On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

[Cleric]

Hey Cleric,

I can follow the phenomenological investigations of thinking in your essays and also experience what you are talking about. In this sense, they describe active processes of our consciousness that, in naive consciousness, do not enter the sphere of attention. With some practice and concentration (as well as the will to truly participate), anyone can, after some time, recognize how sympathetic and antipathetic "forces" or feelings influence our thinking and actions. Your phenomenological investigations begin with the "given" facts of the acts of consciousness (they attempt to make them conscious through description) and conclude with the interpretation that we should remain open to the idea that these acts of consciousness (the constitution of consciousness) have no limits (as we commonly assume) but possess cosmic depths and are contextualized through their hierarchical activity.


You do not discuss the concepts of SS in your essays. I cannot respond to how one should phenomenologically describe things that are far from the everyday consciousness of the average person. However, my goal is not to describe such phenomena; rather, I am open and interested in these phenomena as described by others, though I cannot personally judge their accuracy with certainty. Therefore, I cannot answer your question. Steiner speaks of cosmic evolution, higher beings in a hierarchical order, spiritual spheres, etc. I am skeptical about the claim that these things are phenomenologically accessible or that anyone who honestly reflects on them can sense their truth. I engage in these discussions not merely to criticize but also to learn. However, I believe one can too quickly become convinced of something and then label it phenomenological.

That's fine. In the next essays, there will also be some elements of SS. It will be interesting to see whether they will be followable. I guess that it won't be so easy.

The problem is that the basic phenomenology that we are mainly engaged with here most of the time, can indeed be followed in an almost linear way. This is also why, whatever we do, things end up looking something like PoF in structure. This is not because of plagiarism but simply because we're following an inner development process, just like the books written on embryology by different authors would end up similar. However, when we begin to approach the deeper mysteries, one can say that there's still a somewhat linear direction of progress, but at each step we need to balance more and more aspects of the inner flow. We've often used this image to illustrate it:



When starting with basic phenomenology rooted in the experience of thinking, we can make very quick progress by moving forward in almost linear steps. Yet, we know how even this can be stubbornly resisted, and we have many examples on the forum. So if people are unwilling to connect two dots which are so obviously side by side that one must almost exert themselves to prevent seeing the connection, how much less likely are they to grasp things when they need to hold three and more dots within their field of attention and effortfully seek the center of gravity, so to speak?

This is not difficult only for the reader but for the writer too. The first chapters of the phenomenology always pour out almost by themselves, simply because they follow a lawful progression. When we begin to advance into Imagination, however, it becomes more and more impossible to find a linear path that gradually builds up step by step. This is a great source of torture for me because I constantly struggle to find such a linear progression (the bridge that also Federica seeks), but, alas, I constantly need to explain something which inevitably feels a little floating. The overarching intuition that elucidates the disparate things is only gradually developed as the seemingly isolated concepts and inner flow patterns begin to be grasped from within a more stable perspective that coheres them, just like the intuition of a fern leaf coheres the dot perceptions above.

This becomes even more difficult as we move toward Inspiration and Intuition. Basically, nothing that we speak out of the Intuitive depths of existence can make sense as an isolated data point. This is also why we should have an individual approach when speaking about such things to someone. Without the sense that there's a deeper center of intuitive coherence, what we say will always sound as mere metaphysical speculation if not something worse (maybe we've simply lost our mind?).

Thus, I predict that when in the coming essays the line begins to move from simple phenomenology toward the facts of deeper experience, you'll also feel that things move into the speculative. Unfortunately, there's no simple way around this. And that's the reason it takes me so long to complete them. I keep writing and deleting, seeking more and more gradual approaches. It is exhausting. And it is constantly followed by the shadow of dissatisfaction because I see the so many ways in which objections can be raised. Yet, if I simply try to correct for every objection, then the whole probing process is slowed down. While one pixel is substantiated at length, the reader has already forgotten about the previous. At the same time, if many dots are poured with just a few words, they will sound very cryptic and abstract.

I'm writing this to point your attention that the higher phenomenology is not merely about connecting 'higher' concepts to our familiar stream of sensory perceptions and their mental replicas. Rather, it's about finding a more and more stable center within the complicated dynamics and thus intuiting deeper flow curvatures within which our normal conscious experience (even if it is phenomenologically oriented) streams.

This is one aspect. It is normal that the intellect should seek this gradual approach. What was said does not negate such an approach but only shows that certain patience and persistence are required. That's why one still needs at least some karmic inclination. There's something that must be giving us the sense "Even though these data points seem abstract and fleeting, maybe it's still worth it to persist a little more." Those who dogmatically refuse to accept anything unless it builds up as a simple linear progression, where each next step can be completely constructed as a reorganization of what is already known from the past, will unsurprisingly never find the sense of deeper reality. That the demand for such a convenient and linear approach is completely arbitrary, is evident even from everyday experiences. Imagine that the baby was to refuse acquiring language unless it was somehow instilled as a simple linear progression of pre-cognitive experiences. This doesn't make any sense. Not only can we not teach language by providing a handful of axiomatic words and then somehow 'derive' all the language from there, but also the whole role of language is to provide the conceptual lattice into which higher-order intuitions of existence can find their reflection. This is the key, and the thing that is most severly resisted - that the higher phenomenological development is not about simply having more exotic intellectual concepts that we glue to existing bodily/sensory experiences, but that our whole being should continuously accommodate something new, something that cannot be derived as simple juxtaposition of past experiences.

So the first aspect is more technical - it's simply that the intellect is dissatisfied when it turns out that its familiar flow-patterns, following convenient linear pipelines, must be grown beyond. The second aspect is deeper and can be traced to more obscure specifics of soul life. With that said, can you identify what it is in your case that offers the greatest resistance? First, I want to say that I think it is very good that at this stage in your life, at this age, you are strengthening your thinking. In this sense, the fact that you are currently ambivalent about SS does not need to be seen as a problem at all. It may simply signify that at this stage your soul urges you to do more probing, to develop a strong grip on the cold, speculating intellectual activity. But it can nevertheless be interesting to examine the kind of resistance. Is it because you cannot follow the things into the supersensible in the step-by-step manner that the intellect expects? Or is it that you have deeper feeling-resistance to some of the ideas that emerge from SS, such as karma, reincarnation, the evolutionary epochs, the hierarchy of nested forms of being, and so on?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

No, that’s not what I mean. It’s more about how Steiner criticizes Platonism (his conception of which may not be entirely accurate) while incorporating Platonic elements into his own philosophy. His philosophy presupposes a point that is not phenomenologically accessible: a chaotic aggregate of “phenomena” that is then organized into a “world” through thinking. Steiner tries to find a presuppositionless starting point, but this is impossible. We always have a certain pre-understanding, embedded in a framework of connections, in a culture, in a language, before we can even begin to engage in the theoretical contemplations that Steiner undertakes in his philosophy. Steiner then attempts to build his philosophy from this point, which is metaphysical because it is posited as a foundation from pure reason.

