Anthroposophy as Fascio

[Stranger]

By the way, exactly because, as you say, there is no point in resorting to politically correct conversations, I have to ask: Is there anyone who has in mind the twists and turns of the forum exchanges over the last few months and is able to take this:

There are different levels of communication. One level, on which most people on the planet do it, is to have a position, opinion or belief, and then, with the purpose of proving themselves right and others wrong, to express it in the space of legal human rights of free speech vs personal offense where all these issues arise of "my freedom of not being offended conflicts with your freedom of speech". Another level is how more spiritually evolved beings would do it, which is beyond the legal dimension of freedom of speech and personal offences, but instead in the dimension of seeking the truth and helping each other in that process. So, what I'm saying is, if we indeed strive to evolve spiritually, we should also strive to communicate in a way more spiritually evolved beings would do it, as it is all part of the same process. It is OK to fail here and there, but we might as well just try as part of the development of our higher cognition, why not?

This is not to say that JP is doing it wrong, I think he is doing a good job of confronting wokeness in this human rights dimension.

[ScottRoberts]

In our mundane state we only know thoughts, so in order to realize that, we need to realize the Eternity "side" of the Oneness-Manyness, and that will bring together the Oneness-Manyness into Super-Oneness.

That was then, i.e., in Buddha's time, and many centuries after. Now we can know that Oneness is real, not by a life-shaking blast of mystical enlightenment, but simply by noting that without Oneness there couldn't be awareness of our thoughts (or anything). The change, since earlier times is that ability. (There were exceptions in the earlier times, but they were, er, exceptional) We can watch our thoughts, not just have them. And if we do (watch them) deeply, note how they are conditioned by desires and dubious beliefs. Which is to say, to do the same moral self-development that is occasioned by the mystical blast. Meanwhile, one is not tempted to the escapism known as mystical reductionism.

[Lou Gold]

In our mundane state we only know thoughts, so in order to realize that, we need to realize the Eternity "side" of the Oneness-Manyness, and that will bring together the Oneness-Manyness into Super-Oneness.

That was then, i.e., in Buddha's time, and many centuries after. Now we can know that Oneness is real, not by a life-shaking blast of mystical enlightenment, but simply by noting that without Oneness there couldn't be awareness of our thoughts (or anything). The change, since earlier times is that ability. (There were exceptions in the earlier times, but they were, er, exceptional) We can watch our thoughts, not just have them. And if we do (watch them) deeply, note how they are conditioned by desires and dubious beliefs. Which is to say, to do the same moral self-development that is occasioned by the mystical blast. Meanwhile, one is not tempted to the escapism known as mystical reductionism.

Scott,

I get what you are saying and do not dispute it. I would only want to add to it that the modern mystic and shaman have also evolved and they demonstrate practically new ways of being in the here-and-now on this side of so-called "death."

We can watch our thoughts, not just have them. And if we do (watch them) deeply, note how they are conditioned by desires and dubious beliefs.

Yes, indeed! And this has happened for the shaman and mystic as well as for the artist and the scientist. All authentic paths have challenges, bullshit detectors, tests of validity and methods of cleaning. Perhaps, one might say, "some dirt gets washed away and the baby is not thrown out with the bath water." It doesn't mean that 'anything goes' or that there are not degrees of excellence among individual practitioners. The world mess testifies to a still powerful but beyond-its-usefulness old paradigm and each individual progresses according to degree of readiness. I'm not a philosopher but this is how it seems to me. Is this somehow technically incorrect?

[Federica]

Whoever doesn't yet feel this need will have the greatest difficulty to understand why something like spiritual science has appeared on the scene of evolution. Conversely, those who feel that need will thirst for this possibility to grow beyond themselves, to know reality not only as a picture but by thrusting themselves into its living fabric. If there was no such thing as spiritual science these souls would be determined to discover it.

