GA 13 - Rudolf Steiner's "Secret Science in Outline"

[Federica]

Thank you Cleric.
I have to admit, I'm not able to distinguish physicality as you describe it here from the rest of spiritual experience. It seems to me that objectivity is the essence of phenomenology itself, the quality one wishes to find in all things spiritual. I don't see the difference between the image of the waterfall and this receding character. Even less, am I able to grasp the common element between physicality as described here and physicality in the common sense. Not to say that I don't highly appreciate your attempts to communicate these ideas. I think I have to focus on patience and persistence now, lest the thing I'll see receding is my ability to approach all of these ideas altogether

What did Steiner really mean when he said that any normal person (paraphrased) is able to understand these things...

Remember that many of the things we're talking about are part of the given experience, and 'not getting it' often comes from expecting something else.

For example, you can try to experience the difference between physical sensations (for example, scratching your hand) and then the memory image of the sensation. We can of course generalize everything as a 'spiritual experience' but the differentiation matters. There's something to the sensory perceptions (even though they are of similar qualia to the corresponding memory images) that gives them mysterious 'gravity'. When you look at a colored surface you can imagine another color on top of it, yet the sensory color outweighs it. Don't be in hurry to arrive at some intellectual conclusion. Just quietly investigate the experiences as if you are gathering experimental material that will be used later. It doesn't matter if at the time of experimentation, nothing clicks.

I think you had similar trouble before with the differentiation of will. Then you had some insight when you thought about the difference between imagining getting out of bed in the morning and actually doing it. Something very similar needs to be felt in relation to the difference between sensory perceptions and images.

I don't have a problem distinguishing between sensory perceptions and images. This seems to be going into a strange loop...

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Here you seem to say that manifestation (not only mineral but all phenomena) equals being conscious, and we should understand physicality as that??
Are you saying that there is for example a true and a fake astral body, the true being the truly-true astral and the fake being the physical astral? And the same for the etheric and physical?
Does then physical mean whatever level of (self)-knowledge one might have reached?

So the question is how do we translate, in our thinking, our current phenomenal experience of a mineralized 'external world' into the underlying reality that is concealed by it? We want to unveil what is already the case for sensory existence but is obscured by the convolution of the Fall. Every 'body' has its corresponding spiritual archetype, its true inner nature, its true intended function in the depth hierarchy of spiritual intents.

That function generally relates to perceptually manifesting spiritual activity so it can become conscious of its weaving at ever-more integrated (holistic) levels of intents, approaching the Absolute. But perceptions don't only need to be mineralized and 'outer', just as our thought-perceptions are felt to be 'inner' testimonies of our activity and can become encompassing ideas/imaginations.

Physicality is how beings who have just awakened to their spiritual activity support their consciousness, when that activity is still in its infancy. In a sense, we use the receded Memory of the much higher beings as the bodily support for our own burgeoning spiritual activity. We can notice just how much of our thinking unfolds in relation to sensory events - without that support, most of us would drop into deep unconsciousness. The archai went through a similar stage of physical support on Saturn, the archangels on Sun, the angels on Moon, and only on Earth does it reach the decohered state of minerality that we experience now. The archai's dense body is of fiery ego-substance, the archangels of airy astral substance, the angels of watery etheric substance.

Yet as our spiritual activity enlivens and strengthens, we become more independent of the hierarchies (as a child becomes more independents of its parents) and learn to support our self-conscious existence within more holistic curvatures - we move from the physical globe to the astral globe and our spiritual activity weaves creatively in the formative forces instead of the mineral forces, like the current angels. I suppose that, when we actually reach this perspective, we could still say we are reflecting our existence against the new 'physicality', the redeemed and reintegrated physicality. The formative body will be experienced as the 'densest' vehicle of our activity. Then we feel as if our previous existence was flowing along instinctively (dreamily) and we just awakened to a new dimension of our being. So that will be the main locus of support for our activity, but it's not the only support.

