Philosophical Speculations

Federica wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 10:13 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 4:16 pmIt is my sense that the rational intellect at large, i.e., as the intellectual soul has generally evolved in the modern age, and the materialist-reductionist intellect, are practically identical in terms of their characteristic tendencies. Put another way, the materialism-reductionism is not so much in the content of thinking (the philosophy, theory, model, etc.), but in the perspective from which the intellect approaches its meaningful states and their metamorphoses. Without introspective reorientation of that perspective, functional reductionism inevitably prevails.

Ashvin, I don't see the above two ways to put it, as equivalent. I agree with the latter but not with the former. Yes, materialism-reductionism is in the perspective from which the intellect approaches its states (or rather the perspective from which it doesn't approach its states) but the intellectual soul is not only that. The modern intellect encompasses the possibility to give way to the spiritual, otherwise what would "spiritual science" even mean? What sense would it make that Steiner carved out the possibility for the human mind to approach the spirit as science? The overlap between reductionism and the modern rational intellect is not complete. There is an opening in which spiritual science can grow, and it starts from the intellect's ability to give way to what appears to it of unreachable magnitude, extending beyond its scope, and yet reverberating distinguishable meaning within its scope, like a noteworthy trace, or projection, of that higher magnitude. We need look no further than Steiner - how he in public conferences regularly spoke to the audiences' rational intellect, and surely not to their reductionism.

Ashvin wrote: There are many ways in which we could approach this question. In a certain sense, we need look no further than ML, who, based on his deeper intuitions and scientifically expressed ideas, has 'transcended' the materialist-reductionist understanding.

I would say, ML is a less useful example, in this respect. He has not transcended the materialist-reductionist understanding. He has only transcended the materialist-reductionist models. Which is why his mind's flavor is still distinctly bottom-up. And, exactly as you argued above, it's not the model that makes one a reductionist or a non reductionist, but the understanding. As far as I can tell, he's presently not likely to "renounce its desire to build a faithful picture of reality out of its own symbolic dances”, as I elaborated few posts above.

Now, if we agree that, among modern intellectual thinkers, ML's intellect is one of the most likely to "renounce its desire to build a faithful picture of reality out of its own symbolic dances”, then the question becomes, what is stopping that renunciation? He can act as a limit case, in that sense. I guess the first question before even that one is, would you describe ML's intellect as one that has overcome the 'prejudices of the materialistic mind'? If not, what exactly would such an intellect look like?

ML has not overcome the prejudices of the materialistic mind. I think we can reconstruct what the intellect able to overcome it looks like, through the negative picture provided by Steiner when he addresses it. The examples are many, I have this recent lecture in mind, for instance, addressed to an audience new to Anthroposophy. It is an intellect that agrees to be guided. Not dragged, but guided, while it remains active and autonomous in its proper functionalities.

Federica,

Thanks for the response. We are entirely on the same page that the modern intellectual soul must have a point of contact with its deeper nature, that it's not confined to a reductionist understanding of its experiential states. From all our discussions here, we know the most obvious point of contact is the exceptional state, the intellect's introspective observations of its characteristic movements. This point of contact has been thoroughly elaborated on this forum in the most varied ways, from many illustrative angles. We know this provides the core inner principles that shed light on the entire corpus of spiritual science, across all domains of inquiry. Now we can ask, is there another point of contact that is signified by the terms "rational intellect", "healthy human understanding", "unprejudiced intellect", and so on? We can think about this quite concretely.

Let's imagine a new soul appears on this forum and says they are interested in idealistic philosophy and science, and they also became interested in how this overlaps with more spiritual pursuits, and want to understand this overlap better. They ask about resources to better orient to this overlap. This has more or less happened a few times, and the default approach has been to direct attention towards the phenomenology of spiritual activity in one form or another. Would your approach be any different at this time? Are you feeling that there is some other way of fruitfully speaking to the rational intellect such that it begins to awaken to its deeper spiritual nature? Or are you basically saying that 95% of the time, you will still direct attention toward the introspective study-meditation (including cycles such as GA 84), but maybe 5% of the time, we could imagine someone being directed to certain medical lectures and gaining the proper orientation in that way?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:57 pm Now we can ask, is there another point of contact that is signified by the terms "rational intellect", "healthy human understanding", "unprejudiced intellect", and so on? We can think about this quite concretely.

Let's imagine a new soul appears on this forum and says they are interested in idealistic philosophy and science, and they also became interested in how this overlaps with more spiritual pursuits, and want to understand this overlap better. They ask about resources to better orient to this overlap. This has more or less happened a few times, and the default approach has been to direct attention towards the phenomenology of spiritual activity in one form or another. Would your approach be any different at this time? Are you feeling that there is some other way of fruitfully speaking to the rational intellect such that it begins to awaken to its deeper spiritual nature? Or are you basically saying that 95% of the time, you will still direct attention toward the introspective study-meditation (including cycles such as GA 84), but maybe 5% of the time, we could imagine someone being directed to certain medical lectures and gaining the proper orientation in that way?

