A clean room for a specific exploration

[findingblanks]

Brief bursts:

"Right now, it seems to me you are taking an "all or nothing" approach to higher cognition."

No, I see that these happen in very subtle degrees with multiple overlapping lines and types of perception/cognition. Hence, a very clairvoyant person can still be objectively seeing things with massive distortions. An all or nothing approach, in my opinion, would not allow for this. It would say that the person is either massively right or massively wrong.

I'll address other comments you made below when I have time.

[findingblanks]

"My claim is that the distortion is much less severe and therefore the phenomena perceived are much more easily and precisely traced back to their sources. If that were not the case, cognition X would be practically the same as cognition Z. It sounds like you deny that higher cognition moves us 'closer' to the noumena, i.e. they recquire just as much abstract "explication" as the intellect, or that the difference is so small as to be negligble?"

We agree more than you think.

I agree that non-typical modes of cognition-perception (c-p) can be 'closer'. But that is exactly why I think they can become extremely distorted. I have no doubt you have read lectures in which Steiner explains why a person who has carefully cultivated Imagination can make massive errors very easily in understanding the experience. Same with inspiration. But, for our purposes, I assume we both agree that it won't do to simply refer to other thinkers. I only mention Steiner because he is one person who explicates alternative modes of knowing and explain why the 'closer' knowing experiences can be very difficult to accurately comprehend and articulate. This is one reason he stated that a person without any higher knowing can often correct and modify a claim made by a mostly reliable clairvoyant. But fortunately Steiner isn't the only great researcher to make this kind of observation. Goethe and Gendlin have ways they express this idea. I think Barfield explains why final participation brings with it a whole new slew of problems when it comes to understanding the higher/deeper experiences. But, again, best if we stick to our own ways of talking in this context.

So for me: I do not deny that alternative cognition moves 'closer'. I believe that the 'deeper' the knowing-experience the harder it till be to grasp it and incarnate it intellectually. Again, only because he is the one person I know we both love and read, Steiner's Anthroposophy A Fragment lets us read Steiner's own description of the near impossibility he experienced when trying to write that book. In fact, he never finished it because he said he couldn't yet find the right words and concepts to express it within. He felt that publishing the book in its present form could be very misleading because he knew that it required an even deeper intellectual precision. That does not mean that the experiences themselves were merely intellectual.

Gendlin has written about this in his own way. Coleridge expresses it in brilliant patches in his way. It's almost a required mark of any great thinker who relies on modes of knowing and seeing that go deeper than the intellect.

"To be clear, I agree there is a major difference between explicating the higher modes of cognition with intellectual concepts and actually experiencing the higher modes."

Yes, we agree again. Explication my be applied any and all modes of experiencing that person wishes to re-present to themselves or to others.

"However, I do not think it is impossible for the intellect to usefully understand concepts which have been 'brought back' from the spiritual realms via higher cognition."

We agree. Which is why we read and love books that we meditate on so diligently

"So maybe you are also saying that the intellect cannot even usefully speak or read about these concepts relayed from higher cognition..."

The only reason I praise Steiner is because he was so skillful at articulating his experiences. In other words, I've only had access to his words in order to explore the ideas behind them. Same with any other great researcher who is relying on a participatory mode of research. I will admit that I get confused why you would speak in such either/or language here. I have pointed to very detailed aspects of Steiner's articulations that I praise and find brilliant. Those certainly are examples of me believing that he usefully articulated his higher experiences. It seems that it is my idea that the 'deeper' seeing can be objective in various ways and distorted in various ways that could be our core difference of opinion. But I don't want to assume that because I have a hunch you might agree with me that even a great participative researcher can get aspect correct and aspect wrong, not just either/or.

[AshvinP]

"My claim is that the distortion is much less severe and therefore the phenomena perceived are much more easily and precisely traced back to their sources. If that were not the case, cognition X would be practically the same as cognition Z. It sounds like you deny that higher cognition moves us 'closer' to the noumena, i.e. they recquire just as much abstract "explication" as the intellect, or that the difference is so small as to be negligble?"

We agree more than you think.

I agree that non-typical modes of cognition-perception (c-p) can be 'closer'. But that is exactly why I think they can become extremely distorted. I have no doubt you have read lectures in which Steiner explains why a person who has carefully cultivated Imagination can make massive errors very easily in understanding the experience. Same with inspiration. But, for our purposes, I assume we both agree that it won't do to simply refer to other thinkers. I only mention Steiner because he is one person who explicates alternative modes of knowing and explain why the 'closer' knowing experiences can be very difficult to accurately comprehend and articulate. This is one reason he stated that a person without any higher knowing can often correct and modify a claim made by a mostly reliable clairvoyant. But fortunately Steiner isn't the only great researcher to make this kind of observation. Goethe and Gendlin have ways they express this idea. I think Barfield explains why final participation brings with it a whole new slew of problems when it comes to understanding the higher/deeper experiences. But, again, best if we stick to our own ways of talking in this context.

