Philosophical Speculations

I will let this waiting for substance right now. This is a preparation, a form for the future.

The idea of “bridge” between ordinary life and spiritual life has been at the center of many recent discussions. Is it justified? How to build it? Since making myself understood in this intention has been a challenge, I’d like to share a small example here. The sketches below illustrate the modes of human cognition in a way that, as it seems to me, could serve as bridge for people who feel an interest, or at least an openness, to move beyond the dogma of consciousness as a byproduct of brain activity, and yet have not clicked, or would not click, with spiritual science, for various reasons.

As we know, many express such interest at the level of mere philosophical speculations separate from life, while others who do feel called to act upon their spiritual intuitions may end up not engaging in the necessary self education of the soul, even when the practices have been flawlessly presented to them, through conceptual rendering of suprasensible research. As argued many times, I am convinced that, for certain minds, presenting things from an angle that initially satisfies the intellect may help. This is because, for the vast majority of contemporary humans, it’s only through particularly favorable combinations of thought-pictures that the appropriate thought context can take shape, so that a small miracle of attention may happen. Then, the seeker is enabled to imagine the path to freedom in precisely those thought-sequences that have the power to kindle the healthy motives that need to be connected with, for certain virtuous behaviors to manifest with at least some robustness and consistency. These pictures of motives have the potential to steer the flow of becoming - through inner and outer action - toward concrete recognition of the Spirit. But if there is no funnel, random or feeble spiritual purposes most likely disperse and ‘abort’. And let's face it: the only thing the funnel can be made of is, well, thought-pictures. There is simply nothing else to juggle with.

Now, this example is about the modes of cognition, since these are one of the core angles to approach the question of how our consciousness should evolve. Hopefully, these few notes can give a sense of what I mean by bridging. Sketching this out, I had in mind concrete interactions, not speculations. I can easily see myself using this to speak of cognitive modes with my brother, for example, who has lucid dreams and other experiences, but reads them in all the wrong ways, according to me, and I guess there are many other cases.

What is the sticking point in wrapping one’s head around the modes of cognition? Following Steiner, the usual approach is to begin with the first-person perspective of the waking state, to compare familiar states. Thus we say: “In the waking state we are fully awake in thought, half-asleep in feeling, and completely asleep in the will”. Then we try to feel it and convey it. However, that we feel fully present in ordinary waking refers to thought-picturing consciousness, which then easily becomes established as the self-evident meter used to evaluate awakeness in any state. Since we experience thought-pictures that can apprehend feelings, will impulses, memories, dreams, and thoughts themselves, we call that state fully awakened, and judge the other states accordingly. Yet, consciousness means different things from different standpoints. From a higher perspective - be it grounded in experience or in mere intellectual apprehension - thought-picturing appears as just another kind of dreaming that one has to wake up from. Despite the fact that we can survey dream consciousness from within the waking state, ordinary waking is dreamscape too, relative to spiritual consciousness.

I think this is usually not emphasized enough. The thought context this insight could contribute is sacrificed for the sake of phenomenology. We want to maintain the first-person perspective, therefore we stand in ordinary waking space as the only possible starting point. Yet, at the beginning, the first-person perspective is not easy to appropriate anyway, other than theoretically. And the concept of being asleep, awake, or half-awake usually remains just as shadowy. Usually this lands completely flat, at least in my experience (and I remember how I struggled with it myself initially). At the same time, the one thing that actually is shadowy and should be recognized as such - thought-pictures - feel mobile and lively.

Therefore, even if spiritual consciousness has to remain an intellectual vantage point for a while, I believe it can be helpful that the stage is set in the way of a more intellectual overview, even if the phenomenological approach has to be temporarily sacrificed. I guess a more ‘bridging’ presentation would initially avoid the relative concepts of consciousness, unconsciousness, and half-consciousness altogether, so that one doesn't anchor more than necessary the default perspective of ordinary waking, and the sense that consciousness means beholding in thought. After all, that standpoint may be first-person, but it's a first-person who's merrily floating in dreams, while the main purpose is to put the preponderant state of physical submersion into striking perspective, but with the available means, not with the unavailable ones. Here I have tried to depict how the novice inquirer may feel when presented with the phenomenological approach:








This image represents the phenomenological inquiry from the given standpoint of ordinary consciousness. After the relations are explored downwards, towards dreaming and deep sleep, the higher cognitive states extending on the other side feel like a hazy, remote possibility. It’s understood that Imagination does not mean what it usually means, and begins to unfold after persistent practice of certain exercises. But how can Imagination be imagined in relation to the ordinary state, which is simultaneously felt fully conscious and accomplished, as confirmed by its capacity to evaluate the sleeping states? Thinking should become “living”, but through what context is the novice enabled to sense that ordinary thinking is not the real thing, but shadowy, and lifeless? Yes, the intuitive context is one answer, as explored in the many great analogies and exercises proposed on this forum. But what if the listener is too ‘immersed’ to follow and catch the insights?

A while ago, Rodriel wrote that “the basic esoteric elements of sleeping and waking” are one of “the plainly spiritual scientific concepts I refer to more or less without reservation in any community": How has this worked out in real life? Have listeners been able to draw anything fruitful from these concepts and come closer to an understanding of the aims of cognitive development?

How about presenting a larger overview of human experience, starting from the fundamental qualities of thinking, feeling, and the will, rather than from the phenomenology of the grades of consciousness as experienced in the waking state:








Hopefully the symmetry, continuity and direction emerging from the overview convey a sense of plausibility, lawfulness, and meaning - similar to how science and art are able to uncover logic, symmetry, and continuity in nature - and that can help inspire the will in the direction of the necessary phenomenological steps. Here the waking state is designated as a sleeping mode of consciousness, even if it may feel striking at first, and non-phenomenological. Also, the order in the three spiritual activities feels reversed along the ordinary cognitive states, but finds its deeper resolution and meaning in the three higher states, after a kind of inversion point is passed. Beyond that point, thinking is turned inside out and awakening begins, to continue with feeling being turned around, and at last, the will. All this would not be phenomenological at first. But again, the goal is to create a favorable thought-context using what's at hand.

Moreover, this view may put the materialistically-oriented and the non-dualist alike in a positive soul disposition. The former finds space to contemplate that, in the familiar waking state, there is something that indeed arises from the brain - the thoughts. Thinking activity is not that, but the materialist is appeased, since all he knows about thinking (the thoughts) is indeed allocated to the brain. What’s beyond that is new to him. Thus he may become more open to contemplating the brain-based thoughts as reflections or projections of some other ‘Platonic-space template, or activity, that materializes in brain activity, when sifted through the world of matter. Similarly, the non-dualist can be reassured that the impulse to extinguish all content of consciousness is one that finds its rightful place along the path. Once brought forth, Imaginative pictures do have to be extinguished. That there's a preliminary phase aimed at vivifying the experience of thinking, before it can be properly extinguished, may sound acceptable to the non-dualist.

