly how he articulated those vistas of anthroposophical thought that the intellect can wrestle with. He never tired of illustrating the spiritual scientific applications in the domains of life understandable by everyone, regardless of their being aware or unaware of PoF, phenomenology, and concentrative-meditation.

To say that Steiner “never presented experiences across the threshold in a non-phenomenological way” is almost tautological. Of course he didn’t. It simply has no sense to imagine otherwise, and I don’t see what it does for you to state that. The point is not that. The point is, who was receiving those accounts, and how? What was the phenomenological understanding on the side of those receiving ends? Steiner knew very well that many of those audiences had no phenomenological understanding. I am not speaking of the esoteric classes behind the closed doors of the Anthroposophical Society of course, but of many public lectures. He intentionally presented life after death (and all sorts of other realities) for people who only had their ordinary will, thinking, and feeling to take them in. And that was not a careless mistake. He did it because it was worth it, to inaugurate the construction of the bridge. It was worth spreading certain concepts, even if they were to be received by the unawakened consciousness at first.

What does it matter if the audience had a phenomenological understanding, or whether they had ordinary TFW? The question is whether Steiner intended and presented his 'vistas to contemplate' as introspective promptings or not. Of course, he can't control how they will be received or whether the promptings will be ignored (or confused for theoretical schemas), just as we cannot on this forum, and he often lamented that fact. He often said the goal is not to 'spread certain concepts', not even a proximate or 'preparatory' goal, but to prompt living understanding. That would be like saying, "This person isn't ready to kick his heroin addiction yet, so let's dump more heroin in his space, and hopefully this will prepare him to eventually kick the addiction." No, what is needed is an element striking in from an orthogonal direction - 'methadone' to weather the withdrawal symptoms once the soul decides to renounce its drug use, to wean the soul off its 3rd-person combinatorial addiction, and that is the introspective element. Neither he nor we can control if certain karmic momentum is too strong and the soul refuses to renounce the drug and accept the methadone treatment, but that doesn't mean we should simply give up and dump more heroin on their heads.

That said, it remains unclear whether your 'other way' is practically a synonym for PoF phenomenology or something else. We can focus on PoF since it is the most clear reference point, which we are all quite familiar with as an organic whole.

Regarding PoF, when I said that its direction is east-north rather than north-east, I did not mean that it goes east for a few chapters only to veer northward after a bit. I will cite Steiner's words to hopefully convey what I meant:

And it will become clear that a purely philosophical approach—as it is commonly understood—cannot approach what these questions, so profoundly rooted in every human soul, actually seek to address. I myself, esteemed attendees, if I may mention this in my introduction, have been grappling with the question of human free will for decades, and a quarter of a century has passed since I attempted, in my book "The Philosophy of Freedom," to point out, at that time in a purely philosophical-scientific manner, those points through which one can at least approach this question of human freedom. What I presented then, a quarter of a century ago, in what I would call an abstract-philosophical way, I would like to substantiate in this evening's discussion in a spiritual-scientific manner—in the spiritual-scientific way that was intended throughout the many years during which I was privileged to give annual lectures here in Munich on anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

So I agree that the questions in PoF require that the reader observes their inner processes, and verifies, and experiments. But this can be done in philosophy, psychology, in ordinary consciousness, to an extent. This introspection can be done by the ordinary consciousness. The thinking process becomes the momentary content of the mind. This is not yet the experience of inversion that is required to emerge on the other side of subject and object. This is not yet “living” in the sense that we mostly use it here, speaking of living thinking. This is not imaginative. Imaginative consciousness is not a requirement to genuinely benefit from reading PoF. However, the “philosophical-scientific” efforts prompted by such reading are made of thought-sequences that can lead to awakening, although they don’t themselves contain or constitute awakening.

I am not seeking the best of both worlds. When a bridge is necessary, one has to accept that living thinking properly so-called is not at hand yet, and can’t be experienced just yet. There is a renunciation. The thought-sequences should appeal to the default intellect, yes, to captivate its interest and enthusiasm, and often cannot be understood in a living way that speaks to spiritual dynamics along the depth axis, yet. In many cases, it must be accepted that emerging in the native state of existence must be postponed to later. When stacking countless variations of the same phenomenological prompt is not the solution, alternative methods must be invented (or re-invented).

