Why Man Creates Art: Kanye West as an Archetypal Artist

[GrantHenderson]

Consciousness arises when the astral body and ego destroy the physical and etheric bodies during the day. When the astral body and ego become aware of their physical surroundings it's as if the nerves were being torn to pieces.

This is a peculiar sentence. Steiner seems to be implying that we have both a “healing force” and a “destruction force” which balance against each other. That the pursuit of ideas between thoughts is in the “breaking apart” of thought objects — due to our ego and astral body permitting our outer environment to stream into our etheric and physical body. I like the idea of a “healing force” and “destruction force” ultimately. To birth anew requires the death of what was. As the growth of a tree towards the sun takes energy away from its roots. Death frees the soul for new life.

As you can imagine, a much more precise science lays behind all these concepts. This brings us back to the original discussion of the current tension between 'truth-seeking' and more intuitive, inspired, imaginative thinking through spiritual (inner) realities. When we come across teachings such as the above, we can wonder how such precise dynamics, which are generally aligned with our own intuitions and broad concepts, came to be discerned. Is it pure fanciful thinking (or delusions/lies), or something else? If the latter, then we can ask whether it is incumbent upon modern thinking humans to investigate what this something else might be. I think a lot of people lack the motivation to pursue this something else because we assume it must be an abstract theory like the ones we are accustomed to, and therefore it feels like yet another chore to put on our 'reading list' when we already stretched thin with time. But I also think honest reflection reveals that the above quote speaks us to from beyond the realm of abstract theories and models. If the Divine thinking Spirit is real and worth pursuing, then perhaps it deserves this more living spiritual scientific investigation.

Yeah. I think the biggest reason people do not care to pursue such ideas on spirituality is that they don’t see the logic behind them, as spiritual ideas are not abstractions with premises and conclusions in the same way that logical ideas are. They therefore see them as baseless, unconvincing ideas. What they often fail to realize is the context upon which their own logical ideas sit — for example, metaphysical idealism. Our investigations on consciousness from a metaphysical perspective merely teach us the language of consciousness. But they don’t actually teach us anything of substance about what consciousness does. This is somewhat akin to learning German and then claiming to understand Goethe's Faust. Once we have learned the language, we must then learn how to read. If we can arrive at the conclusion, from a metaphysical perspective, that everything is in consciousness, then it should follow that everything also serves consciousness. Plants, rocks, wind, water, organs, celestial bodies, stars etc all serve consciousness in some way or another. It is the task of man to develop the moral standing which raises him into the light of these processes. To be accepted by higher entities as worthy of this knowledge because he has made them the focus of his own good intentions.
Besides, presupposing the existence of spiritual planes with spiritual entities (metaphysical idealism), it would be dualistic to assume that we cannot also access these spiritual planes and connect with spiritual entities in a communicable manner. These cannot be completely isolated realities.
I suspect that there is a very complicated interdependent relationship between the living and the dead. I’m not sure what this is exactly (just some vague ideas). I will wait until I’m ready to hear it. Or maybe I’ll read about it one day.

[AshvinP]

Consciousness arises when the astral body and ego destroy the physical and etheric bodies during the day. When the astral body and ego become aware of their physical surroundings it's as if the nerves were being torn to pieces.

This is a peculiar sentence. Steiner seems to be implying that we have both a “healing force” and a “destruction force” which balance against each other. That the pursuit of ideas between thoughts is in the “breaking apart” of thought objects — due to our ego and astral body permitting our outer environment to stream into our etheric and physical body. I like the idea of a “healing force” and “destruction force” ultimately. To birth anew requires the death of what was. As the growth of a tree towards the sun takes energy away from its roots. Death frees the soul for new life.

As you can imagine, a much more precise science lays behind all these concepts. This brings us back to the original discussion of the current tension between 'truth-seeking' and more intuitive, inspired, imaginative thinking through spiritual (inner) realities. When we come across teachings such as the above, we can wonder how such precise dynamics, which are generally aligned with our own intuitions and broad concepts, came to be discerned. Is it pure fanciful thinking (or delusions/lies), or something else? If the latter, then we can ask whether it is incumbent upon modern thinking humans to investigate what this something else might be. I think a lot of people lack the motivation to pursue this something else because we assume it must be an abstract theory like the ones we are accustomed to, and therefore it feels like yet another chore to put on our 'reading list' when we already stretched thin with time. But I also think honest reflection reveals that the above quote speaks us to from beyond the realm of abstract theories and models. If the Divine thinking Spirit is real and worth pursuing, then perhaps it deserves this more living spiritual scientific investigation.