We know that already today humans can support their activity within more subtle strata through initiation. Not only they can, but they must for our evolution to continue. Conscious spiritual activity always spans the full spectrum of curvatures from densest to most subtle, and beings always rotate their conscious activity through these strata to support their evolutionary process, although the densest strata acts as the main locus of their activity, the part that is most 'in focus' for their manifesting consciousness. It is the part where they have the most creative responsibility for artistically weaving the curvatures of potential for lower beings. For ex., now humanity has the most creative responsibility for structuring the mineral environment in which animals and plants unfold their states of being.

What you are referring to as the 'fake' body is simply that part which is still dependent on higher beings for its proper functioning, which has not been permeated with our own creative consciousness. Most of us have not yet learned to support our activity within their curvatures of potential, so we experience them as subconscious reflections, i.e. shadowy soul, life, and physical processes that we can only abstractly represent in our thinking.

[Federica]

...

Thanks, I'm sure these characterizations help to make better sense of for example this:

As regards its original essence, man's astral body has its origin in the higher world, in the spiritual world proper. Within that sphere it is a being of the same nature as other beings whose activity is exercised in that world. Inasmuch then as the elemental and physical worlds are reflections of the spiritual world, the etheric and physical bodies of man must also be looked upon as reflections of his astral being. But in those bodies forces are working, which originate from the Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings. Now since those beings have a spiritual origin, it is natural that within the region of the etheric and physical bodies themselves there thould be found a kind of human astral essence. And a degree of clairvoyance which merely accepts the pictures of clairvoyant consciousness, without being able rightly to understand their meaning, may easily take the astral admixture in the physical and etheric bodies for the astral body proper. Yet that human astral essence is just that principle of human nature which opposes man's conforming to the laws really suitable for him in the order of the cosmos. Mistakes and confusions are more easily made in this domain because a knowledge of the soul's astral being is at the outset quite impossible for ordinary human consciousness. Even during the first stages of clairvoyant consciousness such knowledge is not yet attainable. The consciousness is attained when man experiences himself in his etheric body. But in this body he beholds the reflected images of his other self, and the higher world to which he belongs. In this way also he beholds the reflected etheric image of his astral body, and at the same time the Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings which that body contains.

[AshvinP]

...

Thanks, I'm sure these characterizations help to make better sense of for example this:

As regards its original essence, man's astral body has its origin in the higher world, in the spiritual world proper. Within that sphere it is a being of the same nature as other beings whose activity is exercised in that world. Inasmuch then as the elemental and physical worlds are reflections of the spiritual world, the etheric and physical bodies of man must also be looked upon as reflections of his astral being. But in those bodies forces are working, which originate from the Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings. Now since those beings have a spiritual origin, it is natural that within the region of the etheric and physical bodies themselves there thould be found a kind of human astral essence. And a degree of clairvoyance which merely accepts the pictures of clairvoyant consciousness, without being able rightly to understand their meaning, may easily take the astral admixture in the physical and etheric bodies for the astral body proper. Yet that human astral essence is just that principle of human nature which opposes man's conforming to the laws really suitable for him in the order of the cosmos. Mistakes and confusions are more easily made in this domain because a knowledge of the soul's astral being is at the outset quite impossible for ordinary human consciousness. Even during the first stages of clairvoyant consciousness such knowledge is not yet attainable. The consciousness is attained when man experiences himself in his etheric body. But in this body he beholds the reflected images of his other self, and the higher world to which he belongs. In this way also he beholds the reflected etheric image of his astral body, and at the same time the Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings which that body contains.

Yes, and just to be clear, these characterizations are not the primary thing, or even the secondary thing. I try to work on expressing them more phenomenologically but still, to my ear, they sound quite formulaic (rule-based) and theoretical. This can act as a hook for the intellect that seeks to find ever-more correspondences between spiritual scientific concepts and build an elaborate mental picture, but such correspondences are infinite and can lead us further away from the inner experiential essence if we are not vigilant, like the hand drawing itself drawing a hand, etc. So it should only be taken as a loose imaginative symbol for our inner experiential distinctions rather than hard definitions for 'physicality' and such. For my part, I feel that I should work on including more such introductory caveats in such posts.

