Symbolic thinking, Anthroposophy and Transhumanism

[Federica]

Federica,

My word on that would be that I completely disagree. I don't think it's a reasonable opinion under a completely secular approach, let alone a spiritual scientific one. With the latter, we know that isolated appearances fixed in time cannot form the basis of conclusive judgments, especially in the realm of ideational beings and their activity. I don't think Linnell was putting himself in the place of the Gods as their representative or "preaching imaginative cognition". He was simply trying to elucidate how Greek mythology prefigures the rise of modern intellectual thinking and the technology born from that thinking. That he put in the effort to do it somewhat artistically and with the voices is already more effort than I would have been willing to put into it. There is no basis for accusing some fundamental disrespect towards other beings or hypocrisy here - it was a trivial mistake of making Artemis into a god instead of a goddess, plain and simple. If you could point to something that indicated he completely misconstrued or misapplied the spiritual significance of Greek mythology, then that would be another story, but as it is there is no alarm bell to speak of, and it would be a great tragedy for us if we let that color our willingness and ability to contemplate his other work.

Ashvin,

Firstly, please don't distort what I write. I never spoke of "conclusive judgments", but of "some attention". So when you do as if I had, you show objective bias. And what about the "great tragedy" you prefigure for people, like me, who would deprive themselves of contemplating Linnell's work? In the same way you are mindful not to lack charitable understanding towards Linnell, you should probably be mindful not to overload the board with a disproportionate monitum such as this one. Please, Ashvin, recover some measure in your words.

Secondly, you say that you don't think Linnell is "preaching imaginative cognition". Nonetheless, Linnell says very clearly: "I would like to invite you to think like an ancient Greek, that is, with a robust imagination, and to bring pictures to life". I would say, mine is a legitimate and very accurate characterisation of the latter. Do you still disagree that he preaches imaginative cognition?

So his message, from the very beginning of the video, is a prescriptive one. Meaning, he ascribes to himself a bigger responsibility compared to someone who merely shares thoughts, ideas, etc. Now, one has to live up to one's attitude, when one does that. It is a completely different position from the one you had in your mythology essays. Do you see that?

Also, he does, quite literally, speak in the name of Artemis, when he speaks in first person, as if he was Artemis. He doesn't describe something about Artemis, but he takes the floor as Artemis instead. Do you see how radically different, both in secular terms, and way more in esoteric terms, this is, compared to any third person account he could have provided instead?

He does that, while he, at the same time, has not the least idea of Artemis! I mean this literally: not-the-least-idea. He wants to give the impression he is sharing an imaginative approach to the myth by using the first person, by asking us to think with robust imagination, but he himself is holding in himself a hollow name, behind which there is, in his heart, precisely zero image, zero context, zero ideational activity. Do you recognize that, or do you want to keep on calling this "trivial"?

This is why I said, which I maintain, that he preaches one thing, while doing himself the opposite at the same time. I will therefore have this in mind when contemplating Linnell's work. And I am ready to face the "great tragedy" this reckless thought of mine could attract into my destiny.

Yes, it's trivial Federica, and frankly, I can't even understand how you were able to convince yourself this is such a big deal. None of what you write above sounds like sound logical reasoning to me. I don't know why you call it "preaching" or why you say he "ascribes to himself a bigger responsibility" than any one of us when writing posts on this forum for others to read.

I can only understand it in terms of a consistent tendency to write off new thinkers and their work by obsessively honing in on such trivial mistakes or things that annoy you personally. That alleviates you of the responsibility to be patient and work through a broader range of their work before forming conclusive judgments. Yes, the judgment of "disrespect towards other beings" or hypocrisy is conclusive when it leads you to feel that it "calls for some attention when considering other content from this author". In other words, the judgment based on one simple mistake is already coloring your contemplation of all his content, past, present, and future. You have done this with Tomberg, MS, and now Linnell. Yet you always seem to revise your earlier judgments after more serious consideration, to the point where you now started a thread on MS and are transcribing his audio lectures. That should be a sign that perhaps your initial judgments are not deserving of so much of your trust and credence. You are not really trying to figure out the reasons "why [you] constantly notice small mistakes and have an urge to correct them" or trying to "Mostly resist that urge" if you keep indulging the habit and justifying it to yourself.

Ashvin,

I did suspect that you wouldn't change your position, not even by a quarter of an inch. That would have been a suprise, as I can't remember you changing your position in our discussions, ever. Yet, what you have written is surprising. You don't understand, as you say. Hence you judge. Not only you judge, but you judge wrongly. And you keep on distorting what I wrote/did.

Evidently, I never did with Tomberg or Scaligero the same as with Liddell, not even close. This is not only inaccurate, it is false, which is sad. This is evident to anyone who would read through those threads. I don't even bother to go into the details, but you can open this link, for Tomberg, and refresh your memory of what I "did with Tomberg".

