Philosophical Speculations

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:41 pm

Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:36 pm
Just think what the very same authors that come up with these articles, would concoct, if they had to write something about your own stuff.

Yeah I suppose any hierarchical model of soul development could be twisted by some propaganda spin doctors to screen for perceived spiritual laggards in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

To be honest, I'm not well-versed in Steiner's actual writings, but I'm curious if anyone can come up with passages from his books, in his own words, that would give credence to such secondhand interpretations of yet more interpretations actually being other than just misrepresentations skewed to support some confirmation bias ~ in much the same way that Jordan Peterson's body of work has been misinterpreted and misrepresented to support some nonsensical notion that he's an advocate for some alt-right white supremacist movement, by a misinformed crowd who tend not to actually read his books, but rely on the skewed interpretations of spin doctors with their own separate agenda.

Scott did that when he posted a link to Steiner's PoF, which I am sure David did not read...

Rudolf Steiner wrote:Man, however, makes himself free from what is generic. For the generic features of the human race, when rightly understood, do not restrict man's freedom, and should not artificially be made to do so. A man develops qualities and activities of his own, and the basis for these we can seek only in the man himself. What is generic in him serves only as a medium in which to express his own individual being. He uses as a foundation the characteristics that nature has given him, and to these he gives a form appropriate to his own being. If we seek in the generic laws the reasons for an expression of this being, we seek in vain. We are concerned with something purely individual which can be explained only in terms of itself. If a man has achieved this emancipation from all that is generic, and we are nevertheless determined to explain everything about him in generic terms, then we have no sense for what is individual.

It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment. The tendency to judge according to the genus is at its most stubborn where we are concerned with differences of sex. Almost invariably man sees in woman, and woman in man, too much of the general character of the other sex and too little of what is individual
...

Anyone who judges people according to generic characters gets only as far as the frontier where people begin to be beings whose activity is based on free self-determination. Whatever lies short of this frontier may naturally become matter for academic study. The characteristics of race, people, nation and sex are the subject matter of special branches of study. Only men who wish to live as nothing more than examples of the genus could possibly conform to a general picture such as arises from academic study of this kind. But none of these branches of study are able to advance as far as the unique content of the single individual
...
Only to the extent that a man has emancipated himself in this way from all that is generic, does he count as a free spirit within a human community. No man is all genus, none is all individuality. But every man gradually emancipates a greater or lesser sphere of his being, both from the generic characteristics of animal life and from domination by the decrees of human authorities.

As regards that part of his nature where a man is not able to achieve this freedom for himself, he constitutes a part of the whole organism of nature and spirit. In this respect he lives by copying others or by obeying their commands. But only that part of his conduct that springs from his intuitions can have ethical value in the true sense. And those moral instincts that he possesses through the inheritance of social instincts acquire ethical value through being taken up into his intuitions. It is from individual ethical intuitions and their acceptance by human communities that all moral activity of mankind originates. In other words, the moral life of mankind is the sum total of the products of the moral imagination of free human individuals. This is the conclusion reached by monism.
-Philosophy of Freedom, Chapter 14: Individuality and Genus

I would point out that the exhaustive explanation of an individual's philosophy, whether it be Nietzsche, Steiner or whoever, with generic categories of political ideology (Nazi, etc.) is not much different than an exhaustive explanation with categories of gender or race.

Ashvin ... yes, to be clear, I read Scott's reference and found nothing in it to support the secondhand interpretations that David digs up, and while I'm quite sure that Scott is not cherry-picking, I'm just wondering if there are any passages whatsoever taken directly from Steiner's books that can be construed in such a way that would give credence to such secondhand interpretations.

To see if Steiner was a nationalist:

(lectures in 1914 in the wake of First World War)

One particular thing that provides the outer stamp, determining the character of a person as it were, in so far as he is living in a physical body on the physical plane, is what may collectively be referred to as nationality. This is something we should never forget, especially today. If we turn the mind's eye to what we call man's higher self, the concept of nationality loses significance. For when we pass through the gate of death everything encompassed by the term ‘nationality’ is among the things we cast off. And if we do in all seriousness want to be what we think people with spiritual aims should be, it is proper to remember that in passing through successive incarnations the human being belongs not to one but to a number of different nationalities. The part of him that links him to a particular nationality is among the things that are cast off, have to be cast off, the moment we pass through the gate of death.

