Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 4:12 pm I think it is very important for all our scientific concepts to become imaginative symbols for inner realities. This helps us begin discerning the continuity between ordinary Earthly experience and higher realities, our native soul-spiritual existence. As we know, art is also a means of purifying the emotional resistances, of lifting the Spirit toward its moral intuitive experience, so approaching the scientific domain imaginatively and artistically has a dual function of bridging the seeming outer-inner knowledge gap and simultaneously transforming deeper soul blockages that habitually desire for the gap to remain open.

For example, when the author gives the example of the person taking a path to their friend in the ocean, the superimposed potential of paths can be discerned more truthfully if we imagine, not a manifold of spatial-sensory paths and linear temporal frames superimposed, but something more like the narrative meaning of traversing a path to save a friend.

Cleric wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:08 pm I should say that my feeling at the moment is that the mathematical approach will not be something of the nature today's mathematicians and physicists expect - as a clearcut formal (and thus closed) intellectual system. (...)
I want to emphasize that this 'exactly' is not like the exactness of a mathematical equation (which is a feeling of being fully constrained). It's really an imaginative paintbrush. If we start looking at the 'exactness' of the fractal boundaries, we'll lose the living artistic message.

Indeed, the truthful discernment of the path to the drowning friend, and the pondering of courses of action are concrete, insightful examples of inner transposition of scientific concepts. The problem is, they only can be made sense of by someone who has gone a few initial steps on the spiritual scientific path. How can the scientists of today find satisfaction in this take, where do they find the intuitive paintbrush? Are you imagining a shift where scientists simply abandon formulating theories and testing them via current quantitative methods, and start using mathematical symbols to point to qualitative processes?

And is it even possible or desirable that this happens, as long as a mineral Earth exists? We still need quantitative and geometrical thinking to effect the dismantling of the mineral Earth. If we don’t harness the Cosmic forces to dismantle it, no one else will do it for us. As Steiner says, we fight against the mineralization of the Earth through thinking mathematically and geometrically. I guess one could also splinter some real stones and crystals, and free some mineral from its earthly form (now I see the unconscious meaning of making fine kitchen salt from crystals with mortar and pestle: a compensation for lack of mathematical skills). But mostly this demineralization has to happen through thinking. If the scientists are now deprived of numbers and given paintbrushes from one day to the next, how can they actively contribute, how can they even see what the paintbrush is supposed to be for? And how can we contribute, if we use higher thinking to fly to the midst of the Cosmic forces, and leave the physical Earth - half of ourselves - to harden? In this sense, I believe there must be one or more intermediary steps ahead before the artistic testimonies and the paintbrushes, steps that are perhaps still traditionally quantitative. So the first question I want to work with is: what is the direction of these connecting steps and how to facilitate them from a spiritual scientific perspective. And the further question I have is: in paintbrush mathematics, what is a quantity, what is the value and future of number?

Cleric wrote: As non-serious as it may sound, one needs to get a feeling for reality like a video game that one approaches with enthusiasm, interest, and joy. Just like we explore how our inputs on the gamepad translate to pixel movements on screen, so with the same wonder we should approach our inner process as if we have never really taken the trouble to see what kinds of inputs we are able to actuate, and how this affects the phenomenal volume. In opposition to this stands the inner soul mood of man that sees life as something painful that we would love to get distracted from by seeking pleasurable sensations. And this obviously holds true for scientists too, where there's clear separation between the personal inner process, and the scientific theory that is patched from sharable mental images.

The fact is that for a large part of today's thinkers, the inner process still remains a taboo. Of course, we're not talking about just exposing our inner life to everyone. No one needs that. And as we can see from our own exchanges here, there's infinite inner depth that is perfectly sharable, even without touching on personal specifics. But the trouble is when one is unwilling to expose this inner process even to themselves. A valuable practical tip in this direction is to feel that this process is already exposed to a higher mind that occupies our very inner space. Not only this makes us more conscientious to observe what we are exposing but it also can help us maintain this openness that there are many more things that are exposed in our unconsciousness that we are yet to find out about.

These are all very appreciable tips. I recognize the experiences they point to: the feeling of gaining some control over the I-forces, with reverberations on TFW, and the acknowledgment of inner exposure to higher beings. But again, these can only make sense to someone who has already been motivated to find/deepen the outer-inner integration. And so there must be something upstream that will matter first, for people to become open to feel like in the video game metaphor, and actually play the game. If “it’s not in the least an overstatement that our future depends on human consciousness grows in the deeper reality” today, then perhaps there are valuable reasons to focus on that, other than an obsession with fixing people. And I would actually consider that, just like the scientist is split between the emanated theories and the intimate inner processes, identifying with the former, we are also at risk of a reverse split, and identification with the latter, to the extent that we don’t connect everyday life with the inner process, to the extent that we avoid speaking openly about these questions, outside the context of dedicated platforms, as I for example certainly do. I say “to the extent that” to signify that I’m not guessing or judging others’ lives and I am not criticizing you. But for me personally this is definitely a point of tension. The reason I'm saying this is to show that there is a need for more concrete bridging, but very few meet the job requirements and are willing to take it on at the same time.