Yes. This is the same question we have begun this discussion with. We have seen from concrete cases how the phenomenology of spiritual activity is hard to grasp, precisely because it requires an immediate jump into spiritual action, rather than the third-person rationalization the human mind is so ambiguated with. It is my sense that starting from anthroposophical applications - not only medicine, but also education, agriculture, etcetera - could provide a softer approach.

The intellect could first comprise the meaningful, organized consequences of spiritual activity on the sensory plane, using its familiar means at first, only to realize, from a characterized body of sensory evidence, the need for an introspective approach. It’s like going from the bottom left vertex of a square to the opposite top right vertex moving first east and then north, rather than first north and then east.

When I say “it’s my sense” I don’t have the certainty it would work. I’m not absolutely sure it would work better than the phenomenological approach. But seeing how Steiner tirelessly spoke to the audiences’ intellect, how he turned around the ideas to make them more appealing to the mind, how he creatively connected things in a variety of rational ways, as if to stimulate and guide the intellect little steps by little steps - and also how he explicitly expressed the thought that effective anthroposophical applications on the material plane would be noticed by the scientific mind and act as advocates for Anthroposophy - I do believe this path should be pursued. At this point I don’t have the skills to even begin to do that. But it is my sense that this way should be attempted.

Federica wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:27 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:57 pm Now we can ask, is there another point of contact that is signified by the terms "rational intellect", "healthy human understanding", "unprejudiced intellect", and so on? We can think about this quite concretely.

Let's imagine a new soul appears on this forum and says they are interested in idealistic philosophy and science, and they also became interested in how this overlaps with more spiritual pursuits, and want to understand this overlap better. They ask about resources to better orient to this overlap. This has more or less happened a few times, and the default approach has been to direct attention towards the phenomenology of spiritual activity in one form or another. Would your approach be any different at this time? Are you feeling that there is some other way of fruitfully speaking to the rational intellect such that it begins to awaken to its deeper spiritual nature? Or are you basically saying that 95% of the time, you will still direct attention toward the introspective study-meditation (including cycles such as GA 84), but maybe 5% of the time, we could imagine someone being directed to certain medical lectures and gaining the proper orientation in that way?

Yes. This is the same question we have begun this discussion with. We have seen from concrete cases how the phenomenology of spiritual activity is hard to grasp, precisely because it requires an immediate jump into spiritual action, rather than the third-person rationalization the human mind is so ambiguated with. It is my sense that starting from anthroposophical applications - not only medicine, but also education, agriculture, etcetera - could provide a softer approach.

The intellect could first comprise the meaningful, organized consequences of spiritual activity on the sensory plane, using its familiar means at first, only to realize, from a characterized body of sensory evidence, the need for an introspective approach. It’s like going from the bottom left vertex of a square to the opposite top right vertex moving first east and then north, rather than first north and then east.

When I say “it’s my sense” I don’t have the certainty it would work. I’m not absolutely sure it would work better than the phenomenological approach. But seeing how Steiner tirelessly spoke to the audiences’ intellect, how he turned around the ideas to make them more appealing to the mind, how he creatively connected things in a variety of rational ways, as if to stimulate and guide the intellect little steps by little steps - and also how he explicitly expressed the thought that effective anthroposophical applications on the material plane would be noticed by the scientific mind and act as advocates for Anthroposophy - I do believe this path should be pursued. At this point I don’t have the skills to even begin to do that. But it is my sense that this way should be attempted.

Doesn't this seem suspiciously like bottom-up reductionism, when the intellect imagines it can move little steps upon steps to cobble together its deeper spiritual nature through a logical model (to realize the need for an introspective approach)? The persistence of reductionism is not so much that the intellect cannot see its flaws - as we see from ML, the PBS video shared by Cleric, and many other places - but because the intellect does not first live out non-reductionism in its self-experienced inner activity (first north and then east). Once the intellect attains a proper orientation to the metamorphoses of its experiential states across the 'phase spaces', only then does reductionism cease to be a habitual tendency.

Again, the only concrete example we have of souls attaining that proper orientation is of those who were fortunate enough to quickly take a leap into the phenomenological-introspective approach, i.e., ourselves. The main thing that makes it so difficult is the initial hesitancy, which stems from the instinctive sense that this approach will illuminate aspects of the soul that would rather remain hidden. Other than that, there is no learning curve involved - no completely unfamiliar terminological system, no familiarity with the wisdom traditions, no completely blind trust in the ideas of others, and so on. It only requires keen interest and careful observation of one's concrete inner experiences and their lawful transformations.

If we look at someone like ML again, it's clear that many of his concepts could be transferred directly to a spiritual scientific understanding of reality, such as cognitive light cone, scale-relative configuration spaces, the ingression of archetypal forms, and so on. He has developed a thoroughly characterized body of sensory evidence that indeed hints strongly in the direction of spiritual scientific understanding (moving first east to north). But there is clearly something missing, and this missing element makes all the difference in how the intellect orients to the highly logical body of sensory evidence. Steiner perceived this clearly and never actually promoted a 'softer approach'. We can only convince ourselves of that if we selectively read passages from the lectures and ignore the red thread of introspective fertilization running throughout the entire corpus, which is expressed quite clearly below (along with many other lectures, including the ones on medicine, agriculture, etc.).

