Esoteric knowledge for skeptics

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,
Your post seems to me inundated with judgments, and you turn concepts and words around at your momentary convenience. Apologies for giving up trying to empty this flooded field with a spoon.

Ok, Federica, I have simply been trying to address the questions and comments from your original post, such as this:

As I understand it, to a preponderant extent, the brain is where standard cognition is cooked, and the hemispheres have scarce relevance in that. The researchers who wrote the cell simulation paper in the cell intelligence thread definitely and extensively used both hemispheres. At the same time, their thinking activity was rational, intellectual and "from the side".

Of course, we use both hemispheres all the time, as we also use Intuition, Inspiration, and Imagination (in their highest essences) all the time. It is what makes our thinking experience possible in the widest possible sense. The question is how consciously we are present in those higher-order processes. Even from the differentiations you have discerned and mentioned here, it is obvious that RB qualities are neglected in our conscious experience of 'standard cognition'.

Would you agree that when the head-poles are balanced, so we are consciously present for the rhythmic alternation between zooming out and zooming in, we can no longer be thinking 'from the side'? That it simply isn't possible to be thinking 'from the side' in that situation until we once again lose our conscious presence?

[Federica]

Ashvin,
Your post seems to me inundated with judgments, and you turn concepts and words around at your momentary convenience. Apologies for giving up trying to empty this flooded field with a spoon.

Ok, Federica, I have simply been trying to address the questions and comments from your original post, such as this:

As I understand it, to a preponderant extent, the brain is where standard cognition is cooked, and the hemispheres have scarce relevance in that. The researchers who wrote the cell simulation paper in the cell intelligence thread definitely and extensively used both hemispheres. At the same time, their thinking activity was rational, intellectual and "from the side".

Of course, we use both hemispheres all the time, as we also use Intuition, Inspiration, and Imagination (in their highest essences) all the time. It is what makes our thinking experience possible in the widest possible sense. The question is how consciously we are present in those higher-order processes. Even from the differentiations you have discerned and mentioned here, it is obvious that RB qualities are neglected in our conscious experience of 'standard cognition'.

Would you agree that when the head-poles are balanced, so we are consciously present for the rhythmic alternation between zooming out and zooming in, we can no longer be thinking 'from the side'? That it simply isn't possible to be thinking 'from the side' in that situation until we once again lose our conscious presence?

Ashvin,

I know you want to help, but this m.o. doesn't work from my perspective. You want to guide me in your own way towards certain thoughts, but this is becoming a sort of domino word game, where one can state everything and its opposite, as long as one specifies or implies that it's true 'in some sense', like that we use Intuition Inspiration and Imagination in their highest essences all the time. So I doubt it would be fruitful to take another round, and that I point out what's implicit in your new-new question, since it doesn't seem like you are in a mood of answering remarks in this thread.

So, questions aside, I will just submit to your attention a comment to what you earlier replied about observations and conclusions, that is, observations and theories. I let it aside when you wrote it, but I think it's important. To recall, you wrote this to refute my point that just because scientists tell us things about the brain lobes it doesn't mean we have to find a direct spiritual translation of the theories - just as we don't do it when science tells us that the function of the heart is to pump blood into the circulatory system. You said:

That the heart is a 'pump' is a materialistic conclusion imposed on scientific observations - it is actually a failure to observe the inner processes carefully enough and reason through them impartially.

I simply want to express a comment. I am not asking a question. My comment is: according to a substack that you may have read, your statement is incorrect, since there can't be a conclusion or theory - like, the heart is a pump - imposed on scientific 'impartial observations'. Rather, it's only in light of a theory or conclusion, that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and so explained.

the function of a theory is to reveal the logic and lawfulness in what would appear mere happenstance to the untutored eye. Indeed, therefore, it is only in light of the proper theory that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and subsequently explained. Hence, it should be clear that a theory must be more than an explanation of what can be readily observed since the theory was also present as a necessary condition for observation as such.

[Cleric K]

To recall, you wrote this to refute my point that just because scientists tell us things about the brain lobes it doesn't mean we have to find a direct spiritual translation of the theories - just as we don't do it when science tells us that the function of the heart is to pump blood into the circulatory system.

It should be noted that the head polarity is not a modern invention of science. Thousands of years ago the ancient Hindus still had experiences of the etheric body and all their extensive philosophy on polarities stem from real spiritual experiences. Things like ida and pingala, the Moon and Solar energies, were not invented as some metaphors for biological and astronomical observations. So the polar qualities in the etheric head can be found as such direct experiences. Indeed, what I said about Hegel and the closing of the mind fractal, is something that we necessarily pass through in concentration. Then the Imaginative experience of our head-thinking feels like:



Just like with the splitting bar magnets, the more we feel united with the brain, the more thought activity feels dispersed, and it is true that we can’t think with and experience only one hemisphere. Just like the picture above, the trees define each other, so they are both active. Of course, such images need to be taken very loosely because, as said before, these can be especially nerve racking for the intellect as they are so luring, they feel so fundamental, that the intellect feels that it has finally grasped reality at its root. Yet the blind spot always remains outside what we behold (and thus the fractal yin yang).

So in the etheric body we can experience the masculine/feminine polarities to a great extent. Yet it is not so simple to trace that polarity to its physical manifestations, precisely because the relations become so complicated. Furthermore, as said, we should be careful if attempting this, because it is a powerful temptation for the intellect.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,
Your post seems to me inundated with judgments, and you turn concepts and words around at your momentary convenience. Apologies for giving up trying to empty this flooded field with a spoon.

