Greer post on philosophy

[AshvinP]

Again, what you write above is extremely vague and therefore not helpful to me. Can you quote something I wrote to JMG and explain why or how I should "present myself differently" so as not to be censored by people like him? I am just patiently and politely asking you for specificity here so as to make your original feedback more constructive for me going forward. Thanks.

Yes, I should be more specific, so the next step is as you suggest, a quote from your 2nd message to JMG:

“I just meant, based on what was written here, I don't think you have *understood* The Philosophy of Freedom. So your critique of it in subsequent articles will likely be critiquing your own misunderstanding rather than his phenomenological arguments.”

On the surface, this could be taken as polite at least in a formal sense. But in truth, it is a bold and broadly insulting statement that insults not just JMG's position on some particular point, but his intellectual capacity to comprehend Steiner. Of course, it may indeed be true that JMG doesn't comprehend Steiner. I would expect him, alongside a great many other people who I have no reason to insult, to in fact take this as an insult. This is no way to begin a conversation unless one is speaking to someone who answers to you, like a staffer.

Then there's: "So I hope you accurately represent the "evolution of consciousness" as people like Steiner and Barfield and Gebser understood and communicated it in their writings." Again, this is a proper way of speaking to someone who answers to you, signaling that they are subject to your expectations. Such authority! Great move, dude. Not.

It's almost as if you expect people to answer to you because you represent such a powerful authority. Not to mention your impeccable arguments in regard to Thinking and to Steiner. I mean, why doesn't everyone just throw down their weapons and surrender in the face of your superior firepower. I have an aversion to warrior types, which you remind me of, but regardless, I do wish you well.

There is something to be said for that approach in very limited contexts IMO. With some person who shows up on the forum or out of the lurk asking questions, like you did, my approach will be more accommodating for a good long while. But with archdruids and professional academics, I don't think so. We are commenting mostly to point out the flaws to others, not the person with a massive following who is writing the articles and should have knowledge of the core arguments of the philosophers he is referencing. I just didn't think JMG would shut down my comments immediately after the first one. Not only my comments to him, but to someone else who directly asked me a question. I am really concerned how censorship is not only tolerated but defended these days, as some sort of preemptive strike against passionate and well-reasoned arguments.

[Ben Iscatus]

Mark Vernon is an example of someone with high emotional intelligence. He never puts anyone down, often defers to his guests, yet has excellent discussions. Also, there are quite easy additions to tone down one's over-assertiveness by showing that one's arguments are subjectively personal, not objectively general. For instance, "As I see it...", "My experience suggests...", "Yes, but Gebser persuasively argues.....do you not agree?"

Of course, if we cannot accept any useful distinction between the personal and the general, then we will surely be confronted by personal difficulties!

[Soul_of_Shu]

Mark Vernon is an example of someone with high emotional intelligence. He never puts anyone down, often defers to his guests, yet has excellent discussions. Also, there are quite easy additions to tone down one's over-assertiveness by showing that one's arguments are subjectively personal, not objectively general. For instance, "As I see it...", "My experience suggests...", "Yes, but Gebser persuasively argues.....do you not agree?"

Of course, if we cannot accept any useful distinction between the personal and the general, then we will surely be confronted by personal difficulties!

Well, Mark does tend to have conversations with like-minded agreeable chaps with whom he shares much in common, much like we'd expect if Ashvin and Cleric were to sit down face to face for an extended exploration/elaboration of their respective ideas. Mind you, I expect Mark is the unflappable type who would remain untriggered even if he were confronted with a hardcore materialist atheist, who at the mention of Angels, or even just Christianity or idealism, would be rolling their eyes, with that 'I'm talking to a snake-oil salesman' look and tone suffusing their every word—a look and tone that BK, for example, is prone to returning when confronted likewise. There is a certain skill in having those kind of difficult and challenging interactions without the tit-for-tat trigger effect.

[AshvinP]

Mark Vernon is an example of someone with high emotional intelligence. He never puts anyone down, often defers to his guests, yet has excellent discussions. Also, there are quite easy additions to tone down one's over-assertiveness by showing that one's arguments are subjectively personal, not objectively general. For instance, "As I see it...", "My experience suggests...", "Yes, but Gebser persuasively argues.....do you not agree?"

Of course, if we cannot accept any useful distinction between the personal and the general, then we will surely be confronted by personal difficulties!

