Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

[Eugene I]

Eugene,

Fair enough, you asked a direct question.

I've in the past rambled a bit (on the synchronicity thread). This post contains some personal experiences, but I'll try to keep them tightly bound to this thread and other recent threads on this forum. On reading, you might consider that I'm pursuing the Steiner line out of purely practical personal reasoning. That isn't true - that actually would be nowhere near enough motivation (for me).

Thanks for telling your story. If it works for you and helps you, then sure, go for it. Just a word of caution: you need to be careful with spiritual practices if you have mental health issues, otherwise you can harm yourself. I saw some honest spiritual teachers and meditation instructors disclaiming that they do not recommend people with mental health issues to use their techniques.

All "good" spiritual practices, modern or traditional, are aimed at developing higher levels of consciousness and cognition, yet they vary on techniques, areas of focus, views etc. Anthroposophical is just one of them, and there is no universal one that works for everyone, but because there is so many of them, the trick is how to find the right one that works for you. I guess, we just need to trust our spiritual intuition and try the ones that we more resonate with. But a good and safe thing is to be sober and self-critical with spiritual experiences. Navigating through the beyond-physical reality is a tricky business due to high level of fluidity of it, because that reality is a sort of collective dream space where beings manifest what they consciously or unconsciously intend to manifest (individually and/or collectively). The level of cognition of course matters, but also a good amount of soberness, critical thinking and lucidity. Do not trust everything you experience there but always question it.

Re. PoF, I'm actually reading the abridged version right now, but everything I read there so far I already know from Cleric's and Ashvin's posts. Not sure if I have enough motivation to read the full version yet.

[AshvinP]

Re. PoF, I'm actually reading the abridged version right now, but everything I read there so far I already know from Cleric's and Ashvin's posts. Not sure if I have enough motivation to read the full version yet.

The full version is here for free - https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/En ... index.html

I don't know what's in the abridged version, but I would say our posts alone, even Cleric's, would not do it justice, unless one compiled all the posts together. The overarching ideas are contained in the posts, but the most critical aspect of the path to "spiritual freedom", which also depends on genuine understanding, is to follow the logical progression Steiner laid out carefully so as to rediscover what he discovered for oneself. That maxim could be applied to his spiritual science in general.

[AshvinP]

There are two more recent threads that I want to touch on. One was about schizophrenia (and bipolar is thought of, medically, as being somewhere on that spectrum). Cleric's and others contributions, relating schizophrenia as intense feeling of disconnect from what's going on in the world, struck a chord with me. I would add that from my experience and observation in hospitals, the Bipolars (in the descent phase) feel that even more intensely. (My own experience has been almost exclusively in the descent phase and my description would be that it feels like what I imagine hell to feel like.) In another posting (on the Steiner related vaccination thread), Cleric made the point (paraphrasing) that there are those who would vaccinate humanity against any possibility of "higher" consciousness. This is happening in hospitals and doctors offices right now. The schizophrenics and Bipolars are being prescribed very high doses of anti-psychotics, sometimes in a cocktail with mood stabilisers, anti-depressants with anti-histamines and beta-blockers prescribed to counter some side effects of the "therapeutic" prescription. I have no objection to the judicious use of psychotropic drugs (I took a small dose of a little helper last night, for the first time in months, considering that maintaining a regular sleep cycle was among the more important things I could do). What I do rail against is patients being told that they will have to take this cocktail for the rest of their lives. Some readily comply to have "normal enough" work and family life. Others don't, considering they are being told there is something fundamentally wrong with their being. And the bad news is often delivered with a little too much glee. And there is little talk of integration in these settings, at least not from the medics who still run the show.

Apart from the mental health industry, the are the likes of Sam Harris, Dawkins, Tyson and their ilk. I've heard Sam say, more than once, that his life's work is to banish religion, and "superstition" from humanity. Maybe these guys are the real demons that need to be fought on all fronts? Would they advocate an intervention for all of us to banish these "superstitions"? I think they would.