Yeah. I think the biggest reason people do not care to pursue such ideas on spirituality is that they don’t see the logic behind them, as spiritual ideas are not abstractions with premises and conclusions in the same way that logical ideas are. They therefore see them as baseless, unconvincing ideas. What they often fail to realize is the context upon which their own logical ideas sit — for example, metaphysical idealism. Our investigations on consciousness from a metaphysical perspective merely teach us the language of consciousness. But they don’t actually teach us anything of substance about what consciousness does. This is somewhat akin to learning German and then claiming to understand Goethe's Faust. Once we have learned the language, we must then learn how to read. If we can arrive at the conclusion, from a metaphysical perspective, that everything is in consciousness, then it should follow that everything also serves consciousness. Plants, rocks, wind, water, organs, celestial bodies, stars etc all serve consciousness in some way or another. It is the task of man to develop the moral standing which raises him into the light of these processes. To be accepted by higher entities as worthy of this knowledge because he has made them the focus of his own good intentions.
Besides, presupposing the existence of spiritual planes with spiritual entities (metaphysical idealism), it would be dualistic to assume that we cannot also access these spiritual planes and connect with spiritual entities in a communicable manner. These cannot be completely isolated realities.
I suspect that there is a very complicated interdependent relationship between the living and the dead. I’m not sure what this is exactly (just some vague ideas). I will wait until I’m ready to hear it. Or maybe I’ll read about it one day.

Grant,

Much of what you wrote above is in keeping with what we have been trying to communicate on this forum to some others for years now. It's no little thing to make the observation you did in bold, but rather a huge thing. In connection with that, I want to quote a few things for you which should indicate how well your intuitions and reasoning aligns with the spiritual scientific path of inquiry (they are all from Steiner). But the first one is on the last sentences - as you observed, everything serves consciousness and I would say your path onto this metaphysical forum and into this particular discussion is no exception. It could very well be the indication from higher worlds that you are ready to hear it, and the day you will read about it is today!

Such instances of self-initiation do occur. They should however not lead one to imagine that the right thing to do is simply to wait for it and make no effort towards obtaining Initiation by means of a properly ordered training. We have no need to speak here any further of self-initiation, since it can come about without the person's following any rules or precepts. What we are concerned with is how the organs of perception that are latent in man's soul may be developed by spiritual training. If people do not feel any particular urge to take steps for their own inner development, it is easy for them to think that since the life of man goes forward under the guidance of spiritual Powers, he ought not to interfere in their leadership but should wait quietly for the moment when these Powers shall deem it right to open to him another world. They will feel that any desire to intermeddle in this way with the wisdom of spiritual guidance is quite unjustified, and bespeaks a kind of presumption. One who takes this view will only be persuaded to modify it when a certain line of thought begins to make a strong impression on him — namely when he is ready to say: “The wise guidance of spiritual Powers has given me certain faculties. It has not bestowed these faculties on me for me to leave them unemployed, but rather that I may put them to use. The wisdom of the guidance is to be seen in the fact that seeds have been planted in me of a higher state of consciousness; and I fail to understand the guidance aright if I do not regard it as a duty to set before me the high ideal: that whatever can become manifest to man through the development of his spiritual powers shall become so manifest.” When such a thought has taken strong enough hold, then the mistrust that was felt of any training for the attainment of a higher state of consciousness shall disappear.

The second quote deals with how to set about learning what consciousness does.

I will choose still one more comparison to make the matter clearer. Suppose someone is a carpenter; he has learnt carpentry and intends to make furniture. In his work as a carpenter he makes certain pieces of furniture and continues to do so for many years. This is his job. But something else happens as well; he becomes more skilful, his manipulations more effective; he acquires something else, inasmuch as his own organism becomes more skilful. This is a kind of supplementary achievement. It is the same with spiritual activities. If, as a botanist, I think and make great efforts for years in the sphere of botany, that is all to the good, but as well as this my mind becomes more flexible. That is also of help. I am better ‘drilled’ than I was some decades ago. Please do not take the expression in its ordinary trivial sense, if I say that the spiritual scientist must have been previously ‘drilled.’ He must use his drilling to make his spiritual powers more mobile, more flexible. Then, when everything that is otherwise practised in the world is placed directly in the service of self-education as happens in meditation and concentration, in the exercises that are given for the purpose of penetrating into the spiritual world — we duly prepare ourselves for this. Please take the words, ‘we prepare ourselves,’ as something infinitely important, for in reality we can never do anything more than prepare ourselves to enter the spiritual world; the rest is an affair of that world itself; the spiritual world must then come to us. It will not do so if we remain in the usual state of human beings on the physical plane. Only when we have transformed our soul-forces in the way indicated can we hope that the spiritual world will come to us. It cannot be anything like investigation in the physical world, for then we go towards the things we are investigating. We can only prepare so that when the spiritual world comes towards us, it will not escape us, but make a real impression upon us.

