This forum

[Federica]

I was thinking that this forum has come to look like a strange thing, hasn't it? I am really afraid to shake the ground this way, because I am getting enormous value from this forum. Still, someone has to say it, eller hur? (=or how? in Swedish - so much more powerful than “isn’t it?”)
Out of xxx, we are basically four active members, Ashvin, me, Lou, and Cleric. Soul_of_Shu has disappeared. Other members I see appearing regularly in older threads have also disappeared. Contributions from members other than the four afore-mentioned are quite sporadic - at least since I’ve been here, it’s been 3 months now - for example there’s this guy called Anthony, who seems to be very much into biblical reflections, or this other guy Lorenzo, whom I have a real hard time grasping what type of mind space he’s sending in his writings from. That’s about it... Strangely, it looks like a men-dominated field, as it seems. One could wonder why. Well, this is more of a curiosity, not so relevant.
Occasionally newcomers pop in just as I did, with a BK question, then they get quickly scared off by the Steinerian vibes, and never recover. Sometimes oldies throw in a reflection, either randomly, or in the spirit of ‘while we’re at it, why not post it on that forum too’. They also usually become quickly exhausted.
And what about the view count? That’s another puzzle. It seems to show that someone is reading from time to time. But then it remains a passive endeavor for some reason, and I have come to suspect that it’s mainly Lou clicking n-times on posts, hoping to get some more contemplative yield out of all his both/and playing cards. Does it all make any sense to anyone? You who are silent, be it as it may that you are reading this, am I misinterpreting you? And you who are active… alltså Ashivin, Cleric, Lou, are you not getting the same awkward sense that I am getting? Again, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with that, but I am curious. Is anyone having any thoughts? And if yes, why are you not saying anything.

[AshvinP]

I was thinking that this forum has come to look like a strange thing, hasn't it? I am really afraid to shake the ground this way, because I am getting enormous value from this forum. Still, someone has to say it, eller hur? (=or how? in Swedish - so much more powerful than “isn’t it?”)
Out of xxx, we are basically four active members, Ashvin, me, Lou, and Cleric. Soul_of_Shu has disappeared. Other members I see appearing regularly in older threads have also disappeared. Contributions from members other than the four afore-mentioned are quite sporadic - at least since I’ve been here, it’s been 3 months now - for example there’s this guy called Anthony, who seems to be very much into biblical reflections, or this other guy Lorenzo, whom I have a real hard time grasping what type of mind space he’s sending in his writings from. That’s about it... Strangely, it looks like a men-dominated field, as it seems. One could wonder why. Well, this is more of a curiosity, not so relevant.
Occasionally newcomers pop in just as I did, with a BK question, then they get quickly scared off by the Steinerian vibes, and never recover. Sometimes oldies throw in a reflection, either randomly, or in the spirit of ‘while we’re at it, why not post it on that forum too’. They also usually become quickly exhausted.
And what about the view count? That’s another puzzle. It seems to show that someone is reading from time to time. But then it remains a passive endeavor for some reason, and I have come to suspect that it’s mainly Lou clicking n-times on posts, hoping to get some more contemplative yield out of all his both/and playing cards. Does it all make any sense to anyone? You who are silent, be it as it may that you are reading this, am I misinterpreting you? And you who are active… alltså Ashivin, Cleric, Lou, are you not getting the same awkward sense that I am getting? Again, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with that, but I am curious. Is anyone having any thoughts? And if yes, why are you not saying anything.

When I used to play poker, there were two main games which people would play. The first was Texas Hold Em', where every player gets two cards face down, five cards are successively placed in the middle for the community, three after the first betting round (flop), one after the next betting round (turn), and the next after the last betting round (river). The player with the best five-card hand at the end, or whoever gets everyone else to fold their hands during the betting, wins the pot in the middle.

