Philosophical Speculations

Federica wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 7:55 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:13 pm I have previously brought attention to how it is a phenomenological fact that we place our thinking within the perspective of others (as far as we can imagine those perspectives, which is usually not too far), whether relatives, people on the forum, ML and DH, or anyone else, and then try to imagine how the introspective promptings are experienced. Therefore, it is self-evident (if we introspect a bit) that whatever we feel to be the shortcomings, obstacles, annoyances, etc. of such promptings is experienced as such from our perspective. It must have something to do with how we perceive and understand the promptings, otherwise our critique of them 'on behalf of others' would make no sense. It would be like saying, "I have had conversations with people who conceive the Earth to be a flat physical disc hovering in space and who have launched projects to convince everyone else of this idea, and even though all my knowledge and wisdom points in a completely different direction, I think they have a point, and I am still motivated to support their flat Earth efforts in some way." This makes no sense.

Nope. It’s not like that. It is instead like saying: "I have had conversations with people who conceive the Earth to be a flat physical disc hovering in space and who have launched projects to convince everyone else of this idea, and now I have an idea or two how to offer them a perspective, building on what we have in common, meeting them where they’re at, so that we can progressively flex their trajectories to the point where they begin to realize where the rub lies.

Yes, but you can't imagine a way of flexing their trajectories that is non-introspective, because it is literally unimaginable. That is why you always fall back on quotes from Steiner or Cleric that are examples of introspective promptings. When Cleric asked how your initial diagram on this thread was "non-phenomenological", you didn't even respond. In response to me, you spoke of "evoking the nature of introspection before introspection". And I understand why you must speak in riddles to preserve your point. There is no viable response, because everything in that diagram screams introspective prompting. It is what you, and everyone who seeks deeper understanding of reality, are steering toward, whether they know it or not.

This is the simple fact that we need to honestly deal with. It doesn't matter how many alternative methods of flexing the trajectories we fantasize about, because our thinking process will always be led back to introspective promptings when we are asked to flesh out a method that meets ordinary consciousness where it's at and leads it in the direction of spiritual awakening. Instead of fighting against that process, we can harmonize our efforts with it. Instead of imagining we are on the vanguard of some brand new incremental way to flex the trajectories of humanity, like so many other default thinkers of our time (ML, DH, etc.), we can recognize the Bridge that has already been established (first by Christ, and in our time through the introspective Michaelic impulse) and humbly accept our role as servants of that Bridge.

Clearly, the prospect of accepting such a sacrificial role irks many people:

Hoarding the cure? Give me a break YOU are hoarding the cure by insisting to only speak a language that almost nobody understands. Double game? There is no double game involved here, since it must be explicit from the beginning - as I made very clear in my first post in this thread - that no real understanding can be gained by simply re-picturing thought-pictures, and that the environment of the discussion must be given as a work in progress. There is nothing to gain in demonstrating such a retrograde and stubborn attitude, Ashvin. And you should keep your dirty verbal tricks for your true adversaries. For my part I don't have the patience to keep jousting with you in this useless way.

Exactly as Cleric said in your quote: at some point one needs to stop talking and start acting! Which means ACTIVATE THE WILL. This is what I have continuously indicated as THE ONE GOAL in these pages. So I suggest that you first go and take care of your addictions before you come here and try to half lecture me and half randomly send me your dirty tricks. And also beware: "being candid about one's struggles" - as you said you have been - is - not always, but often - a secret way to actually keep indulging in one's struggles. Think about it.

You say that the issues with the phenomenological method have nothing to do with your perspective on them, but you repeatedly speak of it as hammering people over the head with a language that "nobody understands". For someone who is fully on board with the value of introspective promptings, you sure have a funny way of speaking about them. It's like you are praising someone to their face, and as soon as they step out of earshot, you start cursing them.

You know, as well as I do, that Cleric was not speaking of some 'applied spiritual science' activism in that quote, where we simply dump esoteric physiology and what not on their heads. He was speaking of the performance of exercises, i.e., the introspective promptings that you keep proclaiming no one can understand and are therefore practically useless as a bridge to the spiritual foundations. And he was speaking about how that is needed precisely for the kind of 'unprepared' souls you are speaking about, who will never gradually psyche themselves into the introspective method by refining their intellectual combinations (as also expressed here, among other places).

"Thus, the only thing we can do is to depict the inner experiences as faithfully and precisely as possible, yet it is up to the other person's individual freedom to make the crossing."