There would be more to add, but, as said, these are floating sketches and my attempt was only to give a general sense of where I’m heading to, when I think bridge. In this intention, there is no purpose to minimize the necessity to train the soul faculties with strict discipline and warm enthusiasm. It’s rather the opposite: the hope is that this contextualization can be conducive to precisely those necessary resolutions, for certain minds. These minds surely need to hear that the illustrations are shared and received from within the limited perspective of ordinary waking. That’s the environment of the interaction, and at some point it has to become clear that no real understanding can be gained by simply re-picturing thought-pictures. Self-motivation and original action are required. Yes, even more thought-pictures would form as a result, but the point is, not all thought-pictures are equally effective. Some can stir the will, others can’t.

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 10, 2025 7:19 pm How about presenting a larger overview of human experience, starting from the fundamental qualities of thinking, feeling, and the will, rather than from the phenomenology of the grades of consciousness as experienced in the waking state:






There would be more to add, but, as said, these are floating sketches and my attempt was only to give a general sense of where I’m heading to, when I think bridge. In this intention, there is no purpose to minimize the necessity to train the soul faculties with strict discipline and warm enthusiasm. It’s rather the opposite: the hope is that this contextualization can be conducive to precisely those necessary resolutions, for certain minds. These minds surely need to hear that the illustrations are shared and received from within the limited perspective of ordinary waking. That’s the environment of the interaction, and at some point it has to become clear that no real understanding can be gained by simply re-picturing thought-pictures. Self-motivation and original action are required. Yes, even more thought-pictures would form as a result, but the point is, not all thought-pictures are equally effective. Some can stir the will, others can’t.

Thanks for sharing these interesting illustrations, Federica. I don't think there is anything wrong with presenting things in this 'inverted' way, and indeed, it is often helpful to utilize metaphors which highlight the dreaminess-sleepiness of the ordinary waking state in relation to potential higher states (for example, metaphors comparing animal or childlike conscious experience to our intellectual waking experience). Perhaps there will be more thoughts to add on these dynamics, but I will only make a simple observation now.

Let's imagine that the 2nd diagram is presented to a 'novice', like your brother. I imagine that, if he remains even slightly interested in the meaning it conveys, he would then have a ton of follow-up questions about its significance. For example, why is the diagram divided into W, F, and T? What are we speaking about when we say, "the will remains pure potential"? What is signified by "WFT flow"? It may be difficult for us to adopt the perspective of such questions from the novice because, through our conceptual-meditative efforts, we have thoroughly explored this fundamental spectrum of spiritual activity. All the categories and descriptions fit quite effortlessly into our intuitive context, but we should try to imagine how the diagram would be experienced without any such prior exploration. As soon as such questions are posed to us by the novice, the only option to further elucidate their meaning is by offering introspective guidelines. There is simply no way to make ideas like "pure potential" or "incoming WFT flow" more understandable without pointing toward the corresponding inner experiences (and attaining concrete orientation to this TFW inner spectrum is already a major introspective accomplishment that many people will not attain in an entire lifetime). Without that, the diagram may as well be presented in hieroglyphics.

If that is agreed, then I feel like the 'general sense of where you're heading to' is precisely the phenomenological-introspective approach. And, as discussed before, there are risks we need to consider when enticing the materialist or non-dualist into 'accepting' the concepts because they seem to fit harmoniously with already explored intuition of 'how reality works'. The risk is that this disincentivizes the soul from realizing its helplessness and its need for guidance when confronted by the truthful (phenomenological) flow of reality, thereby cultivating the inverted inner stance (from the 'peripheral eye' perspective) that is necessary for our introspective efforts to bear fruit. It is exactly what you expressed in the other thread:

"This is like a constant blow on human dignity. Hopefully more and more people will find this forever behindness of present theoretical science the saddest, most unbearable thing, and that a truly human will must rebel against this."

Why doesn't DH, like so many others in his position, find this state of theoretical science unbearable? It's because he cannot even imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions about reality. Such a process can never be imagined without the introspective effort that brings the soul into contact with the assumption-free flow of its intuitive activity. In this case, it isn't realized that the soul can follow and feel out the structure of ideal reality within its imaginative flow, which is to say, it isn't realized that this is what the soul is already doing when weaving through the mathematical landscape and modeling the behavior of 'conscious agents'. This is why the introspective observation of inner activity is so critical for awakening from the dreamy-sleepy intellectual waking state, becoming conscious of how the latter takes shape. If we take that dream metaphor to the higher spectrum seriously, then we should see how no dream images really stir the will into awakening orthogonally to the dreamscape more than other dream images.

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Dec 10, 2025 7:19 pm ...

Federica, great illustrations!
I'll have to read it again because I'm still in the office and could only go through it in a more beta brainwave state, so apologies if I have missed something. But like Ashvin notes, it feels to me that your approach is already phenomenological (how else could "Feeling is turned around and begins to perceive the breath of Spirit-Logos" be made sense of?). The third column of the table can be attached to the Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition waves of the first. Which is actually great, but I'm not sure in what way exactly you see that approach as non-phenomenological.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 11, 2025 2:58 pm Thanks for sharing these interesting illustrations, Federica. I don't think there is anything wrong with presenting things in this 'inverted' way, and indeed, it is often helpful to utilize metaphors which highlight the dreaminess-sleepiness of the ordinary waking state in relation to potential higher states (for example, metaphors comparing animal or childlike conscious experience to our intellectual waking experience). Perhaps there will be more thoughts to add on these dynamics, but I will only make a simple observation now.

Let's imagine that the 2nd diagram is presented to a 'novice', like your brother. I imagine that, if he remains even slightly interested in the meaning it conveys, he would then have a ton of follow-up questions about its significance. For example, why is the diagram divided into W, F, and T? What are we speaking about when we say, "the will remains pure potential"? What is signified by "WFT flow"? It may be difficult for us to adopt the perspective of such questions from the novice because, through our conceptual-meditative efforts, we have thoroughly explored this fundamental spectrum of spiritual activity. All the categories and descriptions fit quite effortlessly into our intuitive context, but we should try to imagine how the diagram would be experienced without any such prior exploration. As soon as such questions are posed to us by the novice, the only option to further elucidate their meaning is by offering introspective guidelines. There is simply no way to make ideas like "pure potential" or "incoming WFT flow" more understandable without pointing toward the corresponding inner experiences (and attaining concrete orientation to this TFW inner spectrum is already a major introspective accomplishment that many people will not attain in an entire lifetime). Without that, the diagram may as well be presented in hieroglyphics.