Cleric wrote:but at the end, it seems that things are still largely in the power of karma. Thus, maybe we shouldn't be focused so much on finding that thing that will serve as a bridge for everyone, a bridge that once presented with, cannot be unseen, but simply building and experimenting with this emerging vocabulary and language, which when exercised from the proper inner stance, allows us to meaningfully communicate about the shared aspects of the inner flow, and in fact, feel that we meet there, that we are together in this flow.

Ashvin wrote:And we can also fall into such a trap if we start focusing too much on bridging the worlds by the perfect metaphor, illustration, examples, and so on. What is 100% within the sphere of our creative responsibility is focusing on our inner process and patiently building the language to anchor it, explore it, and increasingly manifest its higher currents in our thoughts, speech, and deeds, trusting that revealing this liberating truth within by example also coincides with the Good of humanity.

Sure, there is a real risk in trying to fix people, especially when oneself is far from “fixed”, I agree with that. But on the other hand, finding shelter in the inner processes as the one state for spiritual work and community, letting karma steer the rest, only focusing on what is already 100% within the sphere of our creative responsibility - to me all this sounds at risk of becoming tangent to a modern version of original participation. We live on a mineral Earth for a reason. I doubt the only reason is to find the escape way. I am grateful that Steiner and others didn’t share this approach. What would human consciousness be today if they had…

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:43 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 4:12 pm I think it is very important for all our scientific concepts to become imaginative symbols for inner realities. This helps us begin discerning the continuity between ordinary Earthly experience and higher realities, our native soul-spiritual existence. As we know, art is also a means of purifying the emotional resistances, of lifting the Spirit toward its moral intuitive experience, so approaching the scientific domain imaginatively and artistically has a dual function of bridging the seeming outer-inner knowledge gap and simultaneously transforming deeper soul blockages that habitually desire for the gap to remain open.

For example, when the author gives the example of the person taking a path to their friend in the ocean, the superimposed potential of paths can be discerned more truthfully if we imagine, not a manifold of spatial-sensory paths and linear temporal frames superimposed, but something more like the narrative meaning of traversing a path to save a friend.

Cleric wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:08 pm I should say that my feeling at the moment is that the mathematical approach will not be something of the nature today's mathematicians and physicists expect - as a clearcut formal (and thus closed) intellectual system. (...)
I want to emphasize that this 'exactly' is not like the exactness of a mathematical equation (which is a feeling of being fully constrained). It's really an imaginative paintbrush. If we start looking at the 'exactness' of the fractal boundaries, we'll lose the living artistic message.

Indeed, the truthful discernment of the path to the drowning friend, and the pondering of courses of action are concrete, insightful examples of inner transposition of scientific concepts. The problem is, they only can be made sense of by someone who has gone a few initial steps on the spiritual scientific path. How can the scientists of today find satisfaction in this take, where do they find the intuitive paintbrush? Are you imagining a shift where scientists simply abandon formulating theories and testing them via current quantitative methods, and start using mathematical symbols to point to qualitative processes?

And is it even possible or desirable that this happens, as long as a mineral Earth exists? We still need quantitative and geometrical thinking to effect the dismantling of the mineral Earth. If we don’t harness the Cosmic forces to dismantle it, no one else will do it for us. As Steiner says, we fight against the mineralization of the Earth through thinking mathematically and geometrically. I guess one could also splinter some real stones and crystals, and free some mineral from its earthly form (now I see the unconscious meaning of making fine kitchen salt from crystals with mortar and pestle: a compensation for lack of mathematical skills). But mostly this demineralization has to happen through thinking. If the scientists are now deprived of numbers and given paintbrushes from one day to the next, how can they actively contribute, how can they even see what the paintbrush is supposed to be for? And how can we contribute, if we use higher thinking to fly to the midst of the Cosmic forces, and leave the physical Earth - half of ourselves - to harden? In this sense, I believe there must be one or more intermediary steps ahead before the artistic testimonies and the paintbrushes, steps that are perhaps still traditionally quantitative. So the first question I want to work with is: what is the direction of these connecting steps and how to facilitate them from a spiritual scientific perspective. And the further question I have is: in paintbrush mathematics, what is a quantity, what is the value and future of number?

