Saving the materialists

[AshvinP]

At the same time, we regularly find in Steiner addresses in which he encourages materialists to receive and accept the results of spiritual research by testing them against matter, against physicality, to realize how experimentation consistently confirms them. In this quote, for instance, he dispels the objection played out in your scenario - that without direct experience, spiritual science appears no better than dime-a-dozen cult organizations. Here you won't be able to argue that I interpret Steiner's words upside down: these words couldn't have been more explicit. They were addressed to a non-medical audience on the topic of the connection between physiology and pathology-therapy (GA 314 Lecture IV), to stimulate a large understanding of the principles of spiritual science in medicine, and to encourage people not to take the illustrations on faith, but to test them against physical life, in order to be convinced of their rationality:

...

Do you agree that such purposes point to the possible usefulness of presenting results of supersensible research in order to highlight their rationality and consistency with physical life, with the goal of spreading spirit awareness, rather than presenting only phenomenological processes based on personal meditation work and thinking exercises?


PS: I would like to add that I haven't actively searched for this quote. It was simply disseminated along my path of methodical progression through the medicine lectures. I have just found it today, while continuing my studies, in a state of mind unrelated to our question of speaking or not speaking to the intellect.

That was not the point of my hypothetical scenario. First, we need to recognize in humility that we are not Steiner. We are not advanced initiates who carry powerful soul forces and streams of living inspiration through the words-concepts conveyed in such lectures. Indeed, Steiner repeatedly speaks about how the knowledge is presented by the initiate out of their intimate supersensible experience, and only then can it be tested by the unprejudiced intellect. It is not irrelevant whether the spiritual scientific content is presented to other souls through an initiate like Steiner or, conversely, by you or me, even if it's the exact same content. It makes a difference whether Steiner is giving the lecture out of his advanced soul development or whether we are simply presenting Steiner's lecture to someone (or repeating its content) without any deep intuitive understanding of the content ourselves.

Secondly, what does it mean to encounter the content with "unprejudiced intellect" (similar to HHU)? That's the other side of the consideration - first, the state of the soul presenting the content, and second, the state of the soul receiving the content. That itself is a question that can only be sufficiently addressed through spiritual scientific insight. The intellect is, by default, in a state of extreme prejudice, molded by etched soul constraints that remain entirely in the blind spot of thinking consciousness. Do you see how the phenomenological-meditative exercises invite the soul to raise these constraints into lucid consciousness and thus begin the process of loosening them? Without such loosening, the intellect stands no chance of unprejudiced consideration. This is why Steiner must keep bringing this point up, because he knows well that the intellect will naturally gravitate toward suspicion, skepticism, doubt, cynicism, narrow focus, definitions, etc., even among Anthroposophists, which will block its ability to feel out the inner logic of what is communicated. These obstacles to HHU cannot be overcome by the intellect in its natural condition, without any introspective development.

In that lecture cycle, Steiner is speaking to souls already immersed in Anthroposophy and its practices. These are not our friends or relatives who hardly suspect the existence of any concrete spiritual reality, let alone seek it out through an organization of lectures and practices. We need to keep this whole context in mind when trying to extrapolate from Steiner's way of lecturing and his particular comments into more general conclusions about what is optimal for occult development with respect to the souls around us. The question you ask should stimulate us to carefully investigate this context before settling on a definitive answer. We need great humility and wisdom to get a better orientation to which of our actions are "spreading spirit awareness" and which, conversely, are stimulating secret doubts, anxieties, and resentments.

Yes, ideally (after the proper introspective preparation), the soul in my hypothetical would not react in that unreceptive, untrusting, and prejudicial way to the lecture content. But the point was that is how the intellectual soul will react, by default. And if we place ourselves into this reactive scenario, can we sense the inner constraints that come into play and how we, without any introspective practices to offer, have no basis to address them?

[Federica]

First, we need to recognize in humility that we are not Steiner. We are not advanced initiates who carry powerful soul forces and streams of living inspiration through the words-concepts conveyed in such lectures. Indeed, Steiner repeatedly speaks about how the knowledge is presented by the initiate out of their intimate supersensible experience, and only then can it be tested by the unprejudiced intellect. It is not irrelevant whether the spiritual scientific content is presented to other souls through an initiate like Steiner or, conversely, by you or me, even if it's the exact same content. It makes a difference whether Steiner is giving the lecture out of his advanced soul development or whether we are simply presenting Steiner's lecture to someone (or repeating its content) without any deep intuitive understanding of the content ourselves.

Instead of speaking of how I am deeply aware I am not Steiner (I am sure you believe me) I will point out that, in that lecture cycle (GA 314) it was planned that a medical doctor, not Steiner, would hold the cycle and present those topics. At the end, the speaker didn't come, and Steiner took over, but originally Steiner had wished that a specialist, not an initiate, presented that same content. So it is not true that Steiner thought that knowledge should be presented only by initiates, and only then it can be tested by the intellect. If the doctor due to speak in that cycle were an initiate, he probably wouldn't have stood up Steiner four times in a raw

from Lecture I:
"The scheduled lecturer is not here yet. I hope he will come soon, but I wouldn't like you to have to sit and simply wait, so I will make a few remarks."

from Lecture IV:
"Perhaps you will see from this course that the spiritual forces that will bring together these individual specialties must flow from a center. In order to do this, however, one must depart from those comfortable paths that are so frequently sought today. The fruits will lie above all in the direction of the progress of humanity. For this reason, I would have especially liked it if everything that has been said here out of spiritual science could have been said also by specialists. And I was therefore not at all happy that I myself had to speak up before you here for one of the most important fields, the field of medicine."