Well, Mark does tend to have conversations with like-minded agreeable chaps with whom he shares much in common, much like we'd expect if Ashvin and Cleric were to sit down face to face for an extended exploration/elaboration of their respective ideas. Mind you, I expect Mark is the unflappable type who would remain untriggered even if he were confronted with a hardcore materialist atheist, who at the mention of Angels, or even just Christianity or idealism, would be rolling their eyes, with that 'I'm talking to a snake-oil salesman' look and tone suffusing their every word—a look and tone that BK, for example, is prone to returning when confronted likewise. There is a certain skill in having those kind of difficult and challenging interactions without the tit-for-tat trigger effect.

I know this will sound like nit-picking, but I assure you that it isn't. If Cleric and I were to discuss, we wouldn't speak of "our respective ideas". This is the ingrained mentality we are always speaking of - it is always about "my" this, "your" that, "Gebser said" this, "Steiner said" that. The way we emply our language is a direct reflection of how we are thinking and can also be used as a tool to move away from the fragmented, personalized, etc. way of thinking towards an internalized understanding of shared ideation. It is true we will occasionally slip and employ the purely personal language about ideations and ideational systems, and that's fine, as long as try to make ourselves aware that this is happening and that we can avoid it as much as possible for our own benefit. And it may just turn out, unsurprisingly, that we are all better able to understand the core transpersonal meanings of each other's views in the process.

It really comes down to the modern obsession with 'outer' form at the expense of inner meaning. Ben actually says this explicitly in bold. The literal words that are used are taken to be the determining factor and there is no attempt to penetrate to the shared inner meaning of those words by placing them in a holsitic context. This inevitably gives rise to cynicism - we feel that we can judge what a person is saying and intending to mean by outer form alone, in or two comments. There is no effort to understand that deeper meaning or ask questions for clarification of meaning, because it is assumed the outer form reveals all that we need to know. This is how we take things like "dualism", "naive realism", "view from nowhere", etc. from pure abstractions to expressions of our concrete experience - we apply to our own experience and our own habits. We try to perceive the influence in everything we write or say.

The useful distinction between the personal and the "general" (transpersonal, eternal, etc.) is precisely that ideation moves us towards the latter by discerning the core inner meaning of differentiated outer forms. We can speak of personal perceptions, feelings, and desires to some extent, but not personal ideations. The latter, of course, is what we are always engaged with in these forums for discussion and hopefully with a genuine aim to reach shared understanding above all else.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I know this will sound like nit-picking, but I assure you that it isn't. If Cleric and I were to discuss, we wouldn't speak of "our respective ideas". This is the ingrained mentality we are always speaking of - it is always about "my" this, "your" that, "Gebser said" this, "Steiner said" that. The way we emply our language is a direct reflection of how we are thinking and can also be used as a tool to move away from the fragmented, personalized, etc. way of thinking towards an internalized understanding of shared ideation. It is true we will occasionally slip and employ the purely personal language about ideations and ideational systems, and that's fine, as long as try to make ourselves aware that this is happening and that we can avoid it as much as possible for our own benefit. And it may just turn out, unsurprisingly, that we are all better able to understand the core transpersonal meanings of each other's views in the process.

It really comes down to the modern obsession with 'outer' form at the expense of inner meaning. Ben actually says this explicitly in bold. The literal words that are used are taken to be the determining factor and there is no attempt to penetrate to the shared inner meaning of those words by placing them in a holsitic context. This inevitably gives rise to cynicism - we feel that we can judge what a person is saying and intending to mean by outer form alone, in or two comments. There is no effort to understand that deeper meaning or ask questions for clarification of meaning, because it is assumed the outer form reveals all that we need to know. This is how we take things like "dualism", "naive realism", "view from nowhere", etc. from pure abstractions to expressions of our concrete experience - we apply to our own experience and our own habits. We try to perceive the influence in everything we write or say.

The useful distinction between the personal and the "general" (transpersonal, eternal, etc.) is precisely that ideation moves us towards the latter by discerning the core inner meaning of differentiated outer forms. We can speak of personal perceptions, feelings, and desires to some extent, but not personal ideations. The latter, of course, is what we are always engaged with in these forums for discussion and hopefully with a genuine aim to reach shared understanding above all else.