That you then make your own theories on what my inner motives might be for the false attitudes that you lend me, is surprising. From my side, I have no idea what your motives are to do that, and I won't make the mistake of trying to guess them. What does not need guessing is, your post is a series of inferences, but the truth is, you have no idea what I am, or what I am not, "really trying to figure out".

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Firstly, please don't distort what I write. I never spoke of "conclusive judgments", but of "some attention". So when you do as if I had, you show objective bias. And what about the "great tragedy" you prefigure for people, like me, who would deprive themselves of contemplating Linnell's work? In the same way you are mindful not to lack charitable understanding towards Linnell, you should probably be mindful not to overload the board with a disproportionate monitum such as this one. Please, Ashvin, recover some measure in your words.

Secondly, you say that you don't think Linnell is "preaching imaginative cognition". Nonetheless, Linnell says very clearly: "I would like to invite you to think like an ancient Greek, that is, with a robust imagination, and to bring pictures to life". I would say, mine is a legitimate and very accurate characterisation of the latter. Do you still disagree that he preaches imaginative cognition?

So his message, from the very beginning of the video, is a prescriptive one. Meaning, he ascribes to himself a bigger responsibility compared to someone who merely shares thoughts, ideas, etc. Now, one has to live up to one's attitude, when one does that. It is a completely different position from the one you had in your mythology essays. Do you see that?

Also, he does, quite literally, speak in the name of Artemis, when he speaks in first person, as if he was Artemis. He doesn't describe something about Artemis, but he takes the floor as Artemis instead. Do you see how radically different, both in secular terms, and way more in esoteric terms, this is, compared to any third person account he could have provided instead?

He does that, while he, at the same time, has not the least idea of Artemis! I mean this literally: not-the-least-idea. He wants to give the impression he is sharing an imaginative approach to the myth by using the first person, by asking us to think with robust imagination, but he himself is holding in himself a hollow name, behind which there is, in his heart, precisely zero image, zero context, zero ideational activity. Do you recognize that, or do you want to keep on calling this "trivial"?

This is why I said, which I maintain, that he preaches one thing, while doing himself the opposite at the same time. I will therefore have this in mind when contemplating Linnell's work. And I am ready to face the "great tragedy" this reckless thought of mine could attract into my destiny.

Yes, it's trivial Federica, and frankly, I can't even understand how you were able to convince yourself this is such a big deal. None of what you write above sounds like sound logical reasoning to me. I don't know why you call it "preaching" or why you say he "ascribes to himself a bigger responsibility" than any one of us when writing posts on this forum for others to read.

I can only understand it in terms of a consistent tendency to write off new thinkers and their work by obsessively honing in on such trivial mistakes or things that annoy you personally. That alleviates you of the responsibility to be patient and work through a broader range of their work before forming conclusive judgments. Yes, the judgment of "disrespect towards other beings" or hypocrisy is conclusive when it leads you to feel that it "calls for some attention when considering other content from this author". In other words, the judgment based on one simple mistake is already coloring your contemplation of all his content, past, present, and future. You have done this with Tomberg, MS, and now Linnell. Yet you always seem to revise your earlier judgments after more serious consideration, to the point where you now started a thread on MS and are transcribing his audio lectures. That should be a sign that perhaps your initial judgments are not deserving of so much of your trust and credence. You are not really trying to figure out the reasons "why [you] constantly notice small mistakes and have an urge to correct them" or trying to "Mostly resist that urge" if you keep indulging the habit and justifying it to yourself.

Ashvin,

I did suspect that you wouldn't change your position, not even by a quarter of an inch. That would have been a suprise, as I can't remember you changing your position in our discussions, ever. Yet, what you have written is surprising. You don't understand, as you say. Hence you judge. Not only you judge, but you judge wrongly. And you keep on distorting what I wrote/did.

Evidently, I never did with Tomberg or Scaligero the same as with Liddell, not even close. This is not only inaccurate, it is false, which is sad. This is evident to anyone who would read through those threads. I don't even bother to go into the details, but you can open this link, for Tomberg, and refresh your memory of what I "did with Tomberg".

That you then make your own theories on what my inner motives might be for the false attitudes that you lend me, is surprising. From my side, I have no idea what your motives are to do that, and I won't make the mistake of trying to guess them. What does not need guessing is, your post is a series of inferences, but the truth is, you have no idea what I am, or what I am not, "really trying to figure out".

If I were to adopt your ungenerous and uncharitable approach, I would say your misspelling above demonstrates disrespect for other beings, hypocrisy, and we should all keep that in mind whenever reading anything else you already wrote or will write in the future. But that would be silly...

If you ever embarked on giving a presentation on spiritual mythology, I know for certain that you would not want others to judge you and your entire corpus of work by the same standards you are now judging Linnell. And I know you will eventually come to realize this as well, so I won't belabor the point any further.

