Steve Petermann wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:45 pm
Cleric K wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:59 pm
Yet theology can't cross into the divine transcendent depths, it can only feel them.
If by "cross" you are suggesting some demarcation or divide, I would disagree. As I have said many times, the divine transcendent depth is present everywhere in this reality. There is nothing to cross but there are depths to be probed. How do we probe those depths? I think we do it both with our explications (theology), our intuitions and within each moment of experienced life.
Explications can help us get our bearings in a spiritual journey. They aren't some inert abstractions. While they are abstractions and the words associated with them, they also contain power, just as depicted in Genesis, "Let there be light.". Accordingly, theology can tap into the power of transcendent depths. However, while metaphysical formulations may inform our journey, they aren't the be-all-end-all. Remarkable exemplars in history weren't necessarily well versed in theology or religious philosophy and still offered remarkable examples of love, compassion, and all the other noble traits I've mentioned before. People are different in their cognitive/intuitive/thinking/feeling makeup. I think there is a step that any theology or metaphysical system has to take. For all the detailed work on formulations, if it can't be distilled in a way that at least well-educated people can make sense of, it will fall flat and be of no use except for the few that are able to understand it.
So, here's the issue as I see it. I've read several of your posts. I can grasp some of it but much of it remains elusive to me. This reminds me of my introduction to the theology of Paul Tillich in my theology studies. At first, his theology seemed beyond reach because it offered a very different approach and language than I was used to. (Novices in process philosophy say the same thing.) However, I sensed there was something profound in it so I kept reading. I put in the work. Eventually, I became familiar with his language and concepts. Then it made sense to me but it required becoming embedded in his thought. Over time I found things I take issue with and other things that are profound.
You and AshvinP are obviously well versed in the resources for your approach. Most of us are not. For instance, capitalizing Thinking means nothing to me because I don't know what that means. There are other concepts that have, I think, special meaning within the broad system. Both you and he have complained many times about being misunderstood. I think you may be right in some cases but that would be normal for those not embedded in the full gamut of the approach. Asking people to read PoF or some other important text so they'll understand is a big ask unless you can convince them somehow that you are really onto something. In order to do that you may need to "dumb it down" to a level where those who are not embedded in the approach can decide if they want to put in the work. These could be short distilled texts or YouTube-like videos. Typically, I think, there are two ways metaphysical systems become mainstream or have a large following. One is to have prominent scholars or knowledgeable influencers recommend it. Another is that it goes viral because of word of mouth. Both are very difficult to achieve.
Steve,
Since Cleric is asleep, I am going to offer some responses here, and I am sure he can correct or elaborate as necessary.
Please note that any previous frustration from us (mostly me) is not due to anyone who has been commenting on these things for less than a month, or even less than three months, such as yourself (there was an exception with ParadoxZone, which I now feel bad about, because she definitely was not commenting much) . I think my current frustration threshold is 3-6 months of answering the same questions and dealing with the same misrepresentations. I hope to expand that out further as I spiritually mature. Your post above is exactly what Cleric and I are looking for. You are reading the material and you coming up with thoughtful issues and questions. Speaking for myself, I do not write essays and posts so they can lie there inert, or simply draw a few comments of agreement and "good work". I am very passionate to delve deeper into these spiritual issues with other people, because obviously those opportunities are virtually non-existent apart from the online sphere.
Anyway, back to your post. It is correct that Steiner has addressed all of these issues, and so have we via essays on this forum. For ex., I am writing essays on integral mythology which I think directly address your points about the Biblical imagery and what it means in a
holistic and evolutionary context. I don't think we can isolate any one aspect of that imagery without considering its relation to the Whole Biblical Organism (and I even go beyond into ancient Indian and Greek mythology, hopefully ancient Persian and Egyptian as well). You have expressed doubts about the "
spiritual evolution" before and that will be a major sticking point, as very little can make sense without that context (which we also refer to as "metamorphic" progression sometimes). But I am not going to refer to you those right now, because I want to address the points directly.