The last thread I want to touch on is the neo-advaita thread. The "there is only THIS and all is perfect" guys. Listening to Parsons many years ago drove me daft. I've since watched the Anna video and all I can do is laugh now. I posted the Christine Breese video as a little antidote, a reminder that maybe everything is not all that perfect. Eugene took this as buttressing his world view (Grr!). I've watched it again, and can see why. Christine's video can be interpreted as a call to be involved in stuff in the world, to perfect the human condition in this "experiment". I understand why Ashvin would watch this through gritted teeth, neglecting as it does the necessity for self-improvement, work on the "self" to bring about a better world content. So sorry Ashvin, the posting was made in good faith.

No need to apologize, PZ, especially since I have not watched that video yet. That's why I was confused when Eugene mentioned "Christine".

Your post above was brilliantly insightful! Not that the earlier parts about your personal testimony are unimportant, as they may very well be, but what you say above in relation to mental health certainly strikes a chord with me. I have not had any such [diagnosed] issues myself, but my father is a psychiatrist who specializes in Schizophrenia (actually he just retired this year). And, unfortunately, he did a lot of that "therapeutic prescription" you mention. I am actually hoping I can find an avenue for him to consider spiritual science now that is retired and therefore not as intellectually dependent on justifying his approach, because, from what I understand so far, spiritual science is exactly the reorientation of perspective needed to move away from these mind-numbing "medical" practices towards 'treatments' which actually harmonize the soul with its own higher forces which are the source of all healing.

Your post also reminded me of this from Barfield, which I have posted before so you may have already seen, but I will post it again:

History, Guilt and Habit - Chapter 2 - Modern Idolatry (excerpts)

There are two things that are noticeable about the modern psychology... the first is that the root, the subconscious root, of schizophrenia is increasingly being traced to the experience of what I will for the moment call "cut-offness". The second is that the experience is increasingly being regarded, not as one that is peculiar to the patient, but in a greater or less degree as one that is the predicament of humanity, or certainly Western humanity, as a whole.
...
The clinically schizoid are simply the ones who are becoming most sharply aware of it. Thus, they speak of the personality, or the self, as being isolated, encapsulated, excluded, estranged, alienated. There are many different ways of putting it. But what the self of each of us feels isolated from, cut off from, by its encapsulation in the nakedly physical reality presented to it by the common sense of contemporary culture, is precisely its own existential source [the 'true Self'].

Sin and Madness, by Dr. Shirley Sugerman... argues, convincingly to my mind, that what is now conceived and felt as insanity can only be properly understood as the evolutionary metamorphosis of what was formerly conceived and felt as sin.
...
But can there be sin without guilt? Paul Ricouer, in his book The Symbolism of Evil, observes, rightly I think, that a feeling of guilt is the fundamental experience of sin. If so, how can this contemporary madness, from which there is evidence that we all suffer, but about which we certainly do not feel guilty, have anything to do with sin? Perhaps because, although we do not feel guilty about the sin, we do feel guilty because of it.
...
There is atmosphere of guilt. Take for instance the issue of racialism, the relation between the advanced and the so-called "backward nations", or between white and colored... what was until recently called "the white man's burden" was a burden of responsibility, not of guilt.
...
People seem almost to go out of their way to find things to feel guilty about, or to encourage others to feel guilty about. I can think of two reasons in particular why it is bad... such confused feelings of guilt tend to beget paralysis rather than energy... when they do not beget paralysis, feelings of guilt tend to turn rather easily into feelings of hatred and contempt. We may feel a bit guilty ourselves, but we are very sure that a whole lot of other people are much more guilty, and probably ought to be destroyed.
...
And just this darker side to the experience of guilt seems to be even more evident when the experience is collective rather than when it is the individual. 'All are responsible for all', said Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov. A noble, a truly human sentiment - perhaps the only absolutely human sentiment there is... It is the irritation of guilt that turns it into the impulse to compel, into a determination to use every kind of violence, every device of indoctrination, in order to enforce on all a systematic equality that must entail a mechanical and inhuman uniformity.