Every new game which starts up first begins with THE. It's easiest for average players to learn and for people to casually play, not needing to pay too much attention to what's going on or take the whole thing too seriously. Although there is technically "no limit", meaning there is no cap on what can be bet on any given betting round, the pots remain small because no one wants to bet their entire stack if it's 100x the size of the pot. People keep the bets small and someone who bets bigger will only get action when another player has a great hand. There is only one winner per hand, so things are kept simple. Eventually some of the more serious poker players turn to a new game called Omaha High-Low, which is 'pot limit'.

Each player gets four cards dealt face down this time, five community cards, and the max bet on each round is the current size of the pot. It's much harder to bluff people out of hands because the bets are small on the initial rounds, but if there are a couple active players with good hands, each round can get exponentially larger. Now players can win by either having the best five-card hand or the worst five-card hand. If one person has the best hand and one the worst hand, they will split the pot 50/50. If two players have the same best hand and one the worst hand, the former gets 25% each and the latter 50%. You can imagine how the strategic dynamics change because of all this. If you don't want to lose a lot of money quickly, you need to be paying close attention to every hand and also be decent at calculating odds on each round. People who are just there to casually play around will get wiped out.

Whenever Omaha is added to a game, the Texas game quickly dies out. All the interesting action is in Omaha. The stakes are higher and the actual strategy of the game is much more interesting. People have very little interest in the plain old Texas game anymore. Yet the Omaha game narrows down to a set of regular players who take it very seriously. Other people who are not so serious about playing occasionally jump into the action, but they go broke quickly and have no money left to buy in. Other players are just scared of buying into such a serious game and watch from the sidelines or lose interest in playing in the poker game altogether. They go searching for more THE games where they get back to the old two-card, high-hand routine. So I think this is a decent analogy to what has happened here.

THE is abstract metaphysical and religious speculation. You don't need to be paying too much attention to the world of living experience and ideas to buy in and play. You don't need to be too logically rigorous - after a minimal amount of reasoning through the world content, you can just jump to whatever preferred conclusion you like and say, "who knows, maybe this is the truth! no one can say otherwise". You can have a smoke, drink a beer, chat it up with your friends, have a good time, and that's the real purpose of joining the poker game in the first place. Once the stakes get higher and the game gets interesting, then one needs to pay much more attention and refine one's thinking skills. Then the original purpose gets sacrificed to that of seeking the objective truth of the matter, with precise, scientific, mathematical reasoning. If a person has no interest in making such an investment, and/or squanders all their thinking funds on various intellectual pursuits, they simply won't buy in and play. Little do they realize that one's interest in the Omaha game and meaning mined from the four-card, high-low dynamic will greatly increase after they gain a firm conviction to keep an open mind and make the sacrifices necessary in pursuit of the Truth.

[lorenzop]

I don't respond in this forum consistently because I don't read the posts . . . actually I can't read them, they are in a language I do not understand and I have no dictionary\translator.
IOW, I am no further along in understanding Cleric or Ashwin then I was when this forum began. For example phrases such as 'meaning', 'world content', 'thinking' . . . I suspect they are using these terms outside of the conventional, but I have no idea how they are using these phrases. I'm not sure if I want to invest 2-3 months in trying to figure out what they are saying.
It would be 'nice' if they could express their main thoughts in 100-200 plain English words - but they seem unable to do so.

[AshvinP]

I don't respond in this forum consistently because I don't read the posts . . . actually I can't read them, they are in a language I do not understand and I have no dictionary\translator.
IOW, I am no further along in understanding Cleric or Ashwin then I was when this forum began. For example phrases such as 'meaning', 'world content', 'thinking' . . . I suspect they are using these terms outside of the conventional, but I have no idea how they are using these phrases. I'm not sure if I want to invest 2-3 months in trying to figure out what they are saying.
It would be 'nice' if they could express their main thoughts in 100-200 plain English words - but they seem unable to do so.