If that is agreed, then I feel like the 'general sense of where you're heading to' is precisely the phenomenological-introspective approach. And, as discussed before, there are risks we need to consider when enticing the materialist or non-dualist into 'accepting' the concepts because they seem to fit harmoniously with already explored intuition of 'how reality works'. The risk is that this disincentivizes the soul from realizing its helplessness and its need for guidance when confronted by the truthful (phenomenological) flow of reality, thereby cultivating the inverted inner stance (from the 'peripheral eye' perspective) that is necessary for our introspective efforts to bear fruit. It is exactly what you expressed in the other thread:

"This is like a constant blow on human dignity. Hopefully more and more people will find this forever behindness of present theoretical science the saddest, most unbearable thing, and that a truly human will must rebel against this."

Why doesn't DH, like so many others in his position, find this state of theoretical science unbearable? It's because he cannot even imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions about reality. Such a process can never be imagined without the introspective effort that brings the soul into contact with the assumption-free flow of its intuitive activity. In this case, it isn't realized that the soul can follow and feel out the structure of ideal reality within its imaginative flow, which is to say, it isn't realized that this is what the soul is already doing when weaving through the mathematical landscape and modeling the behavior of 'conscious agents'. This is why the introspective observation of inner activity is so critical for awakening from the dreamy-sleepy intellectual waking state, becoming conscious of how the latter takes shape. If we take that dream metaphor to the higher spectrum seriously, then we should see how no dream images really stir the will into awakening orthogonally to the dreamscape more than other dream images.

That diagram is certainly not intended to be presented to a novice. My intention was only to try and illustrate here in this forum an example of what I mean by bridge as I conceive it in my mental process, not as a finished product usable to present the evolution of consciousness to anyone. The diagram needs to be expanded into a whole series of diagrams, or a book, in order to become apprehendable and digestible. It would be witless to hope to encapsulate any such large-spectrum ideal tableau in just one diagram. Then, as you say, all sorts of questions would accumulate, throwing the novice's mind into a maze of possible tangents - in the best case scenario. I am aware that they can’t comprehend this sketch as such - which is also why I haven't done anything with it, apart from posting it here. This is what I meant by “floating sketches”.

This said, I don’t agree that “the only option to further elucidate their meaning is by offering introspective guidelines”. The alternative option is to create a sufficient and favorable discursive context around this core question of the qualities of human experience. The ideas of “pure potential” and “incoming WFT flow” absolutely can be made more understandable than hieroglyphs for the novice, before a meditative practice is established. Even the contrast between the two sketches (once these are reelaborated in simpler steps, etc.) may evoke the nature of introspection before introspection is engaged. To exemplify these possibilities of ordinary consciousness was the entire purpose of my post, but apparently you would only be convinced if I were to eventually present you with an entire book - maybe - and okay, this example has provided no convincing illustration of the benefits of offering a thought-context meant to be apprehended in ordinary consciousness, and how this context may elicit - inevitably through a combination of thought pictures - certain specific motives and resolutions which eventually may transform into introspective action.

Yet, it should be evident that presenting the novice with the higher levels of cognition in specific, differentiated terms, highlighting their natural and logical continuity along several lines of progression can only constitute a non-phenomenological approach; not to mention that when I speak of combustion of the self or extinction of thinking, there is no sense in which these ideas correspond to direct experience, and yet my mind is able to render the magnificent picture of lawful relations that emerges from contemplation.

Then, speaking of the risks of "desensitizing the soul to realizing its helplessness", I think these do not increase when a bridging thought context is built and probably it's the opposite. In fact, the soul is already desensitized, thus the question is not what approach desensitizes more, but rather what approach can better speak to the already desensitized mind to result in activation of the will. And my view is that, for the desensitized mind, phenomenology risks feeling like hieroglyphs, or fog (as in the first sketch), if it's introduced too early, when the ordinary consciousness has no thought-context yet to rely upon. As you say, Hoffman cannot even imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions about reality. Which is precisely the reason why, in these conditions, a directly phenomenological prompting would most likely fall flat, in the dire absence of a context to support in decipherable (ordinary) terms the motives leading to the beginning of an specific spiritual practice. At the end of the day, the main sticking point is that:

“Such a process can never be imagined without the introspective effort that brings the soul into contact with the assumption-free flow of its intuitive activity.”

The process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions can be imagined. It can’t be immediately experienced from within, but it can be imagined. It can even be sensed. Its existence and nature can absolutely be imagined. They can be pictured. And the lack of its reality can even be sensed, although at first as if in negative terms. That is, one can sense that a lawful dimension is cruelly lacking, and so the perceived void can attract the mind and compel the will towards its center, spurring it into action. Before this context is formed, however, encouragement to introspective observation of inner activity would probably go in one ear and out the other, precisely for the reasons that you have mentioned.

It is so clear: some dream images of the ordinary consciousness do have more power to stir the will than others. Obviously they do. Ordinary thought sequences are not all created equal. Just think about your own past experience, the passage from philosophical thought to the path of freedom. Are you able to affirm that the particular thought sequences you were engaged in played no role in creating the favorable context that made you change your habits and take up an introspective practice? Or would you insist that introspection was born out of introspection? As Cleric wrote:

In Imagination we can see how a thought train has a life on its own. It begins to grow and integrates until the "I" (which lives in the growth of the thought) awakens to its reflection in the image. Not all thoughts have the conditions to grow into fruits within which the intuition of the "I" is reflected. Most of our daily buzzing thoughts are like aborted growth which never reflects the activity of the "I", let alone deeper secrets of the spiritual worlds. We have these rhythms on all scales. Our incarnation is the growth of one such Cosmic Image that seeks to reflect the intuition of the Whole.

Federica wrote: ↑Thu Dec 11, 2025 11:02 pm The alternative option is to create a sufficient and favorable discursive context around this core question of the qualities of human experience. The ideas of “pure potential” and “incoming WFT flow” absolutely can be made more understandable than hieroglyphs for the novice, before a meditative practice is established. Even the contrast between the two sketches (once these are reelaborated in simpler steps, etc.) may evoke the nature of introspection before introspection is engaged.
...
Yet, it should be evident that presenting the novice with the higher levels of cognition in specific, differentiated terms, highlighting their natural and logical continuity along several lines of progression can only constitute a non-phenomenological approach; not to mention that when I speak of combustion of the self or extinction of thinking, there is no sense in which these ideas correspond to direct experience, and yet my mind is able to render the magnificent picture of lawful relations that emerges from contemplation.

There is misalignment in our understanding of 'phenomenological-introspective' approach, but it's difficult to locate precisely where this misalignment arises. I am only further confused by sentences such as those above.

What you describe before the glowing parts, from my perspective, feels to be negated by the glowing parts. It only makes sense if we picture such a presentation in a completely schematic way, which essentially asks people to memorize how the concept of 'imagination' should always be associated with the concept of "sensing-thinking observing itself", and so on (and this is the only way it could remain without introspective observation of the TFW spectrum), or if we consider "phenomenology" as something that only involves the deepest meditative states that lead directly to clairvoyance. Perhaps that's why you say it is non- or pre- phenomenological. I doubt the former scenario is the case, from your perspective, but I am not sure why the latter would be the case, either. We know that phenomenology and study-meditation is not only deep meditation, but also involves the kind of TFW and higher cognitive promptings you are illustrating.