Secondly, what does it mean to encounter the content with "unprejudiced intellect" (similar to HHU)? That's the other side of the consideration - first, the state of the soul presenting the content, and second, the state of the soul receiving the content. That itself is a question that can only be sufficiently addressed through spiritual scientific insight. The intellect is, by default, in a state of extreme prejudice, molded by etched soul constraints that remain entirely in the blind spot of thinking consciousness. Do you see how the phenomenological-meditative exercises invite the soul to raise these constraints into lucid consciousness and thus begin the process of loosening them? Without such loosening, the intellect stands no chance of unprejudiced consideration. This is why Steiner must keep bringing this point up, because he knows well that the intellect will naturally gravitate toward suspicion, skepticism, doubt, cynicism, narrow focus, definitions, etc., even among Anthroposophists, which will block its ability to feel out the inner logic of what is communicated. These obstacles to HHU cannot be overcome by the intellect in its natural condition, without any introspective development.

In that lecture cycle, Steiner is speaking to souls already immersed in Anthroposophy and its practices. These are not our friends or relatives who hardly suspect the existence of any concrete spiritual reality, let alone seek it out through an organization of lectures and practices. We need to keep this whole context in mind when trying to extrapolate from Steiner's way of lecturing and his particular comments into more general conclusions about what is optimal for occult development with respect to the souls around us. The question you ask should stimulate us to carefully investigate this context before settling on a definitive answer. We need great humility and wisdom to get a better orientation to which of our actions are "spreading spirit awareness" and which, conversely, are stimulating secret doubts, anxieties, and resentments.

Yes, ideally (after the proper introspective preparation), the soul in my hypothetical would not react in that unreceptive, untrusting, and prejudicial way to the lecture content. But the point was that is how the intellectual soul will react, by default. And if we place ourselves into this reactive scenario, can we sense the inner constraints that come into play and how we, without any introspective practices to offer, have no basis to address them?

I am definitely refraining from definitive answers, and actions. I agree that the intellect is skeptical by default, and I do see how the phenomenological-meditative exercises invite the soul to raise these constraints into lucid consciousness. But I disagree that "without such loosening, the intellect stands no chance of unprejudiced consideration". There is a chance, although it is an unlikely one, as I already admitted. The chance that intuition may flash through is there, just as in this animation by Cleric there is a lawfully recurring opportunity for the patterns to align and the sparkle of intuition to shine through. Moreover, I would like to quote some comments Cleric made on the Inner Space Stretching series:


"I thought that by building such a gradual build-up, the intellect will be likewise gradually engaged in more and more free inner activity. For example, when you tell somebody "Here, meditate on the rose cross", this feels so floating. I admit that I barely tried that mediation in my early years. It simply felt as demanding too much trust. On the other hand, when we start from our familiar physical experiences it feels like learning to swim with our feet on the sea floor, where we can gradually hop and experiment with short periods of floating. As always, this can work in the opposite way too. One may never feel ready enough to lift their feet. But anyway, it was my hope that the further discussion would be engaging and accessible enough to the intellect that the natural impulse should arise not to stop at the preparatory exercise but continue further."

We see here the explicit intention to choose a way of presenting that engages the intellect in a progression. The risk that one may remain stuck and "never feel ready to lift their feet" is acknowledged, but not as a certainty, as in "the intellect stands no chance of unprejudiced considerations". On the contrary, careful consideration led to the reasoned hope that the intellect be gradually engaged. And we see that a preparatory exercise for the intellect has been presented.


This said, I understand the caveats you point to and take them seriously. I think they apply in the majority of cases, and I am definitely refraining from action. But I also think you are too radical in categorically excluding all possibilities that addressing the intellect may be useful, unless it's done by initiates.

[AshvinP]

Instead of speaking of how I am deeply aware I am not Steiner (I am sure you believe me) I will point out that, in that lecture cycle (GA 314) it was planned that a medical doctor, not Steiner, would hold the cycle and present those topics. At the end, the speaker didn't come, and Steiner took over, but originally Steiner had wished that a specialist, not an initiate, presented that same content. So it is not true that Steiner thought that knowledge should be presented only by initiates, and only then it can be tested by the intellect. If the doctor due to speak in that cycle were an initiate, he probably wouldn't have stood up Steiner four times in a raw

What makes you believe this scheduled specialist was not also clairvoyant? I find it unlikely the lecturer would have been a mere intellectual thinker presenting spiritual scientific content. There are degrees of initiation, of course, and Steiner was very high up there, but the point is that we are on the bottom-most rung And I doubt the planned lecturer was also. I doubt that he lacked lucid intuitive insight into the inner biophysical relations that he was supposed to lecture on.

I am definitely refraining from definitive answers, and actions. I agree that the intellect is skeptical by default, and I do see how the phenomenological-meditative exercises invite the soul to raise these constraints into lucid consciousness. But I disagree that "without such loosening, the intellect stands no chance of unprejudiced consideration". There is a chance, although it is an unlikely one, as I already admitted. The chance that intuition may flash through is there, just as in this animation by Cleric there is a lawfully recurring opportunity for the patterns to align and the sparkle of intuition to shine through.

The lawful alignments that allow for higher intuitions to shine through (in a lasting way that promotes higher development) do not occur naturally. It is our task to help bring about those alignments with inner participatory effort. The default state of the modern intellect is what keeps those alignments perpetually out-of-phase. Of course, there are exceptions in rare cases of 'self-awakenings' due to karmic reasons, but are we going to stake a soul's future on that? I think you already knew that "the intellect stands no chance" doesn't mean, in flattened intellectual style, literal zero chance, but rather "very unlikely and not at all worth the risk when we know of much better ways to loosen the constraints and invite souls to spiritual scientific content in a healthy way".