So for me: I do not deny that alternative cognition moves 'closer'. I believe that the 'deeper' the knowing-experience the harder it till be to grasp it and incarnate it intellectually. Again, only because he is the one person I know we both love and read, Steiner's Anthroposophy A Fragment lets us read Steiner's own description of the near impossibility he experienced when trying to write that book. In fact, he never finished it because he said he couldn't yet find the right words and concepts to express it within. He felt that publishing the book in its present form could be very misleading because he knew that it required an even deeper intellectual precision. That does not mean that the experiences themselves were merely intellectual.

Gendlin has written about this in his own way. Coleridge expresses it in brilliant patches in his way. It's almost a required mark of any great thinker who relies on modes of knowing and seeing that go deeper than the intellect.

(my "quotes" of you below are only intended as my own interpretation of your comments)

OK, I see more clearly what you are saying here. We still disagree, but it is the more subtle details that lead to the disagreement. My admittedly crude summary of the above would be, "higher cognition of the spiritual is fraught with potential for error, so the people who relay accounts from this genuine spiritual sight, including the people who pointed out the potential for errors, are not immune and therefore we cannot become too attached to their accounts". I agree to some extent here. So it's clear, I do not think anyone should totally rely on or put faith in any of these accounts before they have experienced the spiritual realms via higher cognition themselves. What we can build confidence in through our logical reasoning capacity is that (a) higher cognition exists, is attainable right now, and allows for detailed resolution of normally invisible spiritual realms, and (b) the broad spiritual evolutionary framework of people like Steiner, including many details of that framework, can be verified with confidence when tested by our Reason against all current experience and knowledge of the world content.

I am familiar with the Steiner passages you reference, and generally he says we must build up a very strong conceptual foundation and devotional soul-life before venturing into the spiritual realms, because otherwise there is great potential for error. This is where I notice the most stark difference between Steiner, Cleric, and myself, and you. We generally emphasize what concrete steps should be taken to build up the conceptual foundation, beyond the vague abstract (and often misleading) concepts of MAL, alter, dissociation, etc. You have also criticized those aspects of BK's idealism, if I remember correctly, but your criticism is more along the lines of, "we don't need to get too technical with all these things, because it's enough to recognize the overall spirit of idealism and not align ourselves with any fixed thought-systems". So you generally end up emphasizing in the opposite direction, i.e. "don't worry too much about amassing a conceptual foundation or developing any particular soul-life via the Christ-being".

If any of the above is accurate, then it's just not genuine for me to say we are in agreement about anything, because really the most core impulses I am trying to highlight - the primacy of spiritual activity (Thinking), highly detailed and living conceptual knowledge, personal ambition towards amassing ever-more detailed spiritual knowledge, utmost trust in the fruits of the Spirit, prayer and devotion via the Christ-being, etc. - are not present or, at least, are not at all highlighted in your spiritual evolutionary outlook.

"So maybe you are also saying that the intellect cannot even usefully speak or read about these concepts relayed from higher cognition..."

The only reason I praise Steiner is because he was so skillful at articulating his experiences. In other words, I've only had access to his words in order to explore the ideas behind them. Same with any other great researcher who is relying on a participatory mode of research. I will admit that I get confused why you would speak in such either/or language here. I have pointed to very detailed aspects of Steiner's articulations that I praise and find brilliant. Those certainly are examples of me believing that he usefully articulated his higher experiences. It seems that it is my idea that the 'deeper' seeing can be objective in various ways and distorted in various ways that could be our core difference of opinion. But I don't want to assume that because I have a hunch you might agree with me that even a great participative researcher can get aspect correct and aspect wrong, not just either/or.

I feel that one of main cores of Steiner's outlook is the following quote from Goethe - "The idea is eternal and single; that we also use the plural is not appropriate. All things of which we become aware and about which we are able to speak are only manifestations of the idea."

So I think he would be the last person to feel it was acceptable to select out particular ideas from his writing that we liked or resonated with and otherwise ignore, diminish, marginalize, etc. the overarching framework of spiritual realms and spiritual beings. He would probably say the person who had done that has not understood him at all. Whenever he comments on other thinkers, it is always with an eye towards the holistic Idea which encompasses their entire worldview. The same is true for his comments on any phenomena, really. The eternal Idea for Steiner is, "all is evolving Spirit", and his work traces the highly structured and lawful manifestations of that Idea through Cosmic history. The spiritual laws at work are not at all like pure physical laws, but nevertheless they are lawful i.e. predictable. So if Steiner's account of those manifestations is off in any significant way, for ex. the Atlantis stage of Earth's evolution did not happen or happened completely differently, then that means there is at least one gaping hole in his understanding of the spiritual laws and I think he would be the first to tell us not to further consider anything else he writes until we discern exactly what that is.

[AshvinP]

One day my daughter was playing by herself outside. She was about five.
I was reading under a nearby tree. She ran up to a nearby big rock and placed
both hands on it. I saw a smile grow on her face. She then twisted herself
towards the sun behind her and said, "Thank you sun!" I asked her why she
thanked the sun and she said, "For making the rock so warm and cozy."