I hope in this way we can better understand the source of disagreements. It would be useful if next time we argue about Oneness or the multitude of paths that all lead to successful dying in their own ways, we ask ourselves "Do I at all want to know? Do I have the faith that it is possible to know? Or I'm completely satisfied with the storyboard on my soul's inner wall?"

Cleric, this way to put it exactly highlights the stakes, I really appreciate it!
I believe the real counterforce to the painful thirst for knowledge, as possibility to grow beyond oneself, is that we also have a tendency to get used to, and familiar with, pain and fear. We settle down inside the world they delineate, and before we know it, we have adopted them as normal boundaries of our whole reality. "Do I at all want to know?"

Lou has answered your question long ago. He has a very stable answer. He is happy with the decoration. He even continually shows us pictures of the endless decorative backdrops, in all their entertaining diversity. The storybord really is the perfect epitome here.

Eugene is less stable. He also has tendency to succumb to the convenience of a fully furnished ‘solution’. Still, something used to bother him with the off-the-shelf decoration, and he seemed to have an interest in grasping the soul influences:

which brings us back to the issue so well described by St. Paul from Ep. to Romans that I quoted so many times. He described it as the "law of sin" in the "flesh", but at our current stage of knowledge what is our understanding of it, where does it resides, what are the lawful structures that support and maintain this "law of sin" running and acting? Modern psychology would say that it resides in "subconsciousness" and developed through early stages of child cognitive development, modern evolutionary biology would explain it by inheriting survival mechanisms from our ancestors. Buddhists would say that these are the karmic patterns residing in so-called "alaya-vijnana", which is a sort of collective subconsciousness giving rise to both sense perceptions of the world and our compulsive thought and feeling patterns. But do we now know any better where these compulsive patterns reside, how they act, and what are the practical ways to deal with them as we grow towards the higher levels of cognition?

Or, in terms of of understanding the “How do I know?”:

we do not have the direct conscious access into the "guts" of this creative process. I tried for years in my meditative practice and still could not penetrate into these guts of Thinking layers where these sense perceptions and thoughts are being produced. The best I could do is to become not identified with them but just to maintain mindful awareness of them.

So basically, on the higher level of cognition we can creatively participate in and experience the thinking process in its full cycle. Then we extrapolate this process to the Cosmic scale and make a proposition that we likewise should be able to integrate into the layers of creative Cosmic Thinking where the sense perceptions and thoughts are generated. This is a reasonable assumption to make, but is there any experiential evidence to support it?

As said, the problem is, he thought he could address the thing with the manifold methods of secular science he's familiar with. But since he understood that the game is to actually deep dive into his own soul’s inner wall, directly, first person, not by searching the archives for experiential evidence in research papers, he has progressively resorted back to “You know what, the storyboard subscription works very well after all, moreover I’m good at adding flowery semantic touches to the room decoration”. Soul does not want to know, soul wants to freely range, or rage, while keeping thinking busy with staging the decorated storyboard. And that's how soul rolls!

Federica,

The experience (for me) is artistic more than logical, more like Blake saying, "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." Satisfaction is more like knowing when a particular decorative product is done and can be released in order to continue to the next making -- like satisfaction with a process of ongoing creating performing living and dying as best as one can.

Yes, Lou, exactly, that's clear enough. It's an endless process of going from a particular decorative product of own making to the next.

[Stranger]

That was then, i.e., in Buddha's time, and many centuries after. Now we can know that Oneness is real, not by a life-shaking blast of mystical enlightenment, but simply by noting that without Oneness there couldn't be awareness of our thoughts (or anything). The change, since earlier times is that ability. (There were exceptions in the earlier times, but they were, er, exceptional) We can watch our thoughts, not just have them. And if we do (watch them) deeply, note how they are conditioned by desires and dubious beliefs. Which is to say, to do the same moral self-development that is occasioned by the mystical blast. Meanwhile, one is not tempted to the escapism known as mystical reductionism.

