The Philosophy of Freedom, Summarized

[Federica]

Ashvin,

May I ask you to please reformulate this? Very briefly would be enough, only to make sure I don't misunderstand it:

"In short, I still disagree with you, and am still trying to explain why, that Max's characterization - "one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things" - is at odds with Steiner and PoF. "

[AshvinP]

Just so it's clear, as I have mentioned often, the effort you make to understand what I am writing is far beyond what I have come across on this forum or any other one I have shared these ideas on. It's not even close. So any frustration I have with these divergences is short-lived, and even that is my own limitation. We can really delve pretty deep into our own spiritual nature if we resist the frustration, approach it impersonally, and focus on the why - why am I focusing on this particular topic and illustration, why I am sensitive to that focus, why do I feel the need to respond in this way, etc. These are the sorts of things, among others, that I am trying to quietly meditate on more.

Because they are treated as different in PoF! Desire is what counts, what drives our (moral) action. Pleasure is a consequence of desire, but also of other things. Desire is the mesure. Steiner wrote: “desires supply the measure; pleasure is what is measured” “pleasure has value for us only so long as we have desires by which to measure it”.
Steiner also wrote: “Philosophy would have to convince man that striving is rational only when pleasure outweighs pain (...). Such a philosophy, however, would be mistaken, because it would make the human will dependent on a factor (the surplus of pleasure over pain) which, at first, is wholly foreign to man's point of view. The original measure of his will is his desire, and desire asserts itself as long as it can.”

There seem to be two questions here - 1) Whether it is in fact correct to say, "one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things instead of believing things are right insofar as they produce pleasure". I am addressing this question more below. 

(2) Whether we can surmise any of this directly from what Steiner conveys in PoF, or whether there is some sort of tension with his wording which could lead people astray, namely the distinction he makes between 'desire' and 'pleasure'. From the quotes you have shared, it seems a very tenuous argument. In that section, Steiner is basically showing why the pessimistic utilitarian arguments only hold valid if there are fundamental limits to knowledge which cuts off the spiritual from the physical/intellectual, an option which has already been discarded through the phenomenology of perception-cognition. 

An ethics built on pessimism arises from the disregard of moral imagination. Only if one considers that the individual human spirit is itself incapable of giving content to its striving can one expect the craving for pleasure to account fully for all acts of will. A man without imagination creates no moral ideas. They must be given to him. Physical nature sees to it that he strives to satisfy his lower desires. But the development of the whole man also includes those desires that originate in the spirit. Only if one believes that man has no such spiritual desires can one declare that he must receive them from without. Then one would also be entitled to say that it is man's duty to do what he does not want.

What Steiner calls here "lower desires", i.e. those connected with satisfying aims related only to the sensory spectrum or the physical-conceptual spectrum, is what Max is referring to as "arbitrary desires". When we are tyrannized by something, it becomes a completely one-sided pursuit. We focus only on our lower desires and ignore those spiritual desires which arrive from within and which reconcile what gives us pleasure with what is also 'right', assuming these desires can actually be striven for consciously and replenished in ever-higher stages through higher cognition. 

We can do it in the same way we free ourselves from the tyranny of the sensory impressions (which are always mediated by those sensuous desires), through our free spiritual activity, i.e. sense-free thinking and exercises of will. And these are not hardly delineated categories - they can and must be undertaken simultaneously. 

But the summary says 'in order to', creating a direction cause-to-effect, which is what I am questioning.

I would say it is a direct cause-to-effect as well, as long as we don't take it too mechanically, like we must take step A before effect B happens, and then step C before effect D, etc. We are always dealing with a living organism and its non-linear dynamics. Here is an analogy I remembered Cleric posting before, which I think is fitting here.

Eugene, what I'm always talking about is that the Spiritual world has a certain lawful structure and in the Deep M@L picture, this structure is the structure of our own conscious space. Let's imagine that people don't know about the interior of their physical body and everything is a matter of philosophy and religion. Then there are individuals who say "The body has concrete biological organization. If we understand this organization we'll know what is the appropriate nutrition, how much sleep, how much exercise, etc. are beneficial to keep the body healthy and properly developing." Other people say "You need to come to peace with the fact that there's not one but many possible ways to live with that body. People can eat glass, nails, etc."

Now this is a very rude example but is not far from the facts (even in the physical sense! we know how people destroy themselves even in the face of elementary biological truths). It's not about forcing everyone to conform to the same set of ideas but to investigate the spiritual structure that we're living through, such that we can unfold our activity in the most harmonious and productive way. In the same way that pointing out the healthy foods in contrast to unhealthy doesn't aim to restrict people to certain ideologies but to help them reach their full potential, so spiritual knowledge is not about becoming locked in dogma but about expanding our horizons such that we don't get stuck in the swamps and deserts of spiritual life, which project through the individuals in all the problems of our civilization that people are in vain trying to solve by reshuffling the physical factors in the most varied ways.

We could say working on the tyranny of arbitrary desires is adopting a spiritual diet. It is not being forced on us by any external power, but we are mistaken if we think what we 'consume' through our ego and desire (astral) body, including sensory impressions and concepts of all sort, does not have a profound effect on our capacity for further cognitive development. In fact, the reason we go to sleep every night is because we subconsciously desire to withdraw from the sensory/conceptual bombardment which leads to bodily deterioration over time and retrieve the spiritual impulses which will re-vitalize the lower bodies, so we can continue using them as instruments for spiritual development. There is a very lawful structure involved and clearing out the 'soul-plumbing' which obstructs the flow of higher Spirit, bringing those impulses from the higher worlds more effectively when we are asleep, and, not only when we sleep, but also when we are awake, begins with our sphere of interests/desires. We need to become knowledgeable soul-plumbers if we want to get the job done properly. This work will certainly require voluntary sacrifices along the way and we shouldn't get too used to the necessary adjustments 'coming by itself', even if it starts that way. What really comes to us by grace alone is the motivation, conviction and trust that the sacrifices, the trials and tribulations, are part of something much bigger than us and we can experience this reality in the most living way.