She was five. And certainly intellect was involved with her the joy and
gratitude she felt well up within her has she felt the warmth. If she was a dog
or a snail, I'm not sure she would have had that sacred experience of gratitude.
But even though her intellect was involved, I don't think it is accurate to say
that she first unconsciously separated each 'item' of her experience into 'parts.'
Somebody might claim her experience of gratitude in the sun warming the stone
was the function of Reason itself. Somebody might want to point out that
there is a difference between that kind of Reason and the Reason cultivated by
an adult in order to grasp directly the unity of the Cosmos.

I don't think my daughter could have had that experience without having basic
intuitions and concepts (not the same thing obviously) of 'sun' and 'stone' and 'hands'
and 'me' and 'warm' and one-thousands other 'things.' And I don't think the spiritual
scientist or Goethean or XYZ can speak of what is 'prior' to intellect until they have
acquired very core, basic, and special intuitions and concepts. It is those very intuitions
that will even make it possible to say, "I am now in mode of knowing that is prior to those
cognitions." But it will be a mere intellectual quibble about 'prior' until and unless I can
make myself more clear to you.

"All the concepts that the intellect creates — cause and effect, substance and attribute, body and soul, idea and reality, God and world, etc. — are there only in order to keep unified reality separated artificially into parts; and reason, without blurring the content thus created, without mystically obscuring the clarity of the intellect, has then to seek out the inner unity in the multiplicity. Reason thereby comes back to that from which the intellect had distanced itself: to the unified reality."

So despite my agreeing with that statement 100%, because of this living thesis/antithesis/synthesis of my understanding, I have to sound like I'm
pushing against it.

If it is true that we are wrong to look at the plant and think 'that' is the plant, ignoring that its actual reality is the Wholeness of all that came before and all that it is striving to become, this implies that we only step out of an intellectual illusion about 'this is a plant' if we are directly beholding the entirety of its reality, an entirety that is beyond a 'higher perception'. I mean to say, we don't want to make the error of thinking that when we truely see the plant in its wholeness we are seeing a (spiritual) perception that could be drawn. No, of course not. The non-intellectualized 'seeing' of the actual plant is not at all a 'seeing' but simply uniting intuiting with what it is. So even when we speak of its wholeness as being the process of its becoming, we are still in the intellectual illusion which includes the 'higher' modes of perception. Or, in other words, just as differentiating the 'parts' of the plant in space is false. So is differentiating the 'stages' of the plants life. When the Reason grasps the plant it isn't merely looking wider in space and time, it is disregarding the illusion of both. That does not mean it is 'seeing' the plant that is 'really there' beyond the spacial and temporal experiences of it that our bodies generate.

All this to say: I am going to see if a possible creative bridge might be possible.

Hopefully, you'll grasp with a 12% intuition that I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying despite my 'anthetical' push for distinctions that seem point-missing Typically people just stop talking when it seems they aren't seeing each other's points. But the 12% is where the action is in my opinion.

I wanted to return and address this because it's very important. The illustration of your daughter's experience may be difficult for us to parse here for obvious reasons, but if anything, it seems the intellect is not really developed at age 5. We typically acknolwedge that a child is more imaginative in thought, which is another way of saying the intellect has not entirely abstracted away from spiritual experience.

Besides that, there are many valid points in what you comment above. We all agree that spatiotemporal perceptions and descriptions of a plant cannot ever be the "true plant". Spatiotemporal is practically synonmyous with "physical", and higher cognition is spiritual sight. It is moving from perception of the formative aspect of experience to the formless aspect. It is not strictly "perception of" anything, because that already presupposes representational thought constrained by space-time. So we are in agreement here.

The problem is that you seem to be equating intuition from the physical perspective, which remains subconscious, with fully conscious intuition within the spiritual realms. This relates directly to my previous post as well - this conflation acts as a sort of bypassing of all the layers between our current perspective way out on the periphery of creation and the Intuitive power which projects into us from the Center. I am sure you have come across my quote of Bergson which criticizes this attempt to "leap in one bound to the eternal". And I know you are already quite familiar with this quote from Steiner's PoF, but I will paste it here for anyone else's benefit. My quesiton is - what do you make of the logic of that bold conclusion?

In thinking, we have that element given us which welds our separate individuality into one whole with the cosmos. In so far as we sense and feel (and also perceive), we are single beings; in so far as we think, we are the all-one being that pervades everything. This is the deeper meaning of our two-sided nature: We see coming into being in us a force complete and absolute in itself, a force which is universal but which we learn to know, not as it issues from the center of the world, but rather at a point in the periphery. Were we to know it at its source, we should understand the whole riddle of the universe the moment we became conscious. But since we stand at a point in the periphery, and find that our own existence is bounded by definite limits, we must explore the region which lies outside our own being with the help of thinking, which projects into us from the universal world existence.

[findingblanks]

"I agree to some extent here. So it's clear, I do not think anyone should totally rely on or put faith in any of these accounts before they have experienced the spiritual realms via higher cognition themselves."

Agreed. And because any person who has developed a form of wider-deeper experiencing (I want in this specific context talking with you for my use of 'experiencing' to be taken as including 'higher-wider-deeper' perception and knowing) will most likely be developing their lens in their own unique way, we should not expect that they will be the ones who once-and-for-all both notice and then correct and make perfect their lens. I think you might only slightly agree with me on that, but it will be a very important agreement nonetheless. Otherwise, it will suggest that there are cases in which we should not just expect but assume the correlary; an individual who develops w-d experiencing and both noticed, corrected and perfected a lens that is exactly (enough) what another individual should use as their own standard of perception.