Finally, the third touches on the living-dead interaction, which I normally wouldn't post just yet, but since you brought it up, and since I have already posted much of this elsewhere on the forum to Federica, I figure there is little harm in doing so here.

Strange as it may seem, the whole form of intercourse to which we are accustomed in the physical world has to be reversed when intercourse is established between the earth and the Dead. In the physical world, when we speak to a human being from physical body to physical body, we know that the words come from ourselves; when the other person speaks to us, we know that the words come from him. The whole relationship is reversed when we are speaking with one who has died. The expression ‘when we are speaking’ can truthfully be used, but the relationship is reversed. When we put a question to the Dead, or say something to him, what we say comes from him, comes to us from him. He inspires into our soul what we ask him, what we say to him. And when he answers us or says something to us, this comes out of our own soul. It is a process with which a human being in the physical world is quite unfamiliar. He feels that what he says comes out of his own being. In order to establish intercourse with those who have died, we must adapt ourselves to hear from them what we ourselves say, and to receive from our own soul what they answer.

Thus abstractly described, the nature of the process is easy to grasp; but to become accustomed to the total reversal of the familiar form of intercourse is exceedingly difficult. The Dead are always there, always among us and around us, and the fact that they are not perceived is largely due to lack of understanding of this reversed form of intercourse. On the physical plane we think that when anything comes out of our soul, it comes from us. And we are far from being able to pay intimate enough attention to whether it is not, after all, being inspired into us from the spiritual environment. We prefer to connect it with experiences familiar on the physical plane, where, if something comes to us from the environment, we ascribe it at once to the other person. This is the greatest error when it is a matter of intercourse with the Dead.
...
As I told you, the moments of waking and falling asleep are of particular importance for intercourse with the dead. In our whole life there are no single moments of falling asleep or of waking when we do not come into relation with the dead.

The moment of falling asleep is especially favourable for us to turn to the dead. Suppose we want to ask the dead something. We can carry it in our soul, holding it until the moment of falling asleep; for that is the time to bring our questions to the dead, Other opportunities exist, but this moment is the most favourable. When, for instance, we read to the dead we certainly draw near to them. But for direct intercourse it is best of all if we address our questions to the dead at the moment of falling asleep.

On the other hand, the moment of waking is the most favourable for what the dead have to communicate to us. And again there is no one — did people but know it — who does not bring with him at the moment of waking countless tidings from the dead. In the unconscious region of the soul we are speaking continually with the dead. At the moment of falling asleep we put our questions to them, we say to them what, in the depths of the soul, we have to say. At the moment of waking the dead speak with us, give us the answers. But we must grasp the connection that these are only two different points and that, in the higher sense, these things that happen after each other are really simultaneous, just as on the physical plane two places are simultaneous.

[GrantHenderson]

This is a slippery slope, in the sense that it's near to impossible to separate objective artistic quality from personal preference. Who really knows why we like some great artists better than other great ones...

I suspect that each individual will favor different art depending on how it serves to match or ameliorate certain moods that align with said individuals' unique preferences. Music should act as a bridge towards the divine placed along where one stands within the chasm. This point will be different for everyone.

So you mean a large ego is offset, or condoned, by a stronger connection with the divine. If it's not offset, then we can call it overinflated, and then it's unjustified. I think this doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's about what we mean by ego.

I think our ego and our connection to the divine are different functions of man, so one is not offset or condoned by the other. But they can interfere with one another all the same. So they must be balanced by the will of man in a healthy manner. They can even compliment each other if balanced properly.

