Spiritual "science"

[lorenzop]

If, in addition to the physical body, there is a life body, desire body, and ego-complex which regulate and influence the various systems/processes of the human organism, just as substantially and precisely as the physical body, then is there any possibility that this would not be relevant to scientific inquiry and understanding in the domains of chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.? Assuming these subtle members of the human organism to exist for the moment, do you see how there simply cannot exist a genuine science of the human organism without factoring their roles/functions in?

To be clear, in my previous post, I meant to suggest that it is in the very nature of studying the science of body-soul-spirit as a holistic structure, from within our own first-person being, that we are led to what can only be called 'moral development' of the individual, humanity, and Earth as a whole.

I'm not familiar with the terms 'life body', 'desire body', 'ego-complex' and I suspect these terms don't exist outside of Steiner related literature. So you can't introduce these terms in any argument or position (circular reasoning).
We can assume they exist, but we can also assume there's a 2000 year old frog living on Mars.

[AshvinP]

If, in addition to the physical body, there is a life body, desire body, and ego-complex which regulate and influence the various systems/processes of the human organism, just as substantially and precisely as the physical body, then is there any possibility that this would not be relevant to scientific inquiry and understanding in the domains of chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.? Assuming these subtle members of the human organism to exist for the moment, do you see how there simply cannot exist a genuine science of the human organism without factoring their roles/functions in?

To be clear, in my previous post, I meant to suggest that it is in the very nature of studying the science of body-soul-spirit as a holistic structure, from within our own first-person being, that we are led to what can only be called 'moral development' of the individual, humanity, and Earth as a whole.

I'm not familiar with the terms 'life body', 'desire body', 'ego-complex' and I suspect these terms don't exist outside of Steiner related literature. So you can't introduce these terms in any argument or position (circular reasoning).
We can assume they exist, but we can also assume there's a 2000 year old frog living on Mars.

I'm asking, do you understand why their existence and functions in the human organism would be of immense importance to our scientific understanding of said organism? All you need to know about the terms for purposes of this question is what I already stated above in bold. Your position has been that what Steiner and other esoteric scientists are researching is completely outside the purview of 'science' as you understand it, so I'm pointing to how that research completely changes our scientific understanding of the human organism in its functioning, if it is valid. The question of whether it is valid or not is a matter for a logical, experiential-empirical investigation, just like any other scientific claim.

[Cleric K]

Lorenzo, just as I said to Anthony, it would be the best if the root cause is addressed. In this particular case, the talks about how SS classifies, are only peripheral quarrels that only circumambulate around the center from which all resistance stems.

All this can be exemplified with a joke:

A rabbit comes into the bakery, and asks the baker "Do you have any carrot cake?". The baker is quite surprised, but has to respond "no". The rabbit leaves the store. The next day, the rabbit returns, and asks the baker "Do you sell carrot cake now?", but the baker again has to say "no". After the rabbit leaves the baker feels kind of guilty that he can't sell the rabbit a carrot cake. He looks up the recipe for carrot cake, buys the needed ingredients and bakes one.
The next day, the rabbit returns and again asks the baker for carrot cake. The baker answers "Yes, I do!" with glee, happy to finally help this customer out. To this the rabbit answers "Disgusting, isn't it?"

In other words, all those request about evidence for spiritual science are empty talks. Because even if you were provided with mathematical or whatever proof of SS, you would simply say "Disgusting, isn't it?"

Why is that? We need to approach the center to find out.

For decades of meditation it has been your ideal to let go of thoughts and anything that feels to be intentionally willed, and instead see it as an independent world picture that simply 'happens' while you observe from the standpoint of a pure spectator. The experience of will imbued with intention is considered a falsity in that view. We can't even begin approaching PoF, let alone SS, unless one tries to find within the picture of reality, the proper place of will imbued with intuitive intent. That such a will phenomenon exists is clear. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning (if you were to only detachedly spectate).

So in your view what gives the confidence that we can safely ignore the existence of will imbued with intuitive intents, and behave as if we're a peripheral spectator (even though we still need to use the illusion if our spectator's perspective is to survive few more days)? Can you conceive of anything that may ever make you reconsider that? If your answer is "no" then it is all clear. Even if someone was to provide you with a proof sealed with red wax, you would just say "Disgusting, isn't it?"

I'm serious about this question. If you say that you are thoroughly convinced that will imbued with intuitive intent (best exemplified in thinking) is a pure illusion, and nothing will ever be able to even hint at you that there might be more to it, then there's no need whatsoever to discuss spiritual science. The latter is science of the spirit, and spirit simply doesn't exist in a one-sided world where there's only the Cosmic soul with its images that come and go without conscious cause.

