On the Spiritual Essence of the Catch-22 (Part I)

[AshvinP]

I found this very helpful.

Yes, this also reminds me of something I wanted to share with you. It is a passage from Kuhlewind's book. Perhaps you can see if it is helpful for your inner orientation and, if so, you could order a copy. Overall I found it to be one of the most clear books on cognitive phenomenology and corresponding spiritual exercises.

You will notice the similarities with what has been described as 'study-meditate' on the forum. For reference, the quote you shared from Cleric is an example of both the principle approaches described below. It uses symbols from sensory experience (exotic computer graphics) that also direct the reader's attention to explicit processes of consciousness (spatial cognition, in this case). I think that has so far proven to be the most helpful approach in our time.

***

The spiritual world is in constant transformation, and, because it is the world of cognizing and not the common world of the cognized, it is also changed by every act of cognition. Cognizing, knowing, is a part of this world.

Our language is completely adapted to the transmission of information. It cannot be used directly in the description of the spiritual world. But it can be used to this end indirectly, in two different ways. On the one hand, it can be used to build up a world of symbols that refer to the spiritual world in question, just as written letters refer to their meanings. “Cow”—these three letters refer to a cow, without having the least similarity to a cow. But even a sketch of a cow is only a suggestive, transformed version of that which it “represents”: small, two-dimensional, paper and ink, and so on. For an adequate understanding, these pictures must be “read,” they must be understood “as if.” Pictures do not offer immediate access to reality, but they can kindle soul spiritual experience of reality. Still, this is not an automatic process for the man of today. He is all too likely to use such images to construct a second world of representations for which he has neither the perceptions nor the corresponding concepts necessary for a normal mental picture.

The second method of description directs the reader's attention to processes of consciousness: more exactly, to the processes of cognition. Through attention, cognitive processes become stronger and the attention itself becomes heightened. The areas of the pre- or superconscious, normally hidden from everyday consciousness, become clearer, because the upper limit at which a process enters into consciousness has been raised. And so the practitioner of these exercises enters the world of cognition—the spiritual world. Experiences in cognition give him glimpses into the quality characteristic of the higher concepts. These are to be built up intuitively so that one may be able to understand, to “translate,” the symbolic representations. This world of images, of symbols, stands in the same relation to the formation of normal concepts. (When someone's capacity for physical perception is limited, few concepts can be formed, or none at all.)

And so the two kinds of description complement one another. By studying descriptions of conscious processes that lead to inner attention, an observational power of thinking awakens, which first observes the phenomena of cognitive consciousness and then the hindrances, in consciousness, to cognition. In this activity, new corresponding concepts and ideas have to flash into awareness, just as with normal perceiving, otherwise no observation can take place. These new concepts, such as “living thinking,” in contrast to the already thought, have an inner image-nature which has nothing to do with the image-nature of sense perceptions or their accompanying representations. The more this “observational ability” is allowed to be experiential (not logical) by means of concentration, the more pictorial these concepts will be, developed as they are in pure thinking. They do not correspond to objects, but to processes.
...
Study is an exercise and a training in pure thinking. It is called pure because it is free from elements of sense perception, from feelings in the usual sense, from prejudices and from associations. Today, man can use pure thinking in the areas of mathematics, logic, and geometry. Through study, he can learn to extend this capacity and apply it to the phenomena of consciousness. This means that pure thinking now includes itself in its ever more inward observation. This step, the inclusion of cognitive activity in reality, is the most important one to take in the formation of a new world picture.

It is therefore appropriate to begin one's study with a work written in terms of the processes of consciousness.* After a certain measure of progress in acquiring the capacity for inner observation, this can be accompanied by a work of the other, more pictorial kind: for instance, first The Philosophy of Freedom and then Theosophy. How one is to go about reading these texts can be suggested with an example in each case. To begin, we will consider a passage from the third chapter of The Philosophy of Freedom.

Kuhlewind, Georg. From Normal to Healthy (pp. 156-157). Lindisfarne Books. Kindle Edition.

