Cell Intelligence in Physiological & Morphological Spaces

[Federica]

Thanks, Federica, for sharing this reply and also linking him (and others, if approved) to the essay!

At first blush, his reply seems promising, but on the other hand, it speaks precisely to what we have been discussing here lately regarding the carrot and donkey, asymptotical approach, etc. In other words, ML is expecting the bridge between inner investigation and natural science to come from some other direction than his own intuitive exploration of his cognitive process and is happy to wait until the relevant insights miraculously arrive, pursuing "dependable benefits" and "actionable insights" that are rewarded by the corrupted scientific establishment in the meantime. If attention is pointed to something like Steiner's spiritual science, the implicit objection will be that it didn't garner the 'buy-in' of the wider scientific community, so that must be the proof that it isn't the actual bridge. It becomes a vicious intellectual cycle of avoiding the intimate bridge (that was truly established 2k years ago).

Alas, "eventually" becomes "never" as long as one refuses to dive into the imaginative waters of their thinking process. It isn't realized that the higher-order activity which establishes the bridge isn't experienced as the result of natural human development, but requires an effortful extension of cognitive development once the natural and cultural development of the intellect has come to its completion. Somewhat ironically, mathematical thinking is one of the few domains of experience for modern man that is comparable, and can actually be a useful stepping stone to imaginative thinking, but most people simply get stuck there, enchanted by the seeming unlimited practical power of their mathematical thinking.

I see what you are saying and it's probably so. Still, I find it quite remarkable that he uses the expression "first-person science", which he puts in balance against "third-person science".

[AshvinP]

Thanks, Federica, for sharing this reply and also linking him (and others, if approved) to the essay!

At first blush, his reply seems promising, but on the other hand, it speaks precisely to what we have been discussing here lately regarding the carrot and donkey, asymptotical approach, etc. In other words, ML is expecting the bridge between inner investigation and natural science to come from some other direction than his own intuitive exploration of his cognitive process and is happy to wait until the relevant insights miraculously arrive, pursuing "dependable benefits" and "actionable insights" that are rewarded by the corrupted scientific establishment in the meantime. If attention is pointed to something like Steiner's spiritual science, the implicit objection will be that it didn't garner the 'buy-in' of the wider scientific community, so that must be the proof that it isn't the actual bridge. It becomes a vicious intellectual cycle of avoiding the intimate bridge (that was truly established 2k years ago).

Alas, "eventually" becomes "never" as long as one refuses to dive into the imaginative waters of their thinking process. It isn't realized that the higher-order activity which establishes the bridge isn't experienced as the result of natural human development, but requires an effortful extension of cognitive development once the natural and cultural development of the intellect has come to its completion. Somewhat ironically, mathematical thinking is one of the few domains of experience for modern man that is comparable, and can actually be a useful stepping stone to imaginative thinking, but most people simply get stuck there, enchanted by the seeming unlimited practical power of their mathematical thinking.

I see what you are saying and it's probably so. Still, I find it quite remarkable that he uses the expression "first-person science", which he puts in balance against "third-person science".

Right, it would be interesting to know what such first-person science looks like to him. Particularly, I'm not sure if he is at all familiar with occult science, or rather he is speaking of some kind of Eastern contemplative practice. He seems to be referring more and more to the 'flow state' of cognition as a mode of attaining practical insights, for example in this comment. Perhaps he would be further stimulated by one of Steiner's quotes like this:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA227/En ... 19p01.html

