The Epistemic Prison (1)

[Güney27]

Sure, thanks for the recommendations. When it comes to commentaries on philosophers, I try to seek out ones by people familiar with esoteric science, since they will cut more directly to the core of what is being expressed. With such a deeper perspective, we can even mine ideas from Heidegger's intuitions that Heidegger himself was unaware of. That's why I am interested in JDE's presentation once it is available, maybe he will make one or two free as a way to sample them first.

What did you read of him?

JDE has good videos. But it seems to me that he tries to construct an intellectual framework out of esoteric science. Nevertheless he is a very intelligent person capable of teaching complex stuff in a more or less simple way. I liked his lectures on occult science.

Only the lectures on 'What is Called Thinking'? I would be interested in your recommendations of lectures that explore the experience of thinking.

https://www.beyng.com/pages/en/BremenLe ... Thing.html

This is the English version of his lecture GA79 “Das Ding” (the thing)
Here you can see his thinking approach in his style of thinking about things. I would love to hear your thoughts on this short writing. Maybe you could connect his approach with Steiners SS instead of JDE’s. Nevertheless I found this lecture mind blowing. It’s about 10 pages or so.

[AshvinP]

What did you read of him?

JDE has good videos. But it seems to me that he tries to construct an intellectual framework out of esoteric science. Nevertheless he is a very intelligent person capable of teaching complex stuff in a more or less simple way. I liked his lectures on occult science.

Only the lectures on 'What is Called Thinking'? I would be interested in your recommendations of lectures that explore the experience of thinking.

https://www.beyng.com/pages/en/BremenLe ... Thing.html

This is the English version of his lecture GA79 “Das Ding” (the thing)
Here you can see his thinking approach in his style of thinking about things. I would love to hear your thoughts on this short writing. Maybe you could connect his approach with Steiners SS instead of JDE’s. Nevertheless I found this lecture mind blowing. It’s about 10 pages or so.

Thanks, Guney, that is indeed an illustrative article!

We can always draw infinite correspondences between such intuitive philosophical explorations and the findings of spiritual science, since they are exploring the same ideal territory, i.e. the inner structure and dynamics of spiritual activity. Here are just a few things I noticed, which maybe we can discuss and elaborate on.

"The thinghood of the vessel by no means rests in the material of which it consists, but instead in the emptiness that holds."

That points to what we have referred to as the 'liminal spaces' between perceptions where invisible spiritual activity weaves. We do not encounter the reality of that spiritual activity by focusing on the content of perceptions ('the material of which it consists'), but on the invisible functions and gestures implicit in that content.

"Sufficiently thought and genuinely said, where it is essentially performed pouring is: donating, sacrificing, and therefore giving."

Thinking is our most intimate experience of the sacrificial 'pouring' essence of reality. The life of thinking activity continually extinguishes itself in our finished mental pictures such that the latter can become its firm support, so we can awaken and orient to the flow of existence.

"Only for this reason can pouring become, as soon as its essence atrophies, a mere filling up and emptying out, until it finally degenerates into the ordinary serving of drinks. Pouring is not a mere gushing in and out."

The sacred context in which our thinking flows has been obscured from intellectual vision, clouded by habitual soul tendencies, leading to the institutions, events, rituals, festivals, capacities, objects, etc. of ordinary life becoming decadent. We start to flatten out that context, encompass it as perceptual content, and imagine it is already well understood (or doesn't need to be understood), taking it for granted (such as how we produce the inner voice, which now merely 'gushes in and out'). Spiritual science traces much of how this atrophying has unfolded through the epochs.

"In the gift of the pour that is an oblation, the divinities abide in their way, divinities who receive back the gift of the giving as the gift of a donation."

Our living thinking that paints intuitive meaning as a means of consciously anchoring and orienting to that meaning, such that we can more smoothly and effectively pursue our high ideals, is experienced from the perspective of the Divine beings who structure our soul space as a loving offering, a gift. What they have given to us as imaginative, emotional, and volitional 'substance' to work with has been returned to them, enriched (remember the parable of the talents).

