The Philosophy of Freedom, Summarized

[Federica]

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.

I am relieved to drop all the previous Ashvin, and happy to focus on something substantial instead. That’s refreshing, thank you. I will reflect on your question and quote by Heindel. I have only just started reading Theosophy. I look forward to understanding more about the lawfulness / precise science that connects choice of desires with development of cognition.

PS. Regarding disagreeing with Mike's comment, I have had enough disagreement for today, I will save that for tomorrow : )

[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.

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.

Thank you for your thought, Lou!

Well, I wouldn’t for my part take the risk of confirming that the issue, as illustrated for human beings, is applicable to Christ. I would think it’s not. Otherwise yes, in theory your reasoning works, apart from the fact that the satisfaction of “performing the Will of the Father” would be the desire, not the pleasure. And the desire is pursued no matter the amount of pain awaiting along the way.

[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.

Thank you for your thought, Lou!

Well, I wouldn’t for my part take the risk of confirming that the issue, as illustrated for human beings, is applicable to Christ. I would think it’s not. Otherwise yes, in theory your reasoning works, apart from the fact that the satisfaction of “performing the Will of the Father” would be the desire, not the pleasure. And the desire is pursued no matter the amount of pain awaiting along the way.

And thank you for polishing my language. Perhaps, when in the Truth, one just does one's work and thoughts of pleasure, desire, satisfaction, etc are not so present as a prime motivator? Just another thought.

[Federica]

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.

Thank you for your thought, Lou!

Well, I wouldn’t for my part take the risk of confirming that the issue, as illustrated for human beings, is applicable to Christ. I would think it’s not. Otherwise yes, in theory your reasoning works, apart from the fact that the satisfaction of “performing the Will of the Father” would be the desire, not the pleasure. And the desire is pursued no matter the amount of pain awaiting along the way.

And thank you for polishing my language. Perhaps, when in the Truth, one just does one's work and thoughts of pleasure, desire, satisfaction, etc are not so present as a prime motivator? Just another thought.

I don't know, Lou. Hopefully the answer will become clear to both of us going forward.

[Federica]

(...) 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.

Initially, reading PoF, my speculation was that moral intuitions about what pursuits we want to strive for can only be gained once that faculty of intuition has been, if not fully developed, at least activated. So rather than spiraling activities, I was imagining a causation where an improved cognition is the way to facilitate the development of moral intuitions. Because improving cognition seems more accessible. One can start without pre-requirements, by grabbing that little flap of thinking that protrudes into standard cognition. Developing ethical intuitions seems to be a more remote task for beginners, if one has to steer clear of 'ethical standards' of some kind, and also of ethical feelings. It’s easy to imagine desires and behaviors of ethical import connected to basic, or utilitarian principles of harmonious cooperation and coexistence, or connected to feelings, but clearly this is not the thing.

So the question “What does freeing ourselves from the 'tyranny of arbitrary desires' has to do with evolving higher cognition and moral conscience” is not straightforward. Even before exploring how freedom from those desires affects/is affected by higher cognition, one should first understand what desires are to be considered arbitrary. Which to me looks like the same thing as evolving a moral conscience. To discriminate what desires are arbitrary without referring to a given moral standard is difficult. Does arbitrary mean driven by instincts? If so it should be necessary to have a moral intuition about them, if we don’t want to rely on external laws. A logical way to put it could be: instincts are not condemned, they exist and have a function, but should find expression only under guidance of spiritual activity. Their fulfillment cannot become a goal/desire in itself, but only a means to an end that is set from outside the circle of the instinctual impulse itself. But is this proper logic? I dont' know, but it seems coherent.

Does arbitrary mean, as the quote suggests, oriented to goals that are exclusively grounded in the inner and outer sensory world, and will be of no significance after physical death? This seems at first a reasonable criterion but what about all these goals that target harmonious human society in this world? Such goals bear no significance in the afterlife, where those human societies don't belong, but can they really be considered arbitrary? And what about the practical issue of having to live, work, interact, function within a world that constantly draws us to mundane experiences? Should we constantly fight that aspect of life in all its forms and take those inevitable pursuits and actions from the perspective of a 'second persona' trying not to engage in them fully, or is it moral to develop some form of desire in that connection? Another one: the rule by Heindel implies that any goal or desire targeting the physical body is arbitrary, by definition. But is this really possible? I would rather lean towards what I mentioned above, that the body can be involved in desires, only not as primary driver of the process.