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA125/En ... 26p01.html

What I have characterized for physiology, I could characterize for biology, for history and cultural history. There you see a field of work that lies ahead of us, that needs to be cultivated. There you see the situation of contemporary philosophy and science in relation to what we have, I would say, through the favor of circumstances, through our human karma, in terms of positive results. All around us, the most beautiful results have been achieved through research into facts. Anyone who familiarizes themselves with these facts will see a wonderful development. What is missing is the sharp urgency, the energy of philosophical thinking, which only when it is applied – but courageously applied to the facts – can then present these facts in their true light. This was stated epistemologically in my fundamental epistemological writing 'Truth and Science'. There you will find references to the kind of epistemology that takes into account that our epistemology does not remain without objective significance, but must occur in such a way that there is a fertilization of our epistemological subject in the epistemological results, so that it can submerge into what is given to us by the rest of the situation of science. If we work in the right way with seriousness and dignity in this field, as in all fields of science, on the basis of the beginnings that should develop out of our spiritual scientific movement, if we do not remain with a certain theosophical dilettantism, but immerse ourselves strictly in what is also scientifically given, we shall arrive at having a metaphysic which, through the weapons of a productive theory of knowledge, invades the supersensible through the outer field of sense perception, instead of having, as is really the case today, a metaphysic without transcendental conviction. Then it will have conviction because it will rest on a theory of knowledge, because it will be able to fertilize the human cognitive subject. Logic will acquire its content because the laws of thinking will become world laws. Ethics will also be able to have what one could call bindingness, because productive knowledge pours into our impulses. We will have an ethic with bindingness. Then we will also have what is not a psychology without soul, but a psychology with the soul, because the human desire for knowledge is based on the questions about the soul and its destiny in the world.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 3:11 pm Doesn't this seem suspiciously like bottom-up reductionism, when the intellect imagines it can move little steps upon steps to cobble together its deeper spiritual nature through a logical model (to realize the need for an introspective approach)? The persistence of reductionism is not so much that the intellect cannot see its flaws - as we see from ML, the PBS video shared by Cleric, and many other places - but because the intellect does not first live out non-reductionism in its self-experienced inner activity (first north and then east). Once the intellect attains a proper orientation to the metamorphoses of its experiential states across the 'phase spaces', only then does reductionism cease to be a habitual tendency.

If we look at someone like ML again, it's clear that many of his concepts could be transferred directly to a spiritual scientific understanding of reality, such as cognitive light cone, scale-relative configuration spaces, the ingression of archetypal forms, and so on. He has developed a thoroughly characterized body of sensory evidence that indeed hints strongly in the direction of spiritual scientific understanding (moving first east to north). But there is clearly something missing, and this missing element makes all the difference in how the intellect orients to the highly logical body of sensory evidence. Steiner perceived this clearly and never actually promoted a 'softer approach'. We can only convince ourselves of that if we selectively read passages from the lectures and ignore the red thread of introspective fertilization running throughout the entire corpus, which is expressed quite clearly below (along with many other lectures, including the ones on medicine, agriculture, etc.).

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA125/En ... 26p01.html

What I have characterized for physiology, I could characterize for biology, for history and cultural history. There you see a field of work that lies ahead of us, that needs to be cultivated. There you see the situation of contemporary philosophy and science in relation to what we have, I would say, through the favor of circumstances, through our human karma, in terms of positive results. All around us, the most beautiful results have been achieved through research into facts. Anyone who familiarizes themselves with these facts will see a wonderful development. What is missing is the sharp urgency, the energy of philosophical thinking, which only when it is applied – but courageously applied to the facts – can then present these facts in their true light. This was stated epistemologically in my fundamental epistemological writing 'Truth and Science'. There you will find references to the kind of epistemology that takes into account that our epistemology does not remain without objective significance, but must occur in such a way that there is a fertilization of our epistemological subject in the epistemological results, so that it can submerge into what is given to us by the rest of the situation of science. If we work in the right way with seriousness and dignity in this field, as in all fields of science, on the basis of the beginnings that should develop out of our spiritual scientific movement, if we do not remain with a certain theosophical dilettantism, but immerse ourselves strictly in what is also scientifically given, we shall arrive at having a metaphysic which, through the weapons of a productive theory of knowledge, invades the supersensible through the outer field of sense perception, instead of having, as is really the case today, a metaphysic without transcendental conviction. Then it will have conviction because it will rest on a theory of knowledge, because it will be able to fertilize the human cognitive subject. Logic will acquire its content because the laws of thinking will become world laws. Ethics will also be able to have what one could call bindingness, because productive knowledge pours into our impulses. We will have an ethic with bindingness. Then we will also have what is not a psychology without soul, but a psychology with the soul, because the human desire for knowledge is based on the questions about the soul and its destiny in the world.