The basic intuition I was trying to express was as follows. We sense different resistance to our spiritual activity as it flows within the various grooves - the thought groove, the soul groove, the sensory groove - and we try to sense how our thoughts steering along certain grooves seem to be attracted with much more 'gravity' than others, as Cleric put it. We notice how that gravity of the sensory groove, although it isn't intuitively transparent to us like our conceptual groove, for that very reason allows our spiritual activity to stream through it with much more ease, with less effort. Part of the reason why physical analogies can work so well for spiritual realities, provided they are accompanied with careful reasoning, is exactly that - we can strike a compromise between resting our activity on the gravity of the support, which comes easy, and moving our activity within supersensible grooves, which requires more effort.

I will use this gif again as both an analogy to the principle and an example of it:





We all have plenty of experience with simply letting our spiritual activity flow with sensory events, whether watching a movie or the sunset or the birds flying, listening to others speak, making small talk, or just doing routine activities during the day. Most of our intellectual thinking is also rooted in weaving through sensory-like images that have become routine. It's simply what we do most of the time, even after we have entered on the intuitive thinking path. This resting on the gravity of the sensory support, letting it flow downhill, is so habitual that we take it for granted and therefore fail to notice how our very capacity to remain conscious is vouchsafed by it. We get a glimpse of this reality when we practice concentration and start to become sleepy as soon as we make some progress, as soon as we tune out the sensory distractions and calm some of the reverberating feelings and thoughts. Then our activity loses the ground beneath its feet and its first inclination is to drop into a dream and then a sleep state.

So at the other pole, when we steer our activity back towards its own groove in concentration or study-meditating spiritual science, we can't simply allow it to flow along the path of least resistance. If we do that we only end up asleep, in utter confusion, or with abstract schemas that eventually become more trouble than they are worth for our intuitive orientation. So this is one partial phenomenological angle by which we can understand the receding character of the physical spectrum - the spiritual activity that recedes the most becomes the baseline level of support for our activity such that the latter can remain awake and functional with least amount of effort (we can also differentiate within the sensory groove - it's easier to rest our thoughts on the touch sense than the visual sense, for ex.). That which recedes the least - our present activity itself - requires the most attentive effort to approach and investigate in a lucid way. We become the proverbial dog chasing its own tail, trying to lay hold of activity that is morphing immediately in response to our efforts.

But again, that's precisely because the latter makes the most intuitive sense to us, it's thinking activity contemplating its transformations within its own groove. It's why the most value for our intuitive orientation comes from doing what feels the most effortful and uncomfortable to our default soul patterns of being. Just because we may have distinguished the grooves and some of their characteristics in our conceptions doesn't mean we have accustomed our inner organism to that experiential diversity, and the latter is what makes the biggest difference in our intuitive orientation. It doesn't require clairvoyance but it does require a certain level of patience and persistence while resisting normal passive thinking habits, the sort of continual experimentation without expectation that Cleric spoke of. If something isn't clicking for us in this respect, it's simply feedback that we need more imaginative experimentation.

As weird as it may sound, looking at a colored object and imagining another color on it, experiencing sensations in thought and then our receding memory images of them, and then really trying to feel out the distinction between the two experiences, is something we normally find quite difficult, like flowing water uphill. We may do it once or twice and then feel like it is all figured out and forget about it. I'm only saying this based on my personal experience. Whenever Cleric points to such examples I am always amazed at how I had never thought of them before when they are so simple, but then I realize that's simply because it would take my activity in a direction orthogonal to the way it normally flows, so naturally it doesn't notice these simple things often if at all. Yet these simple differentiations, when imaginatively sensitized to over time, are exactly what will make the more esoteric characterizations intutively resonant.

[Federica]

This may sound puzzling. I don't remember if it's in GA13 or somewhere else but RS emphasizes that we shouldn't confuse physicality and minerality.

PS. Cleric, btw, please feel free to call GA13 "Occult Science", I wouldn't take offense

[Federica]

...