[I would add that Jung also explores this aspect of Schizophrenia in The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease:]

The question of psychogenesis in mental diseases other than the neuroses, which are now generally considered psychic in origin, is discussed, and the psychic etiology of schizophrenia is affirmed. Mental processes are products of the psyche, and that same psyche produces delusions and hallucinations when it is out of balance. In turn, schizophrenia is considered as having a psychology of its own. But whereas the healthy person’s ego is the subject of his experiences, the schizophrenic’s ego is only one of the subjects. In schizophrenia, the normal subject has split into a plurality of autonomous complexes, at odds with one another and with reality, bringing about a disintegration of the personality.

[ParadoxZone]

Eugene,

Sure, thanks for the advice. Right now, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. At least I'm fully conscious that I have "mental health" issues. And I'm not conflating mental health with mental well-being, that's a topic for another day. I'm aware that some Spiritual teachers warn off people with such "issues". I'm also beginning to think that is a mistake they're making, though probably in good faith.. Maybe us "disordered" ones could teach those Spiritual teachers a thing or two? Many psychedelic practitioners do a similar warning off, but maybe that warning could be more generally applied too?

It's not just Ashvin and Cleric's "revelatory" writings I'm taking notice of. The importance of cultivating a humble attitude is just as important and has been duly heeded. The previous times, it was more wtf than W-F-T. Being thrust into a world for which one isn't at all prepared can go south quickly and dramatically.

Your advice to do it if it "helps" reminds me of the "by their fruits shall ye know them" discussion. What does it mean to help? Help for what? To be "normal enough"? That doesn't interest me in the slightest anymore, even though there were occasions I'd have wished to go back to such a life. And what "fruits"? The ones I've already decided, from a limited understanding, are good?

This is why your approach doesn't interest me much anymore. Like Steve's theology, it feels barren. Steve (I'm paraphrasing, let me know if I'm misrepresenting him), doesn't bother with phenomenology because he doesn't get it. He wants to pursue love and other "good things" through a theology which sounds like a social philosophy. Ashvin's posts, and especially Cleric's, point to an internalising of the meaning of love. If it's better internalised, that surely means trying to find it is actually more doable.

I don't know what's in the abridged version that you've purchased. Up until the last few chapters, the original is all about phenomenology. No preconceptions are needed. I had to pause and look certain things up as I read. You probably don't need to do this, though it's probably still better to read it slowly.

I shared the "story" in the previous post to illustrate that recent postings seem to have more explanatory power than anything else I've come across. And I have looked far and wide. I'm not pretending to understand everything Ashvin and Cleric have been saying, though it is true that on re-reading some of Cleric's posts, lots of stuff has become clearer. I won't be giving classes on the Zodiac anytime soon.

So (maybe you're not doing this anyway), if you reply to me in the future, don't infantilise or treat me any different because of "mental health" issues.

Thanks.

[Cleric K]

Indeed, I have no comprehensive knowledge of the disciplines the above quotes refer to. However, if I were to feel truly inspired to study those disciplines, I would delve into it with no lack of effort, however difficult it may be. But I doubt that without such inspiration, it would ever make much sense. I feel much the same about Steiner's ideas on astrology, Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. For whatever reason, these aspects of his ideation just don't inspire this imagination. And frankly, I don't even care if he is just simply wrong about those aspects. But that in no way undermines or detracts from those aspects that do inspire this imagination, which I then make the effort to explore. So I'm curious as to what your take is on why one may feel deeply compelled to explore some aspects, but not others. If after exploring PoF, it doesn't naturally lead to being inspired to explore the astrological/zodiac cosmology, or the ruminations about Atlantis and Lemuria, is something crucial missed?

It's another thing which we can only understand properly if we consider the depth of reality. It's like asking "How come when various seeds are planted in the ground, one grows into a tomato, another into pumpkin, the third into carrot?" It's similar with our rhythmic embodiments. Just as each morning we begin from where we left off on the previous day, so when the outer shell drops at the time of death, the soul and spirit forces that have animated our Earthly character continue their refinement and ultimately fertilize 'vertically', the 'horizontally' fertilized egg, where as a seed a new unfoldment begins. The soul and spirit forces that we carry are in very complicated configurations. As they interact with the World Content they further unfold according to their nature. All of this is contained in the Parable of the Sower.