"And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope."

Ashvin,

May I ask you to please reformulate this? Very briefly would be enough, only to make sure I don't misunderstand it:

"In short, I still disagree with you, and am still trying to explain why, that Max's characterization - "one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things" - is at odds with Steiner and PoF. "

Probably what I wrote above is sufficient to clarify this, but let me know if it's still unclear. And I'm sure we would have avoided a good deal of misunderstanding if I had started with a response more like what was written above, so that is my fault!

[Federica]

Just so it's clear, as I have mentioned often, the effort you make to understand what I am writing is far beyond what I have come across on this forum or any other one I have shared these ideas on. It's not even close. So any frustration I have with these divergences is short-lived, and even that is my own limitation. We can really delve pretty deep into our own spiritual nature if we resist the frustration, approach it impersonally, and focus on the why - why am I focusing on this particular topic and illustration, why I am sensitive to that focus, why do I feel the need to respond in this way, etc. These are the sorts of things, among others, that I am trying to quietly meditate on more.

Because they are treated as different in PoF! Desire is what counts, what drives our (moral) action. Pleasure is a consequence of desire, but also of other things. Desire is the mesure. Steiner wrote: “desires supply the measure; pleasure is what is measured” “pleasure has value for us only so long as we have desires by which to measure it”.
Steiner also wrote: “Philosophy would have to convince man that striving is rational only when pleasure outweighs pain (...). Such a philosophy, however, would be mistaken, because it would make the human will dependent on a factor (the surplus of pleasure over pain) which, at first, is wholly foreign to man's point of view. The original measure of his will is his desire, and desire asserts itself as long as it can.”

There seem to be two questions here - 1) Whether it is in fact correct to say, "one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things instead of believing things are right insofar as they produce pleasure". I am addressing this question more below. 

(2) Whether we can surmise any of this directly from what Steiner conveys in PoF, or whether there is some sort of tension with his wording which could lead people astray, namely the distinction he makes between 'desire' and 'pleasure'. From the quotes you have shared, it seems a very tenuous argument. In that section, Steiner is basically showing why the pessimistic utilitarian arguments only hold valid if there are fundamental limits to knowledge which cuts off the spiritual from the physical/intellectual, an option which has already been discarded through the phenomenology of perception-cognition. 

An ethics built on pessimism arises from the disregard of moral imagination. Only if one considers that the individual human spirit is itself incapable of giving content to its striving can one expect the craving for pleasure to account fully for all acts of will. A man without imagination creates no moral ideas. They must be given to him. Physical nature sees to it that he strives to satisfy his lower desires. But the development of the whole man also includes those desires that originate in the spirit. Only if one believes that man has no such spiritual desires can one declare that he must receive them from without. Then one would also be entitled to say that it is man's duty to do what he does not want.

What Steiner calls here "lower desires", i.e. those connected with satisfying aims related only to the sensory spectrum or the physical-conceptual spectrum, is what Max is referring to as "arbitrary desires". When we are tyrannized by something, it becomes a completely one-sided pursuit. We focus only on our lower desires and ignore those spiritual desires which arrive from within and which reconcile what gives us pleasure with what is also 'right', assuming these desires can actually be striven for consciously and replenished in ever-higher stages through higher cognition. 

We can do it in the same way we free ourselves from the tyranny of the sensory impressions (which are always mediated by those sensuous desires), through our free spiritual activity, i.e. sense-free thinking and exercises of will. And these are not hardly delineated categories - they can and must be undertaken simultaneously. 

But the summary says 'in order to', creating a direction cause-to-effect, which is what I am questioning.

I would say it is a direct cause-to-effect as well, as long as we don't take it too mechanically, like we must take step A before effect B happens, and then step C before effect D, etc. We are always dealing with a living organism and its non-linear dynamics. Here is an analogy I remembered Cleric posting before, which I think is fitting here.

Eugene, what I'm always talking about is that the Spiritual world has a certain lawful structure and in the Deep M@L picture, this structure is the structure of our own conscious space. Let's imagine that people don't know about the interior of their physical body and everything is a matter of philosophy and religion. Then there are individuals who say "The body has concrete biological organization. If we understand this organization we'll know what is the appropriate nutrition, how much sleep, how much exercise, etc. are beneficial to keep the body healthy and properly developing." Other people say "You need to come to peace with the fact that there's not one but many possible ways to live with that body. People can eat glass, nails, etc."

Now this is a very rude example but is not far from the facts (even in the physical sense! we know how people destroy themselves even in the face of elementary biological truths). It's not about forcing everyone to conform to the same set of ideas but to investigate the spiritual structure that we're living through, such that we can unfold our activity in the most harmonious and productive way. In the same way that pointing out the healthy foods in contrast to unhealthy doesn't aim to restrict people to certain ideologies but to help them reach their full potential, so spiritual knowledge is not about becoming locked in dogma but about expanding our horizons such that we don't get stuck in the swamps and deserts of spiritual life, which project through the individuals in all the problems of our civilization that people are in vain trying to solve by reshuffling the physical factors in the most varied ways.