I know this will sound like a broken record, but my main concern with seeking these few 'intermediary' steps would once again be the carrot on a stick in front of the donkey. Think about the standard attitude toward the hard problem of consciousness - the material scientists always feel like they are one or two discoveries away from bridging the realm of quantitative physical processes with the realm of first-person conscious experience. It is natural for us to think about it this way, as a somewhat linear and stepwise accumulation and arrangement of mental pictures that will progressively lead one from small insight to small insight until the big crucial insight dawns. But the reason we speak of 'inversion' through the 'pinhole' of cognition and so on, is because there is a qualitative leap that must be experienced and it should really be encountered at the initial 'PoF stage', i.e. the philosophical-scientific contemplations of what philosophy and science have always been about.

This is also key - that the qualitative inner process is always what scientists have been theorizing about and modeling quantitatively, even without being conscious of that fact. Their instinctive scientific-mathematical activity has always been inviting them toward the qualitative leap-inversion as the natural step forward to deeper insight into the ordinary experiential flow. The infant stages of the spiritual evolutionary process are this 'fight against the mineralization of the Earth through thinking mathematically and geometrically' that you mention. It is what we do to get our initial bearings within the dynamic flow of individual and collective soul life and begin to rearrange parts of the phenomenal spectrum to provide further technological support for our efforts. But the infant will never become a creatively responsible adult (not just rearranging already finished mineral elements like Lego blocks) if it keeps expecting the latter's knowledge, skills, qualities, etc. to accrue from its infant-level gestures.

I think Anthroposophical scientific pursuits since Steiner's time give a good general indication of how scientists can continue thinking mathematically and experimentally, and also embrace and leverage the results of experimentation as imaginative symbols for the qualitative inner process. Since the latter is what actually shapes and steers the course of sensory life, its investigation eventually leads to the same sort of highly practical results that the quantitative scientists are interested in, although it may require a lot more patience, wisdom, and moral integrity. For example, there has been such research in the domains of projective geometry, agriculture, education, Anthroposophical medicine, and so forth. It requires the whole human being to become engaged in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, not only the intellectual head being. Yet it is no less rigorous, precise, or even mathematical in certain circumstances. These domains are frowned upon by standard academic science, they are viewed as unimportant or superstitious, precisely because the qualitative perspective inversion has not been experienced. The most important thing is for everything to start taking its proper place within the arsenal of tools at the disposal of humanity for investigating the structure and dynamics of reality, so they all work harmonically together to expand our intuitive orientation rather than one or two tools dominating the show.

Also speaking of imaginative symbols and narrative meaning, I have been watching a show called Severance recently. It is a great example of how modern thinkers are probing the inner depth process without clearly knowing they are doing so (although the creator Ben Stiller at least understands it can serve as a parable for broader life experience).



As discussed in the video, the basic plot is that a company offers people the opportunity to dissociate (sever) their normal personality from their work personality so they effectively become two different selves with distinct streams of memory experience (this technology is justified on the grounds that it protects sensitive data the company is working on). They call these the 'outie' and the 'innie'. The innie has all kinds of 'innate' knowledge, qualities, capacities, and skills that have been developed by the outie, but the former has no idea how they came about. Their work is 'macrodata refinement' where they stare at enigmatic numerical glyphs and, based on the feelings these evoke (intuitive consonance and dissonances), they group them together and put them into various bins. Of course, all of this can be seen as a parable for the incarnational process we are continually going through. Even within a single incarnation, we are continually 'severing' different personas to interface with reality through various automated mechanisms (elemental macros). We then work with our mental pictures of enigmatic processes and click them together based on the dimly felt consonance and dissonance. The show also envisions a process of 'reintegration' which is a physical-technological version of initiation.

I mention it because it does a good job of bringing into focus the duality of modern times, where seemingly impenetrable 'dissocative veils' are introduced between the Earthly personality, and its imagined life of mostly quantitative-mathematical experience, and the higher Self. The innie characters start wondering about their enigmatic existence on the 'severed floor' and how their outie lives structure that existence, and the nature of the work they are actually doing, but they also maintain a hard boundary between the personalities, even developing hostility toward their outies as if they are completely different and potentially evil people. This is a great image of the modern intellect that may speak often about bridging the worlds but refuses to experience the intimate thinking process (not finished mental pictures) in which the worlds already overlap, and instinctively views its deeper spiritual reality with great suspicion, fear, and antipathy.