In this way we can win through to active thinking, the rate of progress depending wholly on the individual. One man will get there in three weeks, if he perseveres with the same exercises. Another will take five years, another seven, and someone else nineteen, and so on. The essential point is that he should never relax his efforts. A moment will come when he recognises that his thinking has really changed: it no longer runs on in the old passive pictures but is inwardly full of energy—a force which, although he experiences it quite clearly, he knows to be just as much a force as the force required to raise an arm or point a finger. We come to know a thinking that seems to sustain our whole being, a thinking that can hit against an obstacle. This is no figure of speech, but a concrete truth that we can experience. We know that ordinary thinking does no such thing. When I run up against a wall and get hurt, my physical body has received a blow through force of contact. This force of contact depends on my being able to hit my body against objects. It is I who do the hitting. The ordinary passive thinking does not hit anything, but simply presents itself to be hit, for it has no reality; it is only a picture. But the thinking to which we come in the way described is a reality, something in which we live. It can hit against something as a finger can hit the wall. And just as we know that our finger cannot go through the wall, so we know that with this real thinking we cannot fathom everything. It is a first step. We have to take this step, this turning of one's own active thinking into an organ of touch for the soul, so that we may feel ourselves thinking in the same way that we walk, grasp or touch; so that we know we are living in a real being, not just in ordinary thinking which merely creates images, but in a reality, in the soul's organ of touch which we ourselves have become.

That is the first step—to change our thinking so that we feel: Now you yourself have become the thinker. That rounds off everything. With this thinking it is not the same as with physical touch. An arm, for instance, grows as we grow, so that when we are full-grown our proportions remain correct. But the thinking that has become active is like a snail—able to extend feelers or to draw them in again. In this thinking we live in a being certainly full of force but inwardly mobile, moving backwards and forwards, inwardly active. With this far-reaching organ of touch we can—as we shall see—feel about in the spiritual world; or, if this is spiritually painful, draw back.

I think it's important for people to eventually realize that the 'much weirder things' have already been explored before and are well documented, that there are copious resources to draw upon for guidance in this mysterious supersensible domain. It's difficult for people to make that connection if they are just considering independent phenomenological posts by unknowns like us. That's why it would be helpful if someone like ML could have a spark of insight about how his own germinal intuitions have been thoroughly cultivated and expanded when reading a prolific philosopher and scientist like Steiner, who is certainly controversial in mainstream science but could at least be considered a known entity.

[Federica]

Right, it would be interesting to know what such first-person science looks like to him. Particularly, I'm not sure if he is at all familiar with occult science, or rather he is speaking of some kind of Eastern contemplative practice. He seems to be referring more and more to the 'flow state' of cognition as a mode of attaining practical insights, for example in this comment. Perhaps he would be further stimulated by one of Steiner's quotes like this:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA227/En ... 19p01.html

In this way we can win through to active thinking, the rate of progress depending wholly on the individual. One man will get there in three weeks, if he perseveres with the same exercises. Another will take five years, another seven, and someone else nineteen, and so on. The essential point is that he should never relax his efforts. A moment will come when he recognises that his thinking has really changed: it no longer runs on in the old passive pictures but is inwardly full of energy—a force which, although he experiences it quite clearly, he knows to be just as much a force as the force required to raise an arm or point a finger. We come to know a thinking that seems to sustain our whole being, a thinking that can hit against an obstacle. This is no figure of speech, but a concrete truth that we can experience. We know that ordinary thinking does no such thing. When I run up against a wall and get hurt, my physical body has received a blow through force of contact. This force of contact depends on my being able to hit my body against objects. It is I who do the hitting. The ordinary passive thinking does not hit anything, but simply presents itself to be hit, for it has no reality; it is only a picture. But the thinking to which we come in the way described is a reality, something in which we live. It can hit against something as a finger can hit the wall. And just as we know that our finger cannot go through the wall, so we know that with this real thinking we cannot fathom everything. It is a first step. We have to take this step, this turning of one's own active thinking into an organ of touch for the soul, so that we may feel ourselves thinking in the same way that we walk, grasp or touch; so that we know we are living in a real being, not just in ordinary thinking which merely creates images, but in a reality, in the soul's organ of touch which we ourselves have become.

That is the first step—to change our thinking so that we feel: Now you yourself have become the thinker. That rounds off everything. With this thinking it is not the same as with physical touch. An arm, for instance, grows as we grow, so that when we are full-grown our proportions remain correct. But the thinking that has become active is like a snail—able to extend feelers or to draw them in again. In this thinking we live in a being certainly full of force but inwardly mobile, moving backwards and forwards, inwardly active. With this far-reaching organ of touch we can—as we shall see—feel about in the spiritual world; or, if this is spiritually painful, draw back.

