Saving the materialists

[AshvinP]

Yes, Ashvin, we have already agreed on what you say in the first two paragraphs - absolutely. There is no heavy lifting to be done by experts, and spiritual science can only be taken in by inner development. But Steiner is clear: the attention of opposers to Anthroposophy - not their inner development - can be initially captured by a "seeing is believing" approach. Once captured, they would have to come to the realization that inner development is the only way, and act upon it.

But how does this make sense? What is there to 'see' for the opposers, and therefore believe, before inner development?

The healing results on the material plane? This is a question for Steiner anyway. I've only taken note of his invitation to opposers of spiritual science.

PS. No problem for the post above

Yes, there are no healing results to see (not just visually, but spiritually, i.e., with intuitive insight) if there is no inner development. And I don't think becoming an initiate leads us to start making nonsensical assertions and recommendations

We can remember what Cleric wrote on the original morphic spaces post:

We should make no mistake and believe that this will convince scientists that there’s something wrong in the reductionist approach. A motivated painter would never say that something is impossible to draw. He’ll simply go on to refine the techniques, the brushes, the paints and so on. Such is the case in science. Failure won’t demotivate scientists. Most of them will continue to refine the CGOL rules of physics, patching them in the most varied ways in order to replicate the appearances of living cells. Very few will consider that there might be something insufficient in the mode of cognition they exercise

Just as failure won't demotivate the scientists (or doctors), visually perceived successes alone won't motivate and encourage them to inner transformation. They will continue trying to fit the perceived results into pre-existing reductionist intellectual slots. I don't think Steiner suddenly convinced himself that this wasn't a problem anymore, and that the ordinary intellectual mode of cognition (i.e., without introspective development) is sufficient to 'believe' that Anthroposophical science is speaking of realities that can be consciously sought and attuned with. I think he maintained throughout his lecturing life that true seeing, which alone is sufficient to orient toward the spiritual scientific path and the realities discovered along that path (as also indicated in the first lecture of that cycle), only comes through introspective development.

[Federica]

But how does this make sense? What is there to 'see' for the opposers, and therefore believe, before inner development?

The healing results on the material plane? This is a question for Steiner anyway. I've only taken note of his invitation to opposers of spiritual science.

PS. No problem for the post above

Yes, there are no healing results to see (not just visually, but spiritually, i.e., with intuitive insight) if there is no inner development. And I don't think becoming an initiate leads us to start making nonsensical assertions and recommendations

We can remember what Cleric wrote on the original morphic spaces post:

We should make no mistake and believe that this will convince scientists that there’s something wrong in the reductionist approach. A motivated painter would never say that something is impossible to draw. He’ll simply go on to refine the techniques, the brushes, the paints and so on. Such is the case in science. Failure won’t demotivate scientists. Most of them will continue to refine the CGOL rules of physics, patching them in the most varied ways in order to replicate the appearances of living cells. Very few will consider that there might be something insufficient in the mode of cognition they exercise

Just as failure won't demotivate the scientists (or doctors), visually perceived successes alone won't motivate and encourage them to inner transformation. They will continue trying to fit the perceived results into pre-existing reductionist intellectual slots. I don't think Steiner suddenly convinced himself that this wasn't a problem anymore, and that the ordinary intellectual mode of cognition (i.e., without introspective development) is sufficient to 'believe' that Anthroposophical science is speaking of realities that can be consciously sought and attuned with. I think he maintained throughout his lecturing life that true seeing, which alone is sufficient to orient toward the spiritual scientific path and the realities discovered along that path (as also indicated in the first lecture of that cycle), only comes through introspective development.

Of course he maintained throughout his lecturing life that true seeing only comes through introspective development. We all agree with that, we have confirmed that multiple times by now, Ashvin.

However, it is not less clear that Steiner also said that opposers to spiritual science - those who thought Anthroposophy was sheer nonsense - would have to convene that spiritual science was onto something, upon seeing with their physical eyes the many successful living examples - I mean healed people going around healthy on their two legs - of cures effected in the clinic he built up in Stuttgart, and hopefully some of them - very few, as Cleric wrote, but still - could be led in this way to introspective development: that development which alone leads to true seeing.

