Page 1 of 23

On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2024 9:00 pm
by AshvinP
Here is the first part in a short series of essays I have been working on. There is little new for people on the forum, perhaps a few new images and ways of addressing the core themes. It was mostly motivated by discussions with FB about what it means to attain 'exact clairvoyance', and I think quite a few people within the Anthroposophical stream, and probably spiritual streams in general, have trouble orienting concretely to this idea.

Happy New Year to all, and may it be filled with many blessings!


The ‘Formal’ Context of Seeing

When we perceive the meaning of our perceptual flow - our sensations, our feelings, our desires, or our thoughts - it is always through a certain ‘formal’ structure; a nested context of factors through which the meaning shines forth and makes itself known. This context influences in what manner we direct our attention, to what we direct our attention, and how we perceive and understand what our attention is directed to. It includes, most proximately, factors such as our opinions, beliefs, preferences, worldviews, temperament, native language, and the ‘spirit’ of our cultural age, asymptotically approaching our intuition for the total potential of what existence could be. How we perceive, think, feel, and act (collectively, “spiritual activity”) is modulated by these factors, which function as constraints on our spiritual activity and its degrees of freedom to transform its present state into new mental, emotional, and sensory states. Although we can speak of these factors as being nested like a word is nested in a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph, etc., each factor overlaps with all others in complex ways and the whole constellation of factors modulates the constraints and possibilities of our spiritual activity in any given state.

For example, we can imagine we are in a philosophical conversation with a friend about the ‘nature of reality’. Further imagine that we have formed a rigid belief that feelings and thoughts are mere ‘epiphenomena’ emerging from mindless and mechanistic neurochemistry (a belief that most of us pass through in modern times). This belief will act as a constraint that steers our spiritual activity away from ideal states imbued with the meaning of supersensible realities, i.e. ideas associated with experiences independent of the bodily-sensory support. When our friend begins discussing such states that he has experienced or has heard reported from other spiritual sources, the constraining belief will numb our sensitivity to the meaningful import of our friend’s concepts. No matter how harmoniously that meaning resonates with other facts of our living experience and our accumulated knowledge, we will find rationalizations to explain it away. At the time, however, we will probably convince ourselves that we are rationally evaluating the meaning and reaching the only possible logical conclusion.

Such constraints are not limited to reductive materialists, of course. We could also imagine a discussion with our religious friend who believes the Creator is separate from his creation, and therefore His creatures cannot become as creatively responsible for that creation as He is. This belief will steer our friend’s activity away from mental states that imply humanity can develop forms of spiritual activity that are not merely abstract reflections on experience or the rearrangement of dead mineral elements, but which work creatively into the psycho-physical structure of existence. If we begin discussing these higher forms of spiritual activity, our friend will find ways to ignore or rationalize them away. We could survey many more modern beliefs which constrain spiritual activity in similar ways. An especially problematic constraint is the belief that these constraining factors apply to everyone else’s spiritual activity, but not to our own. This particular constraint, synonymous with pride, keeps itself in the shadows and makes it impossible for our spiritual activity to illuminate the factors constraining it.(1)


Image

Naturally, then, our spiritual activity can only explore more expansive spheres of meaning when it honestly confesses and then loosens these constraints. We can analogize the latter to a diving suit that is fitted over our spiritual activity. Through the conditioning of natural development and modern cultural experience, i.e. the ‘dive’ into selfish tendencies, rigid physical-sensory experience, and associated philosophical-religious-scientific ideas about the nature of existence, our activity is constrained tightly by its suit. Our bodily will and emotional life are clearly the most tightly constrained, for example we can’t rotate our head 180 degrees or easily switch from a state of melancholy to a state of joy. Our thinking, on the other hand, wiggles some of itself free of the suit’s mask and generates imaginative replicas of bodily experience in the head space. These replicas can be more easily transformed and rearranged in the most varied ways. For example, our inner voice is a replica of the bodily experience of speaking through the vocal tract and hearing sounds through the ears, yet through it we can begin exploring the meaning of states well beyond our personal bodily life, like those related to global economics, politics, religious ideas, etc.

Nevertheless, the meaning that can be explored through our imaginative life is still highly constrained by various factors, such as the beliefs we mentioned above, but also our sympathies and antipathies, our language, our temperament, and so on. We can surely imagine our head spinning 180 degrees, but why did we choose to spin it clockwise or counterclockwise? That remains a mysterious imaginative constraint. We also can’t imagine new types of experience that we never went through in our bodily life, for example new colors and tones. In that sense, the imaginative life is still constrained by the bodily context just like our head and limbs, except the former can access a greater spectrum of content at any given time and rearrange it in varied ways, like we have become skilled contortionists. For example, we can press our physical hands together and feel the resistance, and then we can imaginatively simulate the same experience and allow the ghostly imaginary hands to pass right through one another. Practically all modern scientific theories of existence are comprised of contorted arrangements of mental pictures that are ghostly replicas of bodily experiences (most often visual, but also audial, tactile, etc.).

So our ordinary imaginative degrees of freedom (including intellectual thinking) are much more constrained than we prefer to imagine. We express our intellectual convictions about politics, religion, the environment, and so on, yet we are hardly aware from what bodily experiences throughout life we are drawing upon to shape them. This mysterious nature of the constraints on our imaginative life was intuited by certain modern philosophers (e.g. Kant), as discussed more extensively in this essay, who then concluded that we can never directly know these constraints. We can only know our already constrained mental pictures (constrained by ‘a priori categories’ of knowing). Such philosophers failed to notice that there is an overlap between our constrained mental pictures and the ‘constraints themselves’, and that overlap manifests precisely in the imaginative life that has slightly wiggled out from the rigid physical-sensory constraints. What follows should be understood as not only a philosophical description of that overlap, but as a means of experiencing that overlap and heightening our sensitivity to it through metaphors, illustrations, examples, and associated lines of reasoning.


How our Thoughts Participate in the Constraints that Shape Them

When we discuss the nature of the inner constraints with concepts, as we are doing now, it is as if we are dimly swimming through mental pictures of their felt meaning as they impress their ‘forces’ into our imaginative organization and shape those pictures. Then we extract more limited packets of meaning from that pictorial flow and ‘encode’ them as the audial forms of our inner voice, which are then objectified on the screen. Keep in mind we are using these familiar spatial images as symbolic descriptions of entirely first-person inner experience (of which spatial experience is only a subset). We are not speaking of any exotic dimensions or objects in which these ‘encodings’ exist, but only using such imagery as an artistic symbol for completely verifiable aspects of our immanent experiential flow. Thus, we can only properly orient to these symbolic concepts, such as “encoding”, if we remain active in our imaginative life and try to experience how the intuitive meaning we are instinctively steering through is continually focused into the mental pictures and verbal forms we use to anchor that meaning (like the words of this essay).

Image

Thus our imaginative organization acts as a prism through which the holistic yet blurry light of intuitive meaning is continually focused into more narrow yet sharply defined sequences of mental pictures and verbal thoughts that attempt to explicate the meaning. Imagine how the blurry colors perceived through a camera or binocular are more clearly focused when you adjust the lenses - we are continually doing something similar with our invisible imaginative gestures that bring forth mental pictures (thoughts). Our thoughts are then experienced coming into focus as highly 'chopped up' intuitive meaning. As another example, when we speak of the ‘neurosensory system’, we may not have any well-defined physiological understanding, but nevertheless we can try to experience the totality of our sensory inputs - colors, sounds, smells, tactile, etc. - as superimposed and interacting with our bodily and psychic organizations. We can then sense how we focus that dim intuitive experience into a tree-like branching mental picture and the verbal symbol through our imaginative gestures.

Another helpful example to consider is that of mathematical thinking, since the symbolic pictures are generally not directly drawn from sensory experience. When we imagine two sides of a triangle and then ‘incarnate’ the third side which must necessarily connect them, our spiritual activity weaves in timeless ideal relations and focuses that intuitive meaning through the prism of certain mysterious yet lawful mental constraints which are also intuitively felt. It takes time to perform the geometric operation but we know the relations between the sides are always the same. Then we can later focus that felt intuition of the timeless intuitive constraints into the symbolic concepts of “mathematical laws”, “mathematical logic”, and so on. It is critical to get a good feel for how all such intellectual concepts were originally born from the felt intuitive meaning of our spiritual activity and its lawful constraints, even when we consider more sense-based fields of inquiry like history, geography, biology, etc.


Image

By actively and livingly exploring the constraints on our imaginative life in this way, we are also beginning to loosen the nuts and bolts on the mask of the rigid diving suit, or to use another metaphor, to put more slack in the customary strings that normally dangle our imaginative being and make it dance hither and thither like a marionette. The first step is always to become conscious of these strings because otherwise they remain in our blind spot and we imagine we are in full control of our inner movements, forming our philosophical, religious, and scientific ideas as original and free expressions of our Spirit. We initially gain that consciousness by resisting certain default thinking constraints through our active conceptual explorations. When we resist the constraints with our spiritual activity, it is as if the latter drags against the ordinary channels that continually try to format its expression. The resulting ‘friction’ provides the basis for our activity to gain inward (intuitive) sensitivity to the constraints, just as we become more acutely aware of a current in the ocean when we try swimming against it.

Loosening the Most Proximate Constraint on Imaginative Activity

We should notice how this is why all thinking inquiries can lead to existential insights. When the chemist decides to investigate the reaction of substances, for example, there are many other things he could allow his spiritual activity to flow along with, i.e. various sympathetic and convenient sensuous pleasures (like the animal does). Instead, he resists those ‘subjective’ sympathies and preferences and directs his spiritual activity against the normal soul flow to devote time and effort towards setting up the experiment. In the process of conducting the experiment, his spiritual activity drags against the normal flow and certain meaningful intuition feeds back, like the meaning of sensory transformations indicating a new substance precipitating from the reaction. This meaningful feedback provides genuine insight into the contextual depth of existence, even if at a very fragmented scale. The common error that occurs here, however, is the chemist failing to understand the feedback is related to his own inner life - his own soul and spiritual structure - instead imagining the meaning points to some other reality ‘behind’ or ‘beyond’ the sensory appearances.

Surely the chemical reaction is not caused by the chemist’s personal imaginative activity, but its meaning can only shine forth through the contextual factors that structure this activity. This sort of ignorance can make our intuitive efforts useful for myopic aims in the short-term, but it is untruthful and therefore unproductive for attaining spiritual sight within deeper scales of existence. When we remain ignorant of the truthful process, the meaningful feedback on our imaginative resistance does nothing to shift or heighten the underlying cognitive experience, because our attention is sucked entirely into its surface-level content. We should try to feel this very clearly. When philosopher A concludes that “the Big Bang created the Universe”, and philosopher B concludes that “God created the Universe”, the cognitive experience of thinking the conclusion is practically equivalent. That would only change if one of the philosophers was struck by the insight that his conclusion also testifies to the hidden ideal lawfulness through which it was formed and in which he continuously participates.

Thus, the first constraint to resist and become more conscious of is the rigid modern habit of treating our concepts as definitions and models that are imagined to “explain” the “nature” of our inner constraints as if they are external to our spiritual activity. In that case, we feel that we can encompass the constraints in our ordinary mental perspective, measuring and analyzing them from a safe distance as we generally do with phenomenal processes in the kingdoms of Nature. What follows should be understood as a practice in exactly this resistance, so that the default cognitive strings slacken and we can more clearly sense how the meaningful feedback on our spiritual activity relates to our intuitive context. Then we can also start to distinguish between what we are freely contributing to our intuitive movements, on the one hand, and what movements are still being tugged by shadowy strings - impulses, feelings, and habits - on the other. We are then beginning to probe the ‘geometry’ of the inner constraints with our spiritual activity.

To get a better feel for this approach to investigating our inner architecture, consider how we wordlessly remember events in our lives when we were particularly active, like a sporting event we participated in, as if surfing through a panorama of memory images. This memory intuition of the event constrains the way we move our remembering activity - we aren’t interested in recalling any images, for example an image of what we had for breakfast yesterday, but only those which fit harmoniously within the ‘intuitive curvature’ of the sporting event. Any disharmonious images within our intuitive context are quickly filtered out, they ‘destructively interfere’ such that we never even become aware of them. Then, if we want to express constructively interfering images more precisely to ourselves or others, we focus them into symbolic forms that are constrained by the ‘prismatic lenses’ of our acquired languages, our speech skills, the particular organization of our throat and larynx, etc. Of the infinite possible ways of expressing meaning, only those words, expressions, intonations, articulations, etc. that are allowed by these various overlapping constraints will be manifested in our speech.

In that sense, our verbal concepts and mental pictures symbolizing the constraints (stimulated by the perceptions of this essay) are also genuine experiences of the constraints themselves, i.e. encodings of their felt intuitive meaning. The concepts we are now using to describe the constraints are themselves filtered through the constraints they are describing. Thus, our concepts have become recursive and point attention toward various aspects of the process through which they were birthed, sort of like they are blood spatter patterns which can testify to the way in which a crime was committed. Sometimes these patterns can even point to underlying motivations - was the crime committed in a momentary fit of rage or in a premeditated and methodical fashion? Again, with these metaphors we are simply elucidating the reasons why thinking works to provide potential insights in all cases, trying to become more explicitly aware of what otherwise remains unconscious and is taken for granted.

That is also the case even in our intellectual thinking where the relationship isn’t so explicit, as in the case of the chemist. Then, our concepts implicitly point back at the formal context through which they manifested, yet another level of indirection has been introduced. If we imagine our explicitly symbolic concepts about the contextual constraints (such as we are using here) as a one-arm pendulum, where the movements of the arm (concepts) closely mirror the meaningful intuitive ‘point’ around which it oscillates, our scientific thinking with implicitly symbolic concepts is like adding a second arm, where the movements become much more complicated reflections of that underlying intuitive meaning.