Moreover, I would like to quote some comments Cleric made on the Inner Space Stretching series:


"I thought that by building such a gradual build-up, the intellect will be likewise gradually engaged in more and more free inner activity. For example, when you tell somebody "Here, meditate on the rose cross", this feels so floating. I admit that I barely tried that mediation in my early years. It simply felt as demanding too much trust. On the other hand, when we start from our familiar physical experiences it feels like learning to swim with our feet on the sea floor, where we can gradually hop and experiment with short periods of floating. As always, this can work in the opposite way too. One may never feel ready enough to lift their feet. But anyway, it was my hope that the further discussion would be engaging and accessible enough to the intellect that the natural impulse should arise not to stop at the preparatory exercise but continue further."

We see here the explicit intention to choose a way of presenting that engages the intellect in a progression. The risk that one may remain stuck and "never feel ready to lift their feet" is acknowledged, but not as a certainty, as in "the intellect stands no chance of unprejudiced considerations". On the contrary, careful consideration led to the reasoned hope that the intellect be gradually engaged. And we see that a preparatory exercise for the intellect has been presented.


This said, I understand the caveats you point to and take them seriously. I think they apply in the majority of cases, and I am definitely refraining from action. But I also think you are too radical in categorically excluding all possibilities that addressing the intellect may be useful, unless it's done by initiates.

Federica, surely it is not lost on you that you are consistently falling back on the phenomenological-meditative approach in order to defend your position that it's not strictly necessary? In no way can the ignition exercise be considered non-phenomenological or non-meditative. In fact, these are exactly the kinds of exercises that you previously said would be rejected by your relatives. Yes, as we have discussed many times before (a few times on this thread alone), there is plenty of room within the phenomenological approach to refine the gradient and leverage the physical-intellectual experiences toward introspective observation of the formative constraints on thinking. That is what Cleric was aiming toward in the essays and I have been saying nothing different. The essays on this forum, in all their variations, are exactly what I have in mind when discussing the introspective approach and how it's necessary for the intellect to stand a chance at the unprejudiced contemplation of spiritual scientific content.

I am not at all worried that you are going to go out and act recklessly, harming a bunch of souls. Rather, I am simply addressing the fact that you are entertaining these opinions about alternative non-phenomenological preparatory methods and seem so reluctant to let them go, which speaks to something in your intuitive orientation to the phenomenological method, to its underlying meaning and significance, that can be refined.

[Federica]

Federica, surely it is not lost on you that you are consistently falling back on the phenomenological-meditative approach in order to defend your position that it's not strictly necessary? In no way can the ignition exercise be considered non-phenomenological or non-meditative. In fact, these are exactly the kinds of exercises that you previously said would be rejected by your relatives. Yes, as we have discussed many times before (a few times on this thread alone), there is plenty of room within the phenomenological approach to refine the gradient and leverage the physical-intellectual experiences toward introspective observation of the formative constraints on thinking. That is what Cleric was aiming toward in the essays and I have been saying nothing different. The essays on this forum, in all their variations, are exactly what I have in mind when discussing the introspective approach and how it's necessary for the intellect to stand a chance at the unprejudiced contemplation of spiritual scientific content.

I am not at all worried that you are going to go out and act recklessly, harming a bunch of souls. Rather, I am simply addressing the fact that you are entertaining these opinions about alternative non-phenomenological preparatory methods and seem so reluctant to let them go, which speaks to something in your intuitive orientation to the phenomenological method, to its underlying meaning and significance, that can be refined.

I was not trying to make the ignition exercise look non-phenomenological only to show that conceiving of preparatory phases with the specific purpose of engaging the intellect, so that it can feel that the propositions are not too fantastic, is legitimate. Steiner does it all the time too in the medicine lectures I'm reading, and the passage with the horse-shoe magnet was just too explicit not to bring to this discussion. Then, yes, if you state that Steiner deemed that only initiates or clairvoyants should present, I would point out that's not the case (it's clear when reading 314, and also 312 and 313, where reference is made to lectures by other doctors within the cycles). Also, it's very obviously not the case that in 314 "Steiner is speaking to souls already immersed in Anthroposophy and its practices". He wouldn't have spoken the way he did to an audience of people immersed in Anthroposophy. For example:


From lecture II, part II GA 314:
"You will initially find it extremely offensive when, in the field of Anthroposophy, it is said that one must divide the human being, as he exists in the physical world, into a physically organized system, into an etherically organized system, into —now, please don't be offended by expressions, they are only there to provide terminology— into an astrally organized system..."


Besides, I don't think I am so attached to this opinion. I already admitted the value of your points, and I have changed my mind accordingly, with regards to actions I had in mind. I try to be objective, and point out what I notice in the lectures. This said, my intuitive orientation most certainly needs to be "refined". I do what I can.

[AshvinP]

Federica, surely it is not lost on you that you are consistently falling back on the phenomenological-meditative approach in order to defend your position that it's not strictly necessary? In no way can the ignition exercise be considered non-phenomenological or non-meditative. In fact, these are exactly the kinds of exercises that you previously said would be rejected by your relatives. Yes, as we have discussed many times before (a few times on this thread alone), there is plenty of room within the phenomenological approach to refine the gradient and leverage the physical-intellectual experiences toward introspective observation of the formative constraints on thinking. That is what Cleric was aiming toward in the essays and I have been saying nothing different. The essays on this forum, in all their variations, are exactly what I have in mind when discussing the introspective approach and how it's necessary for the intellect to stand a chance at the unprejudiced contemplation of spiritual scientific content.

