A Disconnect

[Cleric K]

Also, Steiner entices his followers with the promise of acquiring shiny subtle objects he labels as 'spiritual', but are simply finer levels of relative existence - if these objects exist at all.

The question is whether we can have clear consciousness within these 'simply finer levels of relative existence', and speak meaningfully about them? Because if we dismiss such a possibility, then even if someone speaks from concrete experience, we'll always see it as shiny fantasies.

So I have no interest in shiny subtle objects either. I'd much rather talk about the simply finer levels of relative existence. How deep can we go in them? In what relation our intellectual life exists to them? How can we express the experiences at these levels? Or would you say, like Eugene, that these levels are too orthogonal to anything we can experience on Earth, and thus we can only speak in nebulous generalities (thus anyone speaking of these experiences in greater resolution is by definition a lunatic)?

[AshvinP]

One thing that has been animating me of late is what I perceive as a disconnect between various elements of esoteric/SS spiritual practice. On one hand we have the classical spiritual practices of prayer, devotion, ethical/moral development and the reading of spiritual texts. But then when we turn to meditation, it has the character of learning to speed read or leaning a memory system. For example concentrating on a mental image such as a dot or the vowels exercise seem so...unspiritual. These latter practices seem in tension with the norms of saints throughout the ages, e.g. Meister Eckhart, where we have Bhaktic posturing and trying to be empty within to allow the mystery of God become real. And this means letting go of the contents of consciousness.

An answer I would give to myself is that these concentration exercises are preliminaries and will lead one to imaginative cognition. But to go beyond that, Steiner advises one to use this strengthened thinking to drive the images out of consciousness and so yield an empty mind. So while not appearing terribly spiritual, these early exercises develop a necessary toolkit for later use.

I'm aware that some of this may reignite the Eugene/Cleric/Ashvin battles of old

I agree, Anthony, and in a more general sense I find Steiner's approach too reductionist: anthroposophy overemphasizes Thinking and neglects the infinite richness of consciousness that has so many other facets beyond Thinking (even including higher cognition levels of imaginative, intuitive and inspirational thinking), and even beyond feeling and willing, and these neglected facets, IMO, have no less importance than thinking with all of its ideational content. As a result, Anthroposophy converged into Platonic kind of idealism where all richness of the reality of Consciousness is reduced to ideas only (Reality=Idea). Nobody denies the place and importance of Thinking and its content (ideas, meanings), but reducing all the richness of reality to only Thinking and the Idea is a gross reductionism.

Eugene,

We have discussed plenty of times how this simply projects your thinking onto Steiner. In other words, you are reducing 'ideas' and 'ideal content', and 'feeling' and 'willing', to your conceptual and imaginative experience of them, perhaps assuming inspired and intuitive ideas are more subtle forms of the ideas you already know, and then blaming Steiner for what you are doing.

It's quite simple - if the holistic Idea, in Steiner's sense, is practically the equivalent of the infinitely possible superimposed states of being that we experience from relative perspectives (and not our concepts of these states), what is he reducing to it? What is more encompassing than the infinitely possible states of being (including all 'nondual states') that Consciousness can explore?

[Stranger]

Eugene,

We have discussed plenty of times how this simply projects your thinking onto Steiner. In other words, you are reducing 'ideas' and 'ideal content', and 'feeling' and 'willing', to your conceptual and imaginative experience of them, perhaps assuming inspired and intuitive ideas are more subtle forms of the ideas you already know, and then blaming Steiner for what you are doing.

It's quite simple - if the holistic Idea, in Steiner's sense, is practically the equivalent of the infinitely possible superimposed states of being that we experience from relative perspectives (and not our concepts of these states), what is he reducing to it? What is more encompassing than the infinitely possible states of being (including all 'nondual states') that Consciousness can explore?

Well, suppose I come up with an alternative worldview by pointing to the fact that every state of our conscious experience involves some kind of "movement": every perception, act of thinking, willing, feeling, and all other infinitely possible states is a "movement" or "change" of some sort. Then I call reality as "Movement" and all the activity of reality that produces "Movement" as "Moving". And so, I call my worldview "Movingalism". And if someone objects that such view would be reductionist missing many other aspects of reality, then I would argue: "All those infinitely possible aspects are already included in the holistic Movement". The trick I'm playing here is simply extracting and abstracting one specific aspect of reality and then declaring it as a universal and stretching it to the wholeness of reality by declaring that the wholeness of reality is subsumed in that aspect.

What we are doing here is simply creating abstract interpretations of reality in our imagination and superimposing them onto reality as a whole. Surely, such interpretations are part of reality and may have good explanatory correlations with reality as a whole, and so, this is not to deny the validity and usefulness of such interpretations of reality. Philosophy and science (be it natural or spiritual) is all about creating intellectual-imaginative interpretations and models of reality, and there is nothing wrong with it. It becomes a problem when we confuse them with reality as a whole, when we create a map of a territory and become so immersed in it and so convinced in the truthfulness of it that we take it as the wholeness of the reality/territory. The reason why it is a problem is that, by confusing map with territory, we become stuck with that specific map which impedes our further evolutionary progress.

[AshvinP]

Eugene,

We have discussed plenty of times how this simply projects your thinking onto Steiner. In other words, you are reducing 'ideas' and 'ideal content', and 'feeling' and 'willing', to your conceptual and imaginative experience of them, perhaps assuming inspired and intuitive ideas are more subtle forms of the ideas you already know, and then blaming Steiner for what you are doing.

It's quite simple - if the holistic Idea, in Steiner's sense, is practically the equivalent of the infinitely possible superimposed states of being that we experience from relative perspectives (and not our concepts of these states), what is he reducing to it? What is more encompassing than the infinitely possible states of being (including all 'nondual states') that Consciousness can explore?

Well, suppose I come up with an alternative worldview by pointing to the fact that every state of our conscious experience involves some kind of "movement": every perception, act of thinking, willing, feeling, and all other infinitely possible states is a "movement" or "change" of some sort. Then I call reality as "Movement" and all the activity of reality that produces "Movement" as "Moving". And so, I call my worldview "Movingalism". And if someone objects that such view would be reductionist missing many other aspects of reality, then I would argue: "All those infinitely possible aspects are already included in the holistic Movement". The trick I'm playing here is simply extracting and abstracting one specific aspect of reality and then declaring it as a universal and stretching it to the wholeness of reality by declaring that the wholeness of reality is subsumed in that aspect.

What we are doing here is simply creating abstract interpretations of reality in our imagination and superimposing them onto reality as a whole. Surely, such interpretations are part of reality and may have good explanatory correlations with reality as a whole, and so, this is not to deny the validity and usefulness of such interpretations of reality. Philosophy and science (be it natural or spiritual) is all about creating intellectual-imaginative interpretations and models of reality, and there is nothing wrong with it. It becomes a problem when we confuse them with reality as a whole, when we create a map of a territory and become so immersed in it and so convinced in the truthfulness of it that we take it as the wholeness of the reality/territory. The reason why it is a problem is that, by confusing map with territory, we become stuck with that specific map which impedes our further evolutionary progress.

Again, you are projecting what "philosophy and science is all about" onto spiritual science. There is no abstract modeling in the latter. It proceeds only from the direct first-person experience of the intuitive context - the perceptual content and meaning that is experienced in the widest sense - and radiates outward to encompass more and more of that intuitive context in a directly experiential way. Indeed, entire panoramas of our stream of existence can be experienced in this way. This includes states where all duality is collapsed and the 'observer' is experienced as entirely unified with the content of observation. All of that is already understood and experienced through modern initiation, as Steiner and we understand it.

So you can either claim that (a) everyone is understanding initiation incorrectly, and it has all been abstract models of reality since ancient times; (b) we are understanding it correctly, but it's all bogus because such direct experiences of more encompassing states cannot be had during life, or (c) the experiences can be had, but the panoramic vistas of our actual states of being are 'illusions' for some reason.

You cannot claim that it is reductionistic, according to our understanding of it (not your own). It makes no sense to classify "spiritual science" as whatever you imagine it to be and then argue against your own imagination as reductionistic. Of course, I don't mean you are not free to do this, only that it's not logically coherent. If reality is only first-person states of being, then it can't possibly be reductionistic to seek the direct experience of more and more encompassing states within our 'now' state. Would you agree with that last sentence?

[Stranger]

If reality is only first-person states of being, then it can't possibly be reductionistic to seek the direct experience of more and more encompassing states within our 'now' state. Would you agree with that last sentence?

Yes, however, the direct first-person experience of the states is not reducible to ideation only (at least according to my first-person experience), even though it always involves ideation in one way or another. Thinking is inseparable part of the direct experience, but does not constitute all of it. Therefore, it is illegitimate to label it only as "Thinking" and label the reality only as "Idea".

In POF Steiner posed that the reality is in principle intelligible, as an ever-lasting self-reflecting conscious evolutionary process. But that does not mean, and I don't recall Steiner saying it, that Idea is all there is to reality.

[AshvinP]

If reality is only first-person states of being, then it can't possibly be reductionistic to seek the direct experience of more and more encompassing states within our 'now' state. Would you agree with that last sentence?

Yes, however, the direct first-person experience of the states is not reducible to ideation only (at least according to my first-person experience), even though it always involves ideation in one way or another. Therefore, it is illegitimate to label it only as "Thinking" and label the reality only as "Idea".

In POF Steiner posed that the reality is in principle intelligible, as an ever-lasting self-reflecting conscious evolutionary process. But that does not mean, and I don't recall Steiner saying it, that Idea is all there is to reality.

That's fine, we don't need to call it "thinking", "ideation", or "idea". These are just labels we use to triangulate a shared understanding of the underlying first-person experiential reality. The main point is that the first-person state can be experientially expanded to become more holistic in an intelligible way, so that new more encompassing states elucidate the nature of previous less-encompassing states. Do you agree?

[Stranger]

That's fine, we don't need to call it "thinking", "ideation", or "idea". These are just labels we use to triangulate a shared understanding of the underlying first-person experiential reality. The main point is that the first-person state can be experientially expanded to become more holistic in an intelligible way, so that new more encompassing states elucidate the nature of previous less-encompassing states. Do you agree?

Yes, I do agree with the bold. But I would not subscribe to labeling it as "Idea" since such labeling overlooks other aspects of the reality of direct experience not reducible to ideation only. I prefer to label it in a more inclusive way, for example, "reality of direct conscious experience".

[AshvinP]

That's fine, we don't need to call it "thinking", "ideation", or "idea". These are just labels we use to triangulate a shared understanding of the underlying first-person experiential reality. The main point is that the first-person state can be experientially expanded to become more holistic in an intelligible way, so that new more encompassing states elucidate the nature of previous less-encompassing states. Do you agree?

Yes, I do agree with the bold. But I would not subscribe to labeling it as "Idea" since such labeling overlooks other aspects of the reality of direct experience not reducible to ideation only. I prefer to label it in a more inclusive way, for example, "reality of direct conscious experience".

Ok, that label is fine as well. So the next step is to move towards concrete examples of the experiential expansion within the 'reality of direct conscious experience'. Because, exactly as you say, we don't want to remain in the realm of abstractly modeling this reality by adding more and more labels, or rearranging labels to find the best, most inclusive way to express the reality. Instead, once we get a basic foothold, we want to make clear this experiential expansion is a reality that can and has been pursued, with concrete practical implications for our lives and World Evolution. For this, we need to move beyond the mere abstract labels and consider concrete examples.

Here is one such example. It doesn't matter if we ourselves can experientially verify this example yet. That becomes an important question later. For our purposes now, I just want to see whether it sounds like the sort of thing that can be experientially pursued during life on Earth without straying into error, illusion, or lunacy? If not, then I would like to know the concrete reasons why you feel the latter is always the case whenever it comes to the results communicated through spiritual science? Remember, this is not about "thinking", "ideation", etc., only expanding experiential awareness within the reality of direct conscious experience.

At any point in time, two streams flow together to form your life. One stream flows from the future toward the present and the other from the present toward the future, and an interface occurs wherever they meet. Anything that still remains for us to experience in our life appears in the form of astral phenomena, which make a tremendous impression on us.

Imagine that students of esotericism reach the point in their development when they are meant to see into the astral world. Their senses are opened, and they perceive all their future experiences until the end of this time period as outer phenomena surrounding them in the astral world. This sight makes a great impression on each student. An important level in esoteric schooling is reached when students experience an astral panorama of everything they have yet to encounter up to the middle of the sixth root race... The way is opened to them. Without exception, students of esotericism experience all the remaining outer phenomena they will encounter from the near future to the sixth root race.

[Stranger]

Here is one such example. It doesn't matter if we ourselves can experientially verify this example yet. That becomes an important question later. For our purposes now, I just want to see whether it sounds like the sort of thing that can be experientially pursued during life on Earth without straying into error, illusion, or lunacy? If not, then I would like to know the concrete reasons why you feel the latter is always the case whenever it comes to the results communicated through spiritual science? Remember, this is not about "thinking", "ideation", etc., only expanding experiential awareness within the reality of direct conscious experience.

Their senses are opened, and they perceive all their future experiences until the end of this time period as outer phenomena surrounding them in the astral world.

You are diverting me into a different topic. Yes, some of our future experiences pertaining to the astral realm can be perceived intuitively. But first, the wholeness of conscious experience is by far not limited to astral phenomena. And second, the claim that we can in principle experience all of our future experiences sounds like "spiritual determinism". We can certainly perceive some of them, as determined by the "curvatures" in the conscious structures, but the beauty of our conscious experience is in its fundamental unpredictability that is always present even within the frameworks of the existing structures. And this unpredictability is what enables us to creatively participate in continuous developing and renewing of the existing structures, even to the extent of dismantling the older ones and creating the new ones. We a co-creators, we are not spiritual robots simply following the evolutionary "curvatures" within the existing structures created for us by higher-order beings. Those beings may be facilitating our evolution, but do not pre-determine it, they only create a framework that allows evolution to unfold in ways unpredictable for them. Their intention is not to clone spiritual robots according to their blueprints, but to create new realities from within the existing ones by enabling the innate creativity of spiritual conscious activity that unfolds within each of our individuated streams of conscious experience.

[AshvinP]

Here is one such example. It doesn't matter if we ourselves can experientially verify this example yet. That becomes an important question later. For our purposes now, I just want to see whether it sounds like the sort of thing that can be experientially pursued during life on Earth without straying into error, illusion, or lunacy? If not, then I would like to know the concrete reasons why you feel the latter is always the case whenever it comes to the results communicated through spiritual science? Remember, this is not about "thinking", "ideation", etc., only expanding experiential awareness within the reality of direct conscious experience.

Their senses are opened, and they perceive all their future experiences until the end of this time period as outer phenomena surrounding them in the astral world.

You are diverting me into a different topic. Yes, some of our future experiences pertaining to the astral realm can be perceived intuitively. But first, the wholeness of conscious experience is by far not limited to astral phenomena. And second, the claim that we can in principle experience all of our future experiences sounds like "spiritual determinism". We can certainly perceive some of them, as determined by the "curvatures" in the conscious structures, but the beauty of our conscious experience is in its fundamental unpredictability that is always present even within the frameworks of the existing structures. And this unpredictability is what enables us to creatively participate in continuous developing and renewing of the existing structures, even to the extent of dismantling the older ones and creating the new ones. We a co-creators, we are not spiritual robots simply following the evolutionary "curvatures" within the existing structures created for us by higher-order beings. Those beings may be facilitating our evolution, but do not pre-determine it, they only create a framework that allows evolution to unfold in ways unpredictable for them. Their intention is not to clone spiritual robots according to their blueprints, but to create new realities from within the existing ones by enabling the innate creativity of spiritual conscious activity that unfolds within each of our individuated streams of conscious experience.

Yes, this is why we shouldn't read too much into small snippets. Steiner's extensive lectures make perfectly clear, on numerous occasions, that the wholeness of conscious experience is not limited to the astral curvature and that there is no spiritual determinism. Not every single detail of what we will do is experienced like a movie reel that is destined to play out. In fact, we experience the broad curvatures precisely so we can make better informed and therefore more free decisions towards our ideals within the context of those curvatures. It is precisely so we become more conscious, more effective co-creators in the evolutionary process.

So we are on the same page there. But you often add 'wild card' phrases like "dismantling the older ones and creating the new ones". What is a concrete example of this for you at the higher-order levels? I know we can make analogies to playing music and so forth, which is why I ask about the higher-order level. For ex. at the level of a curvature that structures a whole epoch of time, about 2,000 years from our normal earthly perspective. What would it look like to dismantle this curvature and create a new one?