I understand why you'd take my silence around the "foundational phenomenological work" as lack of interest, but this is actually not the case. I am quite interested in it. In fact, as I believe I've mentioned before, Ashvin's essays (published on Substack) are in a way what led me here. I have followed Cleric's recent series and found it excellent. But both Cleric and Ashvin are incredibly thorough writers who tend to "cover all the bases" in their work. I'm left feeling like there's little if anything I could possibly add to it, besides dropping in to say thanks. Additionally, these essays are written from a very different angle from where I stand in terms of image content and communication style. While I'm able to work with them phenomenologically (and to great effect), the outer vehicle is one that doesn't immediately click with me. This isn't a critique, just an objective difference in toolkit and perspective. Anyway, I'm sure I'll be able to integrate it better at some point and potentially find something to contribute.Federica wrote: ↑Tue Jan 20, 2026 10:14 am I would like to add another thing, Rodriel. It's an invitation.
As it seems to me, you have grown disinterested in foundational phenomenological work. It would be great if I'm mistaken, please correct me if appropriate, but when it comes to this forum, you have shown clear disinterest in the phenomenological work we try to cope with in all threads. Even in this one thread, you have shared your thoughts, but have systematically dodged the soft invitations received from various sides. You may be thinking, "been there, done that back in the day, now I've found home in the real work, now I'm part of the real task as an Unknown Friend. No need to digress with the basics anymore. I'm doing more advanced spiritual exercises now, working with stream integration now". I see this disinterest as closely correlated with your view of Steiner as representative of the now historically closed task of blowing the trumpet, foreshadowing, heralding, and hailing at the coming of the new impulse lying with Unknown Friends.
Evidently, in my view this is the expression of personal preferences. But in any case, for an Unknown Friend fully faithful to Tomberg's legacy, isn't it true that nothing of the knowledge of the higher worlds one may attain can be taken for granted without serious risks? Isn't it the case that nothing of one's participation in these worlds can be retained as an ideal private island where to plant the high flagpole of spirit-land? And no real cognitive exploration aiming to sense-freedom is too basic, or passé, to be fully relevant and pertinent to all our life threads - not true?
If you agree, I am joining my invitation to the numerous ones, softer ones, you have received and so far quietly declined. Would you begin to unballast the ballasts of layers of indirection with us, and join in our efforts to directly investigate the inner facts? It would be great and very welcomed if you could.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to by invitations quietly declined. When I've skipped replying to certain comments in this thread, it's usually been due to a perception on my part that their contents had since been covered elsewhere. At other times it's been a lack of desire to enter into debate. I have not intentionally skipped over any directly phenomenological invitations. I appreciate the renewed invitation to join your collective efforts. Like I said, if and when I find something worth contributing, I'll jump in. Until then, I'll continue to follow the essays and related discussion with enthusiasm. I very much appreciate the work that's being done on this forum.