Anthroposophy for Dummies

[AshvinP]

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.

Thanks, Luke. This is something I have been thinking about recently as well. It relates to another quote from Tomberg which I posted here as well - "The important thing is to have the courage to accept spiritual facts without requiring “sources” and “proofs.”

There can arise a seeming tension on the Anthroposophical path, especially if we start with PoF and then move to more in-depth spiritual science. With the former, we gain the sense that all knowledge should be won through the strength of our intimate reasoning and we shouldn't accept any knowledge, whether secular or spiritual, until we have inwardly established it for ourselves. Then we encounter spiritual science and feel, 'I can't really approach and accept any of this content because I haven't developed higher cognition so that I can inwardly verify it for myself.' So then we feel that it all needs to be put aside until much later, because immersing ourselves in the thought-world of spiritual science would be something akin to blind faith which circumvents our I-activity. It is felt like we can't pass any sort of reasoned judgment on suprasensory facts until we have some major inner experience which reveals them to us.

Needless to say, that is a false dichotomy, as Steiner also points out in that quote. It reflects a certain default cynicism and mistrust we have in the modern age. Actually we are usually too trusting of others when it comes to materialistic knowledge of outer experience and events, and too mistrusting of others when it comes to spiritual wisdom (and there are certainly some circumstances in which skepticism of the latter is warranted). We should remember that the idea-world of spiritual science is the unsuspected source of all the outer concepts that we move through during the normal reasoning of our 'I'. It is the living fabric of that conceptual world. Immersing ourselves in that fabric with humility and devotion accustoms us to reorient from the outer side of those concepts to their inner reality. Then we gradually acquire the moral technique to navigate the worlds of supersensible intents through our 'I'-reasoning with the same ease that we normally navigate the outer sensory world, even if we are still viewing the former from the outside-in.

So we can have a certain trust, admiration, and even reverence for the thoughts conveyed to us from esoteric science, without blindly believing them. We can start swimming in their milieu, as it were, and permeate ourselves with the spiritual ideals underlying the thoughts, while we also unwind the blind beliefs of our limited personality that we inherited. It is only through trust and love of the spirit worlds does their grace flow down to us. Steiner speaks to that as well here with respect to developing higher cognition.

Let us be clear; ordinary science and everyday thought work from whatever self-will has created by means of the ordinary will of man, through the inherited or educated sensations and feelings. We can deceive ourselves greatly as to this. For instance, people may say: “Suppose one takes up any science, such as that set forth in Spiritual Science; I will not accept anything that does not agree with my thought, I will accept nothing unproved.” Certainly we should not accept anything unproved. But neither do we advance a single step further if we only accept what is proved. And a man who wishes to be clairvoyant will never say that he can only accept what he has first proved. He must be completely free of all self-seeking and must await what comes to him from the Cosmos, and which can only be designated by the word “grace.” From the grace which illuminates he expects everything. For how do we acquire clairvoyant knowledge Only by eliminating everything we have ever learnt. As a rule a man says: I have my own opinion. But what he ought to say is: This only comes because I have revived what my ancestors have thought, or what my desires have aroused in me, etc. For there can never be any question of these being his own opinions; and those who attach most value to their own opinions are not in the least aware that they are being led by the leading-strings of their prejudices. All this must be done away with when we wish to attain to higher knowledge. The soul must be empty and able to wait quietly for what may enter into it from the concealed secret world free from space and time, free from things and deeds. And we must never believe that we can acquire any conception of clairvoyant knowledge except by creating a suitable frame of mind through which we may receive what may be offered to us as revelation or illumination, so that we can never expect anything to come to us except from the grace which approaches and brings gifts.

[LukeJTM]

Thanks, Luke. This is something I have been thinking about recently as well. It relates to another quote from Tomberg which I posted here as well - "The important thing is to have the courage to accept spiritual facts without requiring “sources” and “proofs.”

There can arise a seeming tension on the Anthroposophical path, especially if we start with PoF and then move to more in-depth spiritual science. With the former, we gain the sense that all knowledge should be won through the strength of our intimate reasoning and we shouldn't accept any knowledge, whether secular or spiritual, until we have inwardly established it for ourselves. Then we encounter spiritual science and feel, 'I can't really approach and accept any of this content because I haven't developed higher cognition so that I can inwardly verify it for myself.' So then we feel that it all needs to be put aside until much later, because immersing ourselves in the thought-world of spiritual science would be something akin to blind faith which circumvents our I-activity. It is felt like we can't pass any sort of reasoned judgment on suprasensory facts until we have some major inner experience which reveals them to us.