I'm referring to our ego as our sense of self, or our “I”. It serves to ensure that the different faculties of our soul are all functioning well and in unison. The strength of the ego is marked by the degree to which it enriches its mental faculties. However, if the ego fails to let go of itself, and man cannot allow himself to be enriched by his environment, then his ego will lose its connection to the divine. It runs itself dry, so to speak. Whereas, when the ego is constantly enriched by its environment via man’s strong connection to the divine, it can better enrich the faculties of its soul, so it can make better use of these faculties.

But if it's referred to personality traits of the sort that make people say "KW has an over-inflated ego", then I don't see any correlation between those traits and connection to the divine, and no correlation with artistic creation either. To me those traits are folklore, drama, construct, most of the time shallow construct, that compensate for stuff. I just think we might agree in essence, but we are using the word ego in different ways.

Rather, I hold the (probably controversial) opinion that Kanye West's ego is often extremely healthy, but when it is unhealthy, it is very unhealthy. Like I mentioned in my last comment, When our connection to the divine is blocked for whatever reason, we often become reliant on our own pride for inspiration. So if someone has a very large ego, and that connection to the divine is blocked, then that pride will quickly turn to arrogance. Thus, we can reason how arrogance (or alike behaviour) correlates with artistic talent — at least, in the current state of human evolution.

[GrantHenderson]

Consciousness arises when the astral body and ego destroy the physical and etheric bodies during the day. When the astral body and ego become aware of their physical surroundings it's as if the nerves were being torn to pieces.

This is a peculiar sentence. Steiner seems to be implying that we have both a “healing force” and a “destruction force” which balance against each other. That the pursuit of ideas between thoughts is in the “breaking apart” of thought objects — due to our ego and astral body permitting our outer environment to stream into our etheric and physical body. I like the idea of a “healing force” and “destruction force” ultimately. To birth anew requires the death of what was. As the growth of a tree towards the sun takes energy away from its roots. Death frees the soul for new life.

As you can imagine, a much more precise science lays behind all these concepts. This brings us back to the original discussion of the current tension between 'truth-seeking' and more intuitive, inspired, imaginative thinking through spiritual (inner) realities. When we come across teachings such as the above, we can wonder how such precise dynamics, which are generally aligned with our own intuitions and broad concepts, came to be discerned. Is it pure fanciful thinking (or delusions/lies), or something else? If the latter, then we can ask whether it is incumbent upon modern thinking humans to investigate what this something else might be. I think a lot of people lack the motivation to pursue this something else because we assume it must be an abstract theory like the ones we are accustomed to, and therefore it feels like yet another chore to put on our 'reading list' when we already stretched thin with time. But I also think honest reflection reveals that the above quote speaks us to from beyond the realm of abstract theories and models. If the Divine thinking Spirit is real and worth pursuing, then perhaps it deserves this more living spiritual scientific investigation.

Yeah. I think the biggest reason people do not care to pursue such ideas on spirituality is that they don’t see the logic behind them, as spiritual ideas are not abstractions with premises and conclusions in the same way that logical ideas are. They therefore see them as baseless, unconvincing ideas. What they often fail to realize is the context upon which their own logical ideas sit — for example, metaphysical idealism. Our investigations on consciousness from a metaphysical perspective merely teach us the language of consciousness. But they don’t actually teach us anything of substance about what consciousness does. This is somewhat akin to learning German and then claiming to understand Goethe's Faust. Once we have learned the language, we must then learn how to read. If we can arrive at the conclusion, from a metaphysical perspective, that everything is in consciousness, then it should follow that everything also serves consciousness. Plants, rocks, wind, water, organs, celestial bodies, stars etc all serve consciousness in some way or another. It is the task of man to develop the moral standing which raises him into the light of these processes. To be accepted by higher entities as worthy of this knowledge because he has made them the focus of his own good intentions.
Besides, presupposing the existence of spiritual planes with spiritual entities (metaphysical idealism), it would be dualistic to assume that we cannot also access these spiritual planes and connect with spiritual entities in a communicable manner. These cannot be completely isolated realities.
I suspect that there is a very complicated interdependent relationship between the living and the dead. I’m not sure what this is exactly (just some vague ideas). I will wait until I’m ready to hear it. Or maybe I’ll read about it one day.

Thanks for the guiding words and the helpful Steiner quotes.
The third Steiner quote mostly reflects what I have gathered about the relationship between the living and the dead, albeit in the form of loosely held together intuitions. Although, the idea that communicating with the dead becomes more fluid when our thoughts are held together as we fall asleep is something I have never considered. Interesting idea.