I think it's important for people to eventually realize that the 'much weirder things' have already been explored before and are well documented, that there are copious resources to draw upon for guidance in this mysterious supersensible domain. It's difficult for people to make that connection if they are just considering independent phenomenological posts by unknowns like us. That's why it would be helpful if someone like ML could have a spark of insight about how his own germinal intuitions have been thoroughly cultivated and expanded when reading a prolific philosopher and scientist like Steiner, who is certainly controversial in mainstream science but could at least be considered a known entity.

I am not sure I agree with the last paragraph. ML wants to reason with the minds of today. I guess it would be difficult to persuade him to spend time reading Steiner. Even a short quote - no matter how striking, like the one you have shared above - would risk sounding off to him, I suspect. I think we can keep nudging him in future articles, to start with. Then usually things begin to converge, when enough intent is directed and maintained on endeavors, like, in this case, this bridging purpose. I doubt we can count on Steiner directly, in my understanding. And, after all, as a recognized lead scientist, he answers comments by unknowns. For me the main obstacle, by far, is - as it is suggested in his reply - the focus on transhumanist breakthroughs, as the main priority: relieving people's suffering can't wait.

[Cleric]

"You are right, the third person science of engineering is not the complete story. It's the part I started with because that is how we make meaningful, reliable, undeniable progress and make these ideas palatable and usable to the mainstream community. Eventually it must certainly include the first person science, turning inwards, in which the investigator is altered by the process of investigation. Many people have tried starting on that end, and it has massive value but it hasn't connected to the scientific enterprise in a way that garners the buy-in of the scientific community or produced dependable benefits for those who are suffering and are waiting for actionable insights that will help them. We will try to combine them eventually."

Yeah, I think this is the kind of Catch-22 that will haunt humanity for quite some time. Much of our technology, especially in the medical field, tries to cure problems that wouldn't be there in the first place if we lived life with greater understanding and higher ideal. But admittedly, such a transformation of humanity can't happen suddenly nor for everyone uniformly, so there'll be a lot of time of overlap, where even people who sincerely try to transform themselves, still wouldn't be able to overcome certain inertial karmic patterns of the past, which cause diseases that may need conventional therapy. But as Ashvin mentions, in ML's case, deeper insight into the true state of affairs can possibly benefit his work. True, it will also render many present goals as shortsighted and unnecessary, but overall it could save a lot of Brownian groping in the dark. To be sure, I have no idea what his first 'actionable insights' could be. Furthermore, even his present work (being still somewhat compatible with the scientific enterprise) hasn't produced any 'remedies'. They are still only experimenting, so any novel perspective on the matter should be welcome.

[Federica]

"You are right, the third person science of engineering is not the complete story. It's the part I started with because that is how we make meaningful, reliable, undeniable progress and make these ideas palatable and usable to the mainstream community. Eventually it must certainly include the first person science, turning inwards, in which the investigator is altered by the process of investigation. Many people have tried starting on that end, and it has massive value but it hasn't connected to the scientific enterprise in a way that garners the buy-in of the scientific community or produced dependable benefits for those who are suffering and are waiting for actionable insights that will help them. We will try to combine them eventually."

Yeah, I think this is the kind of Catch-22 that will haunt humanity for quite some time. Much of our technology, especially in the medical field, tries to cure problems that wouldn't be there in the first place if we lived life with greater understanding and higher ideal. But admittedly, such a transformation of humanity can't happen suddenly nor for everyone uniformly, so there'll be a lot of time of overlap, where even people who sincerely try to transform themselves, still wouldn't be able to overcome certain inertial karmic patterns of the past, which cause diseases that may need conventional therapy.

But once those problems are there and cause diseases, these can always be treated with spiritual-scientific therapy, even if the person has not transformed themselves, correct? The issue is that there aren't enough skilled practitioners, rather than that conventional therapy is needed. A medicine that does not recognize and leverages the precise correspondance between the microcosm of the human organism and the macrocosm of the universe will never be needed. It will only be past, and overall harmful, no matter how futuristic-looking it gets.