A meta-comment. You and I very well might agree that unlike being born with basically finished senses and basically finished everyday forms of cognition (the kind that Steiner often pointed to as the somewhat healthy starting point that needed to transformed), any human who develops a more intriacte form of w-d experiencing will be doing so via some kind of inner development requiring effort, practice and grace.

"What we can build confidence in through our logical reasoning capacity is that (a) higher cognition exists, is attainable right now, and allows for detailed resolution of normally invisible spiritual realms, and (b) the broad spiritual evolutionary framework of people like Steiner, including many details of that framework, can be verified with confidence when tested by our Reason against all current experience and knowledge of the world content."

As long as this confidence includes an equal confidence that aspect of the both the wider general frame and details should most certainly be challenged and widened and corrected, and that the ways of seeing into this reality will continue to be quite different, allowing for other maps and articulations that might, for a time, seem to be in conflict...then, I'm fully 100% with you. But if this confidence reflects a certainty that there is a given articulation that is not problematic in any ways, I would say this is part of the distance between us.

"You have also criticized those aspects of BK's idealism, if I remember correctly, but your criticism is more along the lines of, "we don't need to get too technical with all these things, because it's enough to recognize the overall spirit of idealism and not align ourselves with any fixed thought-systems". So you generally end up emphasizing in the opposite direction, i.e. "don't worry too much about amassing a conceptual foundation or developing any particular soul-life via the Christ-being"."

Yes, but what is important is that when I speak in those terms I am speaking in a very specific context. I'm not stating some setteled overall view of life in general. In other words, I'm not saying, "Hey, look, everybody is right to some degree so lets just relax and chill out and not really strive to know things more deeply and widely, because that kind of striving is crazy and really impossible."

I'm not saying that at all. However, I understand why when I point to aspect of Gendlin, Goethe, Steiner, Gebser (especially to how their modern students might be formalizing the understandings) that I think are overly dogmatic or contain problems that people who are exclusively convinced of the near perfection of these understandings will feel I am making naïve and relativistic statements. However, within each of those communities, I tend to find a small handful that can see I am not making that kind of a general point. It isn't easy and I don't think the difficulty can be attributed solely to me or to the person having trouble seeing my points. I think it is much more due to the kind of inexorable and living dialectic you pointed to way above this post.

"If any of the above is accurate, then it's just not genuine for me to say we are in agreement about anything, because really the most core impulses I am trying to highlight - the primacy of spiritual activity (Thinking), highly detailed and living conceptual knowledge, personal ambition towards amassing ever-more detailed spiritual knowledge, utmost trust in the fruits of the Spirit, prayer and devotion via the Christ-being, etc. - are not present or, at least, are not at all highlighted in your spiritual evolutionary outlook."

Yes, good point. And my humble suggestion is that if, thus far, you still feel that way after reading my comments, we can shake hands and thank each other for making an effort to really listen. I appreciate that this conversation hasn't once slid into hyperbole or claims about each other's inner lives. It really felt nice to stay within a conversation like this. I certainly respect your view. Many of my closest friends share basically exactly your view. I'm not exaggerating. We do not find it difficult at all to nourish our friendships and deepen our bonds. Of course, in the real world, when you are living next door to your community, helping care for each others kids, helping each deal with fires and floods, it is much easier to directly experience the moral intuitions and living connections that move between us. All that said, I very much appreciate that in this context you've stated your convictions and asked your question to me with dignity and a real willingness to try to understand me. I hope you feel the same way despite your coming to believe that deeper knowing, perceiving, prayer, devotion are not a part or highlighted in my world-view. While I have emphasized the massive importantance of Steiner's deeper knowing and perceiving along with that of others, I haven't spoken very much of my daily prayer activity. I've certainly used The Word in my discourse, assuming you and I share a basic sense of how "The Word" is taken up generally within esoterics, but I haven't been a part of a conversation in which we've really tried to understand each other's devotional lives or deeper experiences to such a source reality. So, in that sense, I am not surprised very much that we each don't see many highlights in those regards. But, without a doubt, I can recall seeing you use those words and underline them as very important and connected to your life and to your understanding of deeper and wider knowings and perceivings. Again, thank you for this conversation.

[findingblanks]

"Besides that, there are many valid points in what you comment above. We all agree that spatiotemporal perceptions and descriptions of a plant cannot ever be the "true plant". Spatiotemporal is practically synonmyous with "physical", and higher cognition is spiritual sight. It is moving from perception of the formative aspect of experience to the formless aspect. It is not strictly "perception of" anything, because that already presupposes representational thought constrained by space-time. So we are in agreement here."

Yes, and this points to how spiritual Imaginations are also spatial-temporal and why they will contain many of the similar strengths and weakness when it comes to truly grasping what they 'are' or 'mean.'

"The problem is that you seem to be equating intuition from the physical perspective, which remains subconscious, with fully conscious intuition within the spiritual realms."

