findingblanks wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:07 pm
"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.
FB wrote: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?
FB wrote:"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.