In the quote, Heindel speaks of sharpening the tools of the ego to enable us to move swiftly and work efficiently towards our goals, or desires. But in order to define/find those goals, moral sight is required, while the criterion of only targeting 'non-perishable' goals doesn’t seem fully clarifying. Moreover, under this criterion the physical body seems the most obvious area where arbitrary desires can reside, while the same body is also indicated as one of the tools. So how can it be sharpened as a tool, without forming at the same time some desires around it? In other words, I am afraid to say, I see a possible internal contradiction in Heindel’s criterion. [When I say "I'm afraid to say" I mean it in literal sense, I am really afraid ]

These are some initial thoughts in random order around the question at hand. Somewhat circular at first review. Could you please suggest some further cues to direct the reflection more precisely in some direction?

[Lou Gold]

Thank you for your thought, Lou!

Well, I wouldn’t for my part take the risk of confirming that the issue, as illustrated for human beings, is applicable to Christ. I would think it’s not. Otherwise yes, in theory your reasoning works, apart from the fact that the satisfaction of “performing the Will of the Father” would be the desire, not the pleasure. And the desire is pursued no matter the amount of pain awaiting along the way.

And thank you for polishing my language. Perhaps, when in the Truth, one just does one's work and thoughts of pleasure, desire, satisfaction, etc are not so present as a prime motivator? Just another thought.

I don't know, Lou. Hopefully the answer will become clear to both of us going forward.

Yes! Forward in deed and into the light.

[Federica]

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.

I thought I would add a comment to your note, Mike, as Ashvin mentioned he disagrees that the confusion is inherent to the subject matter itself, and that I would probably disagree too. I have been prompted to jot down my thoughts, I hope you don’t feel like you have to read them! It’s a kind of exercise I’m doing.


Firstly it comes to mind that our understanding of anything - meaning the reality of anything for us - emerges in the fusion of snapshots of experience and universal concepts. So we grasp concepts and ideas (organisms of concepts) to the extent that they merge with our experience (of the world, of our feelings, thoughts, anything). In this process, language is a subsequent step, when labels are attached to meaning/concepts and to certain arrangements and dynamic interactions of concepts.

As Cleric has recently noted:

At certain stage we begin to live in universal meaning and its lawfulness. If meaning wasn't universal it wouldn't be possible for folks to translate between their languages. (...) But today we have all the means to work right in the Imaginative domain and use words as in the way a painter uses the brushes

To describe really new things, we need a new language.

In the perspective of the above, there are no new ‘things’. There are only things we are partly or completely unfamiliar with, things that are not part of our reality. The best way to convey a new thing (concept or idea) to someone else who is unfamiliar with it would be to bring about its experience for them. Other attempts of using only language to describe it, no matter if done with existing vocabulary or with a made-up new word, would remain in the abstract realm. A new word in particular doesn’t have by itself the power to bring to life an unknown concept or idea for someone, if it's not experienced. The only thing possible with language in that situation would be an illustration through the use of pre-existing vocabulary. The known vocabulary would appeal to some arrangement of familiar concepts, and that would become a proxy for the new idea. A metaphor works like that. Later one can certainly put a new label on such a description, a completely new word, but the gained understanding would still be dependent on existing and familiar language (on top of being abstract/intellectual).

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

Would it have been of help to receive a brand new name for the meaning of thinking in Steiner? I doubt it, because the new word would have required explanation by means of old words, which you have now obtained anyway, so you have overcome the stumbling block. The possibly biased connections operated by the old words would have happened in presence of a made-up word as well. Not to mention that, again, beyond language considerations, the only way to really understand such a thinking is through its experience.