That isn't what I experience or think myself to be doing, but I understand why the understand-gap between could lead to that interpretation and all I can do is try to understand your way of grasping things more clearly so I can explain to you why that doesn't square with my understanding. And I appreciate you articulating that.

Regarding the Steiner quotation:

"In thinking, we have that element given us which welds our separate individuality into one whole with the cosmos. In so far as we sense and feel (and also perceive), we are single beings; in so far as we think, we are the all-one being that pervades everything. This is the deeper meaning of our two-sided nature: We see coming into being in us a force complete and absolute in itself, a force which is universal but which we learn to know, not as it issues from the center of the world, but rather at a point in the periphery. Were we to know it at its source, we should understand the whole riddle of the universe the moment we became conscious. But since we stand at a point in the periphery, and find that our own existence is bounded by definite limits, we must explore the region which lies outside our own being with the help of thinking, which projects into us from the universal world existence."

Yes, I have a strong feeling we have each been in many PoF study groups that explore this exact quotation for some time!

I looked at this with a group led by Dennis Kloceck, then with Georg Khulewind, and finally -back in 99 - with Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon.

All three took on very different perspectives and used very different languages to explore the rich meaning in there. I wouldn't claim that anybody I have met would say it can be easily put in one context.

One element that I really treasure in that is the way Steiner points to 'thinking' as an experience NOT that we notice inside of ourselves and then attach it to things outside of us. No, this passage really captures for me the experience of a cognitive force being projected into my limited yet highly rich individuated context and then my responsibility to hold/see/stabilize that force in the context of my particular knowledge-drama.

The hypothetical in bold, for me, strongly underlines why we are on a path, the kind of path that Steiner said he had to take all by himself and that all future humans would as well, but that he also felt the need to find a way to individuate his path in broad outlines that could be useful for others. Rather than suddenly merging in oneness with pure 'knowing' of the riddle, we each take steps where nobody else is walking. We must uniquely come to know and allow and cultivate this 'force' being projected into us from the univesal world, and we should absolutely expect that we will meet others who are doing the same work but would never refer to it as 'universal force' or perhaps in any other basic ways we frame it. And because of the very nature of this projected 'force', rather than interpreting the other's words as evidence they don't understand us, we will become more and more capable of noticing that very often the apparent difference are speaking to deeply new overlapping, and, also, that many people with shared expressions are actually not communing with us as much as what seemed to be an obvious 'other'.

Steiner's use of 'point on the periphery' rather than the 'center' is very helpful for me in underlining this experience that is very tricky, very beautiful and very ongoing!

And I should add that I've also been in study groups led by people who felt very certain there was one basic way to understand that quotation and they basically tried to lead the group towards that. In that context, if anybody began to speak or express themselves in ways tha tquickly seemed to be 'off' they were quickly brought in line in terms of how to understand each phrase, word by word. I found value in that, too, but it was of a different kind certainly.

Thanks for sharing that beautiful riddle. And path!

[AshvinP]

"I agree to some extent here. So it's clear, I do not think anyone should totally rely on or put faith in any of these accounts before they have experienced the spiritual realms via higher cognition themselves."

Agreed. And because any person who has developed a form of wider-deeper experiencing (I want in this specific context talking with you for my use of 'experiencing' to be taken as including 'higher-wider-deeper' perception and knowing) will most likely be developing their lens in their own unique way, we should not expect that they will be the ones who once-and-for-all both notice and then correct and make perfect their lens. I think you might only slightly agree with me on that, but it will be a very important agreement nonetheless. Otherwise, it will suggest that there are cases in which we should not just expect but assume the correlary; an individual who develops w-d experiencing and both noticed, corrected and perfected a lens that is exactly (enough) what another individual should use as their own standard of perception.

A meta-comment. You and I very well might agree that unlike being born with basically finished senses and basically finished everyday forms of cognition (the kind that Steiner often pointed to as the somewhat healthy starting point that needed to transformed), any human who develops a more intriacte form of w-d experiencing will be doing so via some kind of inner development requiring effort, practice and grace.

"What we can build confidence in through our logical reasoning capacity is that (a) higher cognition exists, is attainable right now, and allows for detailed resolution of normally invisible spiritual realms, and (b) the broad spiritual evolutionary framework of people like Steiner, including many details of that framework, can be verified with confidence when tested by our Reason against all current experience and knowledge of the world content."

As long as this confidence includes an equal confidence that aspect of the both the wider general frame and details should most certainly be challenged and widened and corrected, and that the ways of seeing into this reality will continue to be quite different, allowing for other maps and articulations that might, for a time, seem to be in conflict...then, I'm fully 100% with you. But if this confidence reflects a certainty that there is a given articulation that is not problematic in any ways, I would say this is part of the distance between us.

Yes, of course. Maybe it will help if you give a concrete example from Steiner's articulation which you feel needs to be "challenged and widened and corrected", based on your own evolved knowledge at this time. I know a couple were presented on the Steiner-Schop thread, but maybe you changed your mind or otherwise adjusted on a few of those, so it's best to start fresh here.