In any case, I sincerely hope that you prove me wrong, and we soon start seeing some posts from you about the phenomenological method, its value, its potential uses, how it fits in with applied spiritual science, creative ways of expanding on it, and things of that nature. We will see if any of that is forthcoming. All you would have to do is take the initial diagram and ask the question, "How could I make this content even clearer and more concrete, depicting the inner experiences as faithfully and precisely as possible?" That will immerse your thinking into the introspective process and promptings, without a doubt.

The question is simple. Until you accept and integrate the meaning of these words:


"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."


…nothing I’m trying to say will make sense to you. Admit that, if I had myself posted these exact words - that PoF is not spiritual-scientific but abstract-philosophical in its approach - you would have gone over the top with your usual rebuttals, admonitions, and psychologizing houses of cards. Now, as it happens, these are not my words, but the words Steiner chose to describe his most important work. You have to take them in. Once it’s done, we can go again through your accusations, admonitions etcetera, and see what’s left.

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 8:28 am The question is simple. Until you accept and integrate the meaning of these words:


"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."


…nothing I’m trying to say will make sense to you. Admit that, if I had myself posted these exact words - that PoF is not spiritual-scientific but abstract-philosophical in its approach - you would have gone over the top with your usual rebuttals, admonitions, and psychologizing houses of cards. Now, as it happens, these are not my words, but the words Steiner chose to describe his most important work. You have to take them in. Once it’s done, we can go again through your accusations, admonitions etcetera, and see what’s left.

As we have discussed before, we don't need Steiner to explicitly tell us what PoF is about. We only need to move our thinking process together with the conceptual sequences in PoF, like we are performing thought-asanas, imaginative rehearsals, etc., and we will immediately and intuitively know how the introspective effect was intended.

Cleric: "When reading PoF people still end up with a concept of ‘idea’ and a concept of ‘perception’, they hold them in their mind as some structures and don’t know what to do with them. What I attempted was ‘PoF in motion’ so to speak. FB said before: “as Steiner said, he wished he could have danced The Philosophy of Freedom rather than writing it”. We should really resonate with this statement. Reality can only be comprehended in motion, when our cognitive flow coincides with the World flow."

Then we also have the benefit of Steiner's numerous quotes on PoF, which paint a crystal clear picture of how he intended it that harmonizes with what we immediately and intuitively know from dancing PoF - why would we ignore all of those to only focus on one phrase ("abstract-philosophical way") in your snippet? These are also the words Steiner chose to describe his most important work. Will you take these in?

Steiner: "We spoke of the possibility of bringing about catharsis by a great variety of methods. A person has gone a long way toward achieving it if, for example, he has taken in and experienced the content of my Philosophy of Freedom with such inner participation that he has the feeling, “Yes, the book was a stimulus, but now I can reproduce the thoughts it contained by my own effort.” If a reader takes the book as it was meant and relates to it in the way a virtuoso playing a composition on the piano relates to its composer, reproducing the whole piece out of himself—in the composer's sense, naturally—the book's organically evolved thought sequence will bring about a high degree of catharsis in him. For in the case of a book like this, the important thing is so to organize the thoughts it contains that they take effect. With many other books it doesn't make a great deal of difference if one shifts the sequence, putting this thing first and that one later. But in the case of The Philosophy of Freedom that is impossible. It would be just as unthinkable to put page 150 fifty pages earlier as it would be to put a dog's hind legs where the front ones belong. The book is a living organism, and to work one's way through the thoughts it contains is to undergo an inner training. A person to whom this has not happened as a result of his study need not conclude that what I am saying is incorrect, but rather that he has not read it correctly or worked hard and thoroughly enough."

We can also take in this Introduction by Otto Palmer:

Palmer: "The philosophy of the book is a path, a method, as Anthroposophy itself is - a method leading by philosophical means to the actual experience of a thinking detached from the body-soul makeup. This is a thinking that cannot be allowed to remain mere thought but must instead become experience based on "soul observation", as the subtitle of the book indicates. As such, it is the first stage of super-sensible experience. The second is moral intuition, described in the section called "Moral Fantasy".

Experience of the kind referred to offers the only possible means of refuting materialism. Both the scientific materialism of the West and the dialectical materialism of the East. They cannot be refuted by pure logic, for in the closed circuit of the thought systems on which they are based, both types have built themselves impregnable fortresses. There is not the tiniest loophole through which one might creep to threaten their hold. They can only be countered by the most solid experience, by the actual fact of experiencing the supersensible in the thinking process. One cannot argue about that experience with people unwilling or unable to attain it, any more than one can argue with a blind man about the light and color that his defective organism keeps him from perceiving. The experience of pure thinking remains a matter of having the "goodwill", as the Philosophy of Freedom says, to undertake it."