...

Today we see the members of different nations facing one another in dislike, in hatred. I am not at this point speaking about what is going on in the combat situation. I am speaking of what is going on in the feelings, the passions, of human souls. Here we have a soul. It needs to prepare for its reception into a spiritual world through which it will now have to pass between death and its next birth, a world that will guide it towards an incarnation that will belong to quite a different nationality from the one it is now leaving. This is a fact which shows very clearly, in the best and most powerful way, how man resists the higher self that is within him. Consider some real ‘nationalist’ today, someone with national feelings who directs his antipathy very particularly against the members of another nation and, indeed, may be ranting and raving against this other nation in his own country. What is the meaning of such ranting and raving, of such antipathy? It signifies a premonition—My next incarnation will be into this nationality! The higher self has already at subconscious level established links with the other nationality. This higher self is resisted by that part of us which on the physical plane. This is man raging against his own higher self. Wherever the ranting and raving is worst, wherever the hatred felt against other nationalities is greatest and where the most lies are told about them, someone seeing things not as Maya but in truth can perceive the true reason, which is that a great many members of the nation that rages most, is most cruel in its attitudes and lies the most, will have to assume that other nationality at their next incarnation.

Nationalities and Nationalism in the Light of Spiritual Science

To this cause alone are to be attributed the utterly unchristian impulses which laid hold of mankind in the 19th century and have persisted into the 20th. Two of the most unchristian impulses of all are those which took effect in the 19th century. The first impulse which came to the fore and gained an ever stronger hold of men's minds and emotions, was that of nationalism. Here we see the shadow of the old blood-principle. The Christian impulse towards universal humanity was completely overshadowed by the principle of nationalism, because the new way to bring this element of universal humanity to its own had not been found. The anti-Christian impulse makes its appearance first and foremost in the form of nationalism. The old Luciferic principle of the blood comes to life once again in nation-consciousness. We see a revolt against Christianity in the nationalism of the 19th century, which reached its apex in Woodrow Wilson's phrase about the self-determination of nations, whereas the one and only reality befitting the present age would be to overcome nationalism, to eliminate it, and for men to be stirred by the impulse of the human universal.
(emphasis added)
THE BLOOD-RELATIONSHIP AND THE CHRIST-RELATIONSHIP

Some random quotes:

Why look beyond the threshold?

Among the fiercest critics of Steiner, was Johann Wilhelm Hauer, the theologian from Tübingen. After attending a lecture by Rudolf Steiner on “life after death”, Hauer had this to say: “Why look beyond the threshold? We’ll have enough time to find out what it’s like once we get there.” Rudolf Steiner commented: “That would be exactly the same, as if polar explorers, embarking on a trip to the north pole, said: ‘We’ll decide on what we need for our trip, once we arrive at the north pole.’”
Source: Sie Mensch von einem Menschen! Rudolf Steiner in Anekdoten door Wolfgang G. Vögele (page 159)

This war is the karma of materialism

From what is now happening (World War I), a few souls must come to a realization that we cannot go on like this; human evolution must take up the spiritual! Materialism is confronting its karma in this, the most terrible of all wars. In a certain sense, this war is the karma of materialism. The more this fact is realized by human beings, the more they will abandon their arguments about who is to blame for the war, and then they will have to realize that this war has been sent into world history to admonish man to turn to a spiritual perception of human life in its entirety.

Source: Rudolf Steiner – GA 159 – Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman – Linz, May 18, 1915

Humility

The humility towards those who are lower than we are, and at whose expense we have been able to rise, must be present everywhere in the world. If a plant were able to think, it would thank the minerals for giving it the ground on which it can lead a higher form of life, and the animal would have to bow down before the plant and say: “To thee I owe the possibility of my own existence.” In the same way man should recognise what he owes to all the rest of nature. So also, in our society, a man holding a higher position should bow before those who stand lower and say: “But for the diligence of those who labour on my behalf, I could not stand where I do.”

Source: Rudolf Steiner – GA 95 – At the Gates of Spiritual Science – Lecture XIII: Oriental and Christian Training – Stuttgart, 3rd September 1906

Hold on to the facts

What we speak nowadays corresponds little to outward facts. It is mostly the outcome of various opinions and passions. However, when we add to our external sensory perceptions what does not match pure reality, and reflect it as thoughts, we destroy our capacity for higher knowledge. […] The most basic rule for ascending to the higher worlds is this: learn to hold on to the pure facts of the physical world.

