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

[Federica]

As it appears from your post just above, Ashvin, I must have some ability to elicit the worst out of you, which is really unfortunate. By the way, you have (again) conveniently overlooked the fact that PoF is epistemology-free, without exception. There is no room for an open discussion at this point. And you are incorrect about the spiritualization of language. The word-symbols that become portals is a part of it, but no spiritualization will happen if the word-symbols themselves are not transfigured in return. Apparently it is too uncomfortable for you to admit that this area is one that, to a large extent, is yet to be pervaded with consciousness. Instead you keep lecturing, even when you are not sure, and smear in profusion of quotes as if they could ..... . The pattern is not new. Better to leave it at that in these conditions

[Cleric]

I hope you don't mind, I moved the dialog here

[Federica]

I hope you don't mind, I moved the dialog here

Yes, thanks.

[AshvinP]

As it appears from your post just above, Ashvin, I must have some ability to elicit the worst out of you, which is really unfortunate. By the way, you have (again) conveniently overlooked the fact that PoF is epistemology-free, without exception. There is no room for an open discussion at this point. And you are incorrect about the spiritualization of language. The word-symbols that become portals is a part of it, but no spiritualization will happen if the word-symbols themselves are not transfigured in return. Apparently it is too uncomfortable for you to admit that this area is one that, to a large extent, is yet to be pervaded with consciousness. Instead you keep lecturing, even when you are not sure, and smear in profusion of quotes as if they could ..... . The pattern is not new. Better to leave it at that in these conditions

Here's a recap of what objectively happened, as anyone can see, and maybe it will someday help you become conscious of the curvatures you passively flow along with on this forum, and therefore transition from abstract "spiritual science" to concretely growing in spiritual freedom.

***

Federica asked, "Hasn't a focus on the process of knowing itself been what "epistemology" has always been about?"

Federica admitted she knows almost nothing about modern philosophical history, and therefore should be quite open to an answer that suggests she doesn't understand "what epistemology has been about" and therefore her opinion that SM doesn't know what he is talking about is mistaken.

Federica was given an answer by Ashvin and Steiner, showing exactly the history of epistemology, but instead of owning up to her mistake (or at least accepting the answer), threw a fit and blamed Ashvin, revealing she was never genuinely asking a question in the first place but simply stating a rigid and rushed opinion.

Federica continued to criticize SM for using the word 'unknowing' after admitting she had never read his thesis and therefore had no context for its intended use. She was given more of that context, revealing 'unknowing' was intended in the same way Cleric spoke of avoiding "expectation that already forms a certain framework within which we imagine the unexpected will be accommodated", and again threw a fit and blamed Ashvin for revealing her mistaken opinion (and how could it not be mistaken when formed without any context?).

Federica continued to rehash her personal linguistic sensitivity to the concept "epistemology" and to erroneously claim that Steiner never used the word in his 'main epistemological works', which was also revealed to be erroneous. She threw a fit and blamed Ashvin.

Federica has taken on the role of 'language police' and wants to legislate what concepts can be used for spiritual purposes, keeping in fashion with 'cancel culture' today. She is trying to adapt "spiritual science" to her personal sensitivities instead of letting the former transfigure the latter.

[AshvinP]

From the lecture Cleric recently shared, we get more elucidation on how the creative technique of 'unknowing' remains a critical inner disposition along the depth axis of Spiritual Activity, as we transition to unveiling the Inspired forces concealed within Imagination.

The ordinary thoughts of life come and go, or we try to get rid of them either by discarding them from our soul, or the organism sees to it that we forget them, and so forth. But the thoughts of the kind described, which are called up in our consciousness for the sake of gaining higher knowledge, cannot be blotted out as easily as ordinary thoughts. A great effort must be made to forget them. This is a second kind of exercise: an artificial forgetting, as it were, an artificial suppression of thought.

If we have practised this artificial suppression of thought for a sufficiently long time, corresponding to our individual development and predispositions, we become able to suppress the whole tableau of which I have spoken, so that our consciousness is quite empty. The only thing which should remain to us is our calm thinking power, permeated by the will. But this thinking now appears in a new form.