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 1:22 pm As we have discussed before, we don't need Steiner to explicitly tell us what PoF is about. We only need to move our thinking process together with the conceptual sequences in PoF, like we are performing thought-asanas, imaginative rehearsals, etc., and we will immediately and intuitively know how the introspective effect was intended.

Cleric: "When reading PoF people still end up with a concept of ‘idea’ and a concept of ‘perception’, they hold them in their mind as some structures and don’t know what to do with them. What I attempted was ‘PoF in motion’ so to speak. FB said before: “as Steiner said, he wished he could have danced The Philosophy of Freedom rather than writing it”. We should really resonate with this statement. Reality can only be comprehended in motion, when our cognitive flow coincides with the World flow."

Then we also have the benefit of Steiner's numerous quotes on PoF, which paint a crystal clear picture of how he intended it that harmonizes with what we immediately and intuitively know from dancing PoF - why would we ignore all of those to only focus on one phrase ("abstract-philosophical way") in your snippet? These are also the words Steiner chose to describe his most important work. Will you take these in?

Steiner: "We spoke of the possibility of bringing about catharsis by a great variety of methods. A person has gone a long way toward achieving it if, for example, he has taken in and experienced the content of my Philosophy of Freedom with such inner participation that he has the feeling, “Yes, the book was a stimulus, but now I can reproduce the thoughts it contained by my own effort.” If a reader takes the book as it was meant and relates to it in the way a virtuoso playing a composition on the piano relates to its composer, reproducing the whole piece out of himself—in the composer's sense, naturally—the book's organically evolved thought sequence will bring about a high degree of catharsis in him. For in the case of a book like this, the important thing is so to organize the thoughts it contains that they take effect. With many other books it doesn't make a great deal of difference if one shifts the sequence, putting this thing first and that one later. But in the case of The Philosophy of Freedom that is impossible. It would be just as unthinkable to put page 150 fifty pages earlier as it would be to put a dog's hind legs where the front ones belong. The book is a living organism, and to work one's way through the thoughts it contains is to undergo an inner training. A person to whom this has not happened as a result of his study need not conclude that what I am saying is incorrect, but rather that he has not read it correctly or worked hard and thoroughly enough."

Yes, for my part I have taken them in, Ashvin. There is no contradiction between the intention in this thread and the quotes you brought up. PoF can be read at various levels - somewhat like the Bible, if you will That one can dance PoF doesn't exclude that one can also read it abstractly-philosophically, given that such is the book's form. And for many, that reading is the only available. Which is quite natural actually, at the first contact with the book. Perhaps you can confirm whether or not it was so for you as well.

But can you say the same? Does the quote I have shared also harmonize with all the other ones in your world? Or are you obliged to look the other way when you encounter those words by Steiner? Or maybe he was unwell when he uttered them, maybe in an occasional brain fog? Will you now admit that both aspects exist, and that how a certain thought content is received and worked upon is actually of the greatest importance?



PS: You who have insisted so much that no thought sequences can lead to awakening, should take note of these words from your quote: “...the book's organically evolved thought sequence will bring about a high degree of catharsis”. So it's really only when I say it that you find it scandalous. When Steiner says it, it becomes all of a sudden music for your ears

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:03 pm Yes, for my part I have taken them in, Ashvin. There is no contradiction between the intention in this thread and the quotes you brought up. PoF can be read at various levels - somewhat like the Bible, if you will That one can dance PoF doesn't exclude that one can also read it abstractly-philosophically, given that such is the book's form. And for many, that reading is the only available. Which is quite natural actually, at the first contact with the book. Perhaps you can confirm whether or not it's been so for you as well.

But can you say the same? Does the quote I have shared also harmonize with all the other ones in your world? Or are you obliged to look the other way when you encounter those words by Steiner? Or maybe he was unwell when he uttered them, or in an occasional brain fog? Will you now admit that both aspects exist, and that how a certain thought content is received and worked upon matters greatly?