I think that ML is not a good example here. What he develops are not spiritual scientific applications. It plays no role that his concepts “could” be read from a spiritual perspective. That’s not how he intends them, and that’s what matters. You are right: what he is missing makes all the difference, and he misses both sides: the introspective side, yes, and the side of spiritual scientific applications too. He doesn’t have any disciplined, intellectual tableau of what spiritual science could yield in, for example, biology. Rather, he picks a potpourri of diverse testable phenomena and then tests them furiously for “cognitive” skills. He attempts to build up a spectrum of intelligence from the bottom up. What matters to him is whatever can be tested, the weirdest the better, so he can place those items somewhere in his spectrum, and claim he is discovering something objective. So he’s not a good example for your purposes of opposing my idea.

Steiner continually “promoted” both approaches: north then east, and east then north, also. Surely, with his students of spiritual science who were already on the path, he could go north directly. Definitely, this is the primary approach. But he also continually speaks to the intellect of those who are not there yet.

I do not read selectively. And you should not read selectively either - for example, in the very lecture you are quoting. It's interesting, I was not familiar with this lecture before you quoted it. Still, if one reads it carefully, one actually finds both approaches, right there. And we even find that Steiner speaks of “step by step” approach to guide the intellect, in that same lecture, and so I wonder: when it’s not me but Steiner who says “step by step”, will you maintain that it sounds “suspiciously like bottom up reductionism”?

Steiner wrote:Thus I would say: if we start from the directly perceptible existence and from the processing that the human mind undertakes with it, we arrive at the level that can be described as the life and activity of the cognitive subject in the realm of the thought-plan [going east]. But then further progress is possible only if, from the other side, from the side opposite to the sense-perceptible existence, there comes the fertilization through those means which are presented in this book, 'How to Know Higher Worlds' [going north]. In the literature with which I have tried to point to these things step by step — first as prepared by my previous writings, summarized in my “Philosophy of Freedom” — you will find a path that can be taken from external sense perception, from the external processing of the material of existence, up to the realm of thought.

We can notice in this passage how Steiner specifically refers to first pushing the intellect as far as it can go (east). Then, he brings in fertilization through introspection, coming from the other side. In the same lecture he had previously said:

Steiner wrote:You know from my lectures that I do not like to put my opinions on the market. The opinions of an individual are actually of little value. I always strive to let the facts speak for themselves, even in the field of spiritual science. That is why I do not want to present theories rooted in opinions today either, but let the facts speak. I would like to present a fact that allows us to see how, in the course of the 19th century, a lack of intellectual rigor developed. In a certain deeper way, however, thinking can penetrate if it draws conclusions that are truly sharp and truly given by its presuppositions. Theosophy often proves to be so spineless in the face of the objections that are made to it because its intellectual weapons have become blunt.

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 5:07 pm Steiner continually “promoted” both approaches: north then east, and east then north, also. Surely, with his students of spiritual science who were already on the path, he could go north directly. Definitely, this is the primary approach. But he also continually speaks to the intellect of those who are not there yet.

I do not read selectively. And you should not read selectively either - for example, in the very lecture you are quoting. It's interesting, I was not familiar with this lecture before you quoted it. Still, if one reads it carefully, one actually finds both approaches, right there. And we even find that Steiner speaks of “step by step” approach to guide the intellect, in that same lecture, and so I wonder: when it’s not me but Steiner who says “step by step”, will you maintain that it sounds “suspiciously like bottom up reductionism”?

Steiner wrote:Thus I would say: if we start from the directly perceptible existence and from the processing that the human mind undertakes with it, we arrive at the level that can be described as the life and activity of the cognitive subject in the realm of the thought-plan [going east]. But then further progress is possible only if, from the other side, from the side opposite to the sense-perceptible existence, there comes the fertilization through those means which are presented in this book, 'How to Know Higher Worlds' [going north]. In the literature with which I have tried to point to these things step by step — first as prepared by my previous writings, summarized in my “Philosophy of Freedom” — you will find a path that can be taken from external sense perception, from the external processing of the material of existence, up to the realm of thought.

We can notice in this passage how Steiner specifically refers to first pushing the intellect as far as it can go (east). Then, he brings in fertilization through introspection, coming from the other side. In the same lecture he had previously said:

Steiner wrote:You know from my lectures that I do not like to put my opinions on the market. The opinions of an individual are actually of little value. I always strive to let the facts speak for themselves, even in the field of spiritual science. That is why I do not want to present theories rooted in opinions today either, but let the facts speak. I would like to present a fact that allows us to see how, in the course of the 19th century, a lack of intellectual rigor developed. In a certain deeper way, however, thinking can penetrate if it draws conclusions that are truly sharp and truly given by its presuppositions. Theosophy often proves to be so spineless in the face of the objections that are made to it because its intellectual weapons have become blunt.

Federica, the "step by step" in the quote above explicitly refers to PoF, i.e., the phenomenological-introspective approach! Is PoF the north to east, or east to north, according to you?