Now, it is of course up to you to decide that these are "bad translations" or "simply overestimations" by Steiner. As I said, there is not much I can add here. If you don't agree with what he said, well, ask him, or just consider that these are overestimations.

[Cleric]

Maybe we can think of it by saying that the positive evolutionary development shouldn't shy away from bringing its fruits to the World arena. Yes, there's by no means guarantee that anyone encountering these fruits would spark an interest in proper evolutionary development. But these are still things that need to make an appearance. Otherwise, evolving beings would have to form an enclosed secret society and commune with outside people only once they are really, really sure that the latter have an interest in true inner development.

I think the gospels are once again on point about this through the fact that Christ speaks in parables to the crowds, while he speaks in clear language to the disciples (Matthew 13:10-17). So it is really up to us to know how to speak to those who do not yet show any interest or are even hostile to inner development. And this is the difficult part for us because how we 'speak' to these people takes many different forms. We speak in the full spectrum. How we talk, how we move, how we react and relate to others. The key here, and the most difficult part for our impatient ego, is that this speaking doesn't have immediate effects (if any). Sadly, for many people changes can only occur in subsequent incarnations, yet it is up to us to have the love and wisdom to know how we can be of help, even though in the very long term.

[AshvinP]

Now, it is of course up to you to decide that these are "bad translations" or "simply overestimations" by Steiner. As I said, there is not much I can add here. If you don't agree with what he said, well, ask him, or just consider that these are overestimations.

I don't agree that your interpretation is what he said, and this has happened a few times already with various quotes from Steiner, so that's why I continue to discuss it. That this interpretation is also at odds with what I have discerned from living experience re: default intellectual tendencies and limitations, and what we have discussed on this forum from various angles, only lends support that Steiner would not have intended it in that way. There is a significant discrepancy in how we are approaching and understanding various passages from Steiner on this topic, which probably points to deeper factors that can be explored. But only if one is willing to admit that their interpretation may not be completely aligned with the meaning that is being expressed, as that meaning takes shape within the wider context of Steiner's lecturing on these topics. We can find quite a few passages where Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to properly grasp the results of supersensible research.

Another angle is to consider Levin's research that you have summarized recently, and which, I don't think anyone can doubt, has led and will continue to lead to enormously practical results. As we know, Levin still functionally conceives of the nested intelligences of the living body as assembled from the bottom-up. Indeed, instead of stimulating introspective observation of our human-scale cognitive activity, Levin's research suggests that, the more we learn about the cognitive capacities of elemental agencies, the more true advancement we will see in biomedicine. He will say, "seeing this advancement is believing in the bio-hacking approach". Can the intellect argue with this? Can the intellect put the results of Anthroposophical medicine, which prepares its therapies and remedies through sacrificial inner development, on a scale with Levin's biohacking results and say the former clearly outweighs the latter? If we think about this enough, it reveals why there is no hope in the mere presentation of Anthroposophical therapies and remedies to stimulate inner development (which, to Cleric's point, doesn't mean we should stop pursuing, producing, and disseminating such remedies as part of our broader spiritual tasks).

[Federica]

Now, it is of course up to you to decide that these are "bad translations" or "simply overestimations" by Steiner. As I said, there is not much I can add here. If you don't agree with what he said, well, ask him, or just consider that these are overestimations.

I don't agree that your interpretation is what he said, and this has happened a few times already with various quotes from Steiner, so that's why I continue to discuss it. That this interpretation is also at odds with what I have discerned from living experience re: default intellectual tendencies and limitations, and what we have discussed on this forum from various angles, only lends support that Steiner would not have intended it in that way. There is a significant discrepancy in how we are approaching and understanding various passages from Steiner on this topic, which probably points to deeper factors that can be explored. But only if one is willing to admit that their interpretation may not be completely aligned with the meaning that is being expressed, as that meaning takes shape within the wider context of Steiner's lecturing on these topics. We can find quite a few passages where Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to properly grasp the results of supersensible research.

