Re: Anthroposophy as Fascio
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:36 pm
Yeah, Eugene. I think I was primarily addressing my tendencies toward criticism and debate, which I strongly practiced during my academic years. Nowadays, I'm still dredging up legacies of this habit that are now a suboptimal use of my limited energies. But, also, I want to prepare for sharing difficult stories in ways that might comfort more than challenge. As we say, "It's a work and a study." This forum, being outside my auto-support bubble may be a useful arena for learning how I might do it better.Stranger wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:05 pmYou are exactly right, Lou. I'm not trying to point to any flaws of others, but only to point that the Oneness we are talking about is not what Steiner or Cleric are describing here as "oneness". This means there is nothing wrong with the way they understand oneness within the world of Manyness (as merging of thoughts or merging of boundaries), it is still all valid. It only means that they are still missing it when they say "oh, but we already know everything about oneness, we got it all", and this is not do demean their current understanding, but instead, to point to yet another aspect of reality that they can still possibly reach to and enhance their knowledge of reality if they would be sincerely open to it (or anyone else reading this thread can also reach to it in case they haven't already done so). It is invitation and not exclusion or demeaning.Lou Gold wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:37 pm But the only thing that can discern whether a view is an insight or an illusion, a reception or a projection is direct experience. Authentic communion and genuine communication require common experience. Without it, in the realm of uncertainty, we are reduced in clarity but can at least be generous toward possibility and respectful of other practices.
I've found that it's not very skillful to point to the flaws of others except to check out if they are flags of flaws of my own.