Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2021 5:45 pm
Nice one.
What, in particular, do you consider "preachy" in how Cleric or Ashvin have presented and argued for their views, as distinct from the way BK, say, presents and argues for his?Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:18 am The fact is, Eugene's right. You are a preacher - in this day and age, you could hardly be more preachy.
The distinction is fuzzy but there is a difference. BK created his own platform and keeps all his content there. You and Steve did it too. If you post on forums, you just paste links to your blog, but do not dump volumes of your writings there every other day. If someone disagrees with you, you give arguments but do not accuse anyone of being egoic for disagreeing. Same applies to BK and Steve. Good quality philosophies and spiritual teachings do need some amount of publicity to reach to their potential auditory and do need discussions to present their strong points, but do not need persistent preaching, invasive tactics and aggressive defense. The truth speaks for itself once it reaches its auditory, it does not need to be enforced.ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:29 pm What, in particular, do you consider "preachy" in how Cleric or Ashvin have presented and argued for their views, as distinct from the way BK, say, presents and argues for his?
Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:03 amThe distinction is fuzzy but there is a difference. BK created his own platform and keeps all his content there. You and Steve did it too. If you post on forums, you just paste links to your blog, but do not dump volumes of your writings there every other day. If someone disagrees with you, you give arguments but do not accuse anyone of being egoic for disagreeing. Same applies to BK and Steve. Good quality philosophies and spiritual teachings do need some amount of publicity to reach to their potential auditory and do need discussions to present their strong points, but do not need persistent preaching, invasive tactics and aggressive defense. The truth speaks for itself once it reaches its auditory, it does not need to be enforced.ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:29 pm What, in particular, do you consider "preachy" in how Cleric or Ashvin have presented and argued for their views, as distinct from the way BK, say, presents and argues for his?
Anthroposophists don't need to set up a platform, as there already is one: rsarchive.org. There being so much on it, it is quite difficult to find just what is relevant to a current discussion, so Ashvin and Cleric are providing a service to state in their own words what is there.Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:03 amScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:29 pm What, in particular, do you consider "preachy" in how Cleric or Ashvin have presented and argued for their views, as distinct from the way BK, say, presents and argues for his?
The distinction is fuzzy but there is a difference. BK created his own platform and keeps all his content there. You and Steve did it too. If you post on forums, you just paste links to your blog, but do not dump volumes of your writings there every other day.
We are all "egoic". The question is, is one's particular ego getting in the way of the truth? First, one needs to understand what Steiner means by 'ego'. (Note: "the ego" is how English translators have translated Steiner's "das 'Ich'", or "the 'I'". So when I way we are all egoic, it just means we can meaningfully use the word 'I'.) Steiner defines the 'I' as being the fourth principle of the human constitution, the other three being the physical body, the etheric, or "life force" body -- it's what you feel when a limb "goes to sleep", and in general keeps the life processes going -- you're dead when it leaves the physical body), and the astral, or sentient, body -- what feels pleasure and pain. Steiner then defines the ego:If someone disagrees with you, you give arguments but do not accuse anyone of being egoic for disagreeing.
Now, in addition to three bodies, Steiner also distinguishes three souls: the sentient soul, the intellectual soul, and the consciousness (or spirit) soul. Human consciousness evolution within recorded history can be described as the ego moving from the sentient soul (as it was in pre-Axial age time) into the intellectual soul where, for you, me, and Ashvin, it currently resides. Anthroposophy's goal is to move the ego (remember: the 'I') into the consciousness soul (it appears that Cleric's has done so, or is in the process of doing so). Just as the sentient-soul-bound ego is not aware of the intellectual soul, so our intellectual-soul-bound egos are not aware of the consciousness soul -- to us it appears as nothingness -- see Cleric's recent post with his 'aliasing' analogy for more on this.Steiner wrote:Were the astral body left to its own resources, feelings of pleasure and pain, and sensations of hunger and thirst, would take place within it, but there would be lacking the consciousness of something lasting in all these feelings. It is not the permanent as such, which is here designated the "ego", but rather that which experiences this permanent element. In this domain, conceptions must be very exactly expressed if misunderstandings are not to arise. With the becoming aware of something permanent, lasting, within the changing inner experience, begins the dawn of "ego consciousness".
Persistent, yes, but invasive tactics? aggressive defense? Methinks you are just not liking the volume and thoroughness of Ashvin's and Cleric's posts. I fail to see why it should be called 'preaching'.Same applies to BK and Steve. Good quality philosophies and spiritual teachings do need some amount of publicity to reach to their potential auditory and do need discussions to present their strong points, but do not need persistent preaching, invasive tactics and aggressive defense.
When BK's idealism is misconstrued as solipsism or New Age quackery, does this not need rebutting? Ashvin and Cleric (and I) see you as misconstruing Anthroposophy, so rebuttals are in order. In other words, as we see it, Anthroposophy has not yet reached your auditory.The truth speaks for itself once it reaches its auditory, it does not need to be enforced.
ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 amAnthroposophists don't need to set up a platform, as there already is one: rsarchive.org. There being so much on it, it is quite difficult to find just what is relevant to a current discussion, so Ashvin and Cleric are providing a service to state in their own words what is there.Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:03 amScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:29 pm What, in particular, do you consider "preachy" in how Cleric or Ashvin have presented and argued for their views, as distinct from the way BK, say, presents and argues for his?