[Federica]

Yes, it's trivial Federica, and frankly, I can't even understand how you were able to convince yourself this is such a big deal. None of what you write above sounds like sound logical reasoning to me. I don't know why you call it "preaching" or why you say he "ascribes to himself a bigger responsibility" than any one of us when writing posts on this forum for others to read.

I can only understand it in terms of a consistent tendency to write off new thinkers and their work by obsessively honing in on such trivial mistakes or things that annoy you personally. That alleviates you of the responsibility to be patient and work through a broader range of their work before forming conclusive judgments. Yes, the judgment of "disrespect towards other beings" or hypocrisy is conclusive when it leads you to feel that it "calls for some attention when considering other content from this author". In other words, the judgment based on one simple mistake is already coloring your contemplation of all his content, past, present, and future. You have done this with Tomberg, MS, and now Linnell. Yet you always seem to revise your earlier judgments after more serious consideration, to the point where you now started a thread on MS and are transcribing his audio lectures. That should be a sign that perhaps your initial judgments are not deserving of so much of your trust and credence. You are not really trying to figure out the reasons "why [you] constantly notice small mistakes and have an urge to correct them" or trying to "Mostly resist that urge" if you keep indulging the habit and justifying it to yourself.

Ashvin,

I did suspect that you wouldn't change your position, not even by a quarter of an inch. That would have been a suprise, as I can't remember you changing your position in our discussions, ever. Yet, what you have written is surprising. You don't understand, as you say. Hence you judge. Not only you judge, but you judge wrongly. And you keep on distorting what I wrote/did.

Evidently, I never did with Tomberg or Scaligero the same as with Liddell, not even close. This is not only inaccurate, it is false, which is sad. This is evident to anyone who would read through those threads. I don't even bother to go into the details, but you can open this link, for Tomberg, and refresh your memory of what I "did with Tomberg".

That you then make your own theories on what my inner motives might be for the false attitudes that you lend me, is surprising. From my side, I have no idea what your motives are to do that, and I won't make the mistake of trying to guess them. What does not need guessing is, your post is a series of inferences, but the truth is, you have no idea what I am, or what I am not, "really trying to figure out".

If I were to adopt your ungenerous and uncharitable approach, I would say your misspelling above demonstrates disrespect for other beings, hypocrisy, and we should all keep that in mind whenever reading anything else you already wrote or will write in the future. But that would be silly...

If you ever embarked on giving a presentation on spiritual mythology, I know for certain that you would not want others to judge you and your entire corpus of work by the same standards you are now judging Linnell. And I know you will eventually come to realize this as well, so I won't belabor the point any further.

I agree with you, Ashvin. That would be silly. And, it would not in the least be my approach. As you very well know, my approach has been (obviously) that I have never held a misspelled name (or any other mistake made in good faith) against anyone whomsoever.

Which also answers your second paragraph, because I surely make, and will continue to make, many mistakes, but I would never dare to give a presentation on spiritual mythology, where I impersonate gods of whom I literally know nothing else than their unfamiliar name, with the explicit intent to teach the world how to think with robust imagination like a Greek. That would be passing off the driest abstractness for robust imagination. And I dare to say, if you are honest you must admit that you know I wouldn't do that.

By the way, are you familiar with this lecture where Linnell suggests that Steiner was a "proto-transhumanist"?

[Güney27]

We are currently in the midst of Earth evolution, Saturn Sun and Moon are the states that are identified as involution as those are the "fall" or in other words the materialization of spirit.
Earth is the state of the material in which we gain self-awareness (and begin to classify everything intellectually and logically), and from here it's back towards spiritualization.
So the beginning and the end are the same.

This can then be symbolically packed into pictures. I think that's what you mean by symbolic thinking.
You mention symbolic thinking, can you tell the exact difference between symbolic thinking and
Explain intuitive thinking?
How exactly can one experience a text intuitively, through a conventional way of reading?

Guney,

I hope you have a chance to watch the video on mythology. What follows is a more conceptual angle on symbolic thinking. It is always helpful to combine our conceptual study with an experiential aspect as well and approach the essential core of intuitive experience from a few different angles. Some people are good at taking a single angle of inquiry and, through sheer strength of willpower, investigating until most of its core meaning is mined. For people like me who lack that singular focus, however, it may be better to circulate through a few different angles of approach on any given topic. What you describe above how the beginning and end are essentially the same is exactly right, but to really strengthen our intuition for this process we need to steer our thinking through the curvatures of meaning as much as possible. Our thinking investigation can actually come to resemble the Cosmic and Earthly involution and evolution in that sense, since the latter is of course teased apart into many aeons, ages, epochs, and so forth. That is the only way inner perfection can arise as a result.

