Symbolic thinking, Anthroposophy and Transhumanism

[Federica]

Ashvin, really… What I am saying is simple to see and relate to. I can and should accept the full spectrum of invitations pressing on us in earthly life, to responsibly probe reality in the face of the unknown (all the quotes from my posts you have thrown in). In a sense, it’s the very goal of earthly life, but how I do it has importance. I shouldn’t venture into a prescriptive attitude then, that is, consecrating, without knowing. I am willing to explore the unknown - exploration only means something when it has this character - but I'm not willing to prescribe things in the unknown. These attitudes go in opposite directions - easy to see, isn't it? It's like leaving the forest hut to explore the valley around on foot - which I say is necessary and try to practice - versus climbing the nearest pick and putting on a wingsuit to explore it by overflight. Unless, since man is not a bird, this may end up that the parachute fails, and the valley is 'explored' by crashing into it. This doesn’t mean that I can’t listen to prescriptions from trusted sources (it’s puzzling how you don’t seem to record this point in particular, no matter how many times I highlight it).

Anyway, I am familiar by now with your language, your risk assessments of compromised spiritual development if I insist, the “great tragedy” (your exact words!) it would be if I fail to “contemplate” (your exact word!) the work of your friend (who subsequently happened to demonstrate in writing their fullstanding separateness from the PoF fundamentals, an example of what OMA speaks of in todays meditation), and now, that it would take a miracle for me to realize the truthfulness of your diagnoses ( ). I know my own intentions, whether or not I have an impatient approach to development, etcetera, and the fact that you so grossly, and repetitively, misinterpret them gives me the certainty that something is off in your approach, tough I don’t pretend to diagnose and admonish. I don’t know why you take this stance, however, one thing is sure: it doesn’t do justice to your capabilities.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, really… What I am saying is simple to see and relate to. I can and should accept the full spectrum of invitations pressing on us in earthly life, to responsibly probe reality in the face of the unknown (all the quotes from my posts you have thrown in). In a sense, it’s the very goal of earthly life, but how I do it has importance. I shouldn’t venture into a prescriptive attitude then, that is, consecrating, without knowing. I am willing to explore the unknown - exploration only means something when it has this character - but I'm not willing to prescribe things in the unknown. These attitudes go in opposite directions - easy to see, isn't it? It's like leaving the forest hut to explore the valley around on foot - which I say is necessary and try to practice - versus climbing the nearest pick and putting on a wingsuit to explore it by overflight. Unless, since man is not a bird, this may end up that the parachute fails, and the valley is 'explored' by crashing into it. This doesn’t mean that I can’t listen to prescriptions from trusted sources (it’s puzzling how you don’t seem to record this point in particular, no matter how many times I highlight it).

Anyway, I am familiar by now with your language, your risk assessments of compromised spiritual development if I insist, the “great tragedy” (your exact words!) it would be if I fail to “contemplate” (your exact word!) the work of your friend (who subsequently happened to demonstrate in writing their fullstanding separateness from the PoF fundamentals, an example of what OMA speaks of in todays meditation), and now, that it would take a miracle for me to realize the truthfulness of your diagnoses ( ). I know my own intentions, whether or not I have an impatient approach to development, etcetera, and the fact that you so grossly, and repetitively, misinterpret them gives me the certainty that something is off in your approach, tough I don’t pretend to diagnose and admonish. I don’t know why you take this stance, however, one thing is sure: it doesn’t do justice to your capabilities.

Federica,

What I am saying is also simple, entirely aligned with the fundamentals of the intuitive thinking path. It isn't at all a deviation from what we have spoken of many times before. Cleric put it as follows at the outset of Part 2:

Because of the scientific habits of our age, when we think about gaining a more intimate experience of the World groove, probably the first thing that comes to mind is that we should somehow gain insight into the way particles and forces work. But in reality, as we saw in connection with our willing spiritual activity, this depth of the physical world is initially the furthest removed from where our intuition of the flow is at its clearest focus – the experience of our thinking. We know the physical world only as far as it impresses through sensory perceptions and we form corresponding mental images. What happens in our organs and cells, we don’t have direct consciousness of. Our intuition can only grow from where we find it to be already one and the same with the intuitive curvature of the World groove. If we jump directly to physics or metaphysics, we once again introduce the duality between the intuitive curvature within which our philosophical thoughts flow and the supposed ‘true’ curvature of the World groove, which, alas, once again remains ‘on the other side’. For this reason, gaining a deeper knowledge of the World groove starts from within outwards.