I am not at all worried that you are going to go out and act recklessly, harming a bunch of souls. Rather, I am simply addressing the fact that you are entertaining these opinions about alternative non-phenomenological preparatory methods and seem so reluctant to let them go, which speaks to something in your intuitive orientation to the phenomenological method, to its underlying meaning and significance, that can be refined.

I was not trying to make the ignition exercise look non-phenomenological only to show that conceiving of preparatory phases with the specific purpose of engaging the intellect, so that it can feel that the propositions are not too fantastic, is legitimate. Steiner does it all the time too in the medicine lectures I'm reading, and the passage with the horse-shoe magnet was just too explicit not to bring to this discussion.

Yes, but the central theme of this discussion, from my perspective, is that there is a fine line (a strait and narrow way) between phenomenological preparatory phases that invite participatory and freer inner activity, and intellectual 'propositions' that invite stagnation in default habits, and we need to become increasingly clear on the contours of that line (not only for the sake of other souls, but first and foremost, for the sake of our inner development).

The ignition exercise is not an intellectual proposition in any familiar sense, but an exercise for the imaginative will to immerse itself in. The concepts used, including the diagrams, serve as an anchorage for that imaginative will process. For anyone who feels like concentrating on an imaginative theme is 'too fantastic' or 'illegitimate', I think the ignition exercise will feel just the same. The only difference is that it is a bit easier to get into and try out for a few moments (with a willful suspension of disbelief), due to the physical-sensory support, so it could provide better chances of entry for such souls (although probably not in most cases). In any case, it can certainly be a helpful stepping stone for those of us who are already enthusiastic to explore the inner degrees of freedom.

Then, yes, if you state that Steiner deemed that only initiates or clairvoyants should present, I would point out that's not the case (it's clear when reading 314, and also 312 and 313, where reference is made to lectures by other doctors within the cycles). Also, it's very obviously not the case that in 314 "Steiner is speaking to souls already immersed in Anthroposophy and its practices". He wouldn't have spoken the way he did to an audience of people immersed in Anthroposophy. For example:


From lecture II, part II GA 314:
"You will initially find it extremely offensive when, in the field of Anthroposophy, it is said that one must divide the human being, as he exists in the physical world, into a physically organized system, into an etherically organized system, into —now, please don't be offended by expressions, they are only there to provide terminology— into an astrally organized system..."


Besides, I don't think I am so attached to this opinion. I already admitted the value of your points, and I have changed my mind accordingly, with regards to actions I had in mind. I try to be objective, and point out what I notice in the lectures. This said, my intuitive orientation most certainly needs to be "refined". I do what I can.

Well, I don't know. There were certainly people in all walks of life, in all different professions, who developed higher cognitive perception in those early years. But regardless, I think we can independently investigate the reasons why it is important to speak to others from our inner perception and imagine scenarios in which we are trying to simply repeat what we have heard from the lectures, with some logical orientation to the reasoning, but without deep understanding. Indeed, I have lived out that scenario on forums a few times when I have quoted Steiner's spiritual scientific content and have been met with disinterested or downright skeptical responses (or some type of 'agreement' which I can tell is misplaced), which in retrospect, are quite predictable.

You may be right about the audience, I am not too familiar with these cycles. The description for GA 312 says the lectures were given at the request of the physicians, which makes me feel like they were at least somewhat familiar with supersensible ideas, but perhaps not completely immersed in them.

I appreciate that you are open to my points and are working with me, through this dialogue, to mutually strengthen our intuitive orientation in this domain. It definitely also helps me to contemplate your points and the perspective from which they are made. Thank you!

[Federica]

Yes, but the central theme of this discussion, from my perspective, is that there is a fine line (a strait and narrow way) between phenomenological preparatory phases that invite participatory and freer inner activity, and intellectual 'propositions' that invite stagnation in default habits, and we need to become increasingly clear on the contours of that line (not only for the sake of other souls, but first and foremost, for the sake of our inner development).

Thanks, Ashvin. The straight line you refer to looks well delineated to me, when it comes to others. You recommend that the backbone of the message we directed to others needs to come from experience. Analogies and considerations can be added, but the topic itself can't be external, unintegrated knowledge, because on the receiver's side these bricks of knowledge would be built into the existing intellectual construction, inviting stagnation and failing to point to the necessity of leaving aside the construction of content-landscapes as definitive epistemological method. How you would draw the line for the purpose of inner development, beyond the communications with others, is not as clear. Do you mean that results of clairvoyant research that can’t be known directly should be left aside, even if one is enthusiastic about walking the spiritual path, because of the intellectual risks?

My opinion is that the intellect and the first-person efforts can both be developed in each other's direction at the same time, even if they don't yet conenct, rather than only laying out intellectually what’s been first experienced in a living way. For example when it comes to anthroposophical medicine, the integrated understanding of the whole human organization requires Intuitive cognition. Inspiration can only grasp up to the rhythmic system, and Imagination only the sensory-nervous system. So I’m not sure, would you say that such study would unnecessarily stimulate the categorizing intellect and consolidate old habits if it comes before Intuition? For me, even if direct experience can’t be achieved, the contents can stimulate beneficial experiences in manifold ways. Just because direct, deep understanding is not accessible, doesn’t mean that one is simply repeating or stocking up the lecture content in logical arrangements. In any case, the lectures I have been reading this year - the way Steiner constructs the points in them - have been the main cause fro me of this idea that perhaps these contents could be fruitfully presented to others as a preliminary step.