We are always thinking intuitively and we can get a somewhat clear sense of that in the experience of reading text or listening to music compared to other forms of outer experience. We can notice how the text does not present itself like most other outer objects, where the perceptual characteristics grab most of our attention. We don't get distracted following the curves of the black-and-white formations of text, but rather the text (in a language we have learned to resonate with) presents itself to us as a relatively meaningful whole. There is background intuition that everything we perceive audially or visually was structured through the ideational activity of other intelligent agents (including computer bots who were programmed by intelligent agents). That is even true of languages we haven't learned yet - we still have the intuition that we are confronting outer perceptions that have crystallized flowing intents. So we can leverage this intuition into gaining insight into the World as a whole.

A text isn't meant to be read intuitively, necessarily. Rather, we strive to become more conscious of how the text condenses from intuition into mental pictures, verbal concepts, and outer perceptions so that intuition can fulfill another function, namely that of lucid, precise, and communicable understanding which further clarifies, expands, and strengthens the intuition. It is a process of inner perfection. We should really try to sense how we are always engaged in this rhythmic process while reading through the text. Then we are able to increasingly maintain that intuition of the perfecting process in the background as we also understand the content of what was written. The normal intellect consistently loses the overall theme of the text/speech when analyzing its components, so it struggles to penetrate into deeper insights embedded within the speech. When we evolve our thinking on the path, however, it is like we are condensing what would take place over a much longer period of time into a relatively shorter period of time. Essentially, we are bringing more of our past experience and future potential - all of which is the intentional activity of human and higher beings - into the present. This is always what we are doing through the layers of our thinking, even if we are unaware of it, but higher thinking makes it more lucid and efficient by making it more conscious. Thus we can speak of someone on the initiatory path accomplishing in a single incarnation what would otherwise take 2, 3, or more incarnations.

But we should expect much more humble beginnings where, instead of reading through a spiritual text 10x to get its core insights, we only need to read it 4 or 5x to get those same insights. It all relates to increasing our resonance with the intentional structuring of the World content. We want to experience more and more of our states of being as a meaningful and archetypally structured Whole, like we do with speech and music, and to do that we must resonate with the intents that structure our existence. For example, if we are driving from point A to point B, the states of being through which we metamorphose will be constrained by the driving regulations that have been intentionally established i.e. speed limits, lane markings, stop signs, stoplights, and so forth. It is also constrained by the intentions of other drivers we share the road with. These intentions are not as transparent to us as our own intentions but they are relatively transparent because our ideational consciousness has a certain amount of resonance with the sort of activity that went into establishing the regulations. The driving regulations were, in turn, constrained by the natural landscape in which they were designed to apply, which is less transparent. Our metamorphosing states of being in the car from point A to point B will be constrained even more tightly by what we call the 'laws of nature' such as the force of gravity, but these are not at all transparent to our intuitive understanding, i.e. we can hardly resonate with the underlying activity. That is why we conceive of them as abstract and mechanical forces rather than the intentional ideational activity of concrete beings.

The first thing is always to begin differentiating the layers of our consciousness that are normally merged together. We don't need to worry about imaginatively or intuitively grasping a text or any particular outer perception like a tree, but rather seek to experientially awaken more and more to how our experience of the World's content is always intertwined with our variable modes of consciousness. In these differentiated modes of consciousness reside the intentional structuring of the Cosmos, of Nature, of Culture, and of our individual spirit-soul-body structure. 

But that is not the only reason why I have referred to this perspective; it was also to call attention to the importance of noting the ways consciousness is related to the world and to the fact that we can come to know the essential nature of certain things only by inquiring into the kind of consciousness involved. It is, for example, quite impossible to know anything of importance about the structure of the hierarchical order of higher spiritual beings unless we concern ourselves with their consciousness. If you go through the various lecture cycles, you will see what trouble was taken to characterize the consciousness of angels, archangels, and so on. For it is essential in any study to give careful thought to what constitutes the right approach. A person might say that he is quite familiar with the hierarchical order: first comes the human being, then the higher rank of angels, then the still higher archangels, then the archai, and so on. He writes them down in ascending order and claims to understand: each hierarchy is one step above the one before it. But if that were all one knew about these beings, one would know as little about the hierarchical order as one knows about the levels of a house from the fact that each higher story is superimposed upon the one below it; one could make a drawing that would fit both cases. What really matters is to note the salient facts in the case under study. We only know something about these higher beings if we are familiar with the state of consciousness in which the various hierarchies live and if we can describe it. This must form the basis of a study of them.