Image

When we attend solely to the complex pendulum swings of our conceptual life, i.e. the content of our oscillating thoughts, which is by far the prevailing habit today, we invariably lose sight of their continuity with the intuitive points around which they revolve (yet the continuity still exists). To attain spiritual sight, we need to reorient attention toward the thinking process itself, which normally hides in the background. It doesn’t matter if we are thinking about whizzing electrons, multiplying cells, transformations of ‘libido’, hierarchies of spiritual beings, or the Final Judgment - we always gain more living and holistic insight into the experiential flow when we see the resulting thoughts as testimonies to the real-time thinking process. We learn to retrace through the complicated reflections of thoughts into the intuitive context that shapes their movements - first our beliefs, assumptions, preferences, motivations, etc. - and with expanding insight we can streamline our thoughts to exert less of a chaotic pull on our soul context. To attain a proper orientation to this retracing possibility, we need to understand that this entire intuitive context is always immanent in our present state of being.

Intuitive Meaning Always Lives in our Present State

In all cases, the meaningful experiences that form the basis of our conceptual encodings are still living in our present state. When surfing through memory pictures of the sporting event and verbalizing the words, "That was a great game but I could have played better”, we are experiencing the same meaning we experienced during the game, although there is the additional meaning of the states we have experienced since the game which provides a new perspective on the original meaning. A great deal of the game’s qualitative significance is lost in the translation, including the quality of temporal immediacy. Analogous to how a large computer image may lose a lot of its crisp resolution when it is compressed into a smaller format, the constraining memory intuition becomes something smaller, nebulous, insubstantial, and distant when we focus attention solely on its symbolic encodings (whether verbal, pictorial, physical gestures, etc.). The meaning of what we were sensing, thinking, feeling, and doing during the sporting event, in all its rich and immanent qualities, will mostly be obscured or aliased by the encodings.

To heighten sensitivity to this principle, consider the example of biologists observing stages of human development and producing mental images imbued with the meaning of how rhythmic life processes lawfully constrain these developmental stages of the human organism as it grows from embryo to mature adult. The thoughts about these living constraints are clearly also constrained by those same developmental stages. The biologists are themselves members of the human species undergoing the rhythmic development that they are thinking about - they have arrived at the stage where thoughts can (indirectly) investigate the process through which they were birthed. It’s only that their thoughts are like aliased experiences of the mysterious biological constraints. All natural sciences, and intellectual inquiries in general, follow this same principle at various levels of indirection between the finished thoughts and the underlying intuited constraints.

At a more phenomenological level, if we pay close attention, we can easily notice how our breathing or heartrate modulates our feelings and moods (and vice versa) and how the latter, in turn, modulates our thoughts. If we were in a heated argument filled with unchecked passions recently, our heartrate may be elevated, our breathing may be jagged, and our thoughts cannot help but iterate over the meaning of the associated memory images. Even paying more attention to such trivial examples in our daily experiential flow will help us become sensitive to how there is no clean separation between the objective World ‘out there’ (including our bodily processes) and the thoughts we use to investigate the former. That sensitivity to the overlap will grow not only with respect to spatial phenomena, but also with relation to temporal phenomena. Again, there is no reason to assume the meaningful experience of the argument has disappeared into an external void that we conceive as ‘the past’.

Ironically, if such a void existed, we would never be able to conceive of its existence. We can only conceive the mental picture we imbue with the meaning ‘void of the past’ within our present state. Modern philosophers who postulated a ‘noumenal realm’, ‘transcendent reality’, and so on did this exact thing and confused their mental picture with an ontological reality beyond the present state. The latter then becomes yet another belief constraining our spiritual activity in a potentially fatal way, since it demotivates us from stretching this activity any further and realizing the impossible nature of our postulate. Instead of postulating such unreachable voids that fatally constrain our spiritual activity, we can remain faithful to what can be directly intuited in our present state - the only state there is. We can intuit a receded context of ‘previous’ activity that is still present as constraining factors, just as the receding images of self-similar spirals below are still present in the visual frame as they asymptotically sink into the memory kernel.


Image

That is a symbol of our ordinary first-person perspective as archetypally structured intuitive meaning is focused from ‘behind’ our perspective into mental pictures and recedes as memory intuition. Every incoming state of being, however, also embeds this memory intuition such that there can be continuity of consciousness for the intuitive perspective on reality. It is as if the receding spirals sink from view and reemerge within the newly incoming spiral at our cognitive horizon - the 'ends' of the 'vortex' are recursively linked together in that way. For continuity of consciousness within any given intuitive perspective, each new state should feel as if it embeds the lasting reverberations of all previous states (hence the self-similarity of states). Only in this way can we intuit within our present state that we have gone through lawful development until this moment and likewise anticipate a continued lawful unfolding of states, even if that temporal intuition normally remains diffuse and blurry. We can imagine the incoming spirals initially contain the total intuitive potential, but only those experiential aspects which can be accommodated by our imploded memory kernel become consciously experienced in our new state.

This immanent receding and contextual quality of spiritual activity flowing in time is the archetypal basis for the experience of space, not as some abstract arena in which our consciousness is located, but as the simultaneity of continuously integrating and self-similar states of existence. The spatial world we experience is fundamentally no different in its function than a dense scrapbook we may create of many different moments from our lives photographed side by side and shared with others. It allows these first-person ‘subjective’ experiences in time to be experienced simultaneously and objectively, i.e. shared across many different intuitive perspectives, such that the perspectives can kindle new kinds of intuitions against the spatial perceptions. When we perceive the mineral, plant, animal, and human kingdoms ‘side by side’, our intuitive perspective is able to experience differing temporal stages of development simultaneously, which then forms the basis of all our objective thinking inquires. Just like the scrapbook or the sporting event, though, our spatial experience of subjective states has aliased much of the latter’s qualitative significance.

Consider how our experience of the spatial world is mostly contained within our memory intuition. Our vision at any given time only extends so far as the horizon or the walls of our dwelling place (or further with technological extensions). Yet when we think about space and spatial phenomena - the planets, the continents, the countries, the rivers, mountains, and forests, others rooms of our house, and so on - we dimly form memory images of sensory impressions we have once experienced (even if only as pictures on the computer or via the Hubble telescope) from within our present state. The ‘objective world’ that natural scientists attempt to study and mathematically model is exclusively the world of memory intuition stripped of its qualitative significance, aliased to mere quantitative relations. That already reveals there is nothing purely ‘subjective’ about the intuitive landscape we experience and explicate in thoughts, neither is it merely ‘objective’, but exists at a scale which integrates both - the first-person subjective experience of incoming spirals and the receding objectification of those spirals in shared memory intuition which continually feeds back into new incoming spirals.

Here is another image to help anchor our orientation to this aspect of our experiential flow (we should imagine our ordinary first-person perspective at the meeting point looking down):


Image

The spirals and torus also help us orient toward the fact that the inner constraints of our present state are temporal and rhythmic. Clearly, this requires we loosen our ordinary conception of ‘linear time’ (sequentially ordered frames) and try to imaginatively experience how the present state is always temporally thick. As we discussed and can easily verify, all our intuitions and encoded thoughts about these rhythms are within our present state, yet there is no justification for us to say our thoughts about the present state is responsible for the rhythms. In no way can we alter the rhythmic transformations of the seasons, the months, the days, etc. along with our dimly sensed psycho-physical rhythms, simply by modulating our thoughts within the present state. These two undeniable phenomenological facts coupled together already insist that there is temporal thickness to our present state which remains mostly beneath the surface of our consciousness, the latter only being the tip of a temporally structured iceberg. This aspect is missed in many flattened mystical conceptions of reality.

It is clear in our ordinary experience that these rhythmic transformations constrain our spiritual activity and the potential states of being it can reach. We have lost a lot of inner sensitivity to how the physical environment modulates our imaginative life, but we can still dimly sense some of these influences, for example how extremely hot or cold weather dulls our thinking (in distinct ways) or how our inspirations flow more freely in Summer and how they require more effort to attain in Winter. Of course, these contextual temporal influences overlap in complex ways and every individual will experience them in different intensities and shades, depending on innumerable inner factors. Nevertheless, we can begin to sense certain archetypal modulations that remain consistent across many souls. These rhythms are all shadowy reflections of invisible and mysterious ideal constraints.

Yet the first rhythms we will encounter through our resistance on the journey toward spiritual sight are not those of the physical environment, but those of our thoughts, feelings, and desires, which we ordinarily have little sensitivity for. We will always attain sensitivity to the broader environmental rhythms insofar as they overlap with and modulate our patterned soul rhythms. Normally we chaotically jump from thought to thought, guided by equally chaotic moods, feelings, and desires, and therefore fail to discern any meaningful patterns within this flow of soul experience. We can only speak of “random” thoughts or feelings when we have lost sight of the intuitive context in which they appear. When we increase sensitivity to that context by dragging our activity against the ordinary soul flow, we begin to intuitively sense how these fragmented soul experiences are embedded within underlying ‘fractal’ patterns of intuited meaning.


Image

Please remember with these images and concepts we aren’t trying to build any rigid or universal models or theories that ‘explain’ the ‘nature’ of our experience for all time, only using them as symbolic anchors to attain a loose feeling orientation to our ongoing first-person experiential flow of mental, emotional, and sensory states, which is the only flow we can ever know. With the IFS illustration above, for example, we can use it a symbolic anchor for sensing how we routinely experience similar moods at similar times of day and how our thoughts generally gravitate in one direction or another depending on those moods and other connected soul factors. All of this will remain quite dim and abstract at first, but such abstract exploration is a necessary soil from which more concrete intuitions will eventually grow through the proper cultivation of our thinking, feeling, and willing. The more we recursively exercise our spiritual activity, the more clearly its fractally and rhythmically structured constraining environment will be felt within our present state.

Temporal Intuition Within the Present State Can Expand

There is a distinct quality to the already receded context that differentiates it from our present state and its activity, which justifies our experience of it feeling like the already encompassed ‘past’ in distinction to the mysterious incoming spirals of the ‘future’, but that distinct quality is always also experienced from within our present state. That also suggests there is nothing that mandates this distinct quality should always be experienced from within the present state in the same way. In our dream life, for example, this quality of receded activity is quite differently experienced, although it’s hard for us to sense this because we can only reflect on the rapidly dissolving dream states from the normal waking state. In the dream experience, the receded activity of ideas, fears, hopes, etc. has become our immanent and feeling-rich dream environment of imagery. During our waking life, there are also aspects of receded activity that are experienced as more immanently present and concrete in our state than others.

For example, when a song gets ‘stuck in our head’ (which is an apt phrase), it is because we previously directed our attention to its particular qualities. That previous activity and its receding memory images then become a contextual constraint that attracts our current activity around its meaning. We may intend to think about something else, to focus on some other question, but our activity is constrained by this receded context and forced to iterate over its meaning for some lesser or greater amount of iterations. When we previously directed attention to the song, we would have been performing subtle inner movements along with the rhythm, melody and lyrics. It is like our soul movements were being led through an inner dance by the song and we allowed ourselves to be passively entrained by it. Many times we may notice these passively experienced movements were associated with selfish qualities, like maybe we envisioned ourselves performing the song in a packed theater in front of family, friends, colleagues, or other people we desire to impress with our imaginary talents.

In this way, our inner activity is continuously receding and becoming the contextual (hierarchically structured) atmosphere in which our present activity finds itself. A song stuck in our head is not as deep within the hierarchy of constraints as a smoking habit that caused irreparable lung damage, for example. Our present activity then seeks to transform its present state through the degrees of freedom afforded to it by the whole hierarchical context. We can only direct our vision heavenward because our organic bodily context has afforded that degree of freedom through our upright spine (unlike most animals), whereas it has not afforded us the degree of freedom to direct our vision behind us (unlike some animals). We have instead maintained our upright posture and upturned head, while utilizing the degrees of freedom afforded by our imaginative life to devise technology extending our sensory capacities (like rearview cameras). We have not only acquired these extra-spatial degrees of freedom through the context of our imaginative organization, but also extra-temporal ones, e.g. slow motion and timelapse video technology.

This fact already hints at the inner axis along which we can discover additional degrees of freedom for our imaginative life, but it won’t be as simple as creating more powerful technologies. The meaningful inner constraints we are so far only probing with our imaginative ‘tentacles’, and which we seek to become increasingly sensitive to, will be found as more expansive and lucid temporal intuition of those constraining factors within our present state (as already suggested with the IFS metaphor) - something which physical technology can never provide of its own accord. We can easily surmise that there is a fundamental ceiling on how many degrees of freedom the contortions afforded by such technology can provide. The example of timelapse technology is illustrative here - can we imagine that we could speed up the metamorphosis of recorded perceptions so fast that we can gain fundamentally new insights into how those perceptions arise in the first place?

That would be sort of like trying to feel our whole hand by focusing attention on the tips of our fingers and then switching attention between them faster and faster. Our attentional movement may blur together, but we never reach the holistic sensation of the hand in this way. Instead, we need to ‘zoom out’ our attention to a higher-order scale than the scale of the particular fingertips, becoming aware of an irreducible wholeness that is more than the sum of its parts. Analogously, we can’t reach the inner contextual depth of our mental picturing activity by moving our mental pictures faster and faster (e.g. timelapse technology), contorting their configurations in the most clever ways. Instead, we need to zoom out our attention into the flow of the imaginative activity itself, which unites the frames of our mental pictures just as the hand unites the fingers, but cannot be found contained within the content of those pictures.

Even though the above should make great logical sense to us, we still habitually search for answers to existential questions within the content of our mental pictures because it has become our comfortable sense of support and we can’t imagine another way of doing it. We need to really feel how dependent our spiritual activity has become on this support. When we work only with mental pictures, ignoring the ongoing flow of spiritual activity which generated them, we feel like we have the stable ground beneath our feet. It is a characteristic sense of grip and stability within the otherwise volatile flow of inner experience, which is quite necessary for carrying out daily tasks and also for thinking about existential questions. Yet this default state of support can also be complemented with gradual forays into more support-free states. Even a few minutes per day will generate unsuspected degrees of freedom. Our feet rest on the floorboards, the floorboards on the foundation, the foundation on the Earth, but what does the Earth rest on?