Presented in this way, it can be asked "So everything is predetermined? Our destiny unfolds entirely by the iron necessity of our soul seed?" It depends on the level of development of the individual. There's a spectrum within ourselves - from instinctive, nearly animalistic life, to life that can comprehend the laws and dynamics of reality and exercise higher degrees of freedom. In the former case our life primarily shaped by the environment, in the latter we become capable to augment the instinctive flow through moral imagination and intuition. We can observe this gradient in many different places - in ourselves, in a growing child, in humanity's historical development.

It's worth looking at this gradient more closely. We can roughly differentiate it into three parts. One is called the sentient or instinctive soul. It corresponds to the level of human conduct that is entirely driven by the instinctive flow. One is magically drawn by what gives pleasure and repelled from what causes pain.

The next region is called the intellectual soul. This is the kind of consciousness in which most modern people operate. This level of the soul began to take shape in the Greek epoch. Prior to that humanity as a whole was living in the instinctive soul. In the intellectual soul the thinking spiritual activity rises its head, so to speak, above the instinctive flow. We are not simply a witnessing "I" which is pulled around by the forces of destiny but we differentiate our thinking head from the flow and being to reflect on it. We understand the laws, regularities, patterns of life's unfoldments, we intuit ideas and we can plan how these ideas can be manifested in the sensory realm.

Then we have the consciousness or spiritual soul. This is only now beginning to awaken. In the intellectual soul, even if we rise with ideas about the necessities of the World process and are able to augment destiny through ideas, we still understand ourselves as a thinking ego. Everyone may have different theory about this ego - it could a brain, a soul, a nothingness, energy, a quantum potential, etc. No matter what our theory is, the common thing is that this theory exists only as thoughts within the intellect, the ego in the intellectual soul can't step outside its own thoughts. This is now gradually changing for small number of souls. PoF is practically nothing but a living travel guide which leads us along the gradient between the intellectual and the consciousness soul. When PoF is experienced in the right way we find a new dimension of our being. We no longer try to define what we and the world is through floating intellectual thoughts but we recognize that thinking itself is part of the World process.

Let's try to approach this with an analogy. Let's imagine our thoughts are being written on the screen of consciousness as by a spiritual hand. In the intellectual soul we're conscious only of the written symbols (thoughts). Intuitively we know that all these thoughts belong to a common center which we recognize as our ego, yet we have no clear awareness of what it really is. It's like the hand is conscious of what it writes but can't see itself. It can only build written theories about its true nature. The hand writes down "I'm brain, I'm soul, I'm energy, etc." yet sees nothing but the written text.

The transition to the consciousness soul is like the hand beginning to become aware of itself. It begins to feel that it is holding a pen, that it can stretch the fingers, make shapes. At this point a very important shift occurs. The hand now no longer speculates about its true nature through contemplation of written symbols but simply perceives its own movement. In the intellectual soul the movement of the hand is known only indirectly through the written imprints. Now the hand begins to know itself through the direct experiences of its movements. This analogy can lead us quite far if we meditate on it.

We live in time where the consciousness soul is being birthed. As with any other development process, the transition between the old and the new is always accompanied by turmoil. Some forces want to cling to the old. Other forces want the future but would like to directly teleport in the final destination, while skipping the intermediary steps. The symptoms of all these things are all over the place for those who have the eyes to see them. The things to keep watch for are the different ways this birth of the spiritual soul is avoided. We can see it on full display in this forum. The hand simply doesn't want to experience directly its movements. It wants to experience either only the written symbols (ordinary intellectual thoughts) or no writing at all (the mystical state), or it wants to experience automatic writing (visionary states, psychedelics). In all cases the reality of the hand remains in the shadows.

So we have a spectrum of souls, unfolding according to their seed. Some souls don't want to hear about the hand (they don't want to hear about PoF). They accept as real only what the invisible hand writes as thoughts but fiercely refuse to awaken in the hand itself and its movements. Others read PoF and experience glimpses of the hand movement, yet don't go much further. Others still, continue all the way.