Yes, you got it! We can indeed transcend there directly without going through the intermediate "I'm nothing" mystical phase which is, I agree, rather problematic. But providing if you can really practically do it.

But still, even though we developed that ability, how often do you see people exercising it? I don't see more people doing it in our times compared to the times when Buddhism flourished in the first millennium, it is still rare.

And here is a koan: who is watching the thoughts?

[Federica]

By the way, exactly because, as you say, there is no point in resorting to politically correct conversations, I have to ask: Is there anyone who has in mind the twists and turns of the forum exchanges over the last few months and is able to take this:

There are different levels of communication. One level, on which most people on the planet do it, is to have a position, opinion or belief, and then, with the purpose of proving themselves right and others wrong, to express it in the space of legal human rights of free speech vs personal offense where all these issues arise of "my freedom of not being offended conflicts with your freedom of speech". Another level is how more spiritually evolved beings would do it, which is beyond the legal dimension of freedom of speech and personal offences, but instead in the dimension of seeking the truth and helping each other in that process. So, what I'm saying is, if we indeed strive to evolve spiritually, we should also strive to communicate in a way more spiritually evolved beings would do it, as it is all part of the same process. It is OK to fail here and there, but we might as well just try as part of the development of our higher cognition, why not?

This is not to say that JP is doing it wrong, I think he is doing a good job of confronting wokeness in this human rights dimension.

No, Eugene, this is yet another flowery (as Lorenzo would say) arrangement of semantic pieces. There is no separation whatsoever between "different levels of communication". Only an artificial, or decorative, separation may exist.

You theorize two separate levels, so you can choose and keep the supposed "Truth level" completely abstract, 'pure', and shielded from field inquiry. Everyone should have gotten it by now, direct inquiry and putting it to the test of forum debate is not your favorite thing. What you are ready to put to the test of debate is the abstract level, the communication à la "spiritually evolved beings", as you call it. And that you are ready to do that, we know oh too well!

As Max Leyf writes in his latest piece - by the way, everyone here should benefit from following him, as his ideas are often directly relevant to, and synchronized with, our exchanges - "Truth is an end to which freedom of speech is among the best, or perhaps, the “least bad” means".

So again, we should strive to know the Truth, through debate and free speech, among other means, rather than letting us free-float in an unknown mass of compound soul influences, while directing the tip of our thoughts to the panorama of "spiritually evolved", beautifully arranged pictures on the storyboard of our soul's inner wall.

[Lou Gold]

Federica,

The experience (for me) is artistic more than logical, more like Blake saying, "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." Satisfaction is more like knowing when a particular decorative product is done and can be released in order to continue to the next making -- like satisfaction with a process of ongoing creating performing living and dying as best as one can.

Yes, Lou, exactly, that's clear enough. It's an endless process of going from a particular decorative product of own making to the next.

Federica,

Do you think my ongoing process is a random scattering of decorative productions at an unchanging level of awareness or is there also an evolution of consciousness taking place? Does one of my image productions or 'makings' mean the same to me (or others) as it did a few years ago? For example, might my past few years in the school of dying have changed my consciousness about the so-called line or veil of life/death? Am I now located differently? Perhaps in a more liminal way? Might it take an observer who has made similar changes to recognize changes in myself? So many questions in the relative world of conversation. What are your thoughts about it?

[Federica]

Federica,

The experience (for me) is artistic more than logical, more like Blake saying, "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." Satisfaction is more like knowing when a particular decorative product is done and can be released in order to continue to the next making -- like satisfaction with a process of ongoing creating performing living and dying as best as one can.

Yes, Lou, exactly, that's clear enough. It's an endless process of going from a particular decorative product of own making to the next.