Lorenzo,

The reason why Federica can easily get her mind around phrases such as meaning, world content, thinking, etc., as we use them here, is because she made an active effort to inhabit the first-person thinking perspective from which these phrases are formed. Most of our posts to you and others here have not been about the deepest realities of the spiritual Cosmos, but about the basic tools which you can use to reinhabit that first-person thinking perspective, a perspective which seems like a long-forgotten chimera for modern man (I say "reinhabiting" because people not more than 500 years ago naturally inhabited this perspective). Comments such as your last one really indicate you want the essence of our spiritual evolution as it has unfolded over millions of years into where we are today, to be presented to you as a 90 min. documentary on Netflix which you can absorb while relaxing on the couch and munching on popcorn. I'm sorry, but it shouldn't be too hard to grasp why this makes no sense. Your subconscious is asking for something it know cannot be delivered, under any circumstance, so it has an excuse to quit when the impossible never arrives.

Perhaps our numerous posts on reinhabiting the first-person perspective have not been adequate. The very format of presentation and the spatiotemporal language we must use generally works to reinforce the dissociated 3rd-person view from nowhere. That's why we keep presenting it again and again from different angles. Yet no amount of posts and illustrations to this effect will work unless you try to meet them half way with your own active effort, like Federica has been doing consistently since she arrived here. Clearly it has led her to remarkable insights which she would not have suspected possible before. Is there any fundamental reason why you cannot do the same? Here is yet another angle on this from Steiner with regards to our core spiritual activity of Willing-Feeling-Thinking. I ask you that read it and really try to follow it from the first-person perspective, engaging in the various examples he gives. See if that perhaps stirs an unsuspected shift in perspective.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/DimSpa_index.html

The things I shall have to explain to-day may be apparently a little far removed from our more concrete studies of Anthroposophy. They are however a necessary foundation for many other perceptions which we need — a foundation on which we shall afterwards have to build in our more intimate considerations.

There is a certain inherent difficulty for our human power of knowledge and understanding when we speak of the physical bodily nature of man on the one hand, and the soul-and-spirit on the other. Man can gain ideas about the physical and bodily with comparative ease, for it is given to him through the senses. It comes out to meet him, as it were, from his environment on all sides, without his having to do very much for it himself — at any rate so far as his consciousness is concerned. But it is very different when we come to speak of the soul-and-spirit. True, if he is open-minded enough, man is distinctly aware of the fact that such a thing exists. Men have always received into their language designations, words and phrases referring to the soul-and-spirit. The very existence of such words and phrases shews after all, for an open-minded consciousness, that something does exist to draw man's attention to the reality of soul-and-spirit.

But the difficulties begin at once when man endeavours to relate the world of things physical and bodily with the world of soul and spirit. Indeed for those who try to grapple with such questions philosophically, shall we say, the search for this relationship gives rise to the greatest imaginable difficulties. They know that the physical and bodily is extended in space. They can even represent it spatially. Man forms his ideas of it comparatively easily. He can use all that space with its three dimensions gives to him, in forming his ideas about things physical and bodily. But the spiritual as such is nowhere to be found in space.

Some people, who imagine they are not materialistically minded — though in reality they are all the more so — try to conceive the things of the soul and spirit in the world of space. Thus they are led to the well-known spiritualistic aberrations. These aberrations are in reality materialistic, for they are an effort to bring the soul and spirit perforce into space.

But quite apart from all that, the fact is that man is conscious of his own soul-and-spirit. He is well aware of how it works, for he is aware that when he resolves to move about in space his thought is translated into movement through his will. The movement is in space, but of the thought no open-minded, unbiased thinking person can assert that it is in space. In this way the greatest difficulties have arisen, especially for philosophic thinking.