All of our scientific theories can become parables in a similar way to these artistic representations, without forsaking the precise logical and quantitative tools that have been developed through their infancy. As Steiner often mentions, philosophy-science, art, and religion used to be more closely united as ways of orienting toward wider reality and they should become so once again through our free efforts. Yet this unity will never be realized if, as Hegel puts it, we expect to learn how to swim without getting into the water. The intellect should be artistically immersed in its deeper movements before it begins to understand its role in the stream of unified experience and the higher-order currents that shape it. Otherwise it remains as the severed workers who keep trying to investigate their existence within the severed floor, but hold open hostility toward experiencing themselves as united with their outie personality.

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:43 am And the further question I have is: in paintbrush mathematics, what is a quantity, what is the value and future of number?

At the present time, I see it in its unity with the quality of what we have called 'foldness'.

To add an illustration to what Ashvin says: in one aspect, the desire to find the perfect bridge can result in an asymptotic approach, where we make steps but it seems we never reach what we hope for.



On the other hand, we can oscillate, temporarily crossing into unknown territory, so to speak. One may say that this requires a leap of faith and the perfect bridge should be exactly one that does not require such a leap. In reality, however, (we have spoken about this before) we can't intuit even a single concept without such crossings into the unknown. The child certainly can't learn to speak and think without first crossing into the territory of babbling without knowing what it is doing. The tragedy of today's thinking is when one assumes that all necessary conceptual slots are acquired and all that remains is to explore their combinations. This is the trap of the perfect bridge which expects that by more and more refined combinations it would reach the sought-after inner knowledge without having to make a step into the unknown. Alas, this is not possible. This doesn't mean that the step has to be huge, uninformed, and totally in the dark. We can understand conceptually quite a lot. Yet, nothing can save us from making that step from thinking about things toward 'trying them on' (overcoming the doll-mode or Vetrivian man fallacy). 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. And by 'make the crossing' it is not meant some earth-shattering revolution but a small step into a gradual transformation of our worldview. Yet, these small steps nevertheless cross into something unknown. In the deeper sense, unknown not as some external environment but unknown as in "But what will become of me, will I still be me?" Even though a few things pose this question in such an in-the-face manner, nevertheless, sparks of this lurk in even the small steps, even though rationalization weaves far away from this core.

About losing sight of the outer process: I think such an objection doesn't yet grasp how deeply intertwined things are. It's not that there's no danger of becoming a mystic dreamer who denies the physical world, or at least denies that there's any worth in studying it, but I think that the way we speak of the inner process shouldn't really invite such pictures.

The deepening of the inner process increases our consciousness of the way we continuously etch the consequences of our inner activity into the boundless World sphere. We can literally imagine how every thought, every act of will, 'updates' the picture of the World state as if through concentric shockwaves raying outwards. All of this is fully compatible with everything that we achieve through technology and tools. I think we have spoken about this before, but by seeking the inner process we shouldn't imagine that it is proposed that we should become psi-beings that do not touch anything but resort only to telekinesis, and so on. This would indeed be misleading. Finding our concentric stance within the inner World process doesn't preclude our use of hands and tools, nor the discovery of new such tools. It's the heliocentric perspective that matters, to have a clearer consciousness of how the rhythmic waves that we send out need to be attuned to the evolutionary rhythms. Then our hands and tools can too sound harmonic tones into the total symphony.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:26 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:43 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 4:12 pm I think it is very important for all our scientific concepts to become imaginative symbols for inner realities. This helps us begin discerning the continuity between ordinary Earthly experience and higher realities, our native soul-spiritual existence. As we know, art is also a means of purifying the emotional resistances, of lifting the Spirit toward its moral intuitive experience, so approaching the scientific domain imaginatively and artistically has a dual function of bridging the seeming outer-inner knowledge gap and simultaneously transforming deeper soul blockages that habitually desire for the gap to remain open.

For example, when the author gives the example of the person taking a path to their friend in the ocean, the superimposed potential of paths can be discerned more truthfully if we imagine, not a manifold of spatial-sensory paths and linear temporal frames superimposed, but something more like the narrative meaning of traversing a path to save a friend.

Cleric wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:08 pm I should say that my feeling at the moment is that the mathematical approach will not be something of the nature today's mathematicians and physicists expect - as a clearcut formal (and thus closed) intellectual system. (...)
I want to emphasize that this 'exactly' is not like the exactness of a mathematical equation (which is a feeling of being fully constrained). It's really an imaginative paintbrush. If we start looking at the 'exactness' of the fractal boundaries, we'll lose the living artistic message.

Indeed, the truthful discernment of the path to the drowning friend, and the pondering of courses of action are concrete, insightful examples of inner transposition of scientific concepts. The problem is, they only can be made sense of by someone who has gone a few initial steps on the spiritual scientific path. How can the scientists of today find satisfaction in this take, where do they find the intuitive paintbrush? Are you imagining a shift where scientists simply abandon formulating theories and testing them via current quantitative methods, and start using mathematical symbols to point to qualitative processes?