Image

Just as the Earth spirals through its orbit without perceptible support, our spiritual activity can begin to spiral upwards through the invisible intuitive context. In fact, it always does so for brief moments whenever we explore intuitive meaning and before we focus that meaning into anchoring forms, yet they are so fleeting (or our activity is so feeble) that we only awaken to the fully finished and receding perceptions. It is like we hop off the ground and are immediately pulled down by the gravity of pictorial and verbal anchors. To prolong these ‘zero-gravity’ states, we need to strengthen our activity by thoroughly exploring its structure and dynamics through phenomenological exploration (as we are already doing) and concentrated meditation (which we will discuss more later). Then we gradually accustom our spiritual organization to explore meaning without constantly stopping for rest on the familiar sensory and intellectual supports. It starts to know its flow of spiritual activity and the hidden ideal order that shapes its flow from within as ‘kinesthetic’ sensations, just as we know our own head, chest, and limbs in this way.

If we only knew our body as third-person mental pictures of its colors, shapes, and sizes, we would never be able to do anything useful with it, i.e. to aim its movements toward our highest human ideals. It is the same with our spiritual organization that must learn to start swimming in the meaningful currents of existence independently of its old supports, to be born anew into the archetypal worlds. Our spiritual activity should not privilege any given conceptual perspective on intuitive meaning just as our hands do not privilege any given perspective on tactile sensations. Instead, it thoroughly probes those sensations from different angles to get a holistic feeling for the meaning it is encountering. First, we need to further explore the common constraints that continually divert us from swimming with our spiritual activity. Through that living exploration, we will further loosen the rigid ‘joints’ and ‘strings’ of our imaginative mask so we can more clearly intuit a fundamentally new direction in which our spiritual activity can expand. We will continue establishing this brand new foundation for our spiritual sight, and therefore our spiritual freedom, in the next part.



CITATIONS:

(1) Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2025 3:17 pm
by Cleric
AshvinP wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2024 9:00 pm ...
Ashvin,
At this point I don't have anything specific to comment but I'm surely awaiting Part II !

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2025 7:10 pm
by AshvinP
Cleric wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2025 3:17 pm
AshvinP wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2024 9:00 pm ...
Ashvin,
At this point I don't have anything specific to comment but I'm surely awaiting Part II !

Thanks, Cleric, as usual I have gotten pretty carried away adding, subtracting, or otherwise changing the content :) But I think it should be ready in the next day or two.

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:50 pm
by Güney27
AshvinP wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2024 9:00 pm Here is the first part in a short series of essays I have been working on. There is little new for people on the forum, perhaps a few new images and ways of addressing the core themes. It was mostly motivated by discussions with FB about what it means to attain 'exact clairvoyance', and I think quite a few people within the Anthroposophical stream, and probably spiritual streams in general, have trouble orienting concretely to this idea.

Happy New Year to all, and may it be filled with many blessings!


The ‘Formal’ Context of Seeing

When we perceive the meaning of our perceptual flow - our sensations, our feelings, our desires, or our thoughts - it is always through a certain ‘formal’ structure; a nested context of factors through which the meaning shines forth and makes itself known. This context influences in what manner we direct our attention, to what we direct our attention, and how we perceive and understand what our attention is directed to. It includes, most proximately, factors such as our opinions, beliefs, preferences, worldviews, temperament, native language, and the ‘spirit’ of our cultural age, asymptotically approaching our intuition for the total potential of what existence could be. How we perceive, think, feel, and act (collectively, “spiritual activity”) is modulated by these factors, which function as constraints on our spiritual activity and its degrees of freedom to transform its present state into new mental, emotional, and sensory states. Although we can speak of these factors as being nested like a word is nested in a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph, etc., each factor overlaps with all others in complex ways and the whole constellation of factors modulates the constraints and possibilities of our spiritual activity in any given state.

For example, we can imagine we are in a philosophical conversation with a friend about the ‘nature of reality’. Further imagine that we have formed a rigid belief that feelings and thoughts are mere ‘epiphenomena’ emerging from mindless and mechanistic neurochemistry (a belief that most of us pass through in modern times). This belief will act as a constraint that steers our spiritual activity away from ideal states imbued with the meaning of supersensible realities, i.e. ideas associated with experiences independent of the bodily-sensory support. When our friend begins discussing such states that he has experienced or has heard reported from other spiritual sources, the constraining belief will numb our sensitivity to the meaningful import of our friend’s concepts. No matter how harmoniously that meaning resonates with other facts of our living experience and our accumulated knowledge, we will find rationalizations to explain it away. At the time, however, we will probably convince ourselves that we are rationally evaluating the meaning and reaching the only possible logical conclusion.

Such constraints are not limited to reductive materialists, of course. We could also imagine a discussion with our religious friend who believes the Creator is separate from his creation, and therefore His creatures cannot become as creatively responsible for that creation as He is. This belief will steer our friend’s activity away from mental states that imply humanity can develop forms of spiritual activity that are not merely abstract reflections on experience or the rearrangement of dead mineral elements, but which work creatively into the psycho-physical structure of existence. If we begin discussing these higher forms of spiritual activity, our friend will find ways to ignore or rationalize them away. We could survey many more modern beliefs which constrain spiritual activity in similar ways. An especially problematic constraint is the belief that these constraining factors apply to everyone else’s spiritual activity, but not to our own. This particular constraint, synonymous with pride, keeps itself in the shadows and makes it impossible for our spiritual activity to illuminate the factors constraining it.(1)


Image

Naturally, then, our spiritual activity can only explore more expansive spheres of meaning when it honestly confesses and then loosens these constraints. We can analogize the latter to a diving suit that is fitted over our spiritual activity. Through the conditioning of natural development and modern cultural experience, i.e. the ‘dive’ into selfish tendencies, rigid physical-sensory experience, and associated philosophical-religious-scientific ideas about the nature of existence, our activity is constrained tightly by its suit. Our bodily will and emotional life are clearly the most tightly constrained, for example we can’t rotate our head 180 degrees or easily switch from a state of melancholy to a state of joy. Our thinking, on the other hand, wiggles some of itself free of the suit’s mask and generates imaginative replicas of bodily experience in the head space. These replicas can be more easily transformed and rearranged in the most varied ways. For example, our inner voice is a replica of the bodily experience of speaking through the vocal tract and hearing sounds through the ears, yet through it we can begin exploring the meaning of states well beyond our personal bodily life, like those related to global economics, politics, religious ideas, etc.

Nevertheless, the meaning that can be explored through our imaginative life is still highly constrained by various factors, such as the beliefs we mentioned above, but also our sympathies and antipathies, our language, our temperament, and so on. We can surely imagine our head spinning 180 degrees, but why did we choose to spin it clockwise or counterclockwise? That remains a mysterious imaginative constraint. We also can’t imagine new types of experience that we never went through in our bodily life, for example new colors and tones. In that sense, the imaginative life is still constrained by the bodily context just like our head and limbs, except the former can access a greater spectrum of content at any given time and rearrange it in varied ways, like we have become skilled contortionists. For example, we can press our physical hands together and feel the resistance, and then we can imaginatively simulate the same experience and allow the ghostly imaginary hands to pass right through one another. Practically all modern scientific theories of existence are comprised of contorted arrangements of mental pictures that are ghostly replicas of bodily experiences (most often visual, but also audial, tactile, etc.).

So our ordinary imaginative degrees of freedom (including intellectual thinking) are much more constrained than we prefer to imagine. We express our intellectual convictions about politics, religion, the environment, and so on, yet we are hardly aware from what bodily experiences throughout life we are drawing upon to shape them. This mysterious nature of the constraints on our imaginative life was intuited by certain modern philosophers (e.g. Kant), as discussed more extensively in this essay, who then concluded that we can never directly know these constraints. We can only know our already constrained mental pictures (constrained by ‘a priori categories’ of knowing). Such philosophers failed to notice that there is an overlap between our constrained mental pictures and the ‘constraints themselves’, and that overlap manifests precisely in the imaginative life that has slightly wiggled out from the rigid physical-sensory constraints. What follows should be understood as not only a philosophical description of that overlap, but as a means of experiencing that overlap and heightening our sensitivity to it through metaphors, illustrations, examples, and associated lines of reasoning.


How our Thoughts Participate in the Constraints that Shape Them

When we discuss the nature of the inner constraints with concepts, as we are doing now, it is as if we are dimly swimming through mental pictures of their felt meaning as they impress their ‘forces’ into our imaginative organization and shape those pictures. Then we extract more limited packets of meaning from that pictorial flow and ‘encode’ them as the audial forms of our inner voice, which are then objectified on the screen. Keep in mind we are using these familiar spatial images as symbolic descriptions of entirely first-person inner experience (of which spatial experience is only a subset). We are not speaking of any exotic dimensions or objects in which these ‘encodings’ exist, but only using such imagery as an artistic symbol for completely verifiable aspects of our immanent experiential flow. Thus, we can only properly orient to these symbolic concepts, such as “encoding”, if we remain active in our imaginative life and try to experience how the intuitive meaning we are instinctively steering through is continually focused into the mental pictures and verbal forms we use to anchor that meaning (like the words of this essay).

Image

Thus our imaginative organization acts as a prism through which the holistic yet blurry light of intuitive meaning is continually focused into more narrow yet sharply defined sequences of mental pictures and verbal thoughts that attempt to explicate the meaning. Imagine how the blurry colors perceived through a camera or binocular are more clearly focused when you adjust the lenses - we are continually doing something similar with our invisible imaginative gestures that bring forth mental pictures (thoughts). Our thoughts are then experienced coming into focus as highly 'chopped up' intuitive meaning. As another example, when we speak of the ‘neurosensory system’, we may not have any well-defined physiological understanding, but nevertheless we can try to experience the totality of our sensory inputs - colors, sounds, smells, tactile, etc. - as superimposed and interacting with our bodily and psychic organizations. We can then sense how we focus that dim intuitive experience into a tree-like branching mental picture and the verbal symbol through our imaginative gestures.

Another helpful example to consider is that of mathematical thinking, since the symbolic pictures are generally not directly drawn from sensory experience. When we imagine two sides of a triangle and then ‘incarnate’ the third side which must necessarily connect them, our spiritual activity weaves in timeless ideal relations and focuses that intuitive meaning through the prism of certain mysterious yet lawful mental constraints which are also intuitively felt. It takes time to perform the geometric operation but we know the relations between the sides are always the same. Then we can later focus that felt intuition of the timeless intuitive constraints into the symbolic concepts of “mathematical laws”, “mathematical logic”, and so on. It is critical to get a good feel for how all such intellectual concepts were originally born from the felt intuitive meaning of our spiritual activity and its lawful constraints, even when we consider more sense-based fields of inquiry like history, geography, biology, etc.


Image

By actively and livingly exploring the constraints on our imaginative life in this way, we are also beginning to loosen the nuts and bolts on the mask of the rigid diving suit, or to use another metaphor, to put more slack in the customary strings that normally dangle our imaginative being and make it dance hither and thither like a marionette. The first step is always to become conscious of these strings because otherwise they remain in our blind spot and we imagine we are in full control of our inner movements, forming our philosophical, religious, and scientific ideas as original and free expressions of our Spirit. We initially gain that consciousness by resisting certain default thinking constraints through our active conceptual explorations. When we resist the constraints with our spiritual activity, it is as if the latter drags against the ordinary channels that continually try to format its expression. The resulting ‘friction’ provides the basis for our activity to gain inward (intuitive) sensitivity to the constraints, just as we become more acutely aware of a current in the ocean when we try swimming against it.

Loosening the Most Proximate Constraint on Imaginative Activity

We should notice how this is why all thinking inquiries can lead to existential insights. When the chemist decides to investigate the reaction of substances, for example, there are many other things he could allow his spiritual activity to flow along with, i.e. various sympathetic and convenient sensuous pleasures (like the animal does). Instead, he resists those ‘subjective’ sympathies and preferences and directs his spiritual activity against the normal soul flow to devote time and effort towards setting up the experiment. In the process of conducting the experiment, his spiritual activity drags against the normal flow and certain meaningful intuition feeds back, like the meaning of sensory transformations indicating a new substance precipitating from the reaction. This meaningful feedback provides genuine insight into the contextual depth of existence, even if at a very fragmented scale. The common error that occurs here, however, is the chemist failing to understand the feedback is related to his own inner life - his own soul and spiritual structure - instead imagining the meaning points to some other reality ‘behind’ or ‘beyond’ the sensory appearances.

Surely the chemical reaction is not caused by the chemist’s personal imaginative activity, but its meaning can only shine forth through the contextual factors that structure this activity. This sort of ignorance can make our intuitive efforts useful for myopic aims in the short-term, but it is untruthful and therefore unproductive for attaining spiritual sight within deeper scales of existence. When we remain ignorant of the truthful process, the meaningful feedback on our imaginative resistance does nothing to shift or heighten the underlying cognitive experience, because our attention is sucked entirely into its surface-level content. We should try to feel this very clearly. When philosopher A concludes that “the Big Bang created the Universe”, and philosopher B concludes that “God created the Universe”, the cognitive experience of thinking the conclusion is practically equivalent. That would only change if one of the philosophers was struck by the insight that his conclusion also testifies to the hidden ideal lawfulness through which it was formed and in which he continuously participates.