The distinction is fuzzy but there is a difference. BK created his own platform and keeps all his content there. You and Steve did it too. If you post on forums, you just paste links to your blog, but do not dump volumes of your writings there every other day.
We are all "egoic". The question is, is one's particular ego getting in the way of the truth? First, one needs to understand what Steiner means by 'ego'. (Note: "the ego" is how English translators have translated Steiner's "das 'Ich'", or "the 'I'". So when I way we are all egoic, it just means we can meaningfully use the word 'I'.) Steiner defines the 'I' as being the fourth principle of the human constitution, the other three being the physical body, the etheric, or "life force" body -- it's what you feel when a limb "goes to sleep", and in general keeps the life processes going -- you're dead when it leaves the physical body), and the astral, or sentient, body -- what feels pleasure and pain. Steiner then defines the ego:If someone disagrees with you, you give arguments but do not accuse anyone of being egoic for disagreeing.
Now, in addition to three bodies, Steiner also distinguishes three souls: the sentient soul, the intellectual soul, and the consciousness (or spirit) soul. Human consciousness evolution within recorded history can be described as the ego moving from the sentient soul (as it was in pre-Axial age time) into the intellectual soul where, for you, me, and Ashvin, it currently resides. Anthroposophy's goal is to move the ego (remember: the 'I') into the consciousness soul (it appears that Cleric's has done so, or is in the process of doing so). Just as the sentient-soul-bound ego is not aware of the intellectual soul, so our intellectual-soul-bound egos are not aware of the consciousness soul -- to us it appears as nothingness -- see Cleric's recent post with his 'aliasing' analogy for more on this.Steiner wrote:Were the astral body left to its own resources, feelings of pleasure and pain, and sensations of hunger and thirst, would take place within it, but there would be lacking the consciousness of something lasting in all these feelings. It is not the permanent as such, which is here designated the "ego", but rather that which experiences this permanent element. In this domain, conceptions must be very exactly expressed if misunderstandings are not to arise. With the becoming aware of something permanent, lasting, within the changing inner experience, begins the dawn of "ego consciousness".
Anyway, when Ashvin accuses your ego of getting in the way, he is merely referring to a problem we all have with our intellectual-soul-bound egos, that of attachment to intellectual abstractions. He is pointing out cases where your particular attachments hide a latent dualism, for example.
Persistent, yes, but invasive tactics? aggressive defense? Methinks you are just not liking the volume and thoroughness of Ashvin's and Cleric's posts. I fail to see why it should be called 'preaching'.Same applies to BK and Steve. Good quality philosophies and spiritual teachings do need some amount of publicity to reach to their potential auditory and do need discussions to present their strong points, but do not need persistent preaching, invasive tactics and aggressive defense.
When BK's idealism is misconstrued as solipsism or New Age quackery, does this not need rebutting? Ashvin and Cleric (and I) see you as misconstruing Anthroposophy, so rebuttals are in order. In other words, as we see it, Anthroposophy has not yet reached your auditory.The truth speaks for itself once it reaches its auditory, it does not need to be enforced.
I don't see BK's idealism as solipsism or New age, I see it as a legitimate perspective on Reality having many valid points but also limited and missing in many ways. My view on Anthroposophy is similar. The question is how much a particular philosophy is open to admitting its limitations and missing aspects, to criticism and to flexibility to adjust its own views.ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 am When BK's idealism is misconstrued as solipsism or New Age quackery, does this not need rebutting? Ashvin and Cleric (and I) see you as misconstruing Anthroposophy, so rebuttals are in order. In other words, as we see it, Anthroposophy has not yet reached your auditory.
No worries with that. Call me a shiftless waste of space for all I care. Your analysis above is helpful, as well as Scott's, so thanks both for that. All I can offer as a gesture of gratitude, and a plea for patience with this mod's own foibles, is this deep gassho to Nature on this glorious autumnal morn ...
Most spiritual traditions and teachings hold similar position and there is definitely truth in it. Yet, there is a flaw in the argument of "you disagree with such and such because your ego is getting in the way" - this argument cannot be legitimately used in philosophical discussions. Suppose I propose a teaching that has some particular misconception of flaw, but I also claim that my view can only be understood from the beyond-egoic perspective and one needs to transcend its own ego and intellectual level of understanding to be able to comprehend it. Now, if anyone disagrees with my flawed view, I would point to them that it's their egoic and intellectual perspective that gets into the way and does not allow them to see the truth. But my opponent may have a different view on the subject, while holding the same position on the limitation of the egoic intellect, so they with use the same argument against me, and the discussion quickly comes to the dead end - we both accuse each other of viewing the opponents position from the ego-mind perspective. Such argument is most often used by sectarians and all kinds of self-proclaimed gurus. This is why good quality teachings and teachers usually do not use this argument in disputes; they may point to the fact that the egoic intellect needs to be transcended to fully comprehend their teachings, but do not use this as an argument in disputes.ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 am Anyway, when Ashvin accuses your ego of getting in the way, he is merely referring to a problem we all have with our intellectual-soul-bound egos, that of attachment to intellectual abstractions. He is pointing out cases where your particular attachments hide a latent dualism, for example.