Yes, there is no contradiction between the quotes. When we use metaphors of spacetime curvature, wavefunction collapse, warpdrive spaceship, etc., we can say that we are employing concepts from an "abstract-scientific" domain. When we employ concepts like monism, dualism, idealism, utilitarianism, etc., we can call this "abstract-philosophical". And when we make first contact with these concepts, they will indeed be worked through abstractly. The whole question is in what direction do we move our thinking to discover the Bridge that alone can counter modern materialistic ways of thinking and being? If we remain with the abstract, non-introspective reading of the content, like we first start off with, we will 100% end up as those who have not "read it correctly or worked hard and thoroughly enough", and therefore we will be countering nothing and only adding more weight to the hardening process of 3rd-person thinking. It is exactly the same as those who remain with a ground-floor level understanding of the Bible and a corresponding theological framework. (and I doubt that I need to convince you of the problems with the latter)

Notice how the word "only" and "must" is often used by Cleric, Steiner, Palmer, etc., with respect to these introspective promptings. The standard intellectual perspective views such a word as an affront to its 'freedom' - why should this be the only bridge to spiritual awakening, why must I work with the content introspectively?? Yet, from a higher perspective, we realize this only and this must is rooted in the lawful structure of spiritual evolution, and faithfully submitting our inner process to that lawful structure is the meaning of true freedom. If we still desire to rebel against that lawful structure and endlessly fashion our multitude of non-introspective 'bridges', we will inevitably move our inner process in the wrong direction, away from spiritual awakening and further into body-soul enslavement. This is why the inner path is, above all, sacrificial. Our desire for the candy shop of options to bridge reality must be sacrificed, and we must submit our inner process to the service of the one true introspective Bridge that was established at the turning point of Time.

PS: You who have insisted that no thought sequences can lead to awakening, should take note of these words from your quote: “...the book's organically evolved thought sequence will bring about a high degree of catharsis”. So it's really only when I say it that you find it scandalous

Ok, noted. It's not what you say that is scandalous (that is, the surface-level content of the words), but what is implied. Steiner implies that, if a reader works with the thought sequences like an asanic exercise, a high degree of soul purification can be brought about. Is that what you have been implying? Clearly not. You have been implying the opposite - the sequences can be worked with in an "abstract-philosophical" way, and this will also eventually bridge to introspective awakening. I hope you understand this difference and why certain thought sequences can lead to awakening - the reason rests entirely in the goodwill and introspective approach of the reader.

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:03 pm And for many, that reading is the only available.

By the way, you have often expressed thoughts like the above, but it's not clear why you are so confident in them. Who are these "many" and why is it completely out of the question that they link the idea of a phonograph (or video feedback, etc., etc.) to the experience of their inner flow and the resistance it meets? Why is the experience of pure thinking, stimulated by the thought sequences of PoF, unavailable to these many?

You may cite people on this forum and say, for some inexplicable reason, they couldn't make the introspective connection (even though the rest of us could). What is it that prevented this connection from happening? Is it because the conceptual and imagistic sequences weren't ordered in the most intellect-friendly, intellect-appealing, intellect-palatable way, or do we instead look to the goodwill (or mistrust) and first-person orientation of the reader?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:47 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:03 pm And for many, that reading is the only available.

By the way, you have often expressed thoughts like the above, but it's not clear why you are so confident in them. Who are these "many" and why is it completely out of the question that they link the idea of a phonograph (or video feedback, etc., etc.) to the experience of their inner flow and the resistance it meets? Why is the experience of pure thinking, stimulated by the thought sequences of PoF, unavailable to these many?

You may cite people on this forum and say, for some inexplicable reason, they couldn't make the introspective connection (even though the rest of us could). What is it that prevented this connection from happening? Is it because the conceptual and imagistic sequences weren't ordered in the most intellect-friendly, intellect-appealing, intellect-palatable way, or do we instead look to the goodwill (or mistrust) and first-person orientation of the reader?

For many, that reading is the only available at a given point in time, Ashvin, that is, as written above, at the first contact with the book. Every human being has the potential to develop the seed of I-consciousness. And I have NEVER expressed thoughts like what you insinuate. I challenge you to find any quotes. You won't find any, unless you cut the text in fragments, as you have just done. This looks like a textbook example of manipulation attempt. What are your extenuating circumstances?

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:06 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:47 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:03 pm And for many, that reading is the only available.

By the way, you have often expressed thoughts like the above, but it's not clear why you are so confident in them. Who are these "many" and why is it completely out of the question that they link the idea of a phonograph (or video feedback, etc., etc.) to the experience of their inner flow and the resistance it meets? Why is the experience of pure thinking, stimulated by the thought sequences of PoF, unavailable to these many?