Cleric made the same point. We realize the diagram is a symbol for a more expanded approach and 'ideal tableau' with systematic steps, but it's not at all clear why these steps would ever be considered non-phenomenological. There is truly no such thing as orienting to higher cognitive experience in its differentiated relations and continuity with ordinary experience, without a phenomenological orientation. If we simply imagine what the steps would be to elucidate the meaning of the themes reflected in that diagram, we inevitably feel our inner process moving toward introspective gestures. We feel that the meaning of "incoming WFT flow" can only be further grasped by living within our imminent flow and feeling how the differentiated spectrums take shape, overlap, diverge, meet resistance, open degrees of freedom, and so on. It is the same with "combustion of the self" or "extinction of thinking" - these certainly correspond to direct inner experiences on the meditative path, but they will be understood in an entirely misleading ('non-dual') way if they remain uncomplemented by those specific inner experiences. This is what we all did to gain a footing in this supersensible domain, and we need to keep doing so as to remain relatively stable when our footing inevitably becomes precarious on the 'balance beam' of higher development.

If higher cognitive experience is presented without such guidelines, then it can only be misunderstood in the worst possible ways, which could easily lead to an entire lifetime of misorientation. We should try to feel, for example, how all the discussion of higher cognition that accesses experience across the threshold of death can only be seen as unabated arrogance and pride from the standard intellectual perspective. It is pure inflation of an ego that got carried away on its own self-importance and thus imagines the secrets of existence, of life, death, unbornness, immortality, etc., have been magically unveiled in plain view of its prideful eye. This is the only way for the flattened intellectual perspective to understand such a discussion, because the concept of "investigating experience across the threshold of death" is an absurdity, a non-starter for the intellect confined to the dreamscape (head cube). That only changes once it has lifted at least a few degrees of incline off the surface plane and can introspectively sense its formative imaginative gestures within the depths. Only then does the whole thing flip on its head, and the soul realizes, not only that the higher cognitive stages described can exist, but something like them must exist. It is literally unimaginable until that inflection point, just as the dream character can never imagine the waking state through varied sequences of dream images.

Then, speaking of the risks of "desensitizing the soul to realizing its helplessness", I think these do not increase when a bridging thought context is built and probably it's the opposite. In fact, the soul is already desensitized, thus the question is not what approach desensitizes more, but rather what approach can better speak to the already desensitized mind to result in activation of the will. And my view is that, for the desensitized mind, phenomenology risks feeling like hieroglyphs, or fog (as in the first sketch), if it's introduced too early, when the ordinary consciousness has no thought-context yet to rely upon. As you say, Hoffman cannot even imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions about reality. Which is precisely the reason why, in these conditions, a directly phenomenological prompting would most likely fall flat, in the dire absence of a context to support in decipherable (ordinary) terms the motives leading to the beginning of an specific spiritual practice. At the end of the day, the main sticking point is that:

“Such a process can never be imagined without the introspective effort that brings the soul into contact with the assumption-free flow of its intuitive activity.”

The process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions can be imagined. It can’t be immediately experienced from within, but it can be imagined. It can even be sensed. Its existence and nature can absolutely be imagined. They can be pictured. And the lack of its reality can even be sensed, although at first as if in negative terms. That is, one can sense that a lawful dimension is cruelly lacking, and so the perceived void can attract the mind and compel the will towards its center, spurring it into action. Before this context is formed, however, encouragement to introspective observation of inner activity would probably go in one ear and out the other, precisely for the reasons that you have mentioned.

It is so clear: some dream images of the ordinary consciousness do have more power to stir the will than others. Obviously they do. Ordinary thought sequences are not all created equal. Just think about your own past experience, the passage from philosophical thought to the path of freedom. Are you able to affirm that the particular thought sequences you were engaged in played no role in creating the favorable context that made you change your habits and take up an introspective practice? Or would you insist that introspection was born out of introspection? As Cleric wrote:

In Imagination we can see how a thought train has a life on its own. It begins to grow and integrates until the "I" (which lives in the growth of the thought) awakens to its reflection in the image. Not all thoughts have the conditions to grow into fruits within which the intuition of the "I" is reflected. Most of our daily buzzing thoughts are like aborted growth which never reflects the activity of the "I", let alone deeper secrets of the spiritual worlds. We have these rhythms on all scales. Our incarnation is the growth of one such Cosmic Image that seeks to reflect the intuition of the Whole.

Again, I simply don't know how the glowing part could ever be considered non-introspective or non-phenomenological. What does it mean to sense a 'lawful dimension that is lacking' without introspecting? A lawful dimension of what would be sensed as lacking?

There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection, and these are precisely the sequences which are simultaneously exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect and get a feel for the inner spectrum (analogous to the techniques used for lucid dreaming). These sequences embed the imaginative seed of growth within them, and the seeds will not fail to grow if they are met with the water, light, and warmth of the seeking soul. These are the orderly sequences which don't get aborted because they reflect the higher activity of the "I" thinking them without too many levels of indirection (buzzing thoughts), as per Cleric's quote. The only reason these sequences can stimulate the soul to awaken from within the dreamy intellectual state and traverse the self-conscious imaginative spectrum is because they are already walking with one foot in the imaginative state, so to speak. They prompt the soul to imaginatively rehearse its deeper living movements. A proper phenomenology provides the supporting thought-context for introspection, not only standalone exercises, as we have many examples of. This is exactly my experience of the sequences that made the difference on my path - introspection was indeed born out of introspection, in that sense, with the support of the imaginative phenomenological sequences.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 12, 2025 1:21 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Thu Dec 11, 2025 11:02 pm The alternative option is to create a sufficient and favorable discursive context around this core question of the qualities of human experience. The ideas of “pure potential” and “incoming WFT flow” absolutely can be made more understandable than hieroglyphs for the novice, before a meditative practice is established. Even the contrast between the two sketches (once these are reelaborated in simpler steps, etc.) may evoke the nature of introspection before introspection is engaged.
...
Yet, it should be evident that presenting the novice with the higher levels of cognition in specific, differentiated terms, highlighting their natural and logical continuity along several lines of progression can only constitute a non-phenomenological approach; not to mention that when I speak of combustion of the self or extinction of thinking, there is no sense in which these ideas correspond to direct experience, and yet my mind is able to render the magnificent picture of lawful relations that emerges from contemplation.

There is misalignment in our understanding of 'phenomenological-introspective' approach, but it's difficult to locate precisely where this misalignment arises. I am only further confused by sentences such as those above.