Steve wrote:If by "cross" you are suggesting some demarcation or divide, I would disagree. As I have said many times, the divine transcendent depth is present everywhere in this reality. There is nothing to cross but there are depths to be probed. How do we probe those depths? I think we do it both with our explications (theology), our intuitions and within each moment of experienced life.
We are in complete agreement here on most of that. The spiritual reality is omnipresent and there are no hard demarcations or boundaries. It is only
our perspective on the spiritual which is obscured by complex and fragmented relations. So if ever we talk about "crossing", "ascending", "transitioning", or any similar terms, to the spiritual realms, it should be taken as physical imagery for unveiling the omnipresent spiritual within our own perspective (or as Gebser would say, transcending "perspective" altogether to 'aperspectival' consciousness). The bolded part is a problem because "theology" essentially means chains of abstract intellectual concepts about the spiritual. I have never heard someone speak of "theology" which is carried out by higher cognition. So that intellectual theology is pure horizontal thinking, like musical melodies without any depth and verticality of harmonies.
When we say "Thinking" with capital "T", it is to emphasize the vertical aspect of cognition, which is intellect transfigured into
imaginative thinking (also inspired and intuitive, but we can leave those aside for now). That is how the Spirit reaches back to itself
through us and makes mere flattened picture-concepts into full and rich
images; adds
thought-harmony to thought-melody; makes prosaic language into poetic language. It is correct that this sort of transfiguration occurs all the time through the aesthetic fields, but mostly it occurs
subconsciously, i.e. not with conscious awareness of what is occurring. It can also occur within intellectual philosophy, science, and theology, but that is much more rare and it is even more subconscious at that level of abstraction. There is no consistency to it and it cannot be willed consciously by the intellect. Most importantly, the intellect fails to perceive the need to
go beyond itself - rather it is perfectly comfortable convincing itself that nothing further is needed to deepen experience and knowledge. I think we see clear examples of that on this forum all the time.
Steve wrote:For all the detailed work on formulations, if it can't be distilled in a way that at least well-educated people can make sense of, it will fall flat and be of no use except for the few that are able to understand it.
Related to what I said above about the intellect wanting to always remain in control, the key is this - we need to recognize it is
our own perceptive-cognitive limitation which makes these things "fall flat". In fact, that is a great image of what the intellect does - it takes rich and meaningful images and
flattens them out, and then it smugly discards
its own flattened images as "useless" because they can no longer be meaningfully connected back to their sources. It is the quintessential example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, or simply creating artificial "problems" for oneself that cannot be solved so as to avoid the responsibility of solving the real problems.
Steve wrote:I think you may be right in some cases but that would be normal for those not embedded in the full gamut of the approach. Asking people to read PoF or some other important text so they'll understand is a big ask unless you can convince them somehow that you are really onto something. In order to do that you may need to "dumb it down" to a level where those who are not embedded in the approach can decide if they want to put in the work.
Well there are a lot of issues with this approach you suggest. First, the reason we recommend Steiner's PoF is because it is 200 or so pages, not super abstract analytical philosophy, and it lays the entire phenomenological foundation by which people can easily
ascend to the higher spiritual concepts, so that nothing needs to be "dumbed down". Again, that is the intellectual ego asking for everything to be formulated on its own flattened terms. Then it will look at those inert concepts and conclude there is nothing of value in the spiritual approach. That "ascension" approach is the spiritual image of every human endeavor where someone says "it is just too difficult for me" and, if ever they happen to push harder, almost without fail, they find strength
within themselves that they didn't even know existed, and they would never know existed until they actually made the attempt to push harder in
good faith. It is the image of "
But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."
In this case, the "push harder" is simply to read PoF, or one of Cleric's numerous essays, so it's actually not even that much of a push. No physical exertion is required, no massive time commitment, no financial resources. There is no deadline to complete reading - take as much time as you want. And continue asking questions here as you go along, because I think it should be clear that both of us are very willing to answer them and continue a dialogue in good will. Again, I only get frustrated when misrepresentations occur for months on end, because it shows people are actively trying to dismiss the arguments without considering them. I don't think that is the case with you at all, so I hope we can all continue a productive discussion from here.