And is it even possible or desirable that this happens, as long as a mineral Earth exists? We still need quantitative and geometrical thinking to effect the dismantling of the mineral Earth. If we don’t harness the Cosmic forces to dismantle it, no one else will do it for us. As Steiner says, we fight against the mineralization of the Earth through thinking mathematically and geometrically. I guess one could also splinter some real stones and crystals, and free some mineral from its earthly form (now I see the unconscious meaning of making fine kitchen salt from crystals with mortar and pestle: a compensation for lack of mathematical skills). But mostly this demineralization has to happen through thinking. If the scientists are now deprived of numbers and given paintbrushes from one day to the next, how can they actively contribute, how can they even see what the paintbrush is supposed to be for? And how can we contribute, if we use higher thinking to fly to the midst of the Cosmic forces, and leave the physical Earth - half of ourselves - to harden? In this sense, I believe there must be one or more intermediary steps ahead before the artistic testimonies and the paintbrushes, steps that are perhaps still traditionally quantitative. So the first question I want to work with is: what is the direction of these connecting steps and how to facilitate them from a spiritual scientific perspective. And the further question I have is: in paintbrush mathematics, what is a quantity, what is the value and future of number?

I know this will sound like a broken record, but my main concern with seeking these few 'intermediary' steps would once again be the carrot on a stick in front of the donkey. Think about the standard attitude toward the hard problem of consciousness - the material scientists always feel like they are one or two discoveries away from bridging the realm of quantitative physical processes with the realm of first-person conscious experience. It is natural for us to think about it this way, as a somewhat linear and stepwise accumulation and arrangement of mental pictures that will progressively lead one from small insight to small insight until the big crucial insight dawns. But the reason we speak of 'inversion' through the 'pinhole' of cognition and so on, is because there is a qualitative leap that must be experienced and it should really be encountered at the initial 'PoF stage', i.e. the philosophical-scientific contemplations of what philosophy and science have always been about.

This is also key - that the qualitative inner process is always what scientists have been theorizing about and modeling quantitatively, even without being conscious of that fact. Their instinctive scientific-mathematical activity has always been inviting them toward the qualitative leap-inversion as the natural step forward to deeper insight into the ordinary experiential flow. The infant stages of the spiritual evolutionary process are this 'fight against the mineralization of the Earth through thinking mathematically and geometrically' that you mention. It is what we do to get our initial bearings within the dynamic flow of individual and collective soul life and begin to rearrange parts of the phenomenal spectrum to provide further technological support for our efforts. But the infant will never become a creatively responsible adult (not just rearranging already finished mineral elements like Lego blocks) if it keeps expecting the latter's knowledge, skills, qualities, etc. to accrue from its infant-level gestures.

I think Anthroposophical scientific pursuits since Steiner's time give a good general indication of how scientists can continue thinking mathematically and experimentally, and also embrace and leverage the results of experimentation as imaginative symbols for the qualitative inner process. Since the latter is what actually shapes and steers the course of sensory life, its investigation eventually leads to the same sort of highly practical results that the quantitative scientists are interested in, although it may require a lot more patience, wisdom, and moral integrity. For example, there has been such research in the domains of projective geometry, agriculture, education, Anthroposophical medicine, and so forth. It requires the whole human being to become engaged in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, not only the intellectual head being. Yet it is no less rigorous, precise, or even mathematical in certain circumstances. These domains are frowned upon by standard academic science, they are viewed as unimportant or superstitious, precisely because the qualitative perspective inversion has not been experienced. The most important thing is for everything to start taking its proper place within the arsenal of tools at the disposal of humanity for investigating the structure and dynamics of reality, so they all work harmonically together to expand our intuitive orientation rather than one or two tools dominating the show.

Ashvin,

As it’s been said before, materialism has followed an arch in its development. It reached a top at the end of the XIX century, then started a decline that has continued to this day. So we can say that it’s more likely that scientists of today make the qualitative shift you mention, compared to the scientists of a century ago. This is what I am referring to. I am not searching the perfect combination of mental pictures that would make the inversion possible without quitting the intellectual domain... I knooow this is impossible. But the fact that science is coming closer and closer to the threshold of deeper reality must mean something concrete for you, I am sure. So what I would wish is to find ways to make this coming closer to the threshold, even closer. It’s by intellectual means that they have come closer correct? So by still more intellectual means, they can come even closer. And so facilitate the necessary inversion, since they will be even closer. Makes sense?

