Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Steiner and thinking

Expand Messages
  • stephenm142
    All, As some of you know I am new to this group. I have an aborted attempt at Steiner s POF because after about three quarters of the book I found I was
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 5, 2006
      All,
      As some of you know I am new to this group. I have an aborted attempt
      at Steiner's POF because after about three quarters of the book I
      found I was reading it like any other book, and not working through it
      in the way Steiner suggested. To anyone who has read it, or some of
      the other related books, is there a concrete new way of thinking that
      you can describe to me that you gained from Steiner's and Goethe's
      World Concept? That is, did reading POF cause you to begin to think in
      the new way that Steiner describes? I often feel like I am still very
      much stuck in my old ways of thinking, but have experienced some
      strange moments where I push past it and things seem more connected -
      at any rate it is hard for me to describe this. Let me know what you
      think!
      Best,
      Stephen
    • Joel Wendt
      No short answer in a way... Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/samod.html joel
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 5, 2006
        No short answer in a way...

        Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
        http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/samod.html

        joel

        stephenm142 wrote:
        > All,
        > As some of you know I am new to this group. I have an aborted attempt
        > at Steiner's POF because after about three quarters of the book I
        > found I was reading it like any other book, and not working through it
        > in the way Steiner suggested. To anyone who has read it, or some of
        > the other related books, is there a concrete new way of thinking that
        > you can describe to me that you gained from Steiner's and Goethe's
        > World Concept? That is, did reading POF cause you to begin to think in
        > the new way that Steiner describes? I often feel like I am still very
        > much stuck in my old ways of thinking, but have experienced some
        > strange moments where I push past it and things seem more connected -
        > at any rate it is hard for me to describe this. Let me know what you
        > think!
        > Best,
        > Stephen
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • celestial_vision@comcast.net
        Joel, My question wasn t a setup for you to produce this advertisement for your services. I was simply trying to get at what others have experienced and to
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 5, 2006
          Joel,
          My question wasn't a setup for you to produce this advertisement for your services. I was simply trying to get at what others have experienced and to start a discussion.
          Sorry I can't read all that stuff, it makes me feel not well browsing through it. Sorry.
          - Stephen
          -------------- Original message ----------------------
          From: Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
          > No short answer in a way...
          >
          > Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
          > http://ipwebdev.com/her.......
        • carol
          Dear Stephen, May I share with you (a little) my experience and insight on the subject of The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. (Freedom) I assume that you are
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 5, 2006
            Dear Stephen,

            May I share with you (a little) my experience and insight on the
            subject of The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. (Freedom)

            I assume that you are aware that Steiner gave instructions that the
            English translation carry within the title- Spiritual Activity as
            opposed to Freedom; and this because the spoken word freedom carries
            for the European a different connotation than what the American
            instinctively produces. He felt that `spiritual activity'would
            better convey the general idea being developed- for the American
            reader.

            I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end of the
            book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc? You
            didn't say.

            I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within the
            reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
            of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to expose
            the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
            process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
            spiritual experience. Period.

            Did you not have the patience to painstakingly push through the
            material- it's dry and logical stuff.

            Lesson #! Patience and rigorous thinking

            Stephen, I suggest to go back, and read the book without prejudice.
            It is almost an essential `reading' of which the content which you
            absorb, will sink down within your soul as a solid, logical
            justification for the duo thinking/spiritual experience. Without
            this foundation, you could find yourself prone to slipping on
            fantasy.

            PS In my beginnings, I read the book at least 3 times while I
            checked out a few subjects which captivated me. But at the same
            time, I seriously knew that I had to really learn how to fully
            appreciate the `natural thinking process'.

            Hope this is helpful, Carol.

            -


            -- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, celestial_vision@... wrote:
            >
            > Joel,
            > My question wasn't a setup for you to produce this advertisement
            for your services. I was simply trying to get at what others have
            experienced and to start a discussion.
            > Sorry I can't read all that stuff, it makes me feel not well
            browsing through it. Sorry.
            > - Stephen
            > -------------- Original message ----------------------
            > From: Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
            > > No short answer in a way...
            > >
            > > Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
            > > http://ipwebdev.com/her.......
            >
          • Stephen
            ... ================= I did not find it monotonous or dry at all, but some parts were difficult. It was exciting to me that Steiner said that he wrote it as an
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 5, 2006
              > I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end of the
              > book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc? You
              > didn't say.
              =================
              I did not find it monotonous or dry at all, but some parts were
              difficult. It was exciting to me that Steiner said that he wrote it as
              an exercise to produce the development of this new thinking. I said that
              the issue was that I found I was reading it like any other book after
              getting three quarters of the way through it. What I mean was that I
              started off trying to give it a full chance, and listened to Steiner
              when he suggested each page, even each sentence might need to be worked
              through. And I felt that I was following his thinking for quite awhile,
              and it was making sense, and I had a glimpse of this new thinking. One
              of the problems I think was that I work full time, and was only reading
              it at night maybe ten pages each night. I don't recommend that as a way
              to read this particular book. So when I got to the point where I
              stopped, I found that I had just read about twenty pages and realized I
              was simply reading words, and no longer working through it. So my
              choices were to try to go back to the middle somewhere and pick up
              Steiner's track, or just stop and tackle it again later. I will do that.
              ===================

              > I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within the
              > reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
              > of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to expose
              > the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
              > process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
              > spiritual experience. Period.

              ===================
              Thank you for this Carol, that is helpful. To my original question, can
              you give one illustrative example of what this new thinking looks like?
              Thank you for the thoughtful and warm reply,
              Stephen
            • Gia Bibileishvili
              Hi all, As i know the book Philosophy of Freedom is a milestone of Anthroposophical worldview and is essential for all (who appreciates anthroposophy) to
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 5, 2006
                Hi all,
                 
                As i know the book "Philosophy of Freedom" is a milestone of Anthroposophical worldview and is essential for all (who appreciates anthroposophy)  to acknowledge, the book is difficult to understand as it truly philosophical reading. It explains Kant's dualism and such difficult issues. I always wanted to read this book but until now couldn't fulfill this wish.
                 