(I will share the examples and discussion later after the above has been digested)

[Federica]

I would say, PoF is already an extreme summary. To pick an expression you often use, it’s an artistic conceptual expression of a holistic, omnipresent reality. Therefore, any attempt to make an ulterior summary of it (not saying SM had that as a goal) is misled and doomed to fail. One can discuss it, work with it, write *about* it (which is possibly what SM aimed to), further elaborate and/or illustrate related ideas dialogically, analogically, but summarizing it is preposterous. Would anyone ever attempt to summarize a temple, a poem, a concert?

You are again latching onto a single word, "summary", and letting this dictate your thinking. It's simply an elucidation of Steiner's epistemology like the dozens of essays/posts we have produced here.

Ashvin, by a 'strange' coincidence, I am stumbling upon - in a text written by Kühlewind! - something about the impossibility to "summarize" spiritual scientific writings, reminding me very much of what I recently said, which you... didn't like, to put it mildly This is not to reopen the discussion, and it’s said in a friendly tone. It's only to signify that, since Kühlewind says it, maybe you can agree that there is a sense in which what I was trying to express was not entirely foolish, after all.

To come to “know” what is in a spiritual scientific communication is empty illusion, since it contains no information. If high-level communications are summed-up, i.e. formulated and repeated by the intellect, then they are reduced to a level where they become "distorted truths”. Then, they do no service to the subject, the summarizer, or the listeners. It occurs to none (we hope) to “summarize” the Gospel of St. John.

From: "Working with Anthroposophy"

[AshvinP]

I would say, PoF is already an extreme summary. To pick an expression you often use, it’s an artistic conceptual expression of a holistic, omnipresent reality. Therefore, any attempt to make an ulterior summary of it (not saying SM had that as a goal) is misled and doomed to fail. One can discuss it, work with it, write *about* it (which is possibly what SM aimed to), further elaborate and/or illustrate related ideas dialogically, analogically, but summarizing it is preposterous. Would anyone ever attempt to summarize a temple, a poem, a concert?
For these reasons I doubt this article is a useful recommendation for someone who is struggling with PoF.

You are again latching onto a single word, "summary", and letting this dictate your thinking. It's simply an elucidation of Steiner's epistemology like the dozens of essays/posts we have produced here.

Ashvin, by a 'strange' coincidence, I am stumbling upon - in a text written by Kühlewind! - something about the impossibility to "summarize" spiritual scientific writings, reminding me very much of what I recently said, which you... didn't like, to put it mildly This is not to reopen the discussion, and it’s said in a friendly tone. It's only to signify that, since Kühlewind says it, maybe you can agree that there is a sense in which what I was trying to express was not entirely foolish, after all.

To come to “know” what is in a spiritual scientific communication is empty illusion, since it contains no information. If high-level communications are summed-up, i.e. formulated and repeated by the intellect, then they are reduced to a level where they become "distorted truths”. Then, they do no service to the subject, the summarizer, or the listeners. It occurs to none (we hope) to “summarize” the Gospel of St. John.

From: "Working with Anthroposophy"

Federica,

I also don't want to reopen an argument here, but a discussion could be helpful, because, based on the above, I think you were misunderstanding my point. Miller didn't call his work a "summary", I did. That wasn't a great word to use, but I used it in my post to Guney, because sometimes people, including me, are sloppy with words. Sometimes we type out a post to someone and just use whatever word pops into mind. I should be more careful about that but, at the same time, I would hope that the reader is also trying to empathize with the fact that such mistakes happen and let them slide, seeking instead to discern the whole context in which the words are being used.

What I felt was that, in your aim to criticize Miller's work, you decided to latch onto my sloppy word "summary" and use that as a basis for characterizing the work as a misconceived and unhelpful project. But Miller was not summarizing Steiner's epistemology (this one isn't a sloppy word) in that sense. He was not formulating and repeating the ideas of PoF as informational content, like one might do with a bullet point list or something just as easily generated by GPT. Miller was not summarizing in the reductive sense that Kuhlewind is speaking of, just like we aren't when making phenomenological essays/posts that track the core ideas of PoF.

Are my retracing essays summaries of spiritual science in the informational and reductive sense, since they contain many conceptual elaborations that pertain to the results of supersensible research? I think we agree they are not because the concepts are artistic expressions of deeper intuitive meaning which, of course, coincide with the intuitive meaning explored by spiritual scientific research. I maintain it's the same principle with Miller's paper - there is no informational summary, only an artistic expression of deeper intuition. The context of his other papers, such as the PhD thesis shared before (which also partly inspired by Catch-22 essays), also reveals he understands the phenomenological core of PoF at a deep level. All of these various factors should be patiently contemplated when formulating our judgments, one way or another.