Steiner proceeds to explain how knowledge comes about, attempting to clarify how phenomena are known, which also means how phenomena manifest (since Steiner does not assume metaphysical realism). Here, he assigns thinking the role of giving meaning, as well as determining what phenomena are as such or otherwise. He tries to show how thinking, which has a different connotation for him than for many other thinkers, constitutes the world. I think this is problematic; Steiner overlooks what phenomena and their givenness are. In a certain sense, Heidegger went further than Steiner, because instead of asking about the subject’s knowledge (or epistemological questions), Heidegger asks about the meaning of Being. Steiner starts with the question of how knowledge arises, which leads to the realm of objects (the known world), thus to an ontic sphere, while Heidegger asks about Being, that which grants existence to the ontic.

I find Steiner’s philosophy interesting, but ultimately it is abstract and theoretical, with several problems. The whole idea that our thinking acts as a resistance to cognitively recognize how certain resistances press into its activity is not something only Steiner recognized; the Church Fathers of the Orthodox Church, for example, knew this long ago, as did the Stoics, among others. I wouldn’t say that Steiner arrived at the ideas of Anthroposophy through rational conclusions, but rather through his study of occult writings and his own experiences. It’s fine to take them as a description and try to experience them through training, but it would be dishonest to proclaim them as reality before having experienced them oneself (I’m not talking about visions here). OMA or BD also touch on similar things, but they only address them briefly and teach much more practical elements. Ultimately, it’s a huge question whether we should attribute Steiner to metaphysics or not. I would only conditionally attribute him to phenomenology. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that Steiner’s esoteric traditions could become phenomenological realities.

Thanks, Guney, this makes things much clearer for me. I believe Steiner's philosophical endeavor is being misperceived, and I hope you remain open to that possibility.

I am also not intending to be critical or harsh, so please don't take it that way. And I am in no way trying to convince you to do anything or follow anyone. I am simply noticing some problematic assertions in your characterization of PoF (by which I mean his general epistemic project), and I assume we are all interested in ensuring that we first understand the existential approaches we are contemplating and critiquing. We can at least entertain as a serious possibility that we are not yet orienting properly to something important.

FB also criticized the chaotic aggregate as a non-phenonemological presupposition, a theoretical axiom, which then colors Steiner's entire epistemic project. You may remember we discussed it at some length on this thread. 

In short, we only feel like this 'chaotic aggregate' is an unwarranted axiom if we are failing to see it as an imaginative exercise that prepares the foundation for becoming more sensitive to what our cognitive movements contribute to the perceptual flow. When that participatory element is missing from our perspective, then such an example-exercise can only look like a theoretical claim about "experience without thinking". It feels like the premise for some kind of logical argument that may 'prove' how Thinking constructs reality, the first link in a chain of familiar thoughts that will lead us to the desired conclusion. Yet, as Cleric also described in his last post, the intent of such phenomenology is to open our souls to unfamiliar inner dynamics that cannot be linearly derived from past experiences and concepts. 

For example, we know in Ch III, Steiner speaks about the exceptional state and says, 'we can never observe our present thinking'. Observation speaks to experiential states that have already receded from the 'event horizon' of spiritual activity and can thus be encompassed in memory pictures. We certainly experience this event horizon, indeed our consciousness always lives at the horizon, but it can never be encompassed by memory pictures, it is always prior to the memory flow. This distinction has great implications for how we inwardly orient toward our present thinking and the formative influences that shape it. By intimately experiencing this distinction (not only absorbing its content as part of a logical argument), the cognitive movements of PoF become an artistic exercise and a gate to imaginative cognition, i.e., to those degrees of inner freedom which are so far unfamiliar and unsuspected, unencompassed by our memory pictures from the natural and cultural flow of life from childhood to adulthood. 

Steiner also made clear in GA3 that there is no need to go looking for some experiential state of a chaotic aggregate, that we will never find such a state.

If a being with a fully developed human intelligence were suddenly created out of nothing and then confronted the world, the first impression made on his senses and his thinking would be something like what I have just characterized as the directly given world-picture. In practice, man never encounters this world-picture in this form at any time in his life; he never experiences a division between a purely passive awareness of the “directly-given” and a thinking recognition of it. This fact could lead to doubt about my description of the starting point for a theory of knowledge. Hartmann says for example:

“We are not concerned with the hypothetical content of consciousness in a child which is just becoming conscious or in an animal at the lowest level of life, since the philosophizing human being has no experience of this; if he tries to reconstruct the content of consciousness of beings on primitive biogenetic or ontogenetic levels, he must base his conclusions on the way he experiences his own consciousness. Our first task, therefore, is to establish the content of man's consciousness when he begins philosophical reflection.”2

The objection to this, however, is that the world-picture with which we begin philosophical reflection already contains predicates mediated through cognition. These cannot be accepted uncritically, but must be carefully removed from the world-picture so that it can be considered free of anything introduced through the process of knowledge. This division between the “given” and the “known” will not in fact, coincide with any stage of human development; the boundary must be drawn artificially. But this can be done at every level of development so long as we draw the dividing line correctly between what confronts us free of all conceptual definitions, and what cognition subsequently makes of it.

It might be objected here that I have already made use of a number of conceptual definitions in order to extract from the world-picture as it appears when completed by man, that other world-picture which I described as the directly given. However, what we have extracted by means of thought does not characterize the directly given world-picture, nor define nor express anything about it; what it does is to guide our attention to the dividing line where the starting point for cognition is to be found. The question of truth or error, correctness or incorrectness, does not enter into this statement, which is concerned with the moment preceding the point where a theory of knowledge begins. It serves merely to guide us deliberately to this starting point. 