                Best,
                 
                Gia

                carol <organicethics@...> wrote:
                Dear Stephen,

                May I share with you (a little) my experience and insight on the
                subject of The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. (Freedom)

                I assume that you are aware that Steiner gave instructions that the
                English translation carry within the title- Spiritual Activity as
                opposed to Freedom; and this because the spoken word freedom carries
                for the European a different connotation than what the American
                instinctively produces. He felt that `spiritual activity'would
                better convey the general idea being developed- for the American
                reader.

                I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end of the
                book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc? You
                didn't say.

                I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within the
                reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
                of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to expose
                the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
                process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
                spiritual experience. Period.

                Did you not have the patience to painstakingly push through the
                material- it's dry and logical stuff.

                Lesson #! Patience and rigorous thinking

                Stephen, I suggest to go back, and read the book without prejudice.
                It is almost an essential `reading' of which the content which you
                absorb, will sink down within your soul as a solid, logical
                justification for the duo thinking/spiritual experience. Without
                this foundation, you could find yourself prone to slipping on
                fantasy.

                PS In my beginnings, I read the book at least 3 times while I
                checked out a few subjects which captivated me. But at the same
                time, I seriously knew that I had to really learn how to fully
                appreciate the `natural thinking process'.

                Hope this is helpful, Carol.

                -

                -- In anthroposophy@ yahoogroups. com, celestial_vision@ ... wrote:
                >
                > Joel,
                > My question wasn't a setup for you to produce this advertisement
                for your services. I was simply trying to get at what others have
                experienced and to start a discussion.
                > Sorry I can't read all that stuff, it makes me feel not well
                browsing through it. Sorry.
                > - Stephen
                > ------------ -- Original message ------------ --------- -
                > From: Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
                > > No short answer in a way...
                > >
                > > Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
                > > http://ipwebdev. com/her.. .....
                >



                Do you Yahoo!?
                Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

              • carol
                You both have brought me back to the experience of reading the book. Yes it is very difficult to read, it requires hard work and through the act of pushing
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 6, 2006
                  You both have brought me back to the experience of reading the
                  book. Yes it is very difficult to read, it requires hard work and
                  through the act of pushing through the material, it 'teaches' the
                  reader how to overcome limitations which are derived from a lifetime
                  of easy, shallow thinking. (In further spiritual readings, you will
                  discover where these limitations find their support).

                  I loved being given the opportunity (and permission) to break the
                  bonds of which I was formally vulnerable. It was the first step to
                  experiencing myself as an independent `free' individual soul.

                  Carol.




                  --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Gia Bibileishvili <giabib@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi all,
                  >
                  > As i know the book "Philosophy of Freedom" is a milestone of
                  Anthroposophical worldview and is essential for all (who appreciates
                  anthroposophy) to acknowledge, the book is difficult to understand
                  as it truly philosophical reading. It explains Kant's dualism and
                  such difficult issues. I always wanted to read this book but until
                  now couldn't fulfill this wish.
                  >
                  > Best,
                  >
                  > Gia
                  >
                  > carol <organicethics@...> wrote:
                  > Dear Stephen,
                  >
                  > May I share with you (a little) my experience and insight on the
                  > subject of The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. (Freedom)
                  >
                  > I assume that you are aware that Steiner gave instructions that
                  the
                  > English translation carry within the title- Spiritual Activity as
                  > opposed to Freedom; and this because the spoken word freedom
                  carries
                  > for the European a different connotation than what the American
                  > instinctively produces. He felt that `spiritual activity'would
                  > better convey the general idea being developed- for the American
                  > reader.
                  >
                  > I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end of
                  the
                  > book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc? You
                  > didn't say.
                  >
                  > I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within
                  the
                  > reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
                  > of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to expose
                  > the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
                  > process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
                  > spiritual experience. Period.
                  >
                  > Did you not have the patience to painstakingly push through the
                  > material- it's dry and logical stuff.
                  >
                  > Lesson #! Patience and rigorous thinking
                  >
                  > Stephen, I suggest to go back, and read the book without
                  prejudice.
                  > It is almost an essential `reading' of which the content which you
                  > absorb, will sink down within your soul as a solid, logical
                  > justification for the duo thinking/spiritual experience. Without
                  > this foundation, you could find yourself prone to slipping on
                  > fantasy.
                  >
                  > PS In my beginnings, I read the book at least 3 times while I
                  > checked out a few subjects which captivated me. But at the same
                  > time, I seriously knew that I had to really learn how to fully
                  > appreciate the `natural thinking process'.
                  >
                  > Hope this is helpful, Carol.
                  >
                  > -
                  >
                  > -- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, celestial_vision@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Joel,
                  > > My question wasn't a setup for you to produce this advertisement
                  > for your services. I was simply trying to get at what others have
                  > experienced and to start a discussion.
                  > > Sorry I can't read all that stuff, it makes me feel not well
                  > browsing through it. Sorry.
                  > > - Stephen
                  > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
                  > > From: Joel Wendt <hermit@>
                  > > > No short answer in a way...
                  > > >
                  > > > Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
                  > > > http://ipwebdev.com/her.......
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
                  >
                • Robert Mason
                  ... have an aborted attempt at Steiner s POF because after about three quarters of the book I found I was reading it like any other book, and not working
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 6, 2006
                    To Stephen, who wrote:

                    >>As some of you know I am new to this group. I
                    have an aborted attempt at Steiner's POF
                    because after about three quarters of the book
                    I found I was reading it like any other book,
                    and not working through it in the way Steiner
                    suggested. To anyone who has read it, or some
                    of the other related books, is there a concrete
                    new way of thinking that you can describe to me
                    that you gained from Steiner's and Goethe's
                    World Concept? That is, did reading POF cause
                    you to begin to think in the new way that
                    Steiner describes? I often feel like I am still
                    very much stuck in my old ways of thinking, but
                    have experienced some strange moments where I
                    push past it and things seem more connected -
                    at any rate it is hard for me to describe this.
                    Let me know what you think!<<

                    Robert writes:

                    (I'm running behind as usual; this is a response
                    to your original message, not taking into account
                    what has been said on this list since then.)