What you describe before the glowing parts, from my perspective, feels to be negated by the glowing parts. It only makes sense if we picture such a presentation in a completely schematic way, which essentially asks people to memorize how the concept of 'imagination' should always be associated with the concept of "sensing-thinking observing itself", and so on (and this is the only way it could remain without introspective observation of the TFW spectrum), or if we consider "phenomenology" as something that only involves the deepest meditative states that lead directly to clairvoyance. Perhaps that's why you say it is non- or pre- phenomenological. I doubt the former scenario is the case, from your perspective, but I am not sure why the latter would be the case, either. We know that phenomenology and study-meditation is not only deep meditation, but also involves the kind of TFW and higher cognitive promptings you are illustrating.

Cleric made the same point. We realize the diagram is a symbol for a more expanded approach and 'ideal tableau' with systematic steps, but it's not at all clear why these steps would ever be considered non-phenomenological. There is truly no such thing as orienting to higher cognitive experience in its differentiated relations and continuity with ordinary experience, without a phenomenological orientation. If we simply imagine what the steps would be to elucidate the meaning of the themes reflected in that diagram, we inevitably feel our inner process moving toward introspective gestures. We feel that the meaning of "incoming WFT flow" can only be further grasped by living within our imminent flow and feeling how the differentiated spectrums take shape, overlap, diverge, meet resistance, open degrees of freedom, and so on. It is the same with "combustion of the self" or "extinction of thinking" - these certainly correspond to direct inner experiences on the meditative path, but they will be understood in an entirely misleading ('non-dual') way if they remain uncomplemented by those specific inner experiences. This is what we all did to gain a footing in this supersensible domain, and we need to keep doing so as to remain relatively stable when our footing inevitably becomes precarious on the 'balance beam' of higher development.

If higher cognitive experience is presented without such guidelines, then it can only be misunderstood in the worst possible ways, which could easily lead to an entire lifetime of misorientation. We should try to feel, for example, how all the discussion of higher cognition that accesses experience across the threshold of death can only be seen as unabated arrogance and pride from the standard intellectual perspective. It is pure inflation of an ego that got carried away on its own self-importance and thus imagines the secrets of existence, of life, death, unbornness, immortality, etc., have been magically unveiled in plain view of its prideful eye. This is the only way for the flattened intellectual perspective to understand such a discussion, because the concept of "investigating experience across the threshold of death" is an absurdity, a non-starter for the intellect confined to the dreamscape (head cube). That only changes once it has lifted at least a few degrees of incline off the surface plane and can introspectively sense its formative imaginative gestures within the depths. Only then does the whole thing flip on its head, and the soul realizes, not only that the higher cognitive stages described can exist, but something like them must exist. It is literally unimaginable until that inflection point, just as the dream character can never imagine the waking state through varied sequences of dream images.

Then, speaking of the risks of "desensitizing the soul to realizing its helplessness", I think these do not increase when a bridging thought context is built and probably it's the opposite. In fact, the soul is already desensitized, thus the question is not what approach desensitizes more, but rather what approach can better speak to the already desensitized mind to result in activation of the will. And my view is that, for the desensitized mind, phenomenology risks feeling like hieroglyphs, or fog (as in the first sketch), if it's introduced too early, when the ordinary consciousness has no thought-context yet to rely upon. As you say, Hoffman cannot even imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions about reality. Which is precisely the reason why, in these conditions, a directly phenomenological prompting would most likely fall flat, in the dire absence of a context to support in decipherable (ordinary) terms the motives leading to the beginning of an specific spiritual practice. At the end of the day, the main sticking point is that:

“Such a process can never be imagined without the introspective effort that brings the soul into contact with the assumption-free flow of its intuitive activity.”

The process of inquiry that doesn't rest on never-ending theoretical assumptions can be imagined. It can’t be immediately experienced from within, but it can be imagined. It can even be sensed. Its existence and nature can absolutely be imagined. They can be pictured. And the lack of its reality can even be sensed, although at first as if in negative terms. That is, one can sense that a lawful dimension is cruelly lacking, and so the perceived void can attract the mind and compel the will towards its center, spurring it into action. Before this context is formed, however, encouragement to introspective observation of inner activity would probably go in one ear and out the other, precisely for the reasons that you have mentioned.

It is so clear: some dream images of the ordinary consciousness do have more power to stir the will than others. Obviously they do. Ordinary thought sequences are not all created equal. Just think about your own past experience, the passage from philosophical thought to the path of freedom. Are you able to affirm that the particular thought sequences you were engaged in played no role in creating the favorable context that made you change your habits and take up an introspective practice? Or would you insist that introspection was born out of introspection? As Cleric wrote:

In Imagination we can see how a thought train has a life on its own. It begins to grow and integrates until the "I" (which lives in the growth of the thought) awakens to its reflection in the image. Not all thoughts have the conditions to grow into fruits within which the intuition of the "I" is reflected. Most of our daily buzzing thoughts are like aborted growth which never reflects the activity of the "I", let alone deeper secrets of the spiritual worlds. We have these rhythms on all scales. Our incarnation is the growth of one such Cosmic Image that seeks to reflect the intuition of the Whole.

Again, I simply don't know how the glowing part could ever be considered non-introspective or non-phenomenological. What does it mean to sense a 'lawful dimension that is lacking' without introspecting? A lawful dimension of what would be sensed as lacking?

There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection, and these are precisely the sequences which are simultaneously exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect and get a feel for the inner spectrum (analogous to the techniques used for lucid dreaming). These sequences embed the imaginative seed of growth within them, and the seeds will not fail to grow if they are met with the water, light, and warmth of the seeking soul. These are the orderly sequences which don't get aborted because they reflect the higher activity of the "I" thinking them without too many levels of indirection (buzzing thoughts), as per Cleric's quote. The only reason these sequences can stimulate the soul to awaken from within the dreamy intellectual state and traverse the self-conscious imaginative spectrum is because they are already walking with one foot in the imaginative state, so to speak. They prompt the soul to imaginatively rehearse its deeper living movements. A proper phenomenology provides the supporting thought-context for introspection, not only standalone exercises, as we have many examples of. This is exactly my experience of the sequences that made the difference on my path - introspection was indeed born out of introspection, in that sense, with the support of the imaginative phenomenological sequences.

Well, I am also confused for example when you first say: “If we take that dream metaphor to the higher spectrum seriously, then we should see how no dream images really stir the will into awakening orthogonally to the dreamscape more than other dream images” and later: “There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection”.

But never mind, I will try to clarify. Let’s put it like this: the bridge is for the benefit of whoever cannot yet imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on theoretical assumptions about reality, because of immersion in the ordinary understanding of how knowledge is acquired. If the person does not suspect that there is another way of knowing that is not the ordinary conceptual apprehending modeled by most science and philosophy, chances are the phenomenological “exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect“ would not work. The person would not be motivated to try any novel approach. Instead they would read the phenomenological prompts as theories, and would therefore find them uninteresting. Even less would they accept the invitation to do specific exercises with consistency; they would think they are a waste of time, while there is so much to model, and research and discover, would they deem.