We could say working on the tyranny of arbitrary desires is adopting a spiritual diet. It is not being forced on us by any external power, but we are mistaken if we think what we 'consume' through our ego and desire (astral) body, including sensory impressions and concepts of all sort, does not have a profound effect on our capacity for further cognitive development. In fact, the reason we go to sleep every night is because we subconsciously desire to withdraw from the sensory/conceptual bombardment which leads to bodily deterioration over time and retrieve the spiritual impulses which will re-vitalize the lower bodies, so we can continue using them as instruments for spiritual development. There is a very lawful structure involved and clearing out the 'soul-plumbing' which obstructs the flow of higher Spirit, bringing those impulses from the higher worlds more effectively when we are asleep, and, not only when we sleep, but also when we are awake, begins with our sphere of interests/desires. We need to become knowledgeable soul-plumbers if we want to get the job done properly. This work will certainly require voluntary sacrifices along the way and we shouldn't get too used to the necessary adjustments 'coming by itself', even if it starts that way. What really comes to us by grace alone is the motivation, conviction and trust that the sacrifices, the trials and tribulations, are part of something much bigger than us and we can experience this reality in the most living way.

"And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope."

Ashvin,

May I ask you to please reformulate this? Very briefly would be enough, only to make sure I don't misunderstand it:

"In short, I still disagree with you, and am still trying to explain why, that Max's characterization - "one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things" - is at odds with Steiner and PoF. "

Probably what I wrote above is sufficient to clarify this, but let me know if it's still unclear. And I'm sure we would have avoided a good deal of misunderstanding if I had started with a response more like what was written above, so that is my fault!

Thank you, Ashvin! For the steps you take to continually adapt to these exchanges. My gratitude for that is always present, even when I feel compelled to compile detailed terms of disagreement. By the way, I’ve also been trying to reflect, if not meditate, on those uncomfortable 'whys', since long ago, clearly with mixed results.


To your point (1) and notes on adopting a spiritual diet, I understand you are saying that first and foremost it's about realizing the lawfulness, and things can only be confusing for the one who takes them mechanically, and I accept that. Understanding has to be worked out at least to the general realization of the importance of working on both sides simultaneously. Aside from this question, I have taken notice of your comments on the precise structure of the balance between cognitive development and active work on desires.


To your point (2) also in connection with “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of the illustration”, I would like to elaborate based on my understanding of PoF.

We have a stable handle on desire, not on pleasure. What we feel drawn to, and the generator of our actions, is desire not pleasure. We do what we do as an expression of a desire for an outcome first. We want an outcome. We often know the outcome will be connected with lots of pain, still we want it and we pursue it, despite expected pains exceeding expected pleasures. Desire is our guiding star. Pleasure we will always hope for, with varying success, in any given execution of desires regardless of their underlying moral quality.
For example, I have a desire to read and understand PoF. I know the endeavor will be connected with pleasure and pain, hard to say in which proportions, so my desire, not the expected pleasure, is the handle I have power on. Clearly, although I do hope for pleasure, my reason to act is not the pain/pleasure balance I'm expecting. It's to get somewhere, no matter how 'expensive'. Now let's say I want to work on my actions. I want to make sure I really read the book and make effort to get it. If I focus on pleasure, I will only have a quite imperfect handle on the actions I need to take. The pleasure balance can hardly be assessed and, more importantly, it’s only indirectly connected with taking action. I cannot effectively leverage it in hope that, in doing so, I will prompt action taking. I have to focus on my desire, that’s how I can put all the chances on my side to bring about what I want to bring about. Conversely, say I want to work on reducing my arbitrary behaviors. I want to talk myself out of doing something. If I focus on pleasure, I will have little chance to have any impact. First, the pain/pleasure balance of most endeavors is such a mixed bag, and second, pleasure is only loosely connected to action as a motivator. I act out of desire, to a major extent regardless of the pain/pleasure balance involved. So only if I focus on my desire to get somewhere, (almost) no matter what pleasure/pain, do I have a solid basis to exert my will.


I want to make clear that I am not expressing a personal viewpoint here, this is not my theory. After thorough consideration, what I have described is what I understand Steiner is saying in PoF. Do you agree with this, Ashvin? Or do you still think this is a very tenuous argument? And have I been able to explain why I dare to qualify the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' as confusing for a beginner like me, who have worked hard to figure out the previous in PoF, only to open the summary and read that “the good is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure”.
I hope I was also able to show that my questioning is not for the mere sake of going against the summary and ‘asserting myself’. Notice that, although I am strongly convinced of the previous, I said that I find "strictly speaking inaccurate" to equate pleasure and desire. For me honestly I could have thrown the ‘strictly speaking’ out of the window without any afterthoughts. But I kept it, to concede to the fact that, despite the precise reasoning I am providing, I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable.

[Lou Gold]

To your point (2) also in connection with “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of the illustration”, I would like to elaborate based on my understanding of PoF.