And it must be added that much of our medical technology does not try to primarily cure problems. Not all of it, but much of it, has other priorities.

[Cleric]

But once those problems are there and cause diseases, these can always be treated with spiritual-scientific therapy, even if the person has not transformed themselves, correct? The issue is that there aren't enough skilled practitioners, rather than that conventional therapy is needed. A medicine that does not recognize and leverages the precise correspondance between the microcosm of the human organism and the macrocosm of the universe will never be needed. It will only be past, and overall harmful, no matter how futuristic-looking it gets.

And it must be added that much of our medical technology does not try to primarily cure problems. Not all of it, but much of it, has other priorities.

Sure. Of course, the character of future therapy will also change in the sense that the patient will need to participate in the transformative process. In other words, every disease is a spiritual trial that should lead to inner transformation (much like it is preserved in most shamanic cultures). The trouble in our age is that people want to be healed despite all the patterns of behavior that ruin their health in the first place. In the simplest terms, they want to eat and drink to excess without any repercussions - they want the pill that will eliminate all the ill effects and leave only the sensual pleasures. As long as present medicine seeks to provide that pill, it certainly keeps the vicious cycle going. In this respect, the transhumanistic attempts can be even more harmful than the allopathic pills, since various elemental forces can be unleashed. This is one more reason (if not the main reason in this particular case) to seek deeper insights because even if they do not immediately lead to actionable results, they can at least provide guidance about which of the actionable ones are worthy of giving way.

One domain of medicine that probably will have its rightful place for some more time is traumatology. In the synchronistic culture of the future, even accidents will be minimized. We can imagine this through a metaphor. We know the clicking sound of the Geiger-Müller counter. As we navigate through space it informs us whether we are entering an area with increased radiation. As Imaginative consciousness gets more developed in the future, the flow of existence will become temporally richer. Instead of living entirely at the horizon of collapse, the interference of intuitive intentional curvatures will agitate certain phenomena in inner space. For example, if we are walking through a hazardous environment, for example an abandoned building, we can imagine how the different paths we can take are like superimposed tunnels of experience. One of these paths may lead through a room whose floor would collapse under our weight. Then as we intuitively bend our flow in one or another direction we would feel certain resistance in the hazardous direction, it would feel uneasy, fractious, 'clicking', etc. Note that we may not be able to clearly see what exactly would happen were we to go in that direction. The reason is that the laws of physics are part of the elemental flow spectrum of the highest beings. Thus whether we'll be at all able to sense the danger depends on our attunement to the contextual hierarchies.

[AshvinP]

Right, it would be interesting to know what such first-person science looks like to him. Particularly, I'm not sure if he is at all familiar with occult science, or rather he is speaking of some kind of Eastern contemplative practice. He seems to be referring more and more to the 'flow state' of cognition as a mode of attaining practical insights, for example in this comment. Perhaps he would be further stimulated by one of Steiner's quotes like this:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA227/En ... 19p01.html

In this way we can win through to active thinking, the rate of progress depending wholly on the individual. One man will get there in three weeks, if he perseveres with the same exercises. Another will take five years, another seven, and someone else nineteen, and so on. The essential point is that he should never relax his efforts. A moment will come when he recognises that his thinking has really changed: it no longer runs on in the old passive pictures but is inwardly full of energy—a force which, although he experiences it quite clearly, he knows to be just as much a force as the force required to raise an arm or point a finger. We come to know a thinking that seems to sustain our whole being, a thinking that can hit against an obstacle. This is no figure of speech, but a concrete truth that we can experience. We know that ordinary thinking does no such thing. When I run up against a wall and get hurt, my physical body has received a blow through force of contact. This force of contact depends on my being able to hit my body against objects. It is I who do the hitting. The ordinary passive thinking does not hit anything, but simply presents itself to be hit, for it has no reality; it is only a picture. But the thinking to which we come in the way described is a reality, something in which we live. It can hit against something as a finger can hit the wall. And just as we know that our finger cannot go through the wall, so we know that with this real thinking we cannot fathom everything. It is a first step. We have to take this step, this turning of one's own active thinking into an organ of touch for the soul, so that we may feel ourselves thinking in the same way that we walk, grasp or touch; so that we know we are living in a real being, not just in ordinary thinking which merely creates images, but in a reality, in the soul's organ of touch which we ourselves have become.