Source (German): Rudolf Steiner – GA 220 – Lebendiges Naturerkennen Intellektueller Sündenfall und spirituelle Sündenerhebung– Dornach, January 20, 1923 (page 128-129)

Fear and contempt facing spiritual knowledge

The present disposition of people, particularly those of Central Europe, is to either fear or despise spiritual knowledge. These two attitudes, which are inwardly related, are connected with the extremely difficult – and destined to worsen – conditions in Central Europe.

Source (German): Rudolf Steiner – GA 192 – Geisteswissenschaftliche Behandlung sozialer und pädagogischer Fragen – Stuttgart, 20 July 1919 (page 299)

Stick blow

A feeling of hatred directed at another is very real, and for one who can see in the spiritual world, it is much more potent than hitting him with a stick. Although the terrible thing does not take place right before our eyes, yet it is so.

Source (German): Rudolf Steiner – GA 56 – Die Erkenntnis der Seele und des Geistes – Berlin, 12 December 1907 (page 144-145)

No one should imagine himself to be better than others

Anthroposophists must feel part of the whole and, to some extent, responsible for all that happens. […] No one should imagine himself to be good or even much better than other people. We must be permeated by the thought that we can’t be much better than others. What is the advantage of making a few happy when our lifestyle reduces many to unhappiness? Ignorance is the root of suffering. Ignorant as we often are, we help sharpen the knife for those who use it for evil.

Source (German): Rudolf Steiner – GA 266a – Aus den Inhalten der esoterischen Stunden – Berlin, 15 February 1904 (page 34-35)

Our value to the world

Our value for the world must be seen to lie wholly in acts of love, not in what is done for the sake of self-perfecting. Let us be under no illusion about this.

Source: Rudolf Steiner – GA 143 – Love and Its Meaning in the World – Zurich, 17th December, 1912

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:50 pm Ashvin ... yes, to be clear, I read Scott's reference and found nothing in it to support the secondhand interpretations that David digs up, and while I'm quite sure that Scott is not cherry-picking, I'm just wondering if there are any passages whatsoever taken directly from Steiner's books that can be construed in such a way that would give credence to such secondhand interpretations.

I understand, but IMO that's not a good way to go about it. For people who wrote so prolifically, like Nietzsche, Jung, Steiner, etc., you will always be able to find a passage here or there which can loosely support a charge of nationalism or racism, even if those are not the views they actually held. If you can find passages or entire chapters which clearly denounce the tenets of nationalism and racism, on the other hand, then you are on solid ground.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:16 pmI understand, but IMO that's not a good way to go about it. For people who wrote so prolifically, like Nietzsche, Jung, Steiner, etc., you will always be able to find a passage here or there which can loosely support a charge of nationalism or racism, even if those are not the views they actually held. If you can find passages or entire chapters which clearly denounce the tenets of nationalism and racism, on the other hand, then you are on solid ground.

This statement reminds of me 'apologists' for unconscionable (IMO) 'leaders' on today's 'world stage'. My question is, what is it 'in'; is or is 'missing from' the 'philosophies' 'espoused' by such souls 'espouse', which therefore is indicative of the level, or lack of, their (and maybe your) soul development, which therefore (loosely or otherwise, Ashvin) 'supports' nationalism, racism, misogyny, etc.?

I wonder what others here make of this in relation to his BK's fav Schopenhauer?

From https://ustpaul.ca/blog/post/27-awful-h ... ice-part-2 L

"Let's pause over this claim and see if we can square it with Schopenhauer's racism. He makes several ignorant, anti-Black comments in his writings, so you might think that his view of slavery - in full swing at the time of his writing - would be indifferent or even supportive. In fact nothing could be further from the case. His metaphysics, and the ethic of universal compassion which results, leads him to excoriate the institution in a remarkable passage. Speaking of the American Anti-Slavery Society's document Slavery and the Internal Slave-Trade in the United States of North America, he claims that "This book ... rouses one's human feelings to such a degree of indignation that one could preach a crusade for the subjugation and punishment of the slave-owning states of North America. They are a blot on mankind." (Essays and Aphorisms, p.138) He speaks of [hence the questionable value of the 'lip' and 'mind' 'service' of words and ideas] being moved to tears by the plight of his "innocent black brothers." (Ibid.) This seems entirely out of keeping with what we know about Schopenhauer the man, and yet it fits nicely with his philosophical system.