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA162/En ... 03p01.html

Thus, all that to-day can be developed with the help of the earthly man will progress further, and then, after the ages during which something new will have continually been developed, will arise something which this earth man can now conceive as the highest flower, the apex of the Spiritual evolution of the earth. And out of this conception will be born the power by which earth man upon Jupiter can continue his progress through himself. Thus, we can say: The conceptions of earth man become impulses—through the Soul-contents of the most evolved of humanity—for the evolution of humanity upon Jupiter.
...
Now you will see that we can look deeply into the direction taken by us in the Cosmos. And when we can consider how man will have evolved—as he has progressed up to our times—all that the earthly man can yield, and begins at a higher stage where he will no longer be able to contribute anything more as earth man—when he must aspire to things beyond the powers of earthly humanity—when we thus ponder over the subject, we know why we cultivate Spiritual Science. We then know that the pursuit of Spiritual science has a profound import, and feel how brutally abstract are the questions propounded by philosophical temperaments: What is the ultimate aim of mankind? We have quite enough to do if we aim at the next goal!

And we might ask: Can not this Science of the Spirit—conscious of its task in the Cosmos—truly move our hearts, penetrate our minds and consciousness? But we feel that in us abides something that is the seed of the future in the Cosmos! And we can truly transform what we thus carry in us as knowledge into a pure mental and soul content.

"The fouring essences as the appropriating mirror-play of the ones that are simply entrusted to each other. The fouring essences as the worlding of world." 

We can see how he nebulously intuits the fourfold human organization throughout this article, which mirrors the wider World (macrocosm), how they all overlap and play into one another in various ways. 

[Güney27]

Only the lectures on 'What is Called Thinking'? I would be interested in your recommendations of lectures that explore the experience of thinking.

https://www.beyng.com/pages/en/BremenLe ... Thing.html

This is the English version of his lecture GA79 “Das Ding” (the thing)
Here you can see his thinking approach in his style of thinking about things. I would love to hear your thoughts on this short writing. Maybe you could connect his approach with Steiners SS instead of JDE’s. Nevertheless I found this lecture mind blowing. It’s about 10 pages or so.

Thanks, Guney, that is indeed an illustrative article!

We can always draw infinite correspondences between such intuitive philosophical explorations and the findings of spiritual science, since they are exploring the same ideal territory, i.e. the inner structure and dynamics of spiritual activity. Here are just a few things I noticed, which maybe we can discuss and elaborate on.

"The thinghood of the vessel by no means rests in the material of which it consists, but instead in the emptiness that holds."

That points to what we have referred to as the 'liminal spaces' between perceptions where invisible spiritual activity weaves. We do not encounter the reality of that spiritual activity by focusing on the content of perceptions ('the material of which it consists'), but on the invisible functions and gestures implicit in that content.

"Sufficiently thought and genuinely said, where it is essentially performed pouring is: donating, sacrificing, and therefore giving."

Thinking is our most intimate experience of the sacrificial 'pouring' essence of reality. The life of thinking activity continually extinguishes itself in our finished mental pictures such that the latter can become its firm support, so we can awaken and orient to the flow of existence.

"Only for this reason can pouring become, as soon as its essence atrophies, a mere filling up and emptying out, until it finally degenerates into the ordinary serving of drinks. Pouring is not a mere gushing in and out."

The sacred context in which our thinking flows has been obscured from intellectual vision, clouded by habitual soul tendencies, leading to the institutions, events, rituals, festivals, capacities, objects, etc. of ordinary life becoming decadent. We start to flatten out that context, encompass it as perceptual content, and imagine it is already well understood (or doesn't need to be understood), taking it for granted (such as how we produce the inner voice, which now merely 'gushes in and out'). Spiritual science traces much of how this atrophying has unfolded through the epochs.

"In the gift of the pour that is an oblation, the divinities abide in their way, divinities who receive back the gift of the giving as the gift of a donation."

Our living thinking that paints intuitive meaning as a means of consciously anchoring and orienting to that meaning, such that we can more smoothly and effectively pursue our high ideals, is experienced from the perspective of the Divine beings who structure our soul space as a loving offering, a gift. What they have given to us as imaginative, emotional, and volitional 'substance' to work with has been returned to them, enriched (remember the parable of the talents).

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA162/En ... 03p01.html

Thus, all that to-day can be developed with the help of the earthly man will progress further, and then, after the ages during which something new will have continually been developed, will arise something which this earth man can now conceive as the highest flower, the apex of the Spiritual evolution of the earth. And out of this conception will be born the power by which earth man upon Jupiter can continue his progress through himself. Thus, we can say: The conceptions of earth man become impulses—through the Soul-contents of the most evolved of humanity—for the evolution of humanity upon Jupiter.
...
Now you will see that we can look deeply into the direction taken by us in the Cosmos. And when we can consider how man will have evolved—as he has progressed up to our times—all that the earthly man can yield, and begins at a higher stage where he will no longer be able to contribute anything more as earth man—when he must aspire to things beyond the powers of earthly humanity—when we thus ponder over the subject, we know why we cultivate Spiritual Science. We then know that the pursuit of Spiritual science has a profound import, and feel how brutally abstract are the questions propounded by philosophical temperaments: What is the ultimate aim of mankind? We have quite enough to do if we aim at the next goal!