Where I think you have a point is when you suggest that words we are familiar with capture or refer back to ideas (arrangements of concepts) in a way that can be biased. This varies from person to person. The exact arrangement of concepts a person refers to under the stimulus of a word is influenced by the given language, by other cultural factors, and by personality. So everytime we encode (complex) ideas in language, there is some degree of slack in the way this process happens for us compared to others. Next time those familiar words are heard, or recalled, the correlation with the idea is iterated and the overlap with our previous arrangement can be less than complete. This can extend or reduce the profile of that slack in relation to someone else’s too. The same thing happens across languages, across cultural groups, and for the same person across time. So language does generate some level of imperfect and confusing overlapping, maybe not with simple and isolated concepts, but with complex ideas. However, I don’t think new, made-up words can alleviate that. An example of the imperfect overlap of vocabulary and ideas I am reminded of, comes from PoF:

The ambiguity of current speech makes it advisable for me to come to an agreement with my readers concerning the meaning of a word which I shall have to employ in what follows. I shall apply the word “percepts” to the immediate objects of sensation enumerated above, in so far as the conscious subject apprehends them through observation. It is, then, not the process of observation, but the object of observation which I call the “percept.”

[AshvinP]

(...) 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.

Initially, reading PoF, my speculation was that moral intuitions about what pursuits we want to strive for can only be gained once that faculty of intuition has been, if not fully developed, at least activated. So rather than spiraling activities, I was imagining a causation where an improved cognition is the way to facilitate the development of moral intuitions. Because improving cognition seems more accessible. One can start without pre-requirements, by grabbing that little flap of thinking that protrudes into standard cognition. Developing ethical intuitions seems to be a more remote task for beginners, if one has to steer clear of 'ethical standards' of some kind, and also of ethical feelings. It’s easy to imagine desires and behaviors of ethical import connected to basic, or utilitarian principles of harmonious cooperation and coexistence, or connected to feelings, but clearly this is not the thing.

So the question “What does freeing ourselves from the 'tyranny of arbitrary desires' has to do with evolving higher cognition and moral conscience” is not straightforward. Even before exploring how freedom from those desires affects/is affected by higher cognition, one should first understand what desires are to be considered arbitrary. Which to me looks like the same thing as evolving a moral conscience. To discriminate what desires are arbitrary without referring to a given moral standard is difficult. Does arbitrary mean driven by instincts? If so it should be necessary to have a moral intuition about them, if we don’t want to rely on external laws. A logical way to put it could be: instincts are not condemned, they exist and have a function, but should find expression only under guidance of spiritual activity. Their fulfillment cannot become a goal/desire in itself, but only a means to an end that is set from outside the circle of the instinctual impulse itself. But is this proper logic? I dont' know, but it seems coherent.

Does arbitrary mean, as the quote suggests, oriented to goals that are exclusively grounded in the inner and outer sensory world, and will be of no significance after physical death? This seems at first a reasonable criterion but what about all these goals that target harmonious human society in this world? Such goals bear no significance in the afterlife, where those human societies don't belong, but can they really be considered arbitrary? And what about the practical issue of having to live, work, interact, function within a world that constantly draws us to mundane experiences? Should we constantly fight that aspect of life in all its forms and take those inevitable pursuits and actions from the perspective of a 'second persona' trying not to engage in them fully, or is it moral to develop some form of desire in that connection? Another one: the rule by Heindel implies that any goal or desire targeting the physical body is arbitrary, by definition. But is this really possible? I would rather lean towards what I mentioned above, that the body can be involved in desires, only not as primary driver of the process.

In the quote, Heindel speaks of sharpening the tools of the ego to enable us to move swiftly and work efficiently towards our goals, or desires. But in order to define/find those goals, moral sight is required, while the criterion of only targeting 'non-perishable' goals doesn’t seem fully clarifying. Moreover, under this criterion the physical body seems the most obvious area where arbitrary desires can reside, while the same body is also indicated as one of the tools. So how can it be sharpened as a tool, without forming at the same time some desires around it? In other words, I am afraid to say, I see a possible internal contradiction in Heindel’s criterion. [When I say "I'm afraid to say" I mean it in literal sense, I am really afraid ]

These are some initial thoughts in random order around the question at hand. Somewhat circular at first review. Could you please suggest some further cues to direct the reflection more precisely in some direction?

Federica,

Thanks for this insightful response.