The hypothetical in bold, for me, strongly underlines why we are on a path, the kind of path that Steiner said he had to take all by himself and that all future humans would as well, but that he also felt the need to find a way to individuate his path in broad outlines that could be useful for others. Rather than suddenly merging in oneness with pure 'knowing' of the riddle, we each take steps where nobody else is walking. We must uniquely come to know and allow and cultivate this 'force' being projected into us from the univesal world, and we should absolutely expect that we will meet others who are doing the same work but would never refer to it as 'universal force' or perhaps in any other basic ways we frame it. And because of the very nature of this projected 'force', rather than interpreting the other's words as evidence they don't understand us, we will become more and more capable of noticing that very often the apparent difference are speaking to deeply new overlapping, and, also, that many people with shared expressions are actually not communing with us as much as what seemed to be an obvious 'other'.

Steiner's use of 'point on the periphery' rather than the 'center' is very helpful for me in underlining this experience that is very tricky, very beautiful and very ongoing!

And I should add that I've also been in study groups led by people who felt very certain there was one basic way to understand that quotation and they basically tried to lead the group towards that. In that context, if anybody began to speak or express themselves in ways tha tquickly seemed to be 'off' they were quickly brought in line in terms of how to understand each phrase, word by word. I found value in that, too, but it was of a different kind certainly.

Alright, so we agree on that general understanding of Steiner's quote. The real question for me is, under your view, while we are on the path to the Center and have not completely solved the Cosmic riddle, can we still claim to have near certain knowledge of the subconscious 'layers' which exist between our point on the periphery and the Intuitive Source at the Center? Put another way, is there any value to individuals preparing right now, via higher knowledge, for Earth's evolution and reincarnation into three higher planetary stages? Can we have any sort of confidence these higher stages will actually unfold?

"You have also criticized those aspects of BK's idealism, if I remember correctly, but your criticism is more along the lines of, "we don't need to get too technical with all these things, because it's enough to recognize the overall spirit of idealism and not align ourselves with any fixed thought-systems". So you generally end up emphasizing in the opposite direction, i.e. "don't worry too much about amassing a conceptual foundation or developing any particular soul-life via the Christ-being"."

Yes, but what is important is that when I speak in those terms I am speaking in a very specific context. I'm not stating some setteled overall view of life in general. In other words, I'm not saying, "Hey, look, everybody is right to some degree so lets just relax and chill out and not really strive to know things more deeply and widely, because that kind of striving is crazy and really impossible."

I'm not saying that at all. However, I understand why when I point to aspect of Gendlin, Goethe, Steiner, Gebser (especially to how their modern students might be formalizing the understandings) that I think are overly dogmatic or contain problems that people who are exclusively convinced of the near perfection of these understandings will feel I am making naïve and relativistic statements. However, within each of those communities, I tend to find a small handful that can see I am not making that kind of a general point. It isn't easy and I don't think the difficulty can be attributed solely to me or to the person having trouble seeing my points. I think it is much more due to the kind of inexorable and living dialectic you pointed to way above this post.

"If any of the above is accurate, then it's just not genuine for me to say we are in agreement about anything, because really the most core impulses I am trying to highlight - the primacy of spiritual activity (Thinking), highly detailed and living conceptual knowledge, personal ambition towards amassing ever-more detailed spiritual knowledge, utmost trust in the fruits of the Spirit, prayer and devotion via the Christ-being, etc. - are not present or, at least, are not at all highlighted in your spiritual evolutionary outlook."

Yes, good point. And my humble suggestion is that if, thus far, you still feel that way after reading my comments, we can shake hands and thank each other for making an effort to really listen. I appreciate that this conversation hasn't once slid into hyperbole or claims about each other's inner lives. It really felt nice to stay within a conversation like this. I certainly respect your view. Many of my closest friends share basically exactly your view. I'm not exaggerating. We do not find it difficult at all to nourish our friendships and deepen our bonds. Of course, in the real world, when you are living next door to your community, helping care for each others kids, helping each deal with fires and floods, it is much easier to directly experience the moral intuitions and living connections that move between us. All that said, I very much appreciate that in this context you've stated your convictions and asked your question to me with dignity and a real willingness to try to understand me. I hope you feel the same way despite your coming to believe that deeper knowing, perceiving, prayer, devotion are not a part or highlighted in my world-view. While I have emphasized the massive importantance of Steiner's deeper knowing and perceiving along with that of others, I haven't spoken very much of my daily prayer activity. I've certainly used The Word in my discourse, assuming you and I share a basic sense of how "The Word" is taken up generally within esoterics, but I haven't been a part of a conversation in which we've really tried to understand each other's devotional lives or deeper experiences to such a source reality. So, in that sense, I am not surprised very much that we each don't see many highlights in those regards. But, without a doubt, I can recall seeing you use those words and underline them as very important and connected to your life and to your understanding of deeper and wider knowings and perceivings. Again, thank you for this conversation.

Personally, the reason I feel that way about your approach is that I have not seen a post from you which has specified an approach, from Steiner, Barfield, Gendlin, Gebser, etc., in terms of its detailed and positive claims to knowledge and whether or why you may endorse them. Most of your posts that I remember have been indirect suggestions that people should rethink their adherence to various specified claims of various thinkers, or their criticism of materialism and other worldviews they disagree with, but none in the other direction of what thinkers you feel have superior understanding of metaphysical idealism and its implications. So I am very curious if you are willing to offer such a post here in response. Thanks.