On his view everything in the phenomenal realm, including a person's character, is pre-determined. Schopenhauer's own knee-jerk racism can be chalked up on this model to simply the way he is. But because the phenomenal person as we have seen is not the real person, and because at the noumenal level we are all the same, this entails a duty of compassion. This is perhaps why Schopenhauer strikes us as so discordant: he is incorrigible in his prejudice, yet weeps for his African American brothers (and, presumably, sisters). The remarkable thing is that, since compassion ultimately concerns things as they are in themselves, it appears to represent a more properly philosophical aspect of Schopenhauer's system. The racialist and racist determinism is on this view secondary. We should never ignore it, but we should avoid the temptation to resign his writings to the flames on its account.

In the next and final part of this series, I'll ponder the question of how we might approach the teaching of awful canonical men in the classroom. It's one thing to discuss this problem in the abstract, and quite another when we consider the perspectives of the very people such awful historical figures are insulting - in particular, racialized and gendered students who must constantly engage with them through mandatory readings, lectures, and discussions."

Ashvin ... True enough, and the more I read the passages that Cleric has now provided, the more suspect I am of the secondhand interpretations of yet other interpretations that have likely been bastardized by someone who never actually attended any Steiner lecture, or even had access to an actual transcription of such a lecture, but rather is relying solely upon some skewed spin doctoring offered up by someone with an entirely separate agenda. After all, even the Christ teaching was adapted in Nazi Germany by the German Protestant Church to create a unified German church that would exemplify its nazified Christianity. So also dreaming up some nazified variation on Steiner would surely be quite as cursorily justified and swallowed.

David_Sundaram wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:03 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:16 pmI understand, but IMO that's not a good way to go about it. For people who wrote so prolifically, like Nietzsche, Jung, Steiner, etc., you will always be able to find a passage here or there which can loosely support a charge of nationalism or racism, even if those are not the views they actually held. If you can find passages or entire chapters which clearly denounce the tenets of nationalism and racism, on the other hand, then you are on solid ground.

This statement reminds of me 'apologists' for unconscionable (IMO) 'leaders' on today's 'world stage'. My question is, what is it 'in'; is or is 'missing from' the 'philosophies' 'espoused' by such souls 'espouse', which therefore is indicative of the level, or lack of, their (and maybe your) soul development, which therefore (loosely or otherwise, Ashvin) 'supports' nationalism, racism, misogyny, etc.?

I wonder what others here make of this in relation to his BK's fav Schopenhauer?

That is exactly the problem - you go off of what a work 'reminds [you] of' instead of actually reading the work and trying to understand it. You have a pre-constructed totalizing worldview, as reflected by your 'treatise', and everyone and everything else in the world is conceptualized only to the extent that they are contained within your constructed totality.

What you posted about Schopenhauer supports the exact opposite of your 'warnings' about reading Steiner - even if he was a nationalist or racist (which, by all reasonable accounts, he was not), his philosophy was entirely concerned with the metaphysical sanctity of the individual above all group categories and he also explicitly denounced nationalism and racism.

There's no point in this.

Throwing mud on personalities can never resolve anything. I guess that whoever reads Schopenhauer is interested in the ideas themselves and not so much in his personality. I'm pretty sure people examine even less strictly (if at all) the personalities of mediums (or more fancily - channelers), who flood the bookstores with their materials.

If we are to elevate this conversation from the murky astral waters of personal sympathies and antipathies, we'll have to focus on the direction where different ideas lead.

Here I no longer speak of personalities but of evolutionary impulses. For example, classical mechanics began with Newton but one doesn't need to subscribe to Newton's personality in order to understand mechanics and make it useful. It is similar with everything else. We are not speaking of authority worship. My previous posts were not to make Steiner look better in the public eye but because there's something new, a new impulse in evolution that should at least be known of. And when conversations focus on personalities, people simply miss the essentials.

What is the essential in spiritual science? It is actually not the body of lectures that can be considered "teachings" by some. They are not teachings, they are examples of what can be perceived and understood when man develops his higher faculties.

And if we have to have polarized opinions, let it be on this point - the question of higher development and not personalities.