Thanks, I'm sure these characterizations help to make better sense of for example this:

As regards its original essence, man's astral body has its origin in the higher world, in the spiritual world proper. Within that sphere it is a being of the same nature as other beings whose activity is exercised in that world. Inasmuch then as the elemental and physical worlds are reflections of the spiritual world, the etheric and physical bodies of man must also be looked upon as reflections of his astral being. But in those bodies forces are working, which originate from the Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings. Now since those beings have a spiritual origin, it is natural that within the region of the etheric and physical bodies themselves there thould be found a kind of human astral essence. And a degree of clairvoyance which merely accepts the pictures of clairvoyant consciousness, without being able rightly to understand their meaning, may easily take the astral admixture in the physical and etheric bodies for the astral body proper. Yet that human astral essence is just that principle of human nature which opposes man's conforming to the laws really suitable for him in the order of the cosmos. Mistakes and confusions are more easily made in this domain because a knowledge of the soul's astral being is at the outset quite impossible for ordinary human consciousness. Even during the first stages of clairvoyant consciousness such knowledge is not yet attainable. The consciousness is attained when man experiences himself in his etheric body. But in this body he beholds the reflected images of his other self, and the higher world to which he belongs. In this way also he beholds the reflected etheric image of his astral body, and at the same time the Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings which that body contains.

Yes, and just to be clear, these characterizations are not the primary thing, or even the secondary thing. I try to work on expressing them more phenomenologically but still, to my ear, they sound quite formulaic (rule-based) and theoretical. This can act as a hook for the intellect that seeks to find ever-more correspondences between spiritual scientific concepts and build an elaborate mental picture, but such correspondences are infinite and can lead us further away from the inner experiential essence if we are not vigilant, like the hand drawing itself drawing a hand, etc. So it should only be taken as a loose imaginative symbol for our inner experiential distinctions rather than hard definitions for 'physicality' and such. For my part, I feel that I should work on including more such introductory caveats in such posts.

The basic intuition I was trying to express was as follows. We sense different resistance to our spiritual activity as it flows within the various grooves - the thought groove, the soul groove, the sensory groove - and we try to sense how our thoughts steering along certain grooves seem to be attracted with much more 'gravity' than others, as Cleric put it. We notice how that gravity of the sensory groove, although it isn't intuitively transparent to us like our conceptual groove, for that very reason allows our spiritual activity to stream through it with much more ease, with less effort. Part of the reason why physical analogies can work so well for spiritual realities, provided they are accompanied with careful reasoning, is exactly that - we can strike a compromise between resting our activity on the gravity of the support, which comes easy, and moving our activity within supersensible grooves, which requires more effort.

I will use this gif again as both an analogy to the principle and an example of it:





We all have plenty of experience with simply letting our spiritual activity flow with sensory events, whether watching a movie or the sunset or the birds flying, listening to others speak, making small talk, or just doing routine activities during the day. Most of our intellectual thinking is also rooted in weaving through sensory-like images that have become routine. It's simply what we do most of the time, even after we have entered on the intuitive thinking path. This resting on the gravity of the sensory support, letting it flow downhill, is so habitual that we take it for granted and therefore fail to notice how our very capacity to remain conscious is vouchsafed by it. We get a glimpse of this reality when we practice concentration and start to become sleepy as soon as we make some progress, as soon as we tune out the sensory distractions and calm some of the reverberating feelings and thoughts. Then our activity loses the ground beneath its feet and its first inclination is to drop into a dream and then a sleep state.

So at the other pole, when we steer our activity back towards its own groove in concentration or study-meditating spiritual science, we can't simply allow it to flow along the path of least resistance. If we do that we only end up asleep, in utter confusion, or with abstract schemas that eventually become more trouble than they are worth for our intuitive orientation. So this is one partial phenomenological angle by which we can understand the receding character of the physical spectrum - the spiritual activity that recedes the most becomes the baseline level of support for our activity such that the latter can remain awake and functional with least amount of effort (we can also differentiate within the sensory groove - it's easier to rest our thoughts on the touch sense than the visual sense, for ex.). That which recedes the least - our present activity itself - requires the most attentive effort to approach and investigate in a lucid way. We become the proverbial dog chasing its own tail, trying to lay hold of activity that is morphing immediately in response to our efforts.