                    We have discussed similar questions before,
                    and, since you seem to be getting "stuck",
                    perhaps my previous comments haven't helped as
                    much as I had hoped. You seem to be asking
                    about our own experiences, so, instead of
                    trying to re-state what I have already said,
                    I'll try a different tack: I'll try to speak
                    more from my personal experience, but with this
                    *caveat*. -- I may make some suggestions based
                    on my experience, but I wouldn't presume to
                    make recommendations in the sense that I would
                    try to be saying exactly what is best for you
                    to do. I may be doing some things "wrong", but
                    even if I were doing everything "right" for me,
                    this wouldn't imply that "my" way would be the
                    right way for you. I think we have discussed
                    before on this list how the Anthro Path has
                    certain general principles that apply to
                    everyone, but that the "right" paths for all
                    particular individuals will not be exactly the
                    same in all the details. One might be struck
                    by the lack of specific instructions in *KoHW*
                    and *OS*; Steiner does suggest many exercises,
                    but he does not state exactly when to practice
                    each one, how long to practice, which ones are
                    crucial and which may be omitted, etc., etc.
                    Again, there are some general principles,
                    certain attributes that the student must
                    acquire, but Steiner does not say *exactly* how
                    the student must practice these principles and
                    acquire these attributes.

                    I wouldn't say that "reading POF" *caused* me
                    "to begin to think in the new way that Steiner
                    describes", but this reading surely was part of
                    a long process through which I have gained the
                    ability so to "think" (as I understand
                    Steiner's descriptions). As Palmer says, the
                    *PoF* can be taken as a "training manual", and
                    a training manual is misused if it is only
                    read; it is meant to be taken as a guide for
                    action. Reading is fine, up to a point; but
                    the point does come when it is time to get down
                    to it and do it. And when one has some
                    experience of this "doing" under one's belt,
                    then the reading will likely make more sense.

                    And I take it that you are making some efforts
                    at such *doing*, but that you are "stuck in
                    [your] old ways of thinking", perhaps with the
                    exceptions of some "moments". -- Well, I would
                    say that these "moments" shouldn't be
                    underestimated; they should be cherished and
                    intensified. And I hope that you don't "beat
                    yourself up" because perhaps most of the time
                    you think in your "old ways". I surely don't
                    practice "*PoF* thinking" 24/7; sometimes my
                    "level of consciousness" is distressingly low,
                    even when I am (more or less) awake. Maybe
                    Steiner was on a high level of consciousness
                    24/7, but I don't think that many of the rest
                    of us are.

                    I'd say that the way one reaches an habitually
                    higher level of consciousness is the same way
                    that one gets to Carnegie Hall: practice,
                    practice, practice. I "practice" (in part) by
                    taking times apart from the daily outer routine
                    to intensify and expand "moments" of real
                    thinking, as one would practice "meditation".
                    I try to find time to be quiet and alone,
                    without distractions, for at least ten or
                    fifteen minutes at a time. (For me, ten
                    minutes seems to be about my minimum [usually]
                    for an effective "session", though if I'm in a
                    "bad" state of mind, even more than ten isn't
                    enough. For people who are really good at
                    concentrating, perhaps less than ten would be
                    enough.) If I can extend a session for more
                    than fifteen minutes, that's usually even
                    better.

                    A lot could be said about the *PoF* thinking
                    (and has been said by others), but here I'll
                    try to pay special attention to what I consider
                    to be the one essential thing. (In *PoF*
                    Steiner [really his translators] uses the terms
                    *genuine thinking*, *living thinking*, *pure
                    thinking*. In *KoHW* he says *self-sustaining
                    life in pure thought*. In *OS* he say *sense-
                    free thinking*.) If one learns to do this one
                    essential thing, then the way forward is open;
                    if one doesn't, then one will likely be stuck
                    on "square one" for a long time.

                    Most of the time, in our ordinary (so-called)
                    "thinking" our thoughts just "come to us". If
                    the mind is just "wandering", the thoughts will
                    be disjointed, haphazard, probably illogical.
                    If one is concentrating, the thoughts will be
                    more connected, relevant, logical. But in
                    either case the thoughts appear in the
                    consciousness as finished products; we are not
                    aware of the process of their creation; we
                    don't know how they came into our awareness or
                    why they assumed the form that they did. But
                    it is possible, in "living thinking", to become
                    conscious of the process of the creation of the
                    thoughts, to bring the thinking into the
                    "present". (This is the theme that Kühlewind
                    discusses in the first chapter of the book I
                    mentioned previously. You might want to re-
                    read it.)

                    But to get to this "presentness" we must first
                    *get control of our runaway minds*. This is
                    the essential first step, and probably for most
                    of us it is the hardest. And in our present
                    "civilization" it seems to be getting harder
                    and harder. Even conventional medicine has
                    taken notice of the epidemic of "Attention
                    Deficit Disorder", though the conventional
                    treatment (Ritalin) is an atrocious "cure"
                    worse than the disease. (In the interest of
                    full disclosure, I'll say that I probably would
                    be considered to be a victim of ADD. I have
                    never been formally diagnosed, but I pretty
                    much fit the description. If I were in public
                    school today, I would very likely be dosed with
                    Ritalin. The public schools in "my day", years
                    ago, surely had their defects, but at least
                    they didn't dope kids with Ritalin. Lucky for
                    me.)

                    The healthy way to stop our minds from running
                    away is to exercise the muscles of our
                    thinking-will, to practice, repeatedly, putting
                    our *inner effort* into concentrating our
                    thinking, into forcing our thoughts to follow a
                    logical, meaningful, consistent sequence. (Of
                    course such health is opposed by many [and
                    increasing] factors in our ordinary lives: the
                    food, the water, the noise, the
                    "entertainment", the "music", etc., etc. One
                    can try, swimming upstream through thick mud,
                    to put these factors of our daily lives on a
                    more healthful basis.) Steiner says that real
                    thinking is willed thinking; true thinking is
                    suffused with "will" (and feeling).