Sure, no doubt given the default paradigm we here have been indoctrinated into, and thoroughly steeped in, from day one, that suffuses our everyday language, so well camouflaged as to be mostly overlooked, just about any conversation can be deconstructed so as to reveal the problematic, paradigmatc pitfalls we so unwittingly fall into, and must make an effort to become mindful of. So let's strike out 'respective' ideas, and the point still stands that you and Cleric clearly share much in common when engaged in exploring Thinking, and its evolution, as your common starting point, in much the same way that Mark Vernon engages with someone like J Pageau, for example, such that it's innately far less prone to any trigger-effect.

[dkpstarkey]

The useful distinction between the personal and the "general" (transpersonal, eternal, etc.) is precisely that ideation moves us towards the latter by discerning the core inner meaning of differentiated outer forms. We can speak of personal perceptions, feelings, and desires to some extent, but not personal ideations. The latter, of course, is what we are always engaged with in these forums for discussion and hopefully with a genuine aim to reach shared understanding above all else.

This is the source of a dilemma for me. There are transpersonal experiences, often announced by synchronistic phenomena, that are treated in depth by scholars like Jung, Hillman, Stan Grof, and others. Then there is "The view from nowhere" which has been critiqued by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in a book by that name. The following quote attempts to summarize his insight:

We try to “transcend our particular viewpoint and develop an expanded consciousness that takes in the world more fully.” But there are limits to this motion. We can’t transcend all our starting points. No matter how far it pulls back the camera is still occupying a position. We can’t actually take the “view from nowhere,” but this doesn’t mean that objectivity is a lie or an illusion. Our ability to step back and the fact that there are limits to it– both are real. And realism demands that we acknowledge both.

So, what I want to understand is how general ideation can be contrasted with Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. I wonder if the notion of general ideation presupposes a level of evolution that is significantly beyond where we currently are as a species.

[AshvinP]

The useful distinction between the personal and the "general" (transpersonal, eternal, etc.) is precisely that ideation moves us towards the latter by discerning the core inner meaning of differentiated outer forms. We can speak of personal perceptions, feelings, and desires to some extent, but not personal ideations. The latter, of course, is what we are always engaged with in these forums for discussion and hopefully with a genuine aim to reach shared understanding above all else.

This is the source of a dilemma for me. There are transpersonal experiences, often announced by synchronistic phenomena, that are treated in depth by scholars like Jung, Hillman, Stan Grof, and others. Then there is "The view from nowhere" which has been critiqued by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in a book by that name. The following quote attempts to summarize his insight:

We try to “transcend our particular viewpoint and develop an expanded consciousness that takes in the world more fully.” But there are limits to this motion. We can’t transcend all our starting points. No matter how far it pulls back the camera is still occupying a position. We can’t actually take the “view from nowhere,” but this doesn’t mean that objectivity is a lie or an illusion. Our ability to step back and the fact that there are limits to it– both are real. And realism demands that we acknowledge both.

So, what I want to understand is how general ideation can be contrasted with Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. I wonder if the notion of general ideation presupposes a level of evolution that is significantly beyond where we currently are as a species.

It's very interesting how this works. Try to visualize what Nagel is speaking of. Do you see many bubbles of consciousness which are expanding their bubble-consciousness to "take in the world more fully"? Many 'cameras' which are each 'pulling back' to observe more and more of the world content? That is the view from nowhere! In other words, the view from nowhere is implicitly utilized in Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. When I say "shared ideation", I am simply saying we should avoid fantasizing this view from nowhere and see what naturally results from our experience of thinking through the world content. We will find that this experience always presupposes shared ideations. It is never the particular perceptions which harmonizes our own understanding of the content and that with others, but the universal ideational (meaningful) content. We will further find that what we call "synchronistic", "archetypal", etc. is the norm of experience, not the exception (in fact there are no exceptions, like there are no exceptions to the principle of evolution itself), and it is only our own limited cognition at any given time which makes us fail to notice that.

