Nope. Maybe

[scarletamour]

"it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality"."

Nope. Maybe I'll have time to say it again in words that might land better for you.

"am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?c

I'm not upset if you didn't read what I said in a few other posts about Steiner himself making clear that correcting him does not rely on clairvoyance? I don't think you would have asked me if you'd read that.

I think Steiner was very wise to make this clear. Maybe you are too new to Anthropsophy to see what happens when various researches try to make arguements based in their clairvoyance. All that happens is people form new camps around whom they think has the "better" clairvoyance.

Steiner's point is that all of us should be capable of noting errors and reasoning about them via healthy everyday understanding. I can't repeat myself again but I just think we do well to stay within a phenomenolgy we all share.

Can I read the essay where you quote Steiner on Bulls? When I have a keyboard I'll say more about that example.

[Soul_of_Shu]

"it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality"."

Nope. Maybe I'll have time to say it again in words that might land better for you.

"am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?c

I'm not upset if you didn't read what I said in a few other posts about Steiner himself making clear that correcting him does not rely on clairvoyance? I don't think you would have asked me if you'd read that.

I think Steiner was very wise to make this clear. Maybe you are too new to Anthropsophy to see what happens when various researches try to make arguements based in their clairvoyance. All that happens is people form new camps around whom they think has the "better" clairvoyance.

Steiner's point is that all of us should be capable of noting errors and reasoning about them via healthy everyday understanding. I can't repeat myself again but I just think we do well to stay within a phenomenolgy we all share.

Can I read the essay where you quote Steiner on Bulls? When I have a keyboard I'll say more about that example.

For the sake of some context, it would help to know who posted the quotes you are responding to above. Also, it seems that rather than posting this as a stand-alone topic, it should have been posted in the thread in which the quotes were first posted. I'll let it stand for now, until some clarification is given, or if needed, move the post to the appropriate thread.

[AshvinP]

"it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality"."

Nope. Maybe I'll have time to say it again in words that might land better for you.

"am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?c

I'm not upset if you didn't read what I said in a few other posts about Steiner himself making clear that correcting him does not rely on clairvoyance? I don't think you would have asked me if you'd read that.

I think Steiner was very wise to make this clear. Maybe you are too new to Anthropsophy to see what happens when various researches try to make arguements based in their clairvoyance. All that happens is people form new camps around whom they think has the "better" clairvoyance.

Steiner's point is that all of us should be capable of noting errors and reasoning about them via healthy everyday understanding. I can't repeat myself again but I just think we do well to stay within a phenomenolgy we all share.

Can I read the essay where you quote Steiner on Bulls? When I have a keyboard I'll say more about that example.

For the sake of some context, it would help to know who posted the quotes you are responding to above. Also, it seems that rather than posting this as a stand-alone topic, it should have been posted in the thread in which the quotes were first posted. I'll let it stand for now, until some clarification is given, or if needed, move the post to the appropriate thread.

This is findingblanks, return of the prodigal son : )

[AshvinP]

"it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality"."

Nope. Maybe I'll have time to say it again in words that might land better for you.

"am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?c

I'm not upset if you didn't read what I said in a few other posts about Steiner himself making clear that correcting him does not rely on clairvoyance? I don't think you would have asked me if you'd read that.

I think Steiner was very wise to make this clear. Maybe you are too new to Anthropsophy to see what happens when various researches try to make arguements based in their clairvoyance. All that happens is people form new camps around whom they think has the "better" clairvoyance.

Steiner's point is that all of us should be capable of noting errors and reasoning about them via healthy everyday understanding. I can't repeat myself again but I just think we do well to stay within a phenomenolgy we all share.

Can I read the essay where you quote Steiner on Bulls? When I have a keyboard I'll say more about that example.

I'm not sure there is any point indulging this time. The point has been made many times now, you hold everything Steiner wrote as abstract intellectual theory. You refuse to contextualize his expressed ideas within the spiritual reality he is speaking of. You want to critique everything as isolated abstract concepts, because that's how you conceive them. So we aren't even discussing Steiner anymore, only your own flattened caricatures. The questions you quote have already been answered in that way. Unless you have something new to offer than those caricatures, I will not respond.

[Soul_of_Shu]

This is findingblanks, return of the prodigal son : )

OK, that explains the contextual cluelessness ... What's up with the new handle? Is it a username from some other forum, now being used here for some nonsensical reason?