I feel like Bernardo is getting carried away in a scary direction

[AshvinP]

I would happily bring you the article in English but I do not find it in the archive
. I recommend that you use Google Translate for the article in German:

http://anthroposophie.byu.edu/aufsaetze/l219.pdf

I may do that. But the problem, as usual, is I have no idea whether you are genuinely trying to understand what Steiner is claiming or not... if anything I write about his claims will be read fairly. For ex., are you willing to accept, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of understanding Steiner's claims (not accepting them as correct), that Christ incarnate actually 'fulfilled the law and the prophets'? If that central claim of esoteric Christianity cannot even be adopted for the sake of understanding, then I must conclude the critiques are only motivated by sympathies for Jewish mysticism over and above what you feel to be an intrusive force of esoteric Christianity.

I notice you asked Cleric about Kabbalah before, he responded, and I don't see a response from you. Perhaps you want to revisit that now. First he addressed the accusation that Steiner claims to "know everything" and there is "nowhere left to go" for him, which was brought up again by you on this thread.

It would be well, if especially from our Anthroposophical standpoint, as I have often told you, if it were recognised consciously and thoroughly, that even what is said now, even what we acquire as ever such advanced knowledge about Spiritual things, that must not be grasped as a sum of absolute dogmas. We must be quite clear that those who come after us, in future times, will see greater than we ourselves can. On this rests the true Spiritual evolution of mankind, and everything of a hindering nature in the Spiritual progress of mankind rests finally on the fact that human beings will not admit this. They like to have truths presented to them, not as the truths for one definite epoch of time, but as absolute timeless dogmas.

Then Kabbalah:

You are correct. I have very general idea of Kabbalah. I can say that I've learned enough to see how in its depths it is in complete harmony with what we can experience today through the higher stages of consciousness. I emphasize on the depths because unfortunately the Kabbalah is very misused today. Just as Astrology, in the wider circles, it is largely reduced to purely intellectual framework for divination. One can read whole books on Kabbalah today that speak in purely psychological manner without a single word of the fact the Sephiroth are actual domains of the Spiritual World.

For me it is enough to feel the deep reverence for this ancient knowledge of the Hebrew sages and see how they developed it as prophetic science of what today can be experienced in full consciousness. My diagrams in the Deep M@L post practically contain hidden in themselves the Tree of Life. It's the same Depth structure.





The four eons correspond to the four Worlds, which are connected with 9 hierarchies (man being the tenth) of spiritual beings.
Yesod is related to the Astral world, the world of Imaginative consciousness, the Moon sphere (mentioned here). Tiphereth is the Sun sphere, the Spiritual World, Devachan - world of Inspirative consciousness. Kether encompasses the outer spheres, world of Intuitive consciousness.

I've absorbed from the Kabbalah just enough for myself. As said, especially the modern treatments easily become lost in intellectual abstractions. It's very difficult to make transition to higher consciousness in meditation while holding these dead structures. It's still possible to meditate deeply on the Sephiroth because they point at spiritual realities. But the truth is that most of what we see in our age as Kabbalah is the product of entirely intellectual fabrications.

[AshvinP]

I would happily bring you the article in English but I do not find it in the archive
. I recommend that you use Google Translate for the article in German:

http://anthroposophie.byu.edu/aufsaetze/l219.pdf

It's not easy to translate, because there are text limits for online translators and the translations are not very good. It seems Steiner was speaking about the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Zio ... ss#History
The first Zionist Congress was convened by Theodor Herzl as a symbolic parliament for the small minority[8] of Jewry in agreement with the implementation of Zionist goals. While Jewish majority indifference or opposition to Zionism would continue until after revelation of the Holocaust in World War II,[9] some proponents point to several directions and streams of this early Jewish opposition. "Alongside the dynamic development of the Zionist movement, which generated waves of enthusiasm throughout the Jewish public, sharp criticism began to appear about Zionism, claiming that Zionism could not hope to resolve the Jewish problem and would only serve to harm the status of Jewish laborers and sabotage its own recognition as an independent class."[3][10] As a result of the vocal opposition by both the Orthodox and Reform community leadership, the Congress, which was originally planned in Munich, Germany, was transferred to Basel by Herzl.[2][3] The Congress took place in the concert hall of the Stadtcasino Basel on August 29, 1897

I don't know how we got here from my argument that higher cognition existed for ancient humanity, is still embedded within our current representational cognition (since the latter is more evolved mode of the former), and, while that participatory cognition is heavily veiled by abstract intellect, it can be unveiled by any individual today with inner qualitative thinking effort. As mentioned before, Steiner is not the only person to point us towards this higher cognition. Others did so more indirectly, but still with conviction. Gebser, Bergson, and Barfield, for example.