[continued at link]

[Anthony66]

I was thinking that this forum has come to look like a strange thing, hasn't it? I am really afraid to shake the ground this way, because I am getting enormous value from this forum. Still, someone has to say it, eller hur? (=or how? in Swedish - so much more powerful than “isn’t it?”)
Out of xxx, we are basically four active members, Ashvin, me, Lou, and Cleric. Soul_of_Shu has disappeared. Other members I see appearing regularly in older threads have also disappeared. Contributions from members other than the four afore-mentioned are quite sporadic - at least since I’ve been here, it’s been 3 months now - for example there’s this guy called Anthony, who seems to be very much into biblical reflections, or this other guy Lorenzo, whom I have a real hard time grasping what type of mind space he’s sending in his writings from. That’s about it... Strangely, it looks like a men-dominated field, as it seems. One could wonder why. Well, this is more of a curiosity, not so relevant.
Occasionally newcomers pop in just as I did, with a BK question, then they get quickly scared off by the Steinerian vibes, and never recover. Sometimes oldies throw in a reflection, either randomly, or in the spirit of ‘while we’re at it, why not post it on that forum too’. They also usually become quickly exhausted.
And what about the view count? That’s another puzzle. It seems to show that someone is reading from time to time. But then it remains a passive endeavor for some reason, and I have come to suspect that it’s mainly Lou clicking n-times on posts, hoping to get some more contemplative yield out of all his both/and playing cards. Does it all make any sense to anyone? You who are silent, be it as it may that you are reading this, am I misinterpreting you? And you who are active… alltså Ashivin, Cleric, Lou, are you not getting the same awkward sense that I am getting? Again, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with that, but I am curious. Is anyone having any thoughts? And if yes, why are you not saying anything.

This guy called Anthony is always lurking in the background!

I have been trying very hard to understand this "Steinerian" stuff for some time. I certainly have had insights from time to time but I still feel unable to fully engage as you have done, beyond asking 101 type questions. I continue to find it very challenging but have grasped enough to continue to understand more. In other forums, one can be a casual participant and easily understand what is being said. But many of the posts here require one to clear mental space and engage fully in order to grasp. In a busy life, this can sometimes be challenging.

I certainly have an interest in reconciling the various religious traditions but not in the almost puerile way common to some perennialists. Anthroposophy seems to offer this. As an ex evangelical Christian I'm really interested in this aspect but also the marriage with non-dual philosophies is also a focus.

[Ratatoskr]

Occasionally newcomers pop in just as I did, with a BK question, then they get quickly scared off by the Steinerian vibes, and never recover. Sometimes oldies throw in a reflection, either randomly, or in the spirit of ‘while we’re at it, why not post it on that forum too’. They also usually become quickly exhausted.

Here is your answer.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Hi all ... Apologies for being conspicuous by my absence. As the only mod, I do have to check in now and then, just in case there are any new topic approvals-- which is rare. Beyond that, this being a generally well-behaved place, the moderation role is minimal.

In the case of this member, having been very actively involved (including this forum's predecessor) for 7 years, it's simply a matter of having transitioned into a new phase, one in which the creativity requires much silence, and so is no longer compatible with this kind of 'vocal', thinking-out-loud activity. It has been this way for this lifetime so far, having gone through a few other metamorphic phases/stages, as per Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, which one can't resist, no more than the caterpillar can resist spinning its chrysalis ... as will be the eventual destiny for others here as well, when the time for a phase-transition arrives. Nonetheless, I will continue to serve the role of mod here, as long as it remains minimal--unless someone feels inclined to take over, either as mod and/or proprietor of the IP/domain (if so send a PM, and I'll approach Simon about how that might happen).

Meanwhile, kind regards

[Jim Cross]

Occasionally newcomers pop in just as I did, with a BK question, then they get quickly scared off by the Steinerian vibes, and never recover. Sometimes oldies throw in a reflection, either randomly, or in the spirit of ‘while we’re at it, why not post it on that forum too’. They also usually become quickly exhausted.

Here is your answer.

You and lorenzop nailed it. The forum should be renamed metasteiner.

I occasionally check back to see the Steinerians have exhausted themselves with their incomprehensible posts and to see if there is anything new. So far, not much.