I thought of a generalizing statement regarding the interplay between the living and the dead last night before falling asleep. “The living is the ground upon which the dead stands to feed the living ideas. Whereas the dead is the pure-form idea upon which the living rises towards.”

As for developing a purer and more thorough understanding of what Steiner has introduced here, I don’t really think I am ready. I still struggle with ethically dealing with love and loss. As in, my egoic desires can be toxic when dealing with loss. As such, I don’t think that I am yet prepared to understand the dynamics between the dead and the living on a much deeper-spiritual level than what Steiner has presented here.

[AshvinP]

Thanks for the guiding words and the helpful Steiner quotes.
The third Steiner quote mostly reflects what I have gathered about the relationship between the living and the dead, albeit in the form of loosely held together intuitions. Although, the idea that communicating with the dead becomes more fluid when our thoughts are held together as we fall asleep is something I have never considered. Interesting idea.

I thought of a generalizing statement regarding the interplay between the living and the dead last night before falling asleep. “The living is the ground upon which the dead stands to feed the living ideas. Whereas the dead is the pure-form idea upon which the living rises towards.”

As for developing a purer and more thorough understanding of what Steiner has introduced here, I don’t really think I am ready. I still struggle with ethically dealing with love and loss. As in, my egoic desires can be toxic when dealing with loss. As such, I don’t think that I am yet prepared to understand the dynamics between the dead and the living on a much deeper-spiritual level than what Steiner has presented here.

Grant,

That is a great inspiration you received while falling asleep. I hope you notice that, by simply paying attention to what streamed into you at this time - what was thought into you - you are already participating in the spiritual world in a much deeper way than the average person. It is also a deeper way than simply contemplating the content of the quotes I am presenting, since you are also endeavoring to live that content out. It could be further noticed that perhaps all these things are not unrelated - what various circumstances are playing out in your personal life and the inner impulses you have developed towards more spiritual contemplation, more openness and receptivity towards your intuitions and inspirations. Sometimes, perhaps much more often than we imagine, a profound loss is the soil through which the Spirit plants seeds of new phases of life within our soul.

In connection with your insight, you may appreciate the following from a spiritual Master (not Steiner). To transform spiritually in a deeper sense, we should become the wheat of the higher worlds, by becoming more precisely conscious of how we stand in relation to them and therefore the higher evolutionary purposes for which we suffer on the physical plane (the 'living').

But in the grain of wheat there is more faith than in us. When it is buried in the ground it decays, but it understands the world of the sun, and as soon as its beams appear, it says: “I shall not die, but I shall rise again and bear fruit for others”, and it starts generating energy and strives for the sun. It bears fruit and ripens. But people do not leave it alone: they cut it down with the sickle; they bind it and pile it up, and trample upon it, and thresh it.

Human life passes through the same process. You may ask: “Why must we pass through all this process? “ Man must draw a lesson from this example of the grain of wheat. After the threshing-board and the horses’ hooves have threshed it, men take the grain and put it in the barn. But its sufferings do not end there. They sift the grains, and the bad ones fall below and the good ones which remain are taken to the mill, where two heavy mill-stones grind them and smash them completely. If you were in the grain’s place, you would say: “What kind of a life and what kind of a world has God created?” But the grain of wheat has great patience. It says: “You will yet see what my history is.” It is taken from the mill as flour and carried home, but still men do not leave it in peace. The wife rolls up her sleeves; the flour is sifted; some is thrown away, but the good is mixed with water and leaven and turned into dough. Then it goes into the hot oven, and when it is taken out, we see those nice fresh-smelling loaves of bread. If you were in the place of the grain of wheat, you would say: “Our sufferings have ended at last!” But in a short time people break up the loaves and start eating them. In this way the grain of wheat enters our stomach, forming nutrients which enter our minds, and what happens? Great thoughts are born in these minds and new desires in our hearts. The grain of wheat carries the garments which clothe our feelings, it flows in the pens of writers and poets, in the bow of the violin.

This is what the grain of wheat gives us. And if this grain had not passed through the process of this development, we would never see these beautiful things in nature. Why? Because the grain of wheat gives us strength to see. That is why Christ says: “I am the living bread.” In order to be alive, man must be in communion with his environment, helping others and being helped by them. As the grain of wheat passes through this process, so must we be ready for such self-sacrifice. And this sacrifice is not so heavy.

