New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

[Federica]

Reflecting deeper about Cleric's lovely phrase -- "we're influencing each other in the most various ways" -- I'm moved to share with you Wendell Berry's poem about mature love In the Country of Marriage, which portrays the forest as a central metaphor. Here are a few lines:

Sometimes our life reminds me
of a forest in which there is a graceful clearing
and in that opening a house,
an orchard and garden,
comfortable shades, and flowers
red and yellow in the sun, a pattern
made in the light for the light to return to.
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.

Yes the forest is a central metaphor, I love it too. It can symbolize our life theater and the challenge we are called to live up to - like in Ashvin’s post on the ‘I was reading this’ thread - or it can become a dreamy refuge, like in this poem. Obviously there is a place and a value for these feelings and their poetic expression, but I have to ask you this, Lou, and I am sorry. Is it really worth our nature to spend our days, talents and energies rolling our esthetic and narrative curls, playing around al libitum with contemplative pieces and communion material of the most various kinds, while there’s so much vital work waiting to be tackled for our own survival? And of course everyone is free to take romantic refuge in the enchanted forests of La-la-land and wait there for the End to take charge, but for myself, I respond to a different call.

Oh Federica, I totally agree about NOT retreating into a romantic refuge, which is precisely why Wendell Berry has been an exemplar of deep spiritual-and-practical work for many. In his long life he has managed to reject many of the trappings of modernity and remain incredibly engaged including never using a computer, farming ancestral land for years behind a horse-driven plow, raising with his wife Tanya three very involved -in-the-world children, advocating for regenerative agriculture, as well as engaging in social and environmental activism, while writing 52 books of fiction, poetry, and essays of political and cultural criticism for which he received the National Humanities Award. This is definitely not taking romantic refuge in the enchanted forests of La-la-land. Here's a recently published New Yorker magazine article, which I synchronously(?) read yesterday: "Wendell Berry's Advice for a Cataclysmic Age."

PS: The "Country of Marriage" poem is much longer than the excerpt I provided, which might have suggested a romantic theme out of context.

Is it reasonably possible to misunderstand my previous post to the point of believing I was speaking of the poem? What I think is more likely is that you understood my post, but couldn't resist taking a free storyteller ride on the back of my words.

[Lou Gold]

Yes the forest is a central metaphor, I love it too. It can symbolize our life theater and the challenge we are called to live up to - like in Ashvin’s post on the ‘I was reading this’ thread - or it can become a dreamy refuge, like in this poem. Obviously there is a place and a value for these feelings and their poetic expression, but I have to ask you this, Lou, and I am sorry. Is it really worth our nature to spend our days, talents and energies rolling our esthetic and narrative curls, playing around al libitum with contemplative pieces and communion material of the most various kinds, while there’s so much vital work waiting to be tackled for our own survival? And of course everyone is free to take romantic refuge in the enchanted forests of La-la-land and wait there for the End to take charge, but for myself, I respond to a different call.

Oh Federica, I totally agree about NOT retreating into a romantic refuge, which is precisely why Wendell Berry has been an exemplar of deep spiritual-and-practical work for many. In his long life he has managed to reject many of the trappings of modernity and remain incredibly engaged including never using a computer, farming ancestral land for years behind a horse-driven plow, raising with his wife Tanya three very involved -in-the-world children, advocating for regenerative agriculture, as well as engaging in social and environmental activism, while writing 52 books of fiction, poetry, and essays of political and cultural criticism for which he received the National Humanities Award. This is definitely not taking romantic refuge in the enchanted forests of La-la-land. Here's a recently published New Yorker magazine article, which I synchronously(?) read yesterday: "Wendell Berry's Advice for a Cataclysmic Age."

PS: The "Country of Marriage" poem is much longer than the excerpt I provided, which might have suggested a romantic theme out of context.

Is it reasonably possible to misunderstand my previous post to the point of believing I was speaking of the poem? What I think is more likely is that you understood my post, but couldn't resist taking a free storyteller ride on the back of my words.

Please say more. I spoke of the poem in a way I thought you spoke of it. Do you think I'm retreating into romantic refuge or what? Please clarify.

[Lou Gold]

Oh Federica, I totally agree about NOT retreating into a romantic refuge, which is precisely why Wendell Berry has been an exemplar of deep spiritual-and-practical work for many. In his long life he has managed to reject many of the trappings of modernity and remain incredibly engaged including never using a computer, farming ancestral land for years behind a horse-driven plow, raising with his wife Tanya three very involved -in-the-world children, advocating for regenerative agriculture, as well as engaging in social and environmental activism, while writing 52 books of fiction, poetry, and essays of political and cultural criticism for which he received the National Humanities Award. This is definitely not taking romantic refuge in the enchanted forests of La-la-land. Here's a recently published New Yorker magazine article, which I synchronously(?) read yesterday: "Wendell Berry's Advice for a Cataclysmic Age."

PS: The "Country of Marriage" poem is much longer than the excerpt I provided, which might have suggested a romantic theme out of context.

