What Barfield Thought (Max Leyf and Landon Loftin)

[Güney27]

I'm born in Germany and it's very hard for me to read PoF.
Steiners use of the language and writing style is very hard to read.
There are good books about PoF in German wich can help to make it more understandable.
Clerics posts on this forum are very helpful for me too.

To be honest, as a native speaker of English, I find the translations of Rudolf Steiner's books difficult to read. I think it is just the writing style, and also the fact that he sometimes repeats himself too much, or 'waffles on' too much.
The other reason I have difficulties is because I am not deeply familiar with philosophy. I know some things, but not anywhere as in depth as other people on here. Rudolf Steiner wrote in PoF about philosophers I'd never even heard of before. So that sometimes makes it harder because I have to try my best to follow the context. But, I think making effort is the point of the book.

Do you read Steiner's lectures in German? There does seem to be many that still haven't been translated yet.

Im not too familiar with philosophy too.
I read some philosophers but don't have a massive background knowledge like others.

Yes I read RS lectures but not too often.
Its interesting that I find it (sometimes) easier to read his lectures in English.

How old are you, if it's not too personal?

[LukeJTM]

I'm born in Germany and it's very hard for me to read PoF.
Steiners use of the language and writing style is very hard to read.
There are good books about PoF in German wich can help to make it more understandable.
Clerics posts on this forum are very helpful for me too.

To be honest, as a native speaker of English, I find the translations of Rudolf Steiner's books difficult to read. I think it is just the writing style, and also the fact that he sometimes repeats himself too much, or 'waffles on' too much.
The other reason I have difficulties is because I am not deeply familiar with philosophy. I know some things, but not anywhere as in depth as other people on here. Rudolf Steiner wrote in PoF about philosophers I'd never even heard of before. So that sometimes makes it harder because I have to try my best to follow the context. But, I think making effort is the point of the book.

Do you read Steiner's lectures in German? There does seem to be many that still haven't been translated yet.

Im not too familiar with philosophy too.
I read some philosophers but don't have a massive background knowledge like others.

Yes I read RS lectures but not too often.
Its interesting that I find it (sometimes) easier to read his lectures in English.

How old are you, if it's not too personal?

Interesting. I do think the lectures (at least in English, I haven't tried much of them in German) are easier to read than the books, which is probably because speaking has a different style to it than writing does.

I am in my 20s. What about you?

[AshvinP]

Here is an interesting podcast talk between Mark, Max, and Landon on a new collection of essays by Owen Barfield - The Riddle of the Sphinx.

Around 42 min., they begin to discuss our concrete role in participatory evolution of consciousness, and around 52 min. Max makes a valiant effort to elucidate Steiner's approach to the rather skeptical Mark and Landon : )

Mark clearly feels that humans must remain somewhat passive bystanders in the Divine plan, because to suggest otherwise strays into undue arrogance and pride. I think this goes to show that, at the end of the day, only a phenomenology of spiritual activity that leads into intimate experience of archetypal soul constraints can make us start to take our Divine likeness and image more seriously. This inner path can reveal the blockages that keep our thinking moving in limited pathways of experience, only willing to consider the facts of individual and collective experience up to a point, beyond which we default to making judgments based on deeply rooted inclinations and preferences.

Max does a good job with the time he is given to point towards this phenomenological approach. I especially liked the analogy he used for Steiner's phenomenological approach to spiritual activity - in the same way that young children must painstakingly learn the constraints and possibilities for their intentional physical activity by moving their limbs every which way and bumping into objects, so modern humanity must do for willed thinking activity. All of the more advanced esoteric concepts and discussion, such as Landon's reference to the Gospel of St. John, can only make sense from within this core framework of delaminating the inner life by moving our thinking through new intuitive pathways of experience, remaining awake in currents of meaning in which we are always swimming but are normally drowned out by the dreamy intellectual life of the senses.

It is only then that we rediscover the ancient mythologies, scriptures, philosophies, scientific ideas, etc. from an altogether different direction, and what seemed exceedingly 'strange' to us before now seems patently obvious. Then we may start to feel exactly as Emerson expressed it - "This relation between the mind and matter is not fancied by some poet, but stands in the will of God, and so is free to be known by all men. It appears to men, or it does not appear. When in fortunate hours we ponder this miracle, the wise man doubts, if, at all other times, he is not blind and deaf;"

[Federica]

Here is an interesting podcast talk between Mark, Max, and Landon on a new collection of essays by Owen Barfield - The Riddle of the Sphinx.

Around 42 min., they begin to discuss our concrete role in participatory evolution of consciousness, and around 52 min. Max makes a valiant effort to elucidate Steiner's approach to the rather skeptical Mark and Landon : )

Mark clearly feels that humans must remain somewhat passive bystanders in the Divine plan, because to suggest otherwise strays into undue arrogance and pride. I think this goes to show that, at the end of the day, only a phenomenology of spiritual activity that leads into intimate experience of archetypal soul constraints can make us start to take our Divine likeness and image more seriously. This inner path can reveal the blockages that keep our thinking moving in limited pathways of experience, only willing to consider the facts of individual and collective experience up to a point, beyond which we default to making judgments based on deeply rooted inclinations and preferences.

Max does a good job with the time he is given to point towards this phenomenological approach. I especially liked the analogy he used for Steiner's phenomenological approach to spiritual activity - in the same way that young children must painstakingly learn the constraints and possibilities for their intentional physical activity by moving their limbs every which way and bumping into objects, so modern humanity must do for willed thinking activity. All of the more advanced esoteric concepts and discussion, such as Landon's reference to the Gospel of St. John, can only make sense from within this core framework of delaminating the inner life by moving our thinking through new intuitive pathways of experience, remaining awake in currents of meaning in which we are always swimming but are normally drowned out by the dreamy intellectual life of the senses.