I think there may be some misunderstanding that the "going north" approach only involves delving into deeply meditative exercises, and excludes contemplation of the sensory spectrum and its lawful transformations. That is, of course, not excluded by PoF et al., but rather, "going north" refers to the fact that the thinking subject and its role in the contemplative process of the conscious contents are included in the picture. In this way, the thinking subject is also fertilized by its contemplation and 'draws conclusions that are truly sharp'. That is exactly what Steiner often said many aspects of the theosophical movement lacked. The intellectual weapons become blunt precisely when the intellect lacks a phenomenological orientation to the lawful constraints of its transforming state.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 5:26 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 5:07 pm Steiner continually “promoted” both approaches: north then east, and east then north, also. Surely, with his students of spiritual science who were already on the path, he could go north directly. Definitely, this is the primary approach. But he also continually speaks to the intellect of those who are not there yet.

I do not read selectively. And you should not read selectively either - for example, in the very lecture you are quoting. It's interesting, I was not familiar with this lecture before you quoted it. Still, if one reads it carefully, one actually finds both approaches, right there. And we even find that Steiner speaks of “step by step” approach to guide the intellect, in that same lecture, and so I wonder: when it’s not me but Steiner who says “step by step”, will you maintain that it sounds “suspiciously like bottom up reductionism”?

Steiner wrote:Thus I would say: if we start from the directly perceptible existence and from the processing that the human mind undertakes with it, we arrive at the level that can be described as the life and activity of the cognitive subject in the realm of the thought-plan [going east]. But then further progress is possible only if, from the other side, from the side opposite to the sense-perceptible existence, there comes the fertilization through those means which are presented in this book, 'How to Know Higher Worlds' [going north]. In the literature with which I have tried to point to these things step by step — first as prepared by my previous writings, summarized in my “Philosophy of Freedom” — you will find a path that can be taken from external sense perception, from the external processing of the material of existence, up to the realm of thought.

We can notice in this passage how Steiner specifically refers to first pushing the intellect as far as it can go (east). Then, he brings in fertilization through introspection, coming from the other side. In the same lecture he had previously said:

Steiner wrote:You know from my lectures that I do not like to put my opinions on the market. The opinions of an individual are actually of little value. I always strive to let the facts speak for themselves, even in the field of spiritual science. That is why I do not want to present theories rooted in opinions today either, but let the facts speak. I would like to present a fact that allows us to see how, in the course of the 19th century, a lack of intellectual rigor developed. In a certain deeper way, however, thinking can penetrate if it draws conclusions that are truly sharp and truly given by its presuppositions. Theosophy often proves to be so spineless in the face of the objections that are made to it because its intellectual weapons have become blunt.

Federica, the "step by step" in the quote above explicitly refers to PoF, i.e., the phenomenological-introspective approach! Is PoF the north to east, or east to north, according to you?

I think there may be some misunderstanding that the "going north" approach only involves delving into deeply meditative exercises, and excludes contemplation of the sensory spectrum and its lawful transformations. That is, of course, not excluded by PoF et al., but rather, "going north" refers to the fact that the thinking subject and its role in the contemplative process of the conscious contents are included in the picture. In this way, the thinking subject is also fertilized by its contemplation and 'draws conclusions that are truly sharp'. That is exactly what Steiner often said many aspects of the theosophical movement lacked. The intellectual weapons become blunt precisely when the intellect lacks a phenomenological orientation to the lawful constraints of its transforming state.

Ashvin, please, let's leave aside the minutia of "step by step", we can discuss it later. I can give you Scaligero's words as an answer for now (which you didn't seem to have any problem with), and we can discuss it further at a later time if you want:

Federica wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:05 pm So you see, the way is long, but we are getting there. With the Ahrimanic act, human freedom begins. I would say, that was an act of courage of a lower type, nonetheless it's an important courage, because man started to be the examiner of his own inner position. And here comes the Philosophy of Freedom. The Philosophy of Freedom begins exactly at that level, there are no discontinuities, no transcendences. It starts exactly from that Ahrimanic level, and then you see how we ascend. That's how thinking has been set free. Yes… and this is only the very beginning.

Now please comment on the main point, that Steiner has both approaches - the rest of the quote.
By the way, there is no misunderstanding of the type you evoke (like, I have not the least idea what Anthroposophy is).

Steiner wrote:if we start from the directly perceptible existence and from the processing that the human mind undertakes with it, we arrive at the level that can be described as the life and activity of the cognitive subject in the realm of the thought-plan. But then further progress is possible only if, from the other side, from the side opposite to the sense-perceptible existence, there comes the fertilization through those means which are presented in this book, 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. In the literature with which I have tried to point to these things step by step — first as prepared by my previous writings, summarized in my “Philosophy of Freedom”— you will find a path that can be taken from external sense perception, from the external processing of the material of existence, up to the realm of thought.