Is it reasonably possible to misunderstand my previous post to the point of believing I was speaking of the poem? What I think is more likely is that you understood my post, but couldn't resist taking a free storyteller ride on the back of my words.

Please say more. I spoke of the poem in a way I thought you spoke of it. Do you think I'm retreating into romantic refuge or what? Please clarify.

Federica, I got it. I misread your response to stories. My apologies to you.

I was freely associating. My sense of mechanistic forest cannibals are the beings and forces outside the forest promoting deforestation.

Separately,, in terms of forest metaphor, I've long loved Berry's lines
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.
which seemed to me as affirming Ashvin's story of the fire building within and giving light and courage.

Again, I'm sorry that it was not fitting. I probably associate too freely and jump into stories too quickly. Thanks for the lesson.

[Federica]

Is it reasonably possible to misunderstand my previous post to the point of believing I was speaking of the poem? What I think is more likely is that you understood my post, but couldn't resist taking a free storyteller ride on the back of my words.

Please say more. I spoke of the poem in a way I thought you spoke of it. Do you think I'm retreating into romantic refuge or what? Please clarify.

Federica, I got it. I misread your response to stories. My apologies to you.

I was freely associating. My sense of mechanistic forest cannibals are the beings and forces outside the forest promoting deforestation.

Separately,, in terms of forest metaphor, I've long loved Berry's lines
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.
which seemed to me as affirming Ashvin's story of the fire building within and giving light and courage.

Again, I'm sorry that it was not fitting. I probably associate too freely and jump into stories too quickly. Thanks for the lesson.

Lou, regardless of the exact meaning you have put or not put in this, there is no mishap to apologize for, and no lesson to thank for either.

[Lou Gold]

Please say more. I spoke of the poem in a way I thought you spoke of it. Do you think I'm retreating into romantic refuge or what? Please clarify.

Federica, I got it. I misread your response to stories. My apologies to you.

I was freely associating. My sense of mechanistic forest cannibals are the beings and forces outside the forest promoting deforestation.

Separately,, in terms of forest metaphor, I've long loved Berry's lines
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.
which seemed to me as affirming Ashvin's story of the fire building within and giving light and courage.

Again, I'm sorry that it was not fitting. I probably associate too freely and jump into stories too quickly. Thanks for the lesson.

Lou, regardless of the exact meaning you have put or not put in this, there is no mishap to apologize for, and no lesson to thank for either.

OK. Good.

[AshvinP]

Federica, I got it. I misread your response to stories. My apologies to you.

I was freely associating. My sense of mechanistic forest cannibals are the beings and forces outside the forest promoting deforestation.

Separately,, in terms of forest metaphor, I've long loved Berry's lines
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.
which seemed to me as affirming Ashvin's story of the fire building within and giving light and courage.

Again, I'm sorry that it was not fitting. I probably associate too freely and jump into stories too quickly. Thanks for the lesson.

Lou,

You shared this portrait on another thread:





Let's say I ask someone, what can you tell me about how this portrait came into being? Perhaps they respond, "it was designed by a great artist with intelligence, wisdom, and insight into people and nature!"

Then I ask, "sure, but can you tell me exactly how, in a scientific way, this artist went about imbuing that intelligence and wisdom into the portrait?" Surely you agree that this can be done in the case of human portraits, at least in principle if we seek out the artist. I am wondering if you agree that knowing the precise scientific details behind the painting of the portrait, including the artist's own inspirations for painting the portrait, also enriches its meaning ? Moreover, whether we could easily mistake the deeper significance of the portrait if we don't know those details about the artist who inspired it and how he went about translating that inspiration into colorful perceptions for us to admire?

As you can guess, this is what I see often happening with these posts and is the basis of my critique - the material deforestation is seen as the primary 'cannibalistic threat' for us to pay attention to and mitigate because it is assumed we cannot know anything about the scientific reasons why the forest was 'painted' by supra-human spiritual artists to begin with, and how they went about translating their supersensible ideas into our world of perceptions. If the latter could be known, then we may have more informed reasons why things like deforestation occur, why it's a problem, where and when and how it's a problem, and what can be done to address the root causes of its problematic nature. What are your thoughts?

[Lou Gold]

Federica, I got it. I misread your response to stories. My apologies to you.

I was freely associating. My sense of mechanistic forest cannibals are the beings and forces outside the forest promoting deforestation.

Separately,, in terms of forest metaphor, I've long loved Berry's lines
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.
which seemed to me as affirming Ashvin's story of the fire building within and giving light and courage.

Again, I'm sorry that it was not fitting. I probably associate too freely and jump into stories too quickly. Thanks for the lesson.

Lou,

You shared this portrait on another thread:





Let's say I ask someone, what can you tell me about how this portrait came into being? Perhaps they respond, "it was designed by a great artist with intelligence, wisdom, and insight into people and nature!"