It is no different than what Cleric did in FoHC. It is nothing other than inviting us to become more sensitive to the implicit intuitive context in which our perceptual flow takes shape and direction. He was not asking us to believe the alien dwelling is a reality that can be experienced if we look for it, but rather the image serves as an imaginative anchor for our recursive thinking to attain closer proximity to its inner cognitive gestures, which are normally merged into the unconscious intuitive background. We start to feel out how, via such gestures, we subtly contribute in establishing an intuitive orientation to the perceptual flow, an intuitive orientation we normally take for granted and even attribute to the perceptions themselves (it is similar to working with crafted perceptual illusions, for example the bistable images, in that sense).

We should appreciate how approaching descriptive concepts in this way does not come easily for the modern intellect. To choose a random example, when I first came across Cleric's term "implosion" for the condensed memory flow, I kept thinking about the physical process of implosion and pictured some literal mechanism that somehow explains how spiritual activity manifests the perceptual flow. In other words, I simply couldn't connect the symbolic concept with the inner process that I am continually living through in my thinking. As Cleric suggested, that only comes with patience and persistence, as we trustingly observe our inner process from many symbolic angles. Even though "implosion" remained a little mystery for me, I never doubted that this was my limitation and that the concept actually testified to something quite simple and intuitive.  

Before we move on to anything else that you mentioned, I want to see if this is understood or whether you are still skeptical and, if so, the reasons why. Again, I'm not trying to treat you as a "beginner" in this domain, and you probably remember the points above from previous discussions, so I am simply trying to hone in on why the points all feel so unsatisfactory for you and you remain suspicious of these cognitive phenomenological foundations of spiritual science.

Another thing we can imagine is to simply erase the chaotic aggregate example from the text. Without that example, is there anything that fundamentally separates what Steiner was doing in PoF from what Cleric is doing in his essays here, such that we can attain to higher stages of congitive experience where we are no longer alone with our thinking ego but feel our inner process as woven into the fabric of contextual minds (not much unlike what Levin's biological research also points to)? Or are they both sneaking in theoretical presuppositions without realizing it? Why should we start investigating and explaining the nature of Being before we investigate what it means 'to investigate and explain', or put another way, before we investigate how Being is most intimately experienced in the process of knowing? 

[Güney27]

Thank you for your explanation, Ahsvin!

I believe a fundamental difference between us lies in how we read Steiner. It may be that I find him too abstract at certain points, while you are able to recreate his thought processes. Thanks to your efforts, I now better understand why Steiner adopts this artificial starting point. However, this does little to change my critical stance toward his theoretical perspective. At all times, we exist as embodied beings-in-the-world, within a sense context that provides us with possibilities for being. Our human essence is always embedded in this context and constituted by it. We have a certain pre-understanding of existence that is not propositional. Epistemology overlooks this pre-understanding of being and attempts to focus, from a theoretical perspective, on how propositional knowledge is possible, rather than hermeneutically exploring the ever-present sensory context. For Steiner, knowledge is concept and perception, which synthetically combine to form a "thing" known to us. The concept is just as much a part of reality (not a finished perception, as we might naively assume) as perception itself, and together they constitute the identity of a "thing." Thus, reality is not an external object that we, as *res cogitans*, contemplate; rather, it emerges and is actualized through the concept.

Here, Steiner once again overlooks the pre-propositional understanding of existence, which can be articulated but often is not. I don’t see how Steiner leads to an insight (phenomenologically) that our thinking is conceptualized through other conscious perspectives (spiritual beings).
It’s not about explaining being as if it were a static object of contemplation, but rather about inquiring into being itself, instead of focusing entirely on beings. I see possibilities for delving deeper into the "context of sense" through hermeneutics, but I have not yet found a true methodology (beyond initial approaches). Could this context be part of a much larger context, contextualized by the activities of other perspectives? Certainly. Can I verify or even approach this from my current perspective? Honestly, no.

[Güney27]

Hey Cleric,

I can follow the phenomenological investigations of thinking in your essays and also experience what you are talking about. In this sense, they describe active processes of our consciousness that, in naive consciousness, do not enter the sphere of attention. With some practice and concentration (as well as the will to truly participate), anyone can, after some time, recognize how sympathetic and antipathetic "forces" or feelings influence our thinking and actions. Your phenomenological investigations begin with the "given" facts of the acts of consciousness (they attempt to make them conscious through description) and conclude with the interpretation that we should remain open to the idea that these acts of consciousness (the constitution of consciousness) have no limits (as we commonly assume) but possess cosmic depths and are contextualized through their hierarchical activity.


You do not discuss the concepts of SS in your essays. I cannot respond to how one should phenomenologically describe things that are far from the everyday consciousness of the average person. However, my goal is not to describe such phenomena; rather, I am open and interested in these phenomena as described by others, though I cannot personally judge their accuracy with certainty. Therefore, I cannot answer your question. Steiner speaks of cosmic evolution, higher beings in a hierarchical order, spiritual spheres, etc. I am skeptical about the claim that these things are phenomenologically accessible or that anyone who honestly reflects on them can sense their truth. I engage in these discussions not merely to criticize but also to learn. However, I believe one can too quickly become convinced of something and then label it phenomenological.

That's fine. In the next essays, there will also be some elements of SS. It will be interesting to see whether they will be followable. I guess that it won't be so easy.

The problem is that the basic phenomenology that we are mainly engaged with here most of the time, can indeed be followed in an almost linear way. This is also why, whatever we do, things end up looking something like PoF in structure. This is not because of plagiarism but simply because we're following an inner development process, just like the books written on embryology by different authors would end up similar. However, when we begin to approach the deeper mysteries, one can say that there's still a somewhat linear direction of progress, but at each step we need to balance more and more aspects of the inner flow. We've often used this image to illustrate it:



When starting with basic phenomenology rooted in the experience of thinking, we can make very quick progress by moving forward in almost linear steps. Yet, we know how even this can be stubbornly resisted, and we have many examples on the forum. So if people are unwilling to connect two dots which are so obviously side by side that one must almost exert themselves to prevent seeing the connection, how much less likely are they to grasp things when they need to hold three and more dots within their field of attention and effortfully seek the center of gravity, so to speak?

