Philosophical Speculations

findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:11 pm "Should have been more clear. It is not that you have a model of thinking which claims thinking is mechanistic, it is that you think Steiner has that sort of model in PoF..."

I think this is reductive. I think there are aspects of PoF's articulation that represent the living process mechanistically. Steiner did as well, which is why we see in the updated versions that he consistently rephrased his characterizations to avoid this in brilliant ways. Now, you will want to immediately remind me that this is just about words and obviously his ideas did not change. That is another discussion and a very interesting one. But I agree with the gist of it.

My ultimate concern is that I find that not only do many Anthroposophists say things like, "Thinking connects concepts to percepts" but they mean it. That is, they don't just say words that imply various kinds of separations, they have allowed those representations to shape their early training in higher knowledge. This becomes a filter that unknowingly shapes how their first spiritual experiences are 'seen'. But since they haven't cleaned up their starting point, they have no idea of this. That is just one concern. But it is a serious one.

Another concern is that I find that a large majority of Anthroposophists believe in 'pure experience'. They don't just say the words "pure experience" (as Steiner uses the term in various phrases and ways in his core texts), they have developed ideas and representations of 'pure experience.' One reason I keep asking folks to tell me what they think "pure experience" is is because that is the only way they really start to begin realizing the muddy form in which they hold this as both an idea and as a tacit representation.

Yeah, I understand that portion of your concern and I guess I would agree if I came across people who were taking it so rigidly they were unable to see the bigger picture of what Steiner is writing about. Connecting concepts to percepts is still a useful way to think about it IMO, because it points to essential need for Thinking to get deeply involved in any proper understanding of the sensible world. So I must also insist on my criticism of your approach - it leaves me with no better understanding of how any of those confusions among Anthroposophists relate to the "spiritual experiences" which can be seen. In your personal experience, what has resulted from you pursuing Steiner's living philosophy once you "cleaned up" those starting points?

findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:24 pm "And all of that leads me back to the same questions I have been asking of you - what is the import of "we can remain in the middle and not fall too far in either direction"? What does that mean for Steiner's overall philosophy of higher cognition and spiritual science? What is your position on those things?"

In my previous post I indicated at various larger reasons the details of PoF and how it is taken up mean to me.

There are symptoms that I believe are signs of the kind of error we are talking about.

For instance, nearly 100 years after his death we should be at a point where the movement has generated robust and highly creative responses to some of Steiner mistakes. This should be no big deal and Steiner himself indicated more than once that he would make mistakes and that it was up to his students to recognize them and update them as the decades went by. He even went out of his way to explain why this kind of correction process does not depend on clairvoyance. He said that the kind of mistakes an Initiate will inevitably make can be detected via careful thinking and observation; in other words, the Initiate might be speaking about a spiritual explanation of a given phenomena, but careful observation will show if that the Initiate was adding false assumptions or misinterpretations to their starting-point. And this sort of natural human blind-spot will then show up in arious ways, like, for instance, a prediction the Initiate made can be shown to be wrong. Such a finding means that the students must then examine carefully the various possible causes of the Initiates error. Steiner was clear about this. He's been dead for nearly 100 years and there is only utter silence when it comes to talking about his mistakes.

Just as I began this conversation by saying that I'm well aware of what happens when you try to speak about the 'attachment' issue in PoF (that is shorthand for the more intricate conversation we are trying to have), I can tell you exactly what happens when you try to strike up a conversation or research about Steiner's errors. It is still such a deep taboo that typically, ill will is assumed by most. Not at first though. At first people think you must simply be arrogant and not realizing that Steiner can seem wrong but is almost always right. If you can push past the 'arrogance' claim by showing that Steiner was humble enough to acknowledge that he would be making errors that we MUST correct, then a small few will be left willing to talk. They will mostly encourage you to mediate harder or 'be patient' and see that we simply can't know these things yet. And a the tiniest amount will say, "Okay, I do see that as an error, but it isn't all that important an error for this or that reason." That's a start. But those are mostly people already so on the outskirts of the movement that there is no force in the kind of regeneration necessary.

This is just one strand of the larger issues I see connected with even small missteps with regard to PoF.

I have to say this is all very speculative criticism. I don't doubt you have such experiences with people, but clearly the "movement" has generated all sorts of educational institutions which people find valuable and through which they have generated all sorts of productive ideas and practical applications. Anyway, if we all agree that Steiner was capable of making mistakes and it is our job to find them and correct them... what then? What does that have to do with where we are now as spiritual beings and how we should move forward towards "final participation" (assuming you agree that is where we can and must go)? I am trying to get to the very practical applications of your criticisms with Steiner's overall philosophy of spiritual science and ethical individualism.