I know what you are saying above and, for my part, I feel no urge to slip into anything when someone is responding thoughtfully and directly, so I thank you for those comments as well. Of course, if you ever feel like we have reached an impasse where no further dialogue will be fruitful, I am not going to insist that you continue. I think you can tell my general line of inquiry from here will be to ask for more specified details about your position. Eventually, I hope we can even abandon the references to other thinkers and just speak directly about the underlying spiritual reality, but that can wait for now.

[findingblanks]

"Yes, of course. Maybe it will help if you give a concrete example from Steiner's articulation which you feel needs to be "challenged and widened and corrected", based on your own evolved knowledge at this time."

I sense a 12% invitation to shadow dance in the above comment. If you don't, I'll just let it pass by like a soft breeze in the night. Regarding the content itself, I'll hold off on adding more examples because I see too many layers of misunderstanding (nobody's fault in my opinion) to even begin. I'd like to in the future, maybe near future. The Bull example still stands for me and nobody has presented an argument that swayed me. Although after 10 years of talking to my fellow Anthroposophists about that example, more and more have persuaded me of various aspects that might have led to that mistake. I just think the abyss of your not seeing even core aspects of my view yet mean this particular discussion would have to wait.

The problem is partiely this: You and I can start to go into details regarding Steiner because we both are drenched in reverence and reading of him. That doesn't mean we agree, but we often make huge strides just by being able to say short phrases of where we overlap on something he's said. We don't have that background with Gendlin, say. So it would take too much time for you to begin reading his most important works and groking them to some extent (at first it is natural you'd just see that he's another example of X or Y), and nothing i say about Gendlin without that background would be more than just words, like: Gendlin presents various methods (TAE) that help develop the cognitive capacity to 'observe' implied intricacy before applying it to everyday consciousness. That might sound nice and interesting but it is just words unless somebody has taken it up, developed it and been abel to even
begin seeing Gendlin's blind-spots. Fortunately, Gendlin was very clear that he necessarily wasn't presenting something exact and perfect.

With Steiner, because we've each spent years working with his basic exercises, we can probably share certain experiences of how our everyday consciousness changed as we developed within those practices. After I had experienced a certain degree of changes in cognition and perception, I began to talk to people from other traditions who did similar exercises. At first people tend to be somewhat judgemental because they believe their exercises probably are better in some way. I've found advantages and disadvantages to many of the contexts, but, more importantly, the changes in consciousness have important overlap and allow folks to begin sharing 'higher' experiences of the fluidity that begins to define the thinking and perceiving despite how it is being applied (studying child development, farming, meditation, clairvoyant development, etc.,)

I think we are reaching a natural stopping point, but not necessarily and I enjoy the spontaneity of the conversation, so please ask or state anything you like. I appreciate it.

[AshvinP]

"Yes, of course. Maybe it will help if you give a concrete example from Steiner's articulation which you feel needs to be "challenged and widened and corrected", based on your own evolved knowledge at this time."

I sense a 12% invitation to shadow dance in the above comment. If you don't, I'll just let it pass by like a soft breeze in the night. Regarding the content itself, I'll hold off on adding more examples because I see too many layers of misunderstanding (nobody's fault in my opinion) to even begin. I'd like to in the future, maybe near future. The Bull example still stands for me and nobody has presented an argument that swayed me. Although after 10 years of talking to my fellow Anthroposophists about that example, more and more have persuaded me of various aspects that might have led to that mistake. I just think the abyss of your not seeing even core aspects of my view yet mean this particular discussion would have to wait.

The problem is partiely this: You and I can start to go into details regarding Steiner because we both are drenched in reverence and reading of him. That doesn't mean we agree, but we often make huge strides just by being able to say short phrases of where we overlap on something he's said. We don't have that background with Gendlin, say. So it would take too much time for you to begin reading his most important works and groking them to some extent (at first it is natural you'd just see that he's another example of X or Y), and nothing i say about Gendlin without that background would be more than just words, like: Gendlin presents various methods (TAE) that help develop the cognitive capacity to 'observe' implied intricacy before applying it to everyday consciousness. That might sound nice and interesting but it is just words unless somebody has taken it up, developed it and been abel to even
begin seeing Gendlin's blind-spots. Fortunately, Gendlin was very clear that he necessarily wasn't presenting something exact and perfect.

With Steiner, because we've each spent years working with his basic exercises, we can probably share certain experiences of how our everyday consciousness changed as we developed within those practices. After I had experienced a certain degree of changes in cognition and perception, I began to talk to people from other traditions who did similar exercises. At first people tend to be somewhat judgemental because they believe their exercises probably are better in some way. I've found advantages and disadvantages to many of the contexts, but, more importantly, the changes in consciousness have important overlap and allow folks to begin sharing 'higher' experiences of the fluidity that begins to define the thinking and perceiving despite how it is being applied (studying child development, farming, meditation, clairvoyant development, etc.,)

I think we are reaching a natural stopping point, but not necessarily and I enjoy the spontaneity of the conversation, so please ask or state anything you like. I appreciate it.

