Anthroposophy for Dummies

[Anthony66]

In relation to the previous comments, we should see here how there is nothing "impersonal" about our own Thinking activity, in the sense of a nebulous force-field that we are somehow tapping into. That is unfortunately how modern people are habitually inclined to perceive their own spiritual activity. That is because we focus on the end results of that activity, i.e. the abstract verbal chatter we perceive in our heads, rather than the activity itself. If we are never inclined to turn our attention towards that activity, then obviously it will remain as something dark and nebulous, something vague and impersonal. Prayer offered to the Spirit, i.e. prayer that one's own Thinking can become a more choice offering, is one great way of directly turning towards that activity. It is true that this activity fuses our individuality into the Whole, but that gradual process of becoming is no less personal than a child becoming an adult. The adult is [hopefully] a more integrated form of the child. That is also your relation to the highest Spirit, who is not coincidentally referred to as the Father.

Thanks for your ongoing patience with my questions. The conceptual framework of different personal agencies in Deep Mind is something I'm continuing to struggle with. Your answer here suggests the highest Spirit with its own personal agency is nonetheless part and parcel of my Thinking activity. It doesn't make much sense then to speak about distinct personal agencies. What am I missing?

[AshvinP]

In relation to the previous comments, we should see here how there is nothing "impersonal" about our own Thinking activity, in the sense of a nebulous force-field that we are somehow tapping into. That is unfortunately how modern people are habitually inclined to perceive their own spiritual activity. That is because we focus on the end results of that activity, i.e. the abstract verbal chatter we perceive in our heads, rather than the activity itself. If we are never inclined to turn our attention towards that activity, then obviously it will remain as something dark and nebulous, something vague and impersonal. Prayer offered to the Spirit, i.e. prayer that one's own Thinking can become a more choice offering, is one great way of directly turning towards that activity. It is true that this activity fuses our individuality into the Whole, but that gradual process of becoming is no less personal than a child becoming an adult. The adult is [hopefully] a more integrated form of the child. That is also your relation to the highest Spirit, who is not coincidentally referred to as the Father.

Thanks for your ongoing patience with my questions. The conceptual framework of different personal agencies in Deep Mind is something I'm continuing to struggle with. Your answer here suggests the highest Spirit with its own personal agency is nonetheless part and parcel of my Thinking activity. It doesn't make much sense then to speak about distinct personal agencies. What am I missing?

Anthony,

Let me try a different approach. It is commonly accepted in psychology that we are influenced by the agency of others. Of course that is obvious from plain observation, but I mean in more technical sense of projection, displacement, suggestion, etc. even up to hypnosis. So clearly thoughts, feelings, and perhaps even desires can be 'incepted' within us from other agencies. Spiritual science takes that same phenomenon and explains why it occurs. The underlying reasons are mostly found within the spiritual realm, i.e. the activity of other living beings who are not visible to our current cognition (like certain portions of Light spectrum are not visible).

We can analogize the Light to the highest Spirit which works through all ideational beings in distinct modes and measures (and that is how it is symbolized in all spiritual traditions). So that's also a key point - these supersensible beings also work through human agencies to influence experience here. We often speak of the "spirit of a" culture, nation, people, epoch, etc. SS says we make this metaphor so naturally because it reflects a real supersensible relation that exists between us and other ideational beings at many different scales from individual to collective. This is also why we can ever speak of individuals as "microcosm of the macrocosm".

[AshvinP]

In relation to the previous comments, we should see here how there is nothing "impersonal" about our own Thinking activity, in the sense of a nebulous force-field that we are somehow tapping into. That is unfortunately how modern people are habitually inclined to perceive their own spiritual activity. That is because we focus on the end results of that activity, i.e. the abstract verbal chatter we perceive in our heads, rather than the activity itself. If we are never inclined to turn our attention towards that activity, then obviously it will remain as something dark and nebulous, something vague and impersonal. Prayer offered to the Spirit, i.e. prayer that one's own Thinking can become a more choice offering, is one great way of directly turning towards that activity. It is true that this activity fuses our individuality into the Whole, but that gradual process of becoming is no less personal than a child becoming an adult. The adult is [hopefully] a more integrated form of the child. That is also your relation to the highest Spirit, who is not coincidentally referred to as the Father.

Thanks for your ongoing patience with my questions. The conceptual framework of different personal agencies in Deep Mind is something I'm continuing to struggle with. Your answer here suggests the highest Spirit with its own personal agency is nonetheless part and parcel of my Thinking activity. It doesn't make much sense then to speak about distinct personal agencies. What am I missing?