Here, it seems you are indicating PoF is a stellar example of an "alternative method" that can speak to ordinary consciousness. This is why I felt earlier that you were narrowing the scope of "phenomenology-introspection" too much. If observation of and experimentation with the inner process unfold, no matter how momentary or rudimentary, that is what we call phenemonology-introspection-meditation. Indeed, it must begin as momentary observations, unfolding in fits and starts. That is still more introspection than most souls will engage in an entire lifetime. There is no need for Imaginative consciousness to benefit from this introspective process. This process is the native state of existence, even when it remains impure, fragmentary, momentary, etc. It brings us into conscious contact with characteristic dynamics of our inner process, which remain valid along the entire spectrum of cognition. A core treatment of PoF is to wean the soul off its addictive feeling of "the kingdom [living thinking] is not at hand yet", "it can't be experienced just yet", "more 3rd-person preparation is needed", and so on.

So if, on the other hand, PoF is not necessarily a stellar example for you, but is still a sequence of guidelines which "aren’t graspable in the intended way" for many souls, and carries the risk of "repulsing the mind" with its phenomenological examples, then it's still not clear what alternative methods you are speaking of, which are not simply heroin dumps.

[Federica]

Indeed, we have discussed this many times already. I thought that an example could help, but no. What I am desperately trying to convey from all possible angles is: if one does not see the thought-sequences as imaginative symbols for inner activity, the metaphors and exercises that only insist in helping get the distinction you speak of will most likely not work. They end up not helping, as real-life interactions have demonstrated again and again. What I am saying, again and again, is that the thought-sequences that are themselves metaphors, exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect, are not the only way. You seem stuck with them, and don't want to contemplate the fact that it can be worthwhile to accept for a time that those metaphors aren’t graspable in the intended way. They are misunderstood. The chess game is another one of those metaphors. If the other metaphors have not worked, there is no reason for chess to be understood as metaphor for inner activity. If we keep stacking the metaphors anyway, they simply repulse the mind. In many cases, prompting introspection in a thousand different ways, would trigger a thousand times the same reaction, because it’s not about the particular metaphor. It’s about “prompting introspection”. The introspective capacity is not ready to be prompted. When this is the situation, it may be more effective to present larger overviews that don’t starve the ordinary consciousness but give them some food for thought - literally - some vistas to contemplate and become interested in. Again, Steiner did it his entire life. He nourished the mind with a vision that could be taken in cognitively, emotionally and hopefully in the fullness of life, by phenomenologists and by complete novices alike.

And I wouldn’t say that no dream images can lead to awakening. No dream images contain or constitute awakening themselves, but some can lead to awakening, out of their own power. The power to lead, not the power to themselves be that. You keep oscillating on this point. Above you have recognized that “There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection” and now you seem to deny it again.

Steiner may be the Godfather of the phenomenological approach, and yet, if we look at his deeds, he spent his life building that bridge, publicly presenting what you call risky and misorientating - when I suggest it - but when Steiner constantly does it, it’s not misleading. It only becomes terrible when I dare to propose that we today try to live up to his legacy. Steiner may have constantly cautioned potential readers, but the reality of hundreds of his public lectures - often held in front of foreign audiences - shows us exactly how he articulated those vistas of anthroposophical thought that the intellect can wrestle with. He never tired of illustrating the spiritual scientific applications in the domains of life understandable by everyone, regardless of their being aware or unaware of PoF, phenomenology, and concentrative-meditation.

To say that Steiner “never presented experiences across the threshold in a non-phenomenological way” is almost tautological. Of course he didn’t. It simply has no sense to imagine otherwise, and I don’t see what it does for you to state that. The point is not that. The point is, who was receiving those accounts, and how? What was the phenomenological understanding on the side of those receiving ends? Steiner knew very well that many of those audiences had no phenomenological understanding. I am not speaking of the esoteric classes behind the closed doors of the Anthroposophical Society of course, but of many public lectures. He intentionally presented life after death (and all sorts of other realities) for people who only had their ordinary will, thinking, and feeling to take them in. And that was not a careless mistake. He did it because it was worth it, to inaugurate the construction of the bridge. It was worth spreading certain concepts, even if they were to be received by the unawakened consciousness at first.