You may cite people on this forum and say, for some inexplicable reason, they couldn't make the introspective connection (even though the rest of us could). What is it that prevented this connection from happening? Is it because the conceptual and imagistic sequences weren't ordered in the most intellect-friendly, intellect-appealing, intellect-palatable way, or do we instead look to the goodwill (or mistrust) and first-person orientation of the reader?

For many, that reading is the only available at a given point in time, Ashvin, that is, as written above, at the first contact with the book. Every human being has the potential to develop the seed of I-consciousness. And I have NEVER expressed thoughts like what you insinuate. I challenge you to find any quotes. You won't find any, unless you cut the text in fragments, as you have just done. This looks like a textbook example of manipulation attempt. What are your extenuating circumstances?

Come on, Federica. This has been a persistent theme of all of your posts and perhaps the crux of your reasoning for why an 'alternative method' (to the introspective promptings) is needed. I don't need to quote anything because it is perfectly evident to anyone following the discussion.

And it makes zero sense to talk about "availability" in a momentary slice of time, at first contact with the content. When does the deeper reading stop being "unavailable" and start becoming "available"? After the second moment of contact, a day, a week, what? You and I both know there is no answer to that question, because that is never what you meant in the first place. You meant that it remains unavailable for many and therefore we need to forge new types of bridges for those many.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:24 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:06 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:47 pm


By the way, you have often expressed thoughts like the above, but it's not clear why you are so confident in them. Who are these "many" and why is it completely out of the question that they link the idea of a phonograph (or video feedback, etc., etc.) to the experience of their inner flow and the resistance it meets? Why is the experience of pure thinking, stimulated by the thought sequences of PoF, unavailable to these many?

You may cite people on this forum and say, for some inexplicable reason, they couldn't make the introspective connection (even though the rest of us could). What is it that prevented this connection from happening? Is it because the conceptual and imagistic sequences weren't ordered in the most intellect-friendly, intellect-appealing, intellect-palatable way, or do we instead look to the goodwill (or mistrust) and first-person orientation of the reader?

For many, that reading is the only available at a given point in time, Ashvin, that is, as written above, at the first contact with the book. Every human being has the potential to develop the seed of I-consciousness. And I have NEVER expressed thoughts like what you insinuate. I challenge you to find any quotes. You won't find any, unless you cut the text in fragments, as you have just done. This looks like a textbook example of manipulation attempt. What are your extenuating circumstances?

Come on, Federica. This has been a persistent theme of all of your posts and perhaps the crux of your reasoning for why an 'alternative method' (to the introspective promptings) is needed. I don't need to quote anything because it is perfectly evident to anyone following the discussion.

And it makes zero sense to talk about "availability" in a momentary slice of time, at first contact with the content. When does the deeper reading stop being "unavailable" and start becoming "available"? After the second moment of contact, a day, a week, what? You and I both know there is no answer to that question, because that is never what you meant in the first place. You meant that it remains unavailable for many and therefore we need to forge new types of bridges for those many.

So you don't need to provide quotes, and this has been a consistent theme of all my posts?

Are you taking substances?

You look very sick. I am used to you skirting the key points and rarely answering questions, but with this one I admit you have been able to surprise me. Be sure you are the only one freaking out in this strange way and reading this foolishness in my posts. Kaje for example wrote that he finds my approach interesting, if you remember (perhaps when you regather your spirits) and I am sure nobody else shares this thing you are throwing up now.

What are you trying to do, Ashvin?

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:49 pm So you don't need to provide quotes, and this has been a consistent theme of all my posts?

Are you taking substances?

You look very sick. I am used to you skirting the key points and rarely answering questions, but with this one I admit you have been able to surprise me. Be sure you are the only one freaking out in this strange way and reading this foolishness in my posts. Kaje for example wrote that he finds my approach interesting, if you remember (perhaps when you regather your spirits) and I am sure nobody else shares this thing you are throwing up now.

What are you trying to do, Ashvin?

Yes, I suppose that I must be in another dimension where your repeated statements that the introspective promptings are hammering people over the head with a language that "nobody understands", that they "repulse the mind", that they would "trigger a thousand times the same reaction", and are equivalent to "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", actually exist. I mean, do I seriously need to produce these quotes for you to remember that you wrote them? You can't just erase history when it becomes inconvenient for your argument or you lack a response.

Let's remember, the reason you started this thread (or the second post of it) is because, "making myself understood in this intention has been a challenge". Therefore, you know that I am not the only one who has pushed back on it, so please don't pretend that pointing out the flaws in your imagined bridging approach is unique to me.