FB,

Just so it's clear, I have only been reading Steiner for a little over a year now and I have not developed imaginative cognition to any significant extent. As I hope at least some of my essays show, there is a lot of deep, qualitative spiritual exploration which can be carried out by mere intellect and reason. Although some of the more specific spiritual claims should be held tentatively until they can be confirmed, many spiritual truths can be held with a great degree of confidence even without higher cognition.

But anyway, let's zoom back out for a moment and consider some broad questions. I will ask some now and you can ask them back or whatever other questions you may have for me.

1 - How do you think of this forum? I know you commented once it is like a "front porch" with people relaxing, chatting about this and that, etc. Do you feel there is any deeper value to be gained, in terms of personal spiritual evolution and/or philosophical-spiritual knowledge to be imparted to larger communities of people? If so, what approaches would be best to move towards those outcomes, or do you feel what people on the forum are doing now is already the best approach?

2 - Do you feel that you personally have concrete knowledge to teach or learn. By "concrete", I mean like precise and detailed philosophical or scientific claims or perspectives that others here may be lacking or that you may be lacking. So I am not really interested in any strictly "psychological" benefits to people interacting on the forum at the moment, although I do recognize those exist as well. I am interested in what specific thinkers and thought-systems you feel people need to be more familiar with or that you need to become more familiar with.

3 - Can you see yourself writing a post which details the thought-system of a person like Gendlin, which I am sure most, including me, are unfamilair with? I am sure we could all learn a lot from such a post, even if we disagree with the core concepts. Again, I am just generally curious why your posts never make those attempts and rather focus on deemphasizing the thought-systems of others. I know you don't perceive it as "deemphasizing", but that's genuinely how they read to me. You offer a lot of flattering remarks for Steiner, Barfield, etc., but I am wondering about more in-depth sharing of their specified ideal content with myself and others.

[findingblanks]

"1 - How do you think of this forum? I know you commented once it is like a "front porch" with people relaxing, chatting about this and that, etc. Do you feel there is any deeper value to be gained, in terms of personal spiritual evolution and/or philosophical-spiritual knowledge to be imparted to larger communities of people?"

I do like the porch analogy. I believe these sorts of spaces can be creatively used in countless ways, depending on the unique needs of an individual and, more importantly, the unique individuals they meet in these context and, most importantly, how well they can all communicate those needs and their best ideas of how to enact them together freshly. For me one way of recognizing the unique demands and opportunities of the era of the Consciousness Soul is how it manifests in online communities. People get so angry and frustrated in these contexts in ways they simply wouldn't if they were sharing a tea on a porch.

And, again for me, my life moves in different speeds and rhythems (being single, married, different jobs, growing child) and my needs and abilities regarding what an online community means and can be change all the time. I have a few highly cultivated online contexts in which we have consciousnly worked to created our norms and expectations regarding time/conversation flow and all the tricky things that come with online life. I mean, many people get angry just if there is a few days of no comments or if somebody doesn't respond to specific comments, as if there had been a shared and conscious understanding of how these contexts are to be used. In the online contexts where we've consciously cultivated our purpose and norms and modes of feedback, yes, it can bet very deep and meaningful. However, there is still great value for many of us when we are in a simple forum devoted to a thinker that we find relevant or interesting or important. That's what brought me here. I never expect that my reasons and ways of being here should be generalized. It's one reason I try not to go in other threads and take them over with a concern or interest I have. That said, sometimes a host can make it clear that they have no problem letting the conversation go wherever it wants to go. That can be wonderful, too!

"2 - Do you feel that you personally have concrete knowledge to teach or learn. By "concrete", I mean like precise and detailed philosophical or scientific claims or perspectives that others here may be lacking. So I am not really interested in any strictly "psychological" benefits to people interacting on the forum at the moment, although I do recognize those exist as well."

I don't think of it in those terms, but there are context where I work mutually with people in a philosophical/spiritual context. I don't bring that here because it simply doesn't work for what I dive into this group for. I mainly read random people's comments and hardly comment. And, of course, you are aware of the context here when I do comment


"3 - Can you see yourself writing a post which details the thought-system of a person like Gendlin, which I am sure most, including me, are unfamilair with? I am sure we could all learn a lot from such a post, even if we disagree with the core concepts. Again, I am just generally curious why your posts never make those attempts and rather focus on deemphasizing the thought-systems of others. I know you don't perceive it as "deemphasizing", but that's genuinely how they read to me. You offer a lot of flattering remarks for Steiner, Barfield, etc., but I am wondering about more in-depth sharing of their specified ideal content with myself and others."

Maybe, but I gain value in my work with Gendlin in other contexts, mostly in real life with people I'm working with face to face. A few online contexts but those have been very carefully and intentionally cultivated. I like many of the people who chat here but I never feel this is a place where that aspect of my life needs to take time up. I'm not inherently against it, but there are only so many hours in the day.

This place is wonderful for me because I can find specific conversations about specific aspects of BK's work.
Because I explore aspects of BK's communications that I find perplexing, beautiful, problematic or just remarkable.

I gotta run now. I'll finish my last thought asap. Thanks and bye for now.