Anthroposophy for Dummies

[Anthony66]

Cleric,

I'm still pondering this sense perception/intuition distinction. What I'm struggling with is how we understand intuitions that appear in our consciousness before we "undress the layers of conditioning". If we haven't reached the state of intuitive cognition, how do we have intuitions? Can we understand them as murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions?

We shouldn't imagine the stages of cognition as completely separate floors of existence. If we use the folding metaphor again, it should be clear that we experience something of Intuition even in this moment.

Lastly, at the fourth stage of knowledge Inspiration also ceases. Of the elements customarily observed in everyday knowledge, the ego alone remains to be considered. The attainment of this stage by the occult student is marked by a definite inner experience. This experience manifests itself in the feeling that he no longer stands outside the things and occurrences that he recognises, but is himself within them. images are not the object, but merely its imprint. Also, inspiration does not yield up the object itself, but only tells about it. But what now lives in the soul is in reality the object itself. The ego has streamed forth over all beings; it has merged with them. The actual living of things within the soul is Intuition. When it is said of Intuition that “through it man creeps into all things,” this is literally true. — In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself, for the ego can in no way be perceived from without; it can only be experienced in the inner life.

https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA012/Engli ... 2_c01.html

So Intuition shouldn't be thought of as something which gives us consciousness only of the higher worlds. It is really the knowing essence of our existence. Probably the closest concept for those familiar with nondual philosophies would be 'awareness'. To be aware implies certain intuitive knowing. Of course, knowing not in conceptual sense. Maybe we can compare this with a kind of intuitive orientation. For example when you look at your room you don't have to think of anything in particular yet you feel 'oriented', you simply know what you're experiencing, it 'makes sense', you are not lost or confused about it.

As the quote above goes, this kind of knowing, for the normal man of today, is experienced only in respect to our "I". The "I" is like the coherent intuition which makes sense of the stream of existence.

Today we understand the world as far as everything that we experience fits in the intuition of our "I"-existence. After all, we can't really speak of understanding of anything outside our experience. Even if we imagine that we understand the universe from a bird eye view, all of this is still the very human philosophical experience of our own "I".

We speak of Intuitive cognition when we know the true nature of the world in the same way we know our "I".

So if "we experience something of Intuition even in this moment" surely this must be only "murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions". Otherwise, why bother with the development of higher cognition. Further, Steiner says, "In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself". Is Steiner here dismissing our moral intuitions for example?

[AshvinP]

Cleric,

I'm still pondering this sense perception/intuition distinction. What I'm struggling with is how we understand intuitions that appear in our consciousness before we "undress the layers of conditioning". If we haven't reached the state of intuitive cognition, how do we have intuitions? Can we understand them as murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions?

We shouldn't imagine the stages of cognition as completely separate floors of existence. If we use the folding metaphor again, it should be clear that we experience something of Intuition even in this moment.

Lastly, at the fourth stage of knowledge Inspiration also ceases. Of the elements customarily observed in everyday knowledge, the ego alone remains to be considered. The attainment of this stage by the occult student is marked by a definite inner experience. This experience manifests itself in the feeling that he no longer stands outside the things and occurrences that he recognises, but is himself within them. images are not the object, but merely its imprint. Also, inspiration does not yield up the object itself, but only tells about it. But what now lives in the soul is in reality the object itself. The ego has streamed forth over all beings; it has merged with them. The actual living of things within the soul is Intuition. When it is said of Intuition that “through it man creeps into all things,” this is literally true. — In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself, for the ego can in no way be perceived from without; it can only be experienced in the inner life.

https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA012/Engli ... 2_c01.html

So Intuition shouldn't be thought of as something which gives us consciousness only of the higher worlds. It is really the knowing essence of our existence. Probably the closest concept for those familiar with nondual philosophies would be 'awareness'. To be aware implies certain intuitive knowing. Of course, knowing not in conceptual sense. Maybe we can compare this with a kind of intuitive orientation. For example when you look at your room you don't have to think of anything in particular yet you feel 'oriented', you simply know what you're experiencing, it 'makes sense', you are not lost or confused about it.

As the quote above goes, this kind of knowing, for the normal man of today, is experienced only in respect to our "I". The "I" is like the coherent intuition which makes sense of the stream of existence.