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 7:05 pm Ashvin, please, let's leave aside the minutia of "step by step", we can discuss it later. I can give you Scaligero's words as an answer for now (which you didn't seem to have any problem with), and we can discuss it further at a later time if you want:

Federica wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:05 pm So you see, the way is long, but we are getting there. With the Ahrimanic act, human freedom begins. I would say, that was an act of courage of a lower type, nonetheless it's an important courage, because man started to be the examiner of his own inner position. And here comes the Philosophy of Freedom. The Philosophy of Freedom begins exactly at that level, there are no discontinuities, no transcendences. It starts exactly from that Ahrimanic level, and then you see how we ascend. That's how thinking has been set free. Yes… and this is only the very beginning.

Now please comment on the main point, that Steiner has both approaches - the rest of the quote.
By the way, there is no misunderstanding of the type you evoke (like, I have not the least idea what Anthroposophy is).

Steiner wrote:if we start from the directly perceptible existence and from the processing that the human mind undertakes with it, we arrive at the level that can be described as the life and activity of the cognitive subject in the realm of the thought-plan. But then further progress is possible only if, from the other side, from the side opposite to the sense-perceptible existence, there comes the fertilization through those means which are presented in this book, 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. In the literature with which I have tried to point to these things step by step — first as prepared by my previous writings, summarized in my “Philosophy of Freedom”— you will find a path that can be taken from external sense perception, from the external processing of the material of existence, up to the realm of thought.

What I am failing to understand is why you are speaking of "both" approaches of Steiner in that or any other quote, Federica. From my perspective, there is only one introspective approach in such quotes, which is synonymous with PoF, as it has been characterized by Steiner, Scaligero, and of course, through many essays on this forum. It has also been characterized as study-meditation of lectures, approaching descriptions of inner experience with HHU, and so on. This unified approach can be characterized in many different ways and can emphasize different aspects of our cognitive, feeling, and volitional development, but it is always rooted in introspective observation.

Based on all your quite explicit comments on this thread, you seemed to be pointing toward another incremental intellectual approach which reasons through the logical connections of spiritual scientific facts until it can go no further and feels, "ok, this stuff makes so much sense and feels so profoundly truthful that there must be something worth investigating through meditative practices. I am now convinced that it's worth taking the leap into the inner landscape." The whole point of this other approach is that it avoids the 'difficulty' of leaping into introspective PoF-style inquiry. Of course, if this other approach was simply the default method of modern philosophy and science that has attained all its fantastic insights (which Steiner refers to in that lecture), then there would be no need to propose it. It is simply something that modern thinkers are doing by default, and in our time, the intellect has grown even further into the etheric depth and started extracting corresponding concepts (even if it remains oblivious to the inner process by which this extraction is accomplished).

But when pressed further on this other approach you have proposed, you seem to refashion it more and more to be the same as the first introspective approach, utilizing quotes explicitly about the introspective PoF method as support. Then you continue speaking of "both approaches", even though there appears to be only one approach reflected in the current quotes and discussion.

In any case, the incremental rational approach (non-introspective) is not what Steiner or anyone else is referring to in these quotes. That is not the PoF approach, and we have discussed the reasons why on many different threads at this point. I have tried to elucidate why the inner logic of the spiritual evolutionary process precludes such an approach from bearing fruit. It is not the case that we should first pursue the momentum of strictly intellectual gestures that combine concepts about spiritual reality into logical relations until we can go no further, and then start working on inner development, sequentializing these into steps. Rather, we should leverage the intellectual momentum cultivated over the last few centuries of evolution toward introspective observation as soon as we become aware of the possibility, and rhythmically allow the fertilization of the intellect to flow back into our ordinary intellectual research.

We all know the cliche, "I have a friend who is dealing with this or that, or wants to know such and such...". We know the person is usually speaking about themselves. Even if there really is a friend who is dealing with such an issue and wants to know, the person asking is pretty much in the same boat as the friend, otherwise they wouldn't be asking. You speak about the difficulties other souls face when approaching the PoF method:

We have seen from concrete cases how the phenomenology of spiritual activity is hard to grasp, precisely because it requires an immediate jump into spiritual action, rather than the third-person rationalization the human mind is so ambiguated with.

At a phenomenological level, we know that to speak of such difficulties for others we need to inhabit their perspective, or more likely for us, a general intellectual perspective, and feel how we would find certain things too inconvenient, too demanding, too requiring of blind trust, too many unfamiliar words-concepts, too much of a jump into action, and so on. We are always imagining those obstacles from our own perspective and its underlying soul context. The difficulties should not become too externalized onto other souls, in that sense, or we are simply leaving the perspective from which we imagine and feel out the difficulties, in the blind spot. What specifically do you sense when you imagine the 'immediate jump into spiritual action' from the first-person perspective, and what makes it so hard to deal with?