Anthony,

Let me try a different approach. It is commonly accepted in psychology that we are influenced by the agency of others. Of course that is obvious from plain observation, but I mean in more technical sense of projection, displacement, suggestion, etc. even up to hypnosis. So clearly thoughts, feelings, and perhaps even desires can be 'incepted' within us from other agencies. Spiritual science takes that same phenomenon and explains why it occurs. The underlying reasons are mostly found within the spiritual realm, i.e. the activity of other living beings who are not visible to our current cognition (like certain portions of Light spectrum are not visible).

We can analogize the Light to the highest Spirit which works through all ideational beings in distinct modes and measures (and that is how it is symbolized in all spiritual traditions). So that's also a key point - these supersensible beings also work through human agencies to influence experience here. We often speak of the "spirit of a" culture, nation, people, epoch, etc. SS says we make this metaphor so naturally because it reflects a real supersensible relation that exists between us and other ideational beings at many different scales from individual to collective. This is also why we we can ever speak of individuals as "microcosm of the macrocosm".

I will add here that Nietzsche, William James, Jung and others spoke of the individual human as an ecosystem of nested living organisms (even Hoffman and McGilchrist speak about this in terms of RB-LB dynamics). So that is just to point out that the idea of our inner experience being constituted through the activity of other living beings is nothing unique to spiritual science. The main difference comes in the scope and depth of resolution on these dynamics.

[Anthony66]

Let me try a different approach. It is commonly accepted in psychology that we are influenced by the agency of others. Of course that is obvious from plain observation, but I mean in more technical sense of projection, displacement, suggestion, etc. even up to hypnosis. So clearly thoughts, feelings, and perhaps even desires can be 'incepted' within us from other agencies. Spiritual science takes that same phenomenon and explains why it occurs. The underlying reasons are mostly found within the spiritual realm, i.e. the activity of other living beings who are not visible to our current cognition (like certain portions of Light spectrum are not visible).

We can analogize the Light to the highest Spirit which works through all ideational beings in distinct modes and measures (and that is how it is symbolized in all spiritual traditions). So that's also a key point - these supersensible beings also work through human agencies to influence experience here. We often speak of the "spirit of a" culture, nation, people, epoch, etc. SS says we make this metaphor so naturally because it reflects a real supersensible relation that exists between us and other ideational beings at many different scales from individual to collective. This is also why we can ever speak of individuals as "microcosm of the macrocosm".

That was helpful. And it sort of makes sense in terms of the plethora of mental activity that fills one's mind most of the time. But when one is deeply concentrated, perhaps solving a difficult mathematical problem, thinking is structured and it seems hard to fathom how these different ideational beings might be impacting that activity.

Going back to the issue of perception, I wondering how one understands our sense apparatus. Both you and Cleric use the term physical senses which sounds like the talk of a physicalist. I'm imagining this is a concession to brevity and more precisely you'd say the sense organs are partial appearances of mental processes. Is that correct and could you expand?

[AshvinP]

Let me try a different approach. It is commonly accepted in psychology that we are influenced by the agency of others. Of course that is obvious from plain observation, but I mean in more technical sense of projection, displacement, suggestion, etc. even up to hypnosis. So clearly thoughts, feelings, and perhaps even desires can be 'incepted' within us from other agencies. Spiritual science takes that same phenomenon and explains why it occurs. The underlying reasons are mostly found within the spiritual realm, i.e. the activity of other living beings who are not visible to our current cognition (like certain portions of Light spectrum are not visible).

We can analogize the Light to the highest Spirit which works through all ideational beings in distinct modes and measures (and that is how it is symbolized in all spiritual traditions). So that's also a key point - these supersensible beings also work through human agencies to influence experience here. We often speak of the "spirit of a" culture, nation, people, epoch, etc. SS says we make this metaphor so naturally because it reflects a real supersensible relation that exists between us and other ideational beings at many different scales from individual to collective. This is also why we can ever speak of individuals as "microcosm of the macrocosm".

That was helpful. And it sort of makes sense in terms of the plethora of mental activity that fills one's mind most of the time. But when one is deeply concentrated, perhaps solving a difficult mathematical problem, thinking is structured and it seems hard to fathom how these different ideational beings might be impacting that activity.

Going back to the issue of perception, I wondering how one understands our sense apparatus. Both you and Cleric use the term physical senses which sounds like the talk of a physicalist. I'm imagining this is a concession to brevity and more precisely you'd say the sense organs are partial appearances of mental processes. Is that correct and could you expand?

Anthony,

For the first part, when we attune and align our thinking with all of its various influences, it will naturally become more focused. It is as music instruments which are tuned to one another and therefore result in more harmonic symphony of music rather than a cacophony of dissonant tones. Perhaps Cleric can provide more substantive details.

