Meditation exercise on "separate me"

[Federica]

Do you agree that 'freedom for us now in the physical world' cannot be understood outside the context of spiritual reality? That is sort of rhetorical, because clearly you do. We could put that in the PoF terms as the context of our intuitive thinking activity. Or, if we want to get finer and more practical resolution (which should be sought by a living understanding of PoF), then we are speaking of the liminal spaces of the hysteresis rhythm. For the 'here and now', the nested rhythms of our thinking-perception, sleep-waking, and death-birth, are all necessary to explore. (I would also argue that the rhythm of planetary incarnations is also necessary if we want to further deepen our understanding, but we can leave that aside.) Remember, we are always asleep in our will and dreaming in our feeling, even while we are awake in our normal thinking during the day. There aren't three different worlds, physical, soul, and spiritual, stacked one over the other, but they are superimposed.

Another way to put it is that we simply need to explore the levels of higher cognition, which is the same exact thing. The intellectual perspective alone cannot tell us anything about the unfolding of our freedom (except the freedom from being ruled by animal passions that we have already won). By explore, I don't mean we need to delve into the complex details of spiritual science across the threshold, but simply account for these rhythms or higher cognitive layers in some way or another. We can't understand freedom here and now if we isolate ourselves to the physical spectrum, because our freedom comes precisely from the rhythmic interaction of our increasingly conscious spiritual activity with the soul, life, and physical spectrums.

(btw, I am trying to structure my comments so as not to distract from Cleric's endeavor of taking 'very small steps'. In other words, I am only pointing to the need for exploration, and why you have miscontrued previous attempts to explore, rather than trying to launch into a parallel exploration at this time)


I was saying that you are projecting that 'phenomenological abyss' into the intention of the metaphor, because the metaphor is being interpreted only within its physical context, whereas the metaphor never intended such a limited context. (it's odd, because I see where you quoted the bridge design comparison from Cleric, but can't find the original comment - if I remember correctly, it was mostly an off-hand remark in a post which was focusing on the phenomenology of the 'I' across the threshold, which is where our deeper spiritual activity unfolds).

What I am pointing to here is that you are misunderstanding the bridge metaphor, and presumably whatever other metaphors have been employed in this current endeavor, because you are projecting the phenomenological abyss idea into it, and then using that as a basis to argue that Cleric must be only speaking of something similar to 'freedom to choose a variety of candies in the candy shop'. That this isn't the intention of the endeavor, is indicated here:

In both cases the hourglass shape is not properly taken into account. As soon as we cross the threshold, we find multiplicity again although in a very different way.

*******

Ok, thank you, Ashvin, for the detailed reset.

Do you agree that 'freedom for us now in the physical world' cannot be understood outside the context of spiritual reality? That is sort of rhetorical, because clearly you do.

Well, it can. Suffice to look at the history of philosophy. It's just not what you do, and not what I am trying to do either. I got the reset.

it's odd, because I see where you quoted the bridge design comparison from Cleric, but can't find the original comment

Oh, easy. I remember many keywords from that post. You'll see, it's not exactly as you remember. But it doesn't matter now.

In any case, I will remember to remain open to the fact that those metaphors are not limited to the physical spectrum. I would now need to read through the history of this thread again with this idea in mind. A parallel question comes to mind: do you say that the same applies to the previously quoted essay the idea of freedom?

[AshvinP]

In any case, I will remember to remain open to the fact that those metaphors are not limited to the physical spectrum. I would now need to read through the history of this thread again with this idea in mind. A parallel question comes to mind: do you say that the same applies to the previously quoted essay the idea of freedom?

Federica,

I don't think so. It seems to me that Max is critiquing the standard reductive ideas of freedom, whether physicalist or 'mentalist', which indeed presuppose freedom must be something akin to the ability to choose more and more different kinds of candies in the store, or micro-manage more and more of the sub-parts of a decision to choose a candy. Those views are all within the standard reductive paradigm. Besides that, the essay is unsurprisingly well aligned with PoF understanding of free spiritual activity as that which progressively and vertically engages the rhythmic process of attuning to and incarnating loving ideals. And it's also interesting how Max points out the flaws in all the ways of defining 'freedom', but doesn't try to define it himself, except as something realized within the experience of spiritual activity itself.

But the question, as usual, then becomes how we translate this conceptual understanding above into the first-person experiential language of our practical stream of intuitive becoming within the context of those ideals, so that we do in fact have something more to say about it. That is basically the language of higher cognition and spiritual science, or similary the language that Cleric has developed here through various interesting metaphors. There is always a risk with such metaphors that they are taken at the physical level, which is also why he always adds, "don't take this too literally" or something similar and explains what the precise purpose of the metaphor within the context it is used. For ex. we could revisit the following one from the Levin thread.

Now what is configuration space? I won’t go into technical details but let’s approach this in the context of our needs. As a crude analogy consider the typical organization structure:


https://i0.wp.com/www.iedunote.com/img/ ... =100&ssl=1


Here we can say that each level operates in a different configuration space, which represents the corresponding goals and the means of attaining them. The CEO operates with global goals. He says “I want to double the profits over the next year.” From his point of view he’s following a geodesic through corporate goal space. He’s at point A with profits X and wants to move towards point B where the profits are 2X. The geodesic is the shortest path between A and B in that goal space. This bends the configuration space of the middle level management. Now they have certain constraints within which they operate. They also have their own geodesics, their mid-level goals. These in turn bend the configuration space of the low level management.