You are correct that first we need to strengthen our living thinking, which isn't full blown higher cognition, but certainly a spiritualized intellectual reasoning. That is really a precondition to doing any meaningful work on any spheres of our being. These spheres shouldn't be hardly divided, though. As you mentioned earlier, you needed a desire to read PoF carefully for genuine understanding before you could attain any such understanding. Likewise, we need the desire for committing to meditation sessions and persisting with them, despite the lack of noticeable results for a while. Generally, we need the desire to invite the Spirit into our mind and heart, to work within and through us. That is sorely missing in common culture. Everything is structured towards orienting our trust towards external factors, whether sensory/natural phenomena, intellectual models, economic and political systems, etc. People would rather give up on communicating existential realities with words/concepts altogether than make the effort to imbue the concepts with living meaning through their own inner development. It takes great willpower to overcome this default state of desire towards the external, to win back the trust in that which is inward and unseen yet always working into our experience. 

Let's return to the poker metaphors. Good poker players know that a player cannot win long-term if they are "results oriented". That is when players start adapting to their play to the results of any given hand. Instead of making the most optimal decision at any given time, they start wondering whether they will lose or win more money in any given hand and make their decisions based on those feared or desired results. It is easier said than done to shake this habit - the environment is structured so as to reinforce this results-oriented mentality in everything we endeavor to do. So it is the default mode of our desire-thinking, and we will meet great obstacles to cognitive development unless we are able to overcome it. When we aim towards uniting our will with that of the Divine, doing what is optimal at any given time for ourselves and for the Whole, to our best available knowledge, without any expectation of immediate results, that is when we make great strides. I am certainly still working on chipping away at this mentality.

A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. 6And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. 7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. 8And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
...
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

The great religions emphasized faith/trust in the unseen and unknown for this reason, among others. It is a gradual weaning of our desires from what is only seen, familiar, known, in short-term memory, etc., so that when we evolve the capacity to reascend to higher planes of consciousness, as we have today, we also have the burning desire to do so, to sacrifice our worldly pleasures so that higher pleasures can take their place. These religious traditions first emerged during the transition from involution into the sensory world, to evolution back to the supra-sensory. In the evolutionary framework, the Ego-Spirit can only incarnate in an organism once there is a desire (astral) body, which mediates thoughts to the lower bodies where they can be reflected into our consciousness. So our desire body, oriented towards the sensory world, was instrumental for self-consciousness and the germ of inner freedom. But the lower desires have amassed a thick veil between our intellectual consciousness and our higher spiritual activity, so the Spirit within must burn through them to lift that veil, to purify and transmute them to higher virtues.

Of course, none of this will happen overnight. We are dealing with subconscious forces which have amassed within our Be-ing over many aeons of lifetimes during the Earth's evolution. Here again we need the desire/motivation that what we are working on really matters, at an existential level, both for ourselves and for the Whole. Living thinking and devotion towards what is higher than us is indispensable for that conviction. It is also indispensable for getting living feedback on how our work is progressing, whether we are working in the right direction, whether we are trying to do too much in too little time, etc. The problem with working towards 'harmonious society' is usually that we are simply overestimating our current knowledge of what will bring harmony to collectives, before we are even aware what brings harmony within ourselves. Prayer, as usual, is an extremely important tool when working on all of these spheres. Steiner has a great lecture on the Lord's Prayer and here is a quote from Heindel. 

Returning to our consideration of the spiritual aids to human progress, the Lord's Prayer, which may be considered as an abstract, algebraical formula for the upliftment and purification of all the vehicles of man, the idea of taking proper care of the dense body is expressed in the words: "Give us this day our daily bread." The prayer dealing with the needs of the vital body is, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." The vital body is the seat of memory. In it are stored the sub-conscious records of all the past events of our life, good or ill, including all injuries inflicted or sustained and benefits received, or bestowed.
...
If, by continual prayer, we obtain forgiveness for the injuries we have inflicted upon others and if we make all the restitution possible, purify our vital bodies by forgiving those who have wronged us, and eliminate all ill feeling, we save ourselves much post mortem misery, besides preparing the way for Universal Brotherhood, which is particularly dependent upon the victory of the vital body over the desire body. In the form of memory, the desire body impresses upon the vital body the idea of revenge. An even temper amid the various annoyances of daily life indicates such a victory, therefore the aspirant should cultivate control of the temper, as it includes work on both bodies. The Lord's Prayer includes this also, for when we see that we are injuring others, we look about and try to find the cause. Loss of temper is one of the causes and it originates in the desire body. 