But again, that's precisely because the latter makes the most intuitive sense to us, it's thinking activity contemplating its transformations within its own groove. It's why the most value for our intuitive orientation comes from doing what feels the most effortful and uncomfortable to our default soul patterns of being. Just because we may have distinguished the grooves and some of their characteristics in our conceptions doesn't mean we have accustomed our inner organism to that experiential diversity, and the latter is what makes the biggest difference in our intuitive orientation. It doesn't require clairvoyance but it does require a certain level of patience and persistence while resisting normal passive thinking habits, the sort of continual experimentation without expectation that Cleric spoke of. If something isn't clicking for us in this respect, it's simply feedback that we need more imaginative experimentation.

As weird as it may sound, looking at a colored object and imagining another color on it, experiencing sensations in thought and then our receding memory images of them, and then really trying to feel out the distinction between the two experiences, is something we normally find quite difficult, like flowing water uphill. We may do it once or twice and then feel like it is all figured out and forget about it. I'm only saying this based on my personal experience. Whenever Cleric points to such examples I am always amazed at how I had never thought of them before when they are so simple, but then I realize that's simply because it would take my activity in a direction orthogonal to the way it normally flows, so naturally it doesn't notice these simple things often if at all. Yet these simple differentiations, when imaginatively sensitized to over time, are exactly what will make the more esoteric characterizations intutively resonant.

Yes, I surely recognize all this. Obviously a lacking experimentation is at the foundation of many struggles, which is absolutely my case. It's my current struggle to reconcile an increasing involvement with everyday life - more work, tasks, preoccupations, etc. - with keeping up the most important intuitive development. I know that not only is such reconciliation entirely possible, but it is in itself one of the goals of such development. Still, I find myself often wishing to at least temporarily withdraw from worldly involvements, which I realize is a weakness, in the same way that leaving one's thoughts flowing downhill, along the path of least resistance, is.

Regarding the supposed formulaic content of your posts, for what it's worth, my feedback is, this is in general not at all how I perceive it. I do find a consistent experiential character in your comments, though they are consistently different in nature from Cleric's and others', despite often treating the exact same aspects of reality. This is very interesting for me as a reader. I would say that in general your illustrations incorporate more sudden 'jumps' between the intellectual, sequential, logical plane and the intuitive one, compared to others’, which is in itself not a negative, since the jumps may demand more effort, but also can offer more momentum. Surely depends also on the particular reader’s predispositions. There is much more I could say here, and I have tried to express these differences in visual form, in drawing, but I am not satisfied with the rendering at this point.

[AshvinP]

Yes, I surely recognize all this. Obviously a lacking experimentation is at the foundation of many struggles, which is absolutely my case. It's my current struggle to reconcile an increasing involvement with everyday life - more work, tasks, preoccupations, etc. - with keeping up the most important intuitive development. I know that not only is such reconciliation entirely possible, but it is in itself one of the goals of such development. Still, I find myself often wishing to at least temporarily withdraw from worldly involvements, which I realize is a weakness, in the same way that leaving one's thoughts flowing downhill, along the path of least resistance, is.

I would say it depends on what 'worldly involvements' we are dealing with. Now is certainly a good time to remember the passage:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

(btw I am not sure if you have been following Max's articles on 'scenes from Holy week', but they have been very interesting for me)

Of course we should continue our work and appointed tasks, but I also find that sometimes I manage to give myself worldly tasks that are not strictly necessary, which conveniently distracts from the inner work. It is certainly a path of great resistance to sacrifice some of these worldly entanglements that are not strictly necessary for our work or social obligations.

Regarding the supposed formulaic content of your posts, for what it's worth, my feedback is, this is in general not at all how I perceive it. I do find a consistent experiential character in your comments, though they are consistently different in nature from Cleric's and others', despite often treating the exact same aspects of reality. This is very interesting for me as a reader. I would say that in general your illustrations incorporate more sudden 'jumps' between the intellectual, sequential, logical plane and the intuitive one, compared to others’, which is in itself not a negative, since the jumps may demand more effort, but also can offer more momentum. Surely depends also on the particular reader’s predispositions. There is much more I could say here, and I have tried to express these differences in visual form, in drawing, but I am not satisfied with the rendering at this point.