In the configuration space of the CEO, reality looks like traversing a space of high level goals. These are the elements of reality at that level – merging of companies, new branches, new product lines and so on. This is the landscape through which the CEO’s geodesic streams. It’s a level where the details of the mid and low level management are abstracted. This doesn’t mean that this level is an absolute master control over the lower. If the CEO sets unrealistic goals, the lower level will face certain impossibilities and will respectively bend his own morphic space where his geodesic will deviate from the intended goal.

At the same time, the CEO’s space itself is being bent by higher order spaces. For example, national and global economics, politics, legislation. The CEO’s space is influenced by both the lower and higher, and at the same time he works upon the lower (by issuing orders) or even the higher (for example by lobbying).

It is natural that man of today feels certain antipathy towards such hierarchical structures because they are indeed not exactly natural. They mimic nature in a mechanical way but they are not exactly how Nature does it. Thus we should keep in mind that the corporate hierarchy is only an analogy.

Now one could easily lose sight of the runup to the metaphor and the last cautioning paragraph at the end and object, 'all this talk of our intuitive stream of becoming as CEOs bending configuration spaces and what not smells like undue focus on serialized states leading to actions, and that's the opposite of freedom or irrelevant to it'. But then one is simply ingoring the precise context and conceiving the analogy on the "flatland" that Max mentions and criticizing their own flat conception of it. We know all too well how this often occurs when people investigate the reality of higher cognition. Their expectations of how it should be are pre-conditioned by their own cognitive experience and then, when those expectations inevitably turn out to look absurd, they use that as a reason to dismiss it. And we all do this to some extent because higher cognition is a first in World Evolution - we simply don't know what to expect or how to think about it while completely quieting our expectations. That's why it takes post upon post, metaphor upon metaphor, lecture upon lecture, etc. (even if they are all pointing mostly to the same underlying points), and most importanly our own patience and discipline and strength of will, to gradually accustom ourselves to a different way of seeing the evolving relations of the Spirit within the conceptual landscape.

[Federica]

It seems to me that Max is critiquing the standard reductive ideas of freedom, whether physicalist or 'mentalist', which indeed presuppose freedom must be something akin to the ability to choose more and more different kinds of candies in the store, or micro-manage more and more of the sub-parts of a decision to choose a candy. Those views are all within the standard reductive paradigm. Besides that, the essay is unsurprisingly well aligned with PoF understanding of free spiritual activity as that which progressively and vertically engages the rhythmic process of attuning to and incarnating loving ideals. And it's also interesting how Max points out the flaws in all the ways of defining 'freedom', but doesn't try to define it himself, except as something realized within the experience of spiritual activity itself.

I believe he does try to define freedom, as poiesis:

The will is free insofar as the heart and mind are free from everything that obstructs their vision of the Good. Freedom means being able to will the Good and seeing, or attaining to the Idea of the Good is a condition sine qua non of willing it. Hence, only God can be ultimately free because only God sees everything. But we can become so by participation.

But the question, as usual, then becomes how we translate this conceptual understanding above into the first-person experiential language of our practical stream of intuitive becoming within the context of those ideals, so that we do in fact have something more to say about it. That is basically the language of higher cognition and spiritual science, or similary the language that Cleric has developed here through various interesting metaphors. There is always a risk with such metaphors that they are taken at the physical level, which is also why he always adds, "don't take this too literally" or something similar and explains what the precise purpose of the metaphor within the context it is used.

The "more" I personally have to say about it, is not higher cognition, but it's still connected to the fact of having removed "some obstacles that obstruct the vision of the Good." It has to do with the small things Cleric lastly mentioned, that is the changes in how I conduct and experience everyday life now, compared to one year ago. These changes could be called problematic in various respects. Nevertheless from an inner perspective, they feel freeing, which is the only reason why I have managed to sustain them so far, to some extent, despite the 'problems' they create. So even without higher cognition, there is something that breaks through.

Now one could easily lose sight of the runup to the metaphor and the last cautioning paragraph at the end and object, 'all this talk of our intuitive stream of becoming as CEOs bending configuration spaces and what not smells like undue focus on serialized states leading to actions, and that's the opposite of freedom or irrelevant to it'. But then one is simply ingoring the precise context and conceiving the analogy on the "flatland" that Max mentions and criticizing their own flat conception of it. We know all too well how this often occurs when people investigate the reality of higher cognition. Their expectations of how it should be are pre-conditioned by their own cognitive experience and then, when those expectations inevitably turn out to look absurd, they use that as a reason to dismiss it. And we all do this to some extent because higher cognition is a first in World Evolution - we simply don't know what to expect or how to think about it while completely quieting our expectations. That's why it takes post upon post, metaphor upon metaphor, lecture upon lecture, etc. (even if they are all pointing mostly to the same underlying points), and most importantly our own patience and discipline and strength of will, to gradually accustom ourselves to a different way of seeing the evolving relations of the Spirit within the conceptual landscape.

I find this particularly pedagogical, and well explained, Ashvin, thank you.
Cleric - this prompts me to apologize to you for the too assertive tone I have used to express my incomprehension. Not that I comprehend everything now, but I realize I only could express myself so garishly by being too anchored in expectations, and too little open to the new.

[AshvinP]

It seems to me that Max is critiquing the standard reductive ideas of freedom, whether physicalist or 'mentalist', which indeed presuppose freedom must be something akin to the ability to choose more and more different kinds of candies in the store, or micro-manage more and more of the sub-parts of a decision to choose a candy. Those views are all within the standard reductive paradigm. Besides that, the essay is unsurprisingly well aligned with PoF understanding of free spiritual activity as that which progressively and vertically engages the rhythmic process of attuning to and incarnating loving ideals. And it's also interesting how Max points out the flaws in all the ways of defining 'freedom', but doesn't try to define it himself, except as something realized within the experience of spiritual activity itself.