[Federica]

You are again latching onto a single word, "summary", and letting this dictate your thinking. It's simply an elucidation of Steiner's epistemology like the dozens of essays/posts we have produced here.

Ashvin, by a 'strange' coincidence, I am stumbling upon - in a text written by Kühlewind! - something about the impossibility to "summarize" spiritual scientific writings, reminding me very much of what I recently said, which you... didn't like, to put it mildly This is not to reopen the discussion, and it’s said in a friendly tone. It's only to signify that, since Kühlewind says it, maybe you can agree that there is a sense in which what I was trying to express was not entirely foolish, after all.

To come to “know” what is in a spiritual scientific communication is empty illusion, since it contains no information. If high-level communications are summed-up, i.e. formulated and repeated by the intellect, then they are reduced to a level where they become "distorted truths”. Then, they do no service to the subject, the summarizer, or the listeners. It occurs to none (we hope) to “summarize” the Gospel of St. John.

From: "Working with Anthroposophy"

Federica,

I also don't want to reopen an argument here, but a discussion could be helpful, because, based on the above, I think you were misunderstanding my point. Miller didn't call his work a "summary", I did. That wasn't a great word to use, but I used it in my post to Guney, because sometimes people, including me, are sloppy with words. Sometimes we type out a post to someone and just use whatever word pops into mind. I should be more careful about that but, at the same time, I would hope that the reader is also trying to empathize with the fact that such mistakes happen and let them slide, seeking instead to discern the whole context in which the words are being used.

What I felt was that, in your aim to criticize Miller's work, you decided to latch onto my sloppy word "summary" and use that as a basis for characterizing the work as a misconceived and unhelpful project. But Miller was not summarizing Steiner's epistemology (this one isn't a sloppy word) in that sense. He was not formulating and repeating the ideas of PoF as informational content, like one might do with a bullet point list or something just as easily generated by GPT. Miller was not summarizing in the reductive sense that Kuhlewind is speaking of, just like we aren't when making phenomenological essays/posts that track the core ideas of PoF.

Are my retracing essays summaries of spiritual science in the informational and reductive sense, since they contain many conceptual elaborations that pertain to the results of supersensible research? I think we agree they are not because the concepts are artistic expressions of deeper intuitive meaning which, of course, coincide with the intuitive meaning explored by spiritual scientific research. I maintain it's the same principle with Miller's paper - there is no informational summary, only an artistic expression of deeper intuition. The context of his other papers, such as the PhD thesis shared before (which also partly inspired by Catch-22 essays), also reveals he understands the phenomenological core of PoF at a deep level. All of these various factors should be patiently contemplated when formulating our judgments, one way or another.

Ashvin, you didn't notice it when I wrote it in the first place, and you are still not noticing it now (despite it being underlined)? Of course it's you, and not Miller, who spoke of an excellent summary. I've never said or implied it was Miller, I have even made sure to mark with an underline the explicit confirmation of that in what I wrote. So your first 2 paragraphs here are based on a misunderstanding. In anycase, they are solved.

To your third paragraph, I say: of course I agree, your retracing essays are not a summary, but an artistic expression of experienced spiritual facts. And I also (explicitly!) said, what SM aimed to do with that article was "probably the same": working with the PoF, writing about it, not summarizing it. I also made clear early on in that discussion that the article was subtle and compatible with understanding of PoF. It seems that all this has remained invisible for you. (Other works by Miller were not and are not part of the discussion).
That being said, it is still my opinion (for the reasons and with the examples I mentioned then) that the article is more useful to whomever has already understood PoF, rather than to one who struggles with it. And also that when we speak of "Steiner epistemology" we are reducing and flattening Steiner's work, although of course it's not technically wrong. The fact that by searching high and long through the RS archive, one spot can be found where Steiner incidentally referred to his work as an epistemology, while speaking of someone else's, reinforces my point, rather than weakening it, let alone that when Steiner says it, it's very different than when a third person does it).