Most people leave physical life with the same temperament they bring into it, but the aspirant must systematically conquer all attempts of the desire body to assume mastery. That can be done by concentration upon high ideals, which strengthens the vital body and is much more efficacious than the common prayers of the Church. The occult scientist uses concentration in preference to prayer, because the former is accomplished by the aid of the mind, which is cold and unfeeling, whereas prayer is usually dictated by emotion. Where it is dictated by a pure unselfish devotion to high ideals prayer is much higher than cold concentration. It can never be cold, but bears upon the pinions of Love the outpourings of the mystic to the Deity. The prayer for the desire body is, "Lead us not into temptation." Desire is the great tempter of mankind. It is the great incentive to all action, and in so far as the actions subserve the purposes of the spirit, it is good; but where the desire is for something degrading, something that debases the nature, it is indeed meet that we pray not to be led into temptation.

Heindel , Max. The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception (Illustrated) (pp. 448-449). Kindle Edition. 

[mikekatz]

I thought I would add a comment to your note, Mike, as Ashvin mentioned he disagrees that the confusion is inherent to the subject matter itself, and that I would probably disagree too. I have been prompted to jot down my thoughts, I hope you don’t feel like you have to read them! It’s a kind of exercise I’m doing.

Lol, be careful. I tried to say the same kind of thing to Ashvin in the Eating Light thread and he said it was most concerning. Anyway I appreciate your response, and I'd like to respond in kind.

Yikes, this is really long and probably off topic for you. But, like you, I'm prompted to just say this.

In the perspective of the above, there are no new ‘things’. There are only things we are partly or completely unfamiliar with, things that are not part of our reality. The best way to convey a new thing (concept or idea) to someone else who is unfamiliar with it would be to bring about its experience for them. Other attempts of using only language to describe it, no matter if done with existing vocabulary or with a made-up new word, would remain in the abstract realm. A new word in particular doesn’t have by itself the power to bring to life an unknown concept or idea for someone, if it's not experienced. The only thing possible with language in that situation would be an illustration through the use of pre-existing vocabulary. The known vocabulary would appeal to some arrangement of familiar concepts, and that would become a proxy for the new idea. A metaphor works like that. Later one can certainly put a new label on such a description, a completely new word, but the gained understanding would still be dependent on existing and familiar language (on top of being abstract/intellectual).

Of course a new word/idea needs to be experienced, and to be experienced it needs to be explained. And language is part of the medium we use. So take science as an example. Paradigm shifting scientific discoveries always involves a new language. That's because the current language just doesn't have the ability to express new concepts. "Quantum", "quarks", and "quasars" for example. These new words/concepts/laws need to be explained, formalised, and understood. New math has to be created, new equipment designed and built to test the hypotheses.

Of course, you have to start with where you are in science. You have to intimately know the science up until the shift. But then, the only way forward in a paradigm shift is to leave the old behind and start thinking in a totally new way. So afterwards, the scientist's whole worldview changes. The old way of seeing things is gone. Once it is understood and accepted and seen, i.e. lived, you are in a new world.

And the inevitable resistance to the new paradigm by the establishment, as is well documented in the history of science, is precisely what we are discussing here: you can't turn the old into the new. You can't get to the new by developing the old. You have to throw away the old and embrace the new. And most people, even scientists, are not prepared to do that.

Leaving science aside and returning to metaphysics, for want of a better word, we're even more in need of new concepts. For here, we are also dealing with a paradigm change, not only in how we see the world, but also how we see ourselves. We are trying to understand the very tools we use for understanding. Ordinary language won't cut it, just as earlier scientific language is inadequate to describe quantum theory.

Most eastern spiritual systems have loads of words and concepts for what in English we just call mind. Just like scientists, these systems have created new words for a much more detailed and finer understanding about consciousness and thinking. When you learn these words and the ideas behind them, and verify them in your own experience, you are paradigm-shifting.

So I said above that language is part of the way we get to new things. It's not the only way.

Firstly, everyone has experiences that are not language-based but are experiential, such as beauty, love, the peace that passeth understanding. These words are just placeholders so that we can talk. They are experiences more than they are words. In fact I'd characterise them as experiences that happen precisely when we drop all words and worldviews. They are experiences that bring us back to who we really are. Meditation is another one of these.