I have tried to say the same thing as follows:

That is another reason why the inner edge, where our intuitive insight and capacity for creative management is stronger, should take primary importance, so we know more intimately what inner impulses are steering our thinking in relation to the varied sensory events.

...We should never feel like bypassing the seed point of thinking as we gain consciousness of the deeper curvatures, but only expanding its resonant circumference. The alteration of constraints should come first in our thinking habits and proximate soul tendencies...

The spirit will let us know in no uncertain terms when we are overextending our "I" and becoming too prideful in its capacity to reach and alter the deeper curvatures. We just need to remain humbly open to its intuitive feedback.

We won't gain this intuitive sensitivity by a process of trial and error within the physical curvature that somehow works around concentrated cognition. It is exactly the disorganized soul curvature that precludes our spiritual insight into the deeper karmic streams of destiny, i.e. the Guardian of the Threshold.

I am sure you feel that nothing you have written so far is in tension with the above, but if your repeated phrasing in the comments is any reflection of your ideas in this respect, then there is a tension. For ex. in your last comment - "I can and should accept the full spectrum of invitations pressing on us in earthly life, to responsibly probe reality in the face of the unknown." 

I hope you at least see something of this tension. Cleric also provided the new illustration of karmic imbalances and compensation which work through our life destiny, ending with, "So things are not easily graspable on a linear scale - thus the well-known "God moves in mysterious ways". As always, prayer is our guide here."

Imagine that we get to the end of life, the etheric body departs the physical and we behold the panoramic tableau of life events. We discern the whole logical thread of our life plan, as viewed from the perspective of the higher self that intended a certain outcome at the pole of death. We see how the most varied accidents, illnesses, tragedies, and so forth fit into that holistic logic and configured themselves so as to approach that outcome. They served to build certain virtues and capacities that we were hardly aware of, that we had no reason to even suspect at the time. Then we zoom into a particular part of life where we wished to prematurely grasp at this holistic understanding of life destiny, to even meddle in it and alter its constraints. We behold ourselves saying something like, "Please, the Gods, I wish to sneak my current spiritual activity through the windows within the interfering field of karmic possibilities so that, even though I have no intuitive insight into how this or that event fits into my life plan, I may proceed as if I have that insight and alter the constraints of destiny according to my conception of what is best."

Let's be clear, I am not at all concerned that you are going to have unnecessary surgeries to gain deeper insights, or do meditative hot tub rituals, or whatever, but I am pointing to the manner of thinking that emerges from these considerations. It is the whole way we are intuitively orienting to the soul and spiritual curvatures that structure our life destiny together with our possibilities for greater inner degrees of freedom. That is where we should be open to feedback and open to the possibility we are not altogether immune from the 'scientific habits of our age'. These are exactly the habits we want to gain more intuitive insight into by working from within the thinking soul curvature outwards. These are exactly the constraints we can and should alter through that insight. Any other 'alteration work' that we imagine is accessible to us is almost guaranteed to be a convenient but unhelpful distraction.

[Federica]

It is evident to me that, for some reason, you heavily overestimate the importance I grant the physical layer of the spectrum. By the way, remember, in this thread you were initially kind of in possible agreement with my examples of how I look at our inevitable interactions with thechnology. Not yet shocked to the point of evoking miraculous events, anyway. Discord only really arose when you recalled that earlier discussion about “consecration”. Notice, that old issue has been there ever since, and I haven’t said anything now more than I did then. However, you have revived and used that old discussion to reinterpret my current posts (that you were initially in possible agreement with), in a much more worrisome way.