The same thing holds true in the study of human beings. We know very little indeed about our inner being if we can say nothing further on the subject of the sleeping state than that our ego and astral body are outside our physical and etheric bodies. Though that is true, it is a totally abstract pronouncement, since it conveys no more information about the difference between sleeping and waking than one possesses in the case of a full and an empty beer glass; in the one case there is beer in it, and in the other the beer is elsewhere. It is true enough that the ego and the astral body have left the physical and etheric bodies of a sleeping person, but we must be of a will to go on to ever further and more inclusive concrete insights. We try to do this, for example, when we describe the alternation of interest in the two states of consciousness.
...
I wanted to demonstrate with an example how nuances of consciousness show up in life, including nuances in actions of the will and in what we do. We need to become ever more fully aware that life really must consist of such nuances, that we have to relate differences in states of consciousness to everything we do. Sleeping and waking involve very marked differences. But there can also be a nuance of consciousness in which we are aware that a matter concerns not just ourselves but the surrounding world as well; another, in which we confront the world with awareness that we must tread gently; and still another in which we know that what we do must be done with ourselves alone, or only in the most intimate circle.

The concepts and ideas we garner from spiritual science really make a difference in life. They teach us to recognize subtle subjective differences, provided we aren't disposed to know them only from the usual standpoint, realizing instead that a serious concern with spiritual science makes us a gift of this capacity for practical tact. But that serious concern with spiritual science must be present. It is of course absent if we project into spiritual science the sensations, desires, and instincts that ordinarily prevail. If that is the case, what is derived from spiritual science amounts to little more than can be garnered from any other indifferent source of learning. I've been speaking of nuances of consciousness and saying that there are nuances within the waking states very close to sleep. But it can happen that a person lacks the inclination to concern himself with certain details and subtleties, as in the case of the coupon clipper in yesterday's lecture. One may enjoy reading books or lecture cycles, but experience a dwindling consciousness at certain places in the text, and drowsiness sets in; the conscientiousness required to overcome such a condition is simply not there to call upon.

Ashvin,

I am very grateful to you for the further explanation of the facts, I read what you wrote several times to understand what you mean.

Basically, the esoteric writings are a map of the time-consciousness spectrum.
They are symbolic and are intended to point us to the constitution that makes us who we are. In this sense, it is also problematic to theorize these teachings, since they actually want to draw our attention to realities within us.

I also watched the video you linked, but to be honest I was tired and it was late at night. He took myths and applied them to humans (our inner lives) and interpreted them.
It reminded me a bit of Jung's way of interpreting the archetypes and myths.


,,Our thinking investigation can actually come to resemble the Cosmic and Earthly involution and evolution in that sense, since the latter is of course teased apart into many aeons, ages, epochs, and so forth. That is the only way inner perfection can arise as a result"

How can our thinking become similar to this process?
It is quite difficult to experience this process on an experiential level through ordinary thinking.
How does it all look in your practice, how do you acquire these intuitions of things that make up your constitution and can therefore be extremely subtle?

,,A text is not meant to be read intuitively, necessarily. Rather, we strive to become more conscious of how the text condenses from intuition into mental pictures, verbal concepts, and outer perceptions so that intuition can fulfill another function, namely that of lucid, precise, and communicable understanding which further clarifies, expands, and strengthens the intuition. It is a process of inner perfection. We should really try to sense how we are always engaged in this rhythmic process while reading through the text. Then we are able to increasingly maintain that intuition of the perfecting process in the background as we also understand the content of what was written."


Yes, but intuition is strengthened in the one who has articulated things.
I don't understand how this is supposed to strengthen my intuition.
I have to get one first.
I have not experienced that I can strengthen my intuition when I study esoteric scriptures.
On the contrary, most of the time confusion arises.


,,Our metamorphosing states of being in the car from point A to point B will be constrained even more tightly by what we call the 'laws of nature' such as the force of gravity, but these are not at all transparent to our intuitive understanding, i.e. we can hardly resonate with the underlying activity. That is why we conceive of them as abstract and mechanical forces rather than the intentional ideational activity of concrete beings."

That would have to be the same reason why so many esotericists imagine a world full of angels in another dimension. They cannot find this "world" in themselves.
(Probably there is a reason that we got angels in pictures of winged beings, probably because that is how they represent themselves in imagination?)
Here again the question arises, how should we perceive the intentionality of nature and the environment by reading Steiner's writings, for example?


,,The first thing is always to begin differentiating the layers of our consciousness that are normally merged together. We don't need to worry about imaginatively or intuitively grasping a text or any particular outer perception like a tree, but rather seek to experientially awaken more and more to how our experience of the world's content is always intertwined with our variable modes of consciousness. In these differentiated modes of consciousness reside the intentional structuring of the Cosmos, of Nature, of Culture, and of our individual spirit-soul-body structure."

Can you explain here in more detail? This passage seems inaccessible to me, but important.


,,So we should pay more attention to the nuances of consciousness throughout the day, and there are many opportunities to do so."

Do you have an example to illustrate?


I wanted to share another quote from MS.