This is not difficult only for the reader but for the writer too. The first chapters of the phenomenology always pour out almost by themselves, simply because they follow a lawful progression. When we begin to advance into Imagination, however, it becomes more and more impossible to find a linear path that gradually builds up step by step. This is a great source of torture for me because I constantly struggle to find such a linear progression (the bridge that also Federica seeks), but, alas, I constantly need to explain something which inevitably feels a little floating. The overarching intuition that elucidates the disparate things is only gradually developed as the seemingly isolated concepts and inner flow patterns begin to be grasped from within a more stable perspective that coheres them, just like the intuition of a fern leaf coheres the dot perceptions above.

This becomes even more difficult as we move toward Inspiration and Intuition. Basically, nothing that we speak out of the Intuitive depths of existence can make sense as an isolated data point. This is also why we should have an individual approach when speaking about such things to someone. Without the sense that there's a deeper center of intuitive coherence, what we say will always sound as mere metaphysical speculation if not something worse (maybe we've simply lost our mind?).

Thus, I predict that when in the coming essays the line begins to move from simple phenomenology toward the facts of deeper experience, you'll also feel that things move into the speculative. Unfortunately, there's no simple way around this. And that's the reason it takes me so long to complete them. I keep writing and deleting, seeking more and more gradual approaches. It is exhausting. And it is constantly followed by the shadow of dissatisfaction because I see the so many ways in which objections can be raised. Yet, if I simply try to correct for every objection, then the whole probing process is slowed down. While one pixel is substantiated at length, the reader has already forgotten about the previous. At the same time, if many dots are poured with just a few words, they will sound very cryptic and abstract.

I'm writing this to point your attention that the higher phenomenology is not merely about connecting 'higher' concepts to our familiar stream of sensory perceptions and their mental replicas. Rather, it's about finding a more and more stable center within the complicated dynamics and thus intuiting deeper flow curvatures within which our normal conscious experience (even if it is phenomenologically oriented) streams.

This is one aspect. It is normal that the intellect should seek this gradual approach. What was said does not negate such an approach but only shows that certain patience and persistence are required. That's why one still needs at least some karmic inclination. There's something that must be giving us the sense "Even though these data points seem abstract and fleeting, maybe it's still worth it to persist a little more." Those who dogmatically refuse to accept anything unless it builds up as a simple linear progression, where each next step can be completely constructed as a reorganization of what is already known from the past, will unsurprisingly never find the sense of deeper reality. That the demand for such a convenient and linear approach is completely arbitrary, is evident even from everyday experiences. Imagine that the baby was to refuse acquiring language unless it was somehow instilled as a simple linear progression of pre-cognitive experiences. This doesn't make any sense. Not only can we not teach language by providing a handful of axiomatic words and then somehow 'derive' all the language from there, but also the whole role of language is to provide the conceptual lattice into which higher-order intuitions of existence can find their reflection. This is the key, and the thing that is most severly resisted - that the higher phenomenological development is not about simply having more exotic intellectual concepts that we glue to existing bodily/sensory experiences, but that our whole being should continuously accommodate something new, something that cannot be derived as simple juxtaposition of past experiences.

So the first aspect is more technical - it's simply that the intellect is dissatisfied when it turns out that its familiar flow-patterns, following convenient linear pipelines, must be grown beyond. The second aspect is deeper and can be traced to more obscure specifics of soul life. With that said, can you identify what it is in your case that offers the greatest resistance? First, I want to say that I think it is very good that at this stage in your life, at this age, you are strengthening your thinking. In this sense, the fact that you are currently ambivalent about SS does not need to be seen as a problem at all. It may simply signify that at this stage your soul urges you to do more probing, to develop a strong grip on the cold, speculating intellectual activity. But it can nevertheless be interesting to examine the kind of resistance. Is it because you cannot follow the things into the supersensible in the step-by-step manner that the intellect expects? Or is it that you have deeper feeling-resistance to some of the ideas that emerge from SS, such as karma, reincarnation, the evolutionary epochs, the hierarchy of nested forms of being, and so on?

Thank you for your response.

I’m very excited about your new essays. Your question about whether I can pinpoint the resistances I feel is quite difficult for me to address. I find Steiner’s work (or that of other Initiates) fascinating. However, in my view, Steiner lacks a sacramental and devotional dimension, which he sacrifices in favor of clear cognition. Compare Steiner to OMA or BD, who engage much more deeply with this dimension, or to Steiner with the Christian mystics. This is surely one reason for my resistance (though it has little to do with the cognitive aspect). Additionally, Steiner’s philosophical writings contain certain elements that, upon repeated reading, I reject. It’s also important to note that, even if one can follow your essays or Steiner’s texts and make interesting observations, the “means” to “verify” (or better, to personally experience?) the truth of Steiner’s descriptions of the deeper layers of the “subject” are ultimately lacking. Even philosophers who admire Steiner and are well-versed in the context of his philosophy (German Idealism, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc.) do not see his philosophy as a path to spiritual insight. This is not an argument that relies on authorities to discredit anything; rather, it highlights that without a bridge transforming Steiner’s concepts into lived experiences, they inevitably remain abstract and metaphysical. Take a look at most anthroposophists: they study Steiner’s texts for decades, becoming religious devotees who elevate him to a quasi-divine status and treat him as the sole credible spiritual source. Whether this has to do with Steiner himself is another matter. In conclusion, I would say this resistance has multiple causes, but a decisive factor is the leap from phenomenology to a supersensible reality, which would require me to take a leap of faith to affirm the existence of nature spirits or angels. These are, at least, the reasons I’m aware of.

[Federica]

I don’t see how Steiner leads to an insight (phenomenologically) that our thinking is conceptualized through other conscious perspectives (spiritual beings).

Güney,

When you speak of phenomenological insights, do you refer to insights to be arrived at only with reasoning - with the intellect - or do you include the phenomenology of higher cognition? Because the beings (which are the same as Being) can only be cognized in higher cognition. This is why they are not mentioned in PoF.

I believe the main question is that you are treating Steiner as a philosopher, comparing him to philosophers, while he is only a philosopher to the extent that he uses philosophy to connect the novelty of his activity in the world with what existed before him (in the mainstream), so all are enabled to follow him into the new level of understanding/being/doing which is evolutionary appropriate for our age. But this level has to unfold onto a larger cognitive spectrum that encompasses cognitive levels higher than the intellect. If the objections are on G3, G4 - where Steiner is operating philosophically to enact that connection, for our benefit - then it is appropriate, I believe, to remain in the field of what is phenomenologically accessible to the intellect, to begin with (though it may be very useful to bring the ideas into meditation as well). But if you are skeptical about the spiritual beings because they are not phenomenologically connected to thinking, this can only be addressed in higher phenomenology.

By the way, your objections on the chaotic aggregate and the pre-propositional understanding are treated in G3 Chapter 4:


“Now, we could be accused of having already accumulated a whole series of conceptual definitions in order to extract from the world-picture as it appears when completed by man, that other world-picture which I described as the directly given. However, what we have extracted by means of thought was not intended to characterize the directly given world-picture, to indicate any of its properties, nor to say anything about it at all; what it does is to guide our attention to the dividing line where cognition finds itself at its beginning. Therefore, there can be no question of the truth or error, correctness or incorrectness of those explanations which, in our view, precede the moment in which we stand at the beginning of epistemology. They only have the task of expediently leading us to this beginning. No one proceeding to consider epistemological questions could possibly be said to be standing at the starting point of cognition, for he already possesses a certain amount of knowledge. To remove from this all that has been contributed by cognition, and to establish a precognitive starting point, can only be done conceptually. But such concepts are not of value as knowledge; they have the purely negative function of removing from sight all that belongs to knowledge and of leading us to the point where knowledge first begins.”


So the chaotic aggregate of percepts is merely a convenience. It is a mere conceptual arrow that facilitates the identification of the point where we can start working phenomenologically towards the experience of how the thickness of thinking - the activity in which we are unobservably engaged - becomes the flatness of conceptual thought (flat thought-shadows) where intellect borders with imagination.

[AshvinP]

Thank you for your explanation, Ahsvin!

I believe a fundamental difference between us lies in how we read Steiner. It may be that I find him too abstract at certain points, while you are able to recreate his thought processes. Thanks to your efforts, I now better understand why Steiner adopts this artificial starting point. However, this does little to change my critical stance toward his theoretical perspective. At all times, we exist as embodied beings-in-the-world, within a sense context that provides us with possibilities for being. Our human essence is always embedded in this context and constituted by it. We have a certain pre-understanding of existence that is not propositional. Epistemology overlooks this pre-understanding of being and attempts to focus, from a theoretical perspective, on how propositional knowledge is possible, rather than hermeneutically exploring the ever-present sensory context. For Steiner, knowledge is concept and perception, which synthetically combine to form a "thing" known to us. The concept is just as much a part of reality (not a finished perception, as we might naively assume) as perception itself, and together they constitute the identity of a "thing." Thus, reality is not an external object that we, as *res cogitans*, contemplate; rather, it emerges and is actualized through the concept.

Here, Steiner once again overlooks the pre-propositional understanding of existence, which can be articulated but often is not. I don’t see how Steiner leads to an insight (phenomenologically) that our thinking is conceptualized through other conscious perspectives (spiritual beings).
It’s not about explaining being as if it were a static object of contemplation, but rather about inquiring into being itself, instead of focusing entirely on beings. I see possibilities for delving deeper into the "context of sense" through hermeneutics, but I have not yet found a true methodology (beyond initial approaches). Could this context be part of a much larger context, contextualized by the activities of other perspectives? Certainly. Can I verify or even approach this from my current perspective? Honestly, no.

Guney,

Steiner's epistemology, just as the epistemology we pursue on this forum through the essays/posts, is all about delving deeper into the implicit psycho-sensory context that is pre-propositional and orients our becoming at a much deeper level than ordinary thoughts. That is what I referred to as "implicit intuitive context" in the previous post, and which Cleric has also been referring to as 'intuitive context' in many of his essays. It is true that Steiner's works are more likely to be interpreted as a theoretical train of thought than, for example, Cleric's presentations. We now have the benefit of hindsight and many new developments that help us distill and refine the core presentation with concrete metaphors, illustrations, elaborations, and so on. Nevertheless, everything tends in the same direction of attaining spiritual sight. 

We have often compared phenomenological study (such as GA 1-4) to the practice of imaginative meditation, because both generate their fruits of insight into the deeper context through the same characteristic inner principles. By singularly devoting our attention to symbolic images and concepts that testify directly to the dynamic context of our real-time thinking, i.e., what we are doing in the very process of study-meditation, we resist certain flows of that context and grow more sensitive to how they are implicitly shaping our sensory perception and memory flow (through which we observe and think about the nature of our existence, our Being). None of this phenomenological work falls within the sphere of propositional thinking, it is all pre-propositional. What we experience in this way is simply condensed into images and concepts to stabilize and anchor the dynamic flux, and share insights with others. Spiritual science is nothing more complicated than that.

As we have discussed, the images and concepts must seem abstract and feel theoretical at first. This is how we all start out on the intuitive thinking path. What is most important is that we realize the issue resides with our sensitivity to the inner dynamics and our perspective on the concepts, rather than externalizing the issue onto Steiner, the structure of reality, the nature of thinking, the Demiurge and genetics, or anything else. On this forum, we have encountered a few souls who have hit certain limits when trying to delve into the context of sensory existence, and have wondered about a fruitful path forward. When presented with the phenomenological path of intuitive thinking (which necessarily coincides with spiritual science), the response seems to be, "No, that can't be the path forward, there is something wrong with it - it's too mystical, too theoretical, too fantastic, too tyrannical, etc... there must be another path into the deeper context and I will simply wait for that to reveal itself to me." 

I hope you can appreciate the conundrum this creates for the soul - it ends up continually avoiding, based on misperception and prejudice, the very thing that it is continually seeking. I can testify that, in some ways, the temptation toward this avoidance only grows stronger the more we probe the inner depth, because we begin to more acutely sense the formative forces that may alter our entire personality and all its identifications. There is no simple technical, cognitive, or hermeneutic trick to deal with this. We generally need to prayerfully stir deeper forces in our soul life that inspire patience, persistence, faith, trust, and courage. But, I can also testify that, over the course of only a few years, things went from entirely theoretical and abstract to much more concrete, to a much more expanded sense of intuitive orientation to the evolutionary narrative of contextual Minds in which my experiential states unfold. And you have started out much younger and probably have more potential for growth. If you persist, I am confident it won't be long before it dawns that spiritual science is exactly the 'hermeneutic' method into the pre-propositional context that you are seeking.

[AshvinP]

I don’t see how Steiner leads to an insight (phenomenologically) that our thinking is conceptualized through other conscious perspectives (spiritual beings).
It’s not about explaining being as if it were a static object of contemplation, but rather about inquiring into being itself, instead of focusing entirely on beings. I see possibilities for delving deeper into the "context of sense" through hermeneutics, but I have not yet found a true methodology (beyond initial approaches). Could this context be part of a much larger context, contextualized by the activities of other perspectives? Certainly. Can I verify or even approach this from my current perspective? Honestly, no.

I'd also like to add a quick note on the above. As usual, we can only start inquiring into the contextual perspectives from where they most overlap with our current state of attunement. If we expect to quickly understand how the Seraphim, for example, are implicitly shaping our conscious perspective, we are simply setting ourselves up for dissatisfaction and disappointment (although we can certainly explore those influences abstractly now, which will bear intuitive fruit down the road). Instead, we can begin inquiring into this context within our personal sphere of human relations.

For example, we may have flashes of insight into how often we are imagining how our family or friends (or even people we occasionally come across) see us, what they feel and think about us, what they say about us, how they interact with us, and so on. That sensitivity will only grow more intense as we continue the inner work and our soul becomes more receptive to environmental influences. Then we realize this isn't something we only do when we happen to become aware of it, but it is always running in the background of our imaginative life, shaping our perspective, our thoughts, feelings, speech, and deeds. Already at this stage, we can no longer have the illusion that we are a lone thinking ego, that we maintain a 'private' imaginative life of thoughts and memories which are untouched by other perspectives. We start to sense how all the interactions we have had, no matter how trivial they seemed, continue to reverberate in our soul context, interact in complex ways, and subtly steer the soul flow.

To be clear, this isn't something that we are simply thinking about abstractly in propositional concepts, but we can concretely feel how these other human perspectives are woven into our own, and we can intuitively sense how they modulate our agentic perspective. And it's not such a huge step from here to sensing how the Angelic hierarchy works in our imaginative life as well. Once we are willing to feel that life as being embedded within a wider human flow, we naturally and gradually become more receptive to the supra-human influences which work through collectives of souls stretched across time. These collectives comprise higher-order perspectives that have unique 'intuitive signatures' compared to the individual souls, just like the holistic experience of our hand feels distinct from the experience of moving particular fingers.

[Güney27]

To foster this conversation, I have articulated a thought of my own. What is presented here is very rough and incomplete, to avoid excessive length. My thoughts here are influenced by Heidegger’s *Being and Time* and his later works, as well as by Steiner and Cleric, though I have connected and modified certain aspects. These thoughts are part of significant philosophical projects I am pursuing, which are still in their preliminary stages and far from articulated in their potential depth. Here, I have, as mentioned, attempted to present them in a highly simplified and incomplete manner, at the cost of depth and clarity. I hope this will advance the conversation. I hope I have written in an understandable way.
--------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- -----------------

What would be a suitable starting point for a philosophy? A point without presuppositions? The structure of language? The faculty of cognition? Philosophy is constantly in search of such points, consciously or unconsciously. Descartes’ foundational point in the subject, which doubts the world and finds certainty solely in the *cogito*? Husserl’s phenomenology, inspired by the Cartesian approach, seeking a point at which no assumptions about any metaphysical reality are made, examining only how the phenomena of consciousness manifest and are constituted by the transcendental subject? Certainly, it depends on the question posed at the outset. Or would it perhaps be better to adopt a psychoanalytic perspective and explore how certain psychic processes give rise to the impulse toward philosophy, revealing their effects?

The path of philosophy, like that of the sciences, is usually (and always in the case of the sciences) theoretical, arising from a movement of thought that creates a separation between ordinary life and philosophical inquiry. Do we follow Descartes’ philosophy, which establishes an ontic separation between two substances and identifies a purportedly indubitable point of cognition? Do we follow Kant, who, in his *Critique of Pure Reason*, seeks to demonstrate that our categories do not reveal the essence of things but enable experience, forming part of an ideal transcendental subject through which things appear in their phenomenal form, rather than assuming our cognition apprehends things as they are? Do we follow Deleuze, for whom the subject is a product of various processes, and the world consists not of fixed identities but of a constant becoming, taking on the forms familiar to us in everyday life through various syntheses? Or Husserl, who seeks to understand how phenomena are constituted through intentionality? All these endeavors take place from a theoretical perspective, meaning they are posed from a standpoint foreign to everyday life with all its facets.

This is particularly evident in the concept of the world. What is a world? What does science study when it claims to investigate the mysteries of the world? Let us examine the concept of the world that science takes as its object of inquiry. To assess this more precisely, we must investigate the position of thought in relation to the world, which science adopts as its fundamental stance. Science seeks to explain the world by studying its movement, its becoming, through intellectual representations. The dynamic of the world’s becoming is captured by the intellect in the form of (typically) mathematical models. However, this epistemic approach implies an ontic framework that necessarily precedes the investigation and cannot be grasped by it. This ontic framework, as is well known, implies a dualism between the act of investigation and the investigated world. The questioner relates to the questioned as if it were independent of the act of questioning, and thus of the act of cognition. The world is reified, turned into a thing that can be contemplated as an independent entity, i.e., an object. Yet, in everyday life, the world we encounter does not correspond to the one described by science. A glass does not appear to us as an object composed of the smallest particles, situated at a specific point in space, and neutrally observed, but as a possibility for drinking water, storing liquids, etc. (this could be further elaborated depending on the context).

In everyday life, “things” do not appear as neutral objects but as possibilities for fulfilling our life’s purposes, desires, etc. The world is the horizon that allows these possibilities and obstacles to appear; all meaningful possibilities are designated by the concept of the world. Ontically, things do not appear as objects. Science begins with a radical rupture of this mode of being; it originates in the genesis of the theoretical perspective, which allows the world to appear in a different, scientifically determined way. The precise manner in which this perspective emerges, in all its details, I cannot yet definitively articulate, but can only offer initial conjectures based on personal experience. Through the act of reflecting on the things that appear to us, such as through questions about the nature and essence of the world, an extractive movement seems to take place; through the question, a dual illumination of consciousness begins to unfold. The content of the question is torn from the continuum of the life-world, lifted out of the context of everyday life (which I could only briefly mention above), and presented as a mere, meaningless object that now stands fully consciously before us. In the same act, however, a self-reflective consciousness seems to emerge, which, through the act of questioning, gains awareness of its own thinking and thus (seemingly) realizes that the cognitive act has no relation to the signified in the act of signification. This is merely a rough outline of a thought I am pursuing further, and about which I hope to gain greater insight in the future.

A fundamental question arises here, for which I can offer no more than intimations. How do concepts arise through human existence? How does meaning emerge?

The significance of the body is as follows: the possibilities and limitations enabled by our embodiment, our embodied being. To address these questions, I wish to avoid slipping into the theoretical perspective and treating thought, meaning, and concepts as given objects. However, if we remain in the everyday perspective, we cannot answer the question, nor even pose it. How do we move from the theoretical perspective, in which the question is posed, to one that leads us directly into the inquired, not as a propositional or formal explanation, but as a (self-)conscious immersion in this dimension? We always presuppose concepts and meaning, even when we seek formal explanations for them through the theoretical perspective. The concept of the atom, for example, can be expressed in different languages and with different symbols, yet when we contemplate the word, we have a felt understanding (present with every concept) that cannot be further described. It is an understanding that characterizes the meaning, the quality of a being, in relation to all other beings.

Steiner, in *Philosophy of Freedom*, states that the fundamental dichotomy lies between observation (in German, *Beobachtung*, synonymous with perception) and thinking. This dualism, however, is a product of the epistemological tradition, which separates perception and thinking (the pure act of thought) and assigns them different ontological determinations. Meaning must be something connected to perception. When we use the concept of shame, we describe an embodied situation that has a specific meaning, a specific quality (not in isolation, but in the context of our environment and other constitutive situations), which distinctively highlights it, allowing us to produce a concept, a symbolic form, to express this meaningful and qualitative experience. Our corporeality must play a special and decisive role here, as it is the condition of these experiences. Focusing solely on the act of thinking (though this is very important) can lead to neglecting this “dimension.”

How can we access the lived experience, the dimension, of the concept of the sacred or the concept of God? How can we, in general, access this dimension of the signified from the theoretical perspective? This, for me, is the most important theme of philosophy, made possible through thinking. It is, so to speak, the search for the pre-conceptual realm that has deepened my interest in philosophy to an infinite degree. I have found interesting approaches in Husserl, Heidegger, Deleuze, Claude Romano, and Cleric’s essays, but I have not yet found the leap I am seeking. I could and would like to elaborate further, addressing various unspoken points, but I believe this suffices to guide the conversation in constructive directions and to be better understood.

[AshvinP]

Steiner, in *Philosophy of Freedom*, states that the fundamental dichotomy lies between observation (in German, *Beobachtung*, synonymous with perception) and thinking. This dualism, however, is a product of the epistemological tradition, which separates perception and thinking (the pure act of thought) and assigns them different ontological determinations. Meaning must be something connected to perception. When we use the concept of shame, we describe an embodied situation that has a specific meaning, a specific quality (not in isolation, but in the context of our environment and other constitutive situations), which distinctively highlights it, allowing us to produce a concept, a symbolic form, to express this meaningful and qualitative experience. Our corporeality must play a special and decisive role here, as it is the condition of these experiences. Focusing solely on the act of thinking (though this is very important) can lead to neglecting this “dimension.”

Thanks for the synopsis of your current thought, Guney. I also hope we can lead this in a fruitful direction. Let's see if we can first get clear on the nature of PoF, Cleric's essays, and all similar phenomenological presentations (collectively, 'intuitive thinking path'). If we start to subtly transform these into something they are not and were never meant to be, this will become a problem, because it cuts off one of the most important resources for developing and expanding intuition of the pre-conceptual realm (perhaps more appropriately characterized as the post-conceptual realm, since we can only enter into it through the portal of already developed intellectual life). It's like we are driving on a steep and curvy mountain road, and along the way, we start taking down the signs that warn us of tight turns ahead or the potential for falling rocks. The next time we drive on that road, we will lack proper orientation to the obstacles and pitfalls.

What is envisioned by the intuitive thinking path is that we will begin to understand the pre-conceptual realm when our inner cognitive movements become more pre-conceptual (this also gives another perspective on the chaotic aggregate imagination and the cognitive movements of PoF in general, which are not intended as 'ontological determinations'). Cleric pointed out before how the merely conceptual intellect has become excessively dependent on a linear progression of mental pictures to 'explain' experienced reality, i.e., a chain of premises, facts, and reasoning in which the intellect only feels comfortable when each step builds upon the previous, upon familiar experiences and concepts. This is practically what defines the conceptual realm. The fact is that, as long as we continue seeking the answer in the content of various philosophical systems, our inner movements remain insensitive to their pre-conceptual gestures. That is why the intuitive thinking path does not merely present another philosophical system, but a palette of imaginative and introspective exercises that bring the soul into more intimate contact with its organic pre-conceptual gestures.

Here is an interesting passage that I listened to recently, which relates to the question of finding the leap into the pre-conceptual:

"There is a statement that has been taken for granted by official science but that anthroposophists should learn to realize is without meaning: “Nature makes no leaps.” This sounds objective, yet it is senseless, because nature continually makes leaps. If you follow the development of a plant, you find that there is a leap whenever something new appears in the course of its development. A leap takes place from the regular leaf formation to the blossom, from the calyx to the petals, from the petals to the stamen, and so on. After nature has developed gradually for some time, it makes further leaps; indeed, all existence makes leaps. Therein lies the essential nature of evolution, that crises and leaps take place. It is one of those commonplaces resulting from the terrible laziness of human thinking when human beings say that “nature makes no leaps”; in reality it makes many leaps." (GA 118)

Thus, we can see that, by closely investigating the life of our cognitive process, it's characteristic qualities, patterns, and principles, we discover something of the organic leaps which also characterize the wider World flow as it comes to expression in both human culture and the kingdoms of nature. We come to know the leap to higher knowledge by inwardly participating in it, by experiencing how it is continually manifesting in our intuitive life that is normally drowned out by our habituated sensory-intellect movements. So we aim to enter into the living flow of intuitive space, which is the flow that we are always instinctively navigating to paint our finished concepts about reality within our conscious aperture of the World state.