                    Just as is the case for our physical muscles,
                    the way to strengthen our mental muscles is
                    through regular exercise, of repeatedly working
                    against resistance. I would suggest getting on
                    a regimen of mental exercise, of concentrated,
                    logical thinking (if you haven't already done
                    so); you could call this exercise *meditation*
                    if you wish. One will try and fail, and try
                    and fail again and again, but I don't know of
                    any cure for such failure but to keep trying.
                    Eventually the successes will come, and even
                    though they might be fleeting at first, they
                    will be so sweet that one will know that one is
                    on the right course. And it is important not
                    to beat oneself up over the failures; one can
                    rightly pat oneself on the back for the
                    successes. The glass if half full, not half
                    empty.

                    What do I mean by *logical thinking*? -- I'm
                    not talking about working out a sequence of
                    thought following the "rules of logic" perhaps
                    read in a textbook. The rules of logic have
                    been worked out and written down only because
                    thinking is, in its own nature, inherently
                    logical in the first place. Real thinking does
                    not mechanically follow formal rules, but
                    springs from the same source from which the
                    rules have been derived. (But of course
                    learning and working with the formal rules
                    might well be a useful and necessary experience
                    that enables one to get a "feel" for logical
                    thinking.) -- Another essential thing is that
                    real thinking has its own, internal, inherent
                    necessity, its "inner energy". Real thinking
                    is not subject to our whims, our wishes; if we
                    try to force thinking to produce certain
                    results that we "want" it to, we immediately
                    falsify it. This "inner energy" works toward
                    the unfolding of "insights", of the
                    understanding of meanings. This "unfolding
                    life of meanings" is the inner, inherent
                    necessity in thinking, and it is "above" us; it
                    is not subject to our personal preferences.

                    Thus there is a "will" in the thinking, a will
                    that is not our own. But our thinking does not
                    follow its own "will" unless we put our own
                    personal will into our effort to think. -- This
                    may seem to be a contradiction, but it is not.
                    Experience proves that it is not. If we don't
                    put our willpower into our effort to think, the
                    thinking becomes pseudo-thinking, it runs out
                    of control and becomes haphazard and illogical.
                    Yet we cannot "will" our thinking to take the
                    exact course that we might "want" it to take
                    according to our personal wishes. When I am
                    paying my bills, I might wish that two plus two
                    equals three, but I cannot make my thinking
                    come to that result. If I try to force my
                    thinking to conform to my wish, I immediately
                    falsify it and enter into unreality.

                    In an "exercise session" of concentrated
                    thinking wishes are deadly enemies, especially
                    the wish to attain "higher consciousness" or
                    some such. Such a wish might bring us to the
                    point of starting the exercise, but once we are
                    *in* the exercise all wishes are poison. The
                    only "energy" ("energy is the capacity to do
                    work") that can rightly determine the thoughts
                    is the "life of meanings", the unfolding of
                    understandings of meanings. You surely know
                    the experience of "seeing the meaning", of
                    "getting it", of "insight". This experience,
                    concentrated and extended, is the experience of
                    "living in pure thinking".

                    So, the first essential requirement is to stop
                    one's mind from running away, to concentrate
                    one's course of thoughts on a logical,
                    consistent theme. (Probably the simpler the
                    theme, the better -- at least for the beginner.
                    Though I do break this rule sometimes, and
                    fruitfully, so it seems to me.) To do such
                    coherent, thematic thinking one must exert
                    one's willpower, put one's effort into the
                    thinking. As one does this, (with practice)
                    one can intensify one's concentration, pay
                    closer attention to what one is *doing*.
                    (Paying attention this way usually slows down
                    the thinking, and the thoughts become very
                    simple, so that they would be trivial or even
                    boring if reviewed later.) As this attention
                    increases, the process of the creating of the
                    thoughts comes gradually out of the past into
                    the present; one comes to "live in" the
                    thinking. -- All this might sound somewhat
                    "abstract", and maybe it is in a way; words are
                    poor instruments to convey an unexperienced
                    experience. But once one has had the
                    experience one can see that to which the words
                    were pointing, however inadequately. And this
                    experience is just as real and distinct as is
                    the experience of waking up from sleep; one
                    knows that one has entered into a different
                    form of consciousness.

                    -- I have used the word *concentration*, and it
                    is the right word in a sense, but in a way it
                    might be somewhat misleading. It is correct in
                    the sense of keeping one's thinking to a
                    consistent, coherent theme, but it derives from
                    a spatial metaphor, and the spatial
                    connotations might nudge one in the wrong
                    direction if one is not alert. Our ordinary
                    waking experience of space is point-centered;
                    we are as it were "concentrated" at a point,
                    looking out in all directions toward the wide
                    spaces. But as one increases one's mental
                    "concentration" to the intensity of "living
                    thinking", then one's (this is my experience
                    anyway) point-centered spatial experience
                    changes; one becomes, as it were, "expanded" or
                    "spread out". One is then not concentrated at
                    a point and looking out in all directions; one
                    is rather (as though) spread out over a space
                    and looking inward from a "periphery".

                    I'll try to clarify. -- In my experience
                    (generalized and simplified, of course) of
                    "pure thinking" I come into a different
                    relation to my body. (In a way, it might be
                    called an "out of body experience", though it
                    is not as though I were floating by the ceiling
                    and looking back at my body below.) Steiner
                    says that thinking suppresses the organic
                    bodily processes and replaces them. With the
                    practice of pure thinking this saying becomes a
                    real experience; I notice (if I pay attention)
                    that the processes of the body gradually become
                    "deadened". The breathing slows; the
                    "currents" become restricted; tensions may
                    "work themselves out" with vibrations or
                    shuddering before calming down; the muscles may
                    stiffen; there may even almost be a kind of
                    "death rattle". But all this is, in a way,
                    more and more separated from "me". I, as it
                    were, become "expanded", "spread out" over a
                    space. I may visualize this space as being
                    like the dome of the sky, and I am as though
                    looking down, or inward, from the outer surface
                    of this sky-dome toward the plane of the earth.
                    And the feeling of gravity disappears; the
                    feeling is more like "lightness", of being
                    borne up. (In my own understanding, I relate
                    this experience to what Steiner says about real
                    thinking being done with the ethereal body
                    rather than with the physical brain. The
                    ethers [over-generalizing again] are expressed
                    with "peripheral", inward-working forces, in
                    contrast to the "earth-bound" point-centered
                    gravitational forces of our ordinary spatial
                    experience.)

