Bortoft on Goethean science, and the relevance of this to Steiner's work

[JustinG]

Oh well, each to their own. Steiner called PoF his most important book and wrote in the 1918 Preface that it was suitable for those with no interest in his spiritual researches . At the time he wrote PoF he was also identifying as an anarchist (https://philosophyoffreedom.com/profile ... of-freedom), which is hardly consistent with a prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices. So I am quite comfortable with exercising the freedom I have not to delve into his later work.

[AshvinP]

Oh well, each to their own. Steiner called PoF his most important book and wrote in the 1918 Preface that it was suitable for those with no interest in his spiritual researches . At the time he wrote PoF he was also identifying as an anarchist (https://philosophyoffreedom.com/profile ... of-freedom), which is hardly consistent with a prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices. So I am quite comfortable with exercising the freedom I have not to delve into his later work.

But you didn't even read PoF, otherwise you would know "prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices" is 100% opposite of what he presents, and is nowhere to be found in later spiritual scientific writings either. It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to justify ignorance. You are quite literally reading books on Steiner so that you never have to understand what he himself wrote.

It is certainly your freedom not to delve into anything, but it should be noted a person who exercises 'choices' on completely faulty information is not actually free. That person is being led around by desires and feelings which remain in the dark, rationalizing the decisions made for them after the fact. They are the feeble intellect riding on top of Schopenhauer's blind giant.

That is all we are trying to provide here - some portion of clear and accurate information on these matters so people can make informed choices. So we can perhaps move away from "to each his own" towards realizing the principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but this time without compulsion, out of every individual's freed desire.

[Eugene I.]

So, it seems from the point of view of Steinerians that there are only two choices:
- Fake freedom of "being led around by desires and feelings which remain in the dark, rationalizing the decisions made for them after the fact."
- Submission to higher-order truth established by higher-order spiritual beings.

Clearly, it's a philosophy of spiritual dictatorship and anything but freedom. The necessity to submit to the higher order is justified by completely misconstruing freedom and representing it as nothing else than an expression of egoic desires. Steiner initially did suggest freedom in the exploration of reality in his PoF, but in his later works abandoned it in favor of the above view.

[AshvinP]

So, it seems from the point of view of Steinerians that there are only two choices:
- Fake freedom of "being led around by desires and feelings which remain in the dark, rationalizing the decisions made for them after the fact."
- Submission to higher-order truth established by higher-order spiritual beings.

Clearly, it's a philosophy of spiritual dictatorship and anything but freedom. The necessity to submit to the higher order is justified by completely misconstruing freedom and representing it as nothing else than an expression of egoic desires. Steiner initially did suggest freedom in the exploration of reality in his PoF, but in his later works abandoned it in favor of the above view.

Eugene,

You once again managed to ignore what I wrote and state the exact opposite in bold. Then you add on a misrepresentation of Steiner for good measure, even though you have admitted that you have never read anything he wrote, only Googling things like "Steiner and racism" or "Steiner and insane spiritual woo-woo" so you can find what you desire to find and nothing else. This mirrors your meditative approach as well. Again, what is it which compels you to do these things, even though you know it's no way to approach logical inquiries in any other field of inquiry? I think it's safe to say there is nothing we could write which would make sense to you, because it is all intercepted by unexamined desires and antipathies. It has not all been a waste, at least, because there is a lot to be learned from simply studying the patterns of your posts here for those paying attention.

[Eugene I.]

Steiner admits development of man's freedom, but essentially denies his freedom and creativity

[AshvinP]

Steiner admits development of man's freedom, but essentially denies his freedom and creativity

We have been over this a million times as well. The person who thinks he is free because he can peruse all the shadows dancing on the cave wall is the person who will never develop actual spiritual freedom. That is because he feels he is already free, so it never occurs to him that he can simply turn around and walk outside the cave to behold the forms moving across the Light. If the world we have today, with all its corruptions, violence, horrors, and overall disharmony, is a world of fully free beings, then "freedom" means absolutely nothing. Then it would be better for man to be enslaved - to return to the womb of the unconscious Matrix - where all his needs can be provided for him, and simply find some peace in mystical sleep. Of course this was actually tried in various Utopian movements of the last 150 years and failed miserably, only leading to even larger-scale death and destruction. Anyone can assess these things for themselves and see what makes sense - what actually harmonizes the facts of human experience. Not the facts we only choose to admit into our 'personal bubbles' of consciousness, but all facts as they are disclosed to us by the World Soul. It is through a need for imagination, a sense of truth, and a feeling of responsibility that we actually embark on a path towards a spiritual freedom which means something and which is lasting.