What does it matter if the audience had a phenomenological understanding, or whether they had ordinary TFW? The question is whether Steiner intended and presented his 'vistas to contemplate' as introspective promptings or not. Of course, he can't control how they will be received or whether the promptings will be ignored (or confused for theoretical schemas), just as we cannot on this forum, and he often lamented that fact. He often said the goal is not to 'spread certain concepts', not even a proximate or 'preparatory' goal, but to prompt living understanding. That would be like saying, "This person isn't ready to kick his heroin addiction yet, so let's dump more heroin in his space, and hopefully this will prepare him to eventually kick the addiction." No, what is needed is an element striking in from an orthogonal direction - 'methadone' to weather the withdrawal symptoms once the soul decides to renounce its drug use, to wean the soul off its 3rd-person combinatorial addiction, and that is the introspective element. Neither he nor we can control if certain karmic momentum is too strong and the soul refuses to renounce the drug and accept the methadone treatment, but that doesn't mean we should simply give up and dump more heroin on their heads.

That said, it remains unclear whether your 'other way' is practically a synonym for PoF phenomenology or something else. We can focus on PoF since it is the most clear reference point, which we are all quite familiar with as an organic whole.

Regarding PoF, when I said that its direction is east-north rather than north-east, I did not mean that it goes east for a few chapters only to veer northward after a bit. I will cite Steiner's words to hopefully convey what I meant:

And it will become clear that a purely philosophical approach—as it is commonly understood—cannot approach what these questions, so profoundly rooted in every human soul, actually seek to address. I myself, esteemed attendees, if I may mention this in my introduction, have been grappling with the question of human free will for decades, and a quarter of a century has passed since I attempted, in my book "The Philosophy of Freedom," to point out, at that time in a purely philosophical-scientific manner, those points through which one can at least approach this question of human freedom. What I presented then, a quarter of a century ago, in what I would call an abstract-philosophical way, I would like to substantiate in this evening's discussion in a spiritual-scientific manner—in the spiritual-scientific way that was intended throughout the many years during which I was privileged to give annual lectures here in Munich on anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

So I agree that the questions in PoF require that the reader observes their inner processes, and verifies, and experiments. But this can be done in philosophy, psychology, in ordinary consciousness, to an extent. This introspection can be done by the ordinary consciousness. The thinking process becomes the momentary content of the mind. This is not yet the experience of inversion that is required to emerge on the other side of subject and object. This is not yet “living” in the sense that we mostly use it here, speaking of living thinking. This is not imaginative. Imaginative consciousness is not a requirement to genuinely benefit from reading PoF. However, the “philosophical-scientific” efforts prompted by such reading are made of thought-sequences that can lead to awakening, although they don’t themselves contain or constitute awakening.

I am not seeking the best of both worlds. When a bridge is necessary, one has to accept that living thinking properly so-called is not at hand yet, and can’t be experienced just yet. There is a renunciation. The thought-sequences should appeal to the default intellect, yes, to captivate its interest and enthusiasm, and often cannot be understood in a living way that speaks to spiritual dynamics along the depth axis, yet. In many cases, it must be accepted that emerging in the native state of existence must be postponed to later. When stacking countless variations of the same phenomenological prompt is not the solution, alternative methods must be invented (or re-invented).

Here, it seems you are indicating PoF is a stellar example of an "alternative method" that can speak to ordinary consciousness. This is why I felt earlier that you were narrowing the scope of "phenomenology-introspection" too much. If observation of and experimentation with the inner process unfold, no matter how momentary or rudimentary, that is what we call phenemonology-introspection-meditation. Indeed, it must begin as momentary observations, unfolding in fits and starts. That is still more introspection than most souls will engage in an entire lifetime. There is no need for Imaginative consciousness to benefit from this introspective process. This process is the native state of existence, even when it remains impure, fragmentary, momentary, etc. It brings us into conscious contact with characteristic dynamics of our inner process, which remain valid along the entire spectrum of cognition. A core treatment of PoF is to wean the soul off its addictive feeling of "the kingdom [living thinking] is not at hand yet", "it can't be experienced just yet", "more 3rd-person preparation is needed", and so on.

So if, on the other hand, PoF is not necessarily a stellar example for you, but is still a sequence of guidelines which "aren’t graspable in the intended way" for many souls, and carries the risk of "repulsing the mind" with its phenomenological examples, then it's still not clear what alternative methods you are speaking of, which are not simply heroin dumps.