But to the point of your post, I still don't understand why you felt the way you describe. I don't find justification for that in what I wrote.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, you didn't notice it when I wrote it in the first place, and you are still not noticing it now (despite it being underlined)? Of course it's you, and not Miller, who spoke of an excellent summary. I've never said or implied it was Miller, I have even made sure to mark with an underline the explicit confirmation of that in what I wrote. So your first 2 paragraphs here are based on a misunderstanding. In anycase, they are solved.

To your third paragraph, I say: of course I agree, your retracing essays are not a summary, but an artistic expression of experienced spiritual facts. And I also (explicitly!) said, what SM aimed to do with that article was "probably the same": working with the PoF, writing about it, not summarizing it. I also made clear early on in that discussion that the article was subtle and compatible with understanding of PoF. It seems that all this has remained invisible for you. (Other works by Miller were not and are not part of the discussion).
That being said, it is still my opinion (for the reasons and with the examples I mentioned then) that the article is more useful to whomever has already understood PoF, rather than to one who struggles with it. And also that when we speak of "Steiner epistemology" we are reducing and flattening Steiner's work, although of course it's not technically wrong. The fact that by searching high and long through the RS archive, one spot can be found where Steiner incidentally referred to his work as an epistemology, while speaking of someone else's, reinforces my point, rather than weakening it, let alone that when Steiner says it, it's very different than when a third person does it).

But to the point of your post, I still don't understand why you felt the way you describe. I don't find justification for that in what I wrote.

Let's think about it - if no one here is doing a summary and it was never implied anyone is doing a summary, then what is the point of mentioning it? Why point out how summaries are misled, doomed to fail, preposterous, etc. if summarizing PoF is not even remotely in discussion by anyone here? All of that talk about summarizing was followed directly by the conclusion - "For these reasons I doubt this article is a useful recommendation for someone who is struggling with PoF."

So, in fairness, I don't think I was misunderstanding anything or, if I was, it was very understandable why. Anyway, with respect to your original comment today, I only felt the critique was misleading (not "foolish") because it latched onto the word "summary", not in a vacuum of all context, but specifically with respect to Miller's paper. If you never meant it to apply to Miller's paper but just wanted to throw it out there for some other reason, then I neither dislike it nor think it's foolish.

I don't consider GA 1 "searching high and long" Anthroposophy is filled with "third persons" referring to Steiner's early work as epistemology. I think this is a really important point but I'm not sure how to convey it differently. Why are WE reducing and flattening Steiner's work by simply using the word "epistemology" to characterize it? That could only be because our thinking automatically associates "epistemology" with some theoretical inquiry. It is similar to when Eugene et al. would automatically associate "thinking" or "idea" with floating thoughts in the intellect and therefore remained incredulous that they could characterize much more integrated and unified spiritual experiences. There is no need for our thinking to automatically make these associations if it pays attention to the overall meaningful context in which such terms are used and therefore brings more dynamic meaning to the otherwise fixed word-forms. This is an example of 'saving the appearances' through our spiritual activity.

[Federica]

Ashvin, you didn't notice it when I wrote it in the first place, and you are still not noticing it now (despite it being underlined)? Of course it's you, and not Miller, who spoke of an excellent summary. I've never said or implied it was Miller, I have even made sure to mark with an underline the explicit confirmation of that in what I wrote. So your first 2 paragraphs here are based on a misunderstanding. In anycase, they are solved.

To your third paragraph, I say: of course I agree, your retracing essays are not a summary, but an artistic expression of experienced spiritual facts. And I also (explicitly!) said, what SM aimed to do with that article was "probably the same": working with the PoF, writing about it, not summarizing it. I also made clear early on in that discussion that the article was subtle and compatible with understanding of PoF. It seems that all this has remained invisible for you. (Other works by Miller were not and are not part of the discussion).
That being said, it is still my opinion (for the reasons and with the examples I mentioned then) that the article is more useful to whomever has already understood PoF, rather than to one who struggles with it. And also that when we speak of "Steiner epistemology" we are reducing and flattening Steiner's work, although of course it's not technically wrong. The fact that by searching high and long through the RS archive, one spot can be found where Steiner incidentally referred to his work as an epistemology, while speaking of someone else's, reinforces my point, rather than weakening it, let alone that when Steiner says it, it's very different than when a third person does it).