[Federica]

I hope it's ok to interfere on this side of the thread.
I was wondering, Grant, because you refer to the question of ethics: in your perspective, why should ethical understandig precede the understanding of the world of ideas - the understanding of the world (provided that I am not misinterpreting)?

[GrantHenderson]

That is a great inspiration you received while falling asleep. I hope you notice that, by simply paying attention to what streamed into you at this time - what was thought into you - you are already participating in the spiritual world in a much deeper way than the average person.

I do understand that. Although, I do think that the average person can demonstrate a surprising amount of spiritual wisdom. one thing I have noticed that I find ironic is that everyday folks are often more attuned to their inner spirit than intellectual folks. I work for the city as a gardener. I encounter dozens of people there regularly. I have also worked for other cities in the past, and some of the people I encounter are truly wonderful souls. They're inner spirit is not “clouded” by their own intellectual ideas, so they can better live out their deeper intentions, as well as empathize better with other individuals. Perhaps this has more to do with the nature of my profession, as gardeners tend to be more down to earth types as you can probably imagine. But in general, people are good, and often show surprising spiritual wisdom once you get to know them. I don’t like reinforcing the conception that we are such a self interested society, because this speaks more to the way society is built around us than it does with us.

It could be further noticed that perhaps all these things are not unrelated - what various circumstances are playing out in your personal life and the inner impulses you have developed towards more spiritual contemplation, more openness and receptivity towards your intuitions and inspirations. Sometimes, perhaps much more often than we imagine, a profound loss is the soil through which the Spirit plants seeds of new phases of life within our soul.

Yes, well said. Great loss opens us up to great growth. We can only recover from such pain with the development of our virtuous character, and thereby greater access to our inner spirit.

But in the grain of wheat there is more faith than in us. When it is buried in the ground it decays, but it understands the world of the sun, and as soon as its beams appear, it says: “I shall not die, but I shall rise again and bear fruit for others”, and it starts generating energy and strives for the sun. It bears fruit and ripens. But people do not leave it alone: they cut it down with the sickle; they bind it and pile it up, and trample upon it, and thresh it.

Human life passes through the same process. You may ask: “Why must we pass through all this process? “ Man must draw a lesson from this example of the grain of wheat. After the threshing-board and the horses’ hooves have threshed it, men take the grain and put it in the barn. But its sufferings do not end there. They sift the grains, and the bad ones fall below and the good ones which remain are taken to the mill, where two heavy mill-stones grind them and smash them completely. If you were in the grain’s place, you would say: “What kind of a life and what kind of a world has God created?” But the grain of wheat has great patience. It says: “You will yet see what my history is.” It is taken from the mill as flour and carried home, but still men do not leave it in peace. The wife rolls up her sleeves; the flour is sifted; some is thrown away, but the good is mixed with water and leaven and turned into dough. Then it goes into the hot oven, and when it is taken out, we see those nice fresh-smelling loaves of bread. If you were in the place of the grain of wheat, you would say: “Our sufferings have ended at last!” But in a short time people break up the loaves and start eating them. In this way the grain of wheat enters our stomach, forming nutrients which enter our minds, and what happens? Great thoughts are born in these minds and new desires in our hearts. The grain of wheat carries the garments which clothe our feelings, it flows in the pens of writers and poets, in the bow of the violin.

This is what the grain of wheat gives us. And if this grain had not passed through the process of this development, we would never see these beautiful things in nature. Why? Because the grain of wheat gives us strength to see. That is why Christ says: “I am the living bread.” In order to be alive, man must be in communion with his environment, helping others and being helped by them. As the grain of wheat passes through this process, so must we be ready for such self-sacrifice. And this sacrifice is not so heavy.

May I ask who the quote is from?
Much like the wheat, I suspect the sun gives itself up to us entirely. It certainly gives itself up to the wheat.

[GrantHenderson]

I hope it's ok to interfere on this side of the thread.
I was wondering, Grant, because you refer to the question of ethics: in your perspective, why should ethical understandig precede the understanding of the world of ideas - the understanding of the world (provided that I am not misinterpreting)?

As far as I can tell, the development of our virtuous character is the only reliable way to connect ourselves spiritually with the world, simply because it is the development of our servitude to the world.