Another angle is to consider Levin's research that you have summarized recently, and which, I don't think anyone can doubt, has led and will continue to lead to enormously practical results. As we know, Levin still functionally conceives of the nested intelligences of the living body as assembled from the bottom-up. Indeed, instead of stimulating introspective observation of our human-scale cognitive activity, Levin's research suggests that, the more we learn about the cognitive capacities of elemental agencies, the more true advancement we will see in biomedicine. He will say, "seeing this advancement is believing in the bio-hacking approach". Can the intellect argue with this? Can the intellect put the results of Anthroposophical medicine, which prepares its therapies and remedies through sacrificial inner development, on a scale with Levin's biohacking results and say the former clearly outweighs the latter? If we think about this enough, it reveals why there is no hope in the mere presentation of Anthroposophical therapies and remedies to stimulate inner development (which, to Cleric's point, doesn't mean we should stop pursuing, producing, and disseminating such remedies as part of our broader spiritual tasks).

Ashvin, why do you keep iterating how Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to true seeing, as if it were the bone of contention? There is no contention here, we all agree with that. And that’s also fully compatible with those Steiner’s words:

“I am convinced that as soon as these matters are presented in a clear, descriptive form, people will take this point of view: “Well, yes, I must above all heal, if I want to be a doctor, and so I will turn to what, in the first place, I disliked. If it really helps, I cannot do otherwise than adopt it. In this sense I think it would be a good thing if as soon as possible we could produce literature of a kind that would be a bridge between Spiritual Science and modern material science. It would encourage the opinion that these things help and so they cannot after all be such utter nonsense!”.


These words (and several others I quoted in the same vein) fit well with Steiners lecturing life, and emphasis on introspective development. Therefore, there is no need either to take them as overstatements or bad translations, or to interpret them in convoluted ways, as if Steiner didn’t mean to encourage positive opinions in those who thought of spiritual science as utter nonsense. He did want to encourage that. As we can see, he argued it would be a good thing that those people see that anthroposophical medicine really helps, and form the opinion that it should be adopted, as a consequence of the matter being presented to them in “clear and descriptive form” (that it should be a descriptive form is particularly telling).

You say there is “no hope” that the presentation of Anthroposophical medicine may end up stimulating an interest in inner development. Cleric says there is “no guarantee", and Steiner says it would be a “good thing”, that would encourage opponents to change their opinion and adopt that medicine.

Do you interpret “no hope” and “no guarantee” as having the same meaning?
Do you interpret “no hope” and “a good thing that would encourage opinion change” as having the same meaning?

[AshvinP]

Now, it is of course up to you to decide that these are "bad translations" or "simply overestimations" by Steiner. As I said, there is not much I can add here. If you don't agree with what he said, well, ask him, or just consider that these are overestimations.

I don't agree that your interpretation is what he said, and this has happened a few times already with various quotes from Steiner, so that's why I continue to discuss it. That this interpretation is also at odds with what I have discerned from living experience re: default intellectual tendencies and limitations, and what we have discussed on this forum from various angles, only lends support that Steiner would not have intended it in that way. There is a significant discrepancy in how we are approaching and understanding various passages from Steiner on this topic, which probably points to deeper factors that can be explored. But only if one is willing to admit that their interpretation may not be completely aligned with the meaning that is being expressed, as that meaning takes shape within the wider context of Steiner's lecturing on these topics. We can find quite a few passages where Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to properly grasp the results of supersensible research.

Another angle is to consider Levin's research that you have summarized recently, and which, I don't think anyone can doubt, has led and will continue to lead to enormously practical results. As we know, Levin still functionally conceives of the nested intelligences of the living body as assembled from the bottom-up. Indeed, instead of stimulating introspective observation of our human-scale cognitive activity, Levin's research suggests that, the more we learn about the cognitive capacities of elemental agencies, the more true advancement we will see in biomedicine. He will say, "seeing this advancement is believing in the bio-hacking approach". Can the intellect argue with this? Can the intellect put the results of Anthroposophical medicine, which prepares its therapies and remedies through sacrificial inner development, on a scale with Levin's biohacking results and say the former clearly outweighs the latter? If we think about this enough, it reveals why there is no hope in the mere presentation of Anthroposophical therapies and remedies to stimulate inner development (which, to Cleric's point, doesn't mean we should stop pursuing, producing, and disseminating such remedies as part of our broader spiritual tasks).