[Federica]

As it appears from your post just above, Ashvin, I must have some ability to elicit the worst out of you, which is really unfortunate. By the way, you have (again) conveniently overlooked the fact that PoF is epistemology-free, without exception. There is no room for an open discussion at this point. And you are incorrect about the spiritualization of language. The word-symbols that become portals is a part of it, but no spiritualization will happen if the word-symbols themselves are not transfigured in return. Apparently it is too uncomfortable for you to admit that this area is one that, to a large extent, is yet to be pervaded with consciousness. Instead you keep lecturing, even when you are not sure, and smear in profusion of quotes as if they could ..... . The pattern is not new. Better to leave it at that in these conditions

Here's a recap of what objectively happened, as anyone can see, and maybe it will someday help you become conscious of the curvatures you passively flow along with on this forum, and therefore transition from abstract "spiritual science" to concretely growing in spiritual freedom.

***

Federica asked, "Hasn't a focus on the process of knowing itself been what "epistemology" has always been about?"

Federica admitted she knows almost nothing about modern philosophical history, and therefore should be quite open to an answer that suggests she doesn't understand "what epistemology has been about" and therefore her opinion that SM doesn't know what he is talking about is mistaken.

Federica was given an answer by Ashvin and Steiner, showing exactly the history of epistemology, but instead of owning up to her mistake (or at least accepting the answer), threw a fit and blamed Ashvin, revealing she was never genuinely asking a question in the first place but simply stating a rigid and rushed opinion.

Federica continued to criticize SM for using the word 'unknowing' after admitting she had never read his thesis and therefore had no context for its intended use. She was given more of that context, revealing 'unknowing' was intended in the same way Cleric spoke of avoiding "expectation that already forms a certain framework within which we imagine the unexpected will be accommodated", and again threw a fit and blamed Ashvin for revealing her mistaken opinion (and how could it not be mistaken when formed without any context?).

Federica continued to rehash her personal linguistic sensitivity to the concept "epistemology" and to erroneously claim that Steiner never used the word in his 'main epistemological works', which was also revealed to be erroneous. She threw a fit and blamed Ashvin.

Federica has taken on the role of 'language police' and wants to legislate what concepts can be used for spiritual purposes, keeping in fashion with 'cancel culture' today. She is trying to adapt "spiritual science" to her personal sensitivities instead of letting the former transfigure the latter.

Thanks Ashvin, for caring about my chances of long term spiritual development. Indeed this recap, made objective by putting the propositions in third person, is useful, in its way. It also provides an orientation at a glance for future readers.

[Federica]

From the lecture Cleric recently shared, we get more elucidation on how the creative technique of 'unknowing' remains a critical inner disposition along the depth axis of Spiritual Activity, as we transition to unveiling the Inspired forces concealed within Imagination.

The ordinary thoughts of life come and go, or we try to get rid of them either by discarding them from our soul, or the organism sees to it that we forget them, and so forth. But the thoughts of the kind described, which are called up in our consciousness for the sake of gaining higher knowledge, cannot be blotted out as easily as ordinary thoughts. A great effort must be made to forget them. This is a second kind of exercise: an artificial forgetting, as it were, an artificial suppression of thought.

If we have practised this artificial suppression of thought for a sufficiently long time, corresponding to our individual development and predispositions, we become able to suppress the whole tableau of which I have spoken, so that our consciousness is quite empty. The only thing which should remain to us is our calm thinking power, permeated by the will. But this thinking now appears in a new form.

Thanks! I carefully read the entire lecture earlier today. Not that I was previously unaware of these meditative exercises consisting in extinguishing the concentration image, in Steiner and others (see quote). It's interesting that you use this extinguishing of meditative images meant to go beyond imaginative cognition, to back up your idea that epistemology should imply some form of "unknowing".
Also, I do find it inappropriate - though I wouldn't call the police for that - to use the word-symbol "unknowing" to refer to this pure expression of strengthened will that such extinguishment consists of.