I believe he does try to define freedom, as poiesis:

The will is free insofar as the heart and mind are free from everything that obstructs their vision of the Good. Freedom means being able to will the Good and seeing, or attaining to the Idea of the Good is a condition sine qua non of willing it. Hence, only God can be ultimately free because only God sees everything. But we can become so by participation.

Right, but there is a big difference between this and what we normally do in 'defining'. The latter is generally employed as a set of conditions which must be met before a certain state can be said to exist, in this case 'freedom'. That is the standard reductive approach. But notice how many verbs are contained in Max's "definition" - to will the Good, seeing, attaining to the Idea of the Good, become so by participation. It all indicates an experiential path of becoming which is free-ing, not necessarily states which are "free" at any given snapshot of history based on the existence of certain conditions. And we have to remember that, even when we use the verbs and understand it as an experiential path, the risk of turning that into a mere definition is still present.

Now if we are to ask, what does it practically mean to "will the Good" or "attain to the Idea of the Good", I'm sure Max would say that is a matter for the esoteric path of intuitive thinking. Any further conceptual elaboration of it will only be valuable for our realization of free-ing activity in so far as they are deepened and enlivened by higher modes of thinking. That is how we adapt to the dynamic spiritual relations within the Cosmic-Earthly context. For ex., there was a time when to "will the Good" meant simply to attend sermons, mass, communion, etc. and be a helpful neighbor and citizen. Those things are still important, of course, but not sufficient to ensure the free-ing, because the Cosmic-Earthly context has shifted and therefore our organic constitution along with it, as a 'cross-section' of that context.

I know you are aware of this. But the tricky part is as follows. All that I just wrote above (or Max wrote) is still an idea of 'freedom' and the default is for this idea to begin degenerating into a sentiment like, 'now I have a great grasp of what my free nature is all about and I am on top of things.' Then the expectations, prejudices, etc. begin amassing around that sentiment as it festers. We are hardly aware that this process is even happening underneath the surface of waking consciousness, but it surely is. This is why many of the great esoteric sages and masters speak so simply about the human condition in terms of desires, emotions, thoughts and the need for self-knowledge, because ultimately it is the dark and tempting currents in the depths of our be-ing which need to be unveiled, confronted, and redeemed.

But the question, as usual, then becomes how we translate this conceptual understanding above into the first-person experiential language of our practical stream of intuitive becoming within the context of those ideals, so that we do in fact have something more to say about it. That is basically the language of higher cognition and spiritual science, or similary the language that Cleric has developed here through various interesting metaphors. There is always a risk with such metaphors that they are taken at the physical level, which is also why he always adds, "don't take this too literally" or something similar and explains what the precise purpose of the metaphor within the context it is used.

The "more" I personally have to say about it, is not higher cognition, but it's still connected to the fact of having removed "some obstacles that obstruct the vision of the Good." It has to do with the small things Cleric lastly mentioned, that is the changes in how I conduct and experience everyday life now, compared to one year ago. These changes could be called problematic in various respects. Nevertheless from an inner perspective, they feel freeing, which is the only reason why I have managed to sustain them so far, to some extent, despite the 'problems' they create. So even without higher cognition, there is something that breaks through.

I would call that 'living thinking', which is still higher than mere intellectual reasoning. Remember, the higher cognitions - intuitions, inspirations, imaginations - are always inflowing us and informing our WFT activity. The modern intellect, however, has a selfish tendency to confuse the reflections of those higher cognitions for reality and therefore invert the information, often moving in the opposite direction of where they are pointing. It begins working at cross-purposes with the higher intents of the Cosmic-Earthly context. Our living, ennobled thinking begins to loosen that inverting tendency and harmonize our WFT activity with the higher intents. Those are the seeds of higher cognition proper, which will surely blossom if we remain steadfast and faithful (in the sense of the Tomberg quote from the other thread).

[Federica]

Right, but there is a big difference between this and what we normally do in 'defining'. The latter is generally employed as a set of conditions which must be met before a certain state can be said to exist, in this case 'freedom'. That is the standard reductive approach. But notice how many verbs are contained in Max's "definition" - to will the Good, seeing, attaining to the Idea of the Good, become so by participation. It all indicates an experiential path of becoming which is free-ing, not necessarily states which are "free" at any given snapshot of history based on the existence of certain conditions. And we have to remember that, even when we use the verbs and understand it as an experiential path, the risk of turning that into a mere definition is still present.

Now if we are to ask, what does it practically mean to "will the Good" or "attain to the Idea of the Good", I'm sure Max would say that is a matter for the esoteric path of intuitive thinking. Any further conceptual elaboration of it will only be valuable for our realization of free-ing activity in so far as they are deepened and enlivened by higher modes of thinking. That is how we adapt to the dynamic spiritual relations within the Cosmic-Earthly context. For ex., there was a time when to "will the Good" meant simply to attend sermons, mass, communion, etc. and be a helpful neighbor and citizen. Those things are still important, of course, but not sufficient to ensure the free-ing, because the Cosmic-Earthly context has shifted and therefore our organic constitution along with it, as a 'cross-section' of that context.

I know you are aware of this. But the tricky part is as follows. All that I just wrote above (or Max wrote) is still an idea of 'freedom' and the default is for this idea to begin degenerating into a sentiment like, 'now I have a great grasp of what my free nature is all about and I am on top of things.' Then the expectations, prejudices, etc. begin amassing around that sentiment as it festers. We are hardly aware that this process is even happening underneath the surface of waking consciousness, but it surely is. This is why many of the great esoteric sages and masters speak so simply about the human condition in terms of desires, emotions, thoughts and the need for self-knowledge, because ultimately it is the dark and tempting currents in the depths of our be-ing which need to be unveiled, confronted, and redeemed.

