Deeper reading, Steeper Art

[Lou Gold]

The following was the first piece from The Vault I ever experienced. For context, I was in Portland Oregon and had been invited to attend a new study group on The Philosophy of Freedom being led by a very energetic 22 year old. He handed each of us a piece of paper before the first session and said, "Welcome to The Vault." From there, we would find new art pieces in various situations associated with our Anthroposophical work. This young man was and still is an incredible biodynamic farmer. I recently asked him if he had any new pieces from The Vault and he wrote back, "Nope. Those guys are working on something new. is all I know."

The following piece is interesting to me for several reasons, one of which is with regard to themes related to reading and contextual aspects of intuition with regard to receiving a work of art.

.......

{{ This translation from the VAULT was composed of 12 different contexts (lectures, gatherings, informal asides and first person reports) in which Steiner spoke. This piece is not meant to be used or shared as representing one occasion, however the connection between the lines of thought is coherent. More importantly, the transitions and translations within this production allow the viewer to 'read between' the lines with regard to their own aesthetic practices. This is a bite size composition because the VAULT is busy translating a Christmas message. }}

“Recently I was asked by an active member of our youth movement what, in essence, I was pointing out in my book The Philosophy of Freedom. I asked her what she thought the primary idea of that book was and she replied that it was the fact that thinking can become its own object of observation.

We spoke of this for a few moments. Our time was limited but before we parted she asked me how this primary fact of The Philosophy of Freedom was connected to the wider culture and our current historical moment. Because my young friend is here tonight and because it is an excellent question, I would like to close tonight’s talk with a brief response.

When you are reading The Philosophy of Freedom you must eventually realize that there is a real process that is happening as you read the text. This process does not have merely one experiential quality, however it can be experienced as one whole process. It is the process of awakening to thinking’s self-sustaining nature; this process of recognizing thinking’s true nature is quite literally the evolution of humanity in our times. In other words, in order for humanity to grow and flourish, there must be- at the level of each individual- real observation of this activity of your current and ongoing cognition.

My friends, we must not make mental pictures of the heavenly being of Anthroposophia floating down from above and blessing us into understanding. This is nonsense, yet it is what many of you are doing without awareness. You do a bit of meditation and then pray that someday you will be blessed with such an experience. Anthroposophia is a being, yes, but she must be embraced as a moral force in the continual unfolding of your living thinking. Perhaps if {fragment lost} which is why the making of mental pictures of so-called “reality”- whether spiritual or physical reality- is one of the greatest barriers to the cultivation of living thinking. For a long time humanity had no choice and, therefore, mental pictures were the most appropriate way to come to know and understand the Cosmos.

Spiritual science is absolutely clear that this is not at all what the evolution of humanity needs anymore. An anthroposophical spiritual science composed mostly of mental pictures is a marketplace of tasty food for the adversaries. Each human being must strive to find his particular way into the process of cognition. It must take place as real, deeply sensitive, and endlessly creative activity in every case. There is no formula and it will never be a uniform experience. However, we can say that a general test as to the degree to which you have penetrated The Philosophy of Freedom is whether you will persist as love, whether you will see and think with the full, creative and limitless force of your heart.”

To Whom it may concern,

Although I'm not schooled in or a follower of the Steiner lineage, I definitely felt a "kinship" with the bolded paragraphs above. It is the same "kinship" I feel when I read of Ramana Maharshi saying, "I see God in the tree because I see the tree as a tree." Does this similarity make sense to you as well?

[findingblanks]

Yes, Lou, it does. And Goethe and Coleridge expressed very similar understandings

[Lou Gold]

Yes, Lou, it does. And Goethe and Coleridge expressed very similar understandings

OK! I've not read Coleridge. The tiny dip I've made into Goethe has been inspiring. His Aphorisms on Nature align well with my eco-sensibilities.

[Cleric K]

Cleric said,

"Let's suppose I started directly with my atheistic description. How would that dialog proceed?"