Ashvin, why do you keep iterating how Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to true seeing, as if it were the bone of contention? There is no contention here, we all agree with that. And that’s also fully compatible with those Steiner’s words:

“I am convinced that as soon as these matters are presented in a clear, descriptive form, people will take this point of view: “Well, yes, I must above all heal, if I want to be a doctor, and so I will turn to what, in the first place, I disliked. If it really helps, I cannot do otherwise than adopt it. In this sense I think it would be a good thing if as soon as possible we could produce literature of a kind that would be a bridge between Spiritual Science and modern material science. It would encourage the opinion that these things help and so they cannot after all be such utter nonsense!”.


These words (and several others I quoted in the same vein) fit well with Steiners lecturing life, and emphasis on introspective development.

Then I have no idea why you characterized the quote as the 'exact opposite' of the introspective approach in an earlier post... should I just take such indications as hyperbole going forward?

Therefore, there is no need either to take them as overstatements or bad translations, or to interpret them in convoluted ways, as if Steiner didn’t mean to encourage positive opinions in those who thought of spiritual science as utter nonsense. He did want to encourage that. As we can see, he argued it would be a good thing that those people see that anthroposophical medicine really helps, and form the opinion that it should be adopted, as a consequence of the matter being presented to them in “clear and descriptive form” (that it should be a descriptive form is particularly telling).

You say there is “no hope” that the presentation of Anthroposophical medicine may end up stimulating an interest in inner development. Cleric says there is “no guarantee", and Steiner says it would be a “good thing”, that would encourage opponents to change their opinion and adopt that medicine.

Do you interpret “no hope” and “no guarantee” as having the same meaning?
Do you interpret “no hope” and “a good thing that would encourage opinion change” as having the same meaning?

Now you have restated the original bone of contention I was responding to, which, just above, you said doesn't exist. I hope you can appreciate how your various indications on this thread can become somewhat confusing.

What you are doing, according to my perspective, is often referred to as 'confirmation bias'. You are interpreting Steiner's passage to mean only what you prefer him to mean, based on your idea that presenting the results would encourage opinions to change. Steiner says it would be good to "produce literature of a kind that would be a bridge between Spiritual Science and modern material science." What do you imagine this literature would look like? Would it simply be a list of successful therapies and remedies employed by spiritual researchers, or would it be a literature that invites introspective development just like the lecture cycle as a whole does? The literature that we do have from Steiner is clearly oriented toward the latter.

'No hope' is a more extreme way of putting it than 'no guarantee', but I think they are both pointing to the inwardly discerned reality that the mere presentation of intellectual insights and outer successes may not only fail to stimulate inner development, but also paralyze the motivation to pursue such development. I think the history of the Anthroposophical society is in some ways a testimony to this reality as well - for example, souls who are more than satisfied with studying things like homeopathic medicine and 'knowing' all the remedies that should be used for various conditions. Why should I inwardly develop and pursue my own inner research when I can just wait for the clairvoyants to give me more holistic remedies to use and present to others for use?

[Federica]

I don't agree that your interpretation is what he said, and this has happened a few times already with various quotes from Steiner, so that's why I continue to discuss it. That this interpretation is also at odds with what I have discerned from living experience re: default intellectual tendencies and limitations, and what we have discussed on this forum from various angles, only lends support that Steiner would not have intended it in that way. There is a significant discrepancy in how we are approaching and understanding various passages from Steiner on this topic, which probably points to deeper factors that can be explored. But only if one is willing to admit that their interpretation may not be completely aligned with the meaning that is being expressed, as that meaning takes shape within the wider context of Steiner's lecturing on these topics. We can find quite a few passages where Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to properly grasp the results of supersensible research.