When I speak of non-phenomenological approach, I simply mean an approach that reflects the phenomenological one in discursive concepts. With phenomenology I don't refer to remote states of deep meditation. I simply acknowledge that, when someone has not yet realized what the problem with ordinary cognition is, the prompts you speak of - “the thought-sequences which are simultaneously exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect and get a feel for the inner spectrum” - would most likely fall flat, as they have usually done. Hence the intention to present something preparatory.

To evaluate illustrations in ordinary cognition does not mean that one is limited to memorizing meaningless associations. Of course not, as Steiner repeated hundred times: at least to some extent and under certain conditions, the ordinary consciousness is able to take in the value of anthroposophical accounts and illustrations, even before having developed the introspection that grows the supersensible organs of perception. There is the normal faculty of intuition that can be stimulated; there is the sense of truth; there are the applications of spiritual science that can be tested against the material world (as described in the Martin O'Keefe-Liddard’s post) and there there are the aha feelings that the beauty and lawfulness of reality can trigger, once such lawfulness is appropriately brought out. That’s what the diagram was meant to attempt, regardless of how it was drawn in the first place.

Also, think about the following. If it were true that the concepts in the diagram lead to “an entire lifetime of misorientation” if not complemented by the corresponding direct inner experiences, then it would mean that Steiner’s lifetime of lecturing, especially to the general public - which definitely included discussion of higher cognition that accesses experience across the threshold of death - has been mindless, misleading, and misorienting for people all along, because the things he presented could “only be seen as unabated arrogance and pride from the standard intellectual perspective” and could only be "misunderstood in the worst possible ways". It's similar to when Kaje contended that esoteric knowledge should not be largely and purposefully spread. Of course, one can have such conviction, and one can equally say that presenting experience across the threshold can only mislead people if they don't have the matching phenomenology. But one should also be aware that it means saying that Steiner was an idiot, and persisted in his idiocy his entire life.

I find your approach interesting, Federica. But I also kind of understand what Cleric and Ashvin mean. I'm thinking, for example, of real understanding as opposed to memorizing (fossilizing) information. Let me elaborate what I mean:

For example, when I read a mathematical theorem and try to understand its proof, such as why the square root of 2 is an irrational number, I could either truly understand the depth of the proof by following the inner activity and intuitive content (i.e., constructing it myself internally), or I could simply memorize it and recite it like a memorized poem. In the first case, I find that not only is my understanding not fossilized, but that I can actually reconstruct the proof myself, through my own activity, and thereby "penetrate" and understand it more deeply. I actually understand vividly why the proof comes about. And so, paradoxically, I also have new (almost infinite) degrees of freedom to describe the proof in the most creative way to others. If, on the other hand, I have only memorized the proof (i.e. learned it by just remembering the text, the symbols, letters and numbers written down on paper), it feels different: it feels rigid, like a simple stand-alone formula, and I cannot really "control" my inner processes except through the constraints of the memorized information. If someone were to ask me, "What is the point of using proof by contradiction to show that the two selected numbers are not really coprime?", I would not really be able to explain it. I'd be forced to say: "Well, that's just how it is" (kinda similar in a way to explain Kantian concepts of categories or the thing-in-itself) because I simply don't know better, I haven't penetrated it deeply enough. In soul mood, I'd have to admit that I take the memorized formula as a "ground" or "foundation" that requires no further explanation (even though my Thinking knows there's definitely more), that's how I come to the statement: "Well, that's just how it is".

However, once I have understood and constructed the proof myself internally, I find new ways through my internal activities to explain why we choose any two numbers (a and b) and first assume that they are coprime, only to show, by navigating and following my inner activity, that these two numbers are ultimately not coprime, which is where the "proof idea" lies, the key to the proof.

Fun fact: Most schools today hardly teach this imaginative method of mathematics (often called “university mathematics”), but you only experience it at university. During school, on the other hand, you usually learn tables by heart (e.g., like the multiplication tables) and then simply recite the memorized content and then put the pieces together with higher numbers (e.g. compound multiplication / tables over ten) . Much of school mathematics is therefore often limited to a sort of formulaic thinking. Another example is the p-q formula, which can be used to determine the zero points of a function. Nowadays, the formula is often taught like a recipe, instead of really understanding how this formula actually comes about. This is the situation here in Germany. I don't know how it is in the US or other countries.

But I think I understand your approach, Federica. Your idea seems to be, if I understand it correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), is that one coming from a fossilized-cognitive mode has to familiarize themself with the subject matter emotionally first, even if one is not yet really livingly experiencing it from the first-person pov, which somewhat leads interacting with it in a third-person pov. In a way, I've had a similar experience: I first had to get excited/motivated about math (Soul mood) or (respectively) see/recognize why math suddenly is an important aspect of my life, memorize certain things at first, and only over time did I dive deeper and move away from pure memorization and rote learning toward a more internal, intuitive activity. In a sense, however, this is actually also is already a form of phenomenology, because even memorization itself is actually experienced from "within" (because we actively produce it), albeit in a different way by creating artifical divisions.

If you allow, I might have a slightly different idea:
Many people that come from such fields, usually are still well adapted to mathematical proving. They already know how they work, how to navigate them, how to prove theorems. They already possess the awareness of the necessity of creative insights, and are kinda introspective in a certain way. I think, Federica, if you put more emphasis on the intuitive activity of such proofs, you could technically get more people to listen and to actually approach the phenomenological activity, because mathematical inner activity is already close to that process. In this sense, it would be offering introspective guidelines in respect to mathematics. As soon as they become more aware of it, it could make sense to lead them towards more imaginative exercises. I remember that Steiner also wrote about this, that mathematics (but, I'd specify: Creative insights in mathematical proofs, the key idea to a proof) is sense-free thinking and, respectively, a preliminary stage for imagination.

E.g. I give a small example from the book ("The Art and Craft of Problem Solving"):

A monk climbs a mountain. He starts at 8 AM and reaches the summit at noon. He spends the night on the summit. The next morning, he leaves the summit at 8 AM and descends by the same route that he used the day before, reaching the bottom at noon. Prove that there is a time between 8 AM and noon at which the monk was at exactly the same spot on the mountain on both days. (Notice that we do not specify anything about the speed that the monk travels. For example, he could race at 1000 miles per hour for the first few minutes, then sit still for hours, then travel backward, etc. Nor does the monk have to travel at the same speeds going up as going down.)