                    -- So far I have spoken mainly of logical-
                    conceptual (verbal or quasi-verbal) thinking.
                    Steiner also recommends visual-picture
                    "thinking" exercises. I am more naturally a
                    "left-brained" verbal thinker than a "right-
                    brained" visual thinker, though I do work to
                    overcome my "one-sidedness" in this regard.
                    You, as an engineer, might be more visually
                    oriented; if so, it might be easier for you to
                    take the visual route to "sense-free thinking".
                    But if you have difficulty with visualization,
                    perhaps you might try a method that seems to
                    work for me: I can practice concentrated
                    logical-conceptual thinking until I am well-
                    "expanded", and then I can visualize "inward"
                    and/or "downward" from the archetypal sky-dome
                    to the archetypal earth-plane and "see", for
                    instance, the Rose-Cross from all sides (or as
                    it were, I were revolving around all sides). --
                    Also perhaps helpful would be to make a
                    practice in life of noticing and experiencing
                    colors, perhaps even of working with the
                    Anthroposophical "veil-painting" watercolor
                    technique. Visualization is more "alive", the
                    more vividly colors are inwardly pictured.

                    -- In *PoF* Steiner says that "the power of
                    love in its spiritual form" flows through the
                    activity of thinking. And again, through
                    practice this saying becomes a real experience.
                    I would say that when one reaches the
                    experience of "expansion" (if not before) one
                    will most likely come to understand what
                    Steiner was talking about. It might at first
                    seem grotesque to suggest that dull, prosaic,
                    logical thinking might have anything to do with
                    love, but experience proves that it does, very
                    much so. Pure, living thinking surely *feels*
                    like love; it is joyous, balmy, healing, warm,
                    radiant. Work may be necessary to "get there",
                    but once one has "gotten there", it's not
                    "work" at all (in the usual sense of an onerous
                    burden). It is "happy", and when one
                    experiences such happiness, one cannot keep
                    such happiness for oneself; such happiness must
                    be for everyone, for all beings. One naturally
                    wishes to "radiate" such joy to all beings, and
                    in fact it does effectively radiate. Steiner
                    admonishes the student that he should come to
                    the realization that his thoughts are at least
                    as important for the world as is his outer
                    work. He says elsewhere that one person
                    meditating can change the "atmosphere" of a
                    whole town. -- Our thoughts, their quality and
                    their purity, are important not only for
                    ourselves but for the whole world. When the
                    rose adorns itself it does truly adorn the
                    garden.

                    -- Much more could be said, but I'll stop here
                    for now. I have perhaps over-generalized and
                    simplified, smearing over many exceptions,
                    details, and nuances for the sake of brevity.
                    But I hope that I am ringing some bells with
                    you. If so, tell me how; or if not, tell me
                    why not, and perhaps we could carry the
                    conversation forward (slowly, of course) from
                    there, if you wish.

                    May you experience "the power of love in its
                    spiritual form",

                    Robert Mason


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • carol
                    -One of the problems I think was that I work full time, and was only reading it at night maybe ten pages each night. I don t recommend that as a way to read
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 6, 2006
                      -One of the problems I think was that I work full time, and was only
                      reading it at night maybe ten pages each night. I don't recommend
                      that as a way to read this particular book. So when I got to the
                      point where I stopped, I found that I had just read about twenty
                      pages and realized I was simply reading words, and no longer working
                      through it. So my choices were to try to go back to the middle
                      somewhere and pick up Steiner's track, or just stop and tackle it
                      again later. I will do that."

                      Stephen, I noticed this point within your response. I think that
                      you could more easily apply this `discipline' or `routine' in
                      reading the book if it were not the first time but a second or
                      third. In this instance, you would have already assimilated some of
                      the major indications in the `body' of the work, and would likely be
                      in a situation of `taking note' of finer details. That you could do
                      in a "lesser absorbed" way. (taking a peak for 10 minutes)

                      Sometimes when I want to have a good look at the content of a
                      lecture, I have to wait til I'm alone in a country house or even
                      wait the long nights in the dead of Winter, where I can easily read
                      without answering to anyone or even wait til I'm completely finished
                      gathering knowledge on something else pertaining to my life.

                      Since you seem to recognize (through a slightly painful experience)
                      that this material is not the `regular read' then perhaps you could
                      try (in a creative and positive light),to judge for yourself, how
                      and when you can allow space in your life for a book which risks
                      moving you in a deep way.

                      Just this exercise may unblock the problem, and it also suggests
                      that before reading even `a first logical' book by Steiner, you
                      would have been required of a minute `growth on a soul level'.

                      Also, this gentle and considerate approach to reading probably
                      characterizes how many Anthroposophists move themselves with their
                      curiosity and quests towards taking up lectures and reading them.

                      Carol.