For Part 2, I will refer you back to our previous comments on the senses-perception. Once we understand thinking as a sense-organ which perceives thought-forms and ideas, it should not be too difficult to see why the other senses are not of a different essence, i.e. they all perceive the underlying meaning which is characteristic of ideas in our most naïve experience. The differentiation of senses is certainly reflecting differences in human organization at various times in our evolutionary process, but that is the key to remember - these things are not fixed aspects of humanity for all time, but are evolving and integrating with each other. We can even see that occurring in real time now through digital technology.

[AshvinP]

Let me try a different approach. It is commonly accepted in psychology that we are influenced by the agency of others. Of course that is obvious from plain observation, but I mean in more technical sense of projection, displacement, suggestion, etc. even up to hypnosis. So clearly thoughts, feelings, and perhaps even desires can be 'incepted' within us from other agencies. Spiritual science takes that same phenomenon and explains why it occurs. The underlying reasons are mostly found within the spiritual realm, i.e. the activity of other living beings who are not visible to our current cognition (like certain portions of Light spectrum are not visible).

We can analogize the Light to the highest Spirit which works through all ideational beings in distinct modes and measures (and that is how it is symbolized in all spiritual traditions). So that's also a key point - these supersensible beings also work through human agencies to influence experience here. We often speak of the "spirit of a" culture, nation, people, epoch, etc. SS says we make this metaphor so naturally because it reflects a real supersensible relation that exists between us and other ideational beings at many different scales from individual to collective. This is also why we can ever speak of individuals as "microcosm of the macrocosm".

That was helpful. And it sort of makes sense in terms of the plethora of mental activity that fills one's mind most of the time. But when one is deeply concentrated, perhaps solving a difficult mathematical problem, thinking is structured and it seems hard to fathom how these different ideational beings might be impacting that activity.

Going back to the issue of perception, I wondering how one understands our sense apparatus. Both you and Cleric use the term physical senses which sounds like the talk of a physicalist. I'm imagining this is a concession to brevity and more precisely you'd say the sense organs are partial appearances of mental processes. Is that correct and could you expand?

Anthony,

For the first part, when we attune and align our thinking with all of its various influences, it will naturally become more focused. It is as music instruments which are tuned to one another and therefore result in more harmonic symphony of music rather than a cacophony of dissonant tones. Perhaps Cleric can provide more substantive details.

For Part 2, I will refer you back to our previous comments on the senses-perception. Once we understand thinking as a sense-organ which perceives thought-forms and ideas, it should not be too difficult to see why the other senses are not of a different essence, i.e. they all perceive the underlying meaning which is characteristic of ideas in our most naïve experience. The differentiation of senses is certainly reflecting differences in human organization at various times in our evolutionary process, but that is the key to remember - these things are not fixed aspects of humanity for all time, but are evolving and integrating with each other. We can even see that occurring in real time now through digital technology.

Also, more generally, the word "physical" is always used to distinguish between currently sense-perceptible realms (to normal cognition) and invisible "spiritual" realms. In essence, the physical is not other than the spiritual. So yes, the physical structure of eyes, ears, etc. are partial images of ideal (mental) processes. However, if we ever want to get more detailed resolution on how those processes function in our immanent experience, then we must recognize that there is ideal structure to sense-observation, inlucluding thinking activity, which can be differentiated as well. The key is to remember that physical differentiation cannot be naively transposed in order to derive the underlying ideal structure, but it can still act as a very instructive tool if we remember it is generally only one-half (or less) of the underlying essence.

[dkpstarkey]

Ashvin: So yes, the physical structure of eyes, ears, etc. are partial images of ideal (mental) processes. However, if we ever want to get more detailed resolution on how those processes function in our immanent experience, then we must recognize that there is ideal structure to sense-observation, including thinking activity, which can be differentiated as well.

Where this quote leaves off, I am left with a few questions. The author does point the way by reference to the ideal structure of observation, which includes sensing and thinking. A further step would be to ask about the place of recognition here, which requires a synthesis of a sensory experience and a higher cognitive process to decide what it should be ‘seen’ as. This process, while above bare sensations, remains mostly unconscious but occasionally calls upon conscious thinking for help.

This is as far as I have gone, before going in search and finding the article linked below. Ashvin, or Cleric, I wonder if you’re familiar with it, or with R H Brady. It seems like a useful adjunct to this discussion, and I have even begun to read it. As a Husserl scholar of sorts, I am fascinated to learn more about the Steiner-Husserl parallels. I do know that both were serious students of the Scholastics. Edith Stein, Husserl’s student, was a Thomist scholar among other things.