Today we understand the world as far as everything that we experience fits in the intuition of our "I"-existence. After all, we can't really speak of understanding of anything outside our experience. Even if we imagine that we understand the universe from a bird eye view, all of this is still the very human philosophical experience of our own "I".

We speak of Intuitive cognition when we know the true nature of the world in the same way we know our "I".

So if "we experience something of Intuition even in this moment" surely this must be only "murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions". Otherwise, why bother with the development of higher cognition. Further, Steiner says, "In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself". Is Steiner here dismissing our moral intuitions for example?

It is only through our ego-experience that we can speak of morality. We recognize that certain beings are not morally culpable for their actions because they lack ego-experience or it has been severely compromised - animals, infants, certain forms of insanity, heavily intoxicated (by no fault of their own), people under duress (gun held to their heads and forced to commit a crime). If we ask how these differences came about, why they exist, what is their deeper significance in our stream of evolution (individual and collective), how does our ego-conscious moral experience relate to the natural world and the unmanifest worlds yet to come, etc., most people would have little clue. These are the mysteries of existence which are unveiled, as living inner experience, through higher cognition.

[LukeJTM]

What is the "Ego", or ego structure? And how is it connected to the "I" or "I AM"?

[AshvinP]

What is the "Ego", or ego structure? And how is it connected to the "I" or "I AM"?

It is basically the same thing. Some confusion arises because when people say "ego" they are generally referring to what esotericism knows as the 'lower self' or 'lower ego', which is the isolated personality that identifies itself with the body and the personal soul-life of desires, emotions, memories, beliefs, etc. The lower self identifies with only what has been already actualized in the stream of becoming. That is in contrast to the higher self or the individuality which passes through incarnations and adorns bodies and personalities like clothing, i.e. the entelechy - "that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential." That is the true "Ego", "I" or 'I AM', which is bound up with the life of humanity (and the Earth) as a whole, not only in its past forms but also its future ideals.

[LukeJTM]

What is the "Ego", or ego structure? And how is it connected to the "I" or "I AM"?

It is basically the same thing. Some confusion arises because when people say "ego" they are generally referring to what esotericism knows as the 'lower self' or 'lower ego', which is the isolated personality that identifies itself with the body and the personal soul-life of desires, emotions, memories, beliefs, etc. The lower self identifies with only what has been already actualized in the stream of becoming. That is in contrast to the higher self or the individuality which passes through incarnations and adorns bodies and personalities like clothing, i.e. the entelechy - "that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential." That is the true "Ego", "I" or 'I AM', which is bound up with the life of humanity (and the Earth) as a whole, not only in its past forms but also its future ideals.

Thanks for explaining. Yes I have interacted with different people about this and gotten varying definitions for "ego", so thanks for clarifying what it means on here.
I am unsure what you mean by "the stream of becoming." Could you explain more about that?

[Cleric K]

So if "we experience something of Intuition even in this moment" surely this must be only "murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions". Otherwise, why bother with the development of higher cognition. Further, Steiner says, "In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself". Is Steiner here dismissing our moral intuitions for example?

Here "only one intuition" should be understood not as some specific piece of knowledge but rather the mode of knowing. Intuition is the knowing experience of our spiritual being. If I may so express it, it's the knowing by virtue of be-ing. The awareness of existing and being spiritually active. They key here is that this knowledge is experienced as direct intuition. It is of course supported and reflected in conscious phenomena but the intuition is not contained in the perceptions as some additional exotic hue, for example.

Let's take "I think therefore I am". It is well known that this statement could be misunderstood in many ways. For example one can say "I see colors therefore I am". On the surface it seems we can restate this idea for just about anything. Every form of conscious experience shows that consciousness exists. But in thinking there's also something else which is not contained in the thought perceptions itself. What distinguishes the experience of our thinking voice from any other voice that we hear or hallucinate? This distinguishing element can not be found in the texture of the auditory perception itself. It is the intuitive knowing that we, as spiritual activity, are somehow responsible for the words.

It is this kind of intuition that we initially know only in respect to our ego. Please note, the intuition itself doesn't need to be about the ego. It could be also moral intuitions or even the simple intuition that we think a thought. The important thing is the way in which this is known. This is what changes in higher cognition because in this most intimate knowing of our being we find the existence also of other beings.

[AshvinP]

What is the "Ego", or ego structure? And how is it connected to the "I" or "I AM"?