                      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > > I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end
                      of the
                      > > book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc?
                      You
                      > > didn't say.
                      > =================
                      > I did not find it monotonous or dry at all, but some parts were
                      > difficult. It was exciting to me that Steiner said that he wrote
                      it as
                      > an exercise to produce the development of this new thinking. I
                      said that
                      > the issue was that I found I was reading it like any other book
                      after
                      > getting three quarters of the way through it. What I mean was that
                      I
                      > started off trying to give it a full chance, and listened to
                      Steiner
                      > when he suggested each page, even each sentence might need to be
                      worked
                      > through. And I felt that I was following his thinking for quite
                      awhile,
                      > and it was making sense, and I had a glimpse of this new thinking.
                      One
                      > of the problems I think was that I work full time, and was only
                      reading
                      > it at night maybe ten pages each night. I don't recommend that as
                      a way
                      > to read this particular book. So when I got to the point where I
                      > stopped, I found that I had just read about twenty pages and
                      realized I
                      > was simply reading words, and no longer working through it. So my
                      > choices were to try to go back to the middle somewhere and pick up
                      > Steiner's track, or just stop and tackle it again later. I will do
                      that.
                      > ===================
                      >
                      > > I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within
                      the
                      > > reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
                      > > of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to
                      expose
                      > > the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
                      > > process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
                      > > spiritual experience. Period.
                      >
                      > ===================
                      > Thank you for this Carol, that is helpful. To my original
                      question, can
                      > you give one illustrative example of what this new thinking looks
                      like?
                      > Thank you for the thoughtful and warm reply,
                      > Stephen
                      >
                    • carol
                      Stephen, you said: To my original question, can you give one illustrative example of what this new thinking looks like? Steiner focuses on `teaching anyone
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 7, 2006
                        Stephen, you said:

                        To my original question, can you give one illustrative example of
                        what this new thinking looks like?

                        Steiner focuses on `teaching' anyone and everyone on how to think
                        not only with their heads but also with their hearts. In basic but
                        subsequent lectures to be read after the pof, he begins to map out
                        (in an extremely simple and heart felt manner) the `thinking heart
                        man', which is in fact the soul. For example, he makes reference to
                        the common process of retaining hard earned life wisdom- when we
                        passi through difficult experiences which make us wiser (concerning
                        life issues), This wisdom is not only retained within the minds.
                        We remember the experience with our minds but we retain it more in
                        the area of our gut, between both our extended arms. This is what
                        Steiner points out as the seat of the heart man. Experiences which
                        are retained `as life wisdom' pass through our heads downward, to be
                        retained in the middle of our bodies, by `our souls'.

                        Steiner took pains all his life to teach people how to allow
                        their `souls' to be more conscious- and to do this, he had to
                        explain (using details) what the soul actually sees when it looks
                        out. (since the soul is the bridge to the eternal element within
                        man, the soul sees and interprets life within spiritual `details')

                        "And I felt that I was following his thinking for quite awhile,
                        and it was making sense, and I had a glimpse of this new thinking."

                        Stephen, `the thinking process which includes thinking with the
                        heart" is not something what we are simply given, (that is, not in
                        this period of our humanity's evolution) though parents and teachers
                        can allow children varying degress of leeway in this area depending
                        on their personal qualities.

                        I remember, even after I started reading Steiner that I
                        was `naturally' pulled back into thinking exclusively with my mind
                        though I enjoyed the brief opportunities (while reading) where I
                        could bask in a healthy `feeling / thinking', which was taking place
                        in the area of my heart. (I was in the babyhood of my development).

                        Steiner often makes reference (in subsequent lectures on the soul)
                        of the discomfort one must experience while learning to think
                        consciously with one's soul; I have to say that at my beginnings as
                        an Anthro, I depended on the material which the lectures furnished
                        me for comfort and reassurance (it was my sole authority giving me
                        permission to think with my heart), that I didn't necessarily
                        absorb even half of what I was reading, that it was `wild' but that
                        beyond a doubt, I DID know that that which lay in my hands was
                        genuine and true.

                        The years passed, and at some point, Anthroposophy in the printed
                        works of Steiner's lectures `began to gently speak to me' when I lay
                        down to read. I was no longer the person who had to labor through
                        the material.

                        Hope I've given you a glimpse of what you were wanting from me,
                        Carol.





                        In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > > I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end
                        of the
                        > > book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc?
                        You
                        > > didn't say.
                        > =================
                        > I did not find it monotonous or dry at all, but some parts were
                        > difficult. It was exciting to me that Steiner said that he wrote
                        it as
                        > an exercise to produce the development of this new thinking. I
                        said that
                        > the issue was that I found I was reading it like any other book
                        after
                        > getting three quarters of the way through it. What I mean was that
                        I
                        > started off trying to give it a full chance, and listened to
                        Steiner
                        > when he suggested each page, even each sentence might need to be
                        worked
                        > through. And I felt that I was following his thinking for quite
                        awhile,
                        > and it was making sense, and I had a glimpse of this new thinking.
                        One
                        > of the problems I think was that I work full time, and was only
                        reading
                        > it at night maybe ten pages each night. I don't recommend that as
                        a way
                        > to read this particular book. So when I got to the point where I
                        > stopped, I found that I had just read about twenty pages and
                        realized I
                        > was simply reading words, and no longer working through it. So my
                        > choices were to try to go back to the middle somewhere and pick up
                        > Steiner's track, or just stop and tackle it again later. I will do
                        that.
                        > ===================
                        >
                        > > I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within
                        the
                        > > reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
                        > > of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to
                        expose
                        > > the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
                        > > process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
                        > > spiritual experience. Period.
                        >
                        > ===================
                        > Thank you for this Carol, that is helpful. To my original
                        question, can
                        > you give one illustrative example of what this new thinking looks
                        like?
                        > Thank you for the thoughtful and warm reply,
                        > Stephen
                        >
                      • Gia Bibileishvili
                        Carol, Its interesting to know your experience. As it seems to me you stepped to the stage of pupil development when you starting to trust what is given by
                        Message 11 of 15 , Oct 7, 2006
                          Carol,
                           
                          Its interesting to know your experience. As it seems to me you stepped to the stage of pupil development when you starting to trust what is given by your teacher, but without "checking process" which was frequently mentioned by Steiner as necessary approach, one could not fully devote his/her personality to such difficult material as anthro knowledge. As I found out from my observations, individual pass three stages of self development when he encounters with Anthroposophy. First stage is interest-amazement (when you cherish each word of spiritual science), second is question-investigation and third is absolute devotion stage.
                           