Kaje977 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 10:19 am I find your approach interesting, Federica. But I also kind of understand what Cleric and Ashvin mean. I'm thinking, for example, of real understanding as opposed to memorizing (fossilizing) information. Let me elaborate what I mean:

For example, when I read a mathematical theorem and try to understand its proof, such as why the square root of 2 is an irrational number, I could either truly understand the depth of the proof by following the inner activity and intuitive content (i.e., constructing it myself internally), or I could simply memorize it and recite it like a memorized poem. In the first case, I find that not only is my understanding not fossilized, but that I can actually reconstruct the proof myself, through my own activity, and thereby "penetrate" and understand it more deeply. I actually understand vividly why the proof comes about. And so, paradoxically, I also have new (almost infinite) degrees of freedom to describe the proof in the most creative way to others. If, on the other hand, I have only memorized the proof (i.e. learned it by just remembering the text, the symbols, letters and numbers written down on paper), it feels different: it feels rigid, like a simple stand-alone formula, and I cannot really "control" my inner processes except through the constraints of the memorized information. If someone were to ask me, "What is the point of using proof by contradiction to show that the two selected numbers are not really coprime?", I would not really be able to explain it. I'd be forced to say: "Well, that's just how it is" (kinda similar in a way to explain Kantian concepts of categories or the thing-in-itself) because I simply don't know better, I haven't penetrated it deeply enough. In soul mood, I'd have to admit that I take the memorized formula as a "ground" or "foundation" that requires no further explanation (even though my Thinking knows there's definitely more), that's how I come to the statement: "Well, that's just how it is".

However, once I have understood and constructed the proof myself internally, I find new ways through my internal activities to explain why we choose any two numbers (a and b) and first assume that they are coprime, only to show, by navigating and following my inner activity, that these two numbers are ultimately not coprime, which is where the "proof idea" lies, the key to the proof.

Fun fact: Most schools today hardly teach this imaginative method of mathematics (often called “university mathematics”), but you only experience it at university. During school, on the other hand, you usually learn tables by heart (e.g., like the multiplication tables) and then simply recite the memorized content and then put the pieces together with higher numbers (e.g. compound multiplication / tables over ten) . Much of school mathematics is therefore often limited to a sort of formulaic thinking. Another example is the p-q formula, which can be used to determine the zero points of a function. Nowadays, the formula is often taught like a recipe, instead of really understanding how this formula actually comes about. This is the situation here in Germany. I don't know how it is in the US or other countries.

But I think I understand your approach, Federica. Your idea seems to be, if I understand it correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), is that one coming from a fossilized-cognitive mode has to familiarize themself with the subject matter emotionally first, even if one is not yet really livingly experiencing it from the first-person pov, which somewhat leads interacting with it in a third-person pov. In a way, I've had a similar experience: I first had to get excited/motivated about math (Soul mood) or (respectively) see/recognize why math suddenly is an important aspect of my life, memorize certain things at first, and only over time did I dive deeper and move away from pure memorization and rote learning toward a more internal, intuitive activity. In a sense, however, this is actually also is already a form of phenomenology, because even memorization itself is actually experienced from "within" (because we actively produce it), albeit in a different way by creating artifical divisions.

If you allow, I might have a slightly different idea:
Many people that come from such fields, usually are still well adapted to mathematical proving. They already know how they work, how to navigate them, how to prove theorems. They already possess the awareness of the necessity of creative insights, and are kinda introspective in a certain way. I think, Federica, if you put more emphasis on the intuitive activity of such proofs, you could technically get more people to listen and to actually approach the phenomenological activity, because mathematical inner activity is already close to that process. In this sense, it would be offering introspective guidelines in respect to mathematics. As soon as they become more aware of it, it could make sense to lead them towards more imaginative exercises. I remember that Steiner also wrote about this, that mathematics (but, I'd specify: Creative insights in mathematical proofs, the key idea to a proof) is sense-free thinking and, respectively, a preliminary stage for imagination.

E.g. I give a small example from the book ("The Art and Craft of Problem Solving"):

A monk climbs a mountain. He starts at 8 AM and reaches the summit at noon. He spends the night on the summit. The next morning, he leaves the summit at 8 AM and descends by the same route that he used the day before, reaching the bottom at noon. Prove that there is a time between 8 AM and noon at which the monk was at exactly the same spot on the mountain on both days. (Notice that we do not specify anything about the speed that the monk travels. For example, he could race at 1000 miles per hour for the first few minutes, then sit still for hours, then travel backward, etc. Nor does the monk have to travel at the same speeds going up as going down.)

Thanks Kaje - I think this is very well expressed. You explanation of the difference between memorizing a mathematical rule and understanding how it could be formulated in the first place, is spot-on. I completely agree with you. In particular, once the 'thinking gesture' resulting in the rule or theorem is mastered, one has "new (almost infinite) degrees of freedom to describe the proof in the most creative way to others", as you say. I can imagine how the formulaic, memorizing approach is common in school. What you say about Germany made me think of a German youtuber I sometimes watch, Math Queen, who is very good in certain ways but often has this 'rule approach' when explaining simple mathematical concepts to people. For my part, I guess I was lucky to have teachers who loved their subject matter and genuinely tried to communicate how it all made sense, as a congruent unity, rather than to provide a collection of rules. But I only had a small amount of maths in my studies, unfortunately, and it was a long time ago. I don't know how it's done today.

Yes, you are right that the bridge as I imagine it relies on feelings as one lever. It is an important part, but there should also be more than that. Genuine interest in understanding nature and the human being should also be leveraged, meaning that there is also a intellectual and an intuitive component. And the focus point should always be the will - to generate motivation for bringing changes into everyday life, inner and outer. The risk with an approach only oriented to feelings is to drift towards charlatanism, to say it strongly. That personal preferences take the lead, when there is no form of backup to keep the unpurified feelings on track.

I think your slightly different idea should definitely be a part of 'the bridge'. Kind of a phenomenology in disguise. Or a 'politically correct' way to smooth into phenomenology. Then people would start telling the story of how they 'accidentally' discovered the wings of thinking by training the mathematical and geometrical gestures. Perhaps it could even make sense to think about how to create a simple mathematical curriculum especially favorable and especially put together for the development of sense-free thinking and Imagination. In any case I don't see contradictions between your idea and what I tried to express in this thread.


PS: Thank you for the monk quiz! Here's my take: an easy way to simplify the problem would be to overlap the 8-12 interval today and the 8-12 interval tomorrow, by imagining two monks, one going up and the other going down, simultaneously. Then it's easy to see that, if the route is the same, they will have to meet at some point during their ascent/descent, regardless of their speed and exact trajectory. Even if they go backwards at some point they will have to cross ways at a certain time between 8 and 12, since they both complete the trail in that 4-hour interval. That point in time and space can then be extended to the scenario where the same monk plays both roles, only with a 24-hour delay. Is this the correct answer?

Federica wrote: ↑Sat Dec 13, 2025 9:31 pm Well, I am also confused for example when you first say: “If we take that dream metaphor to the higher spectrum seriously, then we should see how no dream images really stir the will into awakening orthogonally to the dreamscape more than other dream images” and later: “There are surely thought sequences which can amplify the will-to-introspection”.