Yes, basically in front of whatever written page, no matter how inspired it is, we are always at risk of instrumentalizing the ideas, to the same extent that we have the power to work through them with invention. Because we have been gifted that power, then we have to face that risk. Either we fall prey to the Luciferic impulse, or we transcend it. The difficult part is to remember that it's not by instrumentalizing the ideas that one can alleviate the discomfort of not sensing any ground under the feet. One should instead have faith, in the sense described by Tomberg in your last quote on the illustrated world concepts thread. And the further difficulty is, this useful thought I am having now is not guaranteed to stick. The question is how to make it independent enough and stable enough for it to remain present and conscious, with its living connection preserved. Because trying to memorize and prioritize any 'useful thoughts' has a tendency to dry them out, making them, again, instruments. So yes, the risk of instrumentalizing the ideas really is, by itself, a living force that eats up our thoughts continually, working at drying them out, and so making them useless and detrimental...

I would call that 'living thinking', which is still higher than mere intellectual reasoning. Remember, the higher cognitions - intuitions, inspirations, imaginations - are always inflowing us and informing our WFT activity. The modern intellect, however, has a selfish tendency to confuse the reflections of those higher cognitions for reality and therefore invert the information, often moving in the opposite direction of where they are pointing. It begins working at cross-purposes with the higher intents of the Cosmic-Earthly context. Our living, ennobled thinking begins to loosen that inverting tendency and harmonize our WFT activity with the higher intents. Those are the seeds of higher cognition proper, which will surely blossom if we remain steadfast and faithful (in the sense of the Tomberg quote from the other thread).

I see that the selfish tendency is another way to illustrate the tricky part you described in your first paragraphs.

[Cleric K]

Hi all, sorry for not participating but I'm out of town for few days. I should be back on Tuesday probably.

[AshvinP]

Right, but there is a big difference between this and what we normally do in 'defining'. The latter is generally employed as a set of conditions which must be met before a certain state can be said to exist, in this case 'freedom'. That is the standard reductive approach. But notice how many verbs are contained in Max's "definition" - to will the Good, seeing, attaining to the Idea of the Good, become so by participation. It all indicates an experiential path of becoming which is free-ing, not necessarily states which are "free" at any given snapshot of history based on the existence of certain conditions. And we have to remember that, even when we use the verbs and understand it as an experiential path, the risk of turning that into a mere definition is still present.

Now if we are to ask, what does it practically mean to "will the Good" or "attain to the Idea of the Good", I'm sure Max would say that is a matter for the esoteric path of intuitive thinking. Any further conceptual elaboration of it will only be valuable for our realization of free-ing activity in so far as they are deepened and enlivened by higher modes of thinking. That is how we adapt to the dynamic spiritual relations within the Cosmic-Earthly context. For ex., there was a time when to "will the Good" meant simply to attend sermons, mass, communion, etc. and be a helpful neighbor and citizen. Those things are still important, of course, but not sufficient to ensure the free-ing, because the Cosmic-Earthly context has shifted and therefore our organic constitution along with it, as a 'cross-section' of that context.

I know you are aware of this. But the tricky part is as follows. All that I just wrote above (or Max wrote) is still an idea of 'freedom' and the default is for this idea to begin degenerating into a sentiment like, 'now I have a great grasp of what my free nature is all about and I am on top of things.' Then the expectations, prejudices, etc. begin amassing around that sentiment as it festers. We are hardly aware that this process is even happening underneath the surface of waking consciousness, but it surely is. This is why many of the great esoteric sages and masters speak so simply about the human condition in terms of desires, emotions, thoughts and the need for self-knowledge, because ultimately it is the dark and tempting currents in the depths of our be-ing which need to be unveiled, confronted, and redeemed.

Yes, basically in front of whatever written page, no matter how inspired it is, we are always at risk of instrumentalizing the ideas, to the same extent that we have the power to work through them with invention. Because we have been gifted that power, then we have to face that risk. Either we fall prey to the Luciferic impulse, or we transcend it. The difficult part is to remember that it's not by instrumentalizing the ideas that one can alleviate the discomfort of not sensing any ground under the feet. One should instead have faith, in the sense described by Tomberg in your last quote on the illustrated world concepts thread. And the further difficulty is, this useful thought I am having now is not guaranteed to stick. The question is how to make it independent enough and stable enough for it to remain present and conscious, with its living connection preserved. Because trying to memorize and prioritize any 'useful thoughts' has a tendency to dry them out, making them, again, instruments. So yes, the risk of instrumentalizing the ideas really is, by itself, a living force that eats up our thoughts continually, working at drying them out, and so making them useless and detrimental...

I would call that 'living thinking', which is still higher than mere intellectual reasoning. Remember, the higher cognitions - intuitions, inspirations, imaginations - are always inflowing us and informing our WFT activity. The modern intellect, however, has a selfish tendency to confuse the reflections of those higher cognitions for reality and therefore invert the information, often moving in the opposite direction of where they are pointing. It begins working at cross-purposes with the higher intents of the Cosmic-Earthly context. Our living, ennobled thinking begins to loosen that inverting tendency and harmonize our WFT activity with the higher intents. Those are the seeds of higher cognition proper, which will surely blossom if we remain steadfast and faithful (in the sense of the Tomberg quote from the other thread).

I see that the selfish tendency is another way to illustrate the tricky part you described in your first paragraphs.