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:04 pm Ashvin,

As it’s been said before, materialism has followed an arch in its development. It reached a top at the end of the XIX century, then started a decline that has continued to this day. So we can say that it’s more likely that scientists of today make the qualitative shift you mention, compared to the scientists of a century ago. This is what I am referring to. I am not searching the perfect combination of mental pictures that would make the inversion possible without quitting the intellectual domain... I knooow this is impossible. But the fact that science is coming closer and closer to the threshold of deeper reality must mean something concrete for you, I am sure. So what I would wish is to find ways to make this coming closer to the threshold, even closer. It’s by intellectual means that they have come closer correct? So by still more intellectual means, they can come even closer. And so facilitate the necessary inversion, since they will be even closer. Makes sense?

Yes, I think we both have a good sense of what you are suggesting here. Cleric's asymptotic graphic above is a great imaginative symbol for the 'coming closer and closer'. It also helps to remember the distinction between natural and spiritual evolution here. Our intellectual scientific development, although approaching the threshold over the last century or so, is still within the sphere of natural evolution insofar as it relies upon the natural endowment of the physical body-senses for its stable support. Thus our capacity as intellectual and scientific beings develops as a matter of course through natural processes and cultural institutions that are provided for most of us. That is why, no matter how close we probe the threshold with our intellectual-scientific gestures, there is always an element of unfreedom mixed in. We cannot claim materialism (as one-sided world outlook) is dying out of our free effort, rather it has withered as naturally as plant life in Winter.

I will quote something from Part I of the retracing essay here:

The natural-spiritual evolutionary process is such that the contracting space of natural potential (left) should transition into the expanding space of spiritual potential (right). The archetype of the ‘old wise man’ speaks to this process that was more akin to a natural law in ancient times. At a certain stage of life, mature adults simply began growing in spiritual wisdom such that other members of the community could place complete confidence in their guidance...

In the last few thousand years, this process has been exemplified not so much in the growth of tribal spiritual wisdom, but in the learning of new artistic or innovative skills or the exploration of existential questions through philosophy, theology, and science. In modern times, however, the average adult life has approached the stage where the instinctive pushing process exhausts its potential and then very little seems to happen, no conscious popping process seems to follow. In the late Middle Ages, for example, it seemed art, philosophy, and science could only become more innovative, reaching groundbreaking insights. One can hardly downplay the contributions of such thinkers as Newton, Galileo, Bacon, Rosseau, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, and Schelling, among many others. Yet now we understandably expect very little of existential relevance to come from these fields.

That is because humanity has now been thrown back on its own resources in the mental space to the greatest possible extent, and it has been tasked with doing for itself what was once done for it as a part of natural development. It was only in this way that it could reach the grounds of inner freedom. The inspirations that previously flowed into consciousness as a matter of necessity must now be actively sought after, in accordance with each individual’s freely chosen ideals, but the motivation to do so is waning in our indolent times. It is no longer even suspected that the spirit can actively draw forth the potential of the formed World from within itself, especially because its environment is structured to incentivize resting comfortably at whatever stage it has reached, remaining dependent on external political, scientific, religious, and economic authorities.

In a certain sense, when we try to find whether the gap between the intellectual state and the inverted state can be made less and less and less, we are longing for the atavistic state of 'old wise man' when our natural development seamlessly transitioned into spiritual wisdom as a matter of course. Yet the modern inversion requires a completely free act, which means an act that is not conditioned upon the receded pathways of physical and psychic development. This is the leap into the unknown that is only being procrastinated once we lay a conceptual foundation, but imagine it can be endlessly refined to make the transition seamless. We can try to sense the inner soul stance in that scenario, a stance that feels like it is trying to proceed around the Christic soul forces of courage and faith to harness the unknown rather than through them.

Of course, this is a soul stance we are all riddled with simply by living in modern times. The question is what kind of effort will it take to reorient that stance rather than reinforce it? I think the phenomenological approach we have pursued here is exactly the kind of oscillation back and forth across the threshold that is necessary for the gradual reorientation. There is endless room for elaborating and refining the presentation, and the essays themselves show that is true, but if we are looking for some essentially different 'other way' that the intellect can seamlessly transition into its higher states, or make the leap into the unknown almost painless (and thus faithless), then I think we need to ask whether this may be born of a shadowy longing for atavistic stages of evolution when the spiritual life emerged as necessarily as the blossom of the plant.

Cleric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:22 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:43 am And the further question I have is: in paintbrush mathematics, what is a quantity, what is the value and future of number?

At the present time, I see it in its unity with the quality of what we have called 'foldness'.

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

Cleric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:22 pm To add an illustration to what Ashvin says: in one aspect, the desire to find the perfect bridge can result in an asymptotic approach, where we make steps but it seems we never reach what we hope for.