Needless to say, that is a false dichotomy, as Steiner also points out in that quote. It reflects a certain default cynicism and mistrust we have in the modern age. Actually we are usually too trusting of others when it comes to materialistic knowledge of outer experience and events, and too mistrusting of others when it comes to spiritual wisdom (and there are certainly some circumstances in which skepticism of the latter is warranted). We should remember that the idea-world of spiritual science is the unsuspected source of all the outer concepts that we move through during the normal reasoning of our 'I'. It is the living fabric of that conceptual world. Immersing ourselves in that fabric with humility and devotion accustoms us to reorient from the outer side of those concepts to their inner reality. Then we gradually acquire the moral technique to navigate the worlds of supersensible intents through our 'I'-reasoning with the same ease that we normally navigate the outer sensory world, even if we are still viewing the former from the outside-in.

So we can have a certain trust, admiration, and even reverence for the thoughts conveyed to us from esoteric science, without blindly believing them. We can start swimming in their milieu, as it were, and permeate ourselves with the spiritual ideals underlying the thoughts, while we also unwind the blind beliefs of our limited personality that we inherited. It is only through trust and love of the spirit worlds does their grace flow down to us. Steiner speaks to that as well here with respect to developing higher cognition.

Thanks, Ashvin for sharing your observations. I completely agree with that. The dichotomy seems like another variation of Kant's "limits to knowledge" dualism, which was a mistaken conclusion Kant made. Honestly, I think just opening up to the possibilities will plant seeds for future understanding, so to speak. I'll admit, a while ago, I did sort of adopt the "I can't understand this without clairvoyance" attitude, but I dropped it because I realized it was nonsense. My gut feeling was that it was unnecessary.

If one takes "reality is ideal" seriously, and in particular what Steiner demonstrates in PoF about the relationship between ideas and percepts, then there is no absolute reason why ordinary cognition cannot reveal something about the supersensible. Clearly it is incomplete understanding without clairvoyance, but it is still valid as you point out. The supersensible is not some parallel or separate dimension to the physical; it interpenetrates and informs the physical. So, essentially, it is all a single world. That understanding gives another reason to let go of the Kantian-style dichotomy.

[LukeJTM]

Does anyone here have better understanding of this statement in Rudolf Steiner's book The Philosophy of Freedom (Spiritual Activity)? I will highlight it in bold what I am referring to.

But concepts certainly do not stand isolated from one another. They combine to form a systematically ordered whole. The concept “organism”, for instance, links up with those of “orderly development” and “growth”. Other concepts which are based on single objects merge together into a unity. All concepts I may form of lions merge into the collective concept “lion”. In this way all the separate concepts combine to form a closed conceptual system in which each has its special place. Ideas do not differ qualitatively from concepts. They are but fuller, more saturated, more comprehensive concepts. I must attach special importance to the necessity of bearing in mind, here, that I make thinking my starting point, and not concepts and ideas which are first gained by means of thinking. For these latter already presuppose thinking. My remarks regarding the self-supporting and self-determined nature of thinking cannot, therefore, be simply transferred to concepts. (I make special mention of this, because it is here that I differ from Hegel, who regards the concept as something primary and original.
https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/Engli ... 4_c04.html

What is the difference between a concept and an idea? It is kind of vague so I had to give it some further thought, and it is an interesting statement.
I suppose a concept would be just a thought picture, or understanding, in the mind. Or a general notion of something.

The dictionary online gives me these definitions because I am having trouble with finding a way to describe what a concept is.

1. a general notion or idea; conception.
2. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

These definitions seem to fit with Steiner is referring to. The third definition also works because objects we see in the sense world become objects of thought. E.g. when we observe a table, we also have a mental conception of this object that provides us clear understanding of what we are perceiving (or what the meaning is).

But what is an idea? Perhaps Steiner was referring to the way these terminologies were used by philosophers he had studied in education?
But I'm not sure. I had a think about it and I will just define it myself without the dictionary.

1. broader knowledge or understanding about something than just a general conception of something
2. understanding of the purpose or reason of something
3. an inspirational idea- this could be the creative ideas received by an artist for example. Or some type of "lightbulb" moment. Or it could also be useful spiritual guidance that a clairvoyant channels, or something like that.

Maybe I am just overthinking this.

[Federica]

Steiner says in PoF "What a concept is cannot be expressed in words. Words can do no more than draw our attention to the fact that we have concepts", so I personally don't worry too much that it's difficult to find the words I'll give you my impressions. Please take them for tentative, it's only my thoughts!