That is the first step—to change our thinking so that we feel: Now you yourself have become the thinker. That rounds off everything. With this thinking it is not the same as with physical touch. An arm, for instance, grows as we grow, so that when we are full-grown our proportions remain correct. But the thinking that has become active is like a snail—able to extend feelers or to draw them in again. In this thinking we live in a being certainly full of force but inwardly mobile, moving backwards and forwards, inwardly active. With this far-reaching organ of touch we can—as we shall see—feel about in the spiritual world; or, if this is spiritually painful, draw back.

I think it's important for people to eventually realize that the 'much weirder things' have already been explored before and are well documented, that there are copious resources to draw upon for guidance in this mysterious supersensible domain. It's difficult for people to make that connection if they are just considering independent phenomenological posts by unknowns like us. That's why it would be helpful if someone like ML could have a spark of insight about how his own germinal intuitions have been thoroughly cultivated and expanded when reading a prolific philosopher and scientist like Steiner, who is certainly controversial in mainstream science but could at least be considered a known entity.

I am not sure I agree with the last paragraph. ML wants to reason with the minds of today. I guess it would be difficult to persuade him to spend time reading Steiner. Even a short quote - no matter how striking, like the one you have shared above - would risk sounding off to him, I suspect. I think we can keep nudging him in future articles, to start with. Then usually things begin to converge, when enough intent is directed and maintained on endeavors, like, in this case, this bridging purpose. I doubt we can count on Steiner directly, in my understanding. And, after all, as a recognized lead scientist, he answers comments by unknowns. For me the main obstacle, by far, is - as it is suggested in his reply - the focus on transhumanist breakthroughs, as the main priority: relieving people's suffering can't wait.

What ML wants and what he would want if he prayerfully sought a more complete picture of what's at stake, are two different things. I personally can't imagine anyone rooted in the Western scientific intellect (rather than more 'Eastern' devotional feeling) orienting toward supersensible realities without going diligently through Steiner. Our phenomenological articles can certainly serve as a stimulus in that direction, and I realize it's problematic for many people to bring up Steiner at the outset, but eventually, I think it is necessary to encounter such an individuality to flesh out the phenomenological foundations and the evolutionary stakes at hand. The articles can only help spark a preliminary interest in thoroughly exploring novel domains of supersensible meaning that illuminate the rhythms of existence.

This is a big part of the Catch-22 as well because the phenomenological bridge doesn't have so much of an impact on those who haven't explored what's at stake yet, the deeper implications. To such people, the reasoning may feel very sound and they may be happy to 'agree' and say more work is needed in this direction, but at the end of the day, it's very difficult to see how actionable insights can result from 'intuitive exploration of the real-time cognitive process'. At best, it sounds like a way to better develop computational algorithms based on mapping out logical thinking networks. How can such intuitive exploration open up new fields of research, how can they translate into innovative healing methods?

I am reminded of OMA's exercise of how sometimes we should call forth the opposite inner disposition to what we aim for. For example, when we have trouble falling asleep, we can develop a concentrated intent to remain awake, and then we may find ourselves dozing off before we know it. On the other hand, if we keep forcefully pressing toward the sleep state, we will probably remain frustratingly awake. Likewise, if we aim to develop our degrees of freedom for independent spiritual research, sometimes we can voluntarily surrender our thinking consciousness to the Wisdom of the Initiates, as embedded in sacred texts and esoteric writings, and let it flow through us like a fresh gushing mountain stream carrying away impurities in the valleys of our soul life.