By extending our lucid intuitive consciousness into this flowing pre-conceptual context, we by no means float off as an untethered balloon from the bodily environment. In fact, we become even more intensely conscious of our daily bodily gestures and their sensory feedback. It is obvious that this bodily context takes much of its course from our imaginative life. We plan our days, move from point A to point B, interact and communicate with others, probe the nature of existence via philosophy and science, and so on. Of course, there are many aspects of the bodily context which seem to run their course independently of our imaginative life, such as the weather or illnesses and so on, but even many of these can be traced to previous ways in which the imaginative life was conducted, individually and collectively. So it only makes sense to become more intimately familiar with the dynamics of these imaginative movements through which we often direct our bodily context and discern its meaningful feedback.

Let's use an example from ML's research. Levin and his team have conducted experiments with planaria flatworms in which they ‘rewrite’ the worm’s bioelectric patterns such that the biological machinery manifests the potential of growing two heads instead of one. How did such an experiment originate? It was first an idea in the consciousness of Levin and his team. They ‘extended’ their imagination into this space of potential and intuited certain possibilities for manipulating the bioelectric patterns and actualizing new forms in the worm’s morphological space. There is no suggestion here that their imagination is the source of such lawful possibilities, but it is undeniably the case that the latter could only come to physical expression if the researchers involved first extended their thinking into intuitive space and probed its potential. Thus, it is incumbent that we better understand the cognitive process by which those results were made possible. That doesn’t mean we are floating off into our imagination and forsaking the experimental process, but rather we are trying to refine and better orchestrate the latter by exploring the intuitive process that is always prior to the experiments.

As we have discussed many times before, growing our intuition into this pre-conceptual realm can become quite uncomfortable and inconvenient, because the first patterned movements we need to leap across are intellectual habits (like over-dependence on linear progressions of thoughts) and stubborn character traits that we have identified with. These are living drives that are invested in maintaining their unquestioned existence and grip on the soul. They secretly whisper to us that, by investigating the cognitive process too closely, we are neglecting the bodily context where our attention should be focused. But why do we trust these whispers? Because, as we have seen, the characteristic dynamics of the cognitive process are exactly what elucidate the nature of the bodily context across the scales of existence, from personal to collective. The bodily environment and its lawful metamorphoses begin to be known in their inner nature as the collective and symphonic flow of memory and anticipation/hope, imagination and will.

[Federica]

What would be a suitable starting point for a philosophy? A point without presuppositions? The structure of language? The faculty of cognition? Philosophy is constantly in search of such points, consciously or unconsciously. Descartes’ foundational point in the subject, which doubts the world and finds certainty solely in the *cogito*? Husserl’s phenomenology, inspired by the Cartesian approach, seeking a point at which no assumptions about any metaphysical reality are made, examining only how the phenomena of consciousness manifest and are constituted by the transcendental subject? Certainly, it depends on the question posed at the outset. Or would it perhaps be better to adopt a psychoanalytic perspective and explore how certain psychic processes give rise to the impulse toward philosophy, revealing their effects?

The path of philosophy, like that of the sciences, is usually (and always in the case of the sciences) theoretical, arising from a movement of thought that creates a separation between ordinary life and philosophical inquiry.

Well, the path of science is not always theoretical. It depends on how we handle the concept of science. Take Spiritual Science, or even Goethean Science: these are artistic sciences that eat theories for breakfast, and by lunchtime they have taken them to the next immersive cognitive level.

A fundamental question arises here, for which I can offer no more than intimations. How do concepts arise through human existence? How does meaning emerge?

Yes, and immediately afterward another question emerges: “What am I really doing when asking this fundamental question? Is it perhaps an exceptional state? Am I trying to form new concepts and ideas about the formation of the concepts and ideas that I was pondering a second ago, while formulating the “fundamental question?” And: “Was that really the most fundamental question, since I am now posing a new question that points to the former question’s foundations?” And: “How far can I go in this direction, asking ever more fundamental questions? Is there an end to this journey toward the conceptual foundations?”

What really arises here is not one fundamental question, but a recursive, infinite series of evermore seemingly fundamental questions, in which one tries to catch the more foundational fundations. The problem is, new thoughts are continually generated in the process, that in turn require to become objects of an endless “extractive movement”. And so the attempt to “avoid slipping into the theoretical perspective” remains endlessly frustrated.

What leads “directly into the inquired” is, firstly, the realization of the exceptional quality of this state of reflection, when the effort is made to turn attention to the formation of concepts, and, secondly, the recognition that such conceptual attempts to reach the rock bottom of concepts, inevitably observe the result of a past activity. And not only are they late to the party, but also inevitably generate fresh conceptual labor at every attempt - new conceptual material that also requires to be understood by ever new "extractions". But every last extraction, again, will have to be operated through additional conceptual work, which in turn will create a need for new extractions.... and so on and so forth.

To this, there is no solution to be found in philosophy. There is no way to find the “immersion” you are looking for in articulating things philosophically, because "articulating" only generates more conceptual material, that one would wish to pervade with "immersive" understanding, but philosophy can only give it delayed reflection. The “pre-conceptual realm” is only accessible on a path toward higher states of consciousness because philosophy does not have the tools for pre-conceptual immersion, unless it transforms itself into Anthropo-Sophia. Philosophy has been a first stage of human self-knowledge, a form of Anthropo-Sophia, through which the human ego has learned to consciously recognize itself. Now this has been largely done. Thanks to the achievements of philosophy, we are now here, wishing to find direct immersion in the inquired. And with that, the task of philosophy is accomplished. Now, the immersion we are looking for can only be found in a new level of wisdom of man. No spiritual science, no immersion. Will you participate in the transformation of philosophy into anthroposophy?