I really struggle to understand you, Ashvin. What do you mean it doesn't matter if the audience had a phenomenological understanding or not... It matters a lot! The meaning is in Steiner’s very decision to give all those hundreds of public lectures to such public audiences! That he, in freedom, decided to set up this strategy, instead of keeping it all confined behind closed doors, must mean something to you, or? This is of the biggest, even historical, significance. I can't wrap my head around that you don’t think there is any meaning in that…. If this is a joke, please let’s stop it, it’s not fun.

And your example with heroin and methadone is upside down too. Your recommended approach is not comparable to methadone - a drug in many ways similar to heroin and morphine, used as substitute DRUG with heroin-addicts. Your approach is not methadone. Your approach is: let’s put the heroin-addict into a locked room and let them scream and shout and take a beating, and if they survive well good for them. You say: let's feed the spiritual seeker with prompts and metaphors for introspection, and let's make them abstain from conceptual-drugs. You want to keep banging them orthogonally on the head with a thousand versions of the same “introspective element”. Instead, the methadone is what I (not you) suggest as a treatment: a more controlled exposure to a drug that functions similar to heroin, and has similar effects to heroin’s. I would like to find an explanation for how you can come up with such analogy that shows the opposite of what you want to show: if anyone has any hints, please help!


Of course PoF is a stellar example of a method that can speak to ordinary consciousness (you know that, I wrote about that before). And it's not me saying that, please note. It’s Steiner himself, and you. must. take. that. in. Steiner calls his own book abstract-philosophical as opposed to spiritual-scientific. Have you integrated it? I showed this before with other quotes, for example here, and just like then, you now do as if the meaning wasn't there, as if you could just naturally keep banging heads with your theory - because that’s what it actually becomes, a theory, once you keep ignoring the facts of what Steiner said and did in his life, and the facts of how the “introspective prompts” work in real life.

The core benefit that PoF offers is not to “wean the soul off its addictive feeling of "the kingdom [living thinking] is not at hand yet", "it can't be experienced just yet", "more 3rd-person preparation is needed"”. Its core benefit is to provide, IN ABSTRACT, PHILOSOPHICAL, THIRD-PERSON KEY, that preparation, that bridge which can lead, through conceptual work, to an activation of the will - to freedom - such that the necessary self-education of the soul is engaged by the reader. Third-person because, please notice, the introspection that PoF stimulates is still carried out in concepts. That the concepts are about thinking does not make the introspection first-person!

It’s precisely because "the kingdom is not yet at hand" for most souls, that PoF came into existence, to tell contemporary man: “since reality can’t be experienced by many of you just yet, here’s a bridge that gives you concepts and ideas to apprehend it, but not any concepts and ideas. A special arrangement of concepts and ideas is provided that can LEAD TO the practices that alone develop an awakened experience of reality, through free activation of the will. And in order to come and touch that freedom, a bridge is necessary. Banging introspective-meditative prompts on people’s heads would do nothing without the conceptual assistance offered in this book.” This historical bridging function is precisely the reason why PoF will remain as a cornerstone in the evolution of human consciousness.

Now, even a masterful bridge as PoF was unfortunately not entirely successful in its purpose to wake up modern man - as Steiner had to painfully experience through the decades - for various reasons. He was keenly and painfully aware of that throughout his life. And so he implemented through the years a full spectrum of additional bridging strategies - including all the anthroposophical applications to the domains of sensory life. These began to work, indeed, but there is so much left to do. Today more than ever, there is a pressing need to reforge that bridge, to reinvent it, to adapt it to the present physical and soul-spiritual conditions. If in the face of this urgency you prefer to keep recasting a thousand more times the same introspective prompt, because you have the unwarranted feeling that “the kingdom is not yet at hand” is an addictive thought, well go ahead Ashvin. For my part I will strive to live up to Steiner’s own prompts and legacy.