On the other hand, we can oscillate, temporarily crossing into unknown territory, so to speak. One may say that this requires a leap of faith and the perfect bridge should be exactly one that does not require such a leap.

I am not searching for the perfect bridge you describe. I've read again my previous posts and I don't see how they can be understood in this way.

Cleric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:22 pm About losing sight of the outer process: I think such an objection doesn't yet grasp how deeply intertwined things are. It's not that there's no danger of becoming a mystic dreamer who denies the physical world, or at least denies that there's any worth in studying it, but I think that the way we speak of the inner process shouldn't really invite such pictures.

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

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:43 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:04 pm Ashvin,

As it’s been said before, materialism has followed an arch in its development. It reached a top at the end of the XIX century, then started a decline that has continued to this day. So we can say that it’s more likely that scientists of today make the qualitative shift you mention, compared to the scientists of a century ago. This is what I am referring to. I am not searching the perfect combination of mental pictures that would make the inversion possible without quitting the intellectual domain... I knooow this is impossible. But the fact that science is coming closer and closer to the threshold of deeper reality must mean something concrete for you, I am sure. So what I would wish is to find ways to make this coming closer to the threshold, even closer. It’s by intellectual means that they have come closer correct? So by still more intellectual means, they can come even closer. And so facilitate the necessary inversion, since they will be even closer. Makes sense?

Yes, I think we both have a good sense of what you are suggesting here. Cleric's asymptotic graphic above is a great imaginative symbol for the 'coming closer and closer'. It also helps to remember the distinction between natural and spiritual evolution here. Our intellectual scientific development, although approaching the threshold over the last century or so, is still within the sphere of natural evolution insofar as it relies upon the natural endowment of the physical body-senses for its stable support. Thus our capacity as intellectual and scientific beings develops as a matter of course through natural processes and cultural institutions that are provided for most of us. That is why, no matter how close we probe the threshold with our intellectual-scientific gestures, there is always an element of unfreedom mixed in. We cannot claim materialism (as one-sided world outlook) is dying out of our free effort, rather it has withered as naturally as plant life in Winter.

I will quote something from Part I of the retracing essay here:

The natural-spiritual evolutionary process is such that the contracting space of natural potential (left) should transition into the expanding space of spiritual potential (right). The archetype of the ‘old wise man’ speaks to this process that was more akin to a natural law in ancient times. At a certain stage of life, mature adults simply began growing in spiritual wisdom such that other members of the community could place complete confidence in their guidance...

In the last few thousand years, this process has been exemplified not so much in the growth of tribal spiritual wisdom, but in the learning of new artistic or innovative skills or the exploration of existential questions through philosophy, theology, and science. In modern times, however, the average adult life has approached the stage where the instinctive pushing process exhausts its potential and then very little seems to happen, no conscious popping process seems to follow. In the late Middle Ages, for example, it seemed art, philosophy, and science could only become more innovative, reaching groundbreaking insights. One can hardly downplay the contributions of such thinkers as Newton, Galileo, Bacon, Rosseau, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, and Schelling, among many others. Yet now we understandably expect very little of existential relevance to come from these fields.

That is because humanity has now been thrown back on its own resources in the mental space to the greatest possible extent, and it has been tasked with doing for itself what was once done for it as a part of natural development. It was only in this way that it could reach the grounds of inner freedom. The inspirations that previously flowed into consciousness as a matter of necessity must now be actively sought after, in accordance with each individual’s freely chosen ideals, but the motivation to do so is waning in our indolent times. It is no longer even suspected that the spirit can actively draw forth the potential of the formed World from within itself, especially because its environment is structured to incentivize resting comfortably at whatever stage it has reached, remaining dependent on external political, scientific, religious, and economic authorities.

In a certain sense, when we try to find whether the gap between the intellectual state and the inverted state can be made less and less and less, we are longing for the atavistic state of 'old wise man' when our natural development seamlessly transitioned into spiritual wisdom as a matter of course. Yet the modern inversion requires a completely free act, which means an act that is not conditioned upon the receded pathways of physical and psychic development. This is the leap into the unknown that is only being procrastinated once we lay a conceptual foundation, but imagine it can be endlessly refined to make the transition seamless. We can try to sense the inner soul stance in that scenario, a stance that feels like it is trying to proceed around the Christic soul forces of courage and faith to harness the unknown rather than through them.