Thus, the first constraint to resist and become more conscious of is the rigid modern habit of treating our concepts as definitions and models that are imagined to “explain” the “nature” of our inner constraints as if they are external to our spiritual activity. In that case, we feel that we can encompass the constraints in our ordinary mental perspective, measuring and analyzing them from a safe distance as we generally do with phenomenal processes in the kingdoms of Nature. What follows should be understood as a practice in exactly this resistance, so that the default cognitive strings slacken and we can more clearly sense how the meaningful feedback on our spiritual activity relates to our intuitive context. Then we can also start to distinguish between what we are freely contributing to our intuitive movements, on the one hand, and what movements are still being tugged by shadowy strings - impulses, feelings, and habits - on the other. We are then beginning to probe the ‘geometry’ of the inner constraints with our spiritual activity.

To get a better feel for this approach to investigating our inner architecture, consider how we wordlessly remember events in our lives when we were particularly active, like a sporting event we participated in, as if surfing through a panorama of memory images. This memory intuition of the event constrains the way we move our remembering activity - we aren’t interested in recalling any images, for example an image of what we had for breakfast yesterday, but only those which fit harmoniously within the ‘intuitive curvature’ of the sporting event. Any disharmonious images within our intuitive context are quickly filtered out, they ‘destructively interfere’ such that we never even become aware of them. Then, if we want to express constructively interfering images more precisely to ourselves or others, we focus them into symbolic forms that are constrained by the ‘prismatic lenses’ of our acquired languages, our speech skills, the particular organization of our throat and larynx, etc. Of the infinite possible ways of expressing meaning, only those words, expressions, intonations, articulations, etc. that are allowed by these various overlapping constraints will be manifested in our speech.

In that sense, our verbal concepts and mental pictures symbolizing the constraints (stimulated by the perceptions of this essay) are also genuine experiences of the constraints themselves, i.e. encodings of their felt intuitive meaning. The concepts we are now using to describe the constraints are themselves filtered through the constraints they are describing. Thus, our concepts have become recursive and point attention toward various aspects of the process through which they were birthed, sort of like they are blood spatter patterns which can testify to the way in which a crime was committed. Sometimes these patterns can even point to underlying motivations - was the crime committed in a momentary fit of rage or in a premeditated and methodical fashion? Again, with these metaphors we are simply elucidating the reasons why thinking works to provide potential insights in all cases, trying to become more explicitly aware of what otherwise remains unconscious and is taken for granted.

That is also the case even in our intellectual thinking where the relationship isn’t so explicit, as in the case of the chemist. Then, our concepts implicitly point back at the formal context through which they manifested, yet another level of indirection has been introduced. If we imagine our explicitly symbolic concepts about the contextual constraints (such as we are using here) as a one-arm pendulum, where the movements of the arm (concepts) closely mirror the meaningful intuitive ‘point’ around which it oscillates, our scientific thinking with implicitly symbolic concepts is like adding a second arm, where the movements become much more complicated reflections of that underlying intuitive meaning.


Image

When we attend solely to the complex pendulum swings of our conceptual life, i.e. the content of our oscillating thoughts, which is by far the prevailing habit today, we invariably lose sight of their continuity with the intuitive points around which they revolve (yet the continuity still exists). To attain spiritual sight, we need to reorient attention toward the thinking process itself, which normally hides in the background. It doesn’t matter if we are thinking about whizzing electrons, multiplying cells, transformations of ‘libido’, hierarchies of spiritual beings, or the Final Judgment - we always gain more living and holistic insight into the experiential flow when we see the resulting thoughts as testimonies to the real-time thinking process. We learn to retrace through the complicated reflections of thoughts into the intuitive context that shapes their movements - first our beliefs, assumptions, preferences, motivations, etc. - and with expanding insight we can streamline our thoughts to exert less of a chaotic pull on our soul context. To attain a proper orientation to this retracing possibility, we need to understand that this entire intuitive context is always immanent in our present state of being.

Intuitive Meaning Always Lives in our Present State

In all cases, the meaningful experiences that form the basis of our conceptual encodings are still living in our present state. When surfing through memory pictures of the sporting event and verbalizing the words, "That was a great game but I could have played better”, we are experiencing the same meaning we experienced during the game, although there is the additional meaning of the states we have experienced since the game which provides a new perspective on the original meaning. A great deal of the game’s qualitative significance is lost in the translation, including the quality of temporal immediacy. Analogous to how a large computer image may lose a lot of its crisp resolution when it is compressed into a smaller format, the constraining memory intuition becomes something smaller, nebulous, insubstantial, and distant when we focus attention solely on its symbolic encodings (whether verbal, pictorial, physical gestures, etc.). The meaning of what we were sensing, thinking, feeling, and doing during the sporting event, in all its rich and immanent qualities, will mostly be obscured or aliased by the encodings.

To heighten sensitivity to this principle, consider the example of biologists observing stages of human development and producing mental images imbued with the meaning of how rhythmic life processes lawfully constrain these developmental stages of the human organism as it grows from embryo to mature adult. The thoughts about these living constraints are clearly also constrained by those same developmental stages. The biologists are themselves members of the human species undergoing the rhythmic development that they are thinking about - they have arrived at the stage where thoughts can (indirectly) investigate the process through which they were birthed. It’s only that their thoughts are like aliased experiences of the mysterious biological constraints. All natural sciences, and intellectual inquiries in general, follow this same principle at various levels of indirection between the finished thoughts and the underlying intuited constraints.

At a more phenomenological level, if we pay close attention, we can easily notice how our breathing or heartrate modulates our feelings and moods (and vice versa) and how the latter, in turn, modulates our thoughts. If we were in a heated argument filled with unchecked passions recently, our heartrate may be elevated, our breathing may be jagged, and our thoughts cannot help but iterate over the meaning of the associated memory images. Even paying more attention to such trivial examples in our daily experiential flow will help us become sensitive to how there is no clean separation between the objective World ‘out there’ (including our bodily processes) and the thoughts we use to investigate the former. That sensitivity to the overlap will grow not only with respect to spatial phenomena, but also with relation to temporal phenomena. Again, there is no reason to assume the meaningful experience of the argument has disappeared into an external void that we conceive as ‘the past’.

Ironically, if such a void existed, we would never be able to conceive of its existence. We can only conceive the mental picture we imbue with the meaning ‘void of the past’ within our present state. Modern philosophers who postulated a ‘noumenal realm’, ‘transcendent reality’, and so on did this exact thing and confused their mental picture with an ontological reality beyond the present state. The latter then becomes yet another belief constraining our spiritual activity in a potentially fatal way, since it demotivates us from stretching this activity any further and realizing the impossible nature of our postulate. Instead of postulating such unreachable voids that fatally constrain our spiritual activity, we can remain faithful to what can be directly intuited in our present state - the only state there is. We can intuit a receded context of ‘previous’ activity that is still present as constraining factors, just as the receding images of self-similar spirals below are still present in the visual frame as they asymptotically sink into the memory kernel.


Image

That is a symbol of our ordinary first-person perspective as archetypally structured intuitive meaning is focused from ‘behind’ our perspective into mental pictures and recedes as memory intuition. Every incoming state of being, however, also embeds this memory intuition such that there can be continuity of consciousness for the intuitive perspective on reality. It is as if the receding spirals sink from view and reemerge within the newly incoming spiral at our cognitive horizon - the 'ends' of the 'vortex' are recursively linked together in that way. For continuity of consciousness within any given intuitive perspective, each new state should feel as if it embeds the lasting reverberations of all previous states (hence the self-similarity of states). Only in this way can we intuit within our present state that we have gone through lawful development until this moment and likewise anticipate a continued lawful unfolding of states, even if that temporal intuition normally remains diffuse and blurry. We can imagine the incoming spirals initially contain the total intuitive potential, but only those experiential aspects which can be accommodated by our imploded memory kernel become consciously experienced in our new state.

This immanent receding and contextual quality of spiritual activity flowing in time is the archetypal basis for the experience of space, not as some abstract arena in which our consciousness is located, but as the simultaneity of continuously integrating and self-similar states of existence. The spatial world we experience is fundamentally no different in its function than a dense scrapbook we may create of many different moments from our lives photographed side by side and shared with others. It allows these first-person ‘subjective’ experiences in time to be experienced simultaneously and objectively, i.e. shared across many different intuitive perspectives, such that the perspectives can kindle new kinds of intuitions against the spatial perceptions. When we perceive the mineral, plant, animal, and human kingdoms ‘side by side’, our intuitive perspective is able to experience differing temporal stages of development simultaneously, which then forms the basis of all our objective thinking inquires. Just like the scrapbook or the sporting event, though, our spatial experience of subjective states has aliased much of the latter’s qualitative significance.

Consider how our experience of the spatial world is mostly contained within our memory intuition. Our vision at any given time only extends so far as the horizon or the walls of our dwelling place (or further with technological extensions). Yet when we think about space and spatial phenomena - the planets, the continents, the countries, the rivers, mountains, and forests, others rooms of our house, and so on - we dimly form memory images of sensory impressions we have once experienced (even if only as pictures on the computer or via the Hubble telescope) from within our present state. The ‘objective world’ that natural scientists attempt to study and mathematically model is exclusively the world of memory intuition stripped of its qualitative significance, aliased to mere quantitative relations. That already reveals there is nothing purely ‘subjective’ about the intuitive landscape we experience and explicate in thoughts, neither is it merely ‘objective’, but exists at a scale which integrates both - the first-person subjective experience of incoming spirals and the receding objectification of those spirals in shared memory intuition which continually feeds back into new incoming spirals.

Here is another image to help anchor our orientation to this aspect of our experiential flow (we should imagine our ordinary first-person perspective at the meeting point looking down):


Image

The spirals and torus also help us orient toward the fact that the inner constraints of our present state are temporal and rhythmic. Clearly, this requires we loosen our ordinary conception of ‘linear time’ (sequentially ordered frames) and try to imaginatively experience how the present state is always temporally thick. As we discussed and can easily verify, all our intuitions and encoded thoughts about these rhythms are within our present state, yet there is no justification for us to say our thoughts about the present state is responsible for the rhythms. In no way can we alter the rhythmic transformations of the seasons, the months, the days, etc. along with our dimly sensed psycho-physical rhythms, simply by modulating our thoughts within the present state. These two undeniable phenomenological facts coupled together already insist that there is temporal thickness to our present state which remains mostly beneath the surface of our consciousness, the latter only being the tip of a temporally structured iceberg. This aspect is missed in many flattened mystical conceptions of reality.

It is clear in our ordinary experience that these rhythmic transformations constrain our spiritual activity and the potential states of being it can reach. We have lost a lot of inner sensitivity to how the physical environment modulates our imaginative life, but we can still dimly sense some of these influences, for example how extremely hot or cold weather dulls our thinking (in distinct ways) or how our inspirations flow more freely in Summer and how they require more effort to attain in Winter. Of course, these contextual temporal influences overlap in complex ways and every individual will experience them in different intensities and shades, depending on innumerable inner factors. Nevertheless, we can begin to sense certain archetypal modulations that remain consistent across many souls. These rhythms are all shadowy reflections of invisible and mysterious ideal constraints.

Yet the first rhythms we will encounter through our resistance on the journey toward spiritual sight are not those of the physical environment, but those of our thoughts, feelings, and desires, which we ordinarily have little sensitivity for. We will always attain sensitivity to the broader environmental rhythms insofar as they overlap with and modulate our patterned soul rhythms. Normally we chaotically jump from thought to thought, guided by equally chaotic moods, feelings, and desires, and therefore fail to discern any meaningful patterns within this flow of soul experience. We can only speak of “random” thoughts or feelings when we have lost sight of the intuitive context in which they appear. When we increase sensitivity to that context by dragging our activity against the ordinary soul flow, we begin to intuitively sense how these fragmented soul experiences are embedded within underlying ‘fractal’ patterns of intuited meaning.


Image

Please remember with these images and concepts we aren’t trying to build any rigid or universal models or theories that ‘explain’ the ‘nature’ of our experience for all time, only using them as symbolic anchors to attain a loose feeling orientation to our ongoing first-person experiential flow of mental, emotional, and sensory states, which is the only flow we can ever know. With the IFS illustration above, for example, we can use it a symbolic anchor for sensing how we routinely experience similar moods at similar times of day and how our thoughts generally gravitate in one direction or another depending on those moods and other connected soul factors. All of this will remain quite dim and abstract at first, but such abstract exploration is a necessary soil from which more concrete intuitions will eventually grow through the proper cultivation of our thinking, feeling, and willing. The more we recursively exercise our spiritual activity, the more clearly its fractally and rhythmically structured constraining environment will be felt within our present state.

Temporal Intuition Within the Present State Can Expand

There is a distinct quality to the already receded context that differentiates it from our present state and its activity, which justifies our experience of it feeling like the already encompassed ‘past’ in distinction to the mysterious incoming spirals of the ‘future’, but that distinct quality is always also experienced from within our present state. That also suggests there is nothing that mandates this distinct quality should always be experienced from within the present state in the same way. In our dream life, for example, this quality of receded activity is quite differently experienced, although it’s hard for us to sense this because we can only reflect on the rapidly dissolving dream states from the normal waking state. In the dream experience, the receded activity of ideas, fears, hopes, etc. has become our immanent and feeling-rich dream environment of imagery. During our waking life, there are also aspects of receded activity that are experienced as more immanently present and concrete in our state than others.

For example, when a song gets ‘stuck in our head’ (which is an apt phrase), it is because we previously directed our attention to its particular qualities. That previous activity and its receding memory images then become a contextual constraint that attracts our current activity around its meaning. We may intend to think about something else, to focus on some other question, but our activity is constrained by this receded context and forced to iterate over its meaning for some lesser or greater amount of iterations. When we previously directed attention to the song, we would have been performing subtle inner movements along with the rhythm, melody and lyrics. It is like our soul movements were being led through an inner dance by the song and we allowed ourselves to be passively entrained by it. Many times we may notice these passively experienced movements were associated with selfish qualities, like maybe we envisioned ourselves performing the song in a packed theater in front of family, friends, colleagues, or other people we desire to impress with our imaginary talents.