It is basically the same thing. Some confusion arises because when people say "ego" they are generally referring to what esotericism knows as the 'lower self' or 'lower ego', which is the isolated personality that identifies itself with the body and the personal soul-life of desires, emotions, memories, beliefs, etc. The lower self identifies with only what has been already actualized in the stream of becoming. That is in contrast to the higher self or the individuality which passes through incarnations and adorns bodies and personalities like clothing, i.e. the entelechy - "that which realizes or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential." That is the true "Ego", "I" or 'I AM', which is bound up with the life of humanity (and the Earth) as a whole, not only in its past forms but also its future ideals.

Thanks for explaining. Yes I have interacted with different people about this and gotten varying definitions for "ego", so thanks for clarifying what it means on here.
I am unsure what you mean by "the stream of becoming." Could you explain more about that?

That is simply our intuitive sense that we are a continual process of movement through first-person states of be-ing, which is generally a superposition of desires, feelings, thoughts, perceptions. I say 'superposition' because they are all overlapping and interwoven with one another in our normal experience. All of it enters our consciousness through the portal of thoughts. So the lower self identifies itself with only that which has already entered the portal of thought-memory and made perceptible to us. It generally understands all those first-person states of being which exist as potential, as the 'future' which has yet to happen and therefore has no direct influence on our stream of becoming now. Of course it is easy to see that is incorrect - even our dim fears, concerns, anxieties, ancticipations, ideas-ideals about the future are always influencing our decisions now.

Through higher cognitive development, we begin to experience how these future 'attractor forces' - yet to be accomplished intents - are just as concrete and real and influential as all that which works into us from the 'past'- already accomplished intents. We begin to experience how our normal body and soul life has been fashioned in any given incarnation as a means to accomplish those future intents, which encompass many incarnations and the inncarnational cycle as a whole. I say 'experience', because as we discussed on the thread with the tunnel glyphs metaphor, simply holding these ideas as a conceptual model leaves us looking at the thought-glyphs after they have already been actualized. The higher cognitive path allows us to enter into the intentional flow of living potential from which all our actualized concepts and perceptions condense.

[Anthony66]

So if "we experience something of Intuition even in this moment" surely this must be only "murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions". Otherwise, why bother with the development of higher cognition. Further, Steiner says, "In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself". Is Steiner here dismissing our moral intuitions for example?

Here "only one intuition" should be understood not as some specific piece of knowledge but rather the mode of knowing. Intuition is the knowing experience of our spiritual being. If I may so express it, it's the knowing by virtue of be-ing. The awareness of existing and being spiritually active. They key here is that this knowledge is experienced as direct intuition. It is of course supported and reflected in conscious phenomena but the intuition is not contained in the perceptions as some additional exotic hue, for example.

Let's take "I think therefore I am". It is well known that this statement could be misunderstood in many ways. For example one can say "I see colors therefore I am". On the surface it seems we can restate this idea for just about anything. Every form of conscious experience shows that consciousness exists. But in thinking there's also something else which is not contained in the thought perceptions itself. What distinguishes the experience of our thinking voice from any other voice that we hear or hallucinate? This distinguishing element can not be found in the texture of the auditory perception itself. It is the intuitive knowing that we, as spiritual activity, are somehow responsible for the words.

It is this kind of intuition that we initially know only in respect to our ego. Please note, the intuition itself doesn't need to be about the ego. It could be also moral intuitions or even the simple intuition that we think a thought. The important thing is the way in which this is known. This is what changes in higher cognition because in this most intimate knowing of our being we find the existence also of other beings.

I think I understand what you are saying with respect the mode of knowing but I don't think I'm communicating my core concern well throughout this thread. I'm still unsure what you are saying regarding intuitions with respect to the individual who has not developed higher cognition. Ashvin seemed to agree a few posts back that we can view them as "murky, convoluted shadows" of our intuitive cognition. Or perhaps it could be understood as an intuitive sense or our spiritual being that has yet to blossom forth in an understanding of our Cosmic relationship.

[AshvinP]

So if "we experience something of Intuition even in this moment" surely this must be only "murky, convoluted shadows of pure intuitions". Otherwise, why bother with the development of higher cognition. Further, Steiner says, "In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself". Is Steiner here dismissing our moral intuitions for example?