I think the main part of the answer is exactly the faith you mentioned, or put another way, establishing an inward certainty of the general direction in which our Cosmic-Earthly destiny must unfold. If we take the example of the Kantian dualists who say "true inner knowledge of a cognitive nature is always blocked by the intellectual-perceptual interface", we notice these are the people most likely to spread their interface concepts through the mysteries of existence and pronounce final judgments on them. When there is no hope left and time is running out, so to speak, that seems to be the best option, or the least worst option, or the only option. There is a rush to understand everything in the rigid, lifeless concepts at our disposal.

A similar thing happens on the path of higher cognition, which I also referred to in a comment to Luke. We may often justify our lack of inward certainty in the general direction as caution, humility, and a careful assessment of our current lack of inner knowledge. We feel that the higher cognitive worlds so far remain closed to us and it's best not to overstep our bounds. But is that really the case? Are we perhaps expecting some major inner revelation to prompt us towards what we already know we should be doing? Through the deeds of Christ, we have already evolved receptivity to the inner stream of conscience and the capacity to faithfully follow it. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

We mostly have all the resources for morally perfecting our character, which is the primary means by which we loosen the intellectual mask and let the higher ideations more consciously inflow. We have the focused thinking exercises, the will exercises, the reading materials, etc. There are a million little things we can do to creatively manifest the general direction of our destiny. I think a lot of them have been mentioned here already, like paying attention to animalistic eating habits, to our speech and gestures, feeling thankful when we encounter illness and misfortune, and many similar things. Lately I have been working with Steiner's exercise to try and consciously change our handwriting. It's not so much the result which matters in these exercises, but the intention to strengthen our will and be of more use in the quest to fulfill the ideals of our Cosmic organism. We can mask our intentions within the physical spectrum, but they are laid bare in the higher worlds. Our Cosmic allies will not fail to notice them. We may often be unfaithful on our end of the covenant, but they never are.

[Federica]

I think the main part of the answer is exactly the faith you mentioned, or put another way, establishing an inward certainty of the general direction in which our Cosmic-Earthly destiny must unfold. (...)There is a rush to understand everything in the rigid, lifeless concepts at our disposal.

The thing is, there is a sense of empowerment, a sense of being fully human, when practicing the intellectual type of reasoning. And the vague recognition one can have that something is missing is put on the back of the content of cognition, not its method. I think that a vast majority of people simply haven’t had the chance to realize that there exists another approach. It was my case as well, until I arrived here. I knew something was missing, something needed to be discovered ‘sooner or later’. I was not fully satisfied with ‘knowledge’, and ‘worldview’, and ‘righteousness’, but I had no idea the problem wasn’t a ‘what’ but a ‘how’.

A similar thing happens on the path of higher cognition, which I also referred to in a comment to Luke. We may often justify our lack of inward certainty in the general direction as caution, humility, and a careful assessment of our current lack of inner knowledge. We feel that the higher cognitive worlds so far remain closed to us and it's best not to overstep our bounds. But is that really the case? Are we perhaps expecting some major inner revelation to prompt us towards what we already know we should be doing?

We mostly have all the resources for morally perfecting our character, which is the primary means by which we loosen the intellectual mask and let the higher ideations more consciously inflow. We have the focused thinking exercises, the will exercises, the reading materials, etc. There are a million little things we can do to creatively manifest the general direction of our destiny. I think a lot of them have been mentioned here already, like paying attention to animalistic eating habits, to our speech and gestures, feeling thankful when we encounter illness and misfortune, and many similar things. Lately I have been working with Steiner's exercise to try and consciously change our handwriting. It's not so much the result which matters in these exercises, but the intention to strengthen our will and be of more use in the quest to fulfill the ideals of our Cosmic organism. We can mask our intentions within the physical spectrum, but they are laid bare in the higher worlds. Our Cosmic allies will not fail to notice them. We may often be unfaithful on our end of the covenant, but they never are.

Yes, I have read that comment. In my case, I don't think that's the issue. I don't expect major revelations, and I am not covering for myself my insufficient engagement with the thought that it's a humble and careful attitude. The reason for the laking engagement is rather a fear of losing control completely. It's also a fear of, in a certain sense, not recognizing myself. I am still unable to renounce the feeling of having solid ground under my feet. The simple fact of writing this gives me a somewhat uncomfortable sensation. In some respects I think I'm doing a lot, and in another one, not enough. I have a strong, continuous awareness that this focus is the only one menaingful, and my whole being is oriented in its direction now. This is a huge inner life change and a rather relevant change in the external life as well. But there is surely also an attachment to the personality I can recognize, that is very challenging to let go of. For example, you speak of an exercise to change your handwriting. It was enough for me to read about it, to feel an immediate resistance to the idea. For me, it’s evident that everything connected with the hands in particular, is especially linked to the sense of identity. I have noticed that in my case, in other situations. As a thought experiment, for example, if I had to lose a hand in an accident, I think I couldn’t tolerate the idea of having someone else's hand transplanted. My hands are the mirror of ‘me’. So this is my main problem right now. Perfecting the character sounds nice, the million little things to try out sound nice, and ‘affordable’, and I am making substantial efforts in those directions, but let's face it, what’s requested here is more than that. I am fine with not masking anything, this is not my problem (sure, I mask things as needed in everyday life situations, but that’s another story) working with intention at strengthening the will is not my problem, I have (not perfected but) improved that objectively. The real problem is to sacrifice the current sense of identity, what makes us us, to be ready to grow new organs, and to let go of the current ones. I get that it must depend on not yet having identified one’s center of gravity in the higher self. That's where the struggle really lies: that the end has to be the means at the same time.

[AshvinP]

I think the main part of the answer is exactly the faith you mentioned, or put another way, establishing an inward certainty of the general direction in which our Cosmic-Earthly destiny must unfold. (...)There is a rush to understand everything in the rigid, lifeless concepts at our disposal.