[Cleric K]

Clearly, it's a philosophy of spiritual dictatorship and anything but freedom. The necessity to submit to the higher order is justified by completely misconstruing freedom and representing it as nothing else than an expression of egoic desires. Steiner initially did suggest freedom in the exploration of reality in his PoF, but in his later works abandoned it in favor of the above view.

Sigh... Eugene, sometimes I wonder how you're willing to expend energy on all this, while at the same you can expend much less if you simply try to understand what is being talked here.

And it all stems from the flat spiritual model and the view of the absolutized ego-atom. If the depth structure of Being and evolution were at least partially understood, no such objections would ever occur.

It's not about submitting to some arbitrary order but understanding what we're moving through nonetheless. This allows us to employ our activity in such a way that we can become more and more free, instead of becoming more and more entangled.

The freedom to deny something is not equal to the creative freedom to be responsible for that thing yourself. Dostoevsky's quote in Ashvin's latest essay speaks very clearly on this. Think about the human body. Most certainly we're forced to submit to its laws. If you don't want to submit, then try to be responsible for every chemical reaction in your body, every power stroke in the muscle fibers, the peristalsis and so on. You see, the spiritual world doesn't want to take our liberties. It simply does things which we're unable to do ourselves. And this is the whole path of evolution - to raise through the levels of being, which are responsible for more and more fundamental strata of reality. As strange as it may sound, at certain point it will be our conscious responsibility to give form to our body and to give rhythm to our blood flow.

Just as our ego would never feel in the way it feels now if it was not for all the work that the whole Nature does to support our physical existence, so the same that ego would never feel in this way, if it wasn't embedded in the Macrocosmic Time-Consciousness landscape. Can you be responsible for the existence of the planets? Can you give the rotation of the Earth? Can you produce the light and warmth of the Sun? Can you support the rhythmic epochs of evolution through your own spiritual activity?

And I know how you'll reply to this: it doesn't matter to you. After death you hope you'll leave all this behind and you're going to Godel's Heaven. But while on Earth, at least try to understand the impulses of those who try to understand the laws of living reality and who see how this understanding holds the solutions to the sorry state of humanity.

[Eugene I.]

And I know how you'll reply to this: it doesn't matter to you. After death you hope you'll leave all this behind and you're going to Godel's Heaven. But while on Earth, at least try to understand the impulses of those who try to understand the laws of living reality and who see how this understanding holds the solutions to the sorry state of humanity.

Notwithstanding all natural laws (and no one denies their validity as long as we exist in the Earth realms), it's the ability of our higher consciousness and free will to transcend the limitations of natural processes and human nature that can not only liberate us from the sorry state of any dualistic (samsaric) existence (corporeal or noncorporeal), but also can provide solutions to the sorry state of modern humanity. As an example, here is the society built on the foundations of Buddhism that is free from most of the sorry problems of modern humanity: Bhutan: The World’s Happiest Country.

Essentially this dispute has nothing to do with philosophy, it's the polarity of libertarianism vs totalitarianism that acts in different domains, be it politics, philosophy, spirituality or elsewhere. In reality we always live somewhere in between balancing both, but whenever one polarity prevails, the other acts as a counterbalance to prevent a collapse into either the rigidity of order or the chaos of disordered freedom.

[JustinG]

Oh well, each to their own. Steiner called PoF his most important book and wrote in the 1918 Preface that it was suitable for those with no interest in his spiritual researches . At the time he wrote PoF he was also identifying as an anarchist (https://philosophyoffreedom.com/profile ... of-freedom), which is hardly consistent with a prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices. So I am quite comfortable with exercising the freedom I have not to delve into his later work.

But you didn't even read PoF, otherwise you would know "prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices" is 100% opposite of what he presents, and is nowhere to be found in later spiritual scientific writings either. It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to justify ignorance. You are quite literally reading books on Steiner so that you never have to understand what he himself wrote.

If you think I was saying that PoF presents a "prescriptive attitude towards spiritual practices", then you clearly didn't read what I wrote. This forum would be a better place if you spent less time insulting others and more trying to understand their point of view.

Anyway, this discussion is diverging from the OP, so I will start a new thread on Steiner's anarchism.