Anyway - to the quote. From a practical guide on the Rose Cross meditation, by Norwegian Anthroposopher Jörgen Smit:

...
Some people will always have the image appearing in clear, bright colours, sometimes so much so that it seems more powerful than anything seen with the physical eye. Others may find that the image is only a faint one and when the roses finally appear they are grey rather than red. What matters, however, is the inner effort that has been made; the intensity of the image is much less important. To meditate on an image built up in this way calls for additional inner powers that we do not need for sensory perception. When we look at an outer object or call up a visual memory, this happens as if of its own accord; we do not have to do anything special. Meditation on an image, on the other hand, means that nothing is given or motivated from either outside or inside; the image has to be created out of powers that are entirely our own. The image may also appear to be very far away, so that one wants to get closer to it. A new quality enters in if we succeed in not merely having the picture before us, so that we look at it, but in actually living within it. Then there is no longer the duality of onlooker and the thing looked on; the whole becomes a single process that we experience and to which we inwardly respond. The second stage of the Rose Cross meditation has been reached. We may well ask why there should be seven roses coming into flower on the black cross. All that matters, surely, is to enter into the dying process that is symbolized by the black cross and the coming into flower symbolized by just one red rose.

True enough, but the contrast between dying and coming into flower is enhanced if there is not just one rose- which is, of course, perfectly possible but more than one. But why seven? If seven roses are included in the meditation, the most important thing is that they are a unified whole and not pieced together. Apart from that, the figure seven has a special quality of its own that is also apparent in some of the major time rhythms in evolution, and this serves to strengthen the effect of the meditation. It is merely a suggestion, however, and you are free to accept or reject, there is no rule about this. It is perfectly possible to have just one rose, but the effect will not be the same. Another problem that some may experience is that the inner effort causes the muscles to tighten up and go into spasm. In that case the inner effort that was needed has gone in a direction that does not lead to creation of the image; it suddenly gets deflected. One can experience this as tension in the neck or another part of the body, or as grinding of the teeth. This is best prevented by making sure that we are sitting in a relaxed upright position before we start and checking to make sure that this kind of tension does not develop anywhere in the body when the exercise starts.

Now comes the third and fourth stages. Many people do not do these at all but only build up the image and meditate on it. That is perfectly all right, for the first two stages are valuable in their own right. The third stage consists in making the image disappear and concentrating the attention on the inner powers that originally gave rise to it. This is usually far from easy, especially to begin with, and in most cases the result is absolutely nil. One then goes back to the first two stages and tries to intensify them. If sufficient intensity is achieved, we are more likely to succeed in extinguishing the image and concentrating the attention on the powers that had given rise to it. It will only be possible to live entirely in those powers for moments at a time. With practice and increased effort, however, it is possible to make those moments grow longer.

At the fourth stage, the powers that produced the image are also extinguished and all attention is focused on the spiritual entity that has given rise to those powers. As a rule, nothing at all will come to conscious awareness on which to focus meditative attention, Once again it will be necessary to go back to the earlier stages and intensify the three stages of building up the image, living in the image and meditating on the image-producing powers. If we then go on to the fourth stage, often after practicing for a very long time, we become conscious in our souls of the power that is the innermost core of our being. A help in preparing for this most difficult fourth stage is the following. Imagine the whole history of human evolution, spread before you as in a single vast canvas, and say to yourself that throughout the course of evolution no single individual has ever been able to do the Rose Cross Meditation. Having imagined this, let the idea arise that it is possible after all, but only on an entirely individual basis. To do this, the meditating individual needs to marshal that power of the spirit's inner- most core. The next step is to focus our whole attention on that power, so that it will after all be possible to do the Rose Cross Meditation. This sequence of ideas can prepare us for the encounter with the true essence of our own higher self, which is the aim of the fourth stage. The four stages of the Rose Cross Meditation may thus be summed up as follows:


Stage one
Building up the image in thought, entering into it with feelings, as deeply and intensely as possible. Our inner response to every conception is just as important as the thought content.


Stage two
Meditation on the image, entering wholly into it rather than merely contemplating it.


Stage three
The image disappears; concentration on the powers that created it.


Stage four
Encounter with the essential self; concentration on the spiritual entity that gave rise to the image-producing powers.