For example in lecture II, part II, GA 314, the method applied to have an impact on the audience seems to particularly leverage the intellect. Steiner invites them to consider the whole human being like a gigantic cell, and to test the spiritual scientific claims in the lab, so as to verify that they are true. I agree this doesn’t mean that anyone can replicate this approach. But I think it’s relevant to consider the line of reasoning the audience is invited to follow.

“There is thus a continual need to widen the methods adopted in anatomy and physiology by applying the principles of Spiritual Science. It is not in any sense a matter of fantasy. We ask you to study the kidney system, to make your investigations as accurately as you possibly can, to examine the urea and the excretions of uric acid under different astral conditions, and step by step you will find confirmation of what I have said. Only in this way will the mysteries of the human organism reveal themselves to you.
…
It is really only a matter of taking the trouble to examine and develop the marvelous results achieved by natural science and not simply leaving them where they are. My understanding and practical experience of life convince me that if you will set yourselves to an exhaustive study of the results of the most orthodox empirical science, if you will relate the most obvious with the most remote, and really study the connections between them, you will constantly be led to what I am telling you here. I am also convinced that the so-called ‘occultists’ whom you may consult—especially ‘occultists’ of the modern type—will not help you in the least. What will be of far more help is a genuine examination of the empirical data offered by conventional natural science. Science itself leads you to recognise truths which can be actually perceived only in the super-sensible world, but which indicate, nevertheless, that the empirical data must be followed up in this or that direction. You can certainly discover the methods on your own account; they will be imposed by the facts before you. There is no need to complain that such guiding principles create prejudice or that they influence by suggestion. The conclusions arise out of the things themselves, but the facts and conditions prove to be highly complicated, and if further progress is to be made, all that has been learned in this way about the human being must now be investigated in connection with the outer world.”

[AshvinP]

Yes, but the central theme of this discussion, from my perspective, is that there is a fine line (a strait and narrow way) between phenomenological preparatory phases that invite participatory and freer inner activity, and intellectual 'propositions' that invite stagnation in default habits, and we need to become increasingly clear on the contours of that line (not only for the sake of other souls, but first and foremost, for the sake of our inner development).

Thanks, Ashvin. The straight line you refer to looks well delineated to me, when it comes to others. You recommend that the backbone of the message we directed to others needs to come from experience. Analogies and considerations can be added, but the topic itself can't be external, unintegrated knowledge, because on the receiver's side these bricks of knowledge would be built into the existing intellectual construction, inviting stagnation and failing to point to the necessity of leaving aside the construction of content-landscapes as definitive epistemological method. How you would draw the line for the purpose of inner development, beyond the communications with others, is not as clear. Do you mean that results of clairvoyant research that can’t be known directly should be left aside, even if one is enthusiastic about walking the spiritual path, because of the intellectual risks?

My opinion is that the intellect and the first-person efforts can both be developed in each other's direction at the same time, even if they don't yet conenct, rather than only laying out intellectually what’s been first experienced in a living way. For example when it comes to anthroposophical medicine, the integrated understanding of the whole human organization requires Intuitive cognition. Inspiration can only grasp up to the rhythmic system, and Imagination only the sensory-nervous system. So I’m not sure, would you say that such study would unnecessarily stimulate the categorizing intellect and consolidate old habits if it comes before Intuition? For me, even if direct experience can’t be achieved, the contents can stimulate beneficial experiences in manifold ways. Just because direct, deep understanding is not accessible, doesn’t mean that one is simply repeating or stocking up the lecture content in logical arrangements. In any case, the lectures I have been reading this year - the way Steiner constructs the points in them - have been the main cause fro me of this idea that perhaps these contents could be fruitfully presented to others as a preliminary step.

Yes, I completely agree with exploring them at the same time. The amazing thing about the phenomenological method is, as soon as we take the initial steps toward introspective observation of the thinking process, we are safe to begin exploring the spiritual scientific content with the intellect, no matter how 'advanced' the latter is. In fact, it is quite necessary to thoroughly explore that content if we want to expand and refine our intuitive orientation to the supersensible realities we are beginning to experience through phenomenological-meditative practice. There is no need to put off the exploration of such content until we attain the pure experience of higher cognitive stages. The main thing is that introspective observation should come first, just as it does in the progression of Steiner's works.

Once the initial steps at reorienting the cognitive perspective are taken, then the whole spectrum of spiritual scientific content can be explored safely and will only support our efforts. As a comparison, when we want to explore the nature of a physical object by touching it, we don't feel like we need to take the particular tactile sensations and combine them together into some theoretical construct that may correspond more or less to the 'object itself'. Because our touching activity feels substantial and like it belongs to the objective structure of reality, it is intuitive for us to feel around the object from as many angles as possible and gain orientation to its nature in that direct way. When our thinking activity also 'densifies' via introspective observation and feels like a supersensible limb that can touch its way through invisible curvatures of meaning, then we are no longer at risk of building rigid theoretical constructs out of the spiritual scientific concepts we explore. Instead of fitting the concepts into our familiar theoretical habits, we feel our way through them, allow them to germinate in our soul, and thus transform our experienced understanding of who we are and what existence is.

But again, this way of orienting to the concepts can only be suspected, let alone made fruitful use of, once our cognitive activity begins to take on substantiality through introspective observation. Then we indeed enter into a mutually self-reinforcing spiral of inner development and conceptual exploration.

For example in lecture II, part II, GA 314, the method applied to have an impact on the audience seems to particularly leverage the intellect. Steiner invites them to consider the whole human being like a gigantic cell, and to test the spiritual scientific claims in the lab, so as to verify that they are true. I agree this doesn’t mean that anyone can replicate this approach. But I think it’s relevant to consider the line of reasoning the audience is invited to follow.