What do we mean by that? Modern science and philosophy are utilizing the abstract intellect to create models of reality which when mapped to the contents of experience, more or less correlate. This is what it is today considered knowledge of reality in the most general sense. To be able to build a framework of thought, which when personally simulated in one's mind, exhibits behavior that can be related to the contents of one's senses, feelings, etc.

What is implicitly assumed in the above approach is that man, in abstract thinking, has attained to the highest tool of knowing reality. It is rarely considered if this is really the case.

Spiritual science tells us that our intellectual consciousness is just one form of consciousness. And here's the important part - it not only tells us that but tells us exactly how one attains to this knowledge. This is what allows us to call it science. True science requires not only one to state some facts but also disclose the path through which the facts were attained, so that everyone else can verify them for themselves. In this respect Spiritual Science fulfils the criteria.

Historically, knowledge of the spiritual has been the domain of religious revelation. God spoke to Moses, Krishna spoke to Arjuna, Jesus spoke and so on. Religious knowledge is always connected with belief in authority. It simply can not be otherwise. This belief has become quite fuzzy in the whole esoteric frenzy of today. Authors seem to talk about more or less similar things, so one imagines that if he reads few books and find their point of intersection, he attains to truth. People throw around words and concepts, speaking of energies, portals, vibrations, dimensions, worlds, etc., etc. and rarely one asks how can these things be known at all. What are the true sources of this knowledge? Most commonly chewing old things, digesting them and spitting them out in new forms. Others are simply product of pure sci-fi fantasy. And this today is considered the gold standard of knowledge about spiritual matters.

Then, something comes along that is only the very delicate, fragile beginnings of a faculty that in the course of evolution should develop in everyone. Today natural history quite objectively assumes that the intellect has appeared only gradually in the course of history. Just think how incomparably different are the experiences in the dreamy instinctive life of the primitive man and the life illuminated by activity which is self aware. Not only that it is different but the former state can not in principle imagine what it is to experience a state of thinking self consciousness. The higher state contains within it the former but the former can not know the higher.

And here we are, in time of history, where the intellect has worked wonders. And the question that is most avoided is "could it be that in my intellectual life, I'm experiencing only a specific stage of consciousness, which can not comprehend in itself, a potentially higher stage, just as the dreamy, instinctive state can not comprehend the intellectual?" This is the most inconvenient question one can ask. Nothing is more feared and despised that this. It casts unbearable doubt in the thinking ego's superiority, in its feeling of being the crown of creation.

Yet certain things should appear in history at one time or another. And then comes an impulse, a fresh stream that leads in direction which is completely incomprehensible for those who fear or despise the above question. Not only that this question is talked about but the path is disclosed, which allows anyone to find out things for himself.

Man enters in an age where he is able to find out something about his higher constitution, not simply through belief in authority but by experiencing things for himself. This is a critical point in evolution. It could be compared to entering adulthood or by being weaned by Nature. Man must find his own place in the Cosmos, by investigating his spiritual structure. It is no longer a question of listening to the guru's wisdom or the channeled sci-fi fantasies. Just as one has direct experiences of his sensory environment, so can he gain consciousness of his spiritual surroundings.

Steiner knew that this is the whole point of Spiritual Science. It is no longer about belief but of testable knowledge. In his words:

We must therefore take our stand on the principle of following attentively what is brought forward, but not allowing it to be said that it is accepted among us out of belief in authority. Never should the phrase be heard that truths are accepted simply because I have voiced them! We should sin against the truth were we to say any such thing. One thing or another may be grounded on confidence; but that can never be made into a principle. Someone else may perhaps be better able to tread the path; but the rule to which every individual should adhere is this: not to accept things on authority, but to put them to the test.
(original emphasis)
Occult Movement: Lecture Five: The Eighth Sphere

So if we are to speak pros and cons, let's focus on the essentials. While quarrelling about which personality got what flaws, we're simply oscillating around the central problem, we're simply avoiding it.

David, what is you opinion on this? Let's leave aside Steiner and Anthroposophy. What is you view, in principle, on development of higher cognition that can give man direct consciousness of the Spiritual World. Not speaking about visionary trances that need to be interpreted. Neither of automatic writing, speaking in tongues, etc. Speaking about state of consciousness that is as certain as the existence of our thoughts in our ordinary state, and from the perspective of which, our intellectual consciousness can be investigated as spread before us.
Do you think this has any role in human evolution? Do you think people should be consciously striving for it? Do you think that there's an inseparable wall between our world and the Spiritual and only mediumship and interpretation of visions can tell us something about it? If you think that higher cognition is possible where would you go to learn something about it?