"In my opinion we should try to understand what the exceptional state is, entirely in the context of the purpose Steiner is building it for, and not just try to define it for itself."

Cleric, I hear you but I want to say that I worry when a close reading of Steiner begins to introduce notions like 'entirely in the context of the purpose Steiner is building it for..." Look, I get the gist of what that means. I also just know that there are countless ways that people use to justify (not on purpose) leaving behind text and, instead, adding ideas that the text hasn't yet even mentioned. This can be rationalized and justified in so many ways that are not stupid or lazy. But I just want to plant my flag and say that I believe that part of the problem in this conversation (the part that isn't just a result of my ignorance and unclarity) is that you are adding more to the early steps than is really there.

"Most certainly, your daughter's or your realization about your former thinking about the table, was not accompanied with some philosophical insight about thinking."

Yes, it passes by in the flow the goal or project that individual is engaged in. It functions, but it isn't noted as such. My daughter does it and then is back in the flow. Whereas a materialist or an Anthroposophist can reflect, notice it as a reflection and immediately embed the reflection in their preferred representations 'about' it. This goes back to Steiner saying that the world needs creative materialists more than dogmatic Anthroposophists. He realizes how special it is when ANY thinker is able to refrain from too much 'representational embedding'.

"So in my view this is only a very gentle point of departure. For this point to become the foothold we need to do something more. Pictorially speaking, we need to begin drawing A and B closer and closer together."

And I will keep reading you but I must keep planting my flag in the ground to say that I will keep brining any claim you make back to the text. If Steiner does not make that claim in some specific way, then I will hold off and prefer interpretations that are more parsimonious and aligned with what he actually says in the text. Okay, that said, let's see what you are saying....

I am concentrating on the email, thinking and perceiving as I type. This is A. Then I notice, "Oh, I'm thinking about X".

My claim is that before anything else is done to noticing my own thought, I am in the exceptional state that Steiner specifies by saying we can notice something like, "I am thinking of a table." I think that my claim can be found in the text clearly.

Your claim is that we must first begin to draw my experience of working on the email closer and closer together with my experience "I am thinking about X".

I will continue reading your idea and maybe you do tie this to something specific that Steiner says at this point in the text.

"Now you can have an additional realization when you observe the "I've gone astray ..." thought."

I appreciate your specificity. I must say that I now worry that we are leaving the text in another direction by focusing on unessential aspect of my example. The "i've gone astray' does not have to be a part of noticing one of your concepts. But I'll continue and try to link what you are saying to Steiner's texts.

"The latter already becomes the new A which should be grasped by the new B, which is the invisible realization "I'm thinking about how I'm thinking that I've formerly gone astray". Thinking begins to chase its own tail."

I think this is a function of how you are formulating it. My experience of noticing a thought does not result in thinking chasing it's tail. I clearly see how the way you are framing it would. But, again staying with Steiner's text, I can confirm that his example of our ability to 'stand outside' of the much more common thinking and perceiving and noticing, "I'm thinking X" is possible and it does not enter an infinite cognitive loop.

"This is what I mean by trying to bring A and B closer and closer together. When we do that to sufficient degree this avalanche of As and Bs becomes almost like an uninterrupted flow, where we observe our real time thinking as closely as possible."

So this is why I plant my flag regarding the various subtle ways we leave the text itself. I carefully read Steiner's claim that there is an exception to the typical and dominating unconscious flow (unconscious in the non-meta sense) of perceiving and thinking. Steiner says that occasionally, we step outside of the flow and notice a thought. You and I agree that this noticing can immediately be obscured by assumptions and representations. But Stiner, here in the text itself, is just wanting to reader to notice that this exception to the rule does indeed happen.

So, if you are claiming that Steiner is talking about an 'avalanche' of regular and meta experience transforms into an almost uninterrupted flow, I would need to ask where in the text you think Steiner is pointing to this avalanche experience. .Because, otherwise, I will stay with Steiner's claim that the reader can notice that there are exceptions to the dominant flow of experience (perceiving and thinking) in which we stand outside the flow and notice, "I am thinking X". I find that so many other very cool and 'spiritual' experiences get brought too early into Steiner's work. It makes it seem as if there really isn't anything all that special about the specific observation Steiner is asking the reader to make at this exact spot in the text.