Our willing function is the love we send out to the world, and our feeling function is the gratitude we receive from the world. Our love of the world takes what the world grants us, and shares with the world what that grant means to us in relation to the world. It relates us spiritually with nature using the spiritual forces upon which nature grounds us. When our willing and feeling are functioning competently, love and gratitude underpin all their particular attributes. When they are not functioning competently, our will is “less loving” and our feelings are “less grateful.”, but they still underpin all their particular attributes. We can help our willing and feeling (love and gratitude) to function competently by developing our moral character.

Love initiates all virtuous instincts within us. I actually don't think that love is in itself a virtue. It precedes virtue. Everything we do is in love, but how we utilize love is our measure of virtue. Virtues are the personal sacrifices we make to enhance our capacities to love and feel gratitude. We connect ourselves spiritually with the world once we have developed the virtuous character to overcome thoughtless personal satisfactions, and live as true servants to the world. Courage, responsibility, temperance, wisdom, patience, humility, etc: All these virtuous traits have in common the development of our servitude to the world.

In this sense, love and virtue underpin the opposing spiritual forces of the growth and decay of our physical and mental being. Love permits our growth alongside the world, whereas virtue vanquishes our instincts for personal satisfactions which hold us separate from the world in our thinking and actions. When these forces are united, they actualize the potential in the other and connect us spiritually with nature.

[AshvinP]

I do understand that. Although, I do think that the average person can demonstrate a surprising amount of spiritual wisdom. one thing I have noticed that I find ironic is that everyday folks are often more attuned to their inner spirit than intellectual folks. I work for the city as a gardener. I encounter dozens of people there regularly. I have also worked for other cities in the past, and some of the people I encounter are truly wonderful souls. They're inner spirit is not “clouded” by their own intellectual ideas, so they can better live out their deeper intentions, as well as empathize better with other individuals. Perhaps this has more to do with the nature of my profession, as gardeners tend to be more down to earth types as you can probably imagine. But in general, people are good, and often show surprising spiritual wisdom once you get to know them. I don’t like reinforcing the conception that we are such a self interested society, because this speaks more to the way society is built around us than it does with us.

Well, it may depend on what we are calling "wisdom". Certainly you are correct that a more intuitive feeling and moral (willing) life can come to expression when the intellect is not prioritized, and this is reflected by the 'everyday folk'. On the other hand, it may not be clear to many such people how exactly to direct their will and feeling and when it is possibly leading them astray, into comfortable spiritual beliefs but not genuine knowledge. In no cases can a person become more spiritually free, pursuing the Good, Beautiful, and True out of only their inmost individuality - without also working on their life of higher thinking. And then the question becomes, how long can an unfree individual, even with the best intentions and wholesome yet naive spirituality, resist the subconscious tendencies which work to subvert higher spiritual knowledge? I would say most indications in modern society and the way it is trending answer, 'not very long'.

But, in general, I am speaking of spiritual knowledge here as scientific understanding along the vertical depth dimension. I think you would agree that most people, throughout their entire lives, would not happen upon any of the discussion we have had on this thread alone. To me, this does not impart any sense of superiority, but of profound responsibility. A responsibility born of the gratitude and love that you have mentioned. We can wonder about what is appropriate for other people to pursue or not pursue, whether they 'need' it or don't need it, but the question of what we have the opportunity to pursue and what we are responsible for, with our more philosophical and scientific consciousness, still remains.

May I ask who the quote is from?
Much like the wheat, I suspect the sun gives itself up to us entirely. It certainly gives itself up to the wheat.

It was from Master Beinsa Duono - https://en-petardanov.com/pdf/The_grain_of_wheat.pdf. Actually a later part of that same lecture mentions what you did:

Christ says that, if the grain of wheat fallen to the ground does not die, it will remain alone in this world. What really is loneliness? Loneliness is the greatest suffering that one can experience on earth. To be multiplied is the purpose of life. All suffering in the world comes from the fact that people want to live for themselves alone.

Evil is always born out of our wish to remain alone and become the centre of the world. For we should be like the sun: when the sun rises in the morning, it rises for everybody because it loves all; it is considerate to all beings from the lowest to the highest; that is why all turn their eyes to it. But does the sun say that we must enter it? It tells us to make use of the benefits it gives us; and just as it illuminates the world, so should we shed light and
enlighten those around us.

[Federica]

As far as I can tell, the development of our virtuous character is the only reliable way to connect ourselves spiritually with the world, simply because it is the development of our servitude to the world.