So the original question was why this spectrum of souls? The general answer was that everyone grows from the seed that has been planted from the previous life, just as the extract of what we are now doing will form the seed for the next. If we have to be more specific, it's all about conflict of interests (desires). Truth doesn't equal comfort (at least not initially). The more we become aware of the hand, the more we become aware it is a part of a spiritual organism. Some are comfortable to trace the reality of this organism only up to an extent because beyond certain threshold this organism is no longer strictly ours. This is the main difference between the experiences in the consciousness soul and Manas, the Spirit-Self. In the former we're still a more or less enclosed ego, in the latter we already cross the threshold of the Spiritual World.

Each of these steps along the spiritual gradient is connected with certain shifts of self-consciousness, we understand ourselves differently and together with this we find ourselves in completely unsuspected relations with the environment. Many of these realizations can be deeply disturbing for our personality.

So I can roughly see two cases of why souls don't go any further. The first is that they are pressed down by the laws of necessity (karma). They simply don't have the inner freedom to point attention to anything else. The second is that souls attain to the place where they can exercise their freedom but they don't want to give up the comfort of their current situation.

The question now is "how to know if I'm truly and inevitably pressed into a certain life situation or I have a choice?" The very fact that we recognize alternatives with our thinking, already means we have a choice. The choice basically is if we want to begin with difficulties but come out better and better in the long run or start easy and comfortably and get worse and worse in time. It doesn't require occult vision to reach this conclusion. It's confirmed in every aspect of ordinary life.

So I would like to leave it with the hand analogy. I repeat that the most crucial difference is that in the intellectual soul we live entirely with the written thoughts, without being aware of the hand - we understand it only as far as we build symbolic-theoretical models of it. As the consciousness soul is being developed, we begin to experience ourselves as the active force that shapes the hand itself. Then we more and more understand the ordinary written thought-symbols as consequences of these shapes and moves. This transition completely changes what we consider to be knowledge. In the intellectual soul we think of knowledge as different patterns of written thoughts which are then correlated with other perceptions. In the consciousness soul knowledge becomes the actual movement of the hand and how it is being shaped by the environment - both of our own personality and that of the wider World.

At this point, the only limit for how far this process can go is we ourselves. Every further step with which we discover new degrees of freedom of our spiritual organism is won by feeling the restricting factors and overcoming them. Facing these factors is not always pleasant because we face our own habits, opinions, prejudices, likes, dislikes and so on. All of these are the forces that tie the hand and prevent the spirit to know its degrees of freedom.

[Eugene I]

Your advice to do it if it "helps" reminds me of the "by their fruits shall ye know them" discussion. What does it mean to help? Help for what? To be "normal enough"? That doesn't interest me in the slightest anymore, even though there were occasions I'd have wished to go back to such a life. And what "fruits"? The ones I've already decided, from a limited understanding, are good?

That is a very good question. What may feel "good" for our ego-mind may not be good for our spiritual growth, and vise versa. The way I personally approach it is to try to look at these things from the level and perspective beyond ego (and of course I would always have an ego-perspective by default), so having and comparing these perspective at least opens some choices.

This is why your approach doesn't interest me much anymore. Like Steve's theology, it feels barren. Steve (I'm paraphrasing, let me know if I'm misrepresenting him), doesn't bother with phenomenology because he doesn't get it. He wants to pursue love and other "good things" through a theology which sounds like a social philosophy. Ashvin's posts, and especially Cleric's, point to an internalising of the meaning of love. If it's better internalised, that surely means trying to find it is actually more doable.