You go on:

"What Steiner invites us to experience (if we have the good will) is not only to retrospectively become aware that we've been thinking A, from our current standpoint B, but to bring them closer and closer together."

Again, I don't think you've shown that I am misreading Steiner at all when I claim he wants us to take note of the difference between being in the typical flow of perceiving-thinking and the moments we actually notice a thought. So far you've added a new notion of this 'avalanche' experience that involves not just "I am thinking of X" but a process of carefully working to bring them closer and closer until we enter what you think is the 'exceptional state." I can only ask that you show me the most specific part of the text that you think either demonstrates I am wrong to think Steiner is wanting to reader to note the difference between the dominant flow of experience compared to noticing a thought...or at least to show me what Steiner says in this section that implies the reader will need to engage in a schooling of consciousness to verify that there is an exception to the dominate flow of experience that is your 'avalanche' experience. I hope you see why I want to stay closely with Steiner words whenever either of us offers our own take on them. I don't think I am being more 'intellectual' than you when I keep it more simple. To be clear, my experience of noticing a thought is direct. It isn't an abstract description of some other possible process. I think your avalanche experience could refer to something we can experience if we exercise our minds in a certain way, but I don't think that we have reason to think that is what Steiner means by the exception to the rule of the typical flow of experience.

"In this mode of thinking imploding into itself, we become fully aware that we're in fact creating our thoughts, and we're perceiving what we thus create."

I'd want to see where you think Steiner is indicating an 'imploding experience' in his "I am thinking of a table" example of standing outside the usual flow. At the end of the chapter, Steiner tries to make clear that nothing he has described thus far takes us into actual insights into the nature of thinking. In Truth and Knowledge he is even more clear that at the early stages of the text he will need to speak in ways that assume things like an "I" and a "world' but that he does not want the reader to think these things have actually be discovered as realities. He does this in Philosophy of Freedom but not as clearly in my opinion. So I understand why you would say "we're perceiving what we thus create". That is our naive assumption at this point and it MUST be. But Steiner does go out of his way to say that he is not yet assuming there is an "I" and he certainly isn't yet assuming we have grasped the fundamental nature of spirit via intuitive thinking.

I've said enough and asked for enough specific connections to the text. So I'll end with your next statements just to show cleanly where we differ:

"The exceptional state, as far as we understand it in the above sense, where A and B asymptotically approach each other, gives us a clear experiential comprehension of what it means to have something within the World Content (the dot-thought) which is completely united with its intuitive essential being."

Yes, this as been clear to me from the beginning. You equate the exceptional state with the fundamental experience of thinking/spirit. Most students do, and each explains why it must be in fairly unique ways. But even those unique ways tend to have a pattern in which they have to show how "I am thinking X" can't simply be the mundane experience of noticing you have a thought. Khulewind and I would try to stress there is nothing mundane about this exception to the rule IF it isn't immediately embedded in other explanatory representations. I fully acknowledge that I am in a very very very small group of Anthroposophists who claim that simply noticing the difference between the rule and the exception is a very big deal. Steiner explains the exceptional state in this chapter and closes making sure the reader knows that so far nothing essential is being claimed about the self, thinking, or the nature of the Cosmos. Later, he will show why grasping thinking intuitively is direct knowledge of the essence of each.

Ashvin,

"I have to say this is all very speculative criticism."

Ugh. You sort of make it impossible to have a conversation this way. You asked me specifically to get more speculative, to connect the specifics of our conversation to more general concerns and ideas I have. I do that in a quick little response, give you a little fan of thought and you come back immediately to let me know I'm speculating. Of course. You're right. I treated this as a conversation. But, yes, you are correct, I didn't respond to your request by writing a proof of various realities.

"Anyway, if we all agree that Steiner was capable of making mistakes and it is our job to find them and correct them... what then? What does that have to do with where we are now as spiritual beings and how we should move forward towards "final participation" (assuming you agree that is where we can and must go)?"

I have a file filled with fairly respected Anthroposophists who are explaining to me why Steiner is correct when he says (in lecture 174B) that non-white skin cannot fully integrate with the Christ Impulse. They explain to me why I am not enough of an initiate to speak to Steiner's explanation in that lecture for why non-white skin generates demons when the Christ approaches it. They explain to me why I am confused and can't understand why Steiner explains that white humanities specific mission will last until about the year 3,500. He goes on to explain thee IF AND ONLY IF white humanity achieves it goes, it can then 'impregnate' the non-white races with The Christ Impulse so that they can then lead the way forward, starting around the year 3,500.