Ok, Federica, I have simply been trying to address the questions and comments from your original post, such as this:

As I understand it, to a preponderant extent, the brain is where standard cognition is cooked, and the hemispheres have scarce relevance in that. The researchers who wrote the cell simulation paper in the cell intelligence thread definitely and extensively used both hemispheres. At the same time, their thinking activity was rational, intellectual and "from the side".

Of course, we use both hemispheres all the time, as we also use Intuition, Inspiration, and Imagination (in their highest essences) all the time. It is what makes our thinking experience possible in the widest possible sense. The question is how consciously we are present in those higher-order processes. Even from the differentiations you have discerned and mentioned here, it is obvious that RB qualities are neglected in our conscious experience of 'standard cognition'.

Would you agree that when the head-poles are balanced, so we are consciously present for the rhythmic alternation between zooming out and zooming in, we can no longer be thinking 'from the side'? That it simply isn't possible to be thinking 'from the side' in that situation until we once again lose our conscious presence?

Ashvin,

I know you want to help, but this m.o. doesn't work from my perspective. You want to guide me in your own way towards certain thoughts, but this is becoming a sort of domino word game, where one can state everything and its opposite, as long as one specifies or implies that it's true 'in some sense', like that we use Intuition Inspiration and Imagination in their highest essences all the time. So I doubt it would be fruitful to take another round, and that I point out what's implicit in your new-new question, since it doesn't seem like you are in a mood of answering remarks in this thread.

So, questions aside, I will just submit to your attention a comment to what you earlier replied about observations and conclusions, that is, observations and theories. I let it aside when you wrote it, but I think it's important. To recall, you wrote this to refute my point that just because scientists tell us things about the brain lobes it doesn't mean we have to find a direct spiritual translation of the theories - just as we don't do it when science tells us that the function of the heart is to pump blood into the circulatory system. You said:

That the heart is a 'pump' is a materialistic conclusion imposed on scientific observations - it is actually a failure to observe the inner processes carefully enough and reason through them impartially.

I simply want to express a comment. I am not asking a question. My comment is: according to a substack that you may have read, your statement is incorrect, since there can't be a conclusion or theory - like, the heart is a pump - imposed on scientific 'impartial observations'. Rather, it's only in light of a theory or conclusion, that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and so explained.

the function of a theory is to reveal the logic and lawfulness in what would appear mere happenstance to the untutored eye. Indeed, therefore, it is only in light of the proper theory that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and subsequently explained. Hence, it should be clear that a theory must be more than an explanation of what can be readily observed since the theory was also present as a necessary condition for observation as such.

Federica,

I will just mention, along the lines of Cleric's last post, that I did not intend to dismiss your initial cautions. I apologize if it seemed like I was brushing that off or ignoring it. I tried to point towards the same thing in my post to Guney, which you also noticed in your original response:

It is true that the physical brain is not the cause of these differentiated modes of cognition. Rather, it reflects back to us differentiated aspects of our normally invisible soul-spiritual structure that make use of the visible brain as their instrument. The latter is our sensory representation of a whole complex of spiritual forces that structure our life of thinking. I know it's difficult at first to avoid having materialistic conceptions about the physical body and its role in our spiritual life. It may be helpful to simply think of the physical processes as a symbol for soul-spiritual processes, which incarnate into the 'material' parts of the body to accomplish various tasks on the objective sensory plane.

But I could have put more effort into making this distinction clear. We have all probably encountered people in 'new age' circles who tend to think of spiritual realities as direct 1:1 mappings to physical manifestations. They speak of the chakras along the spinal axis of the body, the celestial regions and the inner layers of the earth, how certain models of the galaxies resemble a neural network or physical brain, and many other similar things. There is nothing inherently wrong with that and, furthermore, there is a concrete imaginative basis for making those analogies. However, it is somewhat easy to tell when such people are becoming too rigidly literal, like when a fundamentalist talks about 'heaven' and 'hell' as physical locations. We can sense they have fallen for the powerful temptation of the intellect to physicalize and simplify the inner realities, as Cleric put it. It is almost as if they look at models of the Universe and imagine we actually live inside a Big Brain.

So there is a real danger here. When taken to an extreme, spiritual-minded people may even start imagining that physically intervening with the structure of the brain, or the organs, etc. will lead to spiritual development. I noticed on a discord server that a lot of 'transgender activists' who support body modeling are also spiritually minded in that way, sometimes even drawing on Anthroposophy for support, such as Steiner's observation that the male-female polarity of the physical organism is fading out in the course of evolution. Such people really feel like modulating the outer structures of the body with physical technology will help manifest spiritual evolution. So I do not at all intend to downplay that risk or underestimate its consequences.

On the other hand, there is obviously some relation between the inner realities and the physical manifestations. For ex. the etheric head polarity must have some relation to the physical hemispheres, because otherwise how could cognitive scientists like IM have studied the latter and come to the exact sort of qualitative differentiation that can be experienced in the former? It is always up to us to guard against oversimplifying and over-literalization of these correspondences and to orient to the physical structures more symbolically and imaginatively. And in that process, we shouldn't overlook the fact that balancing the etheric head polarity, symbolized by the hemispherical differentiation, is the portal through which our concentration can invert our thinking into higher spheres of experience.