"The new mutation of consciousness, on the other hand, as a consequence of arationality, receives its decisive stamp from the manifest perceptual emergence of the spiritual...

Two apocryphal statements of Christian doctrine clarify in their way what is meant here: “This world is a bridge, cross it but do not make of it your dwelling place,” and “I have chosen you before the earth began.” They point to the spiritual origin prior to all spatio-temporal materialization. We may regard such materialization as a bridge that makes possible the merging or coalescence, the concrescere of origin and the present. The great church father Irenaeus presumably had these sayings in mind when he stated: “Blessed is he who was before the coming of man.” We have seen him; he revealed himself in space and time. In his departure he was beheld by his disciples in his transparency, a transparency appropriate only to the spiritual origin (if anything can be appropriated to it), the transparency which a time-free and ego-free person can presentiate in the most fortunate certainty of life. The grand and painful path of consciousness emergence, or, more appropriately, the unfolding and intensification of consciousness, manifests itself as an increasingly intense luminescence of the spiritual in man."

- Jean Gebser, The Ever-Present Origin

If you want to explore the above further, or Cleric's post re: Kabbalah, that could be fruitful. But I see no point in debating the reality of higher cognition for every individual today via Steiner's views on the first Zionist Congress in 1897.

[Shaibei]

I may do that. But the problem, as usual, is I have no idea whether you are genuinely trying to understand what Steiner is claiming or not... if anything I write about his claims will be read fairly. For ex., are you willing to accept, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of understanding Steiner's claims (not accepting them as correct), that Christ incarnate actually 'fulfilled the law and the prophets'? If that central claim of esoteric Christianity cannot even be adopted for the sake of understanding, then I must conclude the critiques are only motivated by sympathies for Jewish mysticism over and above what you feel to be an intrusive force of esoteric Christianity.

This is a strange question. Let me ask you this.
1. Would you be willing to admit that Steiner was wrong when he underestimated and mocked the dangers lurking for the Jews at that time?
2. Would you be willing to admit that it is dangerous for a person to make such claims and present himself to his fans as clairvoyant?
2. For the sake of argument, would you agree to admit that the church erred in thinking that the Jews were cursed in exile for not accepting Jesus? Would you be willing to admit that such myths are irrelevant in light of the changes that have taken place in history in the last century?
4. Would it be open to acknowledge the infiltration of such myths into Steiner's teachings?
5.And what about other myths about the incompetence of Jews in sculpture and painting? Are they really relevant to our time when Jews have the freedom to create, not only in the art of painting and sculpture but also in the film industry and the like?

The list of questions can be continued over and over, but the forum is a philosophical forum and I see no point in entering into theological
discussions or arguing about esoteric traditions. If I had written here more often I would not try to educate anyone in the forum to the spiritual tradition I believe in. Judaism has no interest in converting anyone and as a Jew I have the freedom to argue with people of other faiths and not think they will go to hell because they do not hold my faith, whether they are good Christians, Muslims and other religions from the East.

When it comes to philosophy, I see no reason not to take seriously what Schopenhauer writes, for example. Even if he writes harsh things about Judaism, it does not prevent me from acknowledging the deep insights I recognize in his writing.
I examine Steiner mainly in the light of his philosophy. His discussion of the fit between concepts and the sensory world is not new. After all, even before German idealism, especially Hegel, these ideas were discussed in the teachings of Spinoza, Shlomo Maimon and Kant. In light of things I have read (in "Philosophy of Freedom", in various articles, in 500 pages of Introduction to Anthroposophy and the like) I consider Steiner a talented writer but not a talented philosopher.
It is true that it's difficult to separate Steiner from his esoteric doctrine. As I said, I see no point in arguing about esoteric traditions and ideas prevalent among theosophical and occult circles at the time.
For the rest of your response, I will try to respond later today or in the coming days.

[AshvinP]

I may do that. But the problem, as usual, is I have no idea whether you are genuinely trying to understand what Steiner is claiming or not... if anything I write about his claims will be read fairly. For ex., are you willing to accept, for the sake of argument, and for the sake of understanding Steiner's claims (not accepting them as correct), that Christ incarnate actually 'fulfilled the law and the prophets'? If that central claim of esoteric Christianity cannot even be adopted for the sake of understanding, then I must conclude the critiques are only motivated by sympathies for Jewish mysticism over and above what you feel to be an intrusive force of esoteric Christianity.