Now, I never talk about this in the context of racism. To me it is obvious that Steiner came from a place of love and a desire to only speak and know the truth. But these Anthroposophists mostly begin screaming that I must have ill will to bring this up. I must be sick to think I can comprehend the mysteries that Steiner understood. Or they spend time finding other quotations that seem to suggest that Steiner didn't really think what he says in 174B. To be clear, none of those quotations actually contradict Steiner's careful explanation. In fact, when taken as a whole, 174B clears up many confusions regarding his other comments about race.

But this isn't the point. My point is that Steiner said he would make errors and that a non-clairvoyant should be able to spot them, begin to understand what led him to making them, and then show how what is happening in the world doesn't correspond to the Initiates claims. I think I can do that in several ways when it comes to observing the Christ impulse working through non-white people. That is a small example. But I think it matters and, as I said, my even deeper concern is that, so far, there is no indication that people who love Steiner and his work have even begun to take up this aspect of spiritual science and the legacy of Anthroposophy. I know that I haven't proven anything to you by responding to your question. I'm just trying to have a conversation here. Digging into a careful reading of PoF is a bit different than addressing your request for a wider picture of the kind of thing that I care about.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:50 pm Ashvin,

"I have to say this is all very speculative criticism."

Ugh. You sort of make it impossible to have a conversation this way. You asked me specifically to get more speculative, to connect the specifics of our conversation to more general concerns and ideas I have. I do that in a quick little response, give you a little fan of thought and you come back immediately to let me know I'm speculating. Of course. You're right. I treated this as a conversation. But, yes, you are correct, I didn't respond to your request by writing a proof of various realities.

"Anyway, if we all agree that Steiner was capable of making mistakes and it is our job to find them and correct them... what then? What does that have to do with where we are now as spiritual beings and how we should move forward towards "final participation" (assuming you agree that is where we can and must go)?"

I have a file filled with fairly respected Anthroposophists who are explaining to me why Steiner is correct when he says (in lecture 174B) that non-white skin cannot fully integrate with the Christ Impulse. They explain to me why I am not enough of an initiate to speak to Steiner's explanation in that lecture for why non-white skin generates demons when the Christ approaches it. They explain to me why I am confused and can't understand why Steiner explains that white humanities specific mission will last until about the year 3,500. He goes on to explain thee IF AND ONLY IF white humanity achieves it goes, it can then 'impregnate' the non-white races with The Christ Impulse so that they can then lead the way forward, starting around the year 3,500.

Now, I never talk about this in the context of racism. To me it is obvious that Steiner came from a place of love and a desire to only speak and know the truth. But these Anthroposophists mostly begin screaming that I must have ill will to bring this up. I must be sick to think I can comprehend the mysteries that Steiner understood. Or they spend time finding other quotations that seem to suggest that Steiner didn't really think what he says in 174B. To be clear, none of those quotations actually contradict Steiner's careful explanation. In fact, when taken as a whole, 174B clears up many confusions regarding his other comments about race.

But this isn't the point. My point is that Steiner said he would make errors and that a non-clairvoyant should be able to spot them, begin to understand what led him to making them, and then show how what is happening in the world doesn't correspond to the Initiates claims. I think I can do that in several ways when it comes to observing the Christ impulse working through non-white people. That is a small example. But I think it matters and, as I said, my even deeper concern is that, so far, there is no indication that people who love Steiner and his work have even begun to take up this aspect of spiritual science and the legacy of Anthroposophy. I know that I haven't proven anything to you by responding to your question. I'm just trying to have a conversation here. Digging into a careful reading of PoF is a bit different than addressing your request for a wider picture of the kind of thing that I care about.

FB,

You are becoming too defensive and, just as is the case with the Anthroposophists you speak of when Steiner is criticized, it is blocking the essence of what I am asking you. I am not asking about your personal concerns with people who follow Steiner or their take on this or that issue which Steiner wrote about... I am asking about the overall worldview that Steiner clearly advances in all of his books and lectures and usually falls under the names of "spiritual science" and "ethical individualism". Do you think that worldview has been fatally undermined by the sorts of errors you are speaking of above? Do you think Steiner had a good basic philosophy, but when he went into matters of spiritual perception it was mostly just personal fantasy and unconsciously prejudiced thinking? That is the sort of wider picture I am asking you to address here.

"You are becoming too defensive."