“There is thus a continual need to widen the methods adopted in anatomy and physiology by applying the principles of Spiritual Science. It is not in any sense a matter of fantasy. We ask you to study the kidney system, to make your investigations as accurately as you possibly can, to examine the urea and the excretions of uric acid under different astral conditions, and step by step you will find confirmation of what I have said. Only in this way will the mysteries of the human organism reveal themselves to you.
…
It is really only a matter of taking the trouble to examine and develop the marvelous results achieved by natural science and not simply leaving them where they are. My understanding and practical experience of life convince me that if you will set yourselves to an exhaustive study of the results of the most orthodox empirical science, if you will relate the most obvious with the most remote, and really study the connections between them, you will constantly be led to what I am telling you here. I am also convinced that the so-called ‘occultists’ whom you may consult—especially ‘occultists’ of the modern type—will not help you in the least. What will be of far more help is a genuine examination of the empirical data offered by conventional natural science. Science itself leads you to recognise truths which can be actually perceived only in the super-sensible world, but which indicate, nevertheless, that the empirical data must be followed up in this or that direction. You can certainly discover the methods on your own account; they will be imposed by the facts before you. There is no need to complain that such guiding principles create prejudice or that they influence by suggestion. The conclusions arise out of the things themselves, but the facts and conditions prove to be highly complicated, and if further progress is to be made, all that has been learned in this way about the human being must now be investigated in connection with the outer world.”

Right, and from my understanding, what Steiner is speaking about here presupposes a path of enlivening and transforming imaginative activity through introspective methods, which is indeed the foundational principle of the spiritual scientific method. Only then do we find the proper perspective, trust, courage, and motivation to 'not simply leave the results where they are', to relate the most obvious with the most remote, to really study the connections, and so on. These exhaustive studies only become possible in tandem with the transmutation of thinking into a form of feeling and being. That doesn't mean we need full-blown clairvoyance, but as mentioned above, only the preliminary steps that bring our thinking into a new kind of perspective on and connection with its deeper spiritual essence.

[Federica]

Yes, but the central theme of this discussion, from my perspective, is that there is a fine line (a strait and narrow way) between phenomenological preparatory phases that invite participatory and freer inner activity, and intellectual 'propositions' that invite stagnation in default habits, and we need to become increasingly clear on the contours of that line (not only for the sake of other souls, but first and foremost, for the sake of our inner development).

Thanks, Ashvin. The straight line you refer to looks well delineated to me, when it comes to others. You recommend that the backbone of the message we directed to others needs to come from experience. Analogies and considerations can be added, but the topic itself can't be external, unintegrated knowledge, because on the receiver's side these bricks of knowledge would be built into the existing intellectual construction, inviting stagnation and failing to point to the necessity of leaving aside the construction of content-landscapes as definitive epistemological method. How you would draw the line for the purpose of inner development, beyond the communications with others, is not as clear. Do you mean that results of clairvoyant research that can’t be known directly should be left aside, even if one is enthusiastic about walking the spiritual path, because of the intellectual risks?

My opinion is that the intellect and the first-person efforts can both be developed in each other's direction at the same time, even if they don't yet conenct, rather than only laying out intellectually what’s been first experienced in a living way. For example when it comes to anthroposophical medicine, the integrated understanding of the whole human organization requires Intuitive cognition. Inspiration can only grasp up to the rhythmic system, and Imagination only the sensory-nervous system. So I’m not sure, would you say that such study would unnecessarily stimulate the categorizing intellect and consolidate old habits if it comes before Intuition? For me, even if direct experience can’t be achieved, the contents can stimulate beneficial experiences in manifold ways. Just because direct, deep understanding is not accessible, doesn’t mean that one is simply repeating or stocking up the lecture content in logical arrangements. In any case, the lectures I have been reading this year - the way Steiner constructs the points in them - have been the main cause fro me of this idea that perhaps these contents could be fruitfully presented to others as a preliminary step.

Yes, I completely agree with exploring them at the same time. The amazing thing about the phenomenological method is, as soon as we take the initial steps toward introspective observation of the thinking process, we are safe to begin exploring the spiritual scientific content with the intellect, no matter how 'advanced' the latter is. In fact, it is quite necessary to thoroughly explore that content if we want to expand and refine our intuitive orientation to the supersensible realities we are beginning to experience through phenomenological-meditative practice. There is no need to put off the exploration of such content until we attain the pure experience of higher cognitive stages. The main thing is that introspective observation should come first, just as it does in the progression of Steiner's works.

Once the initial steps at reorienting the cognitive perspective are taken, then the whole spectrum of spiritual scientific content can be explored safely and will only support our efforts. As a comparison, when we want to explore the nature of a physical object by touching it, we don't feel like we need to take the particular tactile sensations and combine them together into some theoretical construct that may correspond more or less to the 'object itself'. Because our touching activity feels substantial and like it belongs to the objective structure of reality, it is intuitive for us to feel around the object from as many angles as possible and gain orientation to its nature in that direct way. When our thinking activity also 'densifies' via introspective observation and feels like a supersensible limb that can touch its way through invisible curvatures of meaning, then we are no longer at risk of building rigid theoretical constructs out of the spiritual scientific concepts we explore. Instead of fitting the concepts into our familiar theoretical habits, we feel our way through them, allow them to germinate in our soul, and thus transform our experienced understanding of who we are and what existence is.

But again, this way of orienting to the concepts can only be suspected, let alone made fruitful use of, once our cognitive activity begins to take on substantiality through introspective observation. Then we indeed enter into a mutually self-reinforcing spiral of inner development and conceptual exploration.