                          Gia
                          carol <organicethics@...> wrote:
                          Stephen, you said:

                          To my original question, can you give one illustrative example of
                          what this new thinking looks like?

                          Steiner focuses on `teaching' anyone and everyone on how to think
                          not only with their heads but also with their hearts. In basic but
                          subsequent lectures to be read after the pof, he begins to map out
                          (in an extremely simple and heart felt manner) the `thinking heart
                          man', which is in fact the soul. For example, he makes reference to
                          the common process of retaining hard earned life wisdom- when we
                          passi through difficult experiences which make us wiser (concerning
                          life issues), This wisdom is not only retained within the minds.
                          We remember the experience with our minds but we retain it more in
                          the area of our gut, between both our extended arms. This is what
                          Steiner points out as the seat of the heart man. Experiences which
                          are retained `as life wisdom' pass through our heads downward, to be
                          retained in the middle of our bodies, by `our souls'.

                          Steiner took pains all his life to teach people how to allow
                          their `souls' to be more conscious- and to do this, he had to
                          explain (using details) what the soul actually sees when it looks
                          out. (since the soul is the bridge to the eternal element within
                          man, the soul sees and interprets life within spiritual `details')

                          "And I felt that I was following his thinking for quite awhile,
                          and it was making sense, and I had a glimpse of this new thinking."

                          Stephen, `the thinking process which includes thinking with the
                          heart" is not something what we are simply given, (that is, not in
                          this period of our humanity's evolution) though parents and teachers
                          can allow children varying degress of leeway in this area depending
                          on their personal qualities.

                          I remember, even after I started reading Steiner that I
                          was `naturally' pulled back into thinking exclusively with my mind
                          though I enjoyed the brief opportunities (while reading) where I
                          could bask in a healthy `feeling / thinking', which was taking place
                          in the area of my heart. (I was in the babyhood of my development) .

                          Steiner often makes reference (in subsequent lectures on the soul)
                          of the discomfort one must experience while learning to think
                          consciously with one's soul; I have to say that at my beginnings as
                          an Anthro, I depended on the material which the lectures furnished
                          me for comfort and reassurance (it was my sole authority giving me
                          permission to think with my heart), that I didn't necessarily
                          absorb even half of what I was reading, that it was `wild' but that
                          beyond a doubt, I DID know that that which lay in my hands was
                          genuine and true.

                          The years passed, and at some point, Anthroposophy in the printed
                          works of Steiner's lectures `began to gently speak to me' when I lay
                          down to read. I was no longer the person who had to labor through
                          the material.

                          Hope I've given you a glimpse of what you were wanting from me,
                          Carol.


                          In anthroposophy@ yahoogroups. com, Stephen <celestial_vision@ ...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > > I found it noteworthy that you were unable to get to the end
                          of the
                          > > book. Was it because you found it monotonous or difficult etc?
                          You
                          > > didn't say.
                          > ============ =====
                          > I did not find it monotonous or dry at all, but some parts were
                          > difficult. It was exciting to me that Steiner said that he wrote
                          it as
                          > an exercise to produce the development of this new thinking. I
                          said that
                          > the issue was that I found I was reading it like any other book
                          after
                          > getting three quarters of the way through it. What I mean was that
                          I
                          > started off trying to give it a full chance, and listened to
                          Steiner
                          > when he suggested each page, even each sentence might need to be
                          worked
                          > through. And I felt that I was following his thinking for quite
                          awhile,
                          > and it was making sense, and I had a glimpse of this new thinking.
                          One
                          > of the problems I think was that I work full time, and was only
                          reading
                          > it at night maybe ten pages each night. I don't recommend that as
                          a way
                          > to read this particular book. So when I got to the point where I
                          > stopped, I found that I had just read about twenty pages and
                          realized I
                          > was simply reading words, and no longer working through it. So my
                          > choices were to try to go back to the middle somewhere and pick up
                          > Steiner's track, or just stop and tackle it again later. I will do
                          that.
                          > ============ =======
                          >
                          > > I believe that the purpose of the book is to `organize' (within
                          the
                          > > reader) the experience of thinking. This book has no intention
                          > > of `moving' you to spiritual experience. It's purpose is to
                          expose
                          > > the process of thinking, and to indicate where in the thinking
                          > > process, you find the `safe niche' which allows fully justified
                          > > spiritual experience. Period.
                          >
                          > ============ =======
                          > Thank you for this Carol, that is helpful. To my original
                          question, can
                          > you give one illustrative example of what this new thinking looks
                          like?
                          > Thank you for the thoughtful and warm reply,
                          > Stephen
                          >



                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

                        • AJM
                          Joel- I read this link thoroughly and I was wondering exactly what the Parsival Question was that you spoke of. I know Klocek as well as R.S. speak of
                          Message 12 of 15 , Oct 8, 2006
                            Joel-

                            I read this link thoroughly and I was wondering exactly what the
                            Parsival Question was that you spoke of. I know Klocek as well as R.S.
                            speak of maintaining a question without a need for a definite answer.
                            Is this the same thing you are refering to?

                            However I am not sure how this relates to Parsival?

                            Thanks,

                            -AJ

                            --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > No short answer in a way...
                            >
                            > Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
                            > http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/samod.html
                            >
                            > joel
                            >
                            > stephenm142 wrote:
                            > > All,
                            > > As some of you know I am new to this group. I have an aborted attempt
                            > > at Steiner's POF because after about three quarters of the book I
                            > > found I was reading it like any other book, and not working through it
                            > > in the way Steiner suggested. To anyone who has read it, or some of
                            > > the other related books, is there a concrete new way of thinking that
                            > > you can describe to me that you gained from Steiner's and Goethe's
                            > > World Concept? That is, did reading POF cause you to begin to think in
                            > > the new way that Steiner describes? I often feel like I am still very
                            > > much stuck in my old ways of thinking, but have experienced some
                            > > strange moments where I push past it and things seem more connected -
                            > > at any rate it is hard for me to describe this. Let me know what you
                            > > think!
                            > > Best,
                            > > Stephen
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • Joel Wendt
                            AJ, In the Parsival story (according to my understanding, which is weak), Parsival is encouraged by his mother to ask questions, but when he sees a woman with
                            Message 13 of 15 , Oct 9, 2006
                              AJ,

                              In the Parsival story (according to my understanding, which is
                              weak), Parsival is encouraged by his mother to ask questions, but when
                              he sees a woman with what turns out to be the grail in the grail castle,
                              he does not ask her a question, and so his journey takes many additional
                              trials before he learns again to ask questions. In some anthro-circles,
                              this question matter of Steiner and Dennis is therefore called the
                              Parsival question.

