The economic life is made up of promises and actions. Contracts are promises; money is a promise. Labor, the foundation of economic life, is action, and all economic promises cash out ultimately in action.
For Rudolf Steiner, the economic life is supposed to be a life of brotherhood and ultimately of free gift. It is supposed to be (or can only be) a life of action on behalf of other people. The Fundamental Social Law is an economic law: the healthiest form of society is one in which one's own actions redound not to oneself, but only to someone else, and where one's subsistence is sustained by others' actions, which likewise are initiated without self-interest.
In conversation, which is a microcosm of society, this social-economic law can only be applied, it seems to me, in the following way.
Speech is action of a well-defined sort, and speech acts are thus a general form of economic labor. Conversational promises, moreover, are a literal form of economic capital, or wealth. On the Fundamental Law, all of these should be undertaken only for the benefit of others. Thus, no hint of self-interest, self-indulgence or idleness should appear in one's speech. People in spiritualized conversation should not talk about how things seem to them, or appear to them or happen for them, because such conversation entails commitments (promises) and judgments of a self-interested sort. Such me-talk is like the bad money of Gresham's law, the corrupted money that drives out good money.
Speech should be confined to currency of universal benefit. For example, when judgments are made, they should be true judgments. When social intentions, such as promises and agreements are expressed, they should be material promises and agreements, performed with a certain solemnity, seriousness and in full public view. Repetitious expression of wishes and superficial pats on the back, generally speaking, just don't add up to social capital, and are most accurately viewed as anti-social.
The supply of this conversational money, moreover, should be regulated somehow to prevent an inflation of word usage and a diminution in the value of words.
A form of life and conversational propriety confined to true judgments, material promises and selfless actions, it seems to me, would be the ideal way, at a micro-social level, to realize an economic life, and a form of material existence, in which the angels could participate.
Heaven and Hell
The economist Christopher Houghton-Budd gives an apt picture of the economic life.
Imagine we are each endowed with a four-foot long spoon, which we can only handle at one end.
If we are in Hell, we are obliged to feed ourself with the spoon. If we are in Heaven, we quickly see that we can feed each other.
Open doors
New readers may find it helpful to take note of the dates of the posts in this conversation. A number of insertions have been contributed later than posts lower down. The website attempts to give clues by indenting replies – if the contributor has posted a reply rather than a new comment.
I notice that there are over one hundred readers of this conversation and I hope you are all well. Would any of you like to feed back to us whether this exchange speaks to you as dynamically as it speaks to us? Are we swimming in an opaque fish bowl, or are you able to swim along with us? If you have never contributed before, perhaps you subscribed purely to tell us whether we are interesting or irrelevant or both.
Are we reaching out to feed you with our spoons, or just banging them on the table in a hell of our own construction?
Cross referencing
This topic covers some common ground with a post on the 8-fold path group. Find it here.
This link of converse with commerce awakens an old theme that centres on the conversation between Christ and Ahriman in the wilderness temptations. Steiner pointed out - in my own memory and formulation - that the word made flesh had no experience of the Earthly currency that could convert stones (coins) into bread.The question arises for me: what has our monetary system learned from the conversation between the two spirits?
Carl brings this together in his post from another side: speech. Obviously the economic realm is not all about money or social capital. One challenge is to make the use of money creative and nourishing for all. It seems that such a challenge is more readily met in conversation. In this context it may be good to consider that the speaker - who is one among the whole group - needs to address the whole group as far as possible. In this way new meaning arises for the one who listens to her/himself speaking. This happens to me in strong conversations and Carl's contribution has helped me to understand this more clearly.
Does this fly in the face of the selfless contribution? I do not think so. We all develop together in my experience in a brotherly and sisterly way. If I help you forward a step then I find myself further forward too. A creative transaction...
If We are to Become Angels
OK John. But what will make our conversations "take place across the threshold, in the etheric world?" What mechanism guarantees that? Strong conversations are one thing. Goethean conversations are something else.
It seems to me that something on an analogy with eurythmy needs to be conceived. Something formal and choreographed, with rules, rhythms and purposes. That's the only way to make the etheric world into an actuality for us.
All social situations are three-fold, right? They are a combination of a Cultural sphere, a Rights sphere and an Economic sphere. The Economic sphere, it seems to me, is the important one to understand if we want our social situations to have material efficiency. In other words, if we are going to become Angels, and are going to live in an etheric world, our economic transactions are what will leave traces in material nature. That generally is what economic transactions do.
What I want to show is that the promises of anthroposophists to one another are a new type of economic transaction that will transform the physical world into an ethereal world.
This is serious: part 1 of several if you agree...
Ok Carl I am going to respond as fully as I am able, but I need time to gather clarity. I have put time into your other thoughts only to find that you have moved on leaving open ends.
If I put some additional committment in here, are you able to agree that you will not drop out of this exchange until we both agree that it is enough? I offer you free choice. I will freely continue my commitment to the limit of the minute coins in my purse, not less than now. If we make a deal I will go to the time bank and make a withdrawal...
It does not need to be a public conversation yet I suggest it it will be of significance if it remains public.
My definition of a strong conversation is one that is able to hold the span between earthly habitations and spirit homes, leaving 'tracks' that others can follow later. I perceive (maybe you perceive that I judge) that you and I seek in the same direction for conversation - I see no evidence to the contrary and plant this cautiously as my assumption.
While you seem to think that we may aspire to become angels, I would rather suggest that the healthy aspiration is to become truly human alongside the angels. I do not think that they will be running on the spot either.
More might follow, but this costs me valuable time and I want to know if we have a deal here in cyber-limbo.
Leaving Tracks
Hi John!
Sure, I'm happy to stay on subject. I think a public exchange is much better, because it gives others a chance to participate. Of course that will tend to complicate things, but I think we can manage. And by all means, take your time.
I like the concept of leaving tracks. Obviously that's something we do here in cyberspace, because the memory function here is particularly good. For example, Patri and Caryn are currently dealing with some tracks.
Steiner's picture of a future epoch is one in which the motions and thoughts of human beings leave tracks in light and color. Tracks in the physical environment, which will have been transformed significantly, in part perhaps by a need arising in our epoch to control the weather.
Basically, we must be talking about moral impulses and moral actions. Moral expressions as art. M.S. writes about Group Moral Artistry. That seems to me to be the necessary direction. As groups, we need to be clear about what moral actions and moral tracks are. I think they probably have to do with the Economic life.
Of course, I agree our aspirations today need to be relatively modest. No need to think of ourselves as angels just yet. That comes much later.
Best wishes to you.
Etheric tracks
Slowly slowly ...
Whether we like it or not we leave traces of our actions, echoes of our speech, in what is called the Akashic Record. The embedding takes place in sleep after the day's deeds according to the good doctor. I have had experiences of eurythmy performances for those who have died being followed by some profound experiences in sleep - these may link to what the good doctor tells.
The etheric tracks are there by the service of 'invisible' participants in our deeds without our conscious awareness for the most part. It continues throughout our daily sleeping-while-awake life. Through entering our dreaming-while-awake life while conversing, a greater wisdom begins to weave through and between our words. This happens in what I have called strong conversations. The communication continues in the silences - which need even more self-restraint than the speaking. This greater wisdom - the subject of Barfield's book, Unancestral Voice - appears as an internal you with whom I can speak. In time it becomes possible to experience moments where this I and you become reversed. The daily self becomes more of a you than an I as a result. For me this is not a steady state of being by any means - especially while trying to describe it now.
The intention to converse from this deeper wisdom comes into being as converse flows - or not. Perhaps it can be characterised as speaking from the heart or from the source. The influence that such speaking has upon the hearers is unpredictable. The - shall I call them - impressions made on the soul of the listener call up new matter from distances and the event becomes intensely memorable. Contemplation of these memorable exchanges reveals ever more substance.
I have no idea if the principles that you have outlined would assist this transitional conversation. I see it as transitional as I have not experienced it happening as a prolonged steady state. In terms of the trinal social activity of conversation it seems to me to live in the freedom of spiritual life. If the generosity of meaning is to be seen as economic then I would have to say that it is more on the level of the biblical story of the feeding of the 5000 than a transactional process.
So far for now...
Can Anyone Else Write Something Like This?
Whoa! This is a good post.
Can anyone else write something like this?
If we start to see more writing like this, we'll start to see that change Jeff is predicting.
By my reading of the last
By my reading of the last day and half, the prediction has arrived!
Jeff
Off topic, back to the edge
Your post was off topic Carl - can you keep to the point as we agreed?
Carl wrote further back: But what will make our conversations "take place across the threshold, in the etheric world?"
This potential can be realised only if we do the inner work of self-development in order to help others and the world. As has been pointed out in many ways, self-development for self is a closed loop that can only snowball downhill. Self-development for intent beyond self is the demand of PoF. The author pointed out several times in his lecturing that: I think therefore I am not. This implies that the PoF is a path to healthy selflessness that is possible in the field of thinking. Without herding the arguments, this is but one step to the development of the trinal human being. The work on feeling and intention has still to be quested.
Is it not a prerequisite for conscious activity in the field of meaningful formative forces to be able to move there consciously? No manner of ritualistic practice will substitute for this. It is this demand that is lacking in much of the current writing on collective consciousness - the demand that inner preparation achieve new organs of perception aka a changed source of perceptive consciousness.
In the absence of such abilities, there are beings who will lift us up so that we may experience transcendent moments in conversation, but not in freedom, by the grace of entities who follow their own intentions. Such intentions can lead three ways. How do we ensure that our path remains in healthy equilibrium in converse with other beings? I find that there is little consideration of this in the collective consciousness endeavours.
An exception is Otto Scharmer's work on Theory-U that includes PoF connections. Are there others that I am not aware of?
This topic needs to become conversation now - simultaneity of reading and writing is not a factor. Joining in is the factor that will open the next door. If this does not materialise I would respectfully ask Carl as moderator to delete these contributions within 3 days. I do not wish them to remain in silicon valley if their purpose is not to be realised at this time. The personal cost is too great.
The Christ and Conversation
What do people think is the role of the Christ in the development of this kind of conversation?
The role of other spirit thinkers
Tim - have a look at my contribution here as food for thought.
I would like to introduce an imaginative image to the issues of remaining ‘on track’ in conversation.
When we speak we are flame-smiths. We direct the fire through words in order to manifest our intentions. In the case of a flame-smith who hammers the flame hard and douses it quickly in cooling water, we can recognise that the intentions of Ahriman are influencing the speaker. In the case of the flame-smith who blazes with ecstasy in the forge, and vigorously flares up into the night leaving only a smudge of ash on the floor, we can recognise that the intentions of Lucifer are influencing the speaker. In the case of the fire-smith who responds to the emerging meaning and works with it towards its fulfilment in life, we can recognise the intentions of Michael being taken up in the effort dedicated to whatever arises from the thought itself. In this way the thought becomes an ideal that is acted upon so that it becomes manifest in life. This is the moral art of the craft of flame-smithing.
Under the influence of Lucifer conversation becomes an ecstatic high peak of indulgence that collapses in upon itself.
Under the influence of Ahriman the musts and shoulds press upon the listeners and the plunge into 'cosmic water' sounds the onomatopoeic word: stress.
In the free individual work of those who align their intentions with Michael the space expands beyond the room and time passes more slowly. At such moments there are openings galore for other influences to side-track the process. Firm commitment to developing whatever is there to be developed asks for rigorous effort. This effort allows ever increasing warmth and light to flow into the forging process that is poised between the spirit and the Earth. This is what is requested in the final verse of the Foundation Stone Meditation.
In this image the intentions of those thinking together in conversation shape the scope of the role of other spirit beings. To be disinterested is to let thoughts be. To contribute to the Michael intention is to assist thoughts to fulfil the wholeness of their potential, to work them as ‘cosmic iron’ to good purpose for all.
Learn to Offer up your Thoughts to God
Thanks John,
In the Christian Community Sacrament of Consultation the priest says the following:
"Learn to offer up your thoughts to God"
I have always thought this a very profound image, in the sense that offering up our thoughts to the spirit world enables the spirit world to express itself in them, this is I think what is called "living thinking".
The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number
On two separate occasions, once in California (with anthroposophists) and once in Germany (with Craig Hamilton from What is Enlightenment?), I have sat formally with a conversational group of perhaps 8 to 12 individuals when, because the conditions were right, it suddenly became apparent to everyone there that the content in each individual's mind was linked directly to what was in everyone else's mind.
It was as though everyone was experiencing what was inside everyone else. No one was excluded from the experience, and each person present was active in making the experience happen.
People spoke as individuals, but everything that was said was acceptable to everyone else. Everyone was able to accept the meaning of what was being presented and to find a way to amplify it in a way that kept everyone sensible of its universality.
As a consequence, an etheric field was induced, and everyone felt pleasantly comfortable and somewhat buoyant, as though forces of anti-gravity were working up through the individual bodies.
In each case, the experience lasted for over an hour.
John is right to emphasize the need for preparation for experience of this sort. One should stress
(P9) Principle of preparation and preparedness.
But I tend to think that preparation for the right kind of ritual is in fact sufficient to induce the kind of experience that, in the future, will be the fundamental commonplace of a Cosmic Hierarchy that works disinterestedly for the greatest good of the greatest number.
Threefold Conversation
Hi Carl,
Can I paint a picture from a different point of view? I am only getting part of the whole from your comments so far so this is done in the interests of trying to unfold the implications of your thoughts for myself and others.
Steiner talks of an organic threefolding of society into spiritual (liberty), rights (equality) and economic (fraternity). Human activities are typically participating in all three realms to some extent. Even the Christian Community I attend reaches into the rights realm (e.g. as an incorporated association it has a legal status in Australia) and the economic realm (the needs of the congregation, priest, members and friends being the main focus in this area). Its functioning in the spiritual realm is (I hope) obvious.
Likewise Steiner talks of the threefolding of the human body into limbic system (willing), rhythmic breathing/circulatory system (feeling) and nerves/senses system (thinking). Any one part of the body - an arm for example - is not involved only in one of the three intertwined systems but to some extent in all three. The arm is primarily an organ of the limbic system/willing but obviously functions within the nerve/sense and circulatory/breathing systems also.
So on to conversation and speech as a human activity viewed from the point of view of the threefold society - obviously in one sense conversation or speech is quite versatile because it can work in the spiritual realm (e.g. the Christian Community sacraments, a play, a poem or a study group), the rights realm (e.g. a court case or refereeing a football match) or the economic realm (e.g. ringing up a call center to get assistance or buying fruit and vegetables at the local market). And any given conversation can easily move from one to the other in the twinkling of an eye, or even cover all three at once.
If I think now of my experience of the Christian Community Sacrament, I would experience it as quite "wrong" if our priest were in the middle of elevating the host (for example) and suddenly started humming her favourite tune, for example. I think that is the kind of thing you may be talking about when you speak of an economy of words (and actions) in conversation - in the spiritual realm things actually get quite demanding and this is where the principle of "right speech" finds its home.
I know people will take this the wrong way so let me give another example - if I write a poem I will try for an economy of words again. This means that I want neither too much nor too little but just what is required. That is simply dictated by the poem itself, which I am trying to bring into being, and it is a paradox that the realm of greatest liberty (the spiritual realm) is the one which also demands the greatest rigorousness and exactness to bring it to fruition.
On the other hand, if I am speaking with a dearly beloved friend on equal terms, I experience a different kind of freedom - typically I do not address them as if I were a poet or priest but as a feeling participator, as one who "goes with the flow" as it were, and listens and speaks with warmth, respect and love.
And then again when I am an economic consumer (in conversation this could be an expression of a need, for example, or a question), I am asking for something, I can experience this as a lowering of myself beneath another being and the best way to do this from my experience is in a spirit of gratitude. The least thing I receive each day, each moment, can be experienced as a gift, as a grace from the spiritual worlds as well as from the hand of my benefactor.
I am quite deliberately conflating speech and conversation in the above because to me they are intertwined and both need to be imagined to get a fuller picture and understanding - after all the Gospel of John starts with "in the beginning was the Word" not "in the beginning was the conversation"!
Commitment as Creation
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the good post.
The idea is that all social situations are threefold. They have a cultural life, an economic life and a rights life. A conversation is the most basic kind of social situation, and it can be expected to have this threefold structure.
Now, what is the economy of a conversation? I think it must lie in the commitments that people make when they perform it. That's because commitments are the material aspect of the social situation. These are what determine the actual form of the social situation.
Most commitments are implicit. People just kind of sense they are there and respond accordingly. In most social situations, we commit, for example, to engaging one another only for a limited period of time. We do not generally make any promise to keep the company of another person indefinitely, and we retain a right to break off the company at will.
Some commitments are explicit, as when I say "I hereby promise to keep my sentences short and to the point."
Both sorts of commitments affect the material form of the social experience.
The Early Christians
Hi Tim,
If we want to understand something about how to develop Goethean conversation in our anthroposophical communities, we might look back to the Early Christians. This was a unique community in world history, which had some severe sociological problems to deal with, and which did so by a kind of ongoing, egalitarian euphoria as they explored the Promise of gaining eternal life through Christ.
What was fundamental to this community, it seems to me, was the role they allowed love to play in their transactions with one another. Today it is popular to advocate compassion as a socially acceptable way of expressing good will and sympathy, and some very good anthroposophists I know do so, but this emphasis, it seems to me, misunderstands the Christian spirit altogether. Love is democratic, self-sacrificing and engaged; compassion is aristocratic and benevolent, but detached. Consider this epitome, from Paul, as he exorts yet another local community to try to get its act together:
Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous; love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people’s sins but delights in truth; it is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes (1 Corinthians, 13:4-7).
The central role of truth, love, tolerance, endurance and hope in early Christianity is something that can be repeated, it seems to me, among people who sense that personal striving and community of the right sort can give us an important bearing as this great and complicated planet begins to evolve into its future form.
Exercise for thoughtful integrity
Gratitude, love and wonder are certainly of tremendous importance in conversation. They imbue the trinal activities of spirit-remembering, spirit-awareness and spirit-envisioning in the Foundation Stone Meditation. They link us to the emerging future and the supportive past. They can ensure integrity in conversation.
The etheric field of thinking connects the forward flow of the temporal world and the reverse flow of the astral world. These are rivers of forgetfulness and remembering. I suggest that it is a moral deed to ensure the conscious integrity of these flows. In healthy thinking, as in eurythmy, both flows retain integrity within our awareness throughout active motion.
An exercise that aids our thinking to enter the counter-flow is the rückschau, the backward review, the evening back-tracking through the events of the day. One can practice back-tracking a flow of thoughts. It is a step beyond the well-known exercise of holding an everyday object in thought. On this site are many threads of thought-filled conversation on which this exercise can be practiced. By starting to read the bottom of the thread and tracing the thoughts that join, tracking back to the top, we can learn a lot about the influences that enter a thread and the integrity of the thoughtful motion that develops or crumbles into disregarded extinction.
Any judgements about contributors are not appropriate and constitute a debilitating distraction. The exercise is intended to be no more than Goethean observation of metamorphosis and thinking processes. All sincere efforts can be enhanced by being read with gratitude, love and wonder.
This same exercise can be done to profound effect through the chapters of PoF. It will work good work on its practitioner. There is a substantial reward for all of us in such efforts.
Hi John, Thanks for these
Hi John,
Thanks for these suggestions about backwards thinking, and for presenting a balanced view of the feeling-work necessary for the flowering of understanding and of conversation.
Disinterested Thinking in Conversation
To be disinterested toward thoughts is the practical key to Goethean conversation. Somehow, local groups of people capable of this attitude need to arise in quantity and in quality of performance. A couple or three conditions for this practice appear necessary:
(1) Thoughts need to be well-formed (they need to be universally intelligible and acceptable, or potentially acceptable, and in this sense actually to exist);
(2) Individuals need to have a social attitude toward these thoughts (they need to accept that these thoughts have or channel a certain power to perform a certain social function);
(3) These thoughts in their power need to hover in the atmosphere as objective signs of the Goethean imagination of everyone present until they've done their work.
Call this,
(P10) Principle of the autonomy of the conversational content.
These conditions, it seems to me, are not outside the realm of possibility for ordinary people striving to become real anthroposophists.
Disinterest clarification
Carl I am intrigued by your somehow in the DTiC post above. This somehow appears to characterise the threshold between what we do now and our ideals. Ideals involve a process and embody a method which evolves. The ideal that we reach towards now may be rooted further in the future than this current conversation, but my perception is that it is not beyond our grasp. What method do you perceive that will enable good hearted people to cross the abyss of the somehow that you write needs to arise? What can people do actively to develop disinterestedly the foundations of conscious conversations?
My experience tells me that disinterest is a preparatory gesture. What follows is loving empathy, surrendering to the thought, and truly waking up within the thought. Disinterest is helpful for the approach of unicorn imaginations, it is impotent to creatively develop the inner potential of thoughts. Such activity involves empathic shape-shifting in the field of meaning. I hope that my deliberate use of shamanic terminology is not off-putting, but it most clearly expresses - for me - what is involved here.
Maybe you are using the word disinterest differently to the definition that I use: disregarding self-interest. I notice that you have developed your own usage of some words so I wonder if you would expand and clarify what the word means for you in this context. It may be that we are moving closer than is apparent to me at this moment.
Regarding your threesome, I add my observations which may help us clarify and develop our points of view on those thoughts.
(1) Thoughts have shelf-life and yet the gesture of intent that created them develops in what Steiner has termed seed-will that links from one incarnation to the next. You refer to flame-smithing of qualia here. (spirit-envisioning) I hope the image of flame-smithing in my post above is sufficient to use the term effectively here.
(2) There is no thought that is not undergoing one of the life processes of existence. Extinction from the individual mind is not non-existence. (spirit-remembering) Even so-called dead thoughts are composting.
(3) The thought entities are always there even if we do not notice their presence. (spirit-awareness) We attract them and in becoming aware of them we densify their manifestation - thus all observation is a deed in search of its ideal. Thus if we do not actively reach forward to the ideal we effectively widen the abyss that we wish to cross. We do not wish archetypes to become mill-stones round our speech organism (I am developing an image coined by Ursula Leguin) This seems to require a different gesture to disinterest. This area lies and is being doused within the materialistic Law of Attraction discourse that is consuming so much interest at the moment.
At ths point in our conversation we have reached the fourth life process of absonderung, aka secreting. I find this English term to be inadequate and have adopted the term fluid response. It is the equivalent in living thinking of the materialistic and judgemental acceptance or non-acceptance in the dusty handling of dead concepts. While living-thinking together the judge-mental process is suspended so that the osmosis of empathic perception of thoughts may procede in freedom. While this has echoes of Rogers' reflective bouncing back of the speakers meaning, it includes more of the organising activity of a centrifuge or distillation process, separating and clarifying the enlivening matter from the dying matter.
I may not have expressed this clearly enough - let us see. If we are able to move towards the next process we shall move from the core towards the fresh manifestation of life.
aka = also known as
The Ahrimanic Stream
My idealized picture of a culture of objective conversation is something like the old Jewish idea of the General and Bodily Resurrection of the Dead. Each individual suddenly finds it within himself (herself) to start acting according to a universal law that everyone sort of knows is there but that no one in the past, with a very few exceptions, has had the courage or the fortitude to make use of. In a culture of Goethean conversation, the sources are coming from everywhere, from the tones and colors of each individualized will. It's a tremendous, awesome cosmic Mystery that happens in space and time because everyone is willing it to happen in space and time.
Now that's just the idealized version. I don't think that's actually going to happen in any robust general way at any time in the foreseeable future. But I do think something like it can happen in local communities on small scales. The model for that small scale version is Goethean conversation.
What is required for something like this to happen in this way is education. The model is really mathematics. A culture of Elders presents objective and supersensible facts to a generation of initiates or would-be initiates. Some of these learn to comport themselves in a total manner, and to live inwardly, according to the supersensible facts and laws that everyone knows something about. Some of them find ways to cooperate directly with certain others largely in the supersensible world. That supersensible activity trickles down, and manifests in cultural and technological invention of all sorts.
Rudolf Steiner laid the groundwork for that education in a beautiful way, and Steiner's anthroposophy will remain fundamental to any kind of program that seeks to establish that Domain of Ends in explicit terms in space and time. But I think it is important today to add certain elements to that program, because, after all, the world has moved ahead since Steiner's day. The important thing to add, from my point of view, is intelligence. This Ahrimanic stream, in the form of analytic philosophy and functional computability for example, needs to enter anthroposophical culture in the right way and bolster it technically. If this is accomplished, I think anthroposophy will find itself in the presence of real power.
Fluid Response
These are intriguing thoughts, thank you John!
Can you clarify the reference to Ursula le Guin please, I loved reading the Earthsea books but a bit more context here might help me understand you better...
Disinterest
John,
I have the same idea in mind with "disinterest." The idea is the Cartesian one that there are things that impinge the soul which cannot be other than what the soul conceives them to be. The properties of a pentagram are like this, and when we exercise with the pentagram in the right way, the pentagram makes its presence felt in us in a disinterested way.
The pentagram actively engaged radiates a certain force into the astral body (into the soul) because of the laws it represents. This force has nothing to do with what we might want it to be. There is no silly subjectivism here. This disconnection from our will is what we mean by an object's or an idea's disinterest.
I am not sure, by the way, that Steiner meant "I think therefore I am not" seriously. I forget the context here, but I think probably he was talking about intellectuals in contemporary Germany, and not about Descartes.
No, Steiner was talking
No, Steiner was talking specifically about Descartes. He does this quite often. He was pointing to the fact that Descartes attempted to “prove” existence through an intellectualized form of logic. Steiner shows that our being is really everything that isn’t that frozen river of proofs. Like when he said, “All that I know obscures my knowing”…..
Of course, he was also very aware of Descartes work as an appropriate symptom of the times….
Jeff
I Think Therefore I Am Not
Maybe we can conjure the context from somewhere.
If he really means "I think therefore I am not," we'll need to explain in a robust way the emphasis on thinking in PoF and what he really means by the "I am," which is fundamental to his ontology.
yea, Steiner- like most of
yea, Steiner- like most of us- uses the word thinking in over 100 different ways. Often he is not using it to refer to the experience of what he calls Spiritualized Love in PoF.
Thinking
Jeff,
Here I think you're being too loose, and for the good of the website you should tighten up your language, and probably your habits of feeling. Others are watching and judging the quality of the discourse here.
It's just not serious to propose that Steiner's use of "thinking" in PoF has over 100 types. Anyone will grant that "thinking" is a complex term, but to say that Steiner uses it in different ways is simply false. Steiner is talking about something specific, he knows what he's talking about, and he's trying to be taken seriously. Let's not casually downgrade the guy or insult his intelligence just because we ourselves are not clairvoyant. Let's try actually to understand him on his own terms.
So what is thinking? I've just rescanned Chapters 1-3 of PoF, and here's what it looks like to me.
(1) Thinking is mental picturing, and is to be distinguished sharply from feeling;
(2) Thinking is spiritual activity by means of conceptual contents or ideas;
(3) Thinking is a part of nature, and as such expresses a natural law of some sort;
(4) Thinking is the self-sense, the "I am" of Descartes; it is the exercise of clear and distinct ideas about objects; it is our sense of the reality of objects;
(5) Thinking is never mistaken about what its conceptual contents are;
(6) Thinking makes objective judgments about matters of fact and cannot generally observe itself;
(7) Observation is a function of the personality, a relationship between self and object, and involves feeling;
(8) To observe thinking is an exceptional state, requiring an exceptional development of the personality;
(9) The exceptional personality who observes thinking observes the motives of thinking;
(10) An exceptionally developed personality who knows its motives knows itself to be one with its thinking. Presumably this means such a personality knows itself to be a spirit body independent of the physical body and the senses.
Complex ? Yes.
Scattered and inconsistent? No.
Carl, Look, I know you have
Carl,
Look, I know you have this thing about being a careful thinker. I don't doubt that you value such an approach. You try not to write anything until you are very clear and know that what you say is true. I understand that this all fits with the conversation ritual you've created.
I've said before, in defense of you, that I think people pick up on the emotions hiding in your posts (not that you are intentionally hiding your experience). You don't state them, people get really reactive and then we get all the stomping and fussing we saw last week (people got so mad at you for a while). So far you haven't said much about what is really going on when you type, but that might not be what you wish to talk about. Fine.
Where did I say that Steiner uses the word "thinking" over 100 different ways in PoF? Slow down. Did I? I've talked about him using the word "feeling" about three or four different ways in PoF. The comments about "I think therefore I'm not" aren't in PoF; I've only read them in lectures.
I was talking about the fact that, like all of us, Steiner uses the word "thinking" to mean countless things. That's why we must BE CAREFUL and diligent before we make assumptions about such quotes. You read the quote about "I think there fore I am not" and you quickly assumed something quite specific about it. I pointed out that Steiner, like all great thinkers, uses the word in many ways in order to appreciate your value of critical and careful thinking on such lines. Carl, you know about Witgenstein's work with "family resemblenses", so I don't have to go into this with you. But I respect your clarity, so if you can point to what I said about 100 uses in PoF, please help me out here. As far as I know he uses "thinking" in, at most, four different ways in PoF.
But, more importantly, I've consistently maintained that there is a way people use PoF to hide from exploring it. I've been saying that it's when it gets a little hot under the collar that we can take responsibility for what's really going on cognitively (and non-cognitively). What just happend for you Carl? For me, Pof is in your willingness to come clean. What do you really want? This is what I'm talking about. Make some wonderful distinctions, right now, but please don't talk about how Jeff needs to talk correctly for the sake of this website.
I have to say, part of me thought you were making a joke and that I'm being silly for thinking you were beings serious. But I think you were being serious because it fits into your dance here. People get bent out of shape by you for the same reasons. They think that it really matters how right or wrong you are and stop wondering about Carl himself. I'm convinced that what you have to offer the world (what you are offering) has much more to do with you than the duribility of your theory. Same goes with Steiner.
Look, I'm fairly certain you'll see that I didn't say Steiner has over 100 specific uses of thinking in his book. I don't think he even uses the word that many times in that book. It's somtimes hard for me to really talk with you, Carl, I find, because there are lots of feelings that you displace into systems of thoughts. That's just my guess. I think that if people use the right kind of language with you, it's all ok. If I talked about the reverse etheric streams that stimulate an astral cleansing when conversation is timed to the Gaurdian's approach, I might have your ear (as long as I do so with deference). But you mention that people are watchiing us here. I hope they see that I'm just a guy who's thinking here. I'm not all that mean. I'm interested in what you say. I'm interested in what Jay says, Joel says. Somtimes I find things I really agree with and somtimes I don't. Yes, Carl, people see this.
But, and please don't take this the wrong way, they also see what you just wrote to me. They are dense and I'm sure they pick up on where that comes from. Is that bad? Is going to hurt the site? They will now get to always read your suggestion that I type differently for you- i mean- for the future of this website. They will read that.
I hope they'll see that you and I won't consider this a big deal. That, even now when I'm a bit reactive and surprised by what you wrote, it's already fading away. They might see that less and less often this site will contain posts about how we need to write in certain ways and understand certain truths. They'll get to see a site where we share our interests and respect each other's different ways. Won't they? I sure hope so. I don't think you'll instruct me too many more times like that, but, hey, if you do could you please share more about your experiences and needs in relations to my interests. At the very least it would then come across as more tolerant and social.
As you know I odn't think we are in as much danger as many anthroposophists believe. I'm fairly certain of that. I'm not saying anthroposophy, as an organized movement, won't fail again this century. I'm just saying that there are specific reasons why the theme of vulnerability always comes up in these passive aggressive ways with smart and well intentioned anthroposophists. These thems of danger and "the time is now to choose correctly" come up for reasons deeply related to the core of PoF, in my opinion.
The site is not in jeapordy because Jeff isn't a great writer. The dragon (or devil) isn't going to take away the wonderful destiny of this site just because there will be people who don't understand Jeff or Carl or Joel.
I honestly believe that we can actually relax when we read each other's posts. We can enjoy the banter. Some conversatons will be distant and delightful in our disinterest. Some will be up close and passionate in our shared interest. But, Carl, it's ok in these hills. Things aren't at risk because of me. I'm not that powerful or misguided by the adversaries. I'm only part of Ahariman's gang if you refuse to be interested in me- All those fears and anxieties in you will be projected into a Jeff who is harming this vulnerable site. I'll get to be another great example of the intense and necessary "corrections" that the movement needs.
It really is ok. I don't agree with the ten points you made above. Is that alright? Of course it is. You will find brilliant anthroposphists who don't agree with many of those points and you will find other brilliant anthroposophists that do. Anthroposophia has almost no concern with the content of our agreeement with such things, but she is very interested in what's going on in our the quality of each discourse. That's where she wants to live, if we will let her.
In my opinion, Pof is simply not about such agreements or disagreements. Taht doesn't mean the conversations aren't important, but it does mean you have to know what you are really conversing about. You and John right now are talking about some really cool stuff. People are visiting this site who hardly know about anthroposophy and they get to read all about your guy's clairvoyant experineces with astral crossings and etheric temporal dynamics. IT might sound crazy to them. They might wonder how you two started experiencing such things so that you can talk about them so boldly. They might not believe that you guys really do experience these phenomena. They might think you learned ideas from Steiner that use those words and you deduce and infer based on Steiner's characterizations. Why would it matter what these folks think about the experiences you and John are talking about as long as you two are being respectful? I just don't think it matters how many people you convice here. Just stay nice. Try to let us in on what's really going on for you (at least me; it helps even when you just barely reveal what's going on in that chest of yours).
Here's my request. If you feel the need to ask me for clairification, could you please be specific in stating what you need rather than say it's for the future of this site. That doesn't really help me. I don't know if there has been an agreement by the site how we need to talk and all that. I'd like to know how I could help you when you and I are talking, but I need to have something more concrete and direct from you.
You want another prediction? More people will come to this site. More people will talk about things in ways that don't interest you and that, in fact, you think are not correct. But more people will also join you in your discussions. I predict that you will find it less and less necessary to worry about standardizing a way of conversing here and that you'll actually really begin to enjoy the diversity of conversations, even when a small group of people believe things as bizzare as the notion that thinking, feeling and willing are always already together and can be noticed as such previous to any higher level modifications of the chakras. You won't worry, I predict, because you'll become more and more grounded in the deeper current of what's taking place as people feel free to share their interests in their own ways here. I'm almost certain that this will be the case. By the way, I agree with a significant aspect of your (7) but I don't think we share the same notion of "personality" in that context.
Jeff
Carl, allow me...
This is what you wrote Jeff:
Submitted by Jeffrey on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 6:55pm.
yea, Steiner- like most of us- uses the word thinking in over 100 different ways. Often he is not using it to refer to the experience of what he calls Spiritualized Love in PoF.
What a bummer! (as we sometimes say in the UK)
I don't disagree with what you say Jeff - you can imagine my response to Carl's post, but I'm not going to bang my head on that wall yet awhile.
Nevertheless, because you write such powerful stuff, I am going to challenge you:
Are you listening to what you are saying as much as you are saying what you are saying?
S-)
to sebastian
I can't say I get the question yet, Sebastian. But if you could ask it again and, perhaps, give it a bit of context, I'd love to take a shot at it! It seems to be suggesting that I might not be paying quite enough attention to how I am writing my posts, but I don't want to assume that and waste your time if you mean something different. Thanks!
Jeff
Raw Jeff Thoughts
Yes, I'm having a (friendly) go...
It's not because I want to be mean or because I don't like you or what you write.
I'm just finding you hard to follow, and that's frustrating because when I can follow you I get a lot out of what you write, so I feel like I am missing something.
You wrote "Steiner uses the word thinking in a hundred ways". Then you told Carl that you were sure you would never write such a thing.
OF COURSE, you didn't mean a 100 ways, you were just making a point - there are lots of different ways of using the word thinking... It's like the opposite of the way 40 in the bible means a VERY BIG number.
You weren't aware of that. I am connecting the apparent fact that you weren't aware of what you already wrote with the fact that I can't follow you. My hypothesis is that you are writing straight out of your brain without listening to it first. We are getting Raw Jeff Thoughts - or RJTs. I don't have the right software to read RJT files and I haven't been able to find a freeware codec!
;-) S.
But Sebastian
prescript
"I'm fairly certain you'll see that I didn't say Steiner has over 100 specific uses of thinking in his book. "
I threw in "in his book" because I wanted Carl to see that I never made the claim he reacted to with his post about me not writing correctly....I did say that Steiner uses the word over 100 different way, but that was in the conversation about his comment about Decartes in his lectures. In fact, when I first said it I even contrasted these various usages with his ultimate usage of ":thinking", as Spiritialized Love, in PoF. I simply can't find where I said or implied that PoF is where I've located all the ways he's used it. I think I actually do really read and listen to what I'm typing, Sebastian......
end of prescript
No, I love you having a go. I really do. But look:
Show me where I denied writing that Steiner uses thinking in 100 different ways!!!!!!! I told Carl that I did not ever write that in the book POF Steiner uses every use he's ever used; Carl was upset because he thought I made that outrageous claim. Either I am going crazy or you two missed this. The only thing I denied was stating that Steiner uses thinking 100 different ways in the book called PoF. I think, in this specific context, I'm being a careful reader and listener, Sebastian. You didn't come across as condesending or arrogant. You sounded sincere in wanting to point out that I simply forgot what I said because I write according to your hypothesis. I love that I now have an official Sebastian Hypothesis in my honor!!!! I'm floating on cloud 9!
When I first mentioned the 100 different ways, I was in a conversation that was not about PoF. It was about comments Steiner made about Descartes outsidePoF. Am I missing something here? Then Carl tells me that I've made a claim about 100 uses of "thinking" in PoF. Now you seem to be saying that I've denied ever saying that Steiner uses thinking in so many ways....
I think I need to stick with what I've said. So far I'm not ready to give this one to you and Carl. I guess it would be most helpful if you could show me where I made a claim to a certain number of uses of "thnking" in PoF. I only remember recently telling Carl that I can see 3 or 4 uses in PoF.
Sebastian, are you absolutely certain I wasn't aware of what I had written? If so, please show me. I'm a big fan of yours and i appreciate you pointing this out, but I need to SEE it. Thanks for that.
In terms of your hytpothesis that I'm writing straight from my brain without paying attention, I just want to say that I don't think I'm doing that any more than anybody else here. If, if if IF, I'm correct in that I never said the thing about 100 uses in PoF, then it would be a case of you and Carl, perhaps, not being careful. But that's no big deal. I'm writing from my heart. And I'm being very careful with what I try to say. You've got to remember Sebastion, the most inspiring Steiner work for me is Anthroposophy- A Fragment. Have you read it? I wonder what your critisism of Steiner would be for how he uses language in that. I'm not comparing myself to Steiner. Well, only in that I find myself most drawn to the work he did that he was not satisified with. I think there is something very special there. I will always try to boil down my thoughts for anybody, but they need to ask for specific areas that they want boiled.
I'm not saying i can't be clearer. I think we all are trying to be clearer. But I'm not sure that your hypothesis leaves much room for the simple fact that I'm deeply interested in Steiner's work to relanguage, refit and modify his understanding and articulation of the phenomenology of our being. Hey, I will try hard to not contradict myself and keep my thoughts sorted. I'm not sure I've mixed up this thing about 100 "thinkings"....I'm eager to find out. Now I've gotta go work!
Jeff
You are right, you don't
You are right, you don't say "in POF". Carl assumed that and I didn't twig the difference at all until you mentioned it. What a pity ;-)
:-)
S.
Twig!!!!
Please, tell me about the 100 uses of "twig". It might be my new favorite word!
Jeff
I'm glad you like it.
Do that spoon-although thing on it, you soon find out it means the same as they do...
I wish I could somehow share this site with the people who think I think too much - that would show them! Trouble is, it's against their rules to think too much, so they wouldn't be able to get it - or should I say, they just wouldn't twig!
Sebastian
Ah, but that's not what I
Ah, but that's not what I MEAN!!!! Just because you and I have the same meaning as the Human, doesn't mean I know your address! But thanks for defining it in context. See ya.
Jeff
individuality
In expression of our spirits individuality is important and marks the essence of our very being. We are all different - we are one in our commonality (being here and there) but we are not the same. If we were the same we would be like boring robots. This is the wholeness of the 12 outlooks; the 12 zodiac signs - the different personalities making a whole and the individuality within the whole becomes harmonic in balancing the extremes. We cannot expect a Virgo to be a Leo, for example, rather the Leo appreciates the Virgo qualities as the Leo would have less of these qualities and learns from these qualities. Although we have spoken about watching being too subjective in egotism, individual expression is the vitality of life.
love and joy for we are not lost but we are found.
Inversion of perspective
One of thresholds to thinking and tracking in the etheric is the ability to perceive thoughts that are free of English or German or any human language. Carl writes about dynamic geometrical figures and Bertrand Russell seems to have considered a kind of philosophical algebra. But I have little understanding for analytic philosophy. I am a cheeky child among the elders of philosophic endeavour. As a result of our conversation I am beginning to see some aspects of our themes in more clarity.
Steiner had the task of firstly reading the spiritual script and then translating it into language and he made up words when he needed to. Experience shows that when a speaker slows down and begins to improvise forms of language it is time to redouble the attention of listening to a creative construction of language that may seem more poetic and never prosaic. So a group of conscious converse will at some point abandon the known in order to know, abandon the preparation in order to create a new path through the tractless. It cannot be assumed that a conversation will stumble upon inroads made by earlier explorers. Only intent in common will keep a group together who have left the well trodden tracks. Such imagery conjures resonance with notions of neural pathways.
If we take Steiner’s thought – I think therefore I am not – as an ideal, and work towards it in a testing spirit of inquiry, then we can expect that our thinking will separate us from our known identity. The morality of our agreements on progression in common through such converse may not guarantee safe passage or ensure an unscathed homecoming. No matter what our agreements, we need to practice before we attempt to scale the heights of selfless sense-free thinking to take some measure of responsibility to find ourselves when we lose ourselves. A careless adventurer can bankrupt the whole enterprise.
At this point I find that I am recognising Carl’s intentions from their inside, although I have not forgotten my qualms about the exposition of his propositions outside. I experience an inversion of my awareness of Carl’s intentions. My experience and appreciation of these intentions has become more substantial than before. This has not come about through the transactions of our discourse, rather as a result of silent participants.
A conversation that reaches a common and sustainable silence is giving birth.
Today demands my presence. I will trace the reference to le Guin, also Steiner’s context. It was a photocopied lecture to the Goetheanum workmen where he first spoke to me of Descartes.
Ursula le Guin – clarification
I have great respect for the moral imagination of Ursula Le Guin in the Earthsea books.
In the Foreword to Tales from Earthsea she writes:
All times are changing times, but ours is one of massive, rapid moral and mental transformation. Archetypes turn into millstones, large simplicities get complicated, chaos becomes elegant, and what everybody knows is true turns out to be what some people used to think.
It’s unsettling. For all our delight in the impermanent, the entrancing flicker of electronics, we also long for the unalterable.
This is my kind of wine from the true vine.
In an earlier post I picked up the image: Archetypes turn into millstones. I added in the cliché of the millstone round our necks. Our voice box, our Adam’s apple lives in the neck so I wrote: We do not wish archetypes to become millstones round our speech organism. There you have it.
Archetypes are like the marble in which Michelangelo revealed his sculptures and still hold his imaginations before us. They are the substance that can be lovingly sculpted by our creative choice of words and stand with integrity in support of truth. Spiritual archetypes have an inner nature of permanence, yet like stone they are not unalterable. The living quality of an archetype is petrified if it is crushed into a dead concept. Archetypes are not well respected if they are hung heavily round our thinking as dead concepts in converse. My theme was – and is – that archetypes seek appropriate creative work towards manifestation through moral imagination. The living thought seeks to become an ideal through deeds imbued with spiritual activity, not to be slung round our necks in converse as dead weights that chain us to the pedantic spot.
The use of images in writing is a shortcut that only works if the images are generally penetrable. That one was obviously not sufficiently accessible. My sincere apologies for that.
All calls for clarification are justified and I am grateful to be made aware of my careless driving that creates roadblocks on our pilgrimage to common understanding. Thank you Tim for your editorial advice.
Archetypes
Thanks John this is delightful - I see you are cutting a few corners but may yet pass your driver's test... :-)
Unknown Territory
Here's an intriguing possibility. According to analytic philosophy, if I make a judgment using a false premise, the whole judgment is guaranteed to be true. For example, if in a conversation I say,
(1) If the moon is made of blue cheese, then all cats are birds,
everyone is logically obligated to accept (1) as true.
On my theory of conversation, all true judgments have a kind of conversational power. They stand there, in the etheric, demanding to be digested by everyone present before the group as a whole can move forward into the next conversational moment.
One can imagine that if sentences like (1) could be placed imaginatively into a conversational context that all manner of creative force could be tapped. In Goethean conversation, everyone is taking everyone else quite seriously. If something like (1) is injected, everyone is obligated to make certain inner efforts that will almost certainly displace the conversational space into unknown territory, from where it will be necessary to work back systematically to a satisfactory halting position.
The unknown is acceptable
I am going to play seriously with words here.
If we are really to walk our talk of embracing a holistic view then no contribution is unwelcome and can be observed for value. One of the great tips for creative drama improvisation is to accept what you are given. This is also productive in all species of Intuitive Practice (IP is one of the courses I run at University of Aberdeen) and conversation in wholes.
Non-acceptance of the gifts of other speakers quickly sends one down the plug hole of isolation. The baby slips along with the bathwater. It is easily forgotten that the illusion of isolation in one’s personal bath water down the hole remains part of the whole sea of ether. Spirit-remembering is the activity of allowing ourselves to buoyantly float up to where the others are still splashing about. Every exit point from a conversation such as we are attempting here allows re-entry as we are still wet with the same water of life. Thus the image of the baby going down the plughole is revealed as a metamorphosis of the truth about the source of the water of life. If you are able to follow my flow of thought here you will notice that language and metaphor and the words themselves undergo a shift in meaning so that what went before gains new colour. It is demanding of the readers’ fluidity to remain in an etheric current and it is important for the writer – or speaker – to keep in touch with readers – or listeners – that they do not get left behind. Otherwise we speak only to ourselves which is nice but not quite what we aspire to do together.
Carl has introduced a twist on the proposition of truth telling. The collusion of readers with the author of fictional stories is based on this. Morality in the etheric is something else than static. In the etheric realm there are only and no fictions. Does it matter if Rudolf Steiner speaks the truth or not if we scrupulously seek and find verification of the value of one of ‘his’ ideas in daily life? The blue cheese of the Moon is somewhat past its ‘use by’ date and cats that eat birds are made of birds but that is not the whole truth. The Deceiver delights in combining truth and fiction in ways that will unbalance us, so let us love every thought for itself and unwrap each one like Christmas and observe it as it reveals itself. Let us love thinking in 100 ways!
Does this turn of the thread tell us of the importance of being present for all in conversation? I experience a simultaneous densification and widening of the field. Where is this all leading us?
The Humility of the Teacher
A little anecdote on this topic...
I once attended a workshop on "Mastering Information Overload" run by a woman who grew up in the US. She was of quite a small build, but she decided to enlist with the US Marines after leaving high school and was accepted.
After her year of training she was given the job of being a classroom trainer for the incoming Marine recruits. She described how that taught her very quickly that she as the little tiny teacher was always in the wrong, the big burly recruits were never in the wrong.
She meant that humorously but also as a serious lesson - that the only way to teach successfully is to start with the pupil where they are and accept that fully. Standover tactics, bullying, shouting etc. simply are not going to work if you really want to teach something to someone.
Surely one of the highest callings of any human being is to be a teacher, in whatever context we find ourselves. Steiner certainly stated this on many occasions.
So if we enter a conversation thinking we have something to teach to others we could also reflect that to really do that may require us to accept where the other people in the conversation are, to really listen to them. In the silence of listening perhaps the true path we can follow together towards our goal will emerge.
The Pentagram