,,Considering that there is no man-made object that does not have thinking as its origin,
the disciple cultivates the idea that, in the sphere of earthly appearance, continually the
invisible becomes visible .
This idea is the principle of surpassing appearances Any object whatsoever made by man harks back to a moment in which it did
not exist, but was only though: this thinking was then translated into the concrete and
sensory.

The invisible has become visible.
There is no human production, nor creation that does not hark back to a time of
inexistence, that is to its original void in which its idea can be found anew. No one, looking
at a car or a building, thinks they made themselves. But is has happened that some primitive
people, in their first contact with objects or gadgets from the machine civilization, believed
that those items were marvelous products of nature: but not as if those objects were made on
their own, but as if they belonged to the creative process of the Universe.
Anyone who looking at a compass, could think it had made itself, would be taken as mentally inadequate.
Nevertheless the naive realist, notwithstanding logical analysis, today behaves no differently
with regard to created nature: no better than the primitive faced with the unknown world of
machines.

If there is no man-made object that des not hark back to a conscious thinking able to
conceive of it and to realize it, and for this reason one can argue that the invisible becomes visible: that which has not been produced by mankind and which nevertheless expresses a
creative power, harks back to a thinking that mankind is unable to think, at least at the
present time. The ascent of thinking hath precisely the task of awakening in the soul the
capacity for such thinking."

[Federica]

Ashvin,

I did suspect that you wouldn't change your position, not even by a quarter of an inch. That would have been a suprise, as I can't remember you changing your position in our discussions, ever. Yet, what you have written is surprising. You don't understand, as you say. Hence you judge. Not only you judge, but you judge wrongly. And you keep on distorting what I wrote/did.

Evidently, I never did with Tomberg or Scaligero the same as with Liddell, not even close. This is not only inaccurate, it is false, which is sad. This is evident to anyone who would read through those threads. I don't even bother to go into the details, but you can open this link, for Tomberg, and refresh your memory of what I "did with Tomberg".

That you then make your own theories on what my inner motives might be for the false attitudes that you lend me, is surprising. From my side, I have no idea what your motives are to do that, and I won't make the mistake of trying to guess them. What does not need guessing is, your post is a series of inferences, but the truth is, you have no idea what I am, or what I am not, "really trying to figure out".

If I were to adopt your ungenerous and uncharitable approach, I would say your misspelling above demonstrates disrespect for other beings, hypocrisy, and we should all keep that in mind whenever reading anything else you already wrote or will write in the future. But that would be silly...

If you ever embarked on giving a presentation on spiritual mythology, I know for certain that you would not want others to judge you and your entire corpus of work by the same standards you are now judging Linnell. And I know you will eventually come to realize this as well, so I won't belabor the point any further.

I agree with you, Ashvin. That would be silly. And, it would not in the least be my approach. As you very well know, my approach has been (obviously) that I have never held a misspelled name (or any other mistake made in good faith) against anyone whomsoever.

Which also answers your second paragraph, because I surely make, and will continue to make, many mistakes, but I would never dare to give a presentation on spiritual mythology, where I impersonate gods of whom I literally know nothing else than their unfamiliar name, with the explicit intent to teach the world how to think with robust imagination like a Greek. That would be passing off the driest abstractness for robust imagination. And I dare to say, if you are honest you must admit that you know I wouldn't do that.

By the way, are you familiar with this lecture where Linnell suggests that Steiner was a "proto-transhumanist"?

If you have a chance to watch the lecture, please let me know if you also feel, like I do, that the whole theme of human evolution is outlined in the flattest and most abstract manner, with arguably some questionable readings of Steiner's spiritual vision too.

May I add that I'm also finding issues in his other video, "From Giotto to Botticelli". If necessary, I can be more specific.

[AshvinP]

By the way, are you familiar with this lecture where Linnell suggests that Steiner was a "proto-transhumanist"?

Yes, I saw that and I think it would be an interesting and challenging question to contemplate carefully, without passion or prejudice either way. I think the term "proto-transhumanist" is already too charged and is probably unhelpful. It seems to me the overall issue is, since the merging of man and machine is practically a given at this point - and we are already merged with our machines to a significant extent even if they are technically separated in our consciousness from our bodies by abstract space - how can this inevitable development be used in a fundamentally moral way to further human and Earth evolution? It is a challenging question, for sure, and I think it is good for Anthroposophists like Linnell to at least acknowledge and address it to some extent. Secular culture shouldn't be the only one engaging it while esoteric spiritual culture declares it 'Ahrimanic evil' and runs away. The quotes he points to from Steiner's lectures are very interesting. Of course, in the last few decades, machine-computer technology has exploded in a way hardly anyone in the early 20th century could have anticipated and so far without much of a corresponding inner development. Nevertheless, Steiner was probably one of the few to anticipate the broad outlines of this development. For ex. he lectured the following:

Souls live now in a human body which you distinctly perceive with the senses. By what means has it arisen? It was very different in earlier times when the soul descended, in fact for our present material outlook even comically different. The soul took up its abode in it. By what means has the human being evolved to its present form? Because the soul has itself worked in the body during all its incarnations. You can form an idea of how the soul has worked on the body if you consider what possibility has remained to the man of our materialistic age to work upon his body. He can work relatively but very little on his dense physical body. See how you work temporarily on the body and its physiognomy.
...
The effect of this influence was that the human being could work much more creatively on his body. At the same time the body was also more soft and yielding. There was a time when you could not merely stretch out your hand, when you could not only point with the finger, but when you could send your will into your hand, and so form it that you could thrust out the fingers as continuations. There was a time when the foot was not yet permanent but could be extended as a continuation when man needed it. Thus through the pictures which he received from the surrounding world man shaped his own body. Today in our material age this moulding is unimaginably slow, but a time will come again when it will proceed more rapidly. In the future man will again acquire more influence over his physical corporeality. We shall see when we consider Initiation by what means he gains this influence; although he may not reach it in one life, yet he will be able to do much for the next incarnation.

Thus it is man himself who will bring about the future form of his body. Inasmuch as the human being becomes softer and softer, inasmuch as he separates himself from the hard parts, he is approaching his future. An age comes when man will live above his earthly portion as it were, as in time gone by. This condition, which is comparable to your present sleep-condition, will then be replaced by another when the human being will be able to draw his etheric body out of his physical body at will. It will be as if the denser part of man were here below on earth and the human being will make use of it from outside like an instrument. Man will no longer bear his body about and live within it, but will float above it, the body will itself have become rarefied and finer. That seems a fantastic idea today, but one can be distinctly aware of it from spiritual laws just as one reckons future eclipses of the sun and moon from the laws of astronomy.

Could this be connected with what is now experienced in seed form as robotics? I don't know. It's conceivable that future humans could work with robotic instruments which are not as we know them today, i.e. simply dead extensions of our physical thinking-perception, but more biological in their nature, once we have learned how to consciously work with the life forces. Steiner is even more explicit about the issue here:

Now I will turn again to the fact that in this fifth post-Atlantean epoch humanity will have to find ways of dealing with great life-problems which in a certain sense were veiled by the wisdom of the past. I have already called your attention to them. One of these great problems will be concerned with finding out how to place the spiritual etheric forces at the service of practical life. I have told you that in this epoch we have to solve the problem of how the radiations from human states of mind are carried over into machines; of how human beings are to be brought into relation with an environment which must become increasingly mechanised. A week ago I pointed out how superficially this mechanisation is treated in a certain part of the world. I gave you the example of how an American way of thinking tries to extend the realm of the machine over human life itself. I told you of the rest-pauses which were used in order to enable a given number of workmen to load up to 47½ tons, instead of a much lower figure; this involves simply the application of Darwinian natural selection to human life.

Where this kind of thing goes on, the wish to yoke up human strength with the strength of machines is always involved. It would be quite mistaken merely to oppose these things. They are not going to fade away; they are on the march. The only question is whether in the course of world-history they are going to be brought on to the scene by men who are unselfishly aware of the great aims of earth-evolution and wish to shape these developments for the healing of mankind, or by groups of men who want to use them for their own or the group's selfish ends. That is the issue. The point is not what is going to happen, for it certainly will happen, but how it happens — how these things are handled. The welding together of human beings with machines will be a great and important problem for the rest of the earth-evolution.

I have often pointed out, even in public lectures, that human consciousness depends on destructive forces. During public lectures in Basle I twice said that in our nerve-system we are always in process of dying. These forces of death will become stronger and stronger, and we shall find that they are related to the forces of electricity and magnetism, and to those at work in machines. A man will be able in a certain sense to guide his intentions and his thoughts into the forces of the machines. Forces in human nature that are still unknown will be discovered — forces which will act upon external electricity and magnetism.

That is one problem: the bringing together of human beings with machines, and this is something which will exert ever-increasing influence on the future.

To be clear, I am not convinced all of the above is necessarily going to be an offshoot of what we know now as 'transhumanism', but it's also not outside the realm of possibility and is worth paying attention to with an open mind and contemplating carefully. One way or another, it will be our creative responsibility to guide these streams of development in a healthy way for the healing of humanity and the Earth's organism.

[Federica]

...

Ashvin,
I will let your pretentious comments from your previous post fall, but regarding Linnell, you are eluding my question, trying to swing into musings centered in Steiner quotes alone. So let me ask again:

please let me know if you also feel, like I do, that the whole theme of human evolution is outlined in the flattest and most abstract manner, with arguably some questionable readings of Steiner's spiritual vision too.

And please note, as I said above, that I am also finding issues in "From Giotto to Botticelli". I can be more specific, but my point is: I don't think Linnell can be called an Anthroposophist. He is very far from any Anthroposophists we have discussed here so far.