We have a stable handle on desire, not on pleasure. What we feel drawn to, and the generator of our actions, is desire not pleasure. We do what we do as an expression of a desire for an outcome first. We want an outcome. We often know the outcome will be connected with lots of pain, still we want it and we pursue it, despite expected pains exceeding expected pleasures. Desire is our guiding star. Pleasure we will always hope for, with varying success, in any given execution of desires regardless of their underlying moral quality.
For example, I have a desire to read and understand PoF. I know the endeavor will be connected with pleasure and pain, hard to say in which proportions, so my desire, not the expected pleasure, is the handle I have power on. Clearly, although I do hope for pleasure, my reason to act is not the pain/pleasure balance I'm expecting. It's to get somewhere, no matter how 'expensive'. Now let's say I want to work on my actions. I want to make sure I really read the book and make effort to get it. If I focus on pleasure, I will only have a quite imperfect handle on the actions I need to take. The pleasure balance can hardly be assessed and, more importantly, it’s only indirectly connected with taking action. I cannot effectively leverage it in hope that, in doing so, I will prompt action taking. I have to focus on my desire, that’s how I can put all the chances on my side to bring about what I want to bring about. Conversely, say I want to work on reducing my arbitrary behaviors. I want to talk myself out of doing something. If I focus on pleasure, I will have little chance to have any impact. First, the pain/pleasure balance of most endeavors is such a mixed bag, and second, pleasure is only loosely connected to action as a motivator. I act out of desire, to a major extent regardless of the pain/pleasure balance involved. So only if I focus on my desire to get somewhere, (almost) no matter what pleasure/pain, do I have a solid basis to exert my will.


I want to make clear that I am not expressing a personal viewpoint here, this is not my theory. After thorough consideration, what I have described is what I understand Steiner is saying in PoF. Do you agree with this, Ashvin? Or do you still think this is a very tenuous argument? And have I been able to explain why I dare to qualify the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' as confusing for a beginner like me, who have worked hard to figure out the previous in PoF, only to open the summary and read that “the good is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure”.
I hope I was also able to show that my questioning is not for the mere sake of going against the summary and ‘asserting myself’. Notice that, although I am strongly convinced of the previous, I said that I find "strictly speaking inaccurate" to equate pleasure and desire. For me honestly I could have thrown the ‘strictly speaking’ out of the window without any afterthoughts. But I kept it, to concede to the fact that, despite the precise reasoning I am providing, I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable.

Although I have no comment on what Steiner meant (I've not read PoF), I think I grok the issue, which, it seems to me, is well illustrated by the Passion of Christ. It gave Jesus highest satisfaction (pleasure) to perform the Will of the Father even though, at the physical level, it was hardly a pleasurable experience. This is a good reason to celebrate His Passion more than His Suffering.

Okay, just a thought.

[AshvinP]

To your point (2) also in connection with “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of the illustration”, I would like to elaborate based on my understanding of PoF.

We have a stable handle on desire, not on pleasure. What we feel drawn to, and the generator of our actions, is desire not pleasure. We do what we do as an expression of a desire for an outcome first. We want an outcome. We often know the outcome will be connected with lots of pain, still we want it and we pursue it, despite expected pains exceeding expected pleasures. Desire is our guiding star. Pleasure we will always hope for, with varying success, in any given execution of desires regardless of their underlying moral quality.

For example, I have a desire to read and understand PoF. I know the endeavor will be connected with pleasure and pain, hard to say in which proportions, so my desire, not the expected pleasure, is the handle I have power on. Clearly, although I do hope for pleasure, my reason to act is not the pain/pleasure balance I'm expecting. It's to get somewhere, no matter how 'expensive'. Now let's say I want to work on my actions. I want to make sure I really read the book and make effort to get it. If I focus on pleasure, I will only have a quite imperfect handle on the actions I need to take. The pleasure balance can hardly be assessed and, more importantly, it’s only indirectly connected with taking action. I cannot effectively leverage it in hope that, in doing so, I will prompt action taking. I have to focus on my desire, that’s how I can put all the chances on my side to bring about what I want to bring about. Conversely, say I want to work on reducing my arbitrary behaviors. I want to talk myself out of doing something. If I focus on pleasure, I will have little chance to have any impact. First, the pain/pleasure balance of most endeavors is such a mixed bag, and second, pleasure is only loosely connected to action as a motivator. I act out of desire, to a major extent regardless of the pain/pleasure balance involved. So only if I focus on my desire to get somewhere, (almost) no matter what pleasure/pain, do I have a solid basis to exert my will.


I want to make clear that I am not expressing a personal viewpoint here, this is not my theory. After thorough consideration, what I have described is what I understand Steiner is saying in PoF. Do you agree with this, Ashvin? Or do you still think this is a very tenuous argument? And have I been able to explain why I dare to qualify the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' as confusing for a beginner like me, who have worked hard to figure out the previous in PoF, only to open the summary and read that “the good is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure”.
I hope I was also able to show that my questioning is not for the mere sake of going against the summary and ‘asserting myself’. Notice that, although I am strongly convinced of the previous, I said that I find "strictly speaking inaccurate" to equate pleasure and desire. For me honestly I could have thrown the ‘strictly speaking’ out of the window without any afterthoughts. But I kept it, to concede to the fact that, despite the precise reasoning I am providing, I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable.

Yes, I agree with that. The tenuous part comes in when asserting Max is saying anything different or so confusing that it will lead the average person astray from the PoF understanding. Certainly it won't lead astray the person who has already carefully read PoF as you have evidenced through your pushback.

Sometimes this is difficult to perceive because “the good” is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure. The degree to which they are the same is the measure of the agent’s freedom. In other words, one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things instead of believing things are right insofar as they produce pleasure
...
Finally, when love is the impulse behind our deeds, they are performed for their own sake. This is to say that they are done in freedom. As long as I only act so as to achieve some ulterior end or to alter the state of something extrinsic to me—so long am I acting under a compulsion. To act out of compulsion is antithetical to acting out of freedom and love. The thought of a result has placed me under its bondage, or rather, I have indentured myself to it. Outside of presence of mind, there is neither freedom nor love.