The only fruitful way forward in such a discussion is to admit the possibility that this difficulty relates to our current perspective and inquire into what it is that we are perhaps failing to understand or properly orient to within the spiritual path of intuitive thinking. There is always more to learn about its intricate dynamics, the flows of adversarial resistance we will surely encounter along the way, and the openings of imaginative leeway we can gradually fashion from within. There are surely characteristic hesitancies and corresponding thoughts that we are all familiar with and continue to encounter when engaing with the introspective approach. The question is whether we want to make some progress exploring these underlying issues or just keep abstractly debating what might possibly be good to pursue for some other souls under some other circumstances that we have yet to imagine.

Ashvin,
I see that you are trying to help, but I’ve never been a materialist, and I don’t need to be saved in this discussion. For my part, I have no doubt whatsoever about the value of the introspective approach. This discussion is not about me. It’s about the “saving the materialist” theme. As I have begun reading some lecture cycles on the applications of Anthroposophy this year, I thought it was remarkable how Steiner there addressed the intellect, science, and the scientific community. In that I found a strong relation to the theme of this thread. So I posted something about it, that’s it. True, the theme interests me deeply. I would like to develop the skills necessary to work at building such bridges between the human intellect and spiritual science. As I mentioned, I know a few smart and sensitive individuals caught in their unscrutinized assumptions about the nature of reality, starting from my own family members, and I am interested in possible aids, to respond to this stall in some way. I believe that knowledge of Anthroposophical applications could possibly help.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:25 am We all know the cliche, "I have a friend who is dealing with this or that, or wants to know such and such...". We know the person is usually speaking about themselves. Even if there really is a friend who is dealing with such an issue and wants to know, the person asking is pretty much in the same boat as the friend, otherwise they wouldn't be asking. You speak about the difficulties other souls face when approaching the PoF method:

We have seen from concrete cases how the phenomenology of spiritual activity is hard to grasp, precisely because it requires an immediate jump into spiritual action, rather than the third-person rationalization the human mind is so ambiguated with.

That was not a half-hidden way to speak about my own supposed difficulties, but a direct reference to what you said about concrete cases in the post above:

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:57 pm Let's imagine a new soul appears on this forum and says they are interested in idealistic philosophy and science, and they also became interested in how this overlaps with more spiritual pursuits, and want to understand this overlap better. They ask about resources to better orient to this overlap. This has more or less happened a few times, and the default approach has been to direct attention towards the phenomenology of spiritual activity in one form or another. Would your approach be any different at this time?

I knew you were psychologizing the thing as if I'm the one having doubts, It’s been clear enough, since the beginning. But I have to tell you, you are off track. I wonder why you have not pressed Güney, when he started this thread, to confess that the materialist he wanted to save was actually himself? How do I deserve this special treatment, I would like to know
Not that I don’t have difficulties, though. For example now I’m back from helping out with illness in my family, and I haven’t been able to take time for meditation, reading, or exercises for three weeks. Continuity is definitely something I struggle with in general, yet this discussion has nothing to do with that, as I hope it’s clear to you now.

Regarding your question, why I speak of Steiner’s two approaches, I am at a loss to figure out new ways to describe why. I feel I have done that all throughout these pages. Just above, you have presupposed that I was seeing only an intellectual approach in Steiner, extrapolating from isolated passages (as if I had no idea what Anthroposophy even is). Now, after I have once more clarified that the introspective approach is definitely the main one, for those who are ready for it, but that Steiner also regularly speaks in creative ways to the intellect of those who do not yet see how introspection is fundamental for the pursuit of knowledge - public audiences new to Anthroposophy, conventional scientists and practitioners in various fields - you are still unconvinced, only convinced that I'm the one trapped in intellectual tendencies. Perhaps we should pause this topic for now. And I will possibly resume it when/if I find some concrete way to present anthroposophical applications to today's rational mind.

Federica wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:05 am Ashvin,
I see that you are trying to help, but I’ve never been a materialist, and I don’t need to be saved in this discussion. For my part, I have no doubt whatsoever about the value of the introspective approach. This discussion is not about me. It’s about the “saving the materialist” theme. As I have begun reading some lecture cycles on the applications of Anthroposophy this year, I thought it was remarkable how Steiner there addressed the intellect, science, and the scientific community. In that I found a strong relation to the theme of this thread. So I posted something about it, that’s it. True, the theme interests me deeply. I would like to develop the skills necessary to work at building such bridges between the human intellect and spiritual science. As I mentioned, I know a few smart and sensitive individuals caught in their unscrutinized assumptions about the nature of reality, starting from my own family members, and I am interested in possible aids, to respond to this stall in some way. I believe that knowledge of Anthroposophical applications could possibly help.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:25 am We all know the cliche, "I have a friend who is dealing with this or that, or wants to know such and such...". We know the person is usually speaking about themselves. Even if there really is a friend who is dealing with such an issue and wants to know, the person asking is pretty much in the same boat as the friend, otherwise they wouldn't be asking. You speak about the difficulties other souls face when approaching the PoF method:

We have seen from concrete cases how the phenomenology of spiritual activity is hard to grasp, precisely because it requires an immediate jump into spiritual action, rather than the third-person rationalization the human mind is so ambiguated with.