This is typical. It is a defense and it's natural. I believe it was you earlier who didn't like it when I seemed to be making claims about your inner emotional life and explaining your comments via that lens. I hope I showed why I don't use 'projection' in these context in the psychological sense. But you do tend to do a bit of mind-reading. That's okay with me. But I assume you'd appreciate it being pointed out. Maybe you are feeling defense? Often I find if I'm feeling the need to throw something like that out in the middle of an open discourse, especially when somebody just trusted me enough to really open up, that I might be feeling a bit more than I want to acknowledge. Anyway, yes, I can usually find some aspect of defensiveness in myself related to everyday disputes or whatnot. But it isn't very great in this context. I'm enjoying myself and I keep saying that i find you both smart and I don't consider our disagreement to come down to 'ill will' or ignorance. So perhaps my acknowledging that I certainly can find defensiveness within myself to some degree, will help? There you go! But I'll try to steer us back to your question. I apologize that I never seem to answer you in the way you wish.

"I am asking about the overall worldview that Steiner clearly advances in all of his books and lectures and usually falls under the names of "spiritual science" and "ethical individualism". Do you think that worldview has been fatally undermined by the sorts of errors you are speaking of above? Do you think Steiner had a good basic philosophy, but when he went into matters of spiritual perception it was mostly just personal fantasy and unconsciously prejudiced thinking? That is the sort of wider picture I am asking you to address here."

There are so many directions to go in with this question, but I'll pick one or two. And you'll have to take my work when I say that I love Rudolf Steiner and the impulse he attempted to bring (and did bring in many ways) to the world. I've worked in and with some of the best and worst Waldorf schools and I've had the opportunity to work closely with a few of the most respected teachers at various institutes. I consider myself very fortunate.

I once had a file that contained dozens of Steiner's specific predictions of where the Anthroposophical movement would be at our time. He thought that by the year 2000, we it would be very common for anthroposophical researchers to have developed precise early level clairvoyance to the degree that they could encourage and usefully criticize each other's research. In other words, it wouldn't be just one Great Initiate doing the work but an increasingly budding community of researchers. He gave specific examples of this sort of thing. Now, I am not unique in pointing out how vastly far we currently are from the movement that Steiner often assumed would have arisen by now. I am unique (but not alone) in claiming that along with the typical explanation that we have let Rudolf Steiner down, I claim that he is also responsible for much of the current state. This is taboo and, again, tends to get people assuming 'ill will' and all the rest. But that's nonsense. I have written hundreds of pages of praises to Steiner for his unique insights into all sorts of fields (I mean in my conversations with friends and acquaintances in the movement). My life reflects my commitment to much of the work. Yet the moment I point to ways that Steiner is responsible for much of the best and worst of the movement, I'm an enemy. This is typical of cults but shouldn't be typical of a scientific community.

Are you familiar with the notion of neoteny in biology? Well, Steiner used it to point to the way in which the human being was evolving from the beginning of evolution and animals are 'overly specified' versions of humans, they needed to be shucked off so that the human could continue evolving flexible. A defining characteristic of the human is that we evolved increasingly generalized to a great extent. We gave up great specificity and capacity in most of the bodily ways, so that we could become precise generalists cognitively. This is overly simplified but I want to give you this as a metaphor for one of my main concerns.

One of my main concerns (which I think can be empirically fleshed out) is that Steiner himself was 'overly specified'. Oh, I'm not criticizing him at all. I'm not suggesting he should have been different. The opposite. We should be grateful for everything he did to understand himself and his capacities and to envision what he was supposed to offer the world. It was incredible. But I think that he naturally mistook some of the contours of his experience that were unique to him and his 'overly developed" nature and saw them as purely objective and, therefore, what we should expect to develop in the future if people integrate the Anthroposophical impulse. I think this can be found in many ways, but importantly when we look at his indications of how clairvoyance should develop. That this was even just a small blind-spot can have large effects as other people begin to practice methods based on indications that contained this blind-spot. Again, this doesn't mean it is all unobjective or that none of it is perfectly clear. It simply means that we can begin to notice patterns in certain kinds of errors and delays and other aspects of how the movement has and has not unfolded, both as a whole and how individuals have been developing their clairvoyance. According to Steiner, as of 2000 there would be a relatively large number of Anthropsophcial doctors who had fairly exact 'etheric' clairvoyance, able to mutually observe and clarify and correct each other's direct observations of aspects of a person's body directly in front of them. .