If Max was equating 'desires' and 'pleasure', he would not have used both words in the same sentence. You said yourself that desire is our 'guiding star', so it only stands to reason that one must work on the life of desire, through self-conscious will-thinking, 'in order to' align what is pleasurable with what is 'right', i.e. what is Loving in the higher sense. Then pleasure is not the motivator for the deeds, which means one is acting selfishly, but the natural result of moral deeds which are pursued for their own sake, out of inner spiritual desires. None of this can be done in freedom if we lack the capacity for moral imagination which derives the content for these higher desires from the Spirit within. To summarize my points:

1. I don't think Max makes the misleading equivalence you are suggesting and, conversely, I think what he writes is very closely aligned with what Steiner writes and what you wrote above.

2. If the word 'pleasure' is out of place anywhere, I highly doubt it would lead anyone astray from the core PoF reasoning on these points.

3. If someone has already read through PoF and is using this summary to 'reinforce and clarify the ideas and reasoning', I certainly don't think this one section would lead them astray, as you have shown.

And to be clear, I never intended to suggest this summary should be a substitute for actually reading through PoF in full, only something to help orient prior to reading PoF or to reinforce/clarify after reading PoF.

[Federica]

To your point (2) also in connection with “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of the illustration”, I would like to elaborate based on my understanding of PoF.

We have a stable handle on desire, not on pleasure. What we feel drawn to, and the generator of our actions, is desire not pleasure. We do what we do as an expression of a desire for an outcome first. We want an outcome. We often know the outcome will be connected with lots of pain, still we want it and we pursue it, despite expected pains exceeding expected pleasures. Desire is our guiding star. Pleasure we will always hope for, with varying success, in any given execution of desires regardless of their underlying moral quality.

For example, I have a desire to read and understand PoF. I know the endeavor will be connected with pleasure and pain, hard to say in which proportions, so my desire, not the expected pleasure, is the handle I have power on. Clearly, although I do hope for pleasure, my reason to act is not the pain/pleasure balance I'm expecting. It's to get somewhere, no matter how 'expensive'. Now let's say I want to work on my actions. I want to make sure I really read the book and make effort to get it. If I focus on pleasure, I will only have a quite imperfect handle on the actions I need to take. The pleasure balance can hardly be assessed and, more importantly, it’s only indirectly connected with taking action. I cannot effectively leverage it in hope that, in doing so, I will prompt action taking. I have to focus on my desire, that’s how I can put all the chances on my side to bring about what I want to bring about. Conversely, say I want to work on reducing my arbitrary behaviors. I want to talk myself out of doing something. If I focus on pleasure, I will have little chance to have any impact. First, the pain/pleasure balance of most endeavors is such a mixed bag, and second, pleasure is only loosely connected to action as a motivator. I act out of desire, to a major extent regardless of the pain/pleasure balance involved. So only if I focus on my desire to get somewhere, (almost) no matter what pleasure/pain, do I have a solid basis to exert my will.


I want to make clear that I am not expressing a personal viewpoint here, this is not my theory. After thorough consideration, what I have described is what I understand Steiner is saying in PoF. Do you agree with this, Ashvin? Or do you still think this is a very tenuous argument? And have I been able to explain why I dare to qualify the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' as confusing for a beginner like me, who have worked hard to figure out the previous in PoF, only to open the summary and read that “the good is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure”.
I hope I was also able to show that my questioning is not for the mere sake of going against the summary and ‘asserting myself’. Notice that, although I am strongly convinced of the previous, I said that I find "strictly speaking inaccurate" to equate pleasure and desire. For me honestly I could have thrown the ‘strictly speaking’ out of the window without any afterthoughts. But I kept it, to concede to the fact that, despite the precise reasoning I am providing, I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable.

Yes, I agree with that. The tenuous part comes in when asserting Max is saying anything different or so confusing that it will lead the average person astray from the PoF understanding. Certainly it won't lead astray the person who has already carefully read PoF as you have evidenced through your pushback.

Sometimes this is difficult to perceive because “the good” is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure. The degree to which they are the same is the measure of the agent’s freedom. In other words, one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things instead of believing things are right insofar as they produce pleasure
...
Finally, when love is the impulse behind our deeds, they are performed for their own sake. This is to say that they are done in freedom. As long as I only act so as to achieve some ulterior end or to alter the state of something extrinsic to me—so long am I acting under a compulsion. To act out of compulsion is antithetical to acting out of freedom and love. The thought of a result has placed me under its bondage, or rather, I have indentured myself to it. Outside of presence of mind, there is neither freedom nor love.

If Max was equating 'desires' and 'pleasure', he would not have used both words in the same sentence. You said yourself that desire is our 'guiding star', so it only stands to reason that one must work on the life of desire, through self-conscious will-thinking, 'in order to' align what is pleasurable with what is 'right', i.e. what is Loving in the higher sense. Then pleasure is not the motivator for the deeds, which means one is acting selfishly, but the natural result of moral deeds which are pursued for their own sake, out of inner spiritual desires. None of this can be done in freedom if we lack the capacity for moral imagination which derives the content for these higher desires from the Spirit within. To summarize my points:

1. I don't think Max makes the misleading equivalence you are suggesting and, conversely, I think what he writes is very closely aligned with what Steiner writes and what you wrote above.

2. If the word 'pleasure' is out of place anywhere, I highly doubt it would lead anyone astray from the core PoF reasoning on these points.

3. If someone has already read through PoF and is using this summary to 'reinforce and clarify the ideas and reasoning', I certainly don't think this one section would lead them astray, as you have shown.