Thanks, Ashvin, I see.
I would like to share a picture of the halo I am seeing right now in the sky above me.
Realizing only now it's probably a halo Cleric has as profile picture

[Federica]

As a comparison, when we want to explore the nature of a physical object by touching it, we don't feel like we need to take the particular tactile sensations and combine them together into some theoretical construct that may correspond more or less to the 'object itself'. Because our touching activity feels substantial and like it belongs to the objective structure of reality, it is intuitive for us to feel around the object from as many angles as possible and gain orientation to its nature in that direct way. When our thinking activity also 'densifies' via introspective observation and feels like a supersensible limb that can touch its way through invisible curvatures of meaning, then we are no longer at risk of building rigid theoretical constructs out of the spiritual scientific concepts we explore.

This leads me indirectly to a train of thoughts Steiner laid out in GA 115 "Truth and error in the light of the spiritual world", connected with the question of touching the reality of the spiritual world beyond blind belief and without clairvoyance. He argues that the reality of error, and that it is possible to transform it in truth, is the ground on which we can stand, not necessarily to proof the reality of the spiritual world to a materialist, but to feel certainty about it, beyond believing in it. Are you familiar with this? I 'm not sure I underatand it properly: is it the same as noticing that morality exists and we are endowed with will?


"For let us assume that there really exists nothing other than the corporeal, the external physical world. This external world, with its forces, works itself out in what we call the mineral world, complicating itself - not enriching itself with a new energy, but only complicating itself in the plant and the animal world. And let us imagine that it ultimately works in such a way that it builds up man, from the pure joining and pure cooperation of energies that are present only in the physical world, in such a way that through this building up of the human body from the energies of physical nature, man comes to allow his world of thought to sprout from the complex tools of his brain, which now - like physical processes -forms itself within his corporeality. Let us assume for a moment that this statement by several materialists, which many consider extraordinarily crude, should be taken seriously: that the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile. Let us take it seriously for a while, and assume that the human brain is so complexly constructed from purely inorganic, physical energies that, through its activity, it allows what appears to man to be his spiritual life to sprout forth. Let us therefore assume for a moment that the materialists are right, that there is no spiritual as such. Would it still be possible, in the sense of these materialists, to speak of a world of truth, that is, of the world of truth as it presents itself, for example, in Hegelian philosophy as the "self-movement of concepts"?

You see, it is not insignificant to raise this question. For the answer to this question already implies that materialism, if an affirmative answer could be obtained, could explain even a philosophy such as Hegel's with its own means. This, however, means nothing other than rejecting all philosophy that calls itself idealistic or spiritualistic! One only needs to imagine what emerges from the complex human brain as thoughts, precisely insofar as this world of truth, this world of thought, is nothing more than reflections of the external physical world. You can place an object in front of a mirror: the mirror returns an image of this object. The image resembles the object. It is not the object, but the image is produced by the purely material processes in the mirror. And you need admit nothing more than that you are dealing with a mere image with no reality. Then you do not need to prove the reality of the mirror image. You need only say, if you take a materialistic standpoint: There is really nothing present but the external physical energies that combine to form the human brain and create a kind of mirror for the external world, and everything that is reflected as thoughts are merely images of the external world—then you don't need to prove the existence of the mind. For the only thing that exists, thoughts, are merely images of the external world. And just as one doesn't have to prove the reality of a mirror image, so too doesn't one have to prove the reality of thoughts. There will then be little that can be done about people coming forward and saying: "But there are also concepts that cannot be derived from external perception, for a circle never presents itself to us as we know it in geometry, nor a triangle, nor mathematical truths in general." Because then you can replay: "We see them as images that appear to us from the brain. They are not present externally, but many individual cases appear as approximations, and there then what appears as abstract concepts is formed".

In short, the materialist can certainly deal with the objection that man creates supersensible truth within himself—that it is supersensible, that is true, cannot be denied. Truth as such, therefore, would not be an objection to materialism.
Now we stand on good ground: This truth, whose existence - because its supersensibility cannot be denied - seems to countless people to be sufficient proof of the existence of a spiritual world, or at least a reference to a spiritual world, is not a proof of the spiritual world. For this truth is indeed supersensible, but it need not be real! It need only be a sum of images. Then no one needs to accept its reality. Therefore, we must maintain: Possession of truth is not proof of the reality of a spiritual world! And by penetrating to the truth and living and moving in the truth, man can never approach the spirit, for he can always object that truth can be a mere reflection of the external physical world. Now, it could be said: "But then one can hardly believe that there is anything anywhere in the wide world that can lead people, as they are in everyday life, to recognize a spirit!"

This is how clearly the expert in spiritual science must face these things. This is how clearly he must be able to say to himself: "The paths usually taken to gain an understanding of the spiritual world from the outside prove to be quite fragile". And upon closer inspection, they prove to be quite fragile indeed. Should we therefore admit that before penetrating the world of the clairvoyant, there is no possibility of gaining any conviction of the existence of the spirit? It might almost seem so. It might seem as if only those people could be justified in speaking of the spiritual world who either look into it as clairvoyants or who believe clairvoyants. That might seem so.

