Federica wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 5:20 pm
The only reason I'm not adding a video on his esthetic surgeries at this point is that I suspect you would contrive a way to put that in alignment with the Christ impulse too
I'm not sure why you are so against presenting things in their wider context when it comes to these topics, rather isolating words and phrases from that context as much as possible. If someone else was doing the same thing with Steiner's work, using isolated phrases as a means of labeling him with sexism, racism, antisemitism, anti Christian, etc., I doubt you would hesitate to speak up and ask for wider context.
Could it be that withholding this context makes it easier to support your already established opinion about him? I think you are anticipating that if the video with the wider context was presented, the latter would make your implication that JP isn't aligned with the Christ impulse much weaker.
Federica wrote:First, we should notice the Christ impulse is not about formulating universal moral maxims that we can conveniently apply in all circumstances, which then spares us the effort of thinking deeply through those circumstances. That is the legalistic or fundamentalist (atavistic legalism) approach, which was necessary as a crutch for spiritual life, but should gradually be phased out since the 1st century and especially in our time, since Christ is incarnating in the etheric and the law can been written on our hearts through higher cognition. That is, we can seek deep understanding of the inner karmic threads of destiny, incarnating the appropriate moral intuitions, on a case by case basis.
Yes, this was already noticed and agreed, this is basic PoF.
I think your very asking of the original question and the expectation it could be answered, without any additional context for JP's remarks or your own reasoning about the question of assisted suicide/death, means it was not noticed in this context.
Federica wrote:Of course, we will inevitably fall short of perfect moral intuition in many circumstances, and many times we will need to make decisions as best we can based on the insight we have reached. The modern Christ impulse is reflected, not in the content of the judgments we reach, but in the very process of reaching those judgments by intuitively thinking through the phenomenal circumstances as thoroughly and as best we can, aimed toward the ideal of Truth. As SM puts it, "Instead of the ends justifying the means, the means also justify (and change) the ends, because the means are recursively linked with the ends; they are mutually self-generative."
Ok, but obviously this point needs to find some form of counterbalance, lest all and everything becomes justified "as-best-one-can" trial and error. So, the questions that await clarification here are:
how the reasoning that government should not legislate on assisted death, but family should decide, constitutes "intuitive thinking through the phenomenal circumstances", and what "as best one can" means (I believe, in the perspective of your own essay it should mean very little).
You didn't present any of JP's reasoning or its context, so it's hard to evaluate that bold question further.
"As best one can" means based on the sum total of our moral intuitions in relation to any given set of phenomenal circumstances, when a concrete judgment or decision cannot be indefinitely delayed.
The other question that needs clarification is why someone concluding that assisted suicide could be ethically permissible in certain circumstances, with the family's consent, is automatically against the Christ impulse? That was the question I was mainly addressing in my previous post.
Federica wrote:I see JP consistently trying to do exactly that in every area of inquiry he approaches, which doesn't mean he will reach perfect judgments, indeed none of us will, but it means we remain fluid, open, and seeking the high ideal with imaginative thinking, viewing any given existential question from as many angles as possible. It means we strive to remain humbly aware of our imperfections and the possibility of reaching flawed judgments based on our incomplete context. With that living awareness we can at least give ourselves a chance to make what remains immature and imperfect within our soul, gradually more perfect over time. It's interesting to watch JP's interviews/lectures and notice how he often pauses and closes his eyes while speaking, as if doing short meditations between words to more closely attune to the intuitions he is seeking.
"
exactly"... what? "as best one can" is very arbitrary and very little exact. It could be for example, that, as a celebrity, or as someone with a very elevated self-image, one can't really accept to say "I don't know", even though one may feel that answer would be the as-best-I-can answer. In this sense, prefacing his answer with a personal story of a personal illness is a very manipulative way to prepare the audience for applauding him (this technique leverages well known psychological levers), just as his political exploitation of the question, like "government should not take away our freedom like that" also seems quite manipulative to me. And so I, once again, feel that your judgment about the answer being "intuitive" and heartfelt is a very indulgent judgment, that pleases your strong sympathy for JP.
It sounds like you are saying that presenting a wider context for our reasoning, like JP apparently did (you haven't shared the video, so I don't know), is "manipulative". This simply makes no sense unless you are approaching with an antipathy and a
motivation to find JP as manipulative. Without that motivation coloring our perception of the thoughts, one could easily find a personal story about illness as honest, intimate, and illustrative. And one could easily find the idea that government should not be coercively involved in such decisions as entirely aligned with PoF ethical individualism. It's the same motivation that made you so sure JP was reducing meaning to the output of LLMs, when he clearly wasn't. Cleric also conveyed this "contrived" alignment with the Christ impulse.
For him meaning is the ground of reality (and not in a sense of a 'substance'). As he says, reality is made not of matter but of what matters. Thoughts, words, are embodiments of the spirit. They exhibit the secret order of the Logos. So is the whole World... In this sense, JP is as far as one can go in the cognitive experience of the Logos (higher ideal orders of reality) while still remaining entirely within the intellectual gestures. With such a grasp on his stance, it is difficult for me to imagine that he seeks meaning/ideas as somehow contained in the LLM statistics or even in human-written text.
It's not that any of this is difficult to discern in JP's talks, only you don't give yourself a chance to discern it. Such motivations lead you to selectively ignore anything that cuts against the narrative and only latch onto those isolated parts of a video that make you feel that something is fishy, something needs to be 'called out' as anti-spiritual. If you aren't approaching with such a motivation, then it shouldn't be difficult to directly address JP's substantive reasoning, within its
whole context, without imposing your personal feelings of "manipulation" onto the ideas expressed. Otherwise, you don't need to spend time on JP, and you also don't need to spend time trying to convince the rest of us that the Christ-Logos impulse that is obviously driving his thinking, isn't actually there.
Federica wrote:Specifically the question of assisted suicide is a very interesting one from a spiritual scientific perspective, I can already sense there are many factors involved, although I would need to think it through more carefully. Of course, if our friend simply gets tired of life's struggles and asks us to help him/her end it, that is a straightforward "no" since we are contributing to the abrupt interruption of karmic destiny and that will create a very disoriented experience between death and rebirth. The interesting questions always emerge at the extreme boundary cases, like a family member who has lapsed into a deep coma and the living body is only artificially sustained by life support. Are we simply chaining their souls to the Earthly spectrum in this way for selfish reasons? I don't know.
Great, that's appreciated, and I would like to sooner or later continue this exploration.
Ok, I look forward to your thoughts on how this issue can be approached from a spiritual scientific perspective, which I am sure we all agree is aligned with the Christ impulse since it is aimed toward unveiling the inner Truth of our ever-evolving existence.