Federica,

Do you think my ongoing process is a random scattering of decorative productions at an unchanging level of awareness or is there also an evolution of consciousness taking place? Does one of my image productions or 'makings' mean the same to me (or others) as it did a few years ago? For example, might my past few years in the school of dying have changed my consciousness about the so-called line or veil of life/death? Am I now located differently? Perhaps in a more liminal way? Might it take an observer who has made similar changes to recognize changes in myself? So many questions in the relative world of conversation. What are your thoughts about it?

Lou,
My one liner was intended as nothing more than a reformulation of your preceding post, and I tried to employ the same words you employed. No intention to speculate on how your evolution has unfolded through the continuous process of decorative productions. I am not in a position to do such speculations, nor do I see any good reasons to attempt them. I simply stated that your approach (independent of where exactly it has taken your subjective perspective) shows that you are happy with the storyboard on your soul's inner wall, as per Cleric's description of it.

[Anthony66]

Anthony, please tell me how one should interpret a statement like this:

My push back was directed advocating giving up on someone because they have not to this point adopted your way of thinking despite the many, many pages of dialog.

To me, it is more evident than evident who has one-sidedly been repeating things like:
- I am giving up on you
- I will stop replying to you
- I will leave the forum any moment
- You are a liar, you are arrogant, sectarian, …

There are numerous quotes that could be reported on the above. Conversely, I don’t remember Ashvin or Cleric ever giving up on anyone, calling people names, or threatening to do this or that. Do you? Or do you mean that I did that? Not even one question or post has been left pending from their side, or addressed rudely. So I have difficulties getting how you are receiving such impressions. Who is advocating giving up on anyone? It’s as if we were reading two different forums. Of course, I agree that understanding SS cannot be likened to learning a game of card. It's a path that extends not only across years, but most likely across multiple life cycles, and there is certainly no expectation that one would progress at a fast pace. I think this is clearly reflected in how tirelessly the topics have been addressed by Cleric and Ashvin, again and again, from many different angles, every time with unchanged availability and patience.

It was you who wrote:

Ashvin, I know, you were offering yet another concrete and well substantiated illustration to help. My point is that, at this stage, it's very likely to be useless. Let's even say, I am convinced it's useless, and maybe even counterproductive. You and Cleric have been offering countless posts, pages and pages and pages of insightful illustrations. Every post is like a pristine lake, in which reflection the intellectual arrangements jubilate and take delight in admiring themselves, without ever dipping not even the little finger, let alone letting the substance of the waters purify and inflow understanding.
I am still happy and thankful for all your attempts, insofar as they are precious for us who are interested in improving our understanding, but as far as Eugene's position goes, they defeat the purpose of helping him make any progress. As you recently noticed, he has not changed one iota in his beliefs since last year. So, unfortunately, people are not "interested in now understanding what it means more precisely, even if they didn't earlier or contradicted themselves". The pattern of these exchanges has now continued for long, and it is repeating itself ad nauseam. Enough is enough. Evidently, it's not possible to build anything at all, before the old constructions are dismantled. So the only way is to bring to the surface and under the spotlight, the continuously overlooked contradictions. It has to be made incontrovertible how one is crushed by his own abstract concepts, as soon as they are made the foundation of beliefs of choice that remain in the blind spot, taken for higher revelations. Dismantling is gross and not fun, still it is necessary groundwork. I can do it, it's unskilled work, that doesn't require much competence or expertise.

On closer inspection, you are advocating not providing substantial responses to Eugene anymore. Rather, suggesting his posts are only worthy of being dismantled and by an unskilled worker with no expertise. This is not conducive to a fruitful environment and is disrespectful and demeaning.

[Federica]

Anthony, please tell me how one should interpret a statement like this:

My push back was directed advocating giving up on someone because they have not to this point adopted your way of thinking despite the many, many pages of dialog.