That was not a half-hidden way to speak about my own supposed difficulties, but a direct reference to what you said about concrete cases in the post above:

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:57 pm Let's imagine a new soul appears on this forum and says they are interested in idealistic philosophy and science, and they also became interested in how this overlaps with more spiritual pursuits, and want to understand this overlap better. They ask about resources to better orient to this overlap. This has more or less happened a few times, and the default approach has been to direct attention towards the phenomenology of spiritual activity in one form or another. Would your approach be any different at this time?

I knew you were psychologizing the thing as if I'm the one having doubts, It’s been clear enough, since the beginning. But I have to tell you, you are off track. I wonder why you have not pressed Güney, when he started this thread, to confess that the materialist he wanted to save was actually himself? How do I deserve this special treatment, I would like to know
Not that I don’t have difficulties, though. For example now I’m back from helping out with illness in my family, and I haven’t been able to take time for meditation, reading, or exercises for three weeks. Continuity is definitely something I struggle with in general, yet this discussion has nothing to do with that, as I hope it’s clear to you now.

Regarding your question, why I speak of Steiner’s two approaches, I am at a loss to figure out new ways to describe why. I feel I have done that all throughout these pages. Just above, you have presupposed that I was seeing only an intellectual approach in Steiner, extrapolating from isolated passages (as if I had no idea what Anthroposophy even is). Now, after I have once more clarified that the introspective approach is definitely the main one, for those who are ready for it, but that Steiner also regularly speaks in creative ways to the intellect of those who do not yet see how introspection is fundamental for the pursuit of knowledge - public audiences new to Anthroposophy, conventional scientists and practitioners in various fields - you are still unconvinced, only convinced that I'm the one trapped in intellectual tendencies. Perhaps we should pause this topic for now. And I will possibly resume it when/if I find some concrete way to present anthroposophical applications to today's rational mind.

That's fine, Federica, let's pause it. I hope one day you will also review some of these threads and take notice of the patterns and trends revealed, and then you will see it's never just about other people and their struggles. I would hope anyone pursuing the introspective path would intuitively know that their comments also reflect upon the perspective from which they were issued, and that this phenomenological reality doesn't need to be restated on every thread. One of the first things we should learn on this path is how deeply the materialist, reductionist, externalizing, etc., tendencies are embedded in our souls as attractors of our imaginative states.

As I said before, it's also worrisome that you pass off your incremental rational approach onto Steiner, because that means either (a) you are fundamentally misunderstanding Steiner's indications, or (b) the approach you have in mind is practically the introspective approach, but for some reason you can't see that and thus keep speaking of two different approaches. You never addressed the fact that the recent quotes in question (from Steiner and Scaligero), which were supposed to help me see the 'other approach', were directly about the introspective approach, i.e., PoF.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:35 am That's fine, Federica, let's pause it. I hope one day you will also review some of these threads and take notice of the patterns and trends revealed, and then you will see it's never just about other people and their struggles. I would hope anyone pursuing the introspective path would intuitively know that their comments also reflect upon the perspective from which they were issued, and that this phenomenological reality doesn't need to be restated on every thread. One of the first things we should learn on this path is how deeply the materialist, reductionist, externalizing, etc., tendencies are embedded in our souls as attractors of our imaginative states.

As I said before, it's also worrisome that you pass off your incremental rational approach onto Steiner, because that means either (a) you are fundamentally misunderstanding Steiner's indications, or (b) the approach you have in mind is practically the introspective approach, but for some reason you can't see that and thus keep speaking of two different approaches. You never addressed the fact that the recent quotes in question (from Steiner and Scaligero), which were supposed to help me see the 'other approach', were directly about the introspective approach, i.e., PoF.

I have to notice that you have a hard time “inhabiting the other person’s perspective”. Instead, you prefer to give my words little twists of deformation. As I point these out, you conveniently let them fall, focusing on giving another twist somewhere else. Have you thought about recursively incorporating this tendency in your process? If you did, you could stop twisting my words to make them support your preconceived ideas. I quoted Scaligero to remind that, for him too, PoF starts from a step by step intellectual approach, to then open the way to ascension to the spiritual. PoF goes east first, and then north. It was the only way possible at that point. Anthroposophy was not born when PoF came to life. And this initial appeal to the intellect had to be a step by step progression, as per Steiners own words (a suspicious sign of reductionism, as you have called it, when I used the same expression in the same sense, before I knew about this lecture which, ironically, you pointed to):

Steiner wrote:if we start from the directly perceptible existence and from the processing that the human mind undertakes with it, we arrive at the level that can be described as the life and activity of the cognitive subject in the realm of the thought-plan. But then further progress is possible only if, from the other side, from the side opposite to the sense-perceptible existence, there comes the fertilization through those means which are presented in this book, 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. In the literature with which I have tried to point to these things step by step — first as prepared by my previous writings, summarized in my “Philosophy of Freedom”— you will find a path that can be taken from external sense perception, from the external processing of the material of existence, up to the realm of thought.

At this point I can practically remote view your next post. No supersensible faculties required here. Unless you think twice?