Thanks, Federica. I'm glad it presents an interesting angle for you. Certainly we are all unfinished paintings in this respect, as Cleric pointed out. When I notice these qualities in my writing, I try to pray and think on how they can be continually refined and improved. I think you are right about the 'jumps' and that's exactly what I desire to work on, to smooth out the gradient between intellectual and intuitive more. It reminds me of this quote:

This philosophy, therefore, can be recovered through the fact that man works himself up to the development of imaginative thinking. But when the imaginative thinker — at the level of exact clairvoyance it may be called imagination — expresses his insights in speech and in thought forms, the matter is formulated in such a way that another person, who cannot perceive imaginatively on his own, can carry over into the full consciousness of ordinary thinking what the philosopher says, and, because it is different, it is also felt and experienced differently. But through the verbal communication and its comprehension, that reality is also experienced in ordinary consciousness. The imaginative thinker can imbue his words with this reality, for he acquires his conceptions out of the real etheric world.

Thus, a philosophy can again be achieved that has been won out of the etheric world, out of the human etheric organism and the etheric cosmos. It affects the listener in such a way that in taking it in with his ordinary, healthy understanding he feels: It has been brought out of the super-sensible — first of all from the etheric — reality. So, when imaginative thinking is attained, a true philosophy will be restored to the world whose authenticity is guaranteed.

Exactly as Steiner articulates, supersensible realities should be condensed into lucid communications that help others orient to and partake in those realities. Then we are imitating the artistry of the Gods who condense supersensible realities into the communicable language we experience as the 'sensory world'. But of course we are all at different stages of this development and the imaginative skills will come to us with patience and persistence, they don't need to be sought as some specific end-in-itself.

PS - I'd be very interested to see your visualization when you are satisfied with it

[Federica]

Yes, I surely recognize all this. Obviously a lacking experimentation is at the foundation of many struggles, which is absolutely my case. It's my current struggle to reconcile an increasing involvement with everyday life - more work, tasks, preoccupations, etc. - with keeping up the most important intuitive development. I know that not only is such reconciliation entirely possible, but it is in itself one of the goals of such development. Still, I find myself often wishing to at least temporarily withdraw from worldly involvements, which I realize is a weakness, in the same way that leaving one's thoughts flowing downhill, along the path of least resistance, is.

I would say it depends on what 'worldly involvements' we are dealing with. Now is certainly a good time to remember the passage:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

(btw I am not sure if you have been following Max's articles on 'scenes from Holy week', but they have been very interesting for me)

Of course we should continue our work and appointed tasks, but I also find that sometimes I manage to give myself worldly tasks that are not strictly necessary, which conveniently distracts from the inner work. It is certainly a path of great resistance to sacrifice some of these worldly entanglements that are not strictly necessary for our work or social obligations.

Of course. It's clearly necessary to be available and supportive of a relative or friend who may be in danger and need help, just as much as it's absolutely not necessary to work more in order to pay for a fancy vacation, possession, or similar. Yet, there is also a big gray zone in between such clear extremes.
Regarding the scenes from Holy Week - Yes! I am following them closely and appreciating them very much. Actually, I have prioritized these guided reflections over all else this week, and I'm trying to start from these scenes to improve my very poor knowledge of the Christ events (intellectually, but not only). For example, starting from the elaborated painting in the last scene published (Good Friday) I have explored the various moments or stations of the Passion, through the visual support of other famous paintings. By the way, in French and Italian, Good Friday is Saint/Holy Friday, and in Swedish it's Long Friday, and the Holy Week is Still Week (Swedes are pragmatic people : ).