And to be clear, I never intended to suggest this summary should be a substitute for actually reading through PoF in full, only something to help orient prior to reading PoF or to reinforce/clarify after reading PoF.

My goodness!
Ashvin. Your reply is tendentious. I will wait a little before responding. I want to ensure I will make mine entirely fair and not colored by the ‘sentiment’ I am having now.

[AshvinP]

To your point (2) also in connection with “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of the illustration”, I would like to elaborate based on my understanding of PoF.

We have a stable handle on desire, not on pleasure. What we feel drawn to, and the generator of our actions, is desire not pleasure. We do what we do as an expression of a desire for an outcome first. We want an outcome. We often know the outcome will be connected with lots of pain, still we want it and we pursue it, despite expected pains exceeding expected pleasures. Desire is our guiding star. Pleasure we will always hope for, with varying success, in any given execution of desires regardless of their underlying moral quality.

For example, I have a desire to read and understand PoF. I know the endeavor will be connected with pleasure and pain, hard to say in which proportions, so my desire, not the expected pleasure, is the handle I have power on. Clearly, although I do hope for pleasure, my reason to act is not the pain/pleasure balance I'm expecting. It's to get somewhere, no matter how 'expensive'. Now let's say I want to work on my actions. I want to make sure I really read the book and make effort to get it. If I focus on pleasure, I will only have a quite imperfect handle on the actions I need to take. The pleasure balance can hardly be assessed and, more importantly, it’s only indirectly connected with taking action. I cannot effectively leverage it in hope that, in doing so, I will prompt action taking. I have to focus on my desire, that’s how I can put all the chances on my side to bring about what I want to bring about. Conversely, say I want to work on reducing my arbitrary behaviors. I want to talk myself out of doing something. If I focus on pleasure, I will have little chance to have any impact. First, the pain/pleasure balance of most endeavors is such a mixed bag, and second, pleasure is only loosely connected to action as a motivator. I act out of desire, to a major extent regardless of the pain/pleasure balance involved. So only if I focus on my desire to get somewhere, (almost) no matter what pleasure/pain, do I have a solid basis to exert my will.


I want to make clear that I am not expressing a personal viewpoint here, this is not my theory. After thorough consideration, what I have described is what I understand Steiner is saying in PoF. Do you agree with this, Ashvin? Or do you still think this is a very tenuous argument? And have I been able to explain why I dare to qualify the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' as confusing for a beginner like me, who have worked hard to figure out the previous in PoF, only to open the summary and read that “the good is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure”.
I hope I was also able to show that my questioning is not for the mere sake of going against the summary and ‘asserting myself’. Notice that, although I am strongly convinced of the previous, I said that I find "strictly speaking inaccurate" to equate pleasure and desire. For me honestly I could have thrown the ‘strictly speaking’ out of the window without any afterthoughts. But I kept it, to concede to the fact that, despite the precise reasoning I am providing, I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable.

Yes, I agree with that. The tenuous part comes in when asserting Max is saying anything different or so confusing that it will lead the average person astray from the PoF understanding. Certainly it won't lead astray the person who has already carefully read PoF as you have evidenced through your pushback.

Sometimes this is difficult to perceive because “the good” is not necessarily the same thing as pleasure. The degree to which they are the same is the measure of the agent’s freedom. In other words, one has to be free from the tyranny of arbitrary desires in order to be pleased by the right things instead of believing things are right insofar as they produce pleasure
...
Finally, when love is the impulse behind our deeds, they are performed for their own sake. This is to say that they are done in freedom. As long as I only act so as to achieve some ulterior end or to alter the state of something extrinsic to me—so long am I acting under a compulsion. To act out of compulsion is antithetical to acting out of freedom and love. The thought of a result has placed me under its bondage, or rather, I have indentured myself to it. Outside of presence of mind, there is neither freedom nor love.

If Max was equating 'desires' and 'pleasure', he would not have used both words in the same sentence. You said yourself that desire is our 'guiding star', so it only stands to reason that one must work on the life of desire, through self-conscious will-thinking, 'in order to' align what is pleasurable with what is 'right', i.e. what is Loving in the higher sense. Then pleasure is not the motivator for the deeds, which means one is acting selfishly, but the natural result of moral deeds which are pursued for their own sake, out of inner spiritual desires. None of this can be done in freedom if we lack the capacity for moral imagination which derives the content for these higher desires from the Spirit within. To summarize my points:

1. I don't think Max makes the misleading equivalence you are suggesting and, conversely, I think what he writes is very closely aligned with what Steiner writes and what you wrote above.

2. If the word 'pleasure' is out of place anywhere, I highly doubt it would lead anyone astray from the core PoF reasoning on these points.

3. If someone has already read through PoF and is using this summary to 'reinforce and clarify the ideas and reasoning', I certainly don't think this one section would lead them astray, as you have shown.

And to be clear, I never intended to suggest this summary should be a substitute for actually reading through PoF in full, only something to help orient prior to reading PoF or to reinforce/clarify after reading PoF.

My goodness!
Ashvin. Your reply is tendentious. I will wait a little before responding. I want to ensure I will make mine entirely fair and not colored by the ‘sentiment’ I am having now.

And maybe also reflect on why you felt the need to post this 'tendentious' comment in the meantime

Seriously, though, if my position that one section of Max's PoF summary (3) is not as misleading as you seem to think it is, is considered to be highly "controversial", then so be it. I have read it over several times now, due to this discussion, and my confidence that he is accurately representing Steiner's reasoning increases each time.