These are the essential questions. If one feels deep into his soul the desire for knowledge, for direct experience, and not for just believing, then this someone will be drawn towards that which can give him the answers his soul longs for. The one interested in dream pictures of reality will also find everything he needs in the bookstore.

Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:27 pmThrowing mud on personalities can never resolve anything. I guess that whoever reads Schopenhauer is interested in the ideas themselves and not so much in his personality. I'm pretty sure people examine even less strictly (if at all) the personalities of mediums (or more fancily - channelers), who flood the bookstores with their materials.

'Light' being 'thrown' and the intention behind doing so can look like 'mud' and 'hate', Cleric. FYI, I am also extremely 'vigilant' in assessing the level of soul-development of channelers, as 'revealed' by the benignity or lack thereof of implications of their information/words.

Cleric K wrote:If we are to elevate this conversation from the murky astral waters of personal sympathies and antipathies, we'll have to focus on the direction where different ideas lead.

I agree with this. You and I obviously(?) have a different 'sense' of 'where' the Steiner's, Nietzschee's, Schopenauer's, etc,'s ideas are likely to lead and miss-lead, however. My own 'radar' in this sense is 'keyed' to what I deduce/believe/think/feel 'soul' to be (as in "Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke 12) and "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons [i.e. 'egos']" (Acts 10)

Cleric K wrote:And if we have to have polarized opinions, let it be on this point - the question of higher development and not personalities.

I agree with this.

Cleric K wrote:Steiner knew that this is the whole point of Spiritual Science. It is no longer about belief but of testable knowledge. In his words:

We must therefore take our stand on the principle of following attentively what is brought forward, but not allowing it to be said that it is accepted among us out of belief in authority. Never should the phrase be heard that truths are accepted simply because I have voiced them! We should sin against the truth were we to say any such thing. One thing or another may be grounded on confidence; but that can never be made into a principle. Someone else may perhaps be better able to tread the path; but the rule to which every individual should adhere is this: not to accept things on authority, but to put them to the test."

These are wise and beautiful words and sentiments, Cleric. My judgmental reaction to Steiner's implication that he is 'a truly 'Christed' personality (since he appends his 'thoughts' to Jesus's under the label of "The Fifth Gospel") is based on the (reported) fact of his thinking in terms of 'higher' and lower 'races' which in my view (my thought and felt relationship to and with Jesus is that of an intimately appreciative, aspiring to be co-working 'brother'!) totally belies the the message in the above nice-sounding words and his presumptuous titular claim to be in the same 'league' as Jesus. I 'sense' him to be an 'imposter' therefore, albeit we are all Jesus's 'kin', so nothing/no one is completely black or white in this regard.

Cleric K wrote:David, what is you opinion on this? Let's leave aside Steiner and Anthroposophy. What is you view, in principle, on development of higher cognition that can give man direct consciousness of the Spiritual World. Not speaking about visionary trances that need to be interpreted. Neither of automatic writing, speaking in tongues, etc. Speaking about state of consciousness that is as certain as the existence of our thoughts in our ordinary state, and from the perspective of which, our intellectual consciousness can be investigated as spread before us.

Do you think this has any role in human evolution? Do you think people should be consciously striving for it? Do you think that there's an inseparable wall between our world and the Spiritual and only mediumship and interpretation of visions can tell us something about it? If you think that higher cognition is possible where would you go to learn something about it?

My 'opinion' on this is comprehensively expressed in my treatise, which you have read, Cleric. One of the 'problems' (which besets any discussion of this 'matter' ) is that the subject is so 'big' as not be 'encapsulable' in any set of word or ideas. From my book:

"... I must make a special point of asking you to critically examine and evaluate what I say because, depending on what you are accustomed to and invested in, the ideas and suggestions I put forward are likely to either seem more or less reasonable to you or strike you as outlandish, even inane. Whichever the case in any given instance, your awareness and appreciation of what’s at issue will not be increased unless you set aside any con­sequent tendency you may have to simply accept or reject statements I make and conscientiously explore and contem­plate their implications.