Here "only one intuition" should be understood not as some specific piece of knowledge but rather the mode of knowing. Intuition is the knowing experience of our spiritual being. If I may so express it, it's the knowing by virtue of be-ing. The awareness of existing and being spiritually active. They key here is that this knowledge is experienced as direct intuition. It is of course supported and reflected in conscious phenomena but the intuition is not contained in the perceptions as some additional exotic hue, for example.

Let's take "I think therefore I am". It is well known that this statement could be misunderstood in many ways. For example one can say "I see colors therefore I am". On the surface it seems we can restate this idea for just about anything. Every form of conscious experience shows that consciousness exists. But in thinking there's also something else which is not contained in the thought perceptions itself. What distinguishes the experience of our thinking voice from any other voice that we hear or hallucinate? This distinguishing element can not be found in the texture of the auditory perception itself. It is the intuitive knowing that we, as spiritual activity, are somehow responsible for the words.

It is this kind of intuition that we initially know only in respect to our ego. Please note, the intuition itself doesn't need to be about the ego. It could be also moral intuitions or even the simple intuition that we think a thought. The important thing is the way in which this is known. This is what changes in higher cognition because in this most intimate knowing of our being we find the existence also of other beings.

I think I understand what you are saying with respect the mode of knowing but I don't think I'm communicating my core concern well throughout this thread. I'm still unsure what you are saying regarding intuitions with respect to the individual who has not developed higher cognition. Ashvin seemed to agree a few posts back that we can view them as "murky, convoluted shadows" of our intuitive cognition. Or perhaps it could be understood as an intuitive sense or our spiritual being that has yet to blossom forth in an understanding of our Cosmic relationship.

Anthony - it seems your question is, how do we have moral intuitions if we haven't developed intuitive cognition yet? Is that correct?

Let's say someone has the intuition, 'to steal from others is wrong'. Their conscience speaks this intuition to them when they are confronted with outer circumstances which present the opportunity to steal or to observe someone else stealing. No higher cognition is necessary for this. By virtue of having an "I" incarnate on the physical plane, which can link outer impressions/circumstances to definite concepts-ideas emerging from within, we gain this capacity for conscience. But normally it is still at the stage of 'murky, convoluted shadow' and therefore the force of this intuition is not sufficient to guide the will in all circumstances. For ex., in a disaster situation where there is no police presence and no one is paying attention, the desire to accumulate material goods can easily override the moral intuition to not steal. As Nietzsche observed, for our normal Earthly existence, 'most morality is cowardice'.

That is, until we begin seeking the inner reality of our outer concepts-ideas. Then it begins to dawn on us that our moral intuitions aren't just ideas floating in our head, reinforced by cultural history, parents, teachers, etc., but are the intents of living beings who are responsible for nearly all that we desire, feel, think, perceive, and do, as individuals and collectives. In their activity, we 'live, move, and have our being'. The moral intuitions we are accustomed to stand in relation to the reality discerned by higher cognition, like a description of muscle movements involved in the process of laughter stand in relation to the inner experience of delight and joy which outwardly expresses itself as the laughter. There is clearly a lawful relation between the two understandings of laughter, but they are entirely incommensurate. Most importantly, the inner understanding allows us to also encompass the outer understanding, but not vice versa.

We should be clear, all our ideas are intuitions, many are inspirations, and fewer are imaginations. Every intellectual concept and outer perception condenses initially from intuitive, inspired, and imaginative activity.

[LukeJTM]

Luke,

I am not sure the context of that Steiner quote, but it does sound about the same. We can experience the thinking of thoughts without being sucked into their content and thereby dissociated from the life of thinking. [...]

The quote was paraphrased from Theosophy. https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA009/Engli ... 9_c04.html

Unfounded disbelief is indeed injurious. It works in the recipient as a repelling force. It hinders him from taking in the fruitful thoughts. Not blind faith, but the reception of the thought-world of spiritual science, is the pre-requisite for the development of the higher senses. The spiritual investigator approaches his pupil with the injunction: “You are not to believe what I tell you but think it out yourself, make it part of the contents of your own thought-world; then my thoughts will themselves bring it about that you recognise them in their truth.” This is the attitude of the spiritual investigator. He gives the stimulus; the power to accept it as true springs from within the recipient himself. And it is in this sense that the views of spiritual science should be studied. Anyone who steeps his thoughts in them may be sure that sooner or later they will lead him to vision of his own.