These non-verbal experiences are essential to me. They ground me - well, me goes away actually. This is what vertical is for me. It's what really counts.

Secondly, there's the concept of instruction. Perhaps we are all marvellously gifted, and we could learn anything we put our minds to, but it usually doesn't work that way. You're not going to learn how to be a surgeon by reading books and then doing a bit of practice on your own. To be a good surgeon, you need to have someone to show you how it's done. Five minutes watching an expert work is better than anything you can read. On a simpler level, you show your child how to ride a bike. They just need the basics, and then they can practice themselves and get good at it. Same with driving.

And it's the same for paradigm-shifting spiritual work that takes you into the vertical. Someone, somehow, has to help you get started. They need to help you develop a sense of how unreal normal life is, at least a glimmering of what a vertical life feels like, and the ability to discriminate what works for you and what doesn't. In short, how to stop wandering in the desert and come to the land of milk and honey.

And, not to ruffle too many feathers, this is why I'm here so seldom. A forum like this is mostly just language and mind work. I admire Cleric's efforts to present exercises, but without instruction, follow-up, and feedback, it doesn't lead anywhere, at least for me. And as much as Cleric and Ashvin will tell everyone not to be lazy and do the work, I respectfully disagree. It may be different for you, but for me, consciousness is primary. My work is to rest in the Consciousness we all share. It's to remove, not to add. The ego does not really exist, but it doesn't know that. So it produces fascinating thoughts and distractions to keep itself on centre stage.

I know Lou understands this, and a few others. Like them, I think my time here on this forum will be over soon. Not because there's anything wrong with it, it's just wrong for me. And my posts seem to irritate, which is understandable - they are inappropriate / incompatible with what the forum is for.

Addition
I'd like to add that for me a spiritual system is a means to an end. That end is to develop one's consciousness. So if, for example, I managed to absorb wholly and fully everything Steiner says, and I can hold that whole system in my mind, that's not the aim. The aim is to develop that which is perceiving the whole system. As the Zen koan says, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

I wish everyone Love and Light.

[Federica]

Federica,

Thanks for this insightful response.

You are correct that first we need to strengthen our living thinking, which isn't full blown higher cognition, but certainly a spiritualized intellectual reasoning. That is really a precondition to doing any meaningful work on any spheres of our being. These spheres shouldn't be hardly divided, though. As you mentioned earlier, you needed a desire to read PoF carefully for genuine understanding before you could attain any such understanding. Likewise, we need the desire for committing to meditation sessions and persisting with them, despite the lack of noticeable results for a while. Generally, we need the desire to invite the Spirit into our mind and heart, to work within and through us. That is sorely missing in common culture. Everything is structured towards orienting our trust towards external factors, whether sensory/natural phenomena, intellectual models, economic and political systems, etc. People would rather give up on communicating existential realities with words/concepts altogether than make the effort to imbue the concepts with living meaning through their own inner development. It takes great willpower to overcome this default state of desire towards the external, to win back the trust in that which is inward and unseen yet always working into our experience. 

Let's return to the poker metaphors. Good poker players know that a player cannot win long-term if they are "results oriented". That is when players start adapting to their play to the results of any given hand. Instead of making the most optimal decision at any given time, they start wondering whether they will lose or win more money in any given hand and make their decisions based on those feared or desired results. It is easier said than done to shake this habit - the environment is structured so as to reinforce this results-oriented mentality in everything we endeavor to do. So it is the default mode of our desire-thinking, and we will meet great obstacles to cognitive development unless we are able to overcome it. When we aim towards uniting our will with that of the Divine, doing what is optimal at any given time for ourselves and for the Whole, to our best available knowledge, without any expectation of immediate results, that is when we make great strides. I am certainly still working on chipping away at this mentality.