Of course, this is a soul stance we are all riddled with simply by living in modern times. The question is what kind of effort will it take to reorient that stance rather than reinforce it? I think the phenomenological approach we have pursued here is exactly the kind of oscillation back and forth across the threshold that is necessary for the gradual reorientation. There is endless room for elaborating and refining the presentation, and the essays themselves show that is true, but if we are looking for some essentially different 'other way' that the intellect can seamlessly transition into its higher states, or make the leap into the unknown almost painless (and thus faithless), then I think we need to ask whether this may be born of a shadowy longing for atavistic stages of evolution when the spiritual life emerged as necessarily as the blossom of the plant.

Ashvin,

it's not a longing for seamless transitions, not an idea of endless or asymptotic refinement (I literally referred to a finite number of steps). You are embroidering. Mine is an attempt to take action out there, and try to create ways for other people to come into contact with positive influences, in the face of the non-overstatement that the future of humanity depends directly on the integration of deeper reality in human consciousness today. This is not happening. And I don't see that only retreating inwardly can suffice. With Steiner, a new period has begun in which occult science must become widespread. Someone has to spread it. But a bridge is needed. You often do something very similar: you bring logical arguments to others in public space, to try and bring them closer and closer to the realization.

Our intellectual scientific development, although approaching the threshold over the last century or so, is still within the sphere of natural evolution insofar as it relies upon the natural endowment of the physical body-senses for its stable support. Thus our capacity as intellectual and scientific beings develops as a matter of course through natural processes and cultural institutions that are provided for most of us. That is why, no matter how close we probe the threshold with our intellectual-scientific gestures, there is always an element of unfreedom mixed in. We cannot claim materialism (as one-sided world outlook) is dying out of our free effort, rather it has withered as naturally as plant life in Winter.

I don't think that our capacity as intellectual scientific beings develops as a matter of course. I have a clear sense of that through the study of the medicine lectures. The body, and even more so its periphery which contains the nervous system, sense organs, and brain, is permeated - or can be permeated - by the I. How much things are integrated is first and foremost experienceable precisely within the physical body.
There is an element of unreclaimed freedom, but I don't think it's possible to say that materialism has withered under the sole effect of natural forces. It's a mixed effect, in which the efforts of individual freethinkers, and related agitations, also have a decisive impact.

By the way, I am reminded that Cleric wrote a few days ago that he's keeping (or was keeping) a list of things that need to happen in science in order for it to overcome its present blindness. So why does it become such a twisted problem when I speak of facilitating steps that may bring science closer to that threshold of inner reality?

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:58 pm Ashvin,

it's not a longing for seamless transitions, not an idea of endless or asymptotic refinement (I literally referred to a finite number of steps). You are embroidering. Mine is an attempt to take action out there, and try to create ways for other people to come into contact with positive influences, in the face of the non-overstatement that the future of humanity depends directly on the integration of deeper reality in human consciousness today. This is not happening. And I don't see that only retreating inwardly can suffice. With Steiner, a new period has begun in which occult science must become widespread. Someone has to spread it. But a bridge is needed. You often do something very similar: you bring logical arguments to others in public space, to try and bring them closer and closer to the realization.

Yes, but I presumed you were speaking of something other than what we are already doing to share with others, i.e. through phenomenological essays/posts on this and other forums. Your past few posts have been about intermediary steps that can bridge to the phenomenological bridge, so to speak. It is similar to Zeno's paradox:

Of these, only a few are definitively known today, including the renowned "Achilles Paradox", which illustrates the problematic concept of infinite divisibility in space and time.[1][2] In this paradox, Zeno argues that a swift runner like Achilles cannot overtake a slower moving tortoise with a head start, because the distance between them can be infinitely subdivided, implying Achilles would require an infinite number of steps to catch the tortoise.

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

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

Federica wrote:

Our intellectual scientific development, although approaching the threshold over the last century or so, is still within the sphere of natural evolution insofar as it relies upon the natural endowment of the physical body-senses for its stable support. Thus our capacity as intellectual and scientific beings develops as a matter of course through natural processes and cultural institutions that are provided for most of us. That is why, no matter how close we probe the threshold with our intellectual-scientific gestures, there is always an element of unfreedom mixed in. We cannot claim materialism (as one-sided world outlook) is dying out of our free effort, rather it has withered as naturally as plant life in Winter.

I don't think that our capacity as intellectual scientific beings develops as a matter of course. I have a clear sense of that through the study of the medicine lectures. The body, and even more so its periphery which contains the nervous system, sense organs, and brain, is permeated - or can be permeated - by the I. How much things are integrated is first and foremost experienceable precisely within the physical body.
There is an element of unreclaimed freedom, but I don't think it's possible to say that materialism has withered under the sole effect of natural forces. It's a mixed effect, in which the efforts of individual freethinkers, and related agitations, also have a decisive impact.

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

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