But it is not so. And here we come to the question: The external world as such, with its material content, first of all, points to no spiritual world. The inner world of truth also does not point us to any spiritual world, for it could be a reflection of the external, merely physical world. Do we then have anything at all besides what is sketchily indicated here? Yes, we do, and that is error! One must not forget anything in the world if one is to have a comprehensive understanding of the world. Besides truth, man also has error. Now, you will say, error obviously cannot lead to truth, and it would be a strange thing to start from error. But I have also not said that - because we have seen that it is fruitless to stand on the ground of truth - we now want to stand on the ground of error. For that would not exactly reduce the number of opponents if, in order to understand the reality of the spiritual world, we were to stand on the ground of error. But error should not be presented as something from which we start in order to recognize the truth; that would be not only foolish, but absurd. But there is something undeniable about error: it is there, it is present in the world, it is real. And above all: it can arise in human nature and come into being within it. Now, if the external world has created a mirroring apparatus in the brain and reflects itself, and the truth content is the sum of the mirror images, then, of course, error could still arise in a person instead of the truth, if the person could be compared to a false mirror or to a mirror that gives caricatures of what is outside. If we take a mirror that gives a caricature instead of a true image, then it reflects falsely. Thus, error could be explained relatively easily by saying that it is possible because our organ, which is constructed from the external world, reflects falsely. One can explain the truth as a mirror image, and one can also explain error as a mirror image. But one thing one cannot do is explain the correction, the transformation of error into truth, as a mirror image. For no matter how hard you try to follow a mirror that shows a caricature of an external object, and persuade it to transform this caricature into a real picture, it will remain as it is. He presents the wrong image, it sticks to its error.

That man need not remain in error, but is capable of overcoming error and transforming it into truth, that is the decisive factor! That is what matters. In this way, man demonstrates that in the fact of truth there is indeed a reflection of external reality; but in the transformation of error into truth, it becomes clear that error as such is not a reflection of external reality. In other words, this means that error, if it exists, has no right to exist in the world that initially surrounds us. Truth has its right to exist in the world that initially surrounds us, and to accept truth we need assume nothing but the existence of an external physical world. To accept an error, nothing that can be reflected from the external world is sufficient; rather, there must be something present that does not belong to the external world, something that has no direct connection with the external world. If the sensible is reflected in truth as a supersensible image, then if the sensible is reflected as error, a reason for the error other than that which lies in the sensible itself must arise. So, what are we looking at when we see that error exists? We are looking at a world that is not exhausted within the sensible world, the external world of physical facts! Error can only originate in a supersensible world, can only come from a supersensible world."

[AshvinP]

As a comparison, when we want to explore the nature of a physical object by touching it, we don't feel like we need to take the particular tactile sensations and combine them together into some theoretical construct that may correspond more or less to the 'object itself'. Because our touching activity feels substantial and like it belongs to the objective structure of reality, it is intuitive for us to feel around the object from as many angles as possible and gain orientation to its nature in that direct way. When our thinking activity also 'densifies' via introspective observation and feels like a supersensible limb that can touch its way through invisible curvatures of meaning, then we are no longer at risk of building rigid theoretical constructs out of the spiritual scientific concepts we explore.

This leads me indirectly to a train of thoughts Steiner laid out in GA 115 "Truth and error in the light of the spiritual world", connected with the question of touching the reality of the spiritual world beyond blind belief and without clairvoyance. He argues that the reality of error, and that it is possible to transform it in truth, is the ground on which we can stand, not necessarily to proof the reality of the spiritual world to a materialist, but to feel certainty about it, beyond believing in it. Are you familiar with this? I 'm not sure I underatand it properly: is it the same as noticing that morality exists and we are endowed with will?

Thanks, Federica, this is an excellent passage for the context of our discussion. Perhaps one of the best you could have chosen. The first half highlights very nicely what we have been discussing about how the mere intellectual gestures can always justify their position in the face of phenomenal facts, and explain away all the merely intellectual arguments about how the facts point to supersensible realities. It is a difficult conundrum because our ordinary soul life is indeed woven as replicas and combinations of sensory experiences. This is why even many idealistic souls generally veer toward explaining soul experience through bodily processes, because there seems to be such a powerful correlation of such processes with our inner flow of experience. Actually, that comes up around this section of BK's interview and his discussion of IIT:



We see how BK can only hold out hope that IIT will provide the "bridge" between the sensible and supersensible, and is actually enthusiastic about its prospects, simply because real-time thinking (and thus the genuine supersensible) remains in the blind spot. The second part of the Steiner quote highlights how it is the introspective observation of spiritual activity, i.e., observing the act of transforming error into truth (for example), that alone provides a solid foundation for overcoming reductive tendencies and engaging with the spiritual in its native element. It is similar to the double-take example that Brady uses here:

Another recognizable experience is the “double-take” alluded to above, in which the observer, through the failure of ordinary perception, becomes aware of his or her activity in making a correction. Of course, normal seeing is so successful that our activity is totally transparent to what we are looking at and we do not notice it. But when our attempt to see fails, we are forced to look a second time to make sense of the situation. Now, after the fact, we become aware that we have been active in producing an experience: the first “take” becomes our “mistake,” and if we were somehow responsible for it, we must also be responsible for the second, and correct, “take.” Such examples are part of everyday experience, but in themselves they only show that mental activity must contribute something if perception is to arise. Due to the short duration of the first “take,” however, it is difficult to examine how a “mediation” by the observer can unify the passively given. Thus we need better examples.

I think the most important thing to consider is that it's not simply the logical argument of 'error existing and transforming into truth' that would be persuasive, but living into the experience of doing double-takes and similar things, which gives the spirit a momentary glimpse of what it learns more intimately and deeply about itself through meditative exercises, i.e. how its activity contributes something unique to the perceptual flow that is not contained within the content of that flow itself. As we know, often what it contributes is its prejudiced and myopic opinions, preferences, passions, and so on, which is the source of error when contemplating the perceptual flow. Thus, the existence of error testifies to this implicit supersensible activity and, likewise, the ability to recognize the error and transform it through activity supported by patience, diligence, concentration, etc.