A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. 6And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. 7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. 8And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
...
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

The great religions emphasized faith/trust in the unseen and unknown for this reason, among others. It is a gradual weaning of our desires from what is only seen, familiar, known, in short-term memory, etc., so that when we evolve the capacity to reascend to higher planes of consciousness, as we have today, we also have the burning desire to do so, to sacrifice our worldly pleasures so that higher pleasures can take their place. These religious traditions first emerged during the transition from involution into the sensory world, to evolution back to the supra-sensory. In the evolutionary framework, the Ego-Spirit can only incarnate in an organism once there is a desire (astral) body, which mediates thoughts to the lower bodies where they can be reflected into our consciousness. So our desire body, oriented towards the sensory world, was instrumental for self-consciousness and the germ of inner freedom. But the lower desires have amassed a thick veil between our intellectual consciousness and our higher spiritual activity, so the Spirit within must burn through them to lift that veil, to purify and transmute them to higher virtues.

Of course, none of this will happen overnight. We are dealing with subconscious forces which have amassed within our Be-ing over many aeons of lifetimes during the Earth's evolution. Here again we need the desire/motivation that what we are working on really matters, at an existential level, both for ourselves and for the Whole. Living thinking and devotion towards what is higher than us is indispensable for that conviction. It is also indispensable for getting living feedback on how our work is progressing, whether we are working in the right direction, whether we are trying to do too much in too little time, etc. The problem with working towards 'harmonious society' is usually that we are simply overestimating our current knowledge of what will bring harmony to collectives, before we are even aware what brings harmony within ourselves. Prayer, as usual, is an extremely important tool when working on all of these spheres. Steiner has a great lecture on the Lord's Prayer and here is a quote from Heindel. 

Returning to our consideration of the spiritual aids to human progress, the Lord's Prayer, which may be considered as an abstract, algebraical formula for the upliftment and purification of all the vehicles of man, the idea of taking proper care of the dense body is expressed in the words: "Give us this day our daily bread." The prayer dealing with the needs of the vital body is, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." The vital body is the seat of memory. In it are stored the sub-conscious records of all the past events of our life, good or ill, including all injuries inflicted or sustained and benefits received, or bestowed.
...
If, by continual prayer, we obtain forgiveness for the injuries we have inflicted upon others and if we make all the restitution possible, purify our vital bodies by forgiving those who have wronged us, and eliminate all ill feeling, we save ourselves much post mortem misery, besides preparing the way for Universal Brotherhood, which is particularly dependent upon the victory of the vital body over the desire body. In the form of memory, the desire body impresses upon the vital body the idea of revenge. An even temper amid the various annoyances of daily life indicates such a victory, therefore the aspirant should cultivate control of the temper, as it includes work on both bodies. The Lord's Prayer includes this also, for when we see that we are injuring others, we look about and try to find the cause. Loss of temper is one of the causes and it originates in the desire body. 

Most people leave physical life with the same temperament they bring into it, but the aspirant must systematically conquer all attempts of the desire body to assume mastery. That can be done by concentration upon high ideals, which strengthens the vital body and is much more efficacious than the common prayers of the Church. The occult scientist uses concentration in preference to prayer, because the former is accomplished by the aid of the mind, which is cold and unfeeling, whereas prayer is usually dictated by emotion. Where it is dictated by a pure unselfish devotion to high ideals prayer is much higher than cold concentration. It can never be cold, but bears upon the pinions of Love the outpourings of the mystic to the Deity. The prayer for the desire body is, "Lead us not into temptation." Desire is the great tempter of mankind. It is the great incentive to all action, and in so far as the actions subserve the purposes of the spirit, it is good; but where the desire is for something degrading, something that debases the nature, it is indeed meet that we pray not to be led into temptation.

Heindel , Max. The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception (Illustrated) (pp. 448-449). Kindle Edition. 

Thank you Ashvin, all this is very relevant to me. It requires much more reflection than what I have given it by now. One thought that appears in the attempt to directly relate to each of the suggestions is that, in the same way we often refer to concepts for the sake of the explanation, while the reality of our thinking is much more involved in complex conceptual organisms (ideas) and their interrelations, in that same way desires are difficult to disentangle from each other and isolate in simple units. Desires seem complex and to overarch each other. It’s almost as if, pushing it to the extreme, there could be a life-desire (or even transpersonal) within which live more limited desires, both in time span and ‘bandwidth’. ‘Lower desires’ may be entangled in broader ones, or woven ‘transversally’, so that it’s arduous to unstitch them from that fabric. I am not completely confident in this sense, I will see if it survives a further reflection on the indications you have provided. Thank you.