I find it painful to try extract from this or that quote whether Steiner or Schop were 'right' about X. All these questions can be settled if we simply encompass the overall spirt of the heritage each has left. Assuming neither of them was erratic individual, who wrote random things, it's clear that in their life's works they tried to put down coherent descriptions of their own spiritual perspectives. Their perspectives are so different that in certain cases it simply makes no sense to say "Maybe Steiner misunderstood Schop, maybe they were talking about the same thing after all?"
Isn't it quite clear what Schop spoke about? Why dismiss the overall pessimistic mood, which alone allows us to understand most of his philosophy? I've already spoken about this. This mood is the result of the ego living in the mental pictures, feeling as a slave emergent property of the blind Will giant.
Compare this with Steiner where behind the mental pictures live intuitions, which are the very universal essence of the creative Cosmos. This opens the road for evolution of Man into the wide expanses, to find there the moral impulses for the transformation of personal, social and planetary life. Spiritual science reveals before us a world of possibilities that can fill Life with meaning up to the brim.
It simply makes no sense to say something like "Well, Schop was pessimist, he thought life could never have any meaning. The only solace for the meaningless existence of the ego living in mental pictures was to at least contemplate what is aesthetically beautiful in ascetic lifestyle.
Yet this doesn't mean that he didn't see man as capable of evolving and expanding consciousness, such that the World Will can become conscious of itself at more and more Macrocosmic scales." It's like saying "Yes, he spoke everywhere that the world is black but maybe scholars simply didn't understand him. Maybe with everything he wrote about blackness, he actually meant white. Or maybe he was about to explain about the whiteness but died before that."
If this is the thesis at the core of this thread - I give up. After all, FB takes PoF and reads in it the exact opposite of the written, what's left about reading into what Schop has
not written. The possibilities are endless
What's the point of arguing Schop vs. Stein when you refuse to read into what is
literally written in PoF - that in Thinking intuitions we live in the actual spiritual essence of reality? You insist that it's all mental pictures, the shadow copies of reality. I won't quote PoF again, where Steiner says it as explicitly as it can ever be, since you simply ignore it and think he was either wrong, or overstated it, or he was not articulate enough to make his 'actual' point that in thinking we live only in mental pictures of the real thing-in-itself (Will or otherwise).
I had some fun in the other thread with all the detective work to figure out your position but this isn't really fun anymore. You have completely virtual pictures for both Schop and Stein. As said, for Steiner you simply invent whatever meaning you want behind his words and ignore/declare wrong whatever you don't like. In Schop you're even freer because you argue about what he
might have thought but never written down. I don't see what kind of meaningful discussion we can have on these grounds.