Another angle is to consider Levin's research that you have summarized recently, and which, I don't think anyone can doubt, has led and will continue to lead to enormously practical results. As we know, Levin still functionally conceives of the nested intelligences of the living body as assembled from the bottom-up. Indeed, instead of stimulating introspective observation of our human-scale cognitive activity, Levin's research suggests that, the more we learn about the cognitive capacities of elemental agencies, the more true advancement we will see in biomedicine. He will say, "seeing this advancement is believing in the bio-hacking approach". Can the intellect argue with this? Can the intellect put the results of Anthroposophical medicine, which prepares its therapies and remedies through sacrificial inner development, on a scale with Levin's biohacking results and say the former clearly outweighs the latter? If we think about this enough, it reveals why there is no hope in the mere presentation of Anthroposophical therapies and remedies to stimulate inner development (which, to Cleric's point, doesn't mean we should stop pursuing, producing, and disseminating such remedies as part of our broader spiritual tasks).

Ashvin, why do you keep iterating how Steiner emphasizes that introspective development is the only way to true seeing, as if it were the bone of contention? There is no contention here, we all agree with that. And that’s also fully compatible with those Steiner’s words:

“I am convinced that as soon as these matters are presented in a clear, descriptive form, people will take this point of view: “Well, yes, I must above all heal, if I want to be a doctor, and so I will turn to what, in the first place, I disliked. If it really helps, I cannot do otherwise than adopt it. In this sense I think it would be a good thing if as soon as possible we could produce literature of a kind that would be a bridge between Spiritual Science and modern material science. It would encourage the opinion that these things help and so they cannot after all be such utter nonsense!”.


These words (and several others I quoted in the same vein) fit well with Steiners lecturing life, and emphasis on introspective development.

Then I have no idea why you characterized the quote as the 'exact opposite' of the introspective approach in an earlier post... should I just take such indications as hyperbole going forward?

Therefore, there is no need either to take them as overstatements or bad translations, or to interpret them in convoluted ways, as if Steiner didn’t mean to encourage positive opinions in those who thought of spiritual science as utter nonsense. He did want to encourage that. As we can see, he argued it would be a good thing that those people see that anthroposophical medicine really helps, and form the opinion that it should be adopted, as a consequence of the matter being presented to them in “clear and descriptive form” (that it should be a descriptive form is particularly telling).

You say there is “no hope” that the presentation of Anthroposophical medicine may end up stimulating an interest in inner development. Cleric says there is “no guarantee", and Steiner says it would be a “good thing”, that would encourage opponents to change their opinion and adopt that medicine.

Do you interpret “no hope” and “no guarantee” as having the same meaning?
Do you interpret “no hope” and “a good thing that would encourage opinion change” as having the same meaning?

Now you have restated the original bone of contention I was responding to, which, just above, you said doesn't exist. I hope you can appreciate how your various indications on this thread can become somewhat confusing.

What you are doing, according to my perspective, is often referred to as 'confirmation bias'. You are interpreting Steiner's passage to mean only what you prefer him to mean, based on your idea that presenting the results would encourage opinions to change. Steiner says it would be good to "produce literature of a kind that would be a bridge between Spiritual Science and modern material science." What do you imagine this literature would look like? Would it simply be a list of successful therapies and remedies employed by spiritual researchers, or would it be a literature that invites introspective development just like the lecture cycle as a whole does? The literature that we do have from Steiner is clearly oriented toward the latter.

'No hope' is a more extreme way of putting it than 'no guarantee', but I think they are both pointing to the inwardly discerned reality that the mere presentation of intellectual insights and outer successes may not only fail to stimulate inner development, but also paralyze the motivation to pursue such development. I think the history of the Anthroposophical society is in some ways a testimony to this reality as well - for example, souls who are more than satisfied with studying things like homeopathic medicine and 'knowing' all the remedies that should be used for various conditions. Why should I inwardly develop and pursue my own inner research when I can just wait for the clairvoyants to give me more holistic remedies to use and present to others for use?

Ashvin, I don't get why you are doing this. Steiner's words, and Cleric's, are there for everyone to read. If you want to understand them the way you describe, OK, but we are not going to take infinite rounds on this one thing, please.
I see no benefit in going down into the details of this yet another time, and take yet another round. What's going on here? It seems almost like you are taking it like a chess game, trying to give me a chessmate at every round... please...