But never mind, I will try to clarify. Let’s put it like this: the bridge is for the benefit of whoever cannot yet imagine a process of inquiry that doesn't rest on theoretical assumptions about reality, because of immersion in the ordinary understanding of how knowledge is acquired. If the person does not suspect that there is another way of knowing that is not the ordinary conceptual apprehending modeled by most science and philosophy, chances are the phenomenological “exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect“ would not work. The person would not be motivated to try any novel approach. Instead they would read the phenomenological prompts as theories, and would therefore find them uninteresting. Even less would they accept the invitation to do specific exercises with consistency; they would think they are a waste of time, while there is so much to model, and research and discover, would they deem.

When I speak of non-phenomenological approach, I simply mean an approach that reflects the phenomenological one in discursive concepts. With phenomenology I don't refer to remote states of deep meditation. I simply acknowledge that, when someone has not yet realized what the problem with ordinary cognition is, the prompts you speak of - “the thought-sequences which are simultaneously exercises, prompts, guidelines for how to introspect and get a feel for the inner spectrum” - would most likely fall flat, as they have usually done. Hence the intention to present something preparatory.

To evaluate illustrations in ordinary cognition does not mean that one is limited to memorizing meaningless associations. Of course not, as Steiner repeated hundred times: at least to some extent and under certain conditions, the ordinary consciousness is able to take in the value of anthroposophical accounts and illustrations, even before having developed the introspection that grows the supersensible organs of perception. There is the normal faculty of intuition that can be stimulated; there is the sense of truth; there are the applications of spiritual science that can be tested against the material world (as described in the Martin O'Keefe-Liddard’s post) and there there are the aha feelings that the beauty and lawfulness of reality can trigger, once such lawfulness is appropriately brought out. That’s what the diagram was meant to attempt, regardless of how it was drawn in the first place.

Also, think about the following. If it were true that the concepts in the diagram lead to “an entire lifetime of misorientation” if not complemented by the corresponding direct inner experiences, then it would mean that Steiner’s lifetime of lecturing, especially to the general public - which definitely included discussion of higher cognition that accesses experience across the threshold of death - has been mindless, misleading, and misorienting for people all along, because the things he presented could “only be seen as unabated arrogance and pride from the standard intellectual perspective” and could only be "misunderstood in the worst possible ways". It's similar to when Kaje contended that esoteric knowledge should not be largely and purposefully spread. Of course, one can have such conviction, and one can equally say that presenting experience across the threshold can only mislead people if they don't have the matching phenomenology. But one should also be aware that it means saying that Steiner was an idiot, and persisted in his idiocy his entire life.

Yes, this is the fine line we have discussed before, between intellectual combinatorics of dream image sequences and approaching the sequences as imaginative symbols for something that should be done inwardly and the corresponding experiences (like proving the mathematical theorem in Kaje's example). Many metaphors can be used to help us get a more refined sensitivity to this subtle distinction - thought asanas, riding the bicycle analogy (or learning any new skill), developing new mathematical intuition, etc. All these try to help us feel how a different stance can be taken by the intellect within the flow of experience, which renders the dream sequences more thick, as if their sphere of meaning is expanding slightly off the horizontal plane into the supersensible domain. The point is that no dream images can lead to awakening out of their own power, out of their own logical persuasiveness stemming from incremental step-by-step combinations. What can happen, however, is that the enthusiastic soul adopts a different intention and corresponding perspective on the sequences, aiming to use the meaning conveyed by the dream images in an entirely different asanic way.

We can look at the paper you recently shared on QM as a way to model the broad strokes of universal consciousness and its dynamics. If these same QM mathematical concepts were worked into a phenomenological essay, they could become excellent symbolic tools for prompting introspection. We could imagine all the same pictorial illustrations are employed, as well. Indeed, Cleric has already crafted more than a few such introspective tools based on similar concepts in QM, GR, etc. Even though they both employ very similar image sequences at the content level, we would be dealing with very different (even polar opposite) intentions and perspectives on that content. The same could be applied to DH's 'trace logic', 'Markov kernels', and so on. These precise mathematical constructs could be imaginatively repurposed as ways of anchoring our intuition for the contextual symphony of intelligences that project into our real-time intellectual interface as the lawful flow of experience, including the very flow of thoughts about QM, Markov kernels, and so on. 

Of course, Steiner was not misleading, because he is literally the Godfather of the phenomenological-introspective approach we keep emphasizing. He constantly cautioned potential listeners/readers from approaching the image sequences in a discursive way. He was more sensitive than anyone to the fine line we have been discussing. The introspective element is like the blood coursing through the organism of his books and lecture cycles. He never presented experiences across the threshold in a non-phenomenological way. To do so would be immediately self-defeating, because these supersensible concepts are stripped of all pedagogical value when divorced from corresponding inner experiences. That doesn't mean we need to clairvoyantly access the akashic record when reading its description, for example, but if we don't at least try to relate such a concept to our inner stream of memory images that are left as 'traces' of experiences we have lived through, the concept will be destined to remain a theoretical construct that we have associatively linked with other mysterious esoteric concepts.

I suppose this focus on Steiner brings us back to PoF. You previously mentioned how you felt it first went 'east then north', which I suppose means the first sections were 'non-phenomenological' in the sense you are describing now. Yet already in Ch 1 and Ch 2, we are dealing with 'conscious human action' and the 'fundamental desire for knowledge'. Do you think these initial sequences can be understood in a living way without any introspection by the reader? Without the reader pausing to truly imagine and feel how they experience mental pictures as the gateway to expressions of pity or love (which is something habitually overlooked by default), for example? Or when Steiner discusses monism, dualism, materialism, etc. in Ch 2, the sequences prompt us to introspect how these outlooks are shaped by our thinking process and how the resultant thoughts are set against one another, reduced to one another, and so on. To understand any of that in a living way, the reader must leverage the sequences to truly observe their inner process, to experience such characteristic thoughts and their relations. Correct?

In my view, and in Steiner's view (as characterized by him later), these PoF sequences simultaneously provide a preparatory thought-context and prompt an introspective-meditative effort. Indeed, they only serve the former function when they prompt the latter. Without an introspective orientation to the thought sequences, they are no longer preparing the soul for unfamiliar degrees of imaginative freedom, but reinforcing the theoretical molds that tightly constrain those degrees and prevent a Spirit-open stance. Generally, I feel that you are seeking a 'best of both worlds' approach. The thought sequences should appeal to the default intellect, to captivate its interest and enthusiasm, but should also be understood in a living way that speaks to spiritual dynamics along the depth axis. What we are saying is that this is the phenomenological approach, and the introspective observation of inner activity is where the two worlds collide. It leverages the familiar World Content in a self-conscious, imaginative way to prompt the contemplative soul toward becoming introspective as second nature. Then the soul feels like it is emerging more into its native state of existence, that it is becoming more conscious of the life that it has always been leading. A new wineskin - new intuitions, feelings, habits, and impulses - is fashioned to act as a worthy receptacle of the new wine.