[AshvinP]

Indeed, we have discussed this many times already. I thought that an example could help, but no. What I am desperately trying to convey from all possible angles is: if one does not see the thought-sequences as imaginative symbols for inner activity, the metaphors and exercises that only insist in helping get the distinction you speak of will most likely not work. They end up not helping, as real-life interactions have demonstrated again and again. What I am saying, again and again, is that the thought-sequences that are themselves metaphors, exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect, are not the only way. You seem stuck with them, and don't want to contemplate the fact that it can be worthwhile to accept for a time that those metaphors aren’t graspable in the intended way. They are misunderstood. The chess game is another one of those metaphors. If the other metaphors have not worked, there is no reason for chess to be understood as metaphor for inner activity. If we keep stacking the metaphors anyway, they simply repulse the mind. In many cases, prompting introspection in a thousand different ways, would trigger a thousand times the same reaction, because it’s not about the particular metaphor. It’s about “prompting introspection”. The introspective capacity is not ready to be prompted. When this is the situation, it may be more effective to present larger overviews that don’t starve the ordinary consciousness but give them some food for thought - literally - some vistas to contemplate and become interested in. Again, Steiner did it his entire life. He nourished the mind with a vision that could be taken in cognitively, emotionally and hopefully in the fullness of life, by phenomenologists and by complete novices alike.

And I wouldn’t say that no dream images can lead to awakening. No dream images contain or constitute awakening themselves, but some can lead to awakening, out of their own power. The power to lead, not the power to themselves be that. You keep oscillating on this point. Above you have recognized that “There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection” and now you seem to deny it again.

Steiner may be the Godfather of the phenomenological approach, and yet, if we look at his deeds, he spent his life building that bridge, publicly presenting what you call risky and misorientating - when I suggest it - but when Steiner constantly does it, it’s not misleading. It only becomes terrible when I dare to propose that we today try to live up to his legacy. Steiner may have constantly cautioned potential readers, but the reality of hundreds of his public lectures - often held in front of foreign audiences - shows us exactly how he articulated those vistas of anthroposophical thought that the intellect can wrestle with. He never tired of illustrating the spiritual scientific applications in the domains of life understandable by everyone, regardless of their being aware or unaware of PoF, phenomenology, and concentrative-meditation.

To say that Steiner “never presented experiences across the threshold in a non-phenomenological way” is almost tautological. Of course he didn’t. It simply has no sense to imagine otherwise, and I don’t see what it does for you to state that. The point is not that. The point is, who was receiving those accounts, and how? What was the phenomenological understanding on the side of those receiving ends? Steiner knew very well that many of those audiences had no phenomenological understanding. I am not speaking of the esoteric classes behind the closed doors of the Anthroposophical Society of course, but of many public lectures. He intentionally presented life after death (and all sorts of other realities) for people who only had their ordinary will, thinking, and feeling to take them in. And that was not a careless mistake. He did it because it was worth it, to inaugurate the construction of the bridge. It was worth spreading certain concepts, even if they were to be received by the unawakened consciousness at first.

What does it matter if the audience had a phenomenological understanding, or whether they had ordinary TFW? The question is whether Steiner intended and presented his 'vistas to contemplate' as introspective promptings or not. Of course, he can't control how they will be received or whether the promptings will be ignored (or confused for theoretical schemas), just as we cannot on this forum, and he often lamented that fact. He often said the goal is not to 'spread certain concepts', not even a proximate or 'preparatory' goal, but to prompt living understanding. That would be like saying, "This person isn't ready to kick his heroin addiction yet, so let's dump more heroin in his space, and hopefully this will prepare him to eventually kick the addiction." No, what is needed is an element striking in from an orthogonal direction - 'methadone' to weather the withdrawal symptoms once the soul decides to renounce its drug use, to wean the soul off its 3rd-person combinatorial addiction, and that is the introspective element. Neither he nor we can control if certain karmic momentum is too strong and the soul refuses to renounce the drug and accept the methadone treatment, but that doesn't mean we should simply give up and dump more heroin on their heads.

That said, it remains unclear whether your 'other way' is practically a synonym for PoF phenomenology or something else. We can focus on PoF since it is the most clear reference point, which we are all quite familiar with as an organic whole.

Regarding PoF, when I said that its direction is east-north rather than north-east, I did not mean that it goes east for a few chapters only to veer northward after a bit. I will cite Steiner's words to hopefully convey what I meant:





So I agree that the questions in PoF require that the reader observes their inner processes, and verifies, and experiments. But this can be done in philosophy, psychology, in ordinary consciousness, to an extent. This introspection can be done by the ordinary consciousness. The thinking process becomes the momentary content of the mind. This is not yet the experience of inversion that is required to emerge on the other side of subject and object. This is not yet “living” in the sense that we mostly use it here, speaking of living thinking. This is not imaginative. Imaginative consciousness is not a requirement to genuinely benefit from reading PoF. However, the “philosophical-scientific” efforts prompted by such reading are made of thought-sequences that can lead to awakening, although they don’t themselves contain or constitute awakening.