As already mentioned, it is certainly possible to stay with the first two stages, even for years if necessary. But we may be deceiving ourselves, for human individuals are generally capable of much more than they think; it is just that it is rather an effort to call up the necessary reserves of strength. We are also missing an opportunity if we never mobilize more than the powers that are immediately available and stop at the second stage. The very attempt- even if it fails to venture on the third and fourth stages awakens powers in us that will intensify the first and second stages when we return to them. The powers we rouse in the effort pour into the work of building up the image and meditating on it.
...

[AshvinP]

As already mentioned, it is certainly possible to stay with the first two stages, even for years if necessary. But we may be deceiving ourselves, for human individuals are generally capable of much more than they think; it is just that it is rather an effort to call up the necessary reserves of strength. We are also missing an opportunity if we never mobilize more than the powers that are immediately available and stop at the second stage. The very attempt- even if it fails to venture on the third and fourth stages awakens powers in us that will intensify the first and second stages when we return to them. The powers we rouse in the effort pour into the work of building up the image and meditating on it.
...

Thanks for sharing this guide. Smit points to an important principle above, which has been mentioned once or twice before. We tend to think of the higher cognitive stages as a linear process, like taking the escalator up from one floor to the next of the building. We can't get to floor 3 until we have crossed floor 2. And if we don't even feel like we are on floor 2, we may feel discouraged and think floor 3 will never be attainable.

But the reality, as Smit also indicates, is that all the higher stages are overlapping one another and superimposed on our current state. Our intellectual-sensory state embeds all the higher forces as well. The task is to stretch them apart, so to speak, and become more sensitive to what each contributes to the flow of our inner phenomenal space. This ties in with what Cleric mentioned in his essay about how it is important for the physical kernel to remain as the reference point around which the more expansive conscious states grow and integrate. We can thus become more keenly aware of how our ordinary states are modulated over more expansive intuitive curvatures of personal and transpersonal destiny.

For example, we could intend to do a trivial exercise, like clenching our fist. Before we do anything, before we even condense the mental pictures and words "Im going to clench my fist" (or something similar), we live in the invisible intuitive intent. Normally we only sense a very tiny 'gap' at this stage, and that's only if we are actively intending to the intentional process. Then we may sense condensing mental pictures of our intuitive intent a bit more clearly, but even that is merged into the meaningfully 'curved background' most of the time. Then our inner voice may condense some words anchoring the intuitive intent, which are much more in focus, and then we pour our will through the limbs, which feeds back as clearly experienced kinesthetic sensation in a specific part of inner phenomenal space, which then quickly recede as memory images. All of the higher stages are present in this simple intentional act, merged together as it were, but can still be very subtly detected when we concentrate on the holistic temporal flow.

If that is understood, then it also becomes clear that we can work, and are always instinctively working, with the Imaginative, Inspired, and Intuitive forces even from our ordinary state. What is the Imaginative state, anyway? It is simply the purified experience of the etheric-memory spectrum that we always rely upon to navigate life. We are always dreaming through panoramic movie scenes of memory images (which can also embody anticipated experiences), even when we are simply thinking prosaically about objects and processes around us, or deciding to go somewhere or do something like clench the fist. Our inner activity is anchored by the sensory perceptions and therefore we don't need to remain awake to this imagistic curvature but can dream through it.

By concentrating our inner activity when we think through various ideas, for example mathematical ideas, we withdraw it from the sensory anchorage and more actively work through the etheric-memory spectrum out of our own forces, although the images still remain relatively fragmented and dim. When we start moving our inner activity beyond the domain of imaginative replicas of bodily experience in this way, as we also do through phenomenological exploration, we can already begin drawing on Inspired forces by working with this principle of unknowing, artificially forgetting, renouncing, voluntarily extinguishing and blotting out, or whatever word-symbol we imaginatively and freely choose to symbolize the inner disposition and act, of deflating the intellectual balloon of its opinions, beliefs, expectations, etc. that normally erect a rigid framework in which the Spirit cannot find the leeway to manifest higher-order content.