[AshvinP]

I was thinking that this forum has come to look like a strange thing, hasn't it? I am really afraid to shake the ground this way, because I am getting enormous value from this forum. Still, someone has to say it, eller hur? (=or how? in Swedish - so much more powerful than “isn’t it?”)
Out of xxx, we are basically four active members, Ashvin, me, Lou, and Cleric. Soul_of_Shu has disappeared. Other members I see appearing regularly in older threads have also disappeared. Contributions from members other than the four afore-mentioned are quite sporadic - at least since I’ve been here, it’s been 3 months now - for example there’s this guy called Anthony, who seems to be very much into biblical reflections, or this other guy Lorenzo, whom I have a real hard time grasping what type of mind space he’s sending in his writings from. That’s about it... Strangely, it looks like a men-dominated field, as it seems. One could wonder why. Well, this is more of a curiosity, not so relevant.
Occasionally newcomers pop in just as I did, with a BK question, then they get quickly scared off by the Steinerian vibes, and never recover. Sometimes oldies throw in a reflection, either randomly, or in the spirit of ‘while we’re at it, why not post it on that forum too’. They also usually become quickly exhausted.
And what about the view count? That’s another puzzle. It seems to show that someone is reading from time to time. But then it remains a passive endeavor for some reason, and I have come to suspect that it’s mainly Lou clicking n-times on posts, hoping to get some more contemplative yield out of all his both/and playing cards. Does it all make any sense to anyone? You who are silent, be it as it may that you are reading this, am I misinterpreting you? And you who are active… alltså Ashivin, Cleric, Lou, are you not getting the same awkward sense that I am getting? Again, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with that, but I am curious. Is anyone having any thoughts? And if yes, why are you not saying anything.

This guy called Anthony is always lurking in the background!

I have been trying very hard to understand this "Steinerian" stuff for some time. I certainly have had insights from time to time but I still feel unable to fully engage as you have done, beyond asking 101 type questions. I continue to find it very challenging but have grasped enough to continue to understand more. In other forums, one can be a casual participant and easily understand what is being said. But many of the posts here require one to clear mental space and engage fully in order to grasp. In a busy life, this can sometimes be challenging.

I certainly have an interest in reconciling the various religious traditions but not in the almost puerile way common to some perennialists. Anthroposophy seems to offer this. As an ex evangelical Christian I'm really interested in this aspect but also the marriage with non-dual philosophies is also a focus.

I'm glad you are still following along, Anthony!

Does anyone notice a trend here? The people gaining insights with the intuitive thinking path (Federica and Anthony), slowly or quickly as the case may be, but always through their own active efforts, increasingly locate the obstacles to further progress within themselves. The people who don't externalize the blame onto everyone and everything else. Perhaps that externalizing tendency is a major reason why the insights aren't gained and everything seems like a confusing mish-mash. These people openly admit they don't read any of the posts, yet simultaneously claim the posts are impossible to understand

This is in keeping with the fact that the externalizing people have all but forgotten they have an inner life of activity! The only world which exists for them is that of external sensory perceptions and dim concepts at the surface of waking consciousness. It's easy to see why this leads them to locate the cause for all their difficulties of comprehension in external forces which have nothing to do with them. They can hardly sense their own inner activity exists anymore. And it's always scary to confront something which seems so unfamiliar and unknown. That is, until one actually endeavors to confront it with the Light of thinking consciousness.

Whether this is only tangentially related to the whole array of projective, tribalizing, disharmonious, violent tendencies across the world today, anyone can reason out for themselves.

[lorenzop]

Ashwin, this from your response gets to the heart of it "The reason why Federica can easily get her mind around phrases such as meaning, world content, thinking, etc., as we use them here, is because she made an active effort to inhabit the first-person thinking perspective from which these phrases are formed. " . . . you attempt to answer what a set of cryptic phrases might mean by simply throwing out yet another cryptic phrase. Why would any sane reasonable individual want to go down this rabbit-hole?