Our willing function is the love we send out to the world, and our feeling function is the gratitude we receive from the world. Our love of the world takes what the world grants us, and shares with the world what that grant means to us in relation to the world. It relates us spiritually with nature using the spiritual forces upon which nature grounds us. When our willing and feeling are functioning competently, love and gratitude underpin all their particular attributes. When they are not functioning competently, our will is “less loving” and our feelings are “less grateful.”, but they still underpin all their particular attributes. We can help our willing and feeling (love and gratitude) to function competently by developing our moral character.

Love initiates all virtuous instincts within us. I actually don't think that love is in itself a virtue. It precedes virtue. Everything we do is in love, but how we utilize love is our measure of virtue. Virtues are the personal sacrifices we make to enhance our capacities to love and feel gratitude. We connect ourselves spiritually with the world once we have developed the virtuous character to overcome thoughtless personal satisfactions, and live as true servants to the world. Courage, responsibility, temperance, wisdom, patience, humility, etc: All these virtuous traits have in common the development of our servitude to the world.

In this sense, love and virtue underpin the opposing spiritual forces of the growth and decay of our physical and mental being. Love permits our growth alongside the world, whereas virtue vanquishes our instincts for personal satisfactions which hold us separate from the world in our thinking and actions. When these forces are united, they actualize the potential in the other and connect us spiritually with nature.

Thanks for this illustration of your vision. I have found value in trying to understand how it stands in relation to spiritual science. Not sure if this is interesting to anyone other than myself, but I'll write it down in case it is. It took me a while to go from words to meaning, especially because you connect the will both with love and ethical character, and you relate feeling to gratitude, rather than to love. But I hope I understand your view now. If I had to explain it to a third person I would say as follows.


Love and gratitude are the rich soil that precedes spiritual connection to (and understanding of) the world/nature/the divine. Our will and feeling are the means, the functions we have at our disposal to partake in these forces of love and gratitude we are grounded in, and to grow through them our servitude to the world, by transforming the one into the other, sharing them to the world in a circular movement. Like a plant serves its environment and gives back to it by transforming soil, water, light, and air, in a circular movement or activity, so we do with love and gratitude. Like a plant, we can be more or less rife and flourishing in this process. Our ethical will - the cultivation of virtues/virtuous traits - is the reliable way to become more robust and prolific in this circular process that nurtures our spiritual connectedness. By cultivating these virtues, we strengthen our connection to the world/the divine, so that we can better understand it and serve it, by fully circulating love and gratitude back into it. That’s how ethical character precedes, and reinforces, spiritual understanding/connectedness.


If this is approximately correct, after relating your vision to the little I have integrated of the path Cleric and Ashvin speak of, I would think you have a lot in common with it. The only main difference between your view and theirs is that in yours, the spiritual connection to the world is inner. The spiritual is kept separate from the outer connection to the physical world. From this separation emerges the urge to fight egoic desires and thoughtless personal satisfactions first, hence opening the way to virtues. Once this transformation is well on its way, one becomes ready to feel a deeper spiritual connection to the divine. In the anthroposophic, or spiritual scientific view, inner and outer are one. This is meant in a very direct and literal sense. There is one spiritual reality only. The rest is perception, apparently separate, but truly orchestrated by the spiritual again (i.e. thinking). Hence, there cannot be two steps where inner spiritual connection is formed only once outwardly expressed virtues are developed. And most significantly, there cannot be opposition between love and virtue on one side and the opposing physical and mental (thinking) spiritual forces on the other. Of course, I am 'speaking' under the control of the subject matter experts here, whom I trust will not fail to correct any misinterpretations.


In short, it seems to me that in your perspective, the unifying spiritual force is love, while thinking can fall prey to egoic desires. In the spiritual scientific view, thinking cannot be under-ordained as the receiver of the workings of either virtue, or thoughtless personal satisfactions. Instead, it is recognized as the unifying principle that closes the circle, because love, virtue, and gratitude could not in any sense exist, not for us, and not even for the world, without the creating/mediating principle of thinking, and its workings in us (as us) as well as in every other spiritual beings and reality (as every other beings and reality). Thinking in this view is bigger than us and our mental growth and decay. How much bigger? As much as a unifying principle, constituting all reality, can be.


From here, the question that comes to mind is: how to work on developing virtues in a way that is pre-ordained of the physical and the mental (thinking) forces?