In general use, I believe we tend to use the word "concept" to indicate both concepts and ideas (in a spiritual scientific sense), no matter how complex, and we say "idea" to refer to a reasoning, or hypothesis. But beyond the standard use we make of these words in common language, I would consider a concept a simpler spiritual element compared to an idea. An idea could identify the complex, harmonious interplay of beings interacting across hierarchical levels, while concepts fit more easily within the span of our immediate understanding. Finding our place within the idea of evolution of human consciousness across eons and through the event of the Mystery of Golgotha, or even grasping the whole idea of our current incarnation (not as a simple chronology, but as fully meaningful reality) seem more complex and challenging endeavors than holding in our thinking the concept of triangle, or the concept of gold.

Another useful, maybe challenging way to think of concepts and ideas is to think of the living intelligences - the beings - that ARE them. Because there's nothing else anyway. I don't know you, but for me, there's always the risk of falling into the trap of "abstractifying" concepts and ideas. They easily become dried-out replicas in the mind, or representations, of "reality out there". But they are living, and they are in us/we are in them/we are them. We bring to life the ideas by flowing in understanding with other beings, by assuming one another's spiritual shape in more or less complex lawfull articulations. And our existence emerges in that harmonious interplay.

[AshvinP]

Does anyone here have better understanding of this statement in Rudolf Steiner's book The Philosophy of Freedom (Spiritual Activity)? I will highlight it in bold what I am referring to.

But concepts certainly do not stand isolated from one another. They combine to form a systematically ordered whole. The concept “organism”, for instance, links up with those of “orderly development” and “growth”. Other concepts which are based on single objects merge together into a unity. All concepts I may form of lions merge into the collective concept “lion”. In this way all the separate concepts combine to form a closed conceptual system in which each has its special place. Ideas do not differ qualitatively from concepts. They are but fuller, more saturated, more comprehensive concepts. I must attach special importance to the necessity of bearing in mind, here, that I make thinking my starting point, and not concepts and ideas which are first gained by means of thinking. For these latter already presuppose thinking. My remarks regarding the self-supporting and self-determined nature of thinking cannot, therefore, be simply transferred to concepts. (I make special mention of this, because it is here that I differ from Hegel, who regards the concept as something primary and original.
https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/Engli ... 4_c04.html

What is the difference between a concept and an idea? It is kind of vague so I had to give it some further thought, and it is an interesting statement.
I suppose a concept would be just a thought picture, or understanding, in the mind. Or a general notion of something.

The dictionary online gives me these definitions because I am having trouble with finding a way to describe what a concept is.

1. a general notion or idea; conception.
2. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

These definitions seem to fit with Steiner is referring to. The third definition also works because objects we see in the sense world become objects of thought. E.g. when we observe a table, we also have a mental conception of this object that provides us clear understanding of what we are perceiving (or what the meaning is).

But what is an idea? Perhaps Steiner was referring to the way these terminologies were used by philosophers he had studied in education?
But I'm not sure. I had a think about it and I will just define it myself without the dictionary.

1. broader knowledge or understanding about something than just a general conception of something
2. understanding of the purpose or reason of something
3. an inspirational idea- this could be the creative ideas received by an artist for example. Or some type of "lightbulb" moment. Or it could also be useful spiritual guidance that a clairvoyant channels, or something like that.

Maybe I am just overthinking this.

Luke,

I do think he's pointing to a simple distinction here. We could say concepts are isolated meanings like red or blue, milk of honey, whereas ideas are constellations that overarch related concepts, like 'the spectrum of colors' or 'animal products'. The ideas 'glue' together the concepts into a more meaningful whole. Many times the concepts relate to something sense-perceptible while the ideas are supra-sensory, but not always. For ex. we could have more inner concepts like faith, humility, courage, perseverance, etc. which unite within the idea of 'virtues'.

But we can also see how these are relational definitions - at some level, courage is both a concept and an idea. It is a concept in relation to the idea of 'virtues', but an idea in relation to the concepts of 'soldier at war', 'person who speaks the truth', etc. For the latter, it unites those concepts or pictures into an idea which encompasses their essential quality. So these aren't rigid definitions, but more fluid and relational depending on the context. Both concepts and ideas are the products of thinking and not to be equated with the latter. That was necessary for him to point out because many people by default equate thinking activity with the thought-forms which result from that activity.

PS - I just saw Federica wrote a response at the same time, and her explanation of the distinction is probably more useful.

[Cleric K]

Does anyone here have better understanding of this statement in Rudolf Steiner's book The Philosophy of Freedom (Spiritual Activity)? I will highlight it in bold what I am referring to.

Luke, I would like to add one more way to picture the distinction.