This is a strange question. Let me ask you this.
1. Would you be willing to admit that Steiner was wrong when he underestimated and mocked the dangers lurking for the Jews at that time?
2. Would you be willing to admit that it is dangerous for a person to make such claims and present himself to his fans as clairvoyant?
2. For the sake of argument, would you agree to admit that the church erred in thinking that the Jews were cursed in exile for not accepting Jesus? Would you be willing to admit that such myths are irrelevant in light of the changes that have taken place in history in the last century?
4. Would it be open to acknowledge the infiltration of such myths into Steiner's teachings?
5.And what about other myths about the incompetence of Jews in sculpture and painting? Are they really relevant to our time when Jews have the freedom to create, not only in the art of painting and sculpture but also in the film industry and the like?

The list of questions can be continued over and over, but the forum is a philosophical forum and I see no point in entering into theological
discussions or arguing about esoteric traditions. If I had written here more often I would not try to educate anyone in the forum to the spiritual tradition I believe in. Judaism has no interest in converting anyone and as a Jew I have the freedom to argue with people of other faiths and not think they will go to hell because they do not hold my faith, whether they are good Christians, Muslims and other religions from the East.

When it comes to philosophy, I see no reason not to take seriously what Schopenhauer writes, for example. Even if he writes harsh things about Judaism, it does not prevent me from acknowledging the deep insights I recognize in his writing.
I examine Steiner mainly in the light of his philosophy. His discussion of the fit between concepts and the sensory world is not new. After all, even before German idealism, especially Hegel, these ideas were discussed in the teachings of Spinoza, Shlomo Maimon and Kant. In light of things I have read (in "Philosophy of Freedom", in various articles, in 500 pages of Introduction to Anthroposophy and the like) I consider Steiner a talented writer but not a talented philosopher.
It is true that it's difficult to separate Steiner from his esoteric doctrine. As I said, I see no point in arguing about esoteric traditions and ideas prevalent among theosophical and occult circles at the time.
For the rest of your response, I will try to respond later today or in the coming days.

Shalbei,

Do you notice the difference between your questions and mine? You are asking me to accept conclusions without any argument for why they are valid, such as your conclusion that clairvoyance is complete fantasy and abstract intellect is the max capacity of cognition. That is the very question we are trying to answer in this discussion. And I also think the antisemitic accusations, in addition to being irrelevant, do not hold any water. I was asking you whether, if you are genuinely interested in evaluating Steiner's intended meaning in the claims you have come across, you can agree that his overall esoteric Christian framework is important to understanding that meaning. Whether you can agree that a person's intended claims cannot be isolated from their overall understanding of Reality and our participation in it. So I am still wondering whether you are able to make that simple admission?

Remember, you brought up Steiner and spiritual claims, not me. I still prefer to leave that aside because it's irrelevant to the question of whether higher modes of cognition are possible for individuals in the year 2022. I pointed to others who argued for higher cognition via spiritual evolution in the 20th century and quoted Gebser. So I am still wondering whether you have thoughts on that? I also quoted Cleric re: Kabballah, which really shows the latter is entirely consistent with the spiritual evolutionary framework and, I would argue, could not be understood as a living spiritual reality (as opposed to abstract intellectual theory) apart from that spiritual evolutionary framework. So I am still wondering whether you have any thoughts on that as well? Thanks.

[Shaibei]

As for Cleric's response. What he is doing is projecting anthroposophy on the symbols of Kabbalah. This is Steiner's claim that the role of anthroposophy is to find the inner meaning of the Bible, of spiritual traditions, and the like. As I mentioned, there is not much room for discussion here. Unfortunately, Steiner's article on Kabbalah is not available in the archive, but when I read it it was hard to ignore the wrong way Steiner arranges the Sefirot and his wrong historical review of Kabbalah (Steiner thought the Kabbalah ended in the 12th century). Anyone can open Wikipedia and check these details. I do not understand why someone would give a lecture on a subject with which he is unfamiliar.

You mentioned different thinkers. Of them, I know Bergson in general. One has to examine what the claim is exactly. Hegel and Bergson both talked about the evolution of consciousness, but it does not seem that Bergson's flexible intuition goes hand in hand with Hegel's rigid concepts. I do not know if the thinkers you mentioned claim like Steiner that thinking has no limits.

We acquire our knowledge through assumptions and axioms, analogies and inductions, which do not provide complete certainty. Whoever showed this is David Hume, not Kant. I'm not familiar with a solution to this philosophical problem. I choose not to ignore these riddles of consciousness. Divine knowledge can be discussed, but not without sound critical thinking.