To me, it is more evident than evident who has one-sidedly been repeating things like:
- I am giving up on you
- I will stop replying to you
- I will leave the forum any moment
- You are a liar, you are arrogant, sectarian, …

There are numerous quotes that could be reported on the above. Conversely, I don’t remember Ashvin or Cleric ever giving up on anyone, calling people names, or threatening to do this or that. Do you? Or do you mean that I did that? Not even one question or post has been left pending from their side, or addressed rudely. So I have difficulties getting how you are receiving such impressions. Who is advocating giving up on anyone? It’s as if we were reading two different forums. Of course, I agree that understanding SS cannot be likened to learning a game of card. It's a path that extends not only across years, but most likely across multiple life cycles, and there is certainly no expectation that one would progress at a fast pace. I think this is clearly reflected in how tirelessly the topics have been addressed by Cleric and Ashvin, again and again, from many different angles, every time with unchanged availability and patience.

It was you who wrote:

Ashvin, I know, you were offering yet another concrete and well substantiated illustration to help. My point is that, at this stage, it's very likely to be useless. Let's even say, I am convinced it's useless, and maybe even counterproductive. You and Cleric have been offering countless posts, pages and pages and pages of insightful illustrations. Every post is like a pristine lake, in which reflection the intellectual arrangements jubilate and take delight in admiring themselves, without ever dipping not even the little finger, let alone letting the substance of the waters purify and inflow understanding.
I am still happy and thankful for all your attempts, insofar as they are precious for us who are interested in improving our understanding, but as far as Eugene's position goes, they defeat the purpose of helping him make any progress. As you recently noticed, he has not changed one iota in his beliefs since last year. So, unfortunately, people are not "interested in now understanding what it means more precisely, even if they didn't earlier or contradicted themselves". The pattern of these exchanges has now continued for long, and it is repeating itself ad nauseam. Enough is enough. Evidently, it's not possible to build anything at all, before the old constructions are dismantled. So the only way is to bring to the surface and under the spotlight, the continuously overlooked contradictions. It has to be made incontrovertible how one is crushed by his own abstract concepts, as soon as they are made the foundation of beliefs of choice that remain in the blind spot, taken for higher revelations. Dismantling is gross and not fun, still it is necessary groundwork. I can do it, it's unskilled work, that doesn't require much competence or expertise.

On closer inspection, you are advocating not providing substantial responses to Eugene anymore. Rather, suggesting his posts are only worthy of being dismantled and by an unskilled worker with no expertise. This is not conducive to a fruitful environment and is disrespectful and demeaning.

Not really, Anthony. Responses focused on contextual internal contradictions - which I was advocating to prioritize - are still “substantial responses”, at least from the perspective of the one who thinks of Anthroposophy what Eugene thinks, as per his own statements, which is the only perspective that counts, in this context. By the way, have you noticed my subsequent replies to Eugene? They should dispel any doubt that I was advocating to stop providing substantial responses.
Simply put, my opinion is that continuing to offer Eugene extensive, far-reaching illustrations of a territory that he has repeated, again and again, that he is not interested in exploring, can become counterproductive, because it risks to dilute the exchanges, especially when there are compelling contradictions standing in the way, that I think should be tackled first. Evidently, this is only my opinion, that Cleric and Ashvin clearly don’t share.
Regarding the dismantling - absolutely: my hope is that by tackling the contradictions, they can be brought into consideration and therefore dismantled, before any new construction, or progression in the search for truth can be pursued. How is this demeaning in any sense? And yes, the skills that Ashvin and Cleric possess and that I do not - those who come from a way more advanced position on the path - are not required, in my opinion, to point out logical or psychological contradictions in Eugene’s discourse, as I have attempted to do over the last few days or weeks. Of course, some skills are still required, so it was an exaggeration on my part to speak of unskilled work, but I hope it’s clear (and I guess it was to Eugene) I was referring to the specific senses and skills that are developed along the path of living thinking. Eugene himself seems to not see any problem in discussing his points with people who do not have Anthroposophical skills, nor does he seem to have taken offense to that specific statement of mine. So why do you take offense on his behalf?