How long could it be before Ashvin and Cleric are known as 'the new Scholastics'?

https://www.natureinstitute.org/s/RBrad ... teiner.pdf

[AshvinP]

Ashvin: So yes, the physical structure of eyes, ears, etc. are partial images of ideal (mental) processes. However, if we ever want to get more detailed resolution on how those processes function in our immanent experience, then we must recognize that there is ideal structure to sense-observation, including thinking activity, which can be differentiated as well.

Where this quote leaves off, I am left with a few questions. The author does point the way by reference to the ideal structure of observation, which includes sensing and thinking. A further step would be to ask about the place of recognition here, which requires a synthesis of a sensory experience and a higher cognitive process to decide what it should be ‘seen’ as. This process, while above bare sensations, remains mostly unconscious but occasionally calls upon conscious thinking for help.

This is as far as I have gone, before going in search and finding the article linked below. Ashvin, or Cleric, I wonder if you’re familiar with it, or with R H Brady. It seems like a useful adjunct to this discussion, and I have even begun to read it. As a Husserl scholar of sorts, I am fascinated to learn more about the Steiner-Husserl parallels. I do know that both were serious students of the Scholastics. Edith Stein, Husserl’s student, was a Thomist scholar among other things.

How long could it be before Ashvin and Cleric are known as 'the new Scholastics'?

https://www.natureinstitute.org/s/RBrad ... teiner.pdf

Thanks, DKP, for the fine, even if exaggerated, complement And also for the link - I will defnitely give it a read soon.

In case you missed it, I discuss Husserl a bit in my latest essay (linked below). I am also just becoming more familiar with his phenomenology, and I agree the parallels with Steiner's thought are definitely there.


viewtopic.php?f=5&t=614

"In the “perception of a melody", we distinguish the tone given now,which we term the “perceived”, from those which have gone by, which we say are “not perceived.” On the other hand, we call the whole melody one that is perceived, although only the now-point actually is... Objectively considered, the measure no longer appears as “present” but as “past.” The whole melody, however, appears as present so long as it still sounds, so long as the notes belonging to it, intended in the one nexus of apprehensions, still sound. The melody is past only after the last note has gone."

- Edmund Husserl, On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time (1928)


Husserl was speaking of the musical melody as an overarching idea which unites the 'frames' of the particular notes. We all have the experience of listening to new music and anticipating notes and lyrics before they are played and spoken. How do we explain this prophetic capacity? It is only because we perceive the overarching ideas of "melody" and "story" with our cognition - ideas which 'hover above' the individual parts of the song and invisibly unite them - that our cognition is able to discern those particular aspects of the composition within the ideal structure before they are individually perceived (heard). Take a few moments and let the implications of that observation sink in. What holds true for the "melody"-idea in music holds true for all overarching temporal ideas in our experience, such as "getting out of bed to take a shower", "finishing a paper for school", "going to work for the day", "taking a two-week vacation", "entering my 35th year of life", and so on. It is as if the ideal content of all activities, past and future, is already present in the ideal "now". We can also perceive how many ideas with shorter timespans are nested within increasingly fewer ideas as the timespans increase. The meaning of "going to work for the day" has no separate existence apart from the overarching idea of "living through my 35th year of life". Without the latter, the former ceases to have meaning.

[dkpstarkey]

Thanks, DKP, for the fine, even if exaggerated, complement And also for the link - I will defnitely give it a read soon.

In case you missed it, I discuss Husserl a bit in my latest essay (linked below). I am also just becoming more familiar with his phenomenology, and I agree the parallels with Steiner's thought are definitely there.

Glad to hear you're reading some Husserl. He's really an important source.
As for the compliment, I'm glad you take it that way. I could have just been saying, you are long-winded and fond of argumentation!

[AshvinP]

Thanks, DKP, for the fine, even if exaggerated, complement And also for the link - I will defnitely give it a read soon.

In case you missed it, I discuss Husserl a bit in my latest essay (linked below). I am also just becoming more familiar with his phenomenology, and I agree the parallels with Steiner's thought are definitely there.

Glad to hear you're reading some Husserl. He's really an important source.
As for the compliment, I'm glad you take it that way. I could have just been saying, you are long-winded and fond of argumentation!

Yeah, so how is that different from a complement?

Speaking of which, I forgot to address your comment below.

Where this quote leaves off, I am left with a few questions. The author does point the way by reference to the ideal structure of observation, which includes sensing and thinking. A further step would be to ask about the place of recognition here, which requires a synthesis of a sensory experience and a higher cognitive process to decide what it should be ‘seen’ as. This process, while above bare sensations, remains mostly unconscious but occasionally calls upon conscious thinking for help.

I need more elaboration to figure out what exactly you are pointing to when saying "to decide what it should be seen as"?