[Federica]

But if you are really lucky, here comes a fundy Christian to you and tells you: Federica, this is actually not accurate. Out there, there is indeed some color consistency to what you are observing. I can tell you there’s a lake that’s always within the blue-gray tones, there’s grass that’s always light green, and even an ice-cream stand that is reliably pink. There is even a wood that lawfully appears within the dark green scale, always. You don’t have to believe me, just please follow the book in my hands. I’ll explain. You are actually wearing immersive glasses which conceal the lawful color patterns around you. But this book was written by the one who created the lawful color patterns and it tells us of a wonderful arrangement of colors. By learning the contents of this book you too come to know yourself that there’s actually no color chaos. Shall we read it together?”

Alright Anthony, if you can't see the difference, I will not insist - spiritual science does not need salespersons, you certainly don't need that either. And thanks for the feedback I will hopefully come up with better illustrations another time

[AshvinP]

If, in addition to the physical body, there is a life body, desire body, and ego-complex which regulate and influence the various systems/processes of the human organism, just as substantially and precisely as the physical body, then is there any possibility that this would not be relevant to scientific inquiry and understanding in the domains of chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.? Assuming these subtle members of the human organism to exist for the moment, do you see how there simply cannot exist a genuine science of the human organism without factoring their roles/functions in?

To be clear, in my previous post, I meant to suggest that it is in the very nature of studying the science of body-soul-spirit as a holistic structure, from within our own first-person being, that we are led to what can only be called 'moral development' of the individual, humanity, and Earth as a whole.

I'm not familiar with the terms 'life body', 'desire body', 'ego-complex' and I suspect these terms don't exist outside of Steiner related literature. So you can't introduce these terms in any argument or position (circular reasoning).
We can assume they exist, but we can also assume there's a 2000 year old frog living on Mars.

What Cleric just wrote is a great point and I was also about to write a post taking a 'step back' from the SS details, which perhaps I should not have brought up at this point, since there are much more fundamental issues to deal with. Here's another angle of approach to what he wrote.

Most of us here agree there is only one World Process, i.e. there is not one WP for the unfolding of outer perceptual processes and another separate one for the unfolding of inner experiential processes. Even the most cursory reflection reveals the two are always inextricably linked together. When we speak of soul-spirit processes here, we are speaking of the inner processes of willing-feeling-thinking.

So any unprejudiced investigation into this one WP will lead to genuine progress in recovering the hollowed out intuitions of the Cosmic Being, in which our own soul activity is embedded. Even spiritual scientists may have a tendency to speak of different sorts of 'science' or methods for the physical nature, the soul nature, the spirit nature, for the 'sacred' and the 'profane', which is perfectly valid differentiation when one wants to get into the details of how these domains of experience relate to one another and what sorts of inner dispositions are necessary to investigate them effectively. But, at the most big picture level, every science, secular or spiritual oriented, is proceeding along the same path. The secular scientists are unconsciously investigating the contours of soul-spirit processes as they study physical phenomena and derive various ideal principles which connect them together in a lawful manner. Spirit science is nothing but more conscious investigation. Cleric also illustrated this with various metaphors on this thread.

That heightened self-consciousness comes in the re-cognition of the 'will imbued with intuitive intent' that Cleric spoke of, which is the necessary counter-pole to the passive spectator imagery of the 'outer' world. In the metaphor of the crossword, it is the difference between the naïve (unconscious) person who assumes the rows and columns came into existence randomly, mindlessly, and/or instinctively, and that their scientific puzzle-solving task is to answer the hints (questions presented by phenomenal appearances of the WP) one at a time, in isolation, as completely 'external' facts, without any attempt to resonate with the holistic intuitive intent of the puzzle-maker. The more conscious investigator recognizes the will imbued with intuitive intent in the very existence of the puzzle, as well as in their own puzzle-solving activity, and proceeds along a course of increasing resonance between the two. So that is just another angle to consider Cleric's questions in light of, and I am interested to hear your answers as well.

[lorenzop]

I'm asking, do you understand why their existence and functions in the human organism would be of immense importance to our scientific understanding of said organism? All you need to know about the terms for purposes of this question is what I already stated above in bold. Your position has been that what Steiner and other esoteric scientists are researching is completely outside the purview of 'science' as you understand it, so I'm pointing to how that research completely changes our scientific understanding of the human organism in its functioning, if it is valid. The question of whether it is valid or not is a matter for a logical, experiential-empirical investigation, just like any other scientific claim.

. . . there may be a 'desire body' . . . until this 'desire body' has been identified and measured we have no idea if it exists or what importance it might have.
Until this time all we can do is speculate about a 'desire body' . . . we can speculate re all kinds of 'bodies' . . . maybe we have a 'fun body', or a 'sport body'

[Wayfarer]

For anyone born and raised in a neo-latin language like me, this is easier, as the word for science is literally a subsection of the word for knowledge. In English, the words ‘science’ and ‘knowledge’ don’t exhibit any connection and it’s a bit less intuitive. So it's important to ease the rigid contours of the various concepts we use and remain flexible, even if we would so gladly rely on some solid and fixed reference points.