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, I don't get why you are doing this. Steiner's words, and Cleric's, are there for everyone to read. If you want to understand them the way you describe, OK, but we are not going to take infinite rounds on this one thing, please.
I see no benefit in going down into the details of this yet another time, and take yet another round. What's going on here? It seems almost like you are taking it like a chess game, trying to give me a chessmate at every round... please...

Why am I responding to your insistent assertions on this thread that there is another, 'exact opposite' of the introspective approach, that Steiner was presenting? Why do I give you the inner reasons why we should be skeptical of those biased interpretations? Those are your questions?

Federica, it is always you who starts these discussions, pushes back on something I said, digs the hole deeper and deeper with more and more bold assertions, misconstruing quotes along the way (assuming the mere 'words' are immediately transparent in their meaning), and then feel confused as to why I am responding. You get irritated and frustrated when presented with reasoning and examples that should instead spark enthusiasm to deepen your orientation and self-knowledge. I'm sorry, but it is a classic case of losing track of the red circle's movements, where the latter feels "as if moving completely on its own, as some completely foreign object."

I really wish you would awaken to this tendency at some point and allow yourself to learn from these exchanges. Your periodic focus on the importance of the outer methods and presentations to 'opposers of Anthroposophy' concerns me precisely because I see that the introspective approach, when it comes to our real-time discussions, is lacking. Precisely because, from your perspective, we are going round after round in loops and nothing is truly clicking or changing for you. We should always understand ourselves as opposers to the introspective path in some ways - a shadowy part of us is always rebelling against this path and recruiting the intellect to justify its rebellion.

[Federica]

Perhaps you should simply stop trying to fix me, especially with remedies such as this:

"Another angle is to consider Levin's research that you have summarized recently, and which, I don't think anyone can doubt, has led and will continue to lead to enormously practical results. As we know, Levin still functionally conceives of the nested intelligences of the living body as assembled from the bottom-up. Indeed, instead of stimulating introspective observation of our human-scale cognitive activity, Levin's research suggests that, the more we learn about the cognitive capacities of elemental agencies, the more true advancement we will see in biomedicine. He will say, "seeing this advancement is believing in the bio-hacking approach". Can the intellect argue with this? Can the intellect put the results of Anthroposophical medicine, which prepares its therapies and remedies through sacrificial inner development, on a scale with Levin's biohacking results and say the former clearly outweighs the latter? If we think about this enough, it reveals why there is no hope in the mere presentation of Anthroposophical therapies and remedies to stimulate inner development (which, to Cleric's point, doesn't mean we should stop pursuing, producing, and disseminating such remedies as part of our broader spiritual tasks)",

with the expectation that I shall be enthusiastic (as you say I should be) about the deepening in self-knowledge you are giving me.

[AshvinP]

Perhaps you should simply stop trying to fix me, especially with remedies such as this:

"Another angle is to consider Levin's research that you have summarized recently, and which, I don't think anyone can doubt, has led and will continue to lead to enormously practical results. As we know, Levin still functionally conceives of the nested intelligences of the living body as assembled from the bottom-up. Indeed, instead of stimulating introspective observation of our human-scale cognitive activity, Levin's research suggests that, the more we learn about the cognitive capacities of elemental agencies, the more true advancement we will see in biomedicine. He will say, "seeing this advancement is believing in the bio-hacking approach". Can the intellect argue with this? Can the intellect put the results of Anthroposophical medicine, which prepares its therapies and remedies through sacrificial inner development, on a scale with Levin's biohacking results and say the former clearly outweighs the latter? If we think about this enough, it reveals why there is no hope in the mere presentation of Anthroposophical therapies and remedies to stimulate inner development (which, to Cleric's point, doesn't mean we should stop pursuing, producing, and disseminating such remedies as part of our broader spiritual tasks)",

with the expectation that I shall be enthusiastic (as you say I should be) about the deepening in self-knowledge you are giving me.

Perhaps I should have elaborated on that more, because I think it is a very strong point that speaks directly to the 'seeing is believing' hope and how it can not only fail to stimulate, but backfire in an infernal direction. If the intellect further conditions its expectations on the value of immediate outer successes, then it will eventually feel like biohacking is far superior to any inner development. But I am not sure if you understood why it was introduced, or if you even want to understand at this point.