Also, so you’ll approach such endeavor in the right spirit, I must reemphasize and ask you to keep being conscious of the fact that, even when they represent and facilitate understanding of aspects of absolute truth and goodness, concepts and principles and derivative codes of conduct are basically just situationally useful simplifications and props—the scope of Creativity is much too grand to be completely delineated by ideational logic. Interactional policy and procedure therefore cannot be unequivocally prescribed by or for anyone.

Personal discernment and contextual decision-making is always necessary: Life’s multidimensionality and the multi­modality of our interconnectedness and interdependence make it such that the [even] best of descriptions will not fully inform you, and the [even] best of guidelines will not indicate exactly what will and what won’t be constructive in relation to others around you, at least not for certain. And even when you are sure of what’s what and what would be best, either because of your own limitations or the positions and actions taken by differing others, you will often find you aren’t able to successfully implement what you think would be the consummate course of action. In such case, identifying and executing the most creative practicable alternative will be epitome of wisdom.

Assertions to the contrary don’t alter this truth a jot, no matter how authoritative or persuasive the person who makes them. Think about it: Life depends on there being an ever-evolving diversity of different and, therefore, in one or another way competing, sets of feelings and perceptions regarding what is and isn’t essential. If everything was abso­lutely consonant, there would be no progression in terms of learning and development, these being a function of the creative exercise of Intelligence and the intelligent exercise of Creativity. Existence, for it could not even be called Life in such case, would just be a round of the same set of symphonic notes endlessly repeating, because everything would then simply operate like clockwork.

So, though consensus may occasionally be arrived at and, even without it, certain value systems and hierarchies may prevail for periods of time, such a state of affairs is bound to be temporary.a Sooner or later Life’s exigencies will change, just like the weather. What works for the best at one point won’t at another. The bottom line to what I’m saying is that, in the arena of involvement and interaction, there just aren’t any always-apropos rules. Making the most of relationships therefore requires that one recognize and creatively deal with contention and change regarding the viability of alternative modes of behavior and desirability of different goals. It follows that it is very unwise to simply adopt and aim to always function, or to try to get others to likewise adopt and function, in accordance with any particular set of precepts and priorities, however well-touted by however many, and however comprehensive they may seem from your present point of view.

I belabor this point to such an extent because such course of action is as seductive as it is harmful. Codified value systems and prescriptions for conduct [hence 'followers' often ending up digging and falling into 'ditches'] based on them may seem an absolute boon at first. Inasmuch as they provide a framework for making coherent judgments and decisions, they often dramatically help immature and undiscerning individuals and groups to function, if not actually better, at least more stably, for a while.a But they are as dangerous as any drug. Since they eliminate all sense of dilemma and simplify choice for the moment, they enable those who ‘use’ them to artificially feel both self-righteous and self-satisfied. If and as people continue to depend on such crutch, they become ‘addicted’ to this mode of operation. Instead of growing and expanding, via observation and synthesis of actual experience, their natural capacity to distinguish and evaluate creative possibilities atrophies and deteriorates. Ultimately, they reach the point where they can no longer perceive and so lose touch with what is most essential in Life.

Present trends illustrate what then happens: As absurdities are not recognized for what they are, people delude themselves and bluff others past the pales of reason. And, as youngsters don’t learn to how to make intelligent assessments from those who don’t know how to make intelligent assessments themselves, succeeding generations become progressively more dimwitted, more easily misled and confused. Intercourse based on true discernment and appraisal becomes more and more of a rarity. Grosser and grosser aberrations, of course, naturally ensue. The end result of convention-based choice and behavior is something akin to what would happen to a team in the course of a field-game, say of soccer, if its members played wearing head-gear that restricted their view to particular sectors or quadrants.a Many of the more unfortunate happenings we must now experience and deal with are a direct result of the fact that so many have persisted in functioning along such lines, to such a great extent, for such a long while.)"

Cleric K wrote:These are the essential questions. If one feels deep into his soul the desire for knowledge, for direct experience, and not for just believing, then this someone will be drawn towards that which can give him the answers his soul longs for. The one interested in dream pictures of reality will also find everything he needs in the bookstore.