In this way, our inner activity is continuously receding and becoming the contextual (hierarchically structured) atmosphere in which our present activity finds itself. A song stuck in our head is not as deep within the hierarchy of constraints as a smoking habit that caused irreparable lung damage, for example. Our present activity then seeks to transform its present state through the degrees of freedom afforded to it by the whole hierarchical context. We can only direct our vision heavenward because our organic bodily context has afforded that degree of freedom through our upright spine (unlike most animals), whereas it has not afforded us the degree of freedom to direct our vision behind us (unlike some animals). We have instead maintained our upright posture and upturned head, while utilizing the degrees of freedom afforded by our imaginative life to devise technology extending our sensory capacities (like rearview cameras). We have not only acquired these extra-spatial degrees of freedom through the context of our imaginative organization, but also extra-temporal ones, e.g. slow motion and timelapse video technology.

This fact already hints at the inner axis along which we can discover additional degrees of freedom for our imaginative life, but it won’t be as simple as creating more powerful technologies. The meaningful inner constraints we are so far only probing with our imaginative ‘tentacles’, and which we seek to become increasingly sensitive to, will be found as more expansive and lucid temporal intuition of those constraining factors within our present state (as already suggested with the IFS metaphor) - something which physical technology can never provide of its own accord. We can easily surmise that there is a fundamental ceiling on how many degrees of freedom the contortions afforded by such technology can provide. The example of timelapse technology is illustrative here - can we imagine that we could speed up the metamorphosis of recorded perceptions so fast that we can gain fundamentally new insights into how those perceptions arise in the first place?

That would be sort of like trying to feel our whole hand by focusing attention on the tips of our fingers and then switching attention between them faster and faster. Our attentional movement may blur together, but we never reach the holistic sensation of the hand in this way. Instead, we need to ‘zoom out’ our attention to a higher-order scale than the scale of the particular fingertips, becoming aware of an irreducible wholeness that is more than the sum of its parts. Analogously, we can’t reach the inner contextual depth of our mental picturing activity by moving our mental pictures faster and faster (e.g. timelapse technology), contorting their configurations in the most clever ways. Instead, we need to zoom out our attention into the flow of the imaginative activity itself, which unites the frames of our mental pictures just as the hand unites the fingers, but cannot be found contained within the content of those pictures.

Even though the above should make great logical sense to us, we still habitually search for answers to existential questions within the content of our mental pictures because it has become our comfortable sense of support and we can’t imagine another way of doing it. We need to really feel how dependent our spiritual activity has become on this support. When we work only with mental pictures, ignoring the ongoing flow of spiritual activity which generated them, we feel like we have the stable ground beneath our feet. It is a characteristic sense of grip and stability within the otherwise volatile flow of inner experience, which is quite necessary for carrying out daily tasks and also for thinking about existential questions. Yet this default state of support can also be complemented with gradual forays into more support-free states. Even a few minutes per day will generate unsuspected degrees of freedom. Our feet rest on the floorboards, the floorboards on the foundation, the foundation on the Earth, but what does the Earth rest on?


Image

Just as the Earth spirals through its orbit without perceptible support, our spiritual activity can begin to spiral upwards through the invisible intuitive context. In fact, it always does so for brief moments whenever we explore intuitive meaning and before we focus that meaning into anchoring forms, yet they are so fleeting (or our activity is so feeble) that we only awaken to the fully finished and receding perceptions. It is like we hop off the ground and are immediately pulled down by the gravity of pictorial and verbal anchors. To prolong these ‘zero-gravity’ states, we need to strengthen our activity by thoroughly exploring its structure and dynamics through phenomenological exploration (as we are already doing) and concentrated meditation (which we will discuss more later). Then we gradually accustom our spiritual organization to explore meaning without constantly stopping for rest on the familiar sensory and intellectual supports. It starts to know its flow of spiritual activity and the hidden ideal order that shapes its flow from within as ‘kinesthetic’ sensations, just as we know our own head, chest, and limbs in this way.

If we only knew our body as third-person mental pictures of its colors, shapes, and sizes, we would never be able to do anything useful with it, i.e. to aim its movements toward our highest human ideals. It is the same with our spiritual organization that must learn to start swimming in the meaningful currents of existence independently of its old supports, to be born anew into the archetypal worlds. Our spiritual activity should not privilege any given conceptual perspective on intuitive meaning just as our hands do not privilege any given perspective on tactile sensations. Instead, it thoroughly probes those sensations from different angles to get a holistic feeling for the meaning it is encountering. First, we need to further explore the common constraints that continually divert us from swimming with our spiritual activity. Through that living exploration, we will further loosen the rigid ‘joints’ and ‘strings’ of our imaginative mask so we can more clearly intuit a fundamentally new direction in which our spiritual activity can expand. We will continue establishing this brand new foundation for our spiritual sight, and therefore our spiritual freedom, in the next part.



CITATIONS:

(1) Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
Such constraints are not limited to reductive materialists, of course. We could also imagine a discussion with our religious friend who believes the Creator is separate from his creation, and therefore His creatures cannot become as creatively responsible for that creation as He is. This belief will steer our friend’s activity away from mental states that imply humanity can develop forms of spiritual activity that are not merely abstract reflections on experience or the rearrangement of dead mineral elements, but which work creatively into the psycho-physical structure of existence. If we begin discussing these higher forms of spiritual activity, our friend will find ways to ignore or rationalize them away. We could survey many more modern beliefs which constrain spiritual activity in similar ways. An especially problematic constraint is the belief that these constraining factors apply to everyone else’s spiritual activity, but not to our own. This particular constraint, synonymous with pride, keeps itself in the shadows and makes it impossible for our spiritual activity to illuminate the factors constraining it.
Hey Ashvin.

Do you mean to say here that our way of understanding the world is conditioned by cultural and psychological factors, and that these then determine what we think about the world (regarding ontological and metaphysical questions)?If so, then the spiritual worldview would also be determined by these forces, and simply another way of understanding the world. This is reminiscent of the ideas of post-structuralism, which assume that even our identity is a product of various forces (Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault), and that there is no truth (in the sense of a metaphysical order, an external reality that can be known).

But here we encounter a question. If we structure the world and our role in it through thoughts, then the idea of a cosmic evolution in which we are embedded is also just another thought complex. Yes, it may be that through the transformation of our perspective of thinking we come to self-knowledge, that is, to an understanding of the forces that modulate our everyday perspective with all its convictions; however, this does not lead to the experience of reincarnation or the hierarchical order of the cosmos. Through self-knowledge, we can notice forces that shape us, but not their perspectives, if they even have such. In what sense, then, do we come to a knowledge of spiritual beings if we are confronted by the methodology of forces acting upon us?Moreover, the question can be raised as to who we are if our everyday perspective of the self is a collection of various impulses.

We must be careful not to attribute predicates to these impulses that do not reveal themselves. Otherwise, we would fall back into metaphysical speculation instead of following the method of phenomenological description of phenomena that show themselves.Furthermore, it also depends on what ontological nature we attribute to the meaning we express in linguistic symbols. Does it mean that because we can think the idea of a cosmic evolution, a fundamental (phenomenological) reality can be ascribed to it? Here, one could also slide into relativism, since other conceptions are obviously possible as well.How does the experience of the context of forces and impulses that constitute us lead to the noumenal, instead of merely describing a phenomenon again?

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2025 1:49 pm
by AshvinP
Güney27 wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:50 pm Hey Ashvin.

Do you mean to say here that our way of understanding the world is conditioned by cultural and psychological factors, and that these then determine what we think about the world (regarding ontological and metaphysical questions)?If so, then the spiritual worldview would also be determined by these forces, and simply another way of understanding the world. This is reminiscent of the ideas of post-structuralism, which assume that even our identity is a product of various forces (Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault), and that there is no truth (in the sense of a metaphysical order, an external reality that can be known).

But here we encounter a question. If we structure the world and our role in it through thoughts, then the idea of a cosmic evolution in which we are embedded is also just another thought complex. Yes, it may be that through the transformation of our perspective of thinking we come to self-knowledge, that is, to an understanding of the forces that modulate our everyday perspective with all its convictions; however, this does not lead to the experience of reincarnation or the hierarchical order of the cosmos. Through self-knowledge, we can notice forces that shape us, but not their perspectives, if they even have such. In what sense, then, do we come to a knowledge of spiritual beings if we are confronted by the methodology of forces acting upon us?Moreover, the question can be raised as to who we are if our everyday perspective of the self is a collection of various impulses.

We must be careful not to attribute predicates to these impulses that do not reveal themselves. Otherwise, we would fall back into metaphysical speculation instead of following the method of phenomenological description of phenomena that show themselves.Furthermore, it also depends on what ontological nature we attribute to the meaning we express in linguistic symbols. Does it mean that because we can think the idea of a cosmic evolution, a fundamental (phenomenological) reality can be ascribed to it? Here, one could also slide into relativism, since other conceptions are obviously possible as well.How does the experience of the context of forces and impulses that constitute us lead to the noumenal, instead of merely describing a phenomenon again?
Hi Guney,

These are very thought-provoking questions. I think that I have a sense of the perspective from which they are being asked, but you can let me know if anything below is unclear or fails to address the questions as you intended them. 

To begin with, I would not say the inner constraints (such as beliefs, opinions, assumptions, etc.) "determine" what we think about the world because that is too strong and rigid of a claim. It is the kind of claim we get from metaphysical thinking that only tries to click concepts about 'inner constraints' together between themselves and derive some satisfying intellectual picture. That is how we start getting all the modern debates about 'free will vs. determinism', 'mind vs. matter', and so forth. Such endless debates are necessitated by the very mode of thinking that fails to introspect its inner process. The phenomenological claim, on the other hand, is that experientially verifiable constraints make certain pathways of imaginative experience much more likely to be pursued than others. Let's appreciate that the latter is a completely phenomenological observation (not a metaphysical postulate). 

When we closely identify our personality with a certain opinion, for example, that the brain is the concrete 'material structure' and its obscure dynamics lead to what we experience as 'thoughts', we will feel concrete inner tension if our spiritual activity is led toward the phenomenological experience of being causally responsible for its flow of thoughts. That entire domain of meaningful experience will feel like a sharp thorn that threatens to tear a hole through our personality, to rip out the opinion that is woven into its fabric. All of this can be inwardly felt if we introspectively observe our life situation and its characteristic flow, which, of course, is experienced most lucidly in the flow of imaginative states. This is a sort of inner experience that we can directly observe. (it is likewise the case for the soul that identifies closely with the opinion that thoughts emerge from a mystical void, and we have seen on this forum concrete examples of how such an opinion steers the soul away from the experience of self-willed inner activity, such that phenomenological exercises and examples can hardly be comprehended anymore).  

It is only in this way that we should be thinking about the inner constraints and their formative influences on our imaginative life. In other words, we should not be imagining some rigid structures (physical or spiritual) that absolutely determine our ideas. This would simply be another form of metaphysics, and then, under such a metaphysical framework, we would be justified in asking questions like, "How can we know this whole idea about inner constraints is not itself just the product of some other rigid structure that we haven't noticed yet?" Such a question only has meaning if we have already bought into the metaphysical game where we weave in abstract concepts about the reality 'over there'. We are only safe if we refrain from all such metaphysical considerations, and, like you say, only describe the phenomenal facts and their relations as experienced from our first-person state. That means we also need to refrain from postulating a divide between descriptions of phenomenal experience and 'the noumenal'. No such divide is to be found in what the phenomenal relations reveal to us. Rather, it is only something we add with our thinking, which is constrained to imagine another reality 'behind' our phenomenal states.

Notice how these soul constraints mentioned above all act to steer the soul away from the living experience of its inner states and their willed transformation. That is easy to see with beliefs and opinions, but it can also apply to deeper sympathies and antipathies, i.e., preferences, desires, temperaments, dispositions. As long as we are simply observing, thinking through, and describing the phenomenal states and the lawful constraints on their transformations, we don't need to wonder whether this 'corresponds' to some other noumenal reality. We only want to patiently expand our intuitive orientation to the flow of life experience without postulating any limits to how far the expansion can go. Some psychic constraints act to prevent this expansion of intuition, while deeper psychic and biophysical constraints are generally helpful for supporting our intuitive exploration, and we only want to become more keenly conscious of how our states flow along their grooves. (at least at our current human stage). It is also phenomenologically verifiable that becoming conscious of these proximate constraining factors is a significant step toward freeing our imaginative states from their puppeteering influence. 

When we speak of a belief, desire, and so forth, what is the meaning we are actually steering through? Let's use a chess metaphor. We can imagine that we are playing a game and come to an important decision, and we need to think for awhile before we make a move. Probably, we will be condensing mental pictures of how the position could play out if we make one move or another. Eventually, we think to ourselves, 'moving the knight to d4 is the best move in this position'. What is the meaning that we experience in those words? If we pay careful attention to our inner process while deciding on the move, we can sense how we are moving through an imaginative panorama related to the game of chess (which may not necessarily be vividly visualized), i.e., to the previous games we have watched or played, to the regular positions we have encountered, to memories of all the types of players we have been up against, to our chess coaching lessons, to the whole history of chess (if we have studied that), and so on. It is practically the same with any other sporting practice of active decision-making in general. 

In that sense, it is phenomenologically verifiable that the 'forces acting upon us' are always bound up with a sphere of other beings and that this sphere becomes increasingly wider in scope the further we trace the meaning that is anchored in our mental pictures. Whenever we think about something, our imaginative states rest upon an experiential foundation of relationships, knowledge, skills, social structures, and physical processes that are constellated through the most varied beings over our lifetime. Thus, by associating the constraining 'forces' with coherent perspectives that conduct spiritual activity (like we do) and go through a continual metamorphosis (evolution), we are not postulating anything beyond the domain of phenomenal experience. It is not the mere fact that we think the idea of cosmic evolution that makes it a phenomenological reality, but that the idea can be traced to our concrete inner states, at individual and collective scales, and their metamorphoses, which integrate upon one another and lead to novel forms and pathways of experience. 