The thing is, there is a sense of empowerment, a sense of being fully human, when practicing the intellectual type of reasoning. And the vague recognition one can have that something is missing is put on the back of the content of cognition, not its method. I think that a vast majority of people simply haven’t had the chance to realize that there exists another approach. It was my case as well, until I arrived here. I knew something was missing, something needed to be discovered ‘sooner or later’. I was not fully satisfied with ‘knowledge’, and ‘worldview’, and ‘righteousness’, but I had no idea the problem wasn’t a ‘what’ but a ‘how’.

A similar thing happens on the path of higher cognition, which I also referred to in a comment to Luke. We may often justify our lack of inward certainty in the general direction as caution, humility, and a careful assessment of our current lack of inner knowledge. We feel that the higher cognitive worlds so far remain closed to us and it's best not to overstep our bounds. But is that really the case? Are we perhaps expecting some major inner revelation to prompt us towards what we already know we should be doing?

We mostly have all the resources for morally perfecting our character, which is the primary means by which we loosen the intellectual mask and let the higher ideations more consciously inflow. We have the focused thinking exercises, the will exercises, the reading materials, etc. There are a million little things we can do to creatively manifest the general direction of our destiny. I think a lot of them have been mentioned here already, like paying attention to animalistic eating habits, to our speech and gestures, feeling thankful when we encounter illness and misfortune, and many similar things. Lately I have been working with Steiner's exercise to try and consciously change our handwriting. It's not so much the result which matters in these exercises, but the intention to strengthen our will and be of more use in the quest to fulfill the ideals of our Cosmic organism. We can mask our intentions within the physical spectrum, but they are laid bare in the higher worlds. Our Cosmic allies will not fail to notice them. We may often be unfaithful on our end of the covenant, but they never are.

Yes, I have read that comment. In my case, I don't think that's the issue. I don't expect major revelations, and I am not covering for myself my insufficient engagement with the thought that it's a humble and careful attitude. The reason for the laking engagement is rather a fear of losing control completely. It's also a fear of, in a certain sense, not recognizing myself. I am still unable to renounce the feeling of having solid ground under my feet. The simple fact of writing this gives me a somewhat uncomfortable sensation. In some respects I think I'm doing a lot, and in another one, not enough. I have a strong, continuous awareness that this focus is the only one menaingful, and my whole being is oriented in its direction now. This is a huge inner life change and a rather relevant change in the external life as well. But there is surely also an attachment to the personality I can recognize, that is very challenging to let go of. For example, you speak of an exercise to change your handwriting. It was enough for me to read about it, to feel an immediate resistance to the idea. For me, it’s evident that everything connected with the hands in particular, is especially linked to the sense of identity. I have noticed that in my case, in other situations. As a thought experiment, for example, if I had to lose a hand in an accident, I think I couldn’t tolerate the idea of having someone else's hand transplanted. My hands are the mirror of ‘me’. So this is my main problem right now. Perfecting the character sounds nice, the million little things to try out sound nice, and ‘affordable’, and I am making substantial efforts in those directions, but let's face it, what’s requested here is more than that. I am fine with not masking anything, this is not my problem (sure, I mask things as needed in everyday life situations, but that’s another story) working with intention at strengthening the will is not my problem, I have (not perfected but) improved that objectively. The real problem is to sacrifice the current sense of identity, what makes us us, to be ready to grow new organs, and to let go of the current ones. I get that it must depend on not yet having identified one’s center of gravity in the higher self. That's where the struggle really lies: that the end has to be the means at the same time.

Federica,

I agree, unwinding the personality rooted in the lower ego is the key task - the sacrificial death which is needed - and also what I mean by 'morally perfecting the character'. The million little things are exactly the way to do that, along with strenuous meditative effort which seeks higher guiding impulses from the spirit worlds. Remember, the little things are only 'little' from the aliased physical perspective - when they are rhythmically placed as seed-offerings to the spirit worlds during meditation, sleep, between incarnations, they are then becoming something much more than we can imagine. They are elaborated by all the higher hierarchies working on our behalf, before being incarnated again within our soul-life.

Another thing is that the efforts to unwind the personality should, correspondingly, be understood as something we are engaging as a human collective for Cosmic aims. You mentioned before that you feel the 'we' and 'our' is too impersonal in these discussions, but that is exactly the point - it is not 'my' problems, 'my' issues, etc., but the shared archetypal tendencies which have flowed down through many incarnations since the Fall, prior to which we were all in fact a unified soul-spiritual organism. That is why it perfectly proper for us to feel, for ex., that we have crucified Christ and it is part of our karma. I was planning on sharing the following passage somewhere, so may as well do it here. I encourage anyone interesting in pursuing it further to order the book, which is probably worth it for this chapter alone.

But I also want to point out, I think whatever you are doing in your own personal practice is perfectly fine and it is clearly working, even if the results aren't clear yet or we feel to have bumped up against various barriers. I often feel the same way in my own practice. These comments are not about pointing to any given person and saying they should be doing more of this or more of that - it is simply about providing the constant stream of communal support that we will all surely need as we work further into the dark depths of our existence.