[dkpstarkey]

It's very interesting how this works. Try to visualize what Nagel is speaking of. Do you see many bubbles of consciousness which are expanding their bubble-consciousness to "take in the world more fully"? Many 'cameras' which are each 'pulling back' to observe more and more of the world content? That is the view from nowhere! In other words, the view from nowhere is implicitly utilized in Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. When I say "shared ideation", I am simply saying we should avoid fantasizing this view from nowhere and see what naturally results from our experience of thinking through the world content. We will find that this experience always presupposes shared ideations. It is never the particular perceptions which harmonizes our own understanding of the content and that with others, but the universal ideational (meaningful) content. We will further find that what we call "synchronistic", "archetypal", etc. is the norm of experience, not the exception (in fact there are no exceptions, like there are no exceptions to the principle of evolution itself), and it is only our own limited cognition at any given time which makes us fail to notice that.

Yes, upon reflection, I do see what you mean, thanks. I like the term "shared ideation" and it makes sense that simply recognizing things in the world is made possible by "the universal ideational (meaningful) content." Not to mention, any sort of communication. Every thing is "nested" in its surrounding context of meanings; not all possible meanings, only the fitting ones, are given to the intuition. I don't know that this is correct, only that this activity seems mysterious and mostly effortless. So, if ideation is shared then we might say that these intuited givens are also shared. But where does this leave us? With shared intuitions? Perhaps you have written on this topic; I'm reading Kuhlwind's Logos Structure of the World, which clarifies many things.

[AshvinP]

It's very interesting how this works. Try to visualize what Nagel is speaking of. Do you see many bubbles of consciousness which are expanding their bubble-consciousness to "take in the world more fully"? Many 'cameras' which are each 'pulling back' to observe more and more of the world content? That is the view from nowhere! In other words, the view from nowhere is implicitly utilized in Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. When I say "shared ideation", I am simply saying we should avoid fantasizing this view from nowhere and see what naturally results from our experience of thinking through the world content. We will find that this experience always presupposes shared ideations. It is never the particular perceptions which harmonizes our own understanding of the content and that with others, but the universal ideational (meaningful) content. We will further find that what we call "synchronistic", "archetypal", etc. is the norm of experience, not the exception (in fact there are no exceptions, like there are no exceptions to the principle of evolution itself), and it is only our own limited cognition at any given time which makes us fail to notice that.

Yes, upon reflection, I do see what you mean, thanks. I like the term "shared ideation" and it makes sense that simply recognizing things in the world is made possible by "the universal ideational (meaningful) content." Not to mention, any sort of communication. Every thing is "nested" in its surrounding context of meanings; not all possible meanings, only the fitting ones, are given to the intuition. I don't know that this is correct, only that this activity seems mysterious and mostly effortless. So, if ideation is shared then we might say that these intuited givens are also shared. But where does this leave us? With shared intuitions? Perhaps you have written on this topic; I'm reading Kuhlwind's Logos Structure of the World, which clarifies many things.

Yes I think that's an accurate summary. But now, with a broad understanding of shared ideation, we should move closer to where our conscious thinking is within this depth structure to make the ideas more concrete and fruitful for us. Intuitions, in the sense you use it above, are the most subconscious of all ideations. They are most associated with our willing activity, i.e. desires, impulses, actions, but also digestive or metabolic activity. We can notice during the day how little of that activity actually involves our own conscious effort. We only see it dimly reflected in bodily movements.

Feeling activity, i.e. sympathies and antipathies, emotions, blood circulation, etc., are more conscious than willing but still pretty far removed in daily experience. The most immediate point of contact between our conscious activity and ideations is found in our thinking activity of Reason, which is also tied into respiration. We are always directly perceiving some of our own meaningful conscious ideations with our Reason. That is where we can perceive meaning as a direct result of our own conscious ideational activity.

Cleric has written about this threefold dynamic of spiritual activity pretty extensively in various posts, and where we can take it from there. I can share one later if you are interested (and his new TCOTCT essay goes into a focused Thinking exercise right at the outset). I am not very familiar with Kuhlwind, but I imagine he discusses this too, since it is at the core of Steiner's SS. If he does not, then I would be very cautious with his approach.

[dkpstarkey]

Ashvin, when you say "intuitions, in the sense you use it above, are the most subconscious of all ideations" I don't quite get that, because what I mean by "given to the intuition" refers to meanings, whether sensible or intelligible, that are received in an unreflected state, perhaps prior to final translation. The task of finding words for what has been given, as I use the term, may or may not be the job of the intuitive faculties. But then maybe my confusion is about whether intuition is sensible or intelligible, or can be either.

We should all be required to provide glossaries of our most-used terms.