Then I ask, "sure, but can you tell me exactly how, in a scientific way, this artist went about imbuing that intelligence and wisdom into the portrait?" Surely you agree that this can be done in the case of human portraits, at least in principle if we seek out the artist. I am wondering if you agree that knowing the precise scientific details behind the painting of the portrait, including the artist's own inspirations for painting the portrait, also enriches its meaning ? Moreover, whether we could easily mistake the deeper significance of the portrait if we don't know those details about the artist who inspired it and how he went about translating that inspiration into colorful perceptions for us to admire?

As you can guess, this is what I see often happening with these posts and is the basis of my critique - the material deforestation is seen as the primary 'cannibalistic threat' for us to pay attention to and mitigate because it is assumed we cannot know anything about the scientific reasons why the forest was 'painted' by supra-human spiritual artists to begin with, and how they went about translating their supersensible ideas into our world of perceptions. If the latter could be known, then we may have more informed reasons why things like deforestation occur, why it's a problem, where and when and how it's a problem, and what can be done to address the root causes of its problematic nature. What are your thoughts?

Random thoughts freely associated (not in any order of importance)

The image you referenced did not appear.

I liked your clarification of "indigenous cannibals" as analogizing an inner forest landscape of the materialist.

Here's a seemingly synchronous image and poem that I stumbled on this morning

I believe that evolving understanding our inner landscape is essential and am grateful for the contributions that Spiritual Science and other paths/practices make toward this endeavor.

About our challenging world (deforestation, etc, etc, etc) I love the Taoist statement, "There was never big problem that could not have been solved when it was small."

[AshvinP]

Random thoughts freely associated (not in any order of importance)

The image you referenced did not appear.

I liked your clarification of "indigenous cannibals" as analogizing an inner forest landscape of the materialist.

Here's a seemingly synchronous image and poem that I stumbled on this morning

I believe that evolving understanding our inner landscape is essential and am grateful for the contributions that Spiritual Science and other paths/practices make toward this endeavor.

About our challenging world (deforestation, etc, etc, etc) I love the Taoist statement, "There was never big problem that could not have been solved when it was small."

Weird, it appeared for me. It was the chieftain with the eagle on his head.

It's one thing to be grateful for spiritual science in the abstract, but do you have any desire to know it? My gratitude for anatomical science isn't going to help me understand the inner world of my bones and organs. I may start assuming things about that inner world, which seem 'intuitive' to me, but simply aren't accurate because I failed to also consult the science which is accessible to me. Do you see the issue here?

[Lou Gold]

Random thoughts freely associated (not in any order of importance)

The image you referenced did not appear.

I liked your clarification of "indigenous cannibals" as analogizing an inner forest landscape of the materialist.

Here's a seemingly synchronous image and poem that I stumbled on this morning

I believe that evolving understanding our inner landscape is essential and am grateful for the contributions that Spiritual Science and other paths/practices make toward this endeavor.

About our challenging world (deforestation, etc, etc, etc) I love the Taoist statement, "There was never big problem that could not have been solved when it was small."

Weird, it appeared for me. It was the chieftain with the eagle on his head.

It's one thing to be grateful for spiritual science in the abstract, but do you have any desire to know it? My gratitude for anatomical science isn't going to help me understand the inner world of my bones and organs. I may start assuming things about that inner world, which seem 'intuitive' to me, but simply aren't accurate because I failed to also consult the science which is accessible to me. Do you see the issue here?

Oh, the image of the Native American portrait with the Eagle in flight above. I posted it to show that the "aboriginal" view also places the eagle representation of spirit above the human and it has done so long before its appearance in Spiritual Science.

I was also being quite generous in speculating a possibility that your meaning of "indigenous cannibals" referenced the inner mental landscape of the materialist rather than the literal forest, which would be the more logical referent since "indigenous" means "of place". For a truly glorious view of the forest and the present-day contribution of both science and indigenous culture, I urge folks to check out the Wade Dave documentary on the forests of Northern Amazonia, which shows how the modern scientific and indigenous view might work together:

I may start assuming things about that inner world, which seem 'intuitive' to me, but simply aren't accurate because I failed to also consult the science which is accessible to me. Do you see the issue here?

Yes, I believe that I see the issue here.

[AshvinP]

Oh, the image of the Native American portrait with the Eagle in flight above. I posted it to show that the "aboriginal" view also places the eagle representation of spirit above the human and it has done so long before its appearance in Spiritual Science.

This comment really highlights the issue. Spiritual science doesn't claim to have discovered aspects of man which were never known before. In fact it's quite the opposite. What it reveals is exactly how, in a scientific way, the aboriginals knew about the Eagle nature in man, as well as the ancient Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. Steiner has dozens of lectures on these topics. He goes into the precise ways in which our higher Self, consisting of manifold beings who possess their own individuality, has been emanating this knowledge into human consciousness for many epochs and ages, preserved in ancient Wisdom traditions and various esoteric streams. And all of it is done in a way which is not simply giving us teachings to absorb, but new thinking skills which weave trains of logical thought and allow us to participate in the very process by which our ancestors acquired their spiritual knowledge, except now actively from within instead of passively from without. Until one can admit they don't know exactly what spiritual science is, and what it conveys, there is really no being 'grateful' for it.