First we have to be aware of what Federica pointed out - that ideas shouldn't be considered as something that exists only in the human mind. Everything in reality is an expression of ideal activity. At our stage we can conceive this easily only for beings, such as humans, which seem to be localized in space but we have to imagine that even the 'carrier waves' of reality, within which our inner life is embedded, are forms of Intelligence.

For this reason, when we work in ideas, even though we may not realize it, we are secretly trying to approach the states of being of those Intelligences which drive the metamorphoses of the World state and within which our own spiritual activity is also modulated. To approach doesn't mean to have some theory about this but to attune to the World Thoughts that drive the metamorphoses of the Cosmos.

Maybe we can further clarify this with the following metaphor:



We know that in order to balance an object on a point, it has to pass through the imaginary line connecting its center of mass with the center of the Earth (like this).

The inverted cone above symbolizes the manifold relations of the ideal (spiritual world). For example, if we take something like 'freedom' or 'evolution', these are certainly ideas but they can never be understood in isolation. What would be the meaning of 'evolution' in an empty world? The meaning of this idea is grasped only because we have realized certain lawfulness in the temporal unfolding of existence. It is something we 'read out' from the totality of our experience. We have to consider the kingdoms of Nature and the development of human soul life, and explore their dynamics in order to grasp certain gradation which we call 'evolution'. The key however is that this idea shouldn't remain abstract but we need to remember that it is extracted from the totality of our experience (or we could say that we attune to it as we penetrate the mystery of existence). This is what the widening inverted cone symbolizes - the fact that ideas ultimately lead us into the reality of the World's totality and the Intelligent intents that drive its metamorphoses.

The point of balance is the concept. When we think of a concept we can always imagine something point-like. This doesn't in the least mean that a concept is self-sufficient point that can exist in isolation. The concept of 'evolution' is the point-like experience of ideal balance through which we basically say "When I concentrate on the concept of 'evolution' it is like I exist amidst a totality of complicated ideal relations. I cannot easily grasp this totality. It is living, it is dynamic. I have to consider simultaneously all the Kingdoms and beings in their continual metamorphoses and complicated relations if I'm to grasp it. My mind would burst If I were to do that - I simply can't fit it all. Nevertheless I feel that there's certain lawful unity within the totality, something which captures a specific ideal current with it. In my mind I can find this specificity as a kind of point of balance. When my mind is focused in this point I feel as if I have found a peculiar point of stability within the totality - it is the point-experience that makes sense of the totality. The ideal totality is vastly larger than the soul life I experience at any instance, yet in my mind I can find a point which is stable and somehow remains at rest amidst the dynamics of the ideal. This ideal point in my mind I can call the concept. It is only a symbolic point of balance within my intellect which captures something essential of an ideal totality.

So that's in a nutshell. The concept is the concrete point-like ideal experience in our intellect. It's not 'some thing'. It's a point of balance, point of rest from within which our mind feels it keeps some aspect of the ideal world balanced like the inverted cone. We simply feel that in that point we grasp the idea. If we were to explicate the conceptual point of balance we would have to go into the wider reality of the ideal cone. We would have to write whole books (like for example Darwin had) in order to triangulate that point from many different sides.

This inverted cone metaphor can also be useful for throwing light on the question of meditation. It has been often said that the thought-image of meditation is only like a portal. So it is here. The point of balance, gives us the rest-point in our mind. From there our panoramic soul experience can expand which grasps more of the cone depth. Initially we grasp how our own soul life is embedded within the total flow of evolution. The memory tableau of our present life becomes intrinsic part of the reality of the widening cone. Yet we always go through the point of balance, the concentration of the mind.

[AshvinP]

Does anyone here have better understanding of this statement in Rudolf Steiner's book The Philosophy of Freedom (Spiritual Activity)? I will highlight it in bold what I am referring to.

Luke,

I wanted to share with you another helpful philosophical angle on this concept-idea distinction which I just came across.

Plato distinguished three stages in the emergence of knowledge: "knowledge itself", or immediate insight into the essential content of the object of knowledge (episteme); "a most probable possibility", acquired by means of logical connections (dianoia); and "opinion", grounded on the fragmentary givens of sense experience mediated by subjective inclination (doxa).