[Federica]

Ok, Federica, I have simply been trying to address the questions and comments from your original post, such as this:





Of course, we use both hemispheres all the time, as we also use Intuition, Inspiration, and Imagination (in their highest essences) all the time. It is what makes our thinking experience possible in the widest possible sense. The question is how consciously we are present in those higher-order processes. Even from the differentiations you have discerned and mentioned here, it is obvious that RB qualities are neglected in our conscious experience of 'standard cognition'.

Would you agree that when the head-poles are balanced, so we are consciously present for the rhythmic alternation between zooming out and zooming in, we can no longer be thinking 'from the side'? That it simply isn't possible to be thinking 'from the side' in that situation until we once again lose our conscious presence?

Ashvin,

I know you want to help, but this m.o. doesn't work from my perspective. You want to guide me in your own way towards certain thoughts, but this is becoming a sort of domino word game, where one can state everything and its opposite, as long as one specifies or implies that it's true 'in some sense', like that we use Intuition Inspiration and Imagination in their highest essences all the time. So I doubt it would be fruitful to take another round, and that I point out what's implicit in your new-new question, since it doesn't seem like you are in a mood of answering remarks in this thread.

So, questions aside, I will just submit to your attention a comment to what you earlier replied about observations and conclusions, that is, observations and theories. I let it aside when you wrote it, but I think it's important. To recall, you wrote this to refute my point that just because scientists tell us things about the brain lobes it doesn't mean we have to find a direct spiritual translation of the theories - just as we don't do it when science tells us that the function of the heart is to pump blood into the circulatory system. You said:

That the heart is a 'pump' is a materialistic conclusion imposed on scientific observations - it is actually a failure to observe the inner processes carefully enough and reason through them impartially.

I simply want to express a comment. I am not asking a question. My comment is: according to a substack that you may have read, your statement is incorrect, since there can't be a conclusion or theory - like, the heart is a pump - imposed on scientific 'impartial observations'. Rather, it's only in light of a theory or conclusion, that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and so explained.

the function of a theory is to reveal the logic and lawfulness in what would appear mere happenstance to the untutored eye. Indeed, therefore, it is only in light of the proper theory that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and subsequently explained. Hence, it should be clear that a theory must be more than an explanation of what can be readily observed since the theory was also present as a necessary condition for observation as such.

Federica,

I will just mention, along the lines of Cleric's last post, that I did not intend to dismiss your initial cautions. I apologize if it seemed like I was brushing that off or ignoring it. I tried to point towards the same thing in my post to Guney, which you also noticed in your original response:

It is true that the physical brain is not the cause of these differentiated modes of cognition. Rather, it reflects back to us differentiated aspects of our normally invisible soul-spiritual structure that make use of the visible brain as their instrument. The latter is our sensory representation of a whole complex of spiritual forces that structure our life of thinking. I know it's difficult at first to avoid having materialistic conceptions about the physical body and its role in our spiritual life. It may be helpful to simply think of the physical processes as a symbol for soul-spiritual processes, which incarnate into the 'material' parts of the body to accomplish various tasks on the objective sensory plane.

But I could have put more effort into making this distinction clear. We have all probably encountered people in 'new age' circles who tend to think of spiritual realities as direct 1:1 mappings to physical manifestations. They speak of the chakras along the spinal axis of the body, the celestial regions and the inner layers of the earth, how certain models of the galaxies resemble a neural network or physical brain, and many other similar things. There is nothing inherently wrong with that and, furthermore, there is a concrete imaginative basis for making those analogies. However, it is somewhat easy to tell when such people are becoming too rigidly literal, like when a fundamentalist talks about 'heaven' and 'hell' as physical locations. We can sense they have fallen for the powerful temptation of the intellect to physicalize and simplify the inner realities, as Cleric put it. It is almost as if they look at models of the Universe and imagine we actually live inside a Big Brain.

So there is a real danger here. When taken to an extreme, spiritual-minded people may even start imagining that physically intervening with the structure of the brain, or the organs, etc. will lead to spiritual development. I noticed on a discord server that a lot of 'transgender activists' who support body modeling are also spiritually minded in that way, sometimes even drawing on Anthroposophy for support, such as Steiner's observation that the male-female polarity of the physical organism is fading out in the course of evolution. Such people really feel like modulating the outer structures of the body with physical technology will help manifest spiritual evolution. So I do not at all intend to downplay that risk or underestimate its consequences.

On the other hand, there is obviously some relation between the inner realities and the physical manifestations. For ex. the etheric head polarity must have some relation to the physical hemispheres, because otherwise how could cognitive scientists like IM have studied the latter and come to the exact sort of qualitative differentiation that can be experienced in the former? It is always up to us to guard against oversimplifying and over-literalization of these correspondences and to orient to the physical structures more symbolically and imaginatively. And in that process, we shouldn't overlook the fact that balancing the etheric head polarity, symbolized by the hemispherical differentiation, is the portal through which our concentration can invert our thinking into higher spheres of experience.

Ashvin,

I don't remember that you referred to the etheric head polarities before in this thread? So far, you have been insisting over and over again on a difference in nature between the two physical brain lobes. I don't know what to think of the fact that you are still not admitting that. And now all of a sudden an "etheric polarity" appears. This dialogue is becoming strange...

And regarding the transgender activists and their beliefs, how is this different from Linnell's views on transhumanism and the supposed proto-transhumanism of Steiner, that you defended? BTW, since that discussion, I have read more from Steiner, about the time when the spider-like structure will appear on Earth, etcetera, and I am even more negative about these brutal ideas, of Linnell. Yes, I am quite satisfied with this adjective. They are brutal, unartistic ideas. And that you have some sympathy for these is, in my opinion, a materialistic-minded residue in you.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I know you want to help, but this m.o. doesn't work from my perspective. You want to guide me in your own way towards certain thoughts, but this is becoming a sort of domino word game, where one can state everything and its opposite, as long as one specifies or implies that it's true 'in some sense', like that we use Intuition Inspiration and Imagination in their highest essences all the time. So I doubt it would be fruitful to take another round, and that I point out what's implicit in your new-new question, since it doesn't seem like you are in a mood of answering remarks in this thread.

So, questions aside, I will just submit to your attention a comment to what you earlier replied about observations and conclusions, that is, observations and theories. I let it aside when you wrote it, but I think it's important. To recall, you wrote this to refute my point that just because scientists tell us things about the brain lobes it doesn't mean we have to find a direct spiritual translation of the theories - just as we don't do it when science tells us that the function of the heart is to pump blood into the circulatory system. You said:




I simply want to express a comment. I am not asking a question. My comment is: according to a substack that you may have read, your statement is incorrect, since there can't be a conclusion or theory - like, the heart is a pump - imposed on scientific 'impartial observations'. Rather, it's only in light of a theory or conclusion, that anything can be perceived, to begin with, and so explained.

Federica,

I will just mention, along the lines of Cleric's last post, that I did not intend to dismiss your initial cautions. I apologize if it seemed like I was brushing that off or ignoring it. I tried to point towards the same thing in my post to Guney, which you also noticed in your original response:

It is true that the physical brain is not the cause of these differentiated modes of cognition. Rather, it reflects back to us differentiated aspects of our normally invisible soul-spiritual structure that make use of the visible brain as their instrument. The latter is our sensory representation of a whole complex of spiritual forces that structure our life of thinking. I know it's difficult at first to avoid having materialistic conceptions about the physical body and its role in our spiritual life. It may be helpful to simply think of the physical processes as a symbol for soul-spiritual processes, which incarnate into the 'material' parts of the body to accomplish various tasks on the objective sensory plane.

But I could have put more effort into making this distinction clear. We have all probably encountered people in 'new age' circles who tend to think of spiritual realities as direct 1:1 mappings to physical manifestations. They speak of the chakras along the spinal axis of the body, the celestial regions and the inner layers of the earth, how certain models of the galaxies resemble a neural network or physical brain, and many other similar things. There is nothing inherently wrong with that and, furthermore, there is a concrete imaginative basis for making those analogies. However, it is somewhat easy to tell when such people are becoming too rigidly literal, like when a fundamentalist talks about 'heaven' and 'hell' as physical locations. We can sense they have fallen for the powerful temptation of the intellect to physicalize and simplify the inner realities, as Cleric put it. It is almost as if they look at models of the Universe and imagine we actually live inside a Big Brain.

So there is a real danger here. When taken to an extreme, spiritual-minded people may even start imagining that physically intervening with the structure of the brain, or the organs, etc. will lead to spiritual development. I noticed on a discord server that a lot of 'transgender activists' who support body modeling are also spiritually minded in that way, sometimes even drawing on Anthroposophy for support, such as Steiner's observation that the male-female polarity of the physical organism is fading out in the course of evolution. Such people really feel like modulating the outer structures of the body with physical technology will help manifest spiritual evolution. So I do not at all intend to downplay that risk or underestimate its consequences.

On the other hand, there is obviously some relation between the inner realities and the physical manifestations. For ex. the etheric head polarity must have some relation to the physical hemispheres, because otherwise how could cognitive scientists like IM have studied the latter and come to the exact sort of qualitative differentiation that can be experienced in the former? It is always up to us to guard against oversimplifying and over-literalization of these correspondences and to orient to the physical structures more symbolically and imaginatively. And in that process, we shouldn't overlook the fact that balancing the etheric head polarity, symbolized by the hemispherical differentiation, is the portal through which our concentration can invert our thinking into higher spheres of experience.

Ashvin,

I don't remember that you referred to the etheric head polarities before in this thread? So far, you have been insisting over and over again on a difference in nature between the two physical brain lobes. I don't know what to think of the fact that you are still not admitting that. And now all of a sudden an "etheric polarity" appears. This dialogue is becoming strange...

And regarding the transgender activists and their beliefs, how is this different from Linnell's views on transhumanism and the supposed proto-transhumanism of Steiner, that you defended? BTW, since that discussion, I have read more from Steiner, about the time when the spider-like structure will appear on Earth, etcetera, and I am even more negative about these brutal ideas, of Linnell. Yes, I am quite satisfied with this adjective. They are brutal, unartistic ideas. And that you have some sympathy for these is, in my opinion, a materialistic-minded residue in you.

Federica,

I have been referring to the 'head poles' and 'head organ' pretty consistently. What else could the hemispheric differentiation in cognitive qualities, that you yourself described here, be pointing to?

I suppose the issue here is that you simply need more familiarity with spiritual science and the relationship between the subtle bodies and the physical, between the higher modes of consciousness and our objective physical-sensory consciousness. That is why it seems 'strange' to you - because you still hold these domains apart in an abstract way. We need to develop a more concrete orientation towards spiritual reality and how it is present in all domains of experience, which will surely grow over time. I know it is difficult for a while to get this orientation - these ingrained physical intuitions of 'how reality works' are not easy to switch off.

Our intellect will often remain in a state of bistability when considering these topics on a spiritual path, switching between more concrete holistic intuition and the default intuition conditioned to dualized experience. What governs the toggling of this bistability? That is our objective soul-structure, our temperament, preferences, etc. If we prefer to discount the role of physical structures in our spiritual life, then our intellect will find ways of rationalizing towards that understanding whenever the issue comes up. It will color all of our reasoning through the issue.

I realize all of this probably sounds like another list of accusations to you and risks making you defensive, but I am simply trying to help you through the same issues I have struggled with and sometimes continue to struggle with. But we simply block our own growth when we continually locate the deficiencies in concrete understanding with something or someone external, rather than within ourselves. We should withhold judgments long enough so we can continue exploring these questions in good faith, and continue doing the inner work that alone will lead us into direct imaginative experience of the soul-structure that guides our thinking states.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA204/En ... 03p01.html

The fact is that in its plastic configuration the human brain is indeed an extraordinarily faithful replica of what we know as the life of thought. In the plastic configuration of the human brain, the life of thought really does express itself, we might almost say, in an adequate manner. In order to follow this thought to its conclusion, however, something else is needed. What ordinary psychology and also Herbart's psychology designate as chains of thoughts, as thought associations in the form of judgments, logical conclusions and so on, should not remain a mere idea. At least in our imagination — even if we cannot rise to clairvoyant Imaginations — we should allow it to culminate in a picture; the tapestry of logic, the tapestry presented to us by psychology of the life of thought, the teaching of the soul life, should be allowed to culminate in a picture. If we are in fact able to transform logic and psychology in a picture-like, plastic way into an image, then the human configuration of the brain will emerge. Then we shall have traced a picture, the realization of which is the human brain.

On what is this based? It is based on the fact that the human brain, indeed the whole system of nerves and senses, is a replica of an Imaginative element. 3 We completely grasp the wonderful structure of the human brain only when we learn to investigate Imaginatively. Then, the human brain appears as a realized human Imagination. Imaginative perception teaches us to become familiar with the external brain, the brain we come to know through psychology and anatomy, as a realized Imagination. This is significant.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA314/En ... 26p01.html

This, you see, leads us more deeply into the constitution of the human being. As we shall see in the next few days, this marvelous structure of the human brain is not an isolated formation. Through Imagination we behold a world, a super-sensible world, and it is as though a part of this world had become real in a lower world; in the human brain we behold a world of Imagination in concrete fact. I do not believe that anyone can speak adequately about the human brain unless he sees in its structure an Imaginative replica of the life of soul. It is just this that leads us into a dilemma when we take our start from ordinary neurophysiology and try to pass to an understanding of the life of soul. If we confine ourselves to the brain itself, a life of soul over and above this does not seem necessary. The only individuals with a right to speak of a life of soul over and above the structure of the human brain are those who have knowledge of it other than what is acquired by customary methods in this world. For when we come to know this life of soul in the spiritual world, we realize that it has its complete reflection in the structure of the human brain, and that the brain, moreover, can do everything that the super-sensible organ of soul can do by way of conceptual activity. Down to its very function the brain is a mirror-image.

[AshvinP]

And regarding the transgender activists and their beliefs, how is this different from Linnell's views on transhumanism and the supposed proto-transhumanism of Steiner, that you defended? BTW, since that discussion, I have read more from Steiner, about the time when the spider-like structure will appear on Earth, etcetera, and I am even more negative about these brutal ideas, of Linnell. Yes, I am quite satisfied with this adjective. They are brutal, unartistic ideas. And that you have some sympathy for these is, in my opinion, a materialistic-minded residue in you.

Just so you don't feel I completely avoided this point - there is a huge difference between Anthroposophists like Linnell and those who think that modulating the physical structure alone will produce the spiritual changes towards love, peace, harmony, etc. It is actually the other way around. The purification of the soul body will provide leeway for the creative Spirit to gradually work its influences down into the physical-etheric structure. We should make no mistake, the latter will be radically transformed. On the inner path, we will have to engage in creative physical measures to support our soul-spiritual development. That is most easily seen in the domain of nutrition, exercise, etc., but we shouldn't imagine it will always remain at that level. The important thing is that our "I"-consciousness is fully present for all of these modulations and they are done towards the highest aspirations of the Whole.

[Federica]

Federica,

I have been referring to the 'head poles' and 'head organ' pretty consistently. What else could the hemispheric differentiation in cognitive qualities, that you yourself described here, be pointing to?

I suppose the issue here is that you simply need more familiarity with spiritual science and the relationship between the subtle bodies and the physical, between the higher modes of consciousness and our objective physical-sensory consciousness. That is why it seems 'strange' to you - because you still hold these domains apart in an abstract way. We need to develop a more concrete orientation towards spiritual reality and how it is present in all domains of experience, which will surely grow over time. I know it is difficult for a while to get this orientation - these ingrained physical intuitions of 'how reality works' are not easy to switch off.

Our intellect will often remain in a state of bistability when considering these topics on a spiritual path, switching between more concrete holistic intuition and the default intuition conditioned to dualized experience. What governs the toggling of this bistability? That is our objective soul-structure, our temperament, preferences, etc. If we prefer to discount the role of physical structures in our spiritual life, then our intellect will find ways of rationalizing towards that understanding whenever the issue comes up. It will color all of our reasoning through the issue.

I realize all of this probably sounds like another list of accusations to you and risks making you defensive, but I am simply trying to help you through the same issues I have struggled with and sometimes continue to struggle with. But we simply block our own growth when we continually locate the deficiencies in concrete understanding with something or someone external, rather than within ourselves. We should withhold judgments long enough so we can continue exploring these questions in good faith, and continue doing the inner work that alone will lead us into direct imaginative experience of the soul-structure that guides our thinking states.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA204/En ... 03p01.html

The fact is that in its plastic configuration the human brain is indeed an extraordinarily faithful replica of what we know as the life of thought. In the plastic configuration of the human brain, the life of thought really does express itself, we might almost say, in an adequate manner. In order to follow this thought to its conclusion, however, something else is needed. What ordinary psychology and also Herbart's psychology designate as chains of thoughts, as thought associations in the form of judgments, logical conclusions and so on, should not remain a mere idea. At least in our imagination — even if we cannot rise to clairvoyant Imaginations — we should allow it to culminate in a picture; the tapestry of logic, the tapestry presented to us by psychology of the life of thought, the teaching of the soul life, should be allowed to culminate in a picture. If we are in fact able to transform logic and psychology in a picture-like, plastic way into an image, then the human configuration of the brain will emerge. Then we shall have traced a picture, the realization of which is the human brain.

On what is this based? It is based on the fact that the human brain, indeed the whole system of nerves and senses, is a replica of an Imaginative element. 3 We completely grasp the wonderful structure of the human brain only when we learn to investigate Imaginatively. Then, the human brain appears as a realized human Imagination. Imaginative perception teaches us to become familiar with the external brain, the brain we come to know through psychology and anatomy, as a realized Imagination. This is significant.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA314/En ... 26p01.html

This, you see, leads us more deeply into the constitution of the human being. As we shall see in the next few days, this marvelous structure of the human brain is not an isolated formation. Through Imagination we behold a world, a super-sensible world, and it is as though a part of this world had become real in a lower world; in the human brain we behold a world of Imagination in concrete fact. I do not believe that anyone can speak adequately about the human brain unless he sees in its structure an Imaginative replica of the life of soul. It is just this that leads us into a dilemma when we take our start from ordinary neurophysiology and try to pass to an understanding of the life of soul. If we confine ourselves to the brain itself, a life of soul over and above this does not seem necessary. The only individuals with a right to speak of a life of soul over and above the structure of the human brain are those who have knowledge of it other than what is acquired by customary methods in this world. For when we come to know this life of soul in the spiritual world, we realize that it has its complete reflection in the structure of the human brain, and that the brain, moreover, can do everything that the super-sensible organ of soul can do by way of conceptual activity. Down to its very function the brain is a mirror-image.

Ashvin,

Of course I need more familiarity with spiritual science, and I have a bistable, and inevitably abstract view on the spiritual worlds. I don't take these remarks as accusations, since I don't take myself for enlightened (I believe there's no misunderstanding possible here) and I have a certain awareness of how little progress I have made so far in the direction of strengthening my spiritual activity. It's not correct that I "continually locate deficiencies in understanding in someone else", I can assure you.

But this doesn't change the fact that you have consistently referred to RB and LB with consistent reference to McGilchrist's research, not to etheric polarities (as a rapid review of this thread would confirm) and consistently dismissed my repeated, very explicit questions to clarify. Naturally when one uses the word "brain" instead of thinking activity, or etheric polarities or else, moreover with direct connection to neuroscientific research, one wants to purposely isolate the locus of the physical organ, I would deem? Of which I became even more convinced, when you said that the research had to be taken in its observations, and not in its materialistic conclusions, which is an impossible endeavor, as I have tried to show using Max Leyfs words, since I know you would probably agree with those (though you have remained silent in that respect too).

Anyway, okay, I understand that - in one way or another that I don't have the ability to understand at this moment - it was a misunderstand on my part, and you have not intended to refer to the difference in nature of the physical lobes, like one is the portal to spiritual heights, and the other isn't. That Steiner and Cleric, on ground of concentration experience, speak of the polar differentiation of soul-spiritual activity and that this polarization is reflected in the brain organ doesn't upset me. But this is different from what I mis-understood from your RB-LB remarks grounded in IMcG's research.
I asked you whether personal experience rather than scientific research was the ground for your comments, in which case I said would have accepted them, but you didn't clarify that point either.

So I am glad that in the end this whole question has been clarified. I want to add a few lines on transhumanism. Please believe me, I don't believe that the evolution of our physical body - that has been a fact ever since this body has descended into manifestation - would now stop just to accommodate my supposed personal preferences in this incarnation. And I realize that the modality of this evolution is also evolving and will continue to. While I acknowledge my antipathy for Linnell's graceless approach, language and hardly hidden penchant for transhumanism, I did make the effort to consider his message in detail. Not to state that I was able to completely neutralize my preferences, nonetheless, I think the fine line between acknowledging the transhumanism to come and the need to face it in our spiritual life on one side, and an enthusiasm and sympathy for its material manifestations on the other side, is constantly crossed in his ambiguous message, that reminds of mind-control mindset and techniques. This makes it in my view inappropriate that you insist on using certain qualifiers in this connection, though I know you are entirely sincere in your assessment. And yes, I am aware that I am shaping my karma with these statements also - they are formulated with an open heart, and all the discernment, equanimity and intuition I am capable of at this point. Positivity is one thing, but I don’t aim at gaining ‘spiritual points’ by being rosy-charitable, while my best understanding tells me something else.

[AshvinP]

But this doesn't change the fact that you have consistently referred to RB and LB with consistent reference to McGilchrist's research, not to etheric polarities (as a rapid review of this thread would confirm) and consistently dismissed my repeated, very explicit questions to clarify. Naturally when one uses the word "brain" instead of thinking activity, or etheric polarities or else, moreover with direct connection to neuroscientific research, one wants to purposely isolate the locus of the physical organ, I would deem? Of which I became even more convinced, when you said that the research had to be taken in its observations, and not in its materialistic conclusions, which is an impossible endeavor, as I have tried to show using Max Leyfs words, since I know you would probably agree with those (though you have remained silent in that respect too).

Anyway, okay, I understand that - in one way or another that I don't have the ability to understand at this moment - it was a misunderstand on my part, and you have not intended to refer to the difference in nature of the physical lobes, like one is the portal to spiritual heights, and the other isn't. That Steiner and Cleric, on ground of concentration experience, speak of the polar differentiation of soul-spiritual activity and that this polarization is reflected in the brain organ doesn't upset me. But this is different from what I mis-understood from your RB-LB remarks grounded in IMcG's research.
I asked you whether personal experience rather than scientific research was the ground for your comments, in which case I said would have accepted them, but you didn't clarify that point either.

Ok, Federica, I clearly didn't do enough to clarify what I was speaking of in my initial comments and in response to your questions. Given the clarifications that are available at this point, do you now have a sense of why these in bold are one and the same, viewed from different sides? This is very important to gain a concrete orientation towards because it practically applies to all phenomena on the physical plane in relation to the concentric layers of our thinking activity (intellect, imagination, inspiration, intuition). As a very simple metaphor, consider the following:

蛇吃自己的尾巴

Let's say the above script is analogous to a physical structure like the brain. At the level of physical sensory consciousness, we notice it has certain regular shapes and quantitative properties, but we don't know what it means or that it actually means anything - it could simply be interesting patterns of pixels. At the level of imaginative consciousness, we discern these shapes have some meaning - they are the manifestations of some intelligence, but we still don't know the precise meaning that is intended. At the level of inspired consciousness, we resonate with the thinking-gestures that formed this script and can discern its meaning (Chinese for "the snake eats its own tail") and relate that meaning to other ideas. At the level of intuitive consciousness, we identify with the perspective of the Chinese 'folk-spirit' who intended the logic of the entire script in which this particular manifestation finds its meaning within a holistic context.

The metaphor is only used to direct attention towards the principle that the original script structure, as we perceived it, embedded all of these layers of meaning and higher ideational perspectives from the beginning, only we are not awake to those layers until we develop our thinking-gestures to resonate with the deeper spiritual processes that structure the script. The perceptual script has a higher meaningful potential that we have not yet awakened to because we haven't learned Chinese. The limitation of the metaphor is that we don't actually transform the meaningful structure of the language as we learn it. In contrast, the process of awakening into the higher cognitive layers that structure our bodily organism is also a gradual process of transforming the structures and rhythmic relations of those layers. We know, for ex., that the physical pathways of the brain can actually be re-fashioned through our spiritual activity.

So I did intend to refer to a difference in the physical structure of the brain because there is a very concrete relation between the polar differentiation of our thinking activity and that physical structure, just as there is a concrete relation between our thinking activity (in its widest sense) and all the cultural and natural domains of the manifest World around us. IM's research directed towards the physical structures is actually probing the higher layers of its own thinking (which he is semi-conscious of), and that's why we can gain insights from that research and all other natural scientific research. This process doesn't require either clairvoyance or profound familiarity with the scientific research. We can establish a broad intuitive orientation to these things just as we did above and through other similar posts on this forum, within the overarching context of spiritual evolution, i.e. the process by which the 'torus' continually turns inside-out through the layers of our "I"-activity.





Our thinking consciousness is always in the middle and normally our gaze is fixed downwards towards what is already manifest and known, i.e. ordinary experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, desires. There is a continual process of the higher structured potential folding in on itself, concretizing into manifest reality, and the latter turning inside-out, feeding back into the structured potential (the inner is always becoming the outer and vice versa in an integrative fashion). Our "I" perspective is always in the middle of the torus. When we are Angels, Archangels, Archai, and so forth, our "I" perspective will still be in the middle (although it will clearly be experienced as more universal, interwoven with other perspectives, and part of a symphonic effort to creatively manifest reality). The huge difference is that the higher perspectives always remain aware they are in the middle of this torus process, while the current Earthly human "I" perspective has externalized the whole process and imagines itself to be standing outside, so it can abstractly speculate on the 'torus-in-itself' from a safe distance. It comes up with many logically coherent models of the torus but always finds a way to keep imagining its thinking perspective on the outside (when in reality it is within the torus being steered by the subconscious desire to imagine itself outside).