I am not seeking the best of both worlds. When a bridge is necessary, one has to accept that living thinking properly so-called is not at hand yet, and can’t be experienced just yet. There is a renunciation. The thought-sequences should appeal to the default intellect, yes, to captivate its interest and enthusiasm, and often cannot be understood in a living way that speaks to spiritual dynamics along the depth axis, yet. In many cases, it must be accepted that emerging in the native state of existence must be postponed to later. When stacking countless variations of the same phenomenological prompt is not the solution, alternative methods must be invented (or re-invented).

Here, it seems you are indicating PoF is a stellar example of an "alternative method" that can speak to ordinary consciousness. This is why I felt earlier that you were narrowing the scope of "phenomenology-introspection" too much. If observation of and experimentation with the inner process unfold, no matter how momentary or rudimentary, that is what we call phenemonology-introspection-meditation. Indeed, it must begin as momentary observations, unfolding in fits and starts. That is still more introspection than most souls will engage in an entire lifetime. There is no need for Imaginative consciousness to benefit from this introspective process. This process is the native state of existence, even when it remains impure, fragmentary, momentary, etc. It brings us into conscious contact with characteristic dynamics of our inner process, which remain valid along the entire spectrum of cognition. A core treatment of PoF is to wean the soul off its addictive feeling of "the kingdom [living thinking] is not at hand yet", "it can't be experienced just yet", "more 3rd-person preparation is needed", and so on.

So if, on the other hand, PoF is not necessarily a stellar example for you, but is still a sequence of guidelines which "aren’t graspable in the intended way" for many souls, and carries the risk of "repulsing the mind" with its phenomenological examples, then it's still not clear what alternative methods you are speaking of, which are not simply heroin dumps.

I really struggle to understand you, Ashvin. What do you mean it doesn't matter if the audience had a phenomenological understanding or not... It matters a lot! The meaning is in Steiner’s very decision to give all those hundreds of public lectures to such public audiences! That he, in freedom, decided to set up this strategy, instead of keeping it all confined behind closed doors, must mean something to you, or? This is of the biggest, even historical, significance. I can't wrap my head around that you don’t think there is any meaning in that…. If this is a joke, please let’s stop it, it’s not fun.

His decision was to give introspective promptings to all those public audiences, and that is exactly what I am saying we should continue doing as well. You may not recognize these promptings in those hundreds of public lectures, but they are still there, nonetheless. This is what matters. Steiner absolutely did not develop an "alternative method" of lecturing to people, which remains in abstract concepts about spiritual reality, while leaving the introspective good stuff for other, more advanced audiences. To imagine that would be a HUGE misunderstanding of what he was doing in all those lectures. The key point is that he intended for readers to work with these conceptual sequences introspectively, even if they often failed to do that, just as many have failed to do with our sequences on this forum.

Of course PoF is a stellar example of a method that can speak to ordinary consciousness (you know that, I wrote about that before). And it's not me saying that, please note. It’s Steiner himself, and you. must. take. that. in. Steiner calls his own book abstract-philosophical as opposed to spiritual-scientific. Have you integrated it? I showed this before with other quotes, for example here, and just like then, you now do as if the meaning wasn't there, as if you could just naturally keep banging heads with your theory - because that’s what it actually becomes, a theory, once you keep ignoring the facts of what Steiner said and did in his life, and the facts of how the “introspective prompts” work in real life.

The core benefit that PoF offers is not to “wean the soul off its addictive feeling of "the kingdom [living thinking] is not at hand yet", "it can't be experienced just yet", "more 3rd-person preparation is needed"”. Its core benefit is to provide, IN ABSTRACT, PHILOSOPHICAL, THIRD-PERSON KEY, that preparation, that bridge which can lead, through conceptual work, to an activation of the will - to freedom - such that the necessary self-education of the soul is engaged by the reader. Third-person because, please notice, the introspection that PoF stimulates is still carried out in concepts. That the concepts are about thinking does not make the introspection first-person!

It’s precisely because "the kingdom is not yet at hand" for most souls, that PoF came into existence, to tell contemporary man: “since reality can’t be experienced by many of you just yet, here’s a bridge that gives you concepts and ideas to apprehend it, but not any concepts and ideas. A special arrangement of concepts and ideas is provided that can LEAD TO the practices that alone develop an awakened experience of reality, through free activation of the will. And in order to come and touch that freedom, a bridge is necessary. Banging introspective-meditative prompts on people’s heads would do nothing without the conceptual assistance offered in this book.” This historical bridging function is precisely the reason why PoF will remain as a cornerstone in the evolution of human consciousness.