It might be mentioned that in different languages, there are distinctions made between different kinds of knowledge, such as that between 'scientia' and 'sapientia' in Latin. 'Scientia' corresponds pretty well exactly to today's 'science', but 'sapientia' means 'wisdom' (and is also preserved in our species name, i.e. h. sapiens, although we don't often live up to it.)

In other cultures there are also such distinctions, for example in ancient Greek there is a distinction between techné, which loosely corresponds with artistic or technical skill, epistêmê which corresponds with precise knowledge, and phronesis, practical wisdom, denoting 'good judgement'. In Indian culture there are terms for discriminative wisdom such as Jñāna, Prajna, and Viveka, which have hardly any equivalent in the modern English lexicon (except perhaps 'gnosis' but it carries it's own historical connotations in the context of Western culture.)

In a culture where there is a wisdom tradition ( practically all pre-modern cultures) there was a shared understanding of what constitutes 'sapientia', the rules and standards of wisdom. In a secular, scientific culture, it's a hard distinction to draw as 'sapientia' has effectively been subjectivised - treated as solely a matter of individual judgement. Generally speaking, the lines tend to fall along the purported boundaries and relationships of 'science', 'religion' and 'philosophy' but those divisions themselves are the product of relatively recent history (the term 'scientist' and the distinction of science from natural philosophy only go back to the late 18th C).

[AshvinP]

I'm asking, do you understand why their existence and functions in the human organism would be of immense importance to our scientific understanding of said organism? All you need to know about the terms for purposes of this question is what I already stated above in bold. Your position has been that what Steiner and other esoteric scientists are researching is completely outside the purview of 'science' as you understand it, so I'm pointing to how that research completely changes our scientific understanding of the human organism in its functioning, if it is valid. The question of whether it is valid or not is a matter for a logical, experiential-empirical investigation, just like any other scientific claim.

. . . there may be a 'desire body' . . . until this 'desire body' has been identified and measured we I have no idea if it exists or what importance it might have.
Until this time all we I can do is speculate about a 'desire body' . . . we can speculate re all kinds of 'bodies' . . . maybe we have a 'fun body', or a 'sport body'

Leaving all that aside... do you plan on responding to Cleric's question?

[lorenzop]

For decades of meditation it has been your ideal to let go of thoughts and anything that feels to be intentionally willed, and instead see it as an independent world picture that simply 'happens' while you observe from the standpoint of a pure spectator. The experience of will imbued with intention is considered a falsity in that view. We can't even begin approaching PoF, let alone SS, unless one tries to find within the picture of reality, the proper place of will imbued with intuitive intent. That such a will phenomenon exists is clear. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning (if you were to only detachedly spectate).

Does SS predict that if two scientists, one a scientist who believes\sees an independent world picture that simply happens, and a second scientist who believes\sees the world in the cool way you do - if these two scientists measured the mass of an object, these two scientists would get different results? Or they would get same results but interpret them differently. I'm not sure how the POV of the scientist makes a difference in an observation. Can the difference between these two scientists be measured? Is there a test that establishes when an individul has achieved SS status, and their claims are to be trusted?

So in your view what gives the confidence that we can safely ignore the existence of will imbued with intuitive intents, and behave as if we're a peripheral spectator (even though we still need to use the illusion if our spectator's perspective is to survive few more days)? Can you conceive of anything that may ever make you reconsider that? If your answer is "no" then it is all clear. Even if someone was to provide you with a proof sealed with red wax, you would just say "Disgusting, isn't it?"

'the existence of will imbued with intuitive intents' . . . do you mean does the world have intuitive intent? . . . I do not know. If it does, I'm not sure if science is even possible.

[Anthony66]

But if you are really lucky, here comes a fundy Christian to you and tells you: Federica, this is actually not accurate. Out there, there is indeed some color consistency to what you are observing. I can tell you there’s a lake that’s always within the blue-gray tones, there’s grass that’s always light green, and even an ice-cream stand that is reliably pink. There is even a wood that lawfully appears within the dark green scale, always. You don’t have to believe me, just please follow the book in my hands. I’ll explain. You are actually wearing immersive glasses which conceal the lawful color patterns around you. But this book was written by the one who created the lawful color patterns and it tells us of a wonderful arrangement of colors. By learning the contents of this book you too come to know yourself that there’s actually no color chaos. Shall we read it together?”

Alright Anthony, if you can't see the difference, I will not insist - spiritual science does not need salespersons, you certainly don't need that either. And thanks for the feedback I will hopefully come up with better illustrations another time

For the record, I thought your sunglasses metaphor was excellent. My response was largely in jest although I did have a point to make. If one employs Bayesian reasoning, the prior probability of someone genuinely having access to special knowledge or a special key to knowledge must be low given the numerous contradictory claims of such in human history. Confirmatory evidence in favor of the claim is required to drive up that probability. The problem we have here (and with other such claims) is that that evidence is only available if you take the "plunge".