It is only then that we rediscover the ancient mythologies, scriptures, philosophies, scientific ideas, etc. from an altogether different direction, and what seemed exceedingly 'strange' to us before now seems patently obvious. Then we may start to feel exactly as Emerson expressed it - "This relation between the mind and matter is not fancied by some poet, but stands in the will of God, and so is free to be known by all men. It appears to men, or it does not appear. When in fortunate hours we ponder this miracle, the wise man doubts, if, at all other times, he is not blind and deaf;"

Oh.... between min 42 and 52 MV expresses a perfectly dualistic conception, with thoughts operating on the other side of the world... For someone like him, with such an extensive culture, interest in introspection and also, as it seems, an attitude of openness, one can say it's really a pity that he hasn't access to Cleric's essays. I don't think the gray matter argument convinced him much. But if he could read the essays, then he would understand the role of thinking. If they were published, I wouldn't hesitate a second to send him a copy. But what would be the best way now? He really needs to read them.

[Federica]

Has anyone read Barfield's "The Case for Anthroposophy"?
I wonder if there are any new angles there that can shake people who read Barfield without realizing the role of thinking. It doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as other OB books. (terrible choice of cover layout at the link, but well...)

[AshvinP]

Has anyone read Barfield's "The Case for Anthroposophy"?
I wonder if there are any new angles there that can shake people who read Barfield without realizing the role of thinking. It doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as other OB books. (terrible choice of cover layout at the link, but well...)

This is a collection of Steiner's essays, with the Introduction written by Barfield - https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA021/Engli ... index.html

I think Barfield was involved in translating it as well.

That being said, The Riddle of the Sphinx collection seems to have essays by Barfield that are more explicitly Anthroposophically oriented. Yet that seems to be exactly the problem for Mark and Landon to some extent, and probably many other Barfield afficionados. They see it as him straying into something completely orthogonal to the 'evolution of consciousness'. The latter remains hopelessly abstract until we can sense something of this evolution within our own inner life.

Yes, getting anyone's attention pointed to Cleric's essays seems the only way to go at this point, including a lot of people on the Anthroposophical FB page

[Federica]

Has anyone read Barfield's "The Case for Anthroposophy"?
I wonder if there are any new angles there that can shake people who read Barfield without realizing the role of thinking. It doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as other OB books. (terrible choice of cover layout at the link, but well...)

This is a collection of Steiner's essays, with the Introduction written by Barfield - https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA021/Engli ... index.html

I think Barfield was involved in translating it as well.

That being said, The Riddle of the Sphinx collection seems to have essays by Barfield that are more explicitly Anthroposophically oriented. Yet that seems to be exactly the problem for Mark and Landon to some extent, and probably many other Barfield afficionados. They see it as him straying into something completely orthogonal to the 'evolution of consciousness'. The latter remains hopelessly abstract until we can sense something of this evolution within our own inner life.

Yes, getting anyone's attention pointed to Cleric's essays seems the only way to go at this point, including a lot of people on the Anthroposophical FB page

Thanks for the link Ashvin. That Steiner was the author had completely escaped me.

"Yes, getting anyone's attention pointed to Cleric's essays seems the only way to go at this point, including a lot of people on the Anthroposophical FB page"

Ok, I hope this means they are being published like next week, otherwise yours would be a non answer!


PS. And, on the lots of people on the FB Anthroposophy group, it has to be emphasized that many of them, similarly to MV, do not dare, or even imagine, to call themselves Anthroposophists, to 'lead', or mislead, others in the name of Anthroposophy, while bluntly ignoring the very core of all Anthroposophical understanding! Therefore, for those, there is no sin in entirely ignoring what Anthroposophy even IS!

[Cleric K]

Thanks for the link Ashvin. That Steiner was the author had completely escaped me.

"Yes, getting anyone's attention pointed to Cleric's essays seems the only way to go at this point, including a lot of people on the Anthroposophical FB page"

Ok, I hope this means they are being published like next week, otherwise yours would be a non answer!


PS. And, on the lots of people on the FB Anthroposophy group, it has to be emphasized that many of them, similarly to MV, do not dare, or even imagine, to call themselves Anthroposophists, to 'lead', or mislead, others in the name of Anthroposophy, while bluntly ignoring the very core of all Anthroposophical understanding! Therefore, for those, there is no sin in entirely ignoring what Anthroposophy even IS!

BTW, here are the essays also in Google Docs format:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QVo ... sp=sharing

[Federica]

Thanks for the link Ashvin. That Steiner was the author had completely escaped me.

"Yes, getting anyone's attention pointed to Cleric's essays seems the only way to go at this point, including a lot of people on the Anthroposophical FB page"

Ok, I hope this means they are being published like next week, otherwise yours would be a non answer!


PS. And, on the lots of people on the FB Anthroposophy group, it has to be emphasized that many of them, similarly to MV, do not dare, or even imagine, to call themselves Anthroposophists, to 'lead', or mislead, others in the name of Anthroposophy, while bluntly ignoring the very core of all Anthroposophical understanding! Therefore, for those, there is no sin in entirely ignoring what Anthroposophy even IS!

BTW, here are the essays also in Google Docs format:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QVo ... sp=sharing

Thank you, Cleric. Why are you sharing them in this format?

[Cleric K]

Thank you, Cleric. Why are you sharing them in this format?

Because this is the original

I thought that it may be useful if someone wants to share the essays as something self-packaged, without any reference to the forum.