But to the point of your post, I still don't understand why you felt the way you describe. I don't find justification for that in what I wrote.

Let's think about it - if no one here is doing a summary and it was never implied anyone is doing a summary, then what is the point of mentioning it? Why point out how summaries are misled, doomed to fail, preposterous, etc. if summarizing PoF is not even remotely in discussion by anyone here? All of that talk about summarizing was followed directly by the conclusion - "For these reasons I doubt this article is a useful recommendation for someone who is struggling with PoF."

So, in fairness, I don't think I was misunderstanding anything or, if I was, it was very understandable why. Anyway, with respect to your original comment today, I only felt the critique was misleading (not "foolish") because it latched onto the word "summary", not in a vacuum of all context, but specifically with respect to Miller's paper. If you never meant it to apply to Miller's paper but just wanted to throw it out there for some other reason, then I neither dislike it nor think it's foolish.

Because you called it an "excellent summary"! I wanted to point out that it's not possible to summarize PoF (since it's not the first time you were using the expression, in various contexts).

And, if you go back and check, you will see that the point about the summary was only the last of a list, and "for these reasons" referred to the list of reasons, of course, not to the summary.

Really, I struggle to see goodwill, in this post. I saw it in your previous, but that here you state that you didn't misinterpret, while the words are literlly there (mine, underlined, and yours, which ascribe to me the opposite of the underlined) I can't wrap my head around.

[Federica]

I don't consider GA 1 "searching high and long" Anthroposophy is filled with "third persons" referring to Steiner's early work as epistemology. I think this is a really important point but I'm not sure how to convey it differently. Why are WE reducing and flattening Steiner's work by simply using the word "epistemology" to characterize it? That could only be because our thinking automatically associates "epistemology" with some theoretical inquiry. It is similar to when Eugene et al. would automatically associate "thinking" or "idea" with floating thoughts in the intellect and therefore remained incredulous that they could characterize much more integrated and unified spiritual experiences. There is no need for our thinking to automatically make these associations if it pays attention to the overall meaningful context in which such terms are used and therefore brings more dynamic meaning to the otherwise fixed word-forms. This is an example of 'saving the appearances' through our spiritual activity.

Ashvin,

I see very well what you are saying here, no need to insist, and it is exactly the same thing you argued about my use of the word "summary". You want to argue that I am stuck in words, I got it then, I get it now.

It so happens that I have spoken of "flattening" today, as an attempt to make it sound less harsh than "bad taste" or "hurting my sense of beauty" as I said before. But in fact, I should have kept it plain and clear, since this is the meaning I conveyed then, and still how I see it now. So, if your critique was correct, it should also mean that if a verse is beautiful, a poem is beautiful, it's because the reader is interpreting the words in a certain way rather than another. Of course that is not how things stand. I already tried to convey this point in our previous discussion, but as it seems the idea didn't make it to your end?

To clarify, if words are symbols - as we know they are - they have, yes, an intellectual valence, to the extent that they are explainable and explained by the context in which they are employed, and they also have a symbolic valence, which cannot be 'explained' by the context, or by the backstory. The symbolic valence can only find resonance or dissonance in that context, as a precise symbol. Which means, it may be beautiful or not so beautiful in that context. When I say that "Steiner's epistemology" is not a beautiful expression to refer to his work with PoF, I mean, not that it is technicslly wrong (of course it's not) but that the word as a symbol doesn't resonate justly with the symbolic valence of that work. Am I making myself better understood?

[AshvinP]

Ok, Federica, so we got rid of the summary critique (which was apparently directed at me for merely using the word, when obviously none of my posts attempt to summarize PoF, so what was the point?). We also got rid of the epistemology critique, since merely using that word which, in your non-shared opinion isnt in symbolic resonance with PoF, doesn't reflect on the substance of what Miller was doing.

So what is left now to make it relatively useless recommendation for someone struggling with PoF? You briefly quoted two sentences from the paper and stated they were problematic or something (cant remember exact words), but never responded to my request for elaboration on why.

[Federica]

Ok, Federica, so we got rid of the summary critique (which was apparently directed at me for merely using the word, when obviously none of my posts attempt to summarize PoF, so what was the point?). We also got rid of the epistemology critique, since merely using that word which, in your non-shared opinion isnt in symbolic resonance with PoF, doesn't reflect on the substance of what Miller was doing.