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2025 6:11 pm
by Güney27
AshvinP wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 1:49 pm
Güney27 wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:50 pm Hey Ashvin.

Do you mean to say here that our way of understanding the world is conditioned by cultural and psychological factors, and that these then determine what we think about the world (regarding ontological and metaphysical questions)?If so, then the spiritual worldview would also be determined by these forces, and simply another way of understanding the world. This is reminiscent of the ideas of post-structuralism, which assume that even our identity is a product of various forces (Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault), and that there is no truth (in the sense of a metaphysical order, an external reality that can be known).

But here we encounter a question. If we structure the world and our role in it through thoughts, then the idea of a cosmic evolution in which we are embedded is also just another thought complex. Yes, it may be that through the transformation of our perspective of thinking we come to self-knowledge, that is, to an understanding of the forces that modulate our everyday perspective with all its convictions; however, this does not lead to the experience of reincarnation or the hierarchical order of the cosmos. Through self-knowledge, we can notice forces that shape us, but not their perspectives, if they even have such. In what sense, then, do we come to a knowledge of spiritual beings if we are confronted by the methodology of forces acting upon us?Moreover, the question can be raised as to who we are if our everyday perspective of the self is a collection of various impulses.

We must be careful not to attribute predicates to these impulses that do not reveal themselves. Otherwise, we would fall back into metaphysical speculation instead of following the method of phenomenological description of phenomena that show themselves.Furthermore, it also depends on what ontological nature we attribute to the meaning we express in linguistic symbols. Does it mean that because we can think the idea of a cosmic evolution, a fundamental (phenomenological) reality can be ascribed to it? Here, one could also slide into relativism, since other conceptions are obviously possible as well.How does the experience of the context of forces and impulses that constitute us lead to the noumenal, instead of merely describing a phenomenon again?
Hi Guney,

These are very thought-provoking questions. I think that I have a sense of the perspective from which they are being asked, but you can let me know if anything below is unclear or fails to address the questions as you intended them. 

To begin with, I would not say the inner constraints (such as beliefs, opinions, assumptions, etc.) "determine" what we think about the world because that is too strong and rigid of a claim. It is the kind of claim we get from metaphysical thinking that only tries to click concepts about 'inner constraints' together between themselves and derive some satisfying intellectual picture. That is how we start getting all the modern debates about 'free will vs. determinism', 'mind vs. matter', and so forth. Such endless debates are necessitated by the very mode of thinking that fails to introspect its inner process. The phenomenological claim, on the other hand, is that experientially verifiable constraints make certain pathways of imaginative experience much more likely to be pursued than others. Let's appreciate that the latter is a completely phenomenological observation (not a metaphysical postulate). 

When we closely identify our personality with a certain opinion, for example, that the brain is the concrete 'material structure' and its obscure dynamics lead to what we experience as 'thoughts', we will feel concrete inner tension if our spiritual activity is led toward the phenomenological experience of being causally responsible for its flow of thoughts. That entire domain of meaningful experience will feel like a sharp thorn that threatens to tear a hole through our personality, to rip out the opinion that is woven into its fabric. All of this can be inwardly felt if we introspectively observe our life situation and its characteristic flow, which, of course, is experienced most lucidly in the flow of imaginative states. This is a sort of inner experience that we can directly observe. (it is likewise the case for the soul that identifies closely with the opinion that thoughts emerge from a mystical void, and we have seen on this forum concrete examples of how such an opinion steers the soul away from the experience of self-willed inner activity, such that phenomenological exercises and examples can hardly be comprehended anymore).  

It is only in this way that we should be thinking about the inner constraints and their formative influences on our imaginative life. In other words, we should not be imagining some rigid structures (physical or spiritual) that absolutely determine our ideas. This would simply be another form of metaphysics, and then, under such a metaphysical framework, we would be justified in asking questions like, "How can we know this whole idea about inner constraints is not itself just the product of some other rigid structure that we haven't noticed yet?" Such a question only has meaning if we have already bought into the metaphysical game where we weave in abstract concepts about the reality 'over there'. We are only safe if we refrain from all such metaphysical considerations, and, like you say, only describe the phenomenal facts and their relations as experienced from our first-person state. That means we also need to refrain from postulating a divide between descriptions of phenomenal experience and 'the noumenal'. No such divide is to be found in what the phenomenal relations reveal to us. Rather, it is only something we add with our thinking, which is constrained to imagine another reality 'behind' our phenomenal states.

Notice how these soul constraints mentioned above all act to steer the soul away from the living experience of its inner states and their willed transformation. That is easy to see with beliefs and opinions, but it can also apply to deeper sympathies and antipathies, i.e., preferences, desires, temperaments, dispositions. As long as we are simply observing, thinking through, and describing the phenomenal states and the lawful constraints on their transformations, we don't need to wonder whether this 'corresponds' to some other noumenal reality. We only want to patiently expand our intuitive orientation to the flow of life experience without postulating any limits to how far the expansion can go. Some psychic constraints act to prevent this expansion of intuition, while deeper psychic and biophysical constraints are generally helpful for supporting our intuitive exploration, and we only want to become more keenly conscious of how our states flow along their grooves. (at least at our current human stage). It is also phenomenologically verifiable that becoming conscious of these proximate constraining factors is a significant step toward freeing our imaginative states from their puppeteering influence. 

When we speak of a belief, desire, and so forth, what is the meaning we are actually steering through? Let's use a chess metaphor. We can imagine that we are playing a game and come to an important decision, and we need to think for awhile before we make a move. Probably, we will be condensing mental pictures of how the position could play out if we make one move or another. Eventually, we think to ourselves, 'moving the knight to d4 is the best move in this position'. What is the meaning that we experience in those words? If we pay careful attention to our inner process while deciding on the move, we can sense how we are moving through an imaginative panorama related to the game of chess (which may not necessarily be vividly visualized), i.e., to the previous games we have watched or played, to the regular positions we have encountered, to memories of all the types of players we have been up against, to our chess coaching lessons, to the whole history of chess (if we have studied that), and so on. It is practically the same with any other sporting practice of active decision-making in general. 

In that sense, it is phenomenologically verifiable that the 'forces acting upon us' are always bound up with a sphere of other beings and that this sphere becomes increasingly wider in scope the further we trace the meaning that is anchored in our mental pictures. Whenever we think about something, our imaginative states rest upon an experiential foundation of relationships, knowledge, skills, social structures, and physical processes that are constellated through the most varied beings over our lifetime. Thus, by associating the constraining 'forces' with coherent perspectives that conduct spiritual activity (like we do) and go through a continual metamorphosis (evolution), we are not postulating anything beyond the domain of phenomenal experience. It is not the mere fact that we think the idea of cosmic evolution that makes it a phenomenological reality, but that the idea can be traced to our concrete inner states, at individual and collective scales, and their metamorphoses, which integrate upon one another and lead to novel forms and pathways of experience. 
I think it is correct that if we consider our thoughts as symbols for deeper processes and reorient our perspective on thinking, I do not believe this leads to rediscovering the concepts we know from SS as real forces. I can experimentally confirm that there is an "essential layer" that produces images and feelings, entirely independent of conscious intention. If I were to say that this is my astral body, I would be introducing a metaphysical theory to explain or at least categorize my conscious experience.If we adopt the concept of the astral body as a symbol for this experiential reality, it is no more than if I were to call it the soul or the producer of images and feelings.

In the context of SS, however, this is not the case, as the astral body here carries the additional connotation of being one of several essential components and, as such, belonging to a distinct sphere populated by beings, etc. It may be that for the initiated, this is a reality they experience, just as I experience images and feelings, and can describe phenomenologically.I agree that the conceptual functions of SS are useful because they create conceptions that help avoid nihilism and can become ideals. But even anthroposophists are often dogmatically religious.Yes, the activity of others influences our state in the present moment, but it is humans and animals that can intentionally affect our state. This is true only if we rule out solipsism, which I do for certain reasons.

Our desires and impulses, as well as nature, cannot be described as intentional without engaging in metaphysics. Here, however, we are talking about knowledge. To say that nature is a machine and inanimate is equally metaphysical. Speaking of intentional activities of supersensible beings is not a phenomenological fact, at least for most of us. I can recognize how my desires push me in certain directions, but attributing intentionality to these desires is not phenomenological. After the phenomenological reduction, we can say that the activity of humans (and possibly animals) influences our activity. If we go beyond this, we enter metaphysics again, and I do not see how your response addresses this point.Steiner engages in metaphysics in SS; he describes the conditions for what is given. One could say it is a possible empirical metaphysics if one allows for the possibility that through spiritual training, we can become directly conscious of these realities.The descriptions in SS are useful and can symbolize certain phenomena (e.g., the astral body) through their concepts, but the connotation in Steiner’s work is metaphysical.

Or can you directly perceive the idea of the Seraphim when they condition your state of consciousness? If so, how can you recognize their intentionality? Even in SS, there is the noumenal; in contrast to Kant’s transcendental philosophy, which seeks to deduce the conditions of our knowledge, Steiner claims that these conditions (though not the same conditions) can be consciously experienced.The problem is that most readers of Steiner hardly study other philosophers. Matthew Segall, for example, who studied philosophy, says that Steiner’s ontology is very useful and valuable, but in the end, he does not know whether his statements about the nature of reality are correct.I am increasingly critical of Steiner when it comes to the idea that his philosophy contains a foundational point that leads to supersensible knowledge. Even though one can take many interesting ideas from his philosophy, and I appreciate his works.

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2025 7:22 pm
by AshvinP
Güney27 wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 6:11 pm I think it is correct that if we consider our thoughts as symbols for deeper processes and reorient our perspective on thinking, I do not believe this leads to rediscovering the concepts we know from SS as real forces. I can experimentally confirm that there is an "essential layer" that produces images and feelings, entirely independent of conscious intention. If I were to say that this is my astral body, I would be introducing a metaphysical theory to explain or at least categorize my conscious experience.If we adopt the concept of the astral body as a symbol for this experiential reality, it is no more than if I were to call it the soul or the producer of images and feelings.

In the context of SS, however, this is not the case, as the astral body here carries the additional connotation of being one of several essential components and, as such, belonging to a distinct sphere populated by beings, etc. It may be that for the initiated, this is a reality they experience, just as I experience images and feelings, and can describe phenomenologically.I agree that the conceptual functions of SS are useful because they create conceptions that help avoid nihilism and can become ideals. But even anthroposophists are often dogmatically religious.Yes, the activity of others influences our state in the present moment, but it is humans and animals that can intentionally affect our state. This is true only if we rule out solipsism, which I do for certain reasons.

Our desires and impulses, as well as nature, cannot be described as intentional without engaging in metaphysics. Here, however, we are talking about knowledge. To say that nature is a machine and inanimate is equally metaphysical. Speaking of intentional activities of supersensible beings is not a phenomenological fact, at least for most of us. I can recognize how my desires push me in certain directions, but attributing intentionality to these desires is not phenomenological. After the phenomenological reduction, we can say that the activity of humans (and possibly animals) influences our activity. If we go beyond this, we enter metaphysics again, and I do not see how your response addresses this point.Steiner engages in metaphysics in SS; he describes the conditions for what is given. One could say it is a possible empirical metaphysics if one allows for the possibility that through spiritual training, we can become directly conscious of these realities.The descriptions in SS are useful and can symbolize certain phenomena (e.g., the astral body) through their concepts, but the connotation in Steiner’s work is metaphysical.

Or can you directly perceive the idea of the Seraphim when they condition your state of consciousness? If so, how can you recognize their intentionality? Even in SS, there is the noumenal; in contrast to Kant’s transcendental philosophy, which seeks to deduce the conditions of our knowledge, Steiner claims that these conditions (though not the same conditions) can be consciously experienced.The problem is that most readers of Steiner hardly study other philosophers. Matthew Segall, for example, who studied philosophy, says that Steiner’s ontology is very useful and valuable, but in the end, he does not know whether his statements about the nature of reality are correct.I am increasingly critical of Steiner when it comes to the idea that his philosophy contains a foundational point that leads to supersensible knowledge. Even though one can take many interesting ideas from his philosophy, and I appreciate his works.

Guney, you are raising some serious concerns here and it will be helpful to explore them further. Just as a preliminary note, we shouldn't expect such concerns to be resolved very quickly or easily (which is not to say that you expect this), in a matter of a few online comments. It takes a lot of patience and effortful imaginative activity to work through these ideas. So I just want to set the stage for our expectations in this domain.

The objection you raise re: SS was addressed in previous discussions, for example with Felipe. The intellectual trap here occurs when we begin to define any ideal relations that we have not yet experientially explored, as "metaphysics" or "transcendent reality" etc. It's easy to see the flaw in this line of thinking. That would be like saying the mathematicians who explore and speak about advanced calculus are conjuring up metaphysical entities because we have only probed the ideal relations of arithmetic and geometry so far. The phenomenological approach does not make such unwarranted assumptions or extrapolations, but remains open to the very reasonable possibility that experiential reality extends beyond what we have so far consciously explored in our X years of adult life.

Now, if we want to call the as-of-yet unexplored ideal relations, which are focused into certain concepts like 'astral body', as "empirical metaphysics", I suppose that's fine. We just need to be clear how this empirical metaphysics is radically different from abstract metaphysical systems of the modern age, which only weave in the symbolic tokens of the deeper ideal scales and relations. The abstract metaphysicians have not experientially probed these deeper scales, which is why their symbolic tokens remain vague, nebulous, imprecise, etc., and rarely lead to any deeper understanding of our experiential states and their lawful transformations. The symbolic concepts of SS, on the other hand, are rooted in direct experience of the deeper scales and thus, if they are consistently approached with imaginative effort, can gradually awaken inner sensitivities to 'formative forces' that are always there and steering/constraining our experiential states.