My 'aim' was/is to share something that is a cut above what ins(presently) being available in 'bookstores', Cleric. With regards to anyone's desire for deep-soul-level knowledge, experience etc., besides what I have discussionally offered here, I offer this from my treatise:

"Whether they present themselves as being ‘religious’, ‘spiritual’, ‘philosophical’ or just plain ‘psychological’, all psychospiritually oriented wisdom schools and teachers list a hierarchy of goals to aim for as well as  advocate specific approaches or methods whereby aspirations in said regards may be functionally actualized as part of their curriculum. Which is  well and good for beginning student‑learners, but the fact is that the superordinate Realm (i.e. Reality) of Love and Joy’s Being-n-Doing is far too extensive (besides being ever‑expanding!) for there to be an ‘ultimate’ Love and Joy destiny or ‘best’ Love and Joy path (or set of paths) whereby one may get to any such imagined Love and Joy ‘mountain top’. Though many have historically (often quite productively!) ‘dutifully’ focused on and committed themselves to following ‘leader’ promulgated guidelines and implementing ‘teacher’ provided instructions as well as devoted themselves to supporting group-movements stemming therefrom with Love and Joy related objectives in mind and heart, the iconoclastic truth is that thinking, feeling, believing and acting on such basis, if such modus operandi is strictly persisted in, is bound to end up being just as limiting of the experience and expression of Love and Joy as the ‘artistic’ experience and expression of a would‑be artist would be (limited) if s/he were to persist in thinking, feeling, believing and operating on the premise that there was a ‘better than all others’ kind of art and, in that case, just one ‘best’ method or ‘best set’ of methods wherewith and whereby s/he could (or, worse, should!) relate to and engage with creative possibilities in any topical regard.

My hope is that the time-space transcendental perspective and associated commentaries pertaining to Life’s worldly Flow presented here will facilitate folks more wittingly deploying their Love and Joy capabilities in  creative conjunction with others around them, whatever their present physiosocial (including any school, line of teachers and/or group affiliation) context, by utilizing their own (unique!) soul’s awareness and motive constellation in furtherance of its (hence also their own) Love and Joy growth-venture aspirations in said context, whatever the parameters and aim‑focus of these may then and there be. Even so however, any and everyone’s psychospiritual process being so multi-factor determined and fluidly moment-to-moment variable as to only be approximately known, felt and related to (by way of ‘normal’ consciousness and cognition, that is), and what  one thinks and feels in relation and response to any given stimulus at  any given point pretty much just being a function of one’s history prior to  one’s arrival at such point in any case, I more than anything else recommend that you (anyone!) primarily rely on the results of your earnestly praying, that is, of your intentionally desiring and attitudinally expecting, to be shown (by capital ‘M’ Mind) whatever, if anything, you may (presently) not be seeing which it might be better for you to see (‘better’ in terms of leading you in a ‘greater’ Love and Joy Life‑Flow direction), and that you also be sparked and spurred (by capital ‘S’ Spirit) to ‘do’ whatever would be best in that case (‘best’ by virtue of your consequently becoming as Love and Joy Flow-augmenting as you can possibly be in such vein).* The rationale here being (1) that the Reality, or Nature, of (all!) Being-n-Doing is such that every soul ultimately has to ‘find’ its own way to grow and continue to flourish, that is if it is to continue to grow and flourish; and (2) that mentally and emotionally tapping into the capital ‘P’ Power of your (it is ours, really!) supra nodal capital ‘S’ Soul is your (anyone’s!) ‘best bet’ in this regard.

Footnote*: It is in relation to actualizing such maximum possible Love and Joy experience and expression that the advice, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” (Matthew 7:7) may be put to the most ‘profitable’ use because it is then focused on ‘activating’ the primary ‘program’ of Life Itself !"

P.S. to Cleric: What I find questionable (to say the very least!) in Nietzsche's and Schopenhauer's case (note: as in relation to Steiner, I have only read bits and pieces of their 'stuff' - having neither the 'spare' time nor the inclination to go down their 'rabbit-holes'), is their lack of any 'sense' of what I believe/think/feel/see soul and the process of soul-growth-development-n-maturation to Be. They don't even come close to passing my 'sniff'-test in this regard. Everything they say is undoubtedly 'true' in some sense, but there's a LOT (of great relevance to quality of experienced and expressed Life ) that missing in/from their world-view, IMO. Like a person who is 'color-blind', this is not something that they are 'aware' of, which not-seeing is what others may not be 'aware' of as well. I hope you appreciate the fact that It is impossible to make specific 'points' pertaining to what is apparently NOT present in their world-view-syntheses - their 'superiority' espousing, 'inferiority' attributing statements are sufficiently signifcant (IMO) clues, however.