It's not like we are doing some magic extinguishing trick in the Imaginative state to reach the next floor, but simply accomplishing the deflation that we are normally too fearful and weak to do. There is no requirement that we reach a full-blown imaginative panoramic tableau before we can work with this principle. In fact, we can work with it in our daily active thinking life and thereby draw on Inspired insight that illuminates the ideas we are dimly exploring within the etheric-memory spectrum. As Smit said, we may not quickly reach that tableau or the empty consciousness of the Inspired state, but we are still enriching, enlivening, and generally spiritualizing the ordinary intellectual and imaginative state, which will only make it a much smoother transition to remaining fully conscious in the higher states.

[Federica]

Thanks for sharing this guide. Smit points to an important principle above, which has been mentioned once or twice before. We tend to think of the higher cognitive stages as a linear process, like taking the escalator up from one floor to the next of the building. We can't get to floor 3 until we have crossed floor 2. And if we don't even feel like we are on floor 2, we may feel discouraged and think floor 3 will never be attainable.

Hey Ashvin,

This is all fine and agreeable with, but pause for a second, and see what you have done here. You’ve been flowing without much resistance along the curvatures of your habitual self - first of all, writing (as opposed to not writing), then writing in your most comfortable tone, on a theme picked according to your habitual patterns, using your most signature expressions, telling yourself: “I’m doing this to be helpful and generous to all, including people who are not yet at my level, and despite their continually throwing fits at me, so it’s good enough”, etcetera. But what is the positive purpose of this post? It has no connection with the rest of this page - language, epistemology, un-knowing… - other than by free-flowing association of ideas (by the way, in case it went overlooked, my Smit quote above was meant to signal this same point).

As said, at this point I don’t see much room for a discussion with you on language, and not even on the future of “epistemology”. That will only be possible when you admit you don’t have all clear ideas on all topics - for example on the spiritualization of language - and step down from your pulpit, to renounce your lecturing tone, at least when you have no idea what you’re talking about - like for example when you AI-rake the internet for quotes that would support you points, only to end up in situations like above, quoting Steiner quoting Nicholas of Cusa, persuaded it would learnedly support your point, only to end up that you didn’t get what “docta ignorantia” means, thus didn’t get what Steiner said about it, thus actually weakened your points.

But I will still throw in one thing. It has to do with your feel that I want to do language police and legislate what concepts can be used for spiritual purposes, which inexorably pushes you to the “etched soul pathways” judgment. Think about ancient poetic metrics - a verse from the Odyssey for example. I guess you may lack a concrete idea of how it sounds and what strict rhythmic constraints and vocalic/consonantic characterizations ruled its conception, and still rule its reading. But take even a modern song, written in a specific musical tempo. Would it be language policing to say that not any words, of any length, of any syllabic shape, containing any vowels, of any lengths, can fit in a given measure of the song?
As I commented the other day on Max’s how the world began, in “w-a-t-e-r” and in spirit, we need full fluidity of concepts, the opposite of concept police. But for the word-symbols, it’s a very different story, hence the importance of developing language sensitivity. This difference seems to have escaped you so far.

[AshvinP]

Thanks for sharing this guide. Smit points to an important principle above, which has been mentioned once or twice before. We tend to think of the higher cognitive stages as a linear process, like taking the escalator up from one floor to the next of the building. We can't get to floor 3 until we have crossed floor 2. And if we don't even feel like we are on floor 2, we may feel discouraged and think floor 3 will never be attainable.

Hey Ashvin,

This is all fine and agreeable with, but pause for a second, and see what you have done here. You’ve been flowing without much resistance along the curvatures of your habitual self - first of all, writing (as opposed to not writing), then writing in your most comfortable tone, on a theme picked according to your habitual patterns, using your most signature expressions, telling yourself: “I’m doing this to be helpful and generous to all, including people who are not yet at my level, and despite their continually throwing fits at me, so it’s good enough”, etcetera. But what is the positive purpose of this post? It has no connection with the rest of this page - language, epistemology, un-knowing… - other than by free-flowing association of ideas (by the way, in case it went overlooked, my Smit quote above was meant to signal this same point).

That's fine, Federica, if you feel you can't learn from what I am writing, or you can't see the obvious connections yet, then just ignore it. There are other people on this forum, you know Maybe they will find some value for their intuitive orientation even when you refuse to.

Also, maybe if you didn't ignore the SM quotes as a "profusion" out of antipathy, you would understand the obvious connection to his intended use of 'unknowing'.