So, you decided to bring together two datasets, but were not satisfied with a simple addition. You decided to sort of 'multiply' the data instead, hence landing in a huge overestimation of what I mean by “accepting the full spectrum of invitations pressing on us in earthly life”. Remember, before you threw oil on fire reviving the old discussion, I had made my thoughts very concrete, providing examples of how earthy life challenges us anyway, imposing us to make choices anyway (vaccines, military, bio-engineering, media exposure and use, etc.) Unless one decides to live an ascetic life, and even in that case, one wouldn’t escape the necessity to make everyday physical-technological decisions. So I think one could ask: why did you feel like pouring oil on fire in that way? Was that necessary to the discussion:

Thanks, Federica, this definitely makes the position more clear. I think mostly you are using liberal phrasing to describe a quite conservative approach. Remember it was not too long ago when consecrating hand washing without understanding the deeper spiritual reasons why was a reckless move into the physical curvature, which generated a lot of argument

I don’t think the above was necessary or useful to the discussion, but for some reason, you had to ……......... I’ll let you fill the blank in your heart with whatever you think is appropriate. By the way - speaking of the now ill-famed physical technological spectrum that I now pass for being longingly engaged with, supposedly mad for a shortcut to enlightenment - I understand that you are not at all concerned, but since your wording is suggestive, I want to make clear a few things: I didn’t do or plan any esthetic surgeries or procedures, and I don’t even have a bath tub (and don’t aspire to). For context, let me add that I also don’t own a car (I may rent one on occasion, yes, if I really need) or any other vehicle; the home appliances I use can be counted on the fingers of one hand - my one laptop being one of them; apart from anesthesia, and penicillin that I was recently given at surgery, last time I took a pharmacy drug was in 2015 when I had to operate a skier’s thumb; and apart from rare occasions, I don’t eat processed food. And with this I guess I have covered all the physical technological exemples you mentioned as potentially having subtle destructive influences in everyday life.

[Federica]

The next task I have in sight in this thread is to put my hand to the previously mentioned proposition (linked in the quoted post below) aiming to depict Rudolf Steiner as a precursor of current transhumanism. Naturally, it’s important to clarify at least roughly what is meant by transhumanism. That humanity has always been in transformation and will keep transforming is an indispensable anthroposophical idea. However, in appending to Rudolf Steiner the label of “proto-transhumanist” the intention is to connect his name and work with the current transhumanist movement, that is ”a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being”.

In other words, the attempt is to understand the new ways in which technological ideas are interacting with human life as not only prefigured, but also indicated by Steiner as part of the path of truth along which humanity is called to evolve, applying free will to the fulfillment of its evolutionary task in the universe. To explore this question I am focusing for now on GA 99 Part XIII, the Future of Man:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA099/En ... 05p01.html
or:
https://steiner.wiki/GA_99#Die_Zukunft_des_Menschen



and on the three lectures in GA 178, The Wrong and Right use of Esoteric Knowledge:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA178/En ... index.html
or:
https://steiner.wiki/GA_178#INDIVIDUELL ... er_Vortrag


It takes time, so I am not yet ready to elaborate in detail, but I’m setting the stage. One effort I am making that Steiner explicitly asks for, is to try and keep conception fluid. The temptation to understand the illustrations by means of our current life and concepts is constant. In response to it, the effort has to be made to continually set free thinking from that impulsion, while reading.

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, in as much 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 mechanized. A week ago I pointed out how superficially this mechanization 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.

[Cleric K]

Since the following thought has just come to me in a roundabout way (not from the daily thoughts) I'll share it here

Bless, thank, consecrate: a rule of life

"Do you want to make your life ever richer and more beautiful? Bless every creature you encounter, every object you touch. Thank the Lord for all that is given to you, the joys and the sorrows, and dedicate each of your activities to Him. Bless, thank, consecrate. Make these three practices a rule for your entire existence."

Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov

[Anthony66]

Since the following thought has just come to me in a roundabout way (not from the daily thoughts) I'll share it here

Bless, thank, consecrate: a rule of life

"Do you want to make your life ever richer and more beautiful? Bless every creature you encounter, every object you touch. Thank the Lord for all that is given to you, the joys and the sorrows, and dedicate each of your activities to Him. Bless, thank, consecrate. Make these three practices a rule for your entire existence."

Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov

Who or what is the Lord in your polytheistic universe?

[Cleric K]

Who or what is the Lord in your polytheistic universe?

It's LUCA! (but upside-down)

[Federica]

Since the following thought has just come to me in a roundabout way (not from the daily thoughts) I'll share it here

Bless, thank, consecrate: a rule of life

"Do you want to make your life ever richer and more beautiful? Bless every creature you encounter, every object you touch. Thank the Lord for all that is given to you, the joys and the sorrows, and dedicate each of your activities to Him. Bless, thank, consecrate. Make these three practices a rule for your entire existence."

Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov

Thanks, Cleric I appreciate the advice, tough it sets the bar high! But then I've wondered: "What consecrating actually means in this thought, more than blessing, sending love to all creatures and objects, and be thankful? Is it dedicating the deeds back to God? How this dedication is different from being thankful?" So I've googled +Omraam +consecrate and got these past meditations:

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

Consecrating an object - begin by exorcizing it
"You wish to consecrate an object, and that is fine, but do you know how to go about it? In order to consecrate an object, you must begin by exorcizing it, for this object has already received the influences left by those who have touched it and by events around it, which have deposited fluidic layers on it that may be cloudy and impure. These layers form a barrier, a sort of screen, which prevents your thoughts from impregnating this object. Once it has been exorcized by prayers and even by burning incense, you can proceed to consecrate it, thus placing it under the influence of a heavenly power: it is then reserved.

It is as if a sign were placed on it. It is now impregnated with light: evil spirits can no longer lodge in it or make use of it, whereas heavenly entities can dwell in it, so that through it, they can help you with your spiritual work.*"

Sunday, August 27, 2023

Brotherhood - under the protection of the entities of the sun
"You are all under the protection of the entities of the sun because one day I dedicated the Brotherhood to the sun.* Why did I do this? In order to open a door for the luminous entities of the sun so that these powerful, highly evolved spirits can enter and work on you from within. This consecration does not apply only to those who were present at the time; it applies to all those who, in the future, will come to know our Teaching, the Teaching of the sun. Now that you are consecrated, solar spirits can enter you and work through you, for this is the purpose of a consecration whether of an object, a place, or a person: it creates an opening for the spirits to which it is dedicated.

This is why the spirits of the sun can now help and heal you and give you revelations."

going backwards, there are more: https://www.fbu-usa.com/mobile/PastMeditations.aspx


Well, could there be a learning curve involved in consecration?
What is simple consecration, without special language in words or gestures - without formality?

[AshvinP]

Since the following thought has just come to me in a roundabout way (not from the daily thoughts) I'll share it here

Bless, thank, consecrate: a rule of life

"Do you want to make your life ever richer and more beautiful? Bless every creature you encounter, every object you touch. Thank the Lord for all that is given to you, the joys and the sorrows, and dedicate each of your activities to Him. Bless, thank, consecrate. Make these three practices a rule for your entire existence."

Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov

Who or what is the Lord in your polytheistic universe?

As a sort of quick and dirty phenomenological approach to this question, one could start by experiencing their current linear sequence of thoughts. For ex. right now I have thoughts condensing related to 'how to phenomenologically illustrate the Lord to Anthony'. These are linearly experienced as the stream of my inner voice. Yet these thoughts are only a tiny subset of my intuitive context - to begin with, this context embeds the whole range of ideas that I have developed over my lifetime, my conception of reality, the skills that I have acquired, the configuration of my soul life (temperament, character, preferences, etc.), the various relationships throughout my life, and so on. The point is to really feel how tiny our thoughts are at any given time are compared to this much vaster intuitive context. The former float at the very surface of this context like crushed ice pieces in the ocean.

Yet even this personal intuitive context is tiny, is another ice cube, floating on the whole ocean of ideas, knowledge, skills, emotions, etc. experienced and acquired by human souls alive today or in the past. And then we can imagine the context of all relative perspectives who have gone through development in any possible environment within the evolving Solar organism, not just current humanity, but all Earthly kingdoms and all planetary environments. Again, it is about cultivating the feeling of our highly constricted thought-life in comparison to this ever-widening intuitive context that encompasses all possible perspectives through their temporal development which is guided along intentional streamlines.

We aren't looking for the LUCA as some Divine Atom that regulates all the lower atomic beings, but as the very intuitive structure through which all relative perspectives awaken to and experience their progressive development back to their Divine origin. The Lord is not simply the sum total of all the content experienced by these perspectives, but the very 'substance' of all potential experience itself - all meaningful qualities and relationships that could be experienced - which we desire to gradually incarnate and integrate within our individual perspective, so that the Good of the Whole may once again live within and through us.

[Federica]

Who or what is the Lord in your polytheistic universe?

What I read in these words:

"Who or what" =
"I don't prefer to be invited out of the anthropomorphic perspective".

"polytheistic" =
"I prefer to look at images at a 1-pixel resolution. Any resolution above 1 is polytheism, that is, the output of an unevolved tribal man of the past."