                              Does this help?

                              joel

                              AJM wrote:
                              > Joel-
                              >
                              > I read this link thoroughly and I was wondering exactly what the
                              > Parsival Question was that you spoke of. I know Klocek as well as R.S.
                              > speak of maintaining a question without a need for a definite answer.
                              > Is this the same thing you are refering to?
                              >
                              > However I am not sure how this relates to Parsival?
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              >
                              > -AJ
                              >
                              > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >> No short answer in a way...
                              >>
                              >> Yes, I did learn to think in new ways...for details
                              >> http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/samod.html
                              >>
                              >> joel
                              >>
                              >> stephenm142 wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> All,
                              >>> As some of you know I am new to this group. I have an aborted attempt
                              >>> at Steiner's POF because after about three quarters of the book I
                              >>> found I was reading it like any other book, and not working through it
                              >>> in the way Steiner suggested. To anyone who has read it, or some of
                              >>> the other related books, is there a concrete new way of thinking that
                              >>> you can describe to me that you gained from Steiner's and Goethe's
                              >>> World Concept? That is, did reading POF cause you to begin to think in
                              >>> the new way that Steiner describes? I often feel like I am still very
                              >>> much stuck in my old ways of thinking, but have experienced some
                              >>> strange moments where I push past it and things seem more connected -
                              >>> at any rate it is hard for me to describe this. Let me know what you
                              >>> think!
                              >>> Best,
                              >>> Stephen
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Valerie Walsh
                              ... Well, I guess that I just have to say that I found this to be a really interesting take on Parsival, Joel.-Val
                              Message 14 of 15 , Oct 9, 2006
                                --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > AJ,
                                >
                                > In the Parsival story (according to my understanding, which is
                                > weak), Parsival is encouraged by his mother to ask questions, but when
                                > he sees a woman with what turns out to be the grail in the grail castle,
                                > he does not ask her a question, and so his journey takes many additional
                                > trials before he learns again to ask questions. In some anthro-circles,
                                > this question matter of Steiner and Dennis is therefore called the
                                > Parsival question.

                                Well, I guess that I just have to say that I found this to be a really interesting
                                take on Parsival, Joel.-Val
                              • Steve Hale
                                Stephen, The first thing that must be understood is that Steiner gave a revelation to reasoning, much in the same way that the early church fathers were
                                Message 15 of 15 , Oct 11, 2006
                                  Stephen,

                                  The first thing that must be understood is that Steiner gave a
                                  revelation to reasoning, much in the same way that the early church
                                  fathers were inspired by the faith that streamed down at the
                                  midpoint of the fourth cultural epoch. That was when the direct
                                  disciples of Christ, now traveling in higher worlds, entered the
                                  sphere of Venus and were collectively informed of a further
                                  dimension of the Christ Being that they had walked with on earth.

                                  Consequently, they were able to send down a message of love, hope
                                  and brotherliness to certain prepared individuals on earth, for the
                                  purpose of establishing the various religious orders. Thus, faith
                                  became the guiding principle behind the carefully developed
                                  doctrines of the churches on earth. This also had the effect of
                                  allowing reasoning to form as the additive element for such doctrine-
                                  building, which served to curtail the aims of the premature
                                  instreaming of the fifth cultural epoch into the fourth, which had
                                  the power to flood the world with consciousness soul in favor of the
                                  intellect. Faith served to act as a brake to this potential, and
                                  allowed the necessary slow advance of reasoning power for an induced
                                  view of the world.

                                  In modern times, since the beginning of the 20th century, a new
                                  revelation has become necessary for the further advance of reasoning
                                  power, and this comes by way of the work of Rudolf Steiner. It is
                                  particularly advantageous in our immediate time due to the efforts
                                  to instream the sixth cultural epoch into the fifth, and thus invoke
                                  a premature form of spirit self under the guise of a so-
                                  called "Being Anthroposophia". The goal here is to create another
                                  icon of religious representation, like the Virgin Mary, that will
                                  attempt to turn anthroposophy into a religion. Faith and worship
                                  will attempt to subrate the proper developments of the consciousness
                                  soul, much in the same way that the earlier attempt tried to
                                  eliminate the intellect in favor of consciousness.

                                  This potential can be avoided if works like PoF, Truth and
                                  Knowledge, Goethe's World Conception, and Riddles of Philosophy, are
                                  properly extended into the actual content of occult knowledge, and
                                  adherence to the character of occult science is observed in the
                                  unfolding power of these new instruments; the instruments of the
                                  consciousness soul.

                                  Steve

                                  --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "stephenm142"
                                  <celestial_vision@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > All,
                                  > As some of you know I am new to this group. I have an aborted
                                  attempt
                                  > at Steiner's POF because after about three quarters of the book I
                                  > found I was reading it like any other book, and not working
                                  through it
                                  > in the way Steiner suggested. To anyone who has read it, or some of
                                  > the other related books, is there a concrete new way of thinking
                                  that
                                  > you can describe to me that you gained from Steiner's and Goethe's
                                  > World Concept? That is, did reading POF cause you to begin to
                                  think in
                                  > the new way that Steiner describes? I often feel like I am still
                                  very
                                  > much stuck in my old ways of thinking, but have experienced some
                                  > strange moments where I push past it and things seem more
                                  connected -
                                  > at any rate it is hard for me to describe this. Let me know what
                                  you
                                  > think!
                                  > Best,
                                  > Stephen
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.