What does it mean to approach the concepts with imaginative effort? For now, we can note that it first means we need to lay aside certain prejudices. As long as we feel like we are approaching speculative metaphysical concepts in SS, that will ensure that we only perceive their most flattened layer of meaning. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that sense. The corpus of SS begins to look more and more like speculative metaphysics because that is what we have chosen to project into it, instead of adopting an inner stance of openness and receptivity to new and unsuspected inner movements that will be stimulated by our conceptual effort under the proper circumstances. That is why the 'subsidiary exercises' of the modern initiatory path are so critical for advancement. It has been known that the intellect alone cannot 'prove' its way to the deeper phenomenal states from which the higher facts are communicated, but rather the whole harmonious orchestration of our soul faculties is required.

It is true that, when contemplating the processes of the natural kingdoms, the ‘phase-gap’ between our inner movements and the contents of thinking grows much wider. For that reason, we habitually externalize the inner activity onto imagined entities and mechanisms. When we study the structures and functioning of the brain, for example, we are probing the constraints that shape our thinking - the very same thinking that is doing the probing. Yet most souls now flow with the habit of explaining their thinking process as a product of the mechanically transforming mental pictures of the brain. That is like concluding that the idea of ‘traffic laws’ is a product of the stop signs and traffic lights that we see on the road. In the latter case, it is obvious that the signs are reflections or embodiments of the idea and serve to anchor the idea’s meaning, but don’t themselves produce the idea. Yet in the former case, the idea of ‘thinking process’ is substituted with the mental pictures that anchor its meaning. Thus, it is concluded that the pictured neurochemical pathways and firings are the source of our thinking experience.

There is an obvious logical flaw in that reasoning, but such a move feels natural to the modern intellect and is not easily questioned. The theoretical physicist would find it, at best, ‘poetic license’ to speak of the patterns of interfering light or water waves as akin to the narrative meaning we experience when contemplating the interfering patterns of human culture, i.e., the meaning of aesthetic and moral purposes and goals. Instead, they feel that the first-person experiential qualities we discern in natural patterns are merely a theoretical overlay on the mindless ‘third-person’ mechanisms that cause them. The typical biologist, for example, would balk at describing an organic process as the embodiment of archetypal meaning, like the hero’s journey of psycho-physical deaths and rebirths. We can surely feel that meaning when observing the process of a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly, but that feeling is considered a merely ‘subjective’ thing that is overlayed on the ‘objective reality’.

So we see that this seeming phenomenological divide between cultural and natural processes (the former feeling to be clearly intentional and the latter, not so much) is only overcome when we are willing to effortfully trace the full depth of our inner experience, not only sense perceptions and intellectual thoughts, but also the intuited depth of feelings and impulses. This intuitive depth may not be visible like colors and sounds, and it may not fit easily into our comfortable intellectual scale of seconds, minutes, and days of experience, but that makes it no less phenomenologically real and verifiable.

You say that your experience of desires does not convey intentionality to you, but again, what is the meaning of that experience? How much devoted attention are we directing toward the experience of the desire? If we only 'glance' at our momentary feeling of desire and stop there, then yes, the desires will seem like something that simply flash into our experience from mysterious depths and then vanish again, replaced by other desires, and so on. But if we imaginatively contemplate how those desires took shape over time, to what sorts of experiential states they strive, how they fit into a wider context of feelings and ideas, and so on, we will surely start to feel like they are part of a wider intentional fabric of experience. Some of that sensitivity can come through our immediate contemplative efforts, some will simply require living through many more experiences, such that we have a larger 'dataset' to work with and probe for hidden patterns.

Not everything needs to become phenomenologically apparent at once (and it won't be). Modern metaphysics reaches straight for the Absolute ground of reality, the highest possible beings and substrates from which all else is seen to emerge. The intuitive thinking path, on the other hand, begins from the point of overlap between intentional activity and the flow of soul perceptions (exceptional state) and patiently expands from there. So to answer your question, no, I do not directly perceive the Seraphim as a constraint on my consciousness, but I can very well intuit a hierarchical and contextual structure to those constraints, which is being gradually illuminated through my flexible imaginative efforts. I can feel that the SS descriptions of the hierarchies lend a radiating impulse into that illuminating gradient between my current lucid conscious experience and what I can so far only explore abstractly. And I can also see that this is how all knowledge and insight about reality is acquired, no matter what the topic or domain of inquiry. The only question is how conscious we can become of this inner process that we all share in the pursuit of knowledge, and that is the central motif of SS.

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2025 9:40 pm
by Güney27
AshvinP wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 7:22 pm
Güney27 wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 6:11 pm I think it is correct that if we consider our thoughts as symbols for deeper processes and reorient our perspective on thinking, I do not believe this leads to rediscovering the concepts we know from SS as real forces. I can experimentally confirm that there is an "essential layer" that produces images and feelings, entirely independent of conscious intention. If I were to say that this is my astral body, I would be introducing a metaphysical theory to explain or at least categorize my conscious experience.If we adopt the concept of the astral body as a symbol for this experiential reality, it is no more than if I were to call it the soul or the producer of images and feelings.

In the context of SS, however, this is not the case, as the astral body here carries the additional connotation of being one of several essential components and, as such, belonging to a distinct sphere populated by beings, etc. It may be that for the initiated, this is a reality they experience, just as I experience images and feelings, and can describe phenomenologically.I agree that the conceptual functions of SS are useful because they create conceptions that help avoid nihilism and can become ideals. But even anthroposophists are often dogmatically religious.Yes, the activity of others influences our state in the present moment, but it is humans and animals that can intentionally affect our state. This is true only if we rule out solipsism, which I do for certain reasons.

Our desires and impulses, as well as nature, cannot be described as intentional without engaging in metaphysics. Here, however, we are talking about knowledge. To say that nature is a machine and inanimate is equally metaphysical. Speaking of intentional activities of supersensible beings is not a phenomenological fact, at least for most of us. I can recognize how my desires push me in certain directions, but attributing intentionality to these desires is not phenomenological. After the phenomenological reduction, we can say that the activity of humans (and possibly animals) influences our activity. If we go beyond this, we enter metaphysics again, and I do not see how your response addresses this point.Steiner engages in metaphysics in SS; he describes the conditions for what is given. One could say it is a possible empirical metaphysics if one allows for the possibility that through spiritual training, we can become directly conscious of these realities.The descriptions in SS are useful and can symbolize certain phenomena (e.g., the astral body) through their concepts, but the connotation in Steiner’s work is metaphysical.

Or can you directly perceive the idea of the Seraphim when they condition your state of consciousness? If so, how can you recognize their intentionality? Even in SS, there is the noumenal; in contrast to Kant’s transcendental philosophy, which seeks to deduce the conditions of our knowledge, Steiner claims that these conditions (though not the same conditions) can be consciously experienced.The problem is that most readers of Steiner hardly study other philosophers. Matthew Segall, for example, who studied philosophy, says that Steiner’s ontology is very useful and valuable, but in the end, he does not know whether his statements about the nature of reality are correct.I am increasingly critical of Steiner when it comes to the idea that his philosophy contains a foundational point that leads to supersensible knowledge. Even though one can take many interesting ideas from his philosophy, and I appreciate his works.

Guney, you are raising some serious concerns here and it will be helpful to explore them further. Just as a preliminary note, we shouldn't expect such concerns to be resolved very quickly or easily (which is not to say that you expect this), in a matter of a few online comments. It takes a lot of patience and effortful imaginative activity to work through these ideas. So I just want to set the stage for our expectations in this domain.

The objection you raise re: SS was addressed in previous discussions, for example with Felipe. The intellectual trap here occurs when we begin to define any ideal relations that we have not yet experientially explored, as "metaphysics" or "transcendent reality" etc. It's easy to see the flaw in this line of thinking. That would be like saying the mathematicians who explore and speak about advanced calculus are conjuring up metaphysical entities because we have only probed the ideal relations of arithmetic and geometry so far. The phenomenological approach does not make such unwarranted assumptions or extrapolations, but remains open to the very reasonable possibility that experiential reality extends beyond what we have so far consciously explored in our X years of adult life.

Now, if we want to call the as-of-yet unexplored ideal relations, which are focused into certain concepts like 'astral body', as "empirical metaphysics", I suppose that's fine. We just need to be clear how this empirical metaphysics is radically different from abstract metaphysical systems of the modern age, which only weave in the symbolic tokens of the deeper ideal scales and relations. The abstract metaphysicians have not experientially probed these deeper scales, which is why their symbolic tokens remain vague, nebulous, imprecise, etc., and rarely lead to any deeper understanding of our experiential states and their lawful transformations. The symbolic concepts of SS, on the other hand, are rooted in direct experience of the deeper scales and thus, if they are consistently approached with imaginative effort, can gradually awaken inner sensitivities to 'formative forces' that are always there and steering/constraining our experiential states.

What does it mean to approach the concepts with imaginative effort? For now, we can note that it first means we need to lay aside certain prejudices. As long as we feel like we are approaching speculative metaphysical concepts in SS, that will ensure that we only perceive their most flattened layer of meaning. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that sense. The corpus of SS begins to look more and more like speculative metaphysics because that is what we have chosen to project into it, instead of adopting an inner stance of openness and receptivity to new and unsuspected inner movements that will be stimulated by our conceptual effort under the proper circumstances. That is why the 'subsidiary exercises' of the modern initiatory path are so critical for advancement. It has been known that the intellect alone cannot 'prove' its way to the deeper phenomenal states from which the higher facts are communicated, but rather the whole harmonious orchestration of our soul faculties is required.

It is true that, when contemplating the processes of the natural kingdoms, the ‘phase-gap’ between our inner movements and the contents of thinking grows much wider. For that reason, we habitually externalize the inner activity onto imagined entities and mechanisms. When we study the structures and functioning of the brain, for example, we are probing the constraints that shape our thinking - the very same thinking that is doing the probing. Yet most souls now flow with the habit of explaining their thinking process as a product of the mechanically transforming mental pictures of the brain. That is like concluding that the idea of ‘traffic laws’ is a product of the stop signs and traffic lights that we see on the road. In the latter case, it is obvious that the signs are reflections or embodiments of the idea and serve to anchor the idea’s meaning, but don’t themselves produce the idea. Yet in the former case, the idea of ‘thinking process’ is substituted with the mental pictures that anchor its meaning. Thus, it is concluded that the pictured neurochemical pathways and firings are the source of our thinking experience.

There is an obvious logical flaw in that reasoning, but such a move feels natural to the modern intellect and is not easily questioned. The theoretical physicist would find it, at best, ‘poetic license’ to speak of the patterns of interfering light or water waves as akin to the narrative meaning we experience when contemplating the interfering patterns of human culture, i.e., the meaning of aesthetic and moral purposes and goals. Instead, they feel that the first-person experiential qualities we discern in natural patterns are merely a theoretical overlay on the mindless ‘third-person’ mechanisms that cause them. The typical biologist, for example, would balk at describing an organic process as the embodiment of archetypal meaning, like the hero’s journey of psycho-physical deaths and rebirths. We can surely feel that meaning when observing the process of a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly, but that feeling is considered a merely ‘subjective’ thing that is overlayed on the ‘objective reality’.

So we see that this seeming phenomenological divide between cultural and natural processes (the former feeling to be clearly intentional and the latter, not so much) is only overcome when we are willing to effortfully trace the full depth of our inner experience, not only sense perceptions and intellectual thoughts, but also the intuited depth of feelings and impulses. This intuitive depth may not be visible like colors and sounds, and it may not fit easily into our comfortable intellectual scale of seconds, minutes, and days of experience, but that makes it no less phenomenologically real and verifiable.

You say that your experience of desires does not convey intentionality to you, but again, what is the meaning of that experience? How much devoted attention are we directing toward the experience of the desire? If we only 'glance' at our momentary feeling of desire and stop there, then yes, the desires will seem like something that simply flash into our experience from mysterious depths and then vanish again, replaced by other desires, and so on. But if we imaginatively contemplate how those desires took shape over time, to what sorts of experiential states they strive, how they fit into a wider context of feelings and ideas, and so on, we will surely start to feel like they are part of a wider intentional fabric of experience. Some of that sensitivity can come through our immediate contemplative efforts, some will simply require living through many more experiences, such that we have a larger 'dataset' to work with and probe for hidden patterns.

Not everything needs to become phenomenologically apparent at once (and it won't be). Modern metaphysics reaches straight for the Absolute ground of reality, the highest possible beings and substrates from which all else is seen to emerge. The intuitive thinking path, on the other hand, begins from the point of overlap between intentional activity and the flow of soul perceptions (exceptional state) and patiently expands from there. So to answer your question, no, I do not directly perceive the Seraphim as a constraint on my consciousness, but I can very well intuit a hierarchical and contextual structure to those constraints, which is being gradually illuminated through my flexible imaginative efforts. I can feel that the SS descriptions of the hierarchies lend a radiating impulse into that illuminating gradient between my current lucid conscious experience and what I can so far only explore abstractly. And I can also see that this is how all knowledge and insight about reality is acquired, no matter what the topic or domain of inquiry. The only question is how conscious we can become of this inner process that we all share in the pursuit of knowledge, and that is the central motif of SS.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Ashvin. I understand your position and agree with you in many aspects. For me, a new world opened up when I began to consider the development of philosophy and the thoughts of other significant philosophers. This has truly borne much fruit for me, in the sense that I can now take on other perspectives on topics and observe more thoroughly what is being discussed. I find it enormously important to engage deeply with philosophers, even outside one’s own context (Steiner). At least, that’s how it is for me. Steiner himself had years of intensive engagement with the philosophy of his time (though I don’t know whether he sometimes interpreted some philosophers in his own way; at least it seems so in part). Therefore, I think it’s very important not to neglect the fact that one can easily get lost in many places and should always remain open to new ideas, no matter how far they deviate from one’s original convictions. I’m interested in deepening this conversation and commenting on further parts of the text.