Well, first, I don't have any specific approach, I'm on the open path. Also, I completely agree on internalizing, and that is exactly how I practically do things inside, but I just avoid talking about my private experiences and often talk very technically (side effect of my profession). Internalized view is the core of many Eastern practices. But here is the thing: all spiritual traditions or teachings (Anthroposophy included) are based on certain metaphysical schemes, assumptions and beliefs that are conceptual by nature, and many of these practices do attempt to internalize them. This is what differentiates them from pure theologies or philosophies that stay away from internalization. But it often happens that some teachings take these assumptions implicitly and unconsciously without critically examining them (so they become unrecognized beliefs), and by doing that people lock themselves into rigid beliefs that they take for granted. I always want to be honest with myself when I adopt any paradigm or worldview or belief system (internalized or not), I want to be conscious about exactly what my beliefs and assumptions are. This is not skepticism, this is just being sober and honest about my beliefs.

I would not agree that Steve's theology lacks internalization, he speaks about experiential and internalized connection with Divine depths in many places. But it seems that, like me, he has a reserved kind of personality and prefers to stay on the technical/theological side of things. I just feel that whenever I attempt to verbalize my internalized spiritual experiences, they get so much distorted that I just feel like stepping on a flower, so I tend to avoid it.

I don't know what's in the abridged version that you've purchased. Up until the last few chapters, the original is all about phenomenology. No preconceptions are needed.

I would question that. It is true that it takes phenomenological approach (just like the Buddhist practice and other traditions), but it also employs a lot of preconceptions and beliefs that Cleric and Ashvin are so reluctant to admit. That is why I try to poke them with various "what if" alternatives, not because I believe that they are truer than the Anthroposophical views, but because I want to show that their paradigm is based on certain assumptions and beliefs that they adopt implicitly without being honest about it. If Cleric would say: I perceive the Zodiacs and my belief is that they represent spiritual realities that control the physical reality, than I would have no problem with that. Or if he would say: I believe that the Self of all was incarnated as Jesus, than that would be fine too. I have nothing against beliefs, but I see a problem when implicit beliefs are presented as unquestionable truths.

So (maybe you're not doing this anyway), if you reply to me in the future, don't infantilise or treat me any different because of "mental health" issues.

Please don't take it personally, I know it's a sensitive topic. I just look at it practically: if I have body health issues I need to be careful with what I do with my body (what I eat, where I go etc), if I have mental health issues, I need to be careful with what I do with my mind (meditative practices included), that's all. But I can see that you are well aware of it, so I won't talk about it anymore.

[ParadoxZone]

Eugene,

That's all fine, I do appreciate the advice. The mental health thing isn't a sensitive issue for me at all. I also appreciate that you don't talk of your personal experiences for professional reasons. I don't have that constraint, so point taken. Yes some self-care is important for everyone, whatever the circumstances.

If PoF involves preconceptions that I'm not seeing, then I want to hear about them. That's why I'm anxious to read your feedback, having read it.

And it's probably not right that I'm regarding Ashvin's and Cleric's postings as "teachings", at least not yet. But they are perspectives (at least) that are explanatory in a way I haven't come across before. They are also quite hopeful and it is of course possible that my personal bias towards hopefulness is clouding my judgement. Time will tell and I'm unlikely to read everything Steiner has ever written.

As for the Jesus story, I'm not attaching significance as to whether certain events transpired in the way they're written about. I've been through phases of reading about that, alternative hypotheses about the crucifiction, resurrection and so on. I'm not that bothered, but what interests me is the Christ Consciousness part of the story (and other stories). That would get me ex-communicated around here, but I'm not bothered about that either.

[Eugene I]

If PoF involves preconceptions that I'm not seeing, then I want to hear about them. That's why I'm anxious to read your feedback, having read it.

Well, PoF is a version of idealism, and any version of idealism is based on certain unprovable metaphysical assumptions. But PoF is also a version of subjective-objective idealism in a sense that it is internalized view based on the fact of the given reality of conscious experience (and that is the way any "good" version idealism should be). Rupert Spira's teaching is another version of internalized idealism. So ,basically, our internalized experience tells us that consciousness is obviously real and this is the only reality we can ever know directly and experientially. But that does not necessarily mean that there is no other "layer" of reality beyond consciousness and of some nature different from consciousness and its ideal content (be it matter, shmatter, some "neutral" monistic nature or whatever). Sure, you can only cognize about such reality in abstract terms, exactly because it is beyond consciousness and therefore not subject for internalization, but that does not necessarily mean it can not exist. So, in idealism we just take a reasonable assumption that there are no other levels of reality of nature different from consciousness, but that is still an assumption.