And we might ask: Can not this Science of the Spirit—conscious of its task in the Cosmos—truly move our hearts, penetrate our minds and consciousness? But we feel that in us abides something that is the seed of the future in the Cosmos! And we can truly transform what we thus carry in us as knowledge into a pure mental and soul content.

"The fouring essences as the appropriating mirror-play of the ones that are simply entrusted to each other. The fouring essences as the worlding of world." 

We can see how he nebulously intuits the fourfold human organization throughout this article, which mirrors the wider World (macrocosm), how they all overlap and play into one another in various ways. 

Wow, you nailed everything perfectly!

Heidegger oriented himself into the first person stream of experience. He wrestled a lot with the Cartesian style of thinking. He tried to experience meaning (being) instead; the way the phenomena occur in our real experience. Phenomena have always meaning, some are welcoming and sympathetic, others are antipathetic. Somehow we live always in a stream of meaningful states of experience before we analyze and interpret them (which is the habitual mode of thinking about experience from the side which Heidegger criticized so much). Heidegger asked how that is possible. We never experience anything devoid of meaning, even if we don’t know what we experience, it has the meaning of the unknown. Heidegger don’t thought of being as a thing that give other things its standing existence, but as the meaningful occurrence of things (seiende/beings), because we really se meaning, not “things” in our pre philosophical life.

For Heidegger thinking isn’t just a voice that analyzes perceptions in a subjective bubble. I would say that Heidegger is gone much further than Kant, bergson or JP. I sometimes get the feeling of reading a spiritual books rather than philosophical one (well maybe there isn’t a sharp distinction between them).

In Heidegger is really much potential for future philosophy. It’s very interesting how he and Steiner came to very similar points which can and should be highlighted. But Heidegger work is much more complicated. He’s writing style is very different and complex because he creates a ton of neologisms. And he don’t write in classical philosophical language often. Steiner is much clearer and he is more ordered. In the end Heidegger has his limits too; it’s the task of future philosophers to starts where Heidegger has stopped and think further his limitations. I’m really happy to discuss his work with you. What’s your opinion on the potential impact (he had a lot impact on philosophy in the last century, probably the most) on thinking if we could go further than Heidegger, I.e start where he left.

Ps:
Interestingly I have the feeling that OMA is really near to PoF when he talks about the Ideal. When we chose an ideal we really concentrate our whole being in becoming that ideal, so we start to become conscious of the contextual impulses that had been guiding us so far. I always thought that there is a difference but it seems that there isn’t really a dividing line.

[AshvinP]

What’s your opinion on the potential impact (he had a lot impact on philosophy in the last century, probably the most) on thinking if we could go further than Heidegger, I.e start where he left.

Isn't that what we are already doing and what Steiner already did?

There are many interesting philosophers who worked from within the Anthroposophical stream and who, I would say, brought philosophy much further. Massimo Scaligero is a great example, who also created a unique style with many neologisms. I have been reviewing the lectures and Q&A that Federica transcribed for us, and they are really deep and excellent. MS had a profound understanding of where all the various philosophies and spiritual practices fit into the evolutionary process.

But as Cleric mentioned before, the real obstacle is not finding a way forward for philosophy, since we have already found it in the path of intuitive thinking, but the broader population developing an interest in this path. As I discussed with Felipe, it is an active path of self-knowledge and transformation, where the objects of our knowledge also know us and transform our understanding of 'who I am' and 'what reality is'. That is what is most resisted in our time and we should be able to sense this resistance intimately within ourselves as well. It is exactly as you and OMA say - we need to become the Ideals that we normally only think about from a safe distance. Only in this way can we develop creative ways of extending philosophy, science, art, and human cultural pursuits in general, such that they serve the common Good.

[Cleric]

What is your opinion on Heidegger? Did you read him or books about him? I find many similarities to Heidegger in your essays and sometimes it seems like you have read something of his work.

I haven't read anything from him. Actually, I have very limited experience with philosophy. I learned something about it only in retrospect, after gaining some orientation on the inner path. Many of the philosophers I only know because they have been mentioned here. The Riddles of Philosophy have been of the greatest value to me. I'm not saying that it is enough to get acquainted with a summary of philosophies - although RoP is not that - but it has helped me to understand the philosophies through the souls of the philosophers. If we can get into their soul constellation it is almost as if we can begin thinking as they did. Because at its core it is really a matter of a specific constellation of forces (much in the way described in Human and Cosmic Thought). For example, the Schopenhauerian mode should be mostly recognizable to most of us now. It's only because it is so common and employed by many modern thinkers and people with whom we have had the chance to converse here. Once we can place ourselves in that mode, we can really see how the whole philosophy can take form. I'm not saying that this is an effortless process (as if we put the starting conditions and everything assembles by itself). It's interesting that in this way we can learn quite a lot about the philosophy if we read something of the philosopher's biography. The more we can resonate with their unique soul perspective and destiny, the more the philosophy will be felt like fitting LEGO blocks in the intuitive context. In short, it is a very significant inner experience when we begin to feel that a certain philosophy is of very little value when taken outside the living soul context.

Imagine the soul spaces of thinkers today who strive for the expansion of consciousness in the right way. Imagine these inner spaces as concentric and superimposed with ours. Most of it is not registered within our perspective but in certain flow patterns we overlap. If we could take only these overlaps and seek their center of coherence, we would feel something of the higher perspective of Michael (at least as far as we are speaking of the new thinking). Hopefully, there will be more and more people who seem to speak of the same inner flow, even though we may have not read the same books. It is important to realize that the space that our consciousness evolves and expands into is not a featureless blank slate but already has some higher-order structure, which we'll fill with the details. It is important, because in meditation and prayer we need to surrender to that structured flow, to feel its intuitive evolutionary curvature and take our part within it.

[Güney27]

What’s your opinion on the potential impact (he had a lot impact on philosophy in the last century, probably the most) on thinking if we could go further than Heidegger, I.e start where he left.

Isn't that what we are already doing and what Steiner already did?

There are many interesting philosophers who worked from within the Anthroposophical stream and who, I would say, brought philosophy much further. Massimo Scaligero is a great example, who also created a unique style with many neologisms. I have been reviewing the lectures and Q&A that Federica transcribed for us, and they are really deep and excellent. MS had a profound understanding of where all the various philosophies and spiritual practices fit into the evolutionary process.

But as Cleric mentioned before, the real obstacle is not finding a way forward for philosophy, since we have already found it in the path of intuitive thinking, but the broader population developing an interest in this path. As I discussed with Felipe, it is an active path of self-knowledge and transformation, where the objects of our knowledge also know us and transform our understanding of 'who I am' and 'what reality is'. That is what is most resisted in our time and we should be able to sense this resistance intimately within ourselves as well. It is exactly as you and OMA say - we need to become the Ideals that we normally only think about from a safe distance. Only in this way can we develop creative ways of extending philosophy, science, art, and human cultural pursuits in general, such that they serve the common Good.

In some extent I would agree with you but Steiner didn’t had a really big impact in the philosophical world. He is known for his occult books or his pedagogical thoughts, but very few people know his philosophical work. Heidegger was the father of continental philosophy and was arguably the most important philosopher in the last century. So there is really much potential left in his work. In these times most people won’t read Steiner or take him seriously due to his Esoteric views. So Heidegger may be a good point to start. I don’t disagree with you that Steiner did go further in many aspects.

Thanks for re-mentioning MS. I got 2 books from him which I have to study more intensive. He seems to really know what he speaks about. His book “the light” is really good for meditative reading. I started to read it again today. Most of anthroposophical writer I have encountered seem very suspect. MS is very insightful and seems to communicate knowledge he lived. I like his approach of building a bridge to other meditative schools too.


I really wanted to share a passage of OMA concerning light :

The sunrise is a symbol and this symbol can be found in every manifestation of life. Everything that progresses, elevates itself, and flourishes is linked to the sunrise. And it is up to you to feel it. It all depends on the faith, the conviction with which you concentrate on the sun. Depending on your attitude, the sun will become a real, living, powerful presence, or it will simply remain a physical object, which gives you light and warmth of course, but no more than an electric light bulb or a stove.

[AshvinP]

What’s your opinion on the potential impact (he had a lot impact on philosophy in the last century, probably the most) on thinking if we could go further than Heidegger, I.e start where he left.

Isn't that what we are already doing and what Steiner already did?

There are many interesting philosophers who worked from within the Anthroposophical stream and who, I would say, brought philosophy much further. Massimo Scaligero is a great example, who also created a unique style with many neologisms. I have been reviewing the lectures and Q&A that Federica transcribed for us, and they are really deep and excellent. MS had a profound understanding of where all the various philosophies and spiritual practices fit into the evolutionary process.

But as Cleric mentioned before, the real obstacle is not finding a way forward for philosophy, since we have already found it in the path of intuitive thinking, but the broader population developing an interest in this path. As I discussed with Felipe, it is an active path of self-knowledge and transformation, where the objects of our knowledge also know us and transform our understanding of 'who I am' and 'what reality is'. That is what is most resisted in our time and we should be able to sense this resistance intimately within ourselves as well. It is exactly as you and OMA say - we need to become the Ideals that we normally only think about from a safe distance. Only in this way can we develop creative ways of extending philosophy, science, art, and human cultural pursuits in general, such that they serve the common Good.

In some extent I would agree with you but Steiner didn’t had a really big impact in the philosophical world. He is known for his occult books or his pedagogical thoughts, but very few people know his philosophical work. Heidegger was the father of continental philosophy and was arguably the most important philosopher in the last century. So there is really much potential left in his work. In these times most people won’t read Steiner or take him seriously due to his Esoteric views. So Heidegger may be a good point to start. I don’t disagree with you that Steiner did go further in many aspects.

Yes, unfortunately, what is most popular or influential in academic circles no longer coincides with what is most fruitful for developing full human potential. Steiner's philosophical work was only meant to be a preparation and a bridge to spiritual science, and I think that's the way it needs to be if our philosophical endeavors are not to become idols. When we think about it, the only reason we are able to mine so much spiritual value from Heidegger is because we have already worked through PoF and begun stretching our inner space of spiritual activity. Those who adopted his thought without such a foundation, treating it more like an end-itself, could have strayed into all sorts of other, perhaps anti-spiritual directions. It's hard to ignore the fact that Heidegger himself joined the Nazi party (something we could not imagine Steiner doing if he was still alive). That goes to show that these constellations of philosophical mental pictures are only valuable for unfolding the full human potential if they serve as an anchor, a portal for the path of spiritual science, i.e. intuitive research into the inner constraints that draws on moral intuitions, inspirations, and imaginations which transform the knower from the inside-out.

I really wanted to share a passage of OMA concerning light :

The sunrise is a symbol and this symbol can be found in every manifestation of life. Everything that progresses, elevates itself, and flourishes is linked to the sunrise. And it is up to you to feel it. It all depends on the faith, the conviction with which you concentrate on the sun. Depending on your attitude, the sun will become a real, living, powerful presence, or it will simply remain a physical object, which gives you light and warmth of course, but no more than an electric light bulb or a stove.

Great passage! That also reminds me of his exercise of 'drinking' in the Sunlight. I try to do that in the morning whenever I can remember. In a certain sense, the aim is to get to the point where imbibing the etheric streams carrying higher moral impulses feels just as concrete and nourishing as eating or drinking physical substances. That is attained, of course, by living into and feeling out the inner structure of our imaginative activity.

[Güney27]

I think I can mine more meaning out of his texts than 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe we could discuss his works more intensely than before; I have to read more first. But certainly his work is very fruitful, Georg kühlewind and Witzenmann are good philosophers to. They are starting their work from the foundation Rudolf Steiner layed out with PoF. For example:

Many signs give rise to the theory that dogmatism is the evil of the present time. By way of a radical investigation, it can be acknowledged that the ancient dogmatism of revealed truth could possibly have incarnated today in the form of a rigorous rationality that is hardly identifiable—the dogmatism of dialectics and science. Endowed with semblances of progress, dogmatism can be recognized by the fact that each doctrine claims to proceed from its own object as if from an original fact, which is nonetheless conceived by means of an inner act that determines its basic value, but which, as such, eludes the subject involved in the research. For this reason, the object becomes the foundation, without really being it. In the intuition from which it moves, the subject does not recognize itself as a collaborative member of the foundation. As investigators or theorists, we identify our own “past thought” with the object; but this goes unnoticed. For this reason, the object arises before us as an entity founded upon itself. Rising to an original fact, sufficient unto itself, the object becomes an unconscious idol—accepted, in reality, according to a subtle faith. The unconscious faith is further developed in relation to the phenomenology that ensues from it—idolatry truly rises again in a scientific-technological form. The subsequent inductive-deductive process is the dogmatic edifice that is logical, dialectical, and rigorous. But it is erected on a mystical foundation. The presupposition—as an inner act, which, possessed, could guarantee the development of the cognitive process according to reality—escapes conscious thought. Therefore, the object in its alterity excludes the human being. The dehumanization of culture has no other explanation. The datum of science or dialectics acquires universal value outside the thinking that has validated it. Details illegitimately assume a universal role. It is the dogmatism that today pits one opinion against another, one human being against another, dialectic against dialectic, trend against trend, nation against nation—according to an incommunicability in which the logical-deductive relation substitutes the original relation that has been eliminated. The obtuse condition of thought nonetheless goes unnoticed, thanks to the perfect mechanism of the dialectic that moves it and that gives it the illusion of moving on its own. For this reason, it does not grasp anything of reality except what is thinkable and measurable—its most impoverished aspect, which presumes to be the whole of reality. The remedy for this situation—which today is the foundation of a collective mental alteration unobserved by most, but surfaces as the common human neurosis, as the mystical persuasion of dialectical solubility of the questions truly impenetrable to dialectical thought, and as the incurable polemics between individuals, between factions—is the conscious restitution of the dynamic element of thinking, namely, a modern path to meditation. It is the reason for this manual, whose practical content springs from the experience of Western spiritual science, which includes, within itself, the ultimate essence of oriental techniques

.

Massimo Scaligero “A practical Manual of Meditation” (preface)

[AshvinP]

I think I can mine more meaning out of his texts than 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe we could discuss his works more intensely than before; I have to read more first. But certainly his work is very fruitful, Georg kühlewind and Witzenmann are good philosophers to. They are starting their work from the foundation Rudolf Steiner layed out with PoF. For example:

Yes, those three are great, although I find Witzenmann the most difficult to penetrate. I am sure that will change over time. His treatise on 'What is Meditation?' is really helpful to work through. Scaligero's practical manual is also very accessible and helpful. From Kühlewinde, I have appreciated his book, 'From Normal to Healthy' the most so far.


But the usual “scientific” way of thinking, which is widespread, cannot come to terms with this idea of freedom because it lacks just this idea, the idea of the I. On the one hand we have force, mass, cause, atom, energy, and fields of force, and in that conceptual arena, I, friendship, morality, and freedom have no place. The subliminal conviction that man is completely unfree or predetermined, even in his consciousness, destroys the possibility of cognition and of moral action: truth and error, good and evil, have meaning only through freedom. It is also clear that human freedom has nothing to do with the indeterminability or unpredictability of physical processes: a chance event is not free. If I concentrate my attention on something, that is not a chance event.

If the self-evident feeling of freedom allows us to act, but the scientific way of thinking is unable to grasp freedom, then a contradiction lives in our consciousness that robs human decisions of their power and condemns us finally to a general laziness (to which we are prone in any case): If I am not free, then of course I can't do anything. The human being fails to notice the contradiction in this thought. And soul hygienic measures cannot be undertaken with the conviction that the human being is determined, which also makes it impossible to change one's attitude toward one's work or toward one's fellows. If man were determined, that is, unfree, even in his knowing, then he would not be able to know about this very circumstance. If he does have the possibility of freedom, but fails to realize it due to a scientific opinion about unfreedom, then he falls ill. If he discovers and practices his freedom in knowing, then this gradually radiates out through his actions. But he has to fight for his freedom on many fronts. Forgiving or reconciliation does not mean giving up without a struggle, and particularly not giving up one's inner freedom. It is not the purpose of the exercises in consciousness to make us complacently reconciled with ourselves.

In many of the soul's parts and members, the human being of today is already formed, molded, finished. His goal can only be to become more and more unfinished. But this can happen only by means of a beginning: through his autonomous decision and his actions, he himself begins to dissolve his already formed, habitual being. As soon as he begins, he receives help from his superconscious: the less the obstacle of the habitual man stands in the way of inspirations from above, the more the latter become new sources of power and orientation for him. In the phrases of Matthew 7:7, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” the emphasis is on man's activity, man's beginning.

Kuhlewind, Georg. From Normal to Healthy (pp. 216-217). Lindisfarne Books. Kindle Edition.