Steiner's lecture cycles, in particular, and even a single lecture, can be an endless reservoir for untapped potential insights. As Cleric indicated, I think it's likely someone such as ML, with his already established knowledge and intuitive orientation, could work through Steiner's natural scientific lectures and reach insights for new actionable research questions and methods that no Anthroposophist has yet suspected. I think we have all probably felt, when encountering portions of Steiner's work, that we were astounded by how someone had already thoroughly articulated and elaborated some intuitions we were only groping around in the dark. For someone like ML, I think this feeling would be order of magnitudes greater than the average soul, given the extensive overlaps with his somewhat fleshed out intuitions about the morphic spaces, the nature of 'selves', the nature of memory, the Platonic space of cognitive archetypes, and so on. It can serve as endless inspiration once we humbly realize that we are not at the apex of scientific research, but have been unknowingly standing on the shoulders of Giants who are still present and active in our cognitive flow, supporting our 'independent' research process every step of the way.

[Federica]

What ML wants and what he would want if he prayerfully sought a more complete picture of what's at stake, are two different things. I personally can't imagine anyone rooted in the Western scientific intellect (rather than more 'Eastern' devotional feeling) orienting toward supersensible realities without going diligently through Steiner. Our phenomenological articles can certainly serve as a stimulus in that direction, and I realize it's problematic for many people to bring up Steiner at the outset, but eventually, I think it is necessary to encounter such an individuality to flesh out the phenomenological foundations and the evolutionary stakes at hand. The articles can only help spark a preliminary interest in thoroughly exploring novel domains of supersensible meaning that illuminate the rhythms of existence.

This is a big part of the Catch-22 as well because the phenomenological bridge doesn't have so much of an impact on those who haven't explored what's at stake yet, the deeper implications. To such people, the reasoning may feel very sound and they may be happy to 'agree' and say more work is needed in this direction, but at the end of the day, it's very difficult to see how actionable insights can result from 'intuitive exploration of the real-time cognitive process'. At best, it sounds like a way to better develop computational algorithms based on mapping out logical thinking networks. How can such intuitive exploration open up new fields of research, how can they translate into innovative healing methods?

I am reminded of OMA's exercise of how sometimes we should call forth the opposite inner disposition to what we aim for. For example, when we have trouble falling asleep, we can develop a concentrated intent to remain awake, and then we may find ourselves dozing off before we know it. On the other hand, if we keep forcefully pressing toward the sleep state, we will probably remain frustratingly awake. Likewise, if we aim to develop our degrees of freedom for independent spiritual research, sometimes we can voluntarily surrender our thinking consciousness to the Wisdom of the Initiates, as embedded in sacred texts and esoteric writings, and let it flow through us like a fresh gushing mountain stream carrying away impurities in the valleys of our soul life.

Steiner's lecture cycles, in particular, and even a single lecture, can be an endless reservoir for untapped potential insights. As Cleric indicated, I think it's likely someone such as ML, with his already established knowledge and intuitive orientation, could work through Steiner's natural scientific lectures and reach insights for new actionable research questions and methods that no Anthroposophist has yet suspected. I think we have all probably felt, when encountering portions of Steiner's work, that we were astounded by how someone had already thoroughly articulated and elaborated some intuitions we were only groping around in the dark. For someone like ML, I think this feeling would be order of magnitudes greater than the average soul, given the extensive overlaps with his somewhat fleshed out intuitions about the morphic spaces, the nature of 'selves', the nature of memory, the Platonic space of cognitive archetypes, and so on. It can serve as endless inspiration once we humbly realize that we are not at the apex of scientific research, but have been unknowingly standing on the shoulders of Giants who are still present and active in our cognitive flow, supporting our 'independent' research process every step of the way.

Of course I agree with all you are saying. It's only that it seems like an enormous leap that ML would carve out time from his agenda to patiently study lectures from a century ago in search for actionable insights. But perhaps your essays can lead him there, who knows. In which case, the most effective quotes for the purpose would be initially the ones that more directly connect with his work, I believe. So he might most directly realize that someone else already paved, built, and fully decorated the morpho spaces research way, every step of the way. Like this one for example:


"Especially in lower organisms, we encounter very interesting forces. For example, if you take any embryo that has advanced to the gastrula stage, you can cut it in half down the middle and each piece will close up and be able to develop the three parts, upper, middle, and lower, of its own intestinal tract. If we cut a gastrula in half we discover that each half behaves the way the uncut hole would have behaved. You know that this experiment can be carried further with lower animals, even earthworms, and that pieces cut off of certain lower animals will regrow, that is the animals internal formative forces replace the parts we have cut off. These formative forces must be pointed out objectively, not merely by hypothesizing about some sort of life force, but really objectively. If we observe more closely, if we really follow what is actually going on we can see, for example, that if we cut off part of a frog's body at a very early stage of its development, the rest of the organism puts out a new part. If your way of thinking is materialistically inclined, you may say that there are 'forces of tension' present in the wound that will replace what used to grow there.

But that cannot be the case. If I cut an organism here, and a new part developed through forces of tension at the site of the wound, what grew back would have to be what is immediately adjacent to the wound. But in reality that is not the case. In reality if you cut off a frog larvae's terminal organs, such as the tail, or even the head - or the antenna in other animals - what grows back is not the same as the adjacent part. It is the part that the organism needs. This means that it is totally impossible for forces of tension intrinsic to the wound site to put forth what develops there. On the contrary, we must assume that the whole organism is involved in some way. We can actually trace such things as they occur in lower organisms.

Now that I have shown you how to pursue a question like this, you can expand it to all the empirical reports that have accumulated in the literature to date, and, in each instance, you will see that this is the only path leading to insight into the matter. Of course, you will say that this is not the case in human beings. It would be nice if we could cut off someone's finger or arm and it would simply grow back. But it doesn't, so the question is: what happened to the formative forces of growth that are so evident in lower animals? What has happened to them in the human organism? Have they been lost? Are they simply not present? Anyone who knows how to observe nature objectively will understand that this is the only path to a natural view of the connection between the spiritual and physical aspects of the human being. In the human being, the forces that we recognize here as sculptural forces, as it were, forces that create forms directly out of substance, have simply been lifted out of the organs and are present only in the human soul and spirit, that is where they are. By being lifted out of the organs - by not remaining organ forming forces - they are available to human beings for other purposes and are present in the functions of the human soul and spirit. Whenever I think or feel I think and feel with the same forces that are sculpturally active in the plant kingdom or in the lower animals. I would not be able to think, feel, or will without these same forces that I have extracted from matter."

https://steiner.wiki/GA_312#DRITTER_VOR ... %A4rz_1920


PS: my last comment is now online, so perhaps ML has read your essay

[AshvinP]

In which case, the most effective quotes for the purpose would be initially the ones that more directly connect with his work, I believe. So he might most directly realize that someone else already paved, built, and fully decorated the morpho spaces research way, every step of the way. Like this one for example:

Yes, that is a great quote! It's hard to imagine anyone reading it with genuine interest and failing to see how it relates deeply to ML's current research focus, at least enough to be stimulated toward further investigation. I remember the initial times that I encountered such passages from Steiner and was astonished that a spiritual 'guru' could speak about natural scientific phenomena with such precision and clarity! Perhaps an opportunity will soon arise to share it with him.

I do hope he read the essay, but I doubt we'll find out anytime soon

[Federica]

Of course, the character of future therapy will also change in the sense that the patient will need to participate in the transformative process. In other words, every disease is a spiritual trial that should lead to inner transformation (much like it is preserved in most shamanic cultures).

Thanks, Cleric.
This reminds me that, in an even larger sense, spiritual transformation can be seen as a disease process. Disease is the imbalance that allows for a rebalancing process to take place, leading to a somewhat more advanced phase. Organic disease is the opportunity to leverage soul-spiritual forces - with the more or less consciously acknowledged aid of material compounds and practices - to overcome their own disharmonies, individual and beyond. As Steiner says, blood formation is a constitutionally ill process, since blood constantly needs healing, through material iron, in order to preserve its quality and function. Therapy, in this sense, can be seen as a way to iteratively close and tighten the manifold circles of evolutionary progression, by bringing the material world into the loop, to counter the imbalances by means of their corresponding natural processes, in this way making the human organism the rhythmic crucible for the bouncing back and reunion of all dualities spread out across natural and soul space.