Beyond that, I never claimed his summary is the best or perfect PoF pedagogical tool for everyone. Unless we are using this as an avenue into some deeper significance of the PoF ideas/reasoning, I am not sure how much longer I will continue. Right now I feel like we are both stuck in restatements of what Steiner wrote in that chapter, and disagreeing on whether Max used the sufficiently clear language to convey the message.

[mikekatz]

Just a quick note to Ashvin, re our discussion in the Eating Light topic. I think this is a good example of why "clear and precise" is hard to achieve in ordinary language.

To describe really new things, we need a new language. Repurposing existing words, however, can create a lot of misunderstanding. Existing words make connections within each of us with our conventional, and incorrect, worldview. Brand new terms can help overcome that.

For example, I equate "thinking" with pure intellectual thinking, and that's not how Steiner uses the word. So until I realised that, it was a stumbling block.

[Federica]

Yes, I agree with that. The tenuous part comes in when asserting Max is saying anything different or so confusing that it will lead the average person astray from the PoF understanding. Certainly it won't lead astray the person who has already carefully read PoF as you have evidenced through your pushback.




If Max was equating 'desires' and 'pleasure', he would not have used both words in the same sentence. You said yourself that desire is our 'guiding star', so it only stands to reason that one must work on the life of desire, through self-conscious will-thinking, 'in order to' align what is pleasurable with what is 'right', i.e. what is Loving in the higher sense. Then pleasure is not the motivator for the deeds, which means one is acting selfishly, but the natural result of moral deeds which are pursued for their own sake, out of inner spiritual desires. None of this can be done in freedom if we lack the capacity for moral imagination which derives the content for these higher desires from the Spirit within. To summarize my points:

1. I don't think Max makes the misleading equivalence you are suggesting and, conversely, I think what he writes is very closely aligned with what Steiner writes and what you wrote above.

2. If the word 'pleasure' is out of place anywhere, I highly doubt it would lead anyone astray from the core PoF reasoning on these points.

3. If someone has already read through PoF and is using this summary to 'reinforce and clarify the ideas and reasoning', I certainly don't think this one section would lead them astray, as you have shown.

And to be clear, I never intended to suggest this summary should be a substitute for actually reading through PoF in full, only something to help orient prior to reading PoF or to reinforce/clarify after reading PoF.

My goodness!
Ashvin. Your reply is tendentious. I will wait a little before responding. I want to ensure I will make mine entirely fair and not colored by the ‘sentiment’ I am having now.

And maybe also reflect on why you felt the need to post this 'tendentious' comment in the meantime

Seriously, though, if my position that one section of Max's PoF summary (3) is not as misleading as you seem to think it is, is considered to be highly "controversial", then so be it. I have read it over several times now, due to this discussion, and my confidence that he is accurately representing Steiner's reasoning increases each time.

Beyond that, I never claimed his summary is the best or perfect PoF pedagogical tool for everyone. Unless we are using this as an avenue into some deeper significance of the PoF ideas/reasoning, I am not sure how much longer I will continue. Right now I feel like we are both stuck in restatements of what Steiner wrote in that chapter, and disagreeing on whether Max used the sufficiently clear language to convey the message.

These are the facts:

(1) My previous post is not tendentious. Some development of argument is necessary for that. My post is the opposite of tendentious. (I know why I wrote it. But it’s not a fact, it has no place in this list.)


(2) Your reply is tendentious in both content and vocabulary.
Content: you make three points - your only points - all about defending Max against me, as if I was attacking him. Besides the expressions of appreciation, I said I found “the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' confusing for a beginner like me” adding “I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable”. I have spoken of my experience of reading the passage, I've said he might have his good reasons. Still, you manage to stretch that as if I pretended to know and judge what he is doing in his mind and what equivalences he makes. This is tendentious.
Vocabulary: you have stretched my words, by repeating (4 times in this last post alone) ‘lead astray’. I never used these words. I only used ‘confusing/confused’. I was not ‘led astray’ indeed, because I tend to read more carefully than average, as you have noticed. But I have been confused.


(3) Not only have you stretched my meaning and my vocabulary, but also your own. You have gone from: “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of [Max’s] illustration” and from judging my claim of a PoF-based differentiation ‘very tenuous argument’:

From the quotes you have shared, it seems a very tenuous argument. In that section, Steiner is basically showing why the pessimistic utilitarian arguments only hold valid if there are fundamental limits to knowledge which cuts off the spiritual from the physical/intellectual, an option which has already been discarded through the phenomenology of perception-cognition.

to actually agreeing with my ‘very tenuous argument' once fully deployed. So today you do have an idea why I, with Steiner, was differentiating ‘pleasure’ and ‘desire’. However you have felt you had to change things around: “The tenuous part comes in when asserting Max is saying….” etc. etc. etc. You have changed what you were judging tenuous before and after I elaborated my argument, Ashvin. You have made it - again - into a way to make it look like I am attacking Max. Apart from the words “Yes, I agree with that”, 100% of your post is about my supposed attack and your loyal defense. My post, however, was about pleasure and desire in PoF.


I am having a hard time understanding the why / how of all this.

[AshvinP]

My goodness!
Ashvin. Your reply is tendentious. I will wait a little before responding. I want to ensure I will make mine entirely fair and not colored by the ‘sentiment’ I am having now.

And maybe also reflect on why you felt the need to post this 'tendentious' comment in the meantime

Seriously, though, if my position that one section of Max's PoF summary (3) is not as misleading as you seem to think it is, is considered to be highly "controversial", then so be it. I have read it over several times now, due to this discussion, and my confidence that he is accurately representing Steiner's reasoning increases each time.