So what is left now to make it relatively useless recommendation for someone struggling with PoF? You briefly quoted two sentences from the paper and stated they were problematic or something (cant remember exact words), but never responded to my request for elaboration on why.

Naturally, the point was that, because of the pointing to a highly recommended summary, there were big chances that 'the reader' would interpret the advice in the sense that someone who has not well/not enough understood PoF, can remedy that by using an excellent summary (I understand this is not what you meant).

The epistemology critique is actually still there, since Miller put it as title of the essay, which, in my view does have a resonance and an impact on the reader. By the way I would be interested in whether you agree with this:
"So, if your critique was correct, it should also mean that if a verse is beautiful, a poem is beautiful, it's because the reader is interpreting the words in a certain way rather than another. Of course that is not how things stand."

Finally, on the remaining points, if you really are interested, and it's not merely for the desire to prove me wrong, I will go back to them, but not now. I was actually trying to read your Part II, and this aside was not supposed to reopen the discussion...

[AshvinP]

Ok, Federica, so we got rid of the summary critique (which was apparently directed at me for merely using the word, when obviously none of my posts attempt to summarize PoF, so what was the point?). We also got rid of the epistemology critique, since merely using that word which, in your non-shared opinion isnt in symbolic resonance with PoF, doesn't reflect on the substance of what Miller was doing.

So what is left now to make it relatively useless recommendation for someone struggling with PoF? You briefly quoted two sentences from the paper and stated they were problematic or something (cant remember exact words), but never responded to my request for elaboration on why.

Naturally, the point was that, because of the pointing to a highly recommended summary, there were big chances that 'the reader' would interpret the advice in the sense that someone who has not well/not enough understood PoF, can remedy that by using an excellent summary (I understand this is not what you meant).

The epistemology critique is actually still there, since Miller put it as title of the essay, which, in my view does have a resonance and an impact on the reader.

By the way I would be interested in whether you agree with this:
"So, if your critique was correct, it should also mean that if a verse is beautiful, a poem is beautiful, it's because the reader is interpreting the words in a certain way rather than another. Of course that is not how things stand."

I'm not sure how this relates to my critique. I can agree that whenever we evaluate something as 'beautiful', we are necessarily attaching certain meaningful intuitions to percepts. When those intuitions are unduly colored by personal soul factors, we call it subjective, and when they are experienced in more purity, we call it objective or transcendent.

So it's clear, the critique I am making can also be applied to the bold - the mere titling of an essay can only have a negative impact on us, the reader, if our thinking is associative. It can only distract our thinking from objectively working through the recursive thought-organism if we are not in full control of our thinking, but rather under the compulsion of subconscious associations that distract us. We are no longer resonating with the soul perspective of the author but attaching our personal meanings to the textual perceptions. If our thinking is not associative, on the other hand, not only will the title not distract us, but it may even give us more opportunity to resonate with the underlying soul perspective. We may approach the textual meaning from an angle we are not too familiar with and therefore perceive shades of meaning in the text, corresponding to the author's intention, that would otherwise be obscured. In any case, the title won't phase us.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with associative thinking per se, and we will all continue to do it when confronting many sensory appearances and texts out of force of habit, but the problem arises when we lose sight of its reality and confuse it for free thinking, we confuse the meaning reached through it for some objective and universal reality that we have penetrated.

Also, if the argument is that most readers are associative thinkers and that's why it won't be helpful, well, I don't think we can worry too much about that. Nothing in PoF will ever have a positive impact if the reader only approaches it with associative thinking, trying to fit the symbolic terms into preconceived philosophical or scientific notions.

Finally, on the remaining points, if you really are interested, and it's not merely for the desire to prove me wrong, I will go back to them, but not now. I was actually trying to read your Part II, and this aside was not supposed to reopen the discussion...

I am interested only because it seems the most fruitful path for orienting better to the core of PoF. One of us sees the article as enormously helpful for orienting to PoF and the other as mostly dissonant with PoF, so there must be some discrepancy in our orientation to some aspect of PoF that is probably worth exploring if we can remain as objective as possible about it.