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

Re: Emotions & Truth

Expand Messages
  • starmann77@aol.com
    If I have read Steiner correctly, he says that there are objective truths ... *******I would say rather that one feels but does not allow one s emotions to
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 1 7:26 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      <<>If I have read Steiner correctly, he says that there are objective truths

      >the Spiritual Scientist can observe: isn't that the basis for Spiritual

      >Science? This requires a detachment and lack of emotion.

      >>>

      *******I would say rather that one feels but does not allow one's emotions to
      pull one this way and that, to affect one's thinking and will unconsciously,
      as storms of emotion do. It's one of the basic exercises in Knowledge of the
      Higher Worlds.
      Starman
    • Demetrue@aol.com
      This is similar to the balance between mercy and justice, or love and truth... we humans have a tendency to lean towards one side or the other, but Godly love,
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 1 9:57 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        This is similar to the balance between mercy and justice, or love and
        truth... we humans have a tendency to lean towards one side or the other, but
        Godly love, or "agape", is able to hold all these poles in perfect balance..
        Godly love IS objective, in that it is inclusive and unconditional, and gives
        to each person exactly what is best for that individual. Godly love meets
        them at their point of need, not emotionally or sentimentally giving them
        what they think they want, but rather giving them only what will bring about
        their highest good... I believe this is what elaine meant by compassion and
        also what John meant when he stated that spiritual science might offer a
        solution that was counter-intuitive to maudlin emotions... Fortunately, God's
        love is broad enough to include love and truth in the same breath....
      • elaine upton
        Hello, all, Thank you, Starman, and thank you, Joel, for your comments, responding to John and me. I resonate with Starman on this one. Starman writes replying
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 2 10:12 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello, all,

          Thank you, Starman, and thank you, Joel, for your comments, responding to
          John and me.

          I resonate with Starman on this one. Starman writes replying to John:

          First, John:

          ><<>If I have read Steiner correctly, he says that there are objective
          >truths
          >
          > >the Spiritual Scientist can observe: isn't that the basis for Spiritual
          >
          > >Science? This requires a detachment and lack of emotion.


          Then Starman replies:
          >
          >*******I would say rather that one feels but does not allow one's emotions
          >to
          >pull one this way and that, to affect one's thinking and will
          >unconsciously,
          >as storms of emotion do. It's one of the basic exercises in Knowledge of
          >the
          >Higher Worlds.
          > Starman


          Yes, for me this is the way, the ideal: to feel, and to transform that
          feeling and attendant emotion into an experience beyond the selfish,
          limiting sympathies and antipathies. I see that as an exercise in
          compassion.

          Joel, I would agree that compassion is only partly an emotion. But i don't
          see SPIRITUAL science as lacking in feeling (feeling, emotion --not quite
          the same thing, but related, but that's another subject--smile). If
          SPIRITUAL science is not lacking in feeling, then it is not lacking in
          compassion (which includes, but is more than, feeling).

          Last time i heard, feeling was important --in that triumvirate of thinking,
          feeling, willing. So, this OBJECTIVITY that is being referred to? This
          science of objectivity? Conventional science *used to*, maybe still does,
          promote the illusion of objectivity (yet we know that the subject influences
          the observation...). Yet, SPIRITUAL science is not conventional science. In
          SPIRITUAL science there is development of thinking, feeling, and willing.
          There is development of astral and ego bodies. The dispassionate ideal of
          conventional science is not, in my understanding, the ideal of SPIRITUAL
          science, but rather what is involved is the transformation of sympathies and
          antipathies, which is not the same as lack of feeling.

          There seems in Joel's and John's post an understanding of OBJECTIVITY as a
          lack of feeling. (If i misