 The essential point to me is to realize that Steiner did not himself achieve his adult initiation (as against the atavistic clairvoyance of his childhood) on the path described in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. If we wish to follow Steiner's steps, we follow The Philosophy of Freedom. |
At the 2005 Ann Arbor Conference, after I had spoken at the final plenum about the importance of PoF, several people wanted, as John Ralph seems to want in his comment to my journal entry on "Spiritual, or Inner, Freedom", to do both The Philosophy of Freedom (PoF) and Knowledge of the Higher Worlds (KoHW). I'd like next to speak to the assumptions latent in thinking this way.
The essential point to me is to realize that Steiner did not himself achieve his adult initiation (as against the atavistic clairvoyance of his childhood) on the path described in KoHW. Steiner's path was described (indirectly, and without personal references) in his books on the science of knowing (A Theory of Knowledge, Truth and Science; and, PoF). If we wish to follow Steiner's steps, we follow PoF. Its quite clear (see the book Enliving the Chakra of the Heart by Florin Lowndes, last two chapters) that KoHW was written in large part because people were not taking up PoF, and/or finding it too difficult. KoHW was published 10 years after PoF.
KoHW is a modernization of Roscicrucian developmental practices leading to initiation. It does not lead to the New Cognition, about which Steiner stated that this New Cognition, when developed out of PoF, results in the thinker have an experience of the spiritual world as a world of thought. KoHW does not produce this effect, and does not provide the precision and exactness and SURETY of (scientific or PoF) thinking as does KoHW.
The exercises in KoHW consist of a series of moral admonitions, coupled with work on the imagination such that objects of sense experience become exercises to strenghten the picture thinking. Coupled together (for every one step in spiritual development, e.g. the exercises of the picture thinking, one needs to take three steps in character development, e.g.the moral admonitions) a basic metamorphosis of thinking does result, but it lacks certain qualitative characteristics only available through PoF
When Steiner in Occult Science says that the path of PoF is more sure and more exact, he is not making small talk. He always gave out his hints in a precise language, which was yet modest (no hyperbole or exaggeration). There is a surety and precision that results from scientific (objective) introspection, which KoHW does not foster. Since KoHW proceeds by processes of moral admonition for its "character" development, this leaves aside the full and direct encounter with the moral capacities of the spirit in the soul only made available by a thorough study and practice of moral imagination, moral intuition and moral technique (particularly, as this journal entry suggested, with regard to our inner soul/spiritual actions, not just our outer social actions.
Further, the problem of knowledge is not fully developed at all in KoHW. In large part we can experience this in the Society and Movement almost everywhere by just listening to what is emphasized. Hardly anyone (and this is sadly sometimes happening on this list - see the dialog following this comment in my last journal entry) actually makes references to their introspective experience. They will throw around concepts they have acquired from reading (basically use language in a certain way), but little will we hear of their experience in the practice iof ntrospection out of PoF. This includes the most fundamental and simple distinctions, say between thought and experience or concept and percept.
It is possible, for example, to read or listen to an anthroposophical speaker or writer and know which path they are following, and quite a bit of how far they have gone on this path. The way they connect thoughts reveals a great deal about the qualities of soul that have been developed. In addition, we can look to the degree to which their thinking is independent of Steiner-thought. We can actually (if properly trained via PoF) recreate the thought stream living in the sentences in our own mind and "feel" certain qualities and characteristics of the spirit and soul that constructed that sentence and the related and following thought content.
There is everywhere in the Society and Movement an absence of clear (clair-) thinking. What is the consequence for anthroposophists that PoF is so neglected?
Horrible tragedy. For a sample of the problem here is a paper I handed out at a recent Branch Meeting where a certain awful book was being put forward as important. http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/counter-silicon.html
joel
Introspection?
Dear Joel,
Could you explain what you mean by "introspection?" Is it something that, like pure thinking, we do every day without being aware that we are doing it?
Thanks,
Lori
Introspection
I think we'll ultimately decide that it's better to deny introspection. There's actually no such thing. This will be consistent both with PoF and KHW.
I know Joel has worked for years on something he calls introspection. But it hasn't produced any clairvoyance in him. Joel is quite forthright about this. Joel's introspective method just hasn't worked on the lotus petals, for the basic reason that there is no such thing as introspection.
Pace Sebastian, I do think there is a certain amount of harm in promulgating wrong notions about spiritual practice, and introspection is one of them. I think it's important to be clear that we don't really have the freedom to make up what spiritual practice actually is. When it comes to spiritual practice, we have to conform to it, not it to us.
Trying to supplant KHW with POF seems to me merely a rationale (an Apology, in Plato's sense) for avoiding KHW.
Now this is not to say that Joel has wasted his time in this incarnation, or that he is not good company. I know Joel pretty well. Joel is actually very good company and a very good anthroposophist. He knows a lot about the soul and he's very good in actual conversation. I conclude from these facts (people will grant me that these are facts, right?) that Joel's "introspection" has involved the essence of some of the exercises that are outlined in KHW.
Let's forget about introspection and focus on exercises, i.e. on principles, and on making true statements in our conversation together.
Hey, as an experiment in
Hey, as an experiment in ICT (improvisational conversation theory), I suggest we don't respond to Carl's post with a boring set of reactions and intellectual questions that mask our affrontedness....
instead.....reproduce Carl's post in a way that would have made it possible for you to enjoyably respond to.....that said, it's fine, of course, to go with the first reaction...I just thought that it might be more fruitfull to use posts like the one above by Carl to try new things that offer no hurt (masked or not)
me first:
The following is how would take Carl's words and make them non-violently respondable:
"It helps me to think that there is no introspection. I really like KoHW. I like Joel. He does things differently from me. Let's talk about stuff."
That has the stuff in Carls post that I could resopnd to in a way that would be enjoyable.....I made it too simple but I wanted to focus on tone for this particular example of ICT.
Jeff
Teaching Moments
I think Carl's exaggerated style provides an opportuity for teaching moments.
A comment like: "I think we'll ultimately decide that it's better to deny introspection. There's actually no such thing."
Some may want to try and sort through Carl's alleged logic. But it does open an opportunity to go into "what is introspection"? Steiner uses the view of other philosophers throughout POF for teaching moments.
I am always looking for ways to help the website become more informative and relevant to regular people who don't have much interest in extreme abstract intellectual discussions.
Meditation, Introspection and Rudolf Steiner
introspection: a reflective looking inward : an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings.
Reflection and introspection are two natural components of meditation. One may meditate on a specific mantra or words from the bible used like a mantra. During meditation natural reflection and introspection will unfold out of one's inner nature. Self-examination is vital for spiritual health. One cannot know the truth of one's SELF without meditation, without reflection and introspection.
Cheers,
Patri
dear lori
Dear Lori,
Things happen inside my soul, that are not like what I experience through my senses. They are invisible to others, but not invisible to me (to my introspection or looking within). Much of what happens there is not my I, but something my I is experiencing in the soul yet not through the senses. Some of what happens is due to my own activity, but a lot is not. For example, my child drops a dish on the way from the table to the kitchen sink, and I am already tired from the day. Reactive anger flairs up in my soul and my I is powerless before this anger and I shout at the child. I actually didn't think at all in that moment.
Everyday is an endless succession of such moments, from the time we awake to the time we go to sleep. We can learn to objectively observe our soul life, from out of our I. We can do this for years. We can also employ our will and try to do something on purpose instead of by instinct. Think of this as a kind of experiment. For example, I am walking down the street and I see a fat person. I can have a reactive antipathetic judgment that sees only the fat person. If, however, I were to sit down at an outdoor cafe with this so-called fat person, and talk to them and read their face, their life of soul and spirit (soul in the emotions on the face, and spirit in the thoughts they compose as we talk) begins to shine through, and I no longer have a fat person in front of me, but someone fully ensouled and immortal.
The most transparent and available to our will aspect that we can observe appears in the soul as thinking (first as discursive thinking). The map that is PoF helps us work with this which is most transparent and subject to our will. We wake up to the will-in-thinking and began to consciously create the mental world of thoughts as we follow this out. The whole world of thought we have can in fact be consciously deconstructed and recreated.
Just, however, as there is a great deal to learn about the physical body if I am a physician, so also is there a great deal to learn about the soul (that is both universal and individual) through introspection or looking within. Every sense event as a corresponding soul event that can be observed. Many soul events are not caused by sense events, but by the double-complex, by the conscience, by cultivated feelings and by the wind of the spirit.
Carl, who wrote just after you, continues to demonstrate that he hasn't a clue. It is very sad, and also quite destructive because it essentially amounts to a lie. He doesn't know, and yet he wants to pretend, and probably out of some kind of competitive impulse or wanting to bring me down because it sounds to him like I am above something, he writes trash. In reality, only he knows why he writes as he does, but what he writes is not true, nor good, nor beautiful.
Has this helped at all?
If not address anymore comments to me (so I can identify that you want me to respond when i look over the list of comments next time).
joel
Thanks, Joel I'll think
Thanks, Joel
I'll think about this.
Lori
Hi Joel, Right after I
Hi Joel,
Right after I posted "the line" to you, i saw that you had posted this one; since my comments/questions in "the line" relate so tightly to what you've said here, I'm going to hold off on this one until I hear back on "the line". Things are busy, no rush....
gulp
KoHW + PoF
I hold Joel’s perspective with great respect, and write about what I find within my own. What is the counterpoise to distinctions? We need to look at commonalities carefully for signs of a single spirit being.
When I was teaching eurythmy to young adults, the dragon was always more fun than St Michael. In many ways this is something many of us have not grown out of in all our talk of anthroposophy. Where are all the contributions to an original formulation of anthroposophy? That thread got bunged up with Steiner quotes. I also stuffed some in, but we did not flush out the water of life. On this site we do find strong thinking from a novel starting point, and I think it is vital that we continue to reinvent anthroposophy. Every formulation of truth has a shelf life before it becomes irrelevant.
A thinker in the spiritual realm is in need of sensory organs in order to truly stand as a wholly conscious human being within the spiritual world. The will and feeling needs must stand there relative to the thinker. Engaging with oneself is a creative marriage. For this reason the path within the School of Spiritual Science takes up where KoHW and PoF meet, offering additional generous support for the becomer. Every step forward is met with a rooted placement for a further step forward. There is more to be envisaged in the realm of social spiritual activity. We shall continue to channel the streaming karma as best we may, and our creativity within the 3 social spheres is more than one match for retrograde momentum.
My experience is that a vague recognition precedes fruitful work on KoHW exercises. I experience the truth of Steiner’s comments in the Preface to the 3rd edition:
Whoever reads this book in an intimate way, so that the reading resembles an inner experience, will not merely familiarize himself with its content: one passage will evoke a certain feeling, another passage another feeling; and in that way he will learn how much importance should be seen in the one or the other in the development of his soul. He will also find out in what form he should try this or that exercise, what form best suits his particular individuality.
I acknowledge with gratitude all the conditioning – including anthroposophical language – that has taught me till today, and is dreamily mirrored in what I write. Only recently have I begun to find some light on the path of PoF, and much of it through plunging into the converse on this site with my ignorance inevitably on my sleeve. This new light has taken me back to KoHW and new growth. I see the value of both educations in my life, yet I do not assume that my experience is an inevitable mould for other seekers of spiritual knowledge. They shall find out for themselves, and I shall continue to point to both PoF and KoHW as integral to the path of anthroposophy until I experience something more fruitful.
to John Ralph
from Occult Science...
The path that leads to sense-free thinking by way of the communications of spiritual science is thoroughly reliable and sure. There is however another that is even more sure, and above all more exact (emphasis added); at the same time, it is for many people more difficult. The path in question is set forth in my books The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception and The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. These books tell what man's thinking can achieve when directed not to impressions that come from the outer world of the physical sense but solely upon itself. When this is so, we have within us no longer the kind of thinking that concerns itself merely with memories of the things of the sense; we have instead pure thinking which is like a being that has life within itself. In the above mentioned books you will find nothing at all that is derived from the communications of spiritual science. They testify to the fact that pure thinking, working within itself alone, can throw light on the great questions of life - questions concerning the universe and man. The books thus occupy a significant intermediate position between knowledge of the sense-world and knowledge of the spiritual world. What they offer is what thinking can attain when it rises above sense-observation, yet still holds back from entering upon the spiritual, supersensible research. One who wholeheartedly pursues the train of thought indicated in these books is already in the spiritual world; only it makes itself known to him as a thought-world. Whoever feels ready to enter upon this intermediate path of development will be taking a safe and sure road, and it will leave with him a feeling in regard to the higher world that will bear rich fruit in all time to come.
Notice above these words from a very precise thinker: "There is another" (as in path). "thinking...directed...soley upon itself" "...pure thinking which is like a being that has life within itself." "...is already in the spiritual world;..."
Read also carefully the second paragraph of the John Gospel, lecture 12, where Steiner explains the purification (katharsis) that results from a study of PoF. From PoF this is developed to a high degree.d An astral body which has achieved this kind of purification is endowed with the germ of the higher organs of perception, and the only remaining act is to impress these germs on the etheric body.
Read Lowndes "Enlivening the Chakra of the Heart", for he also is clear that these are two distinct paths, and they have different consequences.
The real problem here is from people who have a theory from reading which they wish to apply to the situation, and which theory really doesn't work because actual experience is a whole other matter. People, of course, don't have to agree, but from my point of view what I have written is not theoretical at all or a matter of opinion. I understand it bothers people. A truth that conflicts with someones favorite opinion or theory is difficult to swallow, sometimes even a bitter pill. However, I'm not the one that needs to take a pill.
Can someone study both books? Most assuredly. But that isn't the question, because getting a result from PoF isn't found by studying the book. You must study your own soul, diligently and with bravery for there is a lot of stuff there we don't want to look at (which is why, I suspect, Steiner noted above that people found it "more difficult". It isn't the book that is difficult but brutal self honesty - that's difficult.
joel
The Etheric Child
Joelski,
This from Occult Science is a good statement by Steiner about what's going on in PoF, but it's just not about introspection or soul study or watching emotions or looking inward. It's about acting in a different way.
The usual way of acting is in terms of the senses. Introspection is one such way of acting.
But what PoF is about is acting out of something that is not within at all. It's about acting out of something that is in the astral body, and the astral body can't be found by examining thoughts and feelings.
Bringing into existence a being that has a life in itself isn't introspection. Bringing such a being to life is an unselfconscious and highly significant spiritual deed.
In my book, I call this the Etheric Child. It's something people in conversation can, with enough practice and enough clarity of thought, do in a very straightforward way.
Bringing such a being to life is actually a version of the thinking exercise. But the thinking exercise isn't introspection.
Interior choice
Thank you for continuing to offer clarity Joel. In defence of introspection as a use-word, those who have read Barfield's Unancestral Voice may remember the key phrase: interior is anterior.
I am wary of the use-word must. I see my role as advising folk where they can read usefully. It is their free decision as to whether they take up the exercises, or a path. This is part of the ethic within the School of Spiritual Science and I see no reason to draw back into the rigours of earlier ages. Let one's heart speak of what one shall do. A friend or advisor becomes a supportive environment for such world-changing deeds when one acts out of a freeing choice.
Different folk will feel drawn to different exercises, and I would go with their decision and inform them, by way of assertions such as that in Occult Science and from my own introspection, so that a decision made consciously brings thinking to inner sympathetic feelings - see the KoHW quote above. Individual karma speaks in such moments and this speaking brings additional awareness to the choices being made.
I notice that, once again, making a comment about another thread - see my post above - coincides with a marvellous new contribution. This brings me confidence that the stirrings within the individual soul are a social phenomenon. I do not experience the wholeness, but my part in it is stirring me. This may need further explanation, but the day calls...
The Marriage of PoF and KoHW
I too read a long time ago Steiner's very clear indications that the path outlined in PoF was safer and surer than that outlined in his other books. I took his word for that, and have never been disappointed. Whenever I get confused reading passages about spiritualised physical-ether-astral bodies, doubt Steiner's statements about Atlantis or find his statements in Gospel lectures too bizarre to even remember, I have PoF to come back to. Just as I can also come back to it after reading the views of other modern thinkers, or grappling with the meaning of the latest findings in scientific research. It is a door into a reality that is closed to many thinkers simply because they have tied their thinking in knots and haven't found the Gordian answer Steiner leads us to.
As for KoHW I love that book dearly and have come to love all of the exercises and guidelines in it along with many gleaned from his other books and lectures. I wouldn't be without it for the world and it's part of my path for this lifetime. For me there is no "versus", the two are perfect partners.
Steiner has set the table with such a rich feast for us all, why quibble about whether the wine or the roast is better? Just enjoy...:-)
Yes, I so agree with
Yes, I so agree with you.
S.
The Intellectual Path
OK, this is all fine about must and fine meals. But there's a deeper, more significant aspect to what Steiner says in Occult Science that Joel has laid out for us here.
The significance of PoF is that it gives people with good intellect an alternative to the occult path of KHW. The reason for this alternative path is that very few people are going to succeed with the exercises of KHW. Steiner knew that. We all know that.
The genius of Steiner's anthroposophy is that if the "safe and sure" intellectual path of cultivating the right concepts (and percepts) is taken, something formally equivalent to the occult results can be accomplished. It may not result in actual clairvoyance, but it will produce a seed that will carry over into the next lifetime. That is what the passage above says.
Providing this intellectual, conceptual, esthetic alternative to occult practice is the whole significance of PoF, and of anthroposophy.
Now it should be clear that the way to take advantage of the intellectual path is going to be with Goethean conversation, and the other anthroposophical forms Steiner gave - agriculture, art, eurythmy, cosmology, etc. But taking advantage of the intellectual material of anthroposophy is essentially social. This is why the introspective viewpoint that Joel advocates is basically pernicious. It leads to stand-offishness and non-cooperation. The intellectual method shouldn't be self-conscious at all. It should be entirely a matter of using concepts and perceptions in lawlike ways, in ways that everyone sees are either right or wrong, and that by being so used feed back and cause things to grow in the social community.
What is amazing about the intellectual path is that Steiner has given us a way in which the concepts and percepts we use in social intercourse, if we get them right, can actually connect us to the objects of clairvoyant perception and clairvoyant action. To do this we don't need to be clairvoyant at all. We just need to be able to express and to discriminate true gestures from false ones, and to share material with each other in space and time.
The Best Spiritual Practice
You say: (POF) may not result in actual clairvoyance.
I suppose it depends what you mean by clairvoyance.
Through the study of The Philosophy of Freedom I have experienced "acute intuitive insight or perceptiveness" with this intuitive capacity resulting in "power to see objects or events that cannot be perceived by the senses". I have also experienced "catharsis", purging of emotional tensions that has traditionally been a benefit from doing the old meditation and concentration exercises.
clairvoyance:
1. The supposed power to see objects or events that cannot be perceived by the senses.
2. Acute intuitive insight or perceptiveness.
I agree that The Philosophy of Freedom is suited to our age because we grow up learning a scientific way of thinking. We are all scientists in the sense that we expect whatever happens to have been brought about by explainable causes. In the past we had different sensibilities that have long been buried. We do not ask what message God is conveying to us through an earthquake, or what punishment is being imposed through hurricane Katrina (except at the religious fringe). POF is best suited to advance todays way of thinking.
Anthroposophists take up other paths largely because of having a lack of success with the proper study of POF. One of the main reasons for the origin of this website is to help people with how to study. But of course the best spiritual practice is the one you are willing to do.
Rudolf Steiner on his book The Philosophy Of Freedom:
P82 “The primary purpose of my book is to serve as thought training, training in the sense that the special way of both thinking and entertaining these thoughts is such as to bring the soul life of the reader into motion in somewhat the way that gymnastics exercise their limbs.”
P83 “Catharsis is an ancient term for the purification of the astral body by means of meditation and concentration exercises. If a reader takes this book as it was meant and relates to it in the way a virtuoso playing a composition on the piano relates to its composer, reproducing the whole piece out of himself, the books organically evolved thought sequence will bring about a high degree of catharsis.”
P84 “The book is a living organism, and to work one’s way through the thoughts it contains is to undergo an inner training. A person to who this has not happened as a result of study need not conclude what I am saying is incorrect, but rather he has not read it correctly or worked hard and thoroughly enough.”
To learn more about The Philosophy of Freedom go here.
Extraordinary perception and PoF
Dear Tom,
Re your comment: "Through the study of The Philosophy of Freedom I have experienced "acute intuitive insight or perceptiveness" with this intuitive capacity resulting in "power to see objects or events that cannot be perceived by the senses".
When I stated that PoF was not about clairvoyance, that did not mean that one would not have extraordinary spiritual experiences that may evolve from working with PoF, from working with our thinking in the organic manner as prescribed by Steiner in PoF. As I have been able to understand, if one is able to obtain pure thinking, a door may be opened to other spiritual capacities
Keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Patri
Katharsis (aka Catharsis)
"A person can go very far in this matter of katharsis if, for example, he has gone through and inwardly experienced all that is in my book, Philosophy of Freedom, and feels that this book was for him a stimulation and that now he has reached the point where he can himself actually reproduce the thoughts just as they were there presented. If a person holds the same relationship to this book that a virtuoso, in playing a selection on the piano, holds to the composer of the piece, that is, he reproduces the whole thing within himself - naturally according to his ability to do so- then through the strictly built up sequence of thought of this book - for it is written in this manner - katharsis will be developed to a high degree."
**rudolf steiner**
This is such an
This is such an illuminating quote.
Music has to be created in the moment and so there are two levels of art. The creation and the reproduction. Both are hugely creative.
My wife who is a pianist is absolutely clear that her playing is a creative act - she isn't even interested in improvisation because she doesn't feel anything is missing from her life of reproducing other people's creations. The fact is she has to re-create them and that involves her whole being.
To be able to re-create the Philosophy of Freedom. That is a challenge that excites me.
There was a meeting in Stroud, England recently with that exact title "re-creating the Philosophy of Freedom". The outcome was a plan to have a conference next summer. More details will appear in due course I hope.
S-)
Emotional
I am so sorry everyone, and I know that one should not be emotional in putting ones case across, but I just cannot help myself for a brief moment. Carl is so good at stating his own arguments, backing them up with what appear to be logical and well thought out assertions, but I cannot stomach the suggestion that Joel’s beautifully written, and also clearly stated thoughts can in any way be thought of as pernicious. I know I lack in intellect, and I am aware that I have a huge way to go before I am able to put my thoughts across in a sensible and non emotional way, but I do hope that one day I am able to get things across in the way that Joel does.
It might help you to know
It might help you to know that you are not alone in have powerful responses to the way that Carl chooses his words. There is a chance he is seeing the consequences of this and will try new ways out. Slowly but surely more and more people are asking Carl to communicate with them in new ways. It seems to me that if the request is personal, direct and specific, he is mostly willing to make accomidations. If you ever decide to dialog with him directly, it might help to state up front what, specifically, would help you stay connected with him. Just a thought.
Carl chose the word "pernicious". I don't doubt that Joel's writing is pernicious to some aspect of Carl. In that sense I am glad he shared this. But to generalize beyond the part of himself that is worried, is where- I think- his comments will push people away. His statement about "pernicious" could be easily reproduced in a manner that I bet would bring people closer to him.
It sounds like you, cpage, had a visceral reaction to carl's comment (perhaps literally in your stomach?). That direct felt-reaction knows many things about the unique person you are and how that uniqueness is opening and becoming. Say hello to it for me and let it know I will look forward to possibly hearing from it someday!
and just for feedback; so far I've found that you get across your thoughts as well as anybody here. In fact, my hunch is that a group of us are moving towards attempting to make sure that when we state our opinions we keep them very close to ourselves. A few of us can take on a "teacher" vibe that I don't see working well here. I feel distanced- even from wonderful thoughts- when an expression is too demanding. Then again, I love throwing out provocative snags and snares. I try to always make the playful wink obvious when I do so...
great hearing from you, cpage. gulp
Teacher Vibe?
This site would not likely exist if it was merely for the purpose of a few intellectuals chatting between themselves. A big part of the purpose is to inform the public about Steiner's work, particularly POF, and various other related topics. Each person may be informative in their own way as they express themselves in their own way. What some do may appear to you as a "teacher vibe".
A few of us can take on a "teacher" vibe that I don't see working well here.
What tends to bore the hell out of most and not be informing is the extreme abstract intellectualism ("philosophizing into the blue") rather than a teacher vibe. You may not be aware of this because those people read the site and then leave for good and are recorded as a statistic.
Or maybe would could agree we don't like extreme abstract intellectualism expressed with a teacher vibe.
"teacher vibe" smeacher gribe
I don't need to use the phrase "teacher vibe" to say what I was getting at, Tom. Feel free to always push away my words and go straight for my point if you ever feel the words might be blocking it. I imagine we could find lots of ways to say it. I like how you said it.
For me "teacher vibe" was saying what it feels like when you are enjoying a social conversation and somebody begins to shift into the role of teacher, even though it is not a formal context in which people are really hoping to shift into students. I find this pattern happening all the time. Sometimes I'm on both sides of the shift.
The other thing that helps me is to remember that one person's "abstraction" is another person's concrete reality; from any word alone we can't really guess how much life an individual feels stiring within it. What I find really wonderful is to remember that I can always ask what is stiring in the concept for the speaker. It strikes me as a big deal that there has never been a concept that takes place in a vacume! If a concept is happening so is the intuiting within which it functions; that might sound abstract to somebody who hasn't been reading all of our examples and stories on this site.
So, yes, let's throw away the phrase "teacher vibe" and find fresh ways of saying what we mean. And then let's throw those away as well! gulp.
Hi CP, Thank you for
Hi CP,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please, you seem to think the bar is set so much higher than you can reach, yet you soar over it with grace and elegance. There is someone else who knows something of soaring over bars who would back me up!
Carl is something of a challenge. When I take in to myself his thoughts as he shares them with us, they are so ugly and badly behaved inside me. There have been many times for us to experience this. Sometimes it seems it isn't the thought that is so awful but the way it is dressed. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what mental wardrobe changes I inflict on his-thoughts-in-me, I just can't find their beuaty.
I have often experienced Carl's thoughts both exressing his purpose and defeating his purpose at the same time so I am not at all cleat what his purpose is. The best example is the recurring plea that we take up "Goethean Conversation" at the same time as communicating in a way that creates feelings of repulsion and disgust. "Come talk with me, for you are pathetic!" is the impression theat lives in me, from Carl's communications.
That may not be what he intends? He has shown in moments of bliss (bliss for me) that he doesn't have to communicate in this way and whenever that has happened people have shared with him how positive they feel about it. So the thought that comes in to my mind is that he communicates in the way he does for a reason, even though the way he communicates prevents him from achieving what I intuit to be his purpose.
There is a benefit that Tom has mentioned recently, Carl provides us with all sorts of experiences and actually provides training practice in so many ways for us - for example, in practicing what we learn from POF about managing our emotions. So, thanks for that Carl!
S-)
garbage in.....garbage out
The Philosophy of Freedom is an opportunity to break out of the intellectual soul to the consciousness soul and live in full inner freedom. Clairvoyance has nothing to do with this process. This is an organic process set up by Steiner in which we use our thinking in a new way that if diligently worked with and applied, allows us to break out of the confining logic of the intellectual soul into the cosmic embracing life of the consciousness soul. Intellectual garbage in …intellectual garbage out.
Cheers,
Patri
for Carl
Dear Carl,
Ordinarily I ignore some of the more blatent and outrageous statements you make, which are clearly coming from some place of either cultivated or accidental ignorance. Sometimes, however, the matter is so acute and central to the purposes of this website, that the confusions you spread have to be vigorously opposed.
For example, you speak of introspection as not real, yet (and this is surprising from one who claims to be quite familiar with PoF) you seemed not to have noticed that the subtitle to the book is: "some results of introspection following the methods of natural science".
You also in your most recent post above describe this path of PoF as intellectual. This also is not true, although it would be easier to deal with if you didn't try to act like you know everything when you write. If you were less certain in your pronouncements, it would be easier to forgive what seems to be simple ignorance rooted in a lack of experience.
PoF is actually a training of the will-in-thinking. Proceeding step by step through the book, as Steiner asks us to, we face two kinds of tasks. One task is that in order to actually understand the points being made we have to turn to introspection, because the content can't really be understood in the absence of the experience being described. So in the beginning where he wants us to ask questions about whether we can want what we want, in order to really appreciate what is being said we have to pay attention to those inner processes of soul connected to desire. Not everyone does this of course, and in skipping this step they do "intellectualize" the content of the book and miss out on the will training aspect.
The second task is kind of hierarchical in nature. Each step is a bit harder than the one before, so that the will in dealing with the subject matter (actually thinking it both as to its meaning-concept and as to the actual experience we can have of the soul - an introspection of the inner percept), this will has to apply itself with ever greater clarity and (for lack of a better term) force. Force is a difficult word to use here, because the will-in-thinking (the attention and the intention) do get stronger in a way, but this strength comes from changes in the quality of the will as expressed by the I. It is a little bit as Tom points out above in quotes from Steiner about a gymnast exercising their limbs. The will-in-thinking is a kind of spiritual limb, and by use it becomes able to do more as each chapter is fully worked out. My own experience is that the will-in-thinking so trained is actually a kind of artist of thought, a kind of sculptor.
There are also pit falls that can be experienced. The developments offered by PoF don't run in a straight line, as much as we might like. For example, once we start to become introspectively awake to the influence of feelings on the content of our thoughts, a whole other set of problems appears.
Carl, if you continue in this vein (spouting clearly outrageous and erroneous material about PoF for whatever reasons you feel justify this activity), I will be asking the community to consider asking Tom to take away your privileges to post here. This is a place of serious conversation about what is probably one of the most important books ever written in this phase of the Evolution of Consciousness, and someone who is so negative and mal-intented has to be seen as having given over something in their soul to the opponents of the advancement of human spiritual life.
That needs to be said to you for your own benefit; and, if you persist there have to be consequences (for the benefit of the naive that come here expecting - justly - some aid and illumination in their own spiritual striving. As far as I am concerned you have crossed the line already, but perhaps you are not entirely asleep and willing to admit that you actually don't know what you have been pretending to know.
still your friend,
joel
This thread was moved to a
This response from Joel was moved to a new entry in his journal where responses to it can be found. Go here http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/2347