[AshvinP]

...

Ashvin,
I will let your pretentious comments from your previous post fall, but regarding Linnell, you are eluding my question, trying to swing into musings centered in Steiner quotes alone. So let me ask again:

please let me know if you also feel, like I do, that the whole theme of human evolution is outlined in the flattest and most abstract manner, with arguably some questionable readings of Steiner's spiritual vision too.

And please note, as I said above, that I am also finding issues in "From Giotto to Botticelli". I can be more specific, but my point is: I don't think Linnell can be called an Anthroposophist. He is very far from any Anthroposophists we have discussed here so far.

Federica,

I posted my last comment before I even saw your additional comment, as indicated by the fact that I quoted the first one.

No, I don't feel like you do about the video, so I will need you to be more specific and lay out the portions you felt were "flattest and most abstract" and why. Feel free to lay out the issues for the Giotto to Botticelli video as well, which I really enjoyed and found illuminating. Who knows, maybe I am missing something.

I hope the 'issues' aren't more examples of mispoken terminology, though, but something of actual substance. I do find it questionable that you would rather focus on an interrogation of Linnell's qualifications as an Anthroposophist than the central ideas he is pointing to in the light of Steiner and spiritual science.

[Federica]

...

Ashvin,
I will let your pretentious comments from your previous post fall, but regarding Linnell, you are eluding my question, trying to swing into musings centered in Steiner quotes alone. So let me ask again:

please let me know if you also feel, like I do, that the whole theme of human evolution is outlined in the flattest and most abstract manner, with arguably some questionable readings of Steiner's spiritual vision too.

And please note, as I said above, that I am also finding issues in "From Giotto to Botticelli". I can be more specific, but my point is: I don't think Linnell can be called an Anthroposophist. He is very far from any Anthroposophists we have discussed here so far.

Federica,

I posted my last comment before I even saw your additional comment, as indicated by the fact that I quoted the first one.

No, I don't feel like you do about the video, so I will need you to be more specific and lay out the portions you felt were "flattest and most abstract" and why. Feel free to lay out the issues for the Giotto to Botticelli video as well, which I really enjoyed and found illuminating. Who knows, maybe I am missing something.

I hope the 'issues' aren't more examples of mispoken terminology, though, but something of actual substance. I do find it questionable that you would rather focus on an interrogation of Linnell's qualifications as an Anthroposophist than the central ideas he is pointing to in the light of Steiner and spiritual science.

Ashvin,

Let me first use this separate post to call out the bold, as it is necessary. You need to stop this trend of falsely implying points I never made. To wit, I have never focused on "an interrogation of Linnell's qualifications as an Anthroposophist rather than the central ideas he is pointing to". You have invented the latter. I repeat (see the records): Linnell cannot be called Anthroposophist, as you have arbitrarily done in your last posts. This is both groundless, and unfair towards the real Anthroposophists we have discussed in the threads of this forum over the last months and years. My statement is indeed based on central ideas, as I am about to illustrate. This has nothing to do with "qualifications".

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Let me first use this separate post to call out the bold, as it is necessary. You need to stop this trend of falsely implying points I never made. To wit, I have never focused on "an interrogation of Linnell's qualifications as an Anthroposophist rather than the central ideas he is pointing to". You have invented the latter. I repeat (see the records): Linnell cannot be called Anthroposophist, as you have arbitrarily done in your last posts. This is both groundless, and unfair towards the real Anthroposophists we have discussed in the threads of this forum over the last months and years. My statement is indeed based on central ideas, as I am about to illustrate. This has nothing to do with "qualifications".

The central idea was that Steiner was a 'proto-transhumanist', which I responded to, and you have ignored to focus instead on dissecting Linnel's videos and resume, presumably questioning whether he is qualified to speak on any of these issues, rather than the issues themselves.

Linnell is an Anthroposophist, whether you want to call him that or not. If you are claiming his ideas are incompatible with Anthroposophy, then I am interested in hearing exactly why.

Andrew Linnell Is Co-Founder And CEO Of MysTech (Mystech.Org And Mystech.Co), An Organization Seeking To Realize Rudolf Steiner’s Indications On Mechanical Occultism. He Retired From A 42-Year Career In The Computer Industry In 2013. He Had Been CTO Of OmegaBand In Austin, TX. And Has Worked At EMC, Compaq, DEC, Wang Labs, And IBM. He Is President Of The Boston Branch Of The Anthroposophical Society And A Member Of The School For Spiritual Science. He Is The Father Of Three And The Author Of Two Children’s Books Plus An Art History Book The Hidden Heretic Of The Renaissance: Leonardo And A History Book The Uncomfortable History Of Christianity. He Leads Several MysTech Study Groups And Has Published Four Study Group Guidebooks.