If our souls are filled with these questions as we approach the Lord’s Prayer, we will be deeply struck by something in the text of these seven petitions; they never mention the individual human “I.” There is no talk of my Father, my trespasses, and so on, a mode of expression that would be a basic condition of mystic absorption and religious fervor in prayer. The petitions always use “we,” “our Father,” “our trespasses,” and so on. This points to the first, preliminary way we must approach the Lord’s Prayer. It shows us that the Lord’s Prayer is not at all intended for personal use; consciousness concerned with personal, individual matters cannot use the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is not intended for the fulfillment of individual wishes, for the rapturous absorption of lonely mystics, or for personal development. The mere fact that it is addressed to God the Father shows that it is not intended for these purposes. The Father God has to do with the hierarchy of humanity, not its groups and individuals. Separate beings have conscious relationship with the Father only insofar as they represent their hierarchy in its capacity as a community in cosmic destiny. And no one is qualified to represent the fourth hierarchy without having made the concerns of its destiny one’s own. When reciting, in the name of humanity, the seven petitions related to the seven needs of human destiny, one’s consciousness must be occupied with the questions that concern human destiny. Then one’s voice becomes the voice of humanity; the unconscious voices of all humankind form a chorus that joins the voice consciously expressing the seven needs of humanity. The hierarchical choirs alone penetrate as high as to the Father God; the sounds of single voices die away on closer thresholds. This is why poets imagine choirs of angelic hosts (though we need not determine here whether those spiritual hierarchies sing “Gloria” and “Hosanna” to the Father God). The fourth hierarchy is no exception; if words are to ascend to God the Father, they must rise morally and spiritually in chorus. What the chorus of humanity has to say to God the Father is contained in the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, as spoken by Jesus Christ as the representative of humanity. The Lord’s Prayer is the spiritual and moral expression of the chorus of the fourth hierarchy; it contains every cry humankind sends up—even to the threshold of the Father sphere—in all the toil of labor, all the pain of sickness, all the distress and fear of death, and also in every endeavor after goodness, truth, and beauty. This is why the Lord’s Prayer offers the best training in selflessness and the surest and most comprehensive source from which the recognition of the true need of humanity can be drawn.
...
Now, the very idea of balance is connected to right and left—the horizontal. And this idea is completely appropriate when applied to the karmic relationship between earlier earthly lives and the current one, because it involves an ongoing act of balancing. This idea alone, however, is not enough for understanding the Lord’s Prayer, which does not deal with the fulfillment of karma from the past, but with determining future karma now. The seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer represent an active determination of karma, not merely petition for karma to occur; there is no need to be anxious about that. Because the Lord’s Prayer deals with the predetermination of karma in the present, the balance that forms the basis of the Lord’s Prayer and gives the petitions karmic justification must be imagined not as horizontal, but as vertical. We must picture one end of the scale in heaven and the other on Earth. The higher scale is in the realm of the Father’s mercy; the lower in the sphere of human initiative. Between the two and determining the balance is the Son, through whom, alone, human beings can approach the Father. The fact that this karmic balance weighs vertically rather than horizontally is a consequence of the Son becoming the lord of karma. The rule of Christian karma is: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7). This differs from the law of the elders, or karma of the old covenant, in that following the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the weighing was no longer just horizontal, but also vertical. In other words, along with the law whose principle is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", the new law, whose principle is preeminently expressed in the Lord’s Prayer, becomes increasingly important. In the following meditations, we will discuss the moral and spiritual meaning of the vertical position of the karmic balance, as well as the nature of the “new law,” whose lord is Christ. The task here is to clarify, through the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the nature of the new relationship between humanity and God the Father—that is, the nature of the new covenant as Christian karma, in which the weighing is done vertically.

Tomberg, Valentin; Bruce, R.H.. Christ and Sophia: Anthroposophic Meditations on the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocalypse (p. 231). steinerbooks. Kindle Edition.

[Federica]

Federica,

I agree, unwinding the personality rooted in the lower ego is the key task - the sacrificial death which is needed - and also what I mean by 'morally perfecting the character'. The million little things are exactly the way to do that, along with strenuous meditative effort which seeks higher guiding impulses from the spirit worlds. Remember, the little things are only 'little' from the aliased physical perspective - when they are rhythmically placed as seed-offerings to the spirit worlds during meditation, sleep, between incarnations, they are then becoming something much more than we can imagine. They are elaborated by all the higher hierarchies working on our behalf, before being incarnated again within our soul-life.

Another thing is that the efforts to unwind the personality should, correspondingly, be understood as something we are engaging as a human collective for Cosmic aims. You mentioned before that you feel the 'we' and 'our' is too impersonal in these discussions, but that is exactly the point - it is not 'my' problems, 'my' issues, etc., but the shared archetypal tendencies which have flowed down through many incarnations since the Fall, prior to which we were all in fact a unified soul-spiritual organism. That is why it perfectly proper for us to feel, for ex., that we have crucified Christ and it is part of our karma. I was planning on sharing the following passage somewhere, so may as well do it here. I encourage anyone interesting in pursuing it further to order the book, which is probably worth it for this chapter alone.

But I also want to point out, I think whatever you are doing in your own personal practice is perfectly fine and it is clearly working, even if the results aren't clear yet or we feel to have bumped up against various barriers. I often feel the same way in my own practice. These comments are not about pointing to any given person and saying they should be doing more of this or more of that - it is simply about providing the constant stream of communal support that we will all surely need as we work further into the dark depths of our existence.