These are all the logically coherent scientific models of physics, neuroscience, etc. At any time their externalized results are redeemed by our "I"-consciousness becoming fully present in its dynamic participation, through the balancing of the head polarity (which indeed can be traced to the physical brain structure). I remind here of Cleric's 'reverse kinematics' metaphor, which I think is very helpful for our intuitive orientation. By modulating the dynamic balance of our 'zoomed in' thinking consciousness and our more 'zoomed out' awareness of the periphery at the weightless point, we set an intention to attract the higher concentric layers of our thinking into a more 'in-phase' relationship with our current thinking experience, so the deeper meaning of that experience is unveiled. As you know, this is not a one-time thing and involves the whole ideal atmosphere of our concentration, which is cultivated also by our relations with the outer world through ordinary cognition.

[Federica]

Ok, Federica, I clearly didn't do enough to clarify what I was speaking of in my initial comments and in response to your questions. Given the clarifications that are available at this point, do you now have a sense of why these in bold are one and the same, viewed from different sides? This is very important to gain a concrete orientation towards because it practically applies to all phenomena on the physical plane in relation to the concentric layers of our thinking activity (intellect, imagination, inspiration, intuition). As a very simple metaphor, consider the following:

蛇吃自己的尾巴

Let's say the above script is analogous to a physical structure like the brain. At the level of physical sensory consciousness, we notice it has certain regular shapes and quantitative properties, but we don't know what it means or that it actually means anything - it could simply be interesting patterns of pixels. At the level of imaginative consciousness, we discern these shapes have some meaning - they are the manifestations of some intelligence, but we still don't know the precise meaning that is intended. At the level of inspired consciousness, we resonate with the thinking-gestures that formed this script and can discern its meaning (Chinese for "the snake eats its own tail") and relate that meaning to other ideas. At the level of intuitive consciousness, we identify with the perspective of the Chinese 'folk-spirit' who intended the logic of the entire script in which this particular manifestation finds its meaning within a holistic context.

The metaphor is only used to direct attention towards the principle that the original script structure, as we perceived it, embedded all of these layers of meaning and higher ideational perspectives from the beginning, only we are not awake to those layers until we develop our thinking-gestures to resonate with the deeper spiritual processes that structure the script. The perceptual script has a higher meaningful potential that we have not yet awakened to because we haven't learned Chinese. The limitation of the metaphor is that we don't actually transform the meaningful structure of the language as we learn it. In contrast, the process of awakening into the higher cognitive layers that structure our bodily organism is also a gradual process of transforming the structures and rhythmic relations of those layers. We know, for ex., that the physical pathways of the brain can actually be re-fashioned through our spiritual activity.

So I did intend to refer to a difference in the physical structure of the brain because there is a very concrete relation between the polar differentiation of our thinking activity and that physical structure, just as there is a concrete relation between our thinking activity (in its widest sense) and all the cultural and natural domains of the manifest World around us. IM's research directed towards the physical structures is actually probing the higher layers of its own thinking (which he is semi-conscious of), and that's why we can gain insights from that research and all other natural scientific research. This process doesn't require either clairvoyance or profound familiarity with the scientific research. We can establish a broad intuitive orientation to these things just as we did above and through other similar posts on this forum, within the overarching context of spiritual evolution, i.e. the process by which the 'torus' continually turns inside-out through the layers of our "I"-activity.





Our thinking consciousness is always in the middle and normally our gaze is fixed downwards towards what is already manifest and known, i.e. ordinary experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, desires. There is a continual process of the higher structured potential folding in on itself, concretizing into manifest reality, and the latter turning inside-out, feeding back into the structured potential (the inner is always becoming the outer and vice versa in an integrative fashion). Our "I" perspective is always in the middle of the torus. When we are Angels, Archangels, Archai, and so forth, our "I" perspective will still be in the middle (although it will clearly be experienced as more universal, interwoven with other perspectives, and part of a symphonic effort to creatively manifest reality). The huge difference is that the higher perspectives always remain aware they are in the middle of this torus process, while the current Earthly human "I" perspective has externalized the whole process and imagines itself to be standing outside, so it can abstractly speculate on the 'torus-in-itself' from a safe distance. It comes up with many logically coherent models of the torus but always finds a way to keep imagining its thinking perspective on the outside (when in reality it is within the torus being steered by the subconscious desire to imagine itself outside).

These are all the logically coherent scientific models of physics, neuroscience, etc. At any time their externalized results are redeemed by our "I"-consciousness becoming fully present in its dynamic participation, through the balancing of the head polarity (which indeed can be traced to the physical brain structure). I remind here of Cleric's 'reverse kinematics' metaphor, which I think is very helpful for our intuitive orientation. By modulating the dynamic balance of our 'zoomed in' thinking consciousness and our more 'zoomed out' awareness of the periphery at the weightless point, we set an intention to attract the higher concentric layers of our thinking into a more 'in-phase' relationship with our current thinking experience, so the deeper meaning of that experience is unveiled. As you know, this is not a one-time thing and involves the whole ideal atmosphere of our concentration, which is cultivated also by our relations with the outer world through ordinary cognition.

I would say, the words "embedded" and "one and the same" are not what I would choose, they can confuse. Anyhow, yes, Ashvin, I do understand the idea well. But it's not that I now understand it "given the clarifications that are available at this point". I understood that about one year ago. I don't have the direct experience of those higher layers, but as far as a post and explanation like yours can go, I certainly understand it well.