Okay, it sounds like your atheist either accepts Anthroposophy ("When the Anthro(Man)Sophia(Wisdom) is embraced...") or they are saying something like, "So the experience that an Anthroposophist refers to as embracing the Anthro(Man)Sophia(Winsdom)..."

Before I waste our time I should make sure you meant the latter.

Yes, it's the latter. My atheist doesn't like the idea of spooky 'beings'. He seeks scientific alternative for the words. Something with energy, vibrations, information.

That was it?

[findingblanks]

Nope, just really busy. Sorry if my daily life seemed to imply I wasn't still interested here. I gotta prioritize a few things over this insight . Or I could just say, hey, I might not be able to respond in the next day or two, but I really appreciate your responses and I just want to have time to give a thoughtful reply. Seriously, thanks.

[findingblanks]

Hi Cleric....

I need to really grasp where I feel your response overlaps with what I'm getting at... I had said:

"If an atheist were having this insight, I wonder what kinds of concepts it would clothe itself within..."

From your response I can't yet see that your atheist is really having the insight proposed. Maybe you would say that it is impossible for an atheist to have that very insight and we could go from there. But if your response entailed that, yes, the atheist was having the very insight I specified...then I'll at least know what questions I want to ask you next.

[Cleric K]

Hi Cleric....

I need to really grasp where I feel your response overlaps with what I'm getting at... I had said:

"If an atheist were having this insight, I wonder what kinds of concepts it would clothe itself within..."

From your response I can't yet see that your atheist is really having the insight proposed. Maybe you would say that it is impossible for an atheist to have that very insight and we could go from there. But if your response entailed that, yes, the atheist was having the very insight I specified...then I'll at least know what questions I want to ask you next.

In the role of my atheist I don't know any other insight than my own. I look at the text and say "Steiner was a product of his time so he spoke about beings and stuff. But this is so outdated. We have much more precise understanding now. So what Steiner grasped only in vague, mystical way, I understand today in our modern thinking as .... <insert here the atheist's descriptions from the previous post> ..."

[findingblanks]

Okay, thanks Cleric. That clarifies it. So is it even fathomable in your view that an atheist could have the same insight (not the framing obviously) that I quoted from the Vault's piece AND then formulate it? I don't even mean that they would need to explain it. Steiner (or the version of him that the Vault is presenting in that piece) certainly isn't giving an explanation as much as making an important general point (that can be understood by folks who have read his way of explaining it and have had the requisite minimal experiences). So I'm asking if your worldview would even be able to grasp an atheist grasping the same basic insight but obviously not from the exact same practices or framed within the same understanding? I'm aware that there are reasons that some would say no, absolutely not, yet others would say that an atheist could have the same understanding presented in that quote. So I'm NOT suggesting we imagine the atheist reading that quote and then saying, "Oh, I would say that this way..." No. I'm imagining an atheist who hasn't read any Steiner but is expressing the same idea/experience which that quote points towards. Thanks!

[Cleric K]

Okay, thanks Cleric. That clarifies it. So is it even fathomable in your view that an atheist could have the same insight (not the framing obviously) that I quoted from the Vault's piece AND then formulate it? I don't even mean that they would need to explain it. Steiner (or the version of him that the Vault is presenting in that piece) certainly isn't giving an explanation as much as making an important general point (that can be understood by folks who have read his way of explaining it and have had the requisite minimal experiences). So I'm asking if your worldview would even be able to grasp an atheist grasping the same basic insight but obviously not from the exact same practices or framed within the same understanding? I'm aware that there are reasons that some would say no, absolutely not, yet others would say that an atheist could have the same understanding presented in that quote. So I'm NOT suggesting we imagine the atheist reading that quote and then saying, "Oh, I would say that this way..." No. I'm imagining an atheist who hasn't read any Steiner but is expressing the same idea/experience which that quote points towards. Thanks!

Well, at this point I am simply lost. You say ".. atheist could have the same insight" but I really don't know what insight you speak of. I'm not pretending. I really have no clue what insight you envision. It will be of great value if you simply explain with more details what that quote and insight mean to you.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well, at this point I am simply lost.

At least you got to that point