Beyond that, I never claimed his summary is the best or perfect PoF pedagogical tool for everyone. Unless we are using this as an avenue into some deeper significance of the PoF ideas/reasoning, I am not sure how much longer I will continue. Right now I feel like we are both stuck in restatements of what Steiner wrote in that chapter, and disagreeing on whether Max used the sufficiently clear language to convey the message.

These are the facts:

(1) My previous post is not tendentious. Some development of argument is necessary for that. My post is the opposite of tendentious. (I know why I wrote it. But it’s not a fact, it has no place in this list.)


(2) Your reply is tendentious in both content and vocabulary.
Content: you make three points - your only points - all about defending Max against me, as if I was attacking him. Besides the expressions of appreciation, I said I found “the use of 'pleasure' in lieu of 'desire' confusing for a beginner like me” adding “I understand I could still be blind to the deep reasons why one would want to treat pleasure and desire in Steiner as interchangeable”. I have spoken of my experience of reading the passage, I've said he might have his good reasons. Still, you manage to stretch that as if I pretended to know and judge what he is doing in his mind and what equivalences he makes. This is tendentious.
Vocabulary: you have stretched my words, by repeating (4 times in this last post alone) ‘lead astray’. I never used these words. I only used ‘confusing/confused’. I was not ‘led astray’ indeed, because I tend to read more carefully than average, as you have noticed. But I have been confused.


(3) Not only you have stretched my meaning and my vocabulary, but you also your own. You have gone from: “I have no idea why you are differentiating 'desire' and 'pleasure' here, other than to question the quality of [Max’s] illustration” and from judging my claim of a PoF-based differentiation ‘very tenuous argument’:

From the quotes you have shared, it seems a very tenuous argument. In that section, Steiner is basically showing why the pessimistic utilitarian arguments only hold valid if there are fundamental limits to knowledge which cuts off the spiritual from the physical/intellectual, an option which has already been discarded through the phenomenology of perception-cognition.

to actually agreeing with my ‘very tenuous’ argument, once fully deployed. So today you do have an idea why I, with Steiner, was differentiating ‘pleasure’ and ‘desire’. However you have felt you had to change things around: “The tenuous part comes in when asserting Max is saying….” etc. etc. etc. You have changed what you were judging tenuous before and after I elaborated my argument, Ashvin. You have made it, again, into a way to make it look like I am attacking Max. Except the words “Yes, I agree with that”, 100% of your post is about my supposed attack and your loyal defense. My post, however, was about pleasure and desire in PoF.


I am having a hard time understanding the why / how of all this.

Federica,

I didn't change anything - you are simply misunderstanding what I was calling "tenuous" the first time. I have never questioned your understanding of PoF or that 'desire' chapter. The only thing I have been questioning is your sentiment that there is a discrepancy between Steiner and that one section in Part 3 of Max's summary - that is what I called a tenuous argument the first and second time. I hardly feel the need to 'prove' what I intended by 'tenuous' the first time. I didn't question whether Steiner differentiated 'desire' and 'pleasure' in that chapter, but why you were using that in connection with what Max wrote, since he makes the same differentiation.

Why does this matter? Good question - that's also what I have been questioning. Supposedly it is important for us to make sure other people are not "confused" by this tiny section, as you were. But in the process of trying to clear up this "confusion", we have generated more confusion, as evidenced by Mike's comment. He feels the confusion is inherent to the subject matter itself, which I'm sure we both disagree with.

Feel free to respond to the above, but, for my part, instead of discussing further whether or not it is confusing and the history of our comments trying to figure out the why/how of what the other person is doing in their responses, I suggest we focus on what it all means for penetrating deeper into the spiritual depth structure, with our spiritual activity, which PoF leads us up to. What does freeing ourselves from the 'tyranny of arbitrary desires' have to do with evolving higher cognition and moral conscience, in freedom? Here's one angle to consider it from.

A simple illustration may indicate the first steps. The very best mechanic is well-nigh helpless without the tools of his craft. Indeed it is the hall-mark of a good artisan that he is very fastidious as to the quality and condition of the tools he uses, because he knows that the work depends as much upon their excellence as upon his skill.

The Ego has several instruments--a dense body, a vital body, a desire body, and a mind. These are its tools and upon their quality and condition depends how much or how little it can accomplish in its work of gathering experience in each life. If the instruments are poor and dull there will be but little spiritual growth and the life will be a barren one, so far as the spirit is concerned.

We generally estimate a "successful" life by the bank account, the social position attained, or the happiness resulting from a carefree existence and a sheltered environment. When life is regarded is that way all the principal things that make for permanency are forgotten; the individual is blinded by the evanescent and illusionary. A bank account seems such a very real success, the fact is forgotten that from the moment the Ego leaves the body, it has no equity in gold nor any other earthly treasure. It may even have to answer for the methods employed in amassing that hoard and suffer great pain in seeing others spend it. It is forgotten that the important social position also disappears when the silver cord is loosed. Those who once fawned may then sneer, and even those who were faithful in life might shudder at the thought of an hour spent with no company but that of the dead. All that is of this life alone is vanity. Only that is of true value which can be taken with us across the threshold as the treasure of the spirit.
...
Without well-kept tools the mechanic can do no effective work; similarly, the instruments of the Ego must be cleansed and sharpened; then we may commence work to some purpose. As one works with those wonderful tools they themselves improve with proper use and become more and more efficient to aid in the work. The object of this work is Union with the Higher Self.

Heindel , Max. The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception (Illustrated) (pp. 416-417). Kindle Edition.