Perhaps it would be good if we first take a closer look at phenomenology as a philosophical methodology. Phenomenology as such does not attempt to explain; it is a descriptive methodology. By bracketing all knowledge (epoché), all presuppositions about “things in themselves” are set aside. Kant established in his investigations that we do not perceive a world, that our cognition does not turn toward objects, but that objects appear as such only through our constitution (transcendental subject). Consciousness plays a fundamental role in the appearance of the world. Husserl avoids speaking of such a “thing in itself” as Kant does and goes directly to the “things themselves.” The attempt is thus made to describe phenomena (that which shows itself) as they appear. It is a rigorous methodology, which is not practiced in the form known by Steiner. I am just beginning to learn this (reading Husserl) and will be able to elaborate more in the future.

To make the conversation more constructive, I would ask you to outline Steiner’s phenomenological approach to show how his methodology manages to study pre-conscious, active processes through the act of thinking, which can be described as such. I know we’ve often discussed these things, but it won’t hurt to try to present methods more clearly, to then possibly examine and practice them. Steiner’s method is intuitive thinking, which is supposed to explicate supersensible intuitions.

You are absolutely right that in everyday life, we make no effort to consciously and in detail contemplate phenomena of consciousness, and this can be problematic if we subsequently close ourselves off to the possibility of new phenomena. I am by no means a master of contemplation, but I notice that there are impulses that are self-serving and serve gratification, and these dominate our everyday life. Then there are impulses that are subtler and rarer, which, however, lead in the opposite direction, toward selflessness. I could elaborate, but I would be lying if I said that I perceive intentionality (as in a person speaking). But as I said, I think it would be better if we don’t start in the middle of the topic. Then we have the opportunity to highlight and illuminate important points. I think the methodology should be central first.

Another topic that is both interesting and important is Heidegger’s later focus on language and his form of meditative thinking. Heidegger often tries to let words themselves speak. This is meant in the following sense: usually, when we think (the theme of reflection doesn’t play such a big role for my point), we proceed discursively, moving from one concept to the next in a structured manner. Heidegger, in contrast, tries to dive into a word, to reveal its meanings; to let the word itself speak. In what way does this relate to intuitive thinking, if such a relation exists at all?

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:05 pm
by AshvinP
Güney27 wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 9:40 pm Thank you for your thoughtful response, Ashvin. I understand your position and agree with you in many aspects. For me, a new world opened up when I began to consider the development of philosophy and the thoughts of other significant philosophers. This has truly borne much fruit for me, in the sense that I can now take on other perspectives on topics and observe more thoroughly what is being discussed. I find it enormously important to engage deeply with philosophers, even outside one’s own context (Steiner). At least, that’s how it is for me. Steiner himself had years of intensive engagement with the philosophy of his time (though I don’t know whether he sometimes interpreted some philosophers in his own way; at least it seems so in part). Therefore, I think it’s very important not to neglect the fact that one can easily get lost in many places and should always remain open to new ideas, no matter how far they deviate from one’s original convictions. I’m interested in deepening this conversation and commenting on further parts of the text.

I am glad you have decided to explore these philosophies, Guney, and that it has borne intuitive fruit for you. I think that, especially for your stage of life, this can be an important way to strengthen/refine the logical thinking forces and probe deeper intuitions from many different angles.

Even the seeming 'deviations' from SS are not quite so. When philosophers (or scientists) are genuinely interested in understanding how their ordinary experiential states take shape, they extend their intuitive activity into the deeper scales of formative influences (even if quite instinctively), and paint their intuitions in various philosophical concepts, those concepts will surely touch upon the same contextual spiritual 'structure' that is described by SS (the subtle bodies, formative forces, angelic hierarchies, etc.). One of the main differences is, however, that SS is not only interested in describing the 'what' of these deeper scales with philosophical concepts, but also helps us consciously traverse the gradient between these deeper intuitive scales and our ordinary conceptual activity. It helps us become a more responsible 'citizen' of these nested experiential phase-spaces that we otherwise instinctively utilize and probe in our philosophical endeavors.

This is a slippery distinction for the intellect to get a hold of, and it may just sound like 'flowery prose' (as Lorenzo would put it) that is supposed to mean something profound but actually means very little. The meaning only becomes more intimate and clear to us after we have lived in these different 'octaves' of spiritual activity for some time, to begin with the imaginative octave in which our intellectual activity is embedded and from which it takes its shape and course. Then our philosophical, scientistic, and artistic endeavors begin to take on a whole new life, as through them we feel to be participating in the very fabric of reality and the evolutionary process that animates, shapes, and steers that fabric. These pursuits become the intellectual kernel around which a whole new personality and, eventually, a whole new World can grow.

This inner process all unfolds in the context of our higher ideals. The pursuit of knowledge can no longer be mere descriptions of reality while that same reality conflagrates in war, violence, environmental disaster, and so on, if we desire our knowledge to contribute toward ennobling that reality. For that reason, SS is not a strictly cognitive endeavor but also cultivates degrees of freedom in our life of meditation, prayer, devotional practices, etc. It invites us to cultivate the virtues and transform our soul life such that it attains self-knowledge and becomes more self-similar to the coherent perspectives that animate the World process. We can never address the issues facing the World if we don't become more keenly aware of the patterned feelings and impulses at work in the events that are unfolding, from more integrated perspectives that illuminate those events as part of a coherent narrative.

Again, we can surely feel our way into these higher-order perspectives when contemplating the stable, orderly, rhythmic processes of nature (including our own body). We can sense how there is an organic, cooperative, and symphonic effort that steers toward holistic aims. We can feel how the inner activity driving the World is characterized by unbroken meditation, fully concentrated and present in the flow of experiential states. That fact becomes clearer and clearer to us the more we are able to resist chaotic thoughts and feelings, which are always bouncing between memory of finished experiences and anticipation of fulfilling myopic desires, and place our own inner activity in a similar state that remains fully present within the flow. Then we begin to intuit the concrete overlaps between our local imaginative process and the wider World process.

Perhaps it would be good if we first take a closer look at phenomenology as a philosophical methodology. Phenomenology as such does not attempt to explain; it is a descriptive methodology. By bracketing all knowledge (epoché), all presuppositions about “things in themselves” are set aside. Kant established in his investigations that we do not perceive a world, that our cognition does not turn toward objects, but that objects appear as such only through our constitution (transcendental subject). Consciousness plays a fundamental role in the appearance of the world. Husserl avoids speaking of such a “thing in itself” as Kant does and goes directly to the “things themselves.” The attempt is thus made to describe phenomena (that which shows itself) as they appear. It is a rigorous methodology, which is not practiced in the form known by Steiner. I am just beginning to learn this (reading Husserl) and will be able to elaborate more in the future.

To make the conversation more constructive, I would ask you to outline Steiner’s phenomenological approach to show how his methodology manages to study pre-conscious, active processes through the act of thinking, which can be described as such. I know we’ve often discussed these things, but it won’t hurt to try to present methods more clearly, to then possibly examine and practice them. Steiner’s method is intuitive thinking, which is supposed to explicate supersensible intuitions.

You are absolutely right that in everyday life, we make no effort to consciously and in detail contemplate phenomena of consciousness, and this can be problematic if we subsequently close ourselves off to the possibility of new phenomena. I am by no means a master of contemplation, but I notice that there are impulses that are self-serving and serve gratification, and these dominate our everyday life. Then there are impulses that are subtler and rarer, which, however, lead in the opposite direction, toward selflessness. I could elaborate, but I would be lying if I said that I perceive intentionality (as in a person speaking). But as I said, I think it would be better if we don’t start in the middle of the topic. Then we have the opportunity to highlight and illuminate important points. I think the methodology should be central first.

Another topic that is both interesting and important is Heidegger’s later focus on language and his form of meditative thinking. Heidegger often tries to let words themselves speak. This is meant in the following sense: usually, when we think (the theme of reflection doesn’t play such a big role for my point), we proceed discursively, moving from one concept to the next in a structured manner. Heidegger, in contrast, tries to dive into a word, to reveal its meanings; to let the word itself speak. In what way does this relate to intuitive thinking, if such a relation exists at all?

I look forward to your elaborations of Husserl's methodology, because I am also very much interested in discerning the overlaps with the intuitive thinking path and utilizing such systems to kindle new intuitions or refine existing intuitions.

As for Steiner's phenomenological methodology, the fact is that this has been brought to an extremely distilled and refined presentation through Cleric's essays, such as the Phonograph and Inner Space. It's difficult for me to imagine a clearer and more accessible way of illustrating how we can orient to the inner structure and dynamics of our pre-conscious spiritual activity. He recently summarized the main thrust of this methodology on the other thread:

"So with that said, the only viable bridge available for the intellect to know its deeper reality is to tackle the problem head-on. We simply have to exert ourselves and try to feel our precipitating mental images as having something to do with more intimate intuitive steering of becoming. There's nothing we can do to 'bridge this more'. This doesn't mean that we cannot speak of these things in step-by-step manner, through the various analogies and metaphors, but these no longer serve to make a theoretical mental picture but are actual guidelines for entering the new mode.

To make an even more explicit comparison, it is as if our arm is on the table and we only slightly move our fingers to scribble symbols with a pencil. Then someone helps us scribble: "The hand and even the whole arm can be lifted". Until we have experienced this, it sounds only like a parable. But it speaks about literal reality. And in fact, if we start to scribble bridges that are supposed to make things more accessible to our mental scribble-symbols life, we only start to distance ourselves from the goal. The bridge takes us farther, not closer. The only viable bridges are those that scribble more precise instructions about how to lift our arm.

One may say, "I'm not ready to lift my arm yet. I need more scribbles." And this is fine, but we should at least aim for those scribbles that serve as practical guides. In other words, only those scribbles are useful which help us to at least imaginatively rehearse the lifting of the arm. So, there should be no two different sciences: one that only scribbles about the eventual arm movements and another that describes how to move in practice. These two fuse together. The descriptions of SS are the descriptions of the inner experience of arm movement - what constraints it and what lawfulness it encounters."


There is indeed a relation between intuitive thinking, or the 'imaginative rehearsal of lifting the arm', and what you reference with Hedeigger's focus on diving into the words. The words we use are continually focusing the deeper intuitive meaning that we live in with the full depth of our being, into stable anchor points. When we only manipulate the surface content of those words with our thinking, we fail to notice the deeper inner gestures that are implicit in their meaning. That's why diving into the words via philology, etymology, etc. can be fruitful - it helps us become more sensitive to these deeper inner gestures that, from our intellectual perspective, took shape over many centuries of linguistic development. The whole intentionally patterned history of human civilization is embedded in these words, the characteristic impulses, moods, and ideas which shaped its course. SS simply takes that same approach to a more intensely conscious level - it helps us purify and intensify the experience of the meaningful inner gestures embedded in our mental pictures (including speech sounds). So we see that, overall, SS takes what many other thinkers (like Heidegger) were doing more or less instinctively and invites us to do it more and more consciously through well-rounded practices that involve the harmonious alignment of sensing, thinking, feeling, and willing. That is also how Steiner was able to penetrate so deeply into the inner dimension of language, as we can see in various lecture cycles.

Re: On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:43 pm
by AshvinP
AshvinP wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:05 pm Even the seeming 'deviations' from SS are not quite so. When philosophers (or scientists) are genuinely interested in understanding how their ordinary experiential states take shape, they extend their intuitive activity into the deeper scales of formative influences (even if quite instinctively), and paint their intuitions in various philosophical concepts, those concepts will surely touch upon the same contextual spiritual 'structure' that is described by SS (the subtle bodies, formative forces, angelic hierarchies, etc.).

By the way, Guney, you would surely be interested in contemplating the work of Max Scheler, particularly his book "The Human Place in the Cosmos".
Max Ferdinand Scheler (German: [ˈʃeːlɐ]; 22 August 1874 – 19 May 1928) was a German philosopher known for his work in phenomenology, ethics, and philosophical anthropology. Considered in his lifetime one of the most prominent German philosophers,[1] Scheler developed the philosophical method of Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology.

After Scheler's death in 1928, Martin Heidegger affirmed, with Ortega y Gasset, that all philosophers of the century were indebted to Scheler and praised him as "the strongest philosophical force in modern Germany, nay, in contemporary Europe and in contemporary philosophy as such."[2]

Through his phenomenological exploration, he reached many of the broad ideas about the contextual structure of spiritual activity, spoken of through spiritual science. Steiner was also aware of Scheler and spoke pretty highly of him, which was somewhat of a rare thing for his comments on contemporary philosophers :)

Steiner wrote:In recent times, however, there has been a very complicated view, which is held by all sorts of people. Perhaps the philosopher and psychologist Lipps could be cited as a characteristic personality among those who hold it. They are not aware when a person confronts them that they have a direct impression of his ego, but they say: When I confront a person, he has a face; it makes certain movements, and he says certain things, and from what he says and does, one should be able to conclude that there is an ego behind it. So the ego is something inferred, not something directly perceived. A new school of philosophy, however, which has Max Scheler as its most prominent representative, takes a different view. It has already made the observation that one can have an immediate impression of the ego of another person. And what has been written about the ego, more rigorously scientifically by Husserl, the philosopher, and then somewhat more popularly, especially in his more recent essays, by Scheler, shows that more recent philosophy is on the way to recognizing that direct consciousness can also know something of another consciousness.

And also notice how, if the above is indeed the case (this was also discussed more extensively in the first section of Part IV of this essay series), then it means we can also directly perceive the intentional agency at work in wider World process (not just human culture), only it takes more purification and intensification of thinking consciousness to attune with these deeper ego-scales.