Now, even a masterful bridge as PoF was unfortunately not entirely successful in its purpose to wake up modern man - as Steiner had to painfully experience through the decades - for various reasons. He was keenly and painfully aware of that throughout his life. And so he implemented through the years a full spectrum of additional bridging strategies - including all the anthroposophical applications to the domains of sensory life. These began to work, indeed, but there is so much left to do. Today more than ever, there is a pressing need to reforge that bridge, to reinvent it, to adapt it to the present physical and soul-spiritual conditions. If in the face of this urgency you prefer to keep recasting a thousand more times the same introspective prompt, because you have the unwarranted feeling that “the kingdom is not yet at hand” is an addictive thought, well go ahead Ashvin. For my part I will strive to live up to Steiner’s own prompts and legacy.

I suppose there is no simple way for me to bring attention to the fact that you are fundamentally misunderstanding PoF in what you have written above, and this misunderstanding is being projected throughout Steiner's later 'bridging' work as well. That PoF is intended to only present "abstract philosophical concepts about thinking" which remain understood from a 3rd-person vantage point is, frankly, an opinion that I didn't even imagine was possible for you to hold, until now. To then imagine that concentrating our efforts in this non-introspective, non-first-person, 'bridging' domain is "living up to Steiner's legacy" is even more problematic. I think there was probably a time when you worked with and understood PoF in the way that Steiner intended, as a testament to the fact that the kingdom is already at hand for anyone asking the deeper questions of life, but now you are reforging, reinventing, and adapting it to what you prefer to be the "bridge", but which is actually a doubling down on the combinatorial drug addiction which leads to the illusion of 'free will', not the experience of the true Will that is free. Not to mention, what you are suggesting above ignores practically all of the Steiner quotes on PoF presented here. If the following does not sound like first-person introspective awakening to you, then I don't know what possibly could.


"Now what kind of reader approach did The Philosophy of Freedom count on? It had to assume a special way of reading. It expected the reader, as he read, to undergo the sort of inner experience that, in an external sense, is really just like waking up out of sleep in the morning. The feeling one should have about it is such as to make one say, “My relationship to the world in passive thoughts was, on a higher level, that of a person who lies asleep. Now I am waking up.” It is like knowing, at the moment of awakening, that one has been lying passively in bed, letting nature have her way with one's body. But then one begins to be inwardly active. One relates one's senses actively to what is going on in the color permeated, sounding world about one. One links one's own bodily activity to one's intentions. The reader of The Philosophy of Freedom should experience something very like this waking moment of transition from passivity to activity, though of course on a higher level. He should be able to say, “Yes, I have certainly thought thoughts before. But my thinking took the form of just letting thoughts flow and carry me along. Now, little by little, I am beginning to be inwardly active in them. I am reminded of waking up in the morning and relating my sense-activity to sounds and colors, and my bodily movement to my will.” Experiencing this awakening as I have described it in my book, Vom Menschenratsel,1 where I comment on Johann Gottlieb Fichte, is to develop a soul attitude completely different from that prevalent today. But the attitude of soul thus arrived at leads not merely to knowledge that must be accepted on someone else's authority but to asking oneself what the thoughts were that one used to have and what this activity is that one now launches to strike into one's formerly passive thinking. What, one asks, is this element that has the same rousing effect on one's erstwhile thinking that one's life of soul and spirit has on one's body on awakening? (I am referring here just to the external fact of awaking). One begins to experience thinking in a way one could not have done without coming to know it as a living, active function."

[Federica]

Again, I struggle to understand what you are doing, Ashvin. It seems to me that you have not had the least inkling of the intention of this thread so far. Instead, you have stubbornly repeated habitual patterns, constantly skirting the uncomfortable truths, contradicting yourself, and even coming up with plain illogical arguments. It looks kind of worrisome to me, including this obsession with the chess game. Ok it’s one of the thousand possible metaphors for the “introspective prompts” that do not work, but how has it become such an obsession? Before it was poker, now it’s chess, but the question looks the same to me.

If anyone has an idea what Ashvin is doing, please help.