So to whatever degree this aspect of Steiner's development went unnoticed, then it would be playing a role (to some extent) in reasons why Waldorf Movement for example is at a certain kind of standstill. I'm not just blaming Waldorf! That is often what you get accused of if you try to isolate one aspect but there is no other way to address a question that is asking for such an isolation (where and why am I concerned, as you asked). So to the degree that the various crises in Waldorf are due to the movement and to the degree that Steiner's overly specified nature plays a role in the movement, we can begin to make corrections by doing our work as students in noticing patterns of partial error in Steiner's work itself. Even if they are small. Again, Steiner said this was necessary. It is almost non existent in the movement and their is a cultish response when people even come near it. Why? I'm saying one aspect of why is related to assumptions made about Steiner's unerroring nature.

Anyway, as Steiner says, one of the main motivations towards understanding a phenomena should be for the truth itself, regardless of outcome. To that extent I remain focused, in this context, on relatively 'small' things like how we understand the 'exceptional state.' But I do think that small missteps can be seen to have an inner relationship to larger issues. That said, there is really no point in pointing to the latter aspect if I have yet to show that there is much more to the 'exceptional state' (as just one example) than the orthodox understanding of it offers.

"Do you think Steiner had a good basic philosophy, but when he went into matters of spiritual perception it was mostly just personal fantasy and unconsciously prejudiced thinking?"

The most general way I can respond to this wonderful question is to say that I'm not surprised that it is in those areas where Steiner was the most brilliant phenomenologically that we see his indications taking root in the world today. To the degree that he leaves the kind of phenomenology that an open minded person today can track, to that degree we begin to see various blind-spots and missteps. And I'm fully aware that the common response is to simply say that we aren't yet fully capable of knowing what he meant as he moves further away from tractable phenomenology. That is undoubtedly going to be true in some cases, but it is used as a way of closing the door to the kind of healthy course-correction that Steiner clearly indicated needs to take place between his students and his own mistakes.

A small example is when he shares the way in which his clairvoyance allowed him to explain why it is the color red that causes the bull to charge at those grotesque sporting events. We can see that a prior cultural assumption was playing a role despite the fact that he clearly was having clairvoyant experience as he examined the bull's inner process.

Cleric, just in case you have gotten lost in all the various sub-conversations going on, I do want to underline that I responded to your specific exploration of 'exceptional state' and you'll find it a little way up there. Obviously, that conversation to me is the most important in this context and I appreciate that you gave me a more fleshed out description of the experience you are referring to.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:14 pm "Do you think Steiner had a good basic philosophy, but when he went into matters of spiritual perception it was mostly just personal fantasy and unconsciously prejudiced thinking?"

The most general way I can respond to this wonderful question is to say that I'm not surprised that it is in those areas where Steiner was the most brilliant phenomenologically that we see his indications taking root in the world today. To the degree that he leaves the kind of phenomenology that an open minded person today can track, to that degree we begin to see various blind-spots and missteps. And I'm fully aware that the common response is to simply say that we aren't yet fully capable of knowing what he meant as he moves further away from tractable phenomenology. That is undoubtedly going to be true in some cases, but it is used as a way of closing the door to the kind of healthy course-correction that Steiner clearly indicated needs to take place between his students and his own mistakes.

A small example is when he shares the way in which his clairvoyance allowed him to explain why it is the color red that causes the bull to charge at those grotesque sporting events. We can see that a prior cultural assumption was playing a role despite the fact that he clearly was having clairvoyant experience as he examined the bull's inner process.

Alright well even this relatively short response opens up all kinds of interesting avenues of exploration for me, so thank you!

So it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality". In the bull example, which I actually quoted in one of my essays, what was the "prior cultural assumption" you think played a role and led him to error and what kind of error? I'm still a bit confused because you say he was having a clairvoyant experience of the bull's inner process, which makes it sound like he was pretty much correct but made a few small errors in his observation of that inner process.

Aside from the above, which I want to make clear is first priority for me (discussion of the above), I am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?

"it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality"."

Nope. Maybe I'll have time to say it again in words that might land better for you.

"am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?c

I'm not upset if you didn't read what I said in a few other posts about Steiner himself making clear that correcting him does not rely on clairvoyance? I don't think you would have asked me if you'd read that.

I think Steiner was very wise to make this clear. Maybe you are too new to Anthropsophy to see what happens when various researches try to make arguements based in their clairvoyance. All that happens is people form new camps around whom they think has the "better" clairvoyance.

Steiner's point is that all of us should be capable of noting errors and reasoning about them via healthy everyday understanding. I can't repeat myself again but I just think we do well to stay within a phenomenolgy we all share.

Can I read the essay where you quote Steiner on Bulls? When I have a keyboard I'll say more about that example.