Another assumption specific to PoF is that all of the reality is cognizable by thinking and reason. Many other versions of idealism do not make such far-reaching assumption and allow for a possibility that there are "ineffable" levels of the reality of consciousness never accessible for the direct cognition and understanding by thinking, even though those levels are not of any nature different from consciousness. Another way to say it that consciousness is not reducible to W-F-T only, and W-F-T is only the way consciousness manifests its activity at the tip of the "iceberg", while the "depths" of it remain ineffable, and so there is always a mystery to the reality no matter how far we progress in cognizing it. And there are many other similar more specific implicit assumptions in PoF.

I always get in trouble when questioning spiritual teachers about their assumptions. I once talked to Rupert and, with all my sympathy to his teachings, tried to get him to admit that his view, as much internalized as it is, is still based on certain unprovable assumptions, but he got mad at me for that

But you are right about hopefulness of PoF, this is one of the big things that attract people to versions of Christianity. On the other hand, isn't our need to have hope an ego-driven motivation? I think it is (which does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with it).

As for the Jesus story, I'm not attaching significance as to whether certain events transpired in the way they're written about. I've been through phases of reading about that, alternative hypotheses about the crucifiction, resurrection and so on. I'm not that bothered, but what interests me is the Christ Consciousness part of the story (and other stories). That would get me ex-communicated around here, but I'm not bothered about that either.

I have nothing against Christian beliefs, it is indeed quite possible that the Divine Self decided to incarnate into a human to intervene and accomplish certain mission to help humanity to evolve, why not? The only thing I want to stress is that it is still a belief.

[ParadoxZone]

Eugene,

I hear you. There are always assumptions. I suppose Ashvin and Cleric might say that these assumptions can, at a certain stage, be tested. That, in itself, would be unique, wouldn't it? But I shouldn't speak for Ashvin and Cleric. They will intervene when they see fit. And you might say, if I've been following this correctly, that their testing of assumptions could be subject to biases. So be it.

I don't think it's right that PoF starts from idealism. It may be that Steiner knew where he was going before writing it, but you'd expect that of someone writing a book.

And phenomenology is my only "way in". Others might have a different entry point. Just as Bernardo's work and persistence with analytic idealism was the only way I was going to "get" to idealism. (Without getting sucked back in to materialistic accounts, as has happened so often.) That's why I'm so grateful to Bernardo.

Having "got there", I now want to be a good and consistent idealist! There are other threads going in here with lots of videos being posted, and others are getting good value from that. More power to them. I'm kind of done with that for now. All of these things that the videos are about are not foreign to me. These thoughts have been rattling around here too, often chaotically.

As for Christianity, I've nothing against it either. What I do now have a bias against is those Christians who are expecting salvation from without while proclaiming moral superiority over the rest of us and wanting laws to reflect their beliefs. This just strikes me as their way of feeling better about themselves and feeling validated.

And speaking of the West and it's traditions - it strikes me that the East is more Western than the West in many respects, in the way spoken of by Cleric and Ashvin. Many who speak of "the West" are doing so from a political stance rather than anything actually fundamental. That grates with me too. I've seen people recently self-identity as Judeo-Christians and the motivation seems purely political and self-serving.

It's ok, I really don't want to talk about politics or the latest moral panic.

You say that your path is an open one and I accept that at face value. So again, I will be fascinated to read your critique of PoF after you've read it.

[AshvinP]

If PoF involves preconceptions that I'm not seeing, then I want to hear about them. That's why I'm anxious to read your feedback, having read it.