[Shaibei]

I see your response now. I did not claim that Steiner was antisemitic. Maybe he was, maybe not. I examined what he writes versus the objective reality.

[AshvinP]

As for Cleric's response. What he is doing is projecting anthroposophy on the symbols of Kabbalah. This is Steiner's claim that the role of anthroposophy is to find the inner meaning of the Bible, of spiritual traditions, and the like. As I mentioned, there is not much room for discussion here. Unfortunately, Steiner's article on Kabbalah is not available in the archive, but when I read it it was hard to ignore the wrong way Steiner arranges the Sefirot and his wrong historical review of Kabbalah (Steiner thought the Kabbalah ended in the 12th century). Anyone can open Wikipedia and check these details. I do not understand why someone would give a lecture on a subject with which he is unfamiliar.

You mentioned different thinkers. Of them, I know Bergson in general. One has to examine what the claim is exactly. Hegel and Bergson both talked about the evolution of consciousness, but it does not seem that Bergson's flexible intuition goes hand in hand with Hegel's rigid concepts. I do not know if the thinkers you mentioned claim like Steiner that thinking has no limits.

We acquire our knowledge through assumptions and axioms, analogies and inductions, which do not provide complete certainty. Whoever showed this is David Hume, not Kant. I'm not familiar with a solution to this philosophical problem. I choose not to ignore these riddles of consciousness. Divine knowledge can be discussed, but not without sound critical thinking.

This is the entire issue in bold. You are adopting the dualistic modeling view of knowledge, also called "correspondence theory of truth", where knowledge is measured by how well our 'internal' thought-models, which must adopt assumptions, correspond with the reality-in-itself. The real issue is that you are simply assuming this is the only possible way of understanding human knowledge and "truth". For Maimon, Kant, etc., it was much more justified, since they were not far removed from the inception of rationalism-dualism. For us today, not so much. Especially if we are on a philosophy forum where people are constantly reminding about this flawed rationalist approach to knowledge. Our own lack of familiarity with 'solutions' cannot be the basis of denying those solutions. These are entirely self-imposed limitations and at the root of that rationalist approach is hyper-abstraction from concrete experience by the intellect.

That is what Steiner overcomes in PoF, by following a strict phenomenology of perception and cognition, as it manifests in our daily experience, within a pragmatic framework. He does not ask how an abstract human being perceives an abstract world and derives abstract knowledge from it, but how we actually perceive the actual world and gain actual knowledge in the process through our cognitive faculty, which is the inward manifestation of outer sense-perception, i.e. the sense-organ which perceives ideal content (meaning) in the world. So the issue, as usual, is the abstract intellect assuming that Reality must align itself with the intellect's own dualistic understanding and then using that assumption as the basis to reject all views which challenge that understanding. Once this dualistic understanding is overcome, all of Nature and the Cosmos open themselves up to human investigation and allow for genuine knowledge of their meaningful dynamics.

Beside associationism there was Kantianism, whose influence, often combined with that of the former, was no less powerful and wide-spread. Those who repudiated the positivism of a Comte, or the agnosticism of a Spencer dared not go so far as to question the Kantian conception of the relativity of knowledge. Kant had proved, so it was said, that our thought exerts itself upon a matter previously scattered in Space and Time, and thus prepared especially for man: the “thing in itself” escapes us; to comprehend it, we would need an intuitive faculty which we do not possess. On the contrary, from my analysis the result was that at least a part of reality, our person, can be grasped in its natural purity. Here, at any rate, the materials of our knowledge have not been created, or ground out of shape and reduced to powder, by some malicious genius who has afterwards thrown into some artificial receptacle such as our consciousness, a psychological dust. Our person appears to us just as it is “in itself,” as soon as we free ourselves of the habits contracted for our greater convenience.

But might it not be the same for other realities, perhaps even for all of them? Was the “relativity of consciousness,” which arrested the soaring of metaphysics, original and essential? Or rather, might it not be accidental and acquired? Would it not simply be due to the fact that the intelligence has contracted habits necessary for everyday living; these habits, transferred to the domain of speculation, bring us face to face with a reality, distorted or made over, or at any rate, arranged; but the arrangement does not force itself upon us irresistably; it comes from ourselves; what we have done we can undo; and we enter then into direct contact with reality. It was therefore not only a psychological theory, associationism, which I brushed aside; it was also and for a similar reason, a general philosophy such as Kantianism, and everything connected with it. Both of them, almost universally accepted at that time in their main outlines, appeared to me as impedimenta hindering philosophy and psychology from going ahead.