If our souls are filled with these questions as we approach the Lord’s Prayer, we will be deeply struck by something in the text of these seven petitions; they never mention the individual human “I.” There is no talk of my Father, my trespasses, and so on, a mode of expression that would be a basic condition of mystic absorption and religious fervor in prayer. The petitions always use “we,” “our Father,” “our trespasses,” and so on. This points to the first, preliminary way we must approach the Lord’s Prayer. It shows us that the Lord’s Prayer is not at all intended for personal use; consciousness concerned with personal, individual matters cannot use the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is not intended for the fulfillment of individual wishes, for the rapturous absorption of lonely mystics, or for personal development. The mere fact that it is addressed to God the Father shows that it is not intended for these purposes. The Father God has to do with the hierarchy of humanity, not its groups and individuals. Separate beings have conscious relationship with the Father only insofar as they represent their hierarchy in its capacity as a community in cosmic destiny. And no one is qualified to represent the fourth hierarchy without having made the concerns of its destiny one’s own. When reciting, in the name of humanity, the seven petitions related to the seven needs of human destiny, one’s consciousness must be occupied with the questions that concern human destiny. Then one’s voice becomes the voice of humanity; the unconscious voices of all humankind form a chorus that joins the voice consciously expressing the seven needs of humanity. The hierarchical choirs alone penetrate as high as to the Father God; the sounds of single voices die away on closer thresholds. This is why poets imagine choirs of angelic hosts (though we need not determine here whether those spiritual hierarchies sing “Gloria” and “Hosanna” to the Father God). The fourth hierarchy is no exception; if words are to ascend to God the Father, they must rise morally and spiritually in chorus. What the chorus of humanity has to say to God the Father is contained in the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, as spoken by Jesus Christ as the representative of humanity. The Lord’s Prayer is the spiritual and moral expression of the chorus of the fourth hierarchy; it contains every cry humankind sends up—even to the threshold of the Father sphere—in all the toil of labor, all the pain of sickness, all the distress and fear of death, and also in every endeavor after goodness, truth, and beauty. This is why the Lord’s Prayer offers the best training in selflessness and the surest and most comprehensive source from which the recognition of the true need of humanity can be drawn.
...
Now, the very idea of balance is connected to right and left—the horizontal. And this idea is completely appropriate when applied to the karmic relationship between earlier earthly lives and the current one, because it involves an ongoing act of balancing. This idea alone, however, is not enough for understanding the Lord’s Prayer, which does not deal with the fulfillment of karma from the past, but with determining future karma now. The seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer represent an active determination of karma, not merely petition for karma to occur; there is no need to be anxious about that. Because the Lord’s Prayer deals with the predetermination of karma in the present, the balance that forms the basis of the Lord’s Prayer and gives the petitions karmic justification must be imagined not as horizontal, but as vertical. We must picture one end of the scale in heaven and the other on Earth. The higher scale is in the realm of the Father’s mercy; the lower in the sphere of human initiative. Between the two and determining the balance is the Son, through whom, alone, human beings can approach the Father. The fact that this karmic balance weighs vertically rather than horizontally is a consequence of the Son becoming the lord of karma. The rule of Christian karma is: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7). This differs from the law of the elders, or karma of the old covenant, in that following the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the weighing was no longer just horizontal, but also vertical. In other words, along with the law whose principle is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", the new law, whose principle is preeminently expressed in the Lord’s Prayer, becomes increasingly important. In the following meditations, we will discuss the moral and spiritual meaning of the vertical position of the karmic balance, as well as the nature of the “new law,” whose lord is Christ. The task here is to clarify, through the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the nature of the new relationship between humanity and God the Father—that is, the nature of the new covenant as Christian karma, in which the weighing is done vertically.

Tomberg, Valentin; Bruce, R.H.. Christ and Sophia: Anthroposophic Meditations on the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocalypse (p. 231). steinerbooks. Kindle Edition.

Ashvin,

Thank you for the quote. Indeed I have a weak understanding of the Lord's Prayer. These notes are not fully clear, but useful, and I will absolutely order the book, as soon as I'm back home from some travel to come. I appreciate your comments on the small, but significant steps, and that they are an expression of the entire humanity through us. I understand that, but I need to inhabit such a collective perspective more concretely, when acting, thinking, feeling. I think the main issue is that I have not yet understood in real terms what it means to inhabit the collective perspective, while preserving an individual perspective at the same time. This is a question I asked Cleric months ago, and in the moment I felt very satisfied with the explanations. But in fact, I have to regularly go back and read them again. In the moment, I believe I understand, only to forget again what the individual perspective really consists of, and how it will be preserved going forward. So it clearly means I haven't really understood it. With all this said, I still have to push back your remark on pronouns, and the use of impersonal expression.
It's one thing to say "we have crucified Christ and this is our karma". I am fully onboard here, likewise when speaking of weaknesses or tendencies that can apply to us, even if only hypothetically. No problem with that, I think it's a healthy habit. My comment about strange impersonal turns of phrases referred to a very different use. Namely, it's when something very particular I have said is commented on, and every effort is made to find a turn of the sentence, that avoids the use of 'you', no matter how artificial the final result may sound. For example, when Cleric compared me to Eugene:

It is similar here (real meaning=with you). It is not known (=you don't know) what the future will be like but it is expected (=you expect) that the sovereignty of the individual agency should become more and more pronounced. On these grounds, anything that speaks of palettes, choices, etc. is seen (=you see it) as moving in the opposite direction, as fragmenting the individual source of freedom.

This style should supposedly help me not take things too personally, which is my well known tendency
This is what I was criticizing, not when we say "we" to intend "us humans", as an expression of solidarity and humility.

These comments are not about pointing to any given person and saying they should be doing more of this or more of that

I am sorry I'll have to sound controversial here again. Although I definitely recognize the spirit of your statement, and that you definitely live up to it, I still believe it's impossible to equate that spirit to an absence of personalized comments. I think personalized comments are inevitable. I remember for example a very specific series of comments you addressed to Dana, asking what concrete actions she/he was taking to progress spiritually. I think they were legitimate questions at that moment. They were also certainly personal ones. Put it on the back of my lack of understanding if you want, but I think a certain level of personalization is inherent to the choice of forum format.