Well, PoF is a version of idealism, and any version of idealism is based on certain unprovable metaphysical assumptions. But PoF is also a version of subjective-objective idealism in a sense that it is internalized view based on the fact of the given reality of conscious experience (and that is the way any "good" version idealism should be). Rupert Spira's teaching is another version of internalized idealism. So ,basically, our internalized experience tells us that consciousness is obviously real and this is the only reality we can ever know directly and experientially. But that does not necessarily mean that there is no other "layer" of reality beyond consciousness and of some nature different from consciousness and its ideal content (be it matter, shmatter, some "neutral" monistic nature or whatever). Sure, you can only cognize about such reality in abstract terms, exactly because it is beyond consciousness and therefore not subject for internalization, but that does not necessarily mean it can not exist. So, in idealism we just take a reasonable assumption that there are no other levels of reality of nature different from consciousness, but that is still an assumption.

Another assumption specific to PoF is that all of the reality is cognizable by thinking and reason. Many other versions of idealism do not make such far-reaching assumption and allow for a possibility that there are "ineffable" levels of the reality of consciousness never accessible for the direct cognition and understanding by thinking, even though those levels are not of any nature different from consciousness. Another way to say it that consciousness is not reducible to W-F-T only, and W-F-T is only the way consciousness manifests its activity at the tip of the "iceberg", while the "depths" of it remain ineffable, and so there is always a mystery to the reality no matter how far we progress in cognizing it. And there are many other similar more specific implicit assumptions in PoF.

I always get in trouble when questioning spiritual teachers about their assumptions. I once talked to Rupert and, with all my sympathy to his teachings, tried to get him to admit that his view, as much internalized as it is, is still based on certain unprovable assumptions, but he got mad at me for that

But you are right about hopefulness of PoF, this is one of the big things that attract people to versions of Christianity. On the other hand, isn't our need to have hope an ego-driven motivation? I think it is (which does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with it).

As for the Jesus story, I'm not attaching significance as to whether certain events transpired in the way they're written about. I've been through phases of reading about that, alternative hypotheses about the crucifiction, resurrection and so on. I'm not that bothered, but what interests me is the Christ Consciousness part of the story (and other stories). That would get me ex-communicated around here, but I'm not bothered about that either.

I have nothing against Christian beliefs, it is indeed quite possible that the Divine Self decided to incarnate into a human to intervene and accomplish certain mission to help humanity to evolve, why not? The only thing I want to stress is that it is still a belief.

This makes no sense, Eugene. How do you claim to know what PoF is assuming when you have not read it yet? Am I going crazy, are we in the twilight zone, and/or is this beyond absurd? I even brought attention to this fact very recently on this thread, yet you keep making assertions about PoF which you have no basis to make (because you haven't read it), and also which are incorrect. But let's play this game for a bit... you just asserted PoF has three assumptions which Steiner relies on in his reasoning (which you also deny is "phenomenological" approach, when it clearly is).


1) "PoF is a version of idealism, and any version of idealism is based on certain unprovable metaphysical assumptions."

2) "But PoF is also a version of subjective-objective idealism in a sense that it is internalized view based on the fact of the given reality of conscious experience (and that is the way any "good" version idealism should be)"

3) "Another assumption specific to PoF is that all of the reality is cognizable by thinking and reason."

And we can add this catch-all 4th assertion - "but it also employs a lot of preconceptions and beliefs that Cleric and Ashvin are so reluctant to admit"


Now let's ignore the fact that you claim to be an idealist (or nondualist), this is an idealist forum, that BK has been makiing arguments from the idealist assumptions for many years now. Do you think BK's philosophy is a mere 'belief' with equal truth value to all other metaphysical 'beliefs'? Of course not. But you are trying to apply that standard to philosophy of Thinking. It's almost as if you think science is the only field in human existence which can deal with "objective" knowledge, which of course is generally associated with "materialism" and specifically called "scientism". But we can ignore that hypocrisy.

All you need to do is copy and paste the text from PoF where those three assumptions are made. You have the link to the full text now. Just to be clear, I take #2 to mean Steiner assumes conscious experience must be the ontic ground of Reality. If instead you mean he assumes we are actually beings who have conscious experience, then I think it goes without saying why ALL fields of inquiry, including your own engineering field, grants that "assumption", if it can even be called that.