As said, at this point I don’t see much room for a discussion with you on language, and not even on the future of “epistemology”. That will only be possible when you admit you don’t have all clear ideas on all topics - for example on the spiritualization of language - and step down from your pulpit, to renounce your lecturing tone, at least when you have no idea what you’re talking about - like for example when you AI-rake the internet for quotes that would support you points, only to end up in situations like above, quoting Steiner quoting Nicholas of Cusa, persuaded it would learnedly support your point, only to end up that you didn’t get what “docta ignorantia” means, thus didn’t get what Steiner said about it, thus actually weakened your points.

When you develop further, redirecting the energy devoted to your arrogance/antipathies on this forum into making your thought-life more substantial and concrete (like a touch-sense), you will inwardly understand how certain ideas superconsciously link us into a thought-organism of other related ideas and direct our attention to the insights of others, no AI necessary. (before you get insulted at the word "arrogance", consider how much it takes to form an opinion and criticize someone's understanding of philosophical history or use of a term without any context for either).

It's also amazing to me that you are writing off the GA 1 Steiner quote as 'AI-rake', when it directly answers your "question" about what epistemology has been about, in no uncertain terms. Again, these things will become more obvious to you once you stop devoting so much energy into sowing discord and trying to 'win arguments' on this forum (arguments only conducted between you and your shadow-self, i.e. your projections onto what I am communicating).

But I will still throw in one thing. It has to do with your feel that I want to do language police and legislate what concepts can be used for spiritual purposes, which inexorably pushes you to the “etched soul pathways” judgment. Think about ancient poetic metrics - a verse from the Odyssey for example. I guess you may lack a concrete idea of how it sounds and what strict rhythmic constraints and vocalic/consonantic characterizations ruled its conception, and still rule its reading. But take even a modern song, written in a specific musical tempo. Would it be language policing to say that not any words, of any length, of any syllabic shape, containing any vowels, of any lengths, can fit in a given measure of the song?
As I commented the other day on Max’s how the world began, in “w-a-t-e-r” and in spirit, we need full fluidity of concepts, the opposite of concept police. But for the word-symbols, it’s a very different story, hence the importance of developing language sensitivity. This difference seems to have escaped you so far.

Again, once you progress further in Imaginative development, instead of only trying to define it and define how it can be characterized for the rest of us, you will see the great danger in ruling out concepts from your imaginative palette due to personal sensitivities, no matter how artistic and refined we imagine the latter are. We hopefully aren't only doing this inner work for our personal satisfaction and growth. As Cleric put it:

We can certainly feel the planar logical consistency of the mental images snapping together, but to understand in the true sense, we can only do by entering the living experiences from whence we ourselves would be able to describe how they feel like through similar metaphors, analogies and experiments.

Improvisation
Epistemology
Unknowing

All these canceled concepts become like an inner commentary - "I refuse to let the Spirit express its movements through this symbolic portal, even if this expands the palette of my imagination to express its inner life and provides valuable anchors for other souls to reach the Spirit." Then of course we lose sensitivity for their spiritual value and unsurprisingly conclude we are 'right', they are linguistically insensitive concepts that don't fit into the tempo of our preferred songs.

The fact that these concepts are used so often means they are clearly helpful anchors for many other people, which however can be redeemed from their externalized and arbitrary (or mystical) meanings through our Imaginative development, by which we repurpose them for the art and science of Intuitive thinking.

All of these things will be resolved within you by further development, and these imagined debates about 'epistemology', 'linguistic sensitivity', 'unknowing', and so forth are only distractions that pull you away from focusing on the deep meaning you can mine by living through these diverse and imaginative angles of approach. We all bounce around the Guardian for some greater or lesser time on the inner path, which mainly depends on how conscious we can become that this is what is happening and therefore what proactive measures we take to resist the elemental macros, which in turn increase consciousness, and deflate the intellectual balloon.

For my part, I will ignore any random comments asking questions about terminology used by SM or others from now on, or any attempts to draw me into some highly unproductive debate about 'linguistic sensitivity'. All I can do in such situations is provide more context for you to meditate on and hope that you do.