Regarding the supposed formulaic content of your posts, for what it's worth, my feedback is, this is in general not at all how I perceive it. I do find a consistent experiential character in your comments, though they are consistently different in nature from Cleric's and others', despite often treating the exact same aspects of reality. This is very interesting for me as a reader. I would say that in general your illustrations incorporate more sudden 'jumps' between the intellectual, sequential, logical plane and the intuitive one, compared to others’, which is in itself not a negative, since the jumps may demand more effort, but also can offer more momentum. Surely depends also on the particular reader’s predispositions. There is much more I could say here, and I have tried to express these differences in visual form, in drawing, but I am not satisfied with the rendering at this point.

Thanks, Federica. I'm glad it presents an interesting angle for you. Certainly we are all unfinished paintings in this respect, as Cleric pointed out. When I notice these qualities in my writing, I try to pray and think on how they can be continually refined and improved. I think you are right about the 'jumps' and that's exactly what I desire to work on, to smooth out the gradient between intellectual and intuitive more. It reminds me of this quote:

This philosophy, therefore, can be recovered through the fact that man works himself up to the development of imaginative thinking. But when the imaginative thinker — at the level of exact clairvoyance it may be called imagination — expresses his insights in speech and in thought forms, the matter is formulated in such a way that another person, who cannot perceive imaginatively on his own, can carry over into the full consciousness of ordinary thinking what the philosopher says, and, because it is different, it is also felt and experienced differently. But through the verbal communication and its comprehension, that reality is also experienced in ordinary consciousness. The imaginative thinker can imbue his words with this reality, for he acquires his conceptions out of the real etheric world.

Thus, a philosophy can again be achieved that has been won out of the etheric world, out of the human etheric organism and the etheric cosmos. It affects the listener in such a way that in taking it in with his ordinary, healthy understanding he feels: It has been brought out of the super-sensible — first of all from the etheric — reality. So, when imaginative thinking is attained, a true philosophy will be restored to the world whose authenticity is guaranteed.

Exactly as Steiner articulates, supersensible realities should be condensed into lucid communications that help others orient to and partake in those realities. Then we are imitating the artistry of the Gods who condense supersensible realities into the communicable language we experience as the 'sensory world'. But of course we are all at different stages of this development and the imaginative skills will come to us with patience and persistence, they don't need to be sought as some specific end-in-itself.

PS - I'd be very interested to see your visualization when you are satisfied with it

Again, from my perspective, I don't see that the jumps need to be put into a gradient necessarily. Something could be lost in the process. Rather there's often a complementary quality in your and Cleric's take, as it seems. If I'm able to put this in telling visual form I'll post it

[AshvinP]

Regarding the scenes from Holy Week - Yes! I am following them closely and appreciating them very much. Actually, I have prioritized these guided reflections over all else this week, and I'm trying to start from these scenes to improve my very poor knowledge of the Christ events (intellectually, but not only). For example, starting from the elaborated painting in the last scene published (Good Friday) I have explored the various moments or stations of the Passion, through the visual support of other famous paintings. By the way, in French and Italian, Good Friday is Saint/Holy Friday, and in Swedish it's Long Friday, and the Holy Week is Still Week (Swedes are pragmatic people : ).

That's great, Federica! It was a tremendous experience for me to visit Jerusalem last year and walk the Via Dolorosa, where each station is commemorated by a plaque.





Easter blessings to all here, Christ is Risen!

[Federica]

Regarding the scenes from Holy Week - Yes! I am following them closely and appreciating them very much. Actually, I have prioritized these guided reflections over all else this week, and I'm trying to start from these scenes to improve my very poor knowledge of the Christ events (intellectually, but not only). For example, starting from the elaborated painting in the last scene published (Good Friday) I have explored the various moments or stations of the Passion, through the visual support of other famous paintings. By the way, in French and Italian, Good Friday is Saint/Holy Friday, and in Swedish it's Long Friday, and the Holy Week is Still Week (Swedes are pragmatic people : ).

That's great, Federica! It was a tremendous experience for me to visit Jerusalem last year and walk the Via Dolorosa, where each station is commemorated by a plaque.





Easter blessings to all here, Christ is Risen!

Thank you, and to you!

What an inspiring trip it must have been, thanks for the picture.