The whole process of knowledge thus begins with the stage of the stimulus given by experience to the life of thought. If we remain at this stage, satisfied with subjective opinion, with doxa, we are, so to say, of the "rank and file". If we make better use of the stimulus by undertaking a serious intellectual labor of checking and deliberating upon all the logical possibilities it may entail in order to come at last to the most probable possibility, we have attained the stage of dianoia, which immediately precedes episteme. In having come thus far (that is, to be resting content with the "most probable possibility of all"), we will have constructed for ourselves a hermeneutic to guide our engagement with the life of knowledge. But even for us as author of this theoretical construct, one day it may collapse because it lacks total certainty. Total certainty is reached precisely at that stage of the process of knowledge when we raise ourselves above the "most probable possibility of all" to an immediate insight into the meaningful moral content of this possibility. This qualifies us either to reject this possibility with decisive certainty or to be convinced of it with decisive certainty. Only episteme brings real certainty, i.e., actual knowledge.

Just as we ascend in the process of knowledge from doxa (opinion) to dianoia (theoretical probability) to episteme (immediate Insight of essence), so do we descend through the same three stages in shaping the knowledge thus acquired. For with knowledge, it is not only a question of its acquisition, but of making what we have acquired of service to others - i.e., of expressing this acquired knowledge in such a way that others may come to know it in a like manner to how we ourselves first came to know it. In shaping the path leading to this further knowledge, we descend by the same steps we previously ascended. In this descent we commence with the pure spiritual and moral content of knowledge, episteme, which stands for our consciousness as an ideal absolute in its content. Through dianoia we then draw all the consequences of this ideal of truth for discursive logical thought. In this way, the ideal becomes the creative and determining center of a whole organism of thinking, that is, an idea. Finally, if through doxa we are able to bring the ideal further into the realm of a thinking grounded on sense experience in order to show both how it is at work shaping the multiplicity of appearances and how it can be acquired through abstraction from sense experience as a shared characteristic, then the idea becomes a concept.

Ideals, ideas, and concepts are the three stages by which acquired knowledge is shaped or given form just as opinions, possibilities, and insights are the three stages by which knowledge is acquired.

[LukeJTM]

Thanks everyone for the detailed replies, that brought clarity and makes sense.

[LukeJTM]

Does anyone have clearer understanding of Rudolf Steiner's exercises on maintaining emotional equilibrium? I'm not always sure how to do that without numbing or blunting feelings.

I think one way would be, say I am frustrated and impatient with something, I could take a moment and focus on the breath and silence to clear away the mind, let the feelings and thoughts pass. And, if going deeper is needed, I could query myself things like what is making me feel frustrated/impatient, and why? Where is it happening in my body, etc. Becoming conscious of the unconscious might be needed for some situations. But I suppose there are infinite possible techniques that could be created or imagined.

[Federica]

Hi Luke,

To start with, I would recall two passages I have in mind that provide some insights on how to approach the exercise of equanimity.

In the third month, life should be centered on a new exercise - the development of a certain equanimity towards the fluctuations of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain; `heights of jubilation' and `depths of despair' should quite consciously be replaced by an equable mood. Care is taken that no pleasure shall carry us away, no sorrow plunge us into the depths, no experience lead to immoderate anger or vexation no expectation give rise to anxiety or fear, no situation disconcert us, and so on. There need be no fear that such an exercise will make life arid and unproductive; far rather will it quickly be noticed that the experiences to which this exercise is applied are replaced by purer qualities of soul. Above all, if subtle attentiveness is maintained, an inner tranquillity in the body will one day become noticeable; as in the two cases above, we pour this feeling into the body, letting it stream from the heart, towards the hands, the feet and, finally, the head. This naturally cannot be done after each exercise, for here it is not a matter of one single exercise but of sustained attentiveness to the inner life of the soul. Once every day, at least, this inner tranquillity should be called up before the soul and then the exercise of pouring it out from the heart should proceed.

GUIDANCE IN ESOTERIC TRAINING - GA 245
GENERAL DEMANDS WHICH EVERY ASPIRANT FOR OCCULT DEVELOPMENT MUST PUT TO HIMSELF

Equanimity doesn't mean to jubilate or to complain about pain, but to recognize the reality of karmic action in everything. We shouldn't just believe in the karma idea theoretically, but should sense that karma is active in everything that hits us. This is the scourging stage in Christian initiation, that is, one should calmly confront all the pains of life that hit us like the blows of a whip and know that they're conditioned karmically. That's true equanimity.

ESOTERIC LESSONS II - GA 266
Lesson 36

Also, I found a very simple video explanation of the 6 basic exercises in integration with each other, by certain Brian Gray on Vimeo. The video is easy to go through, for those who don't prefer to read lessons. The equanimity exercise description starts at 05:03 (but I would watch from the start to see it described within the sequence of exercises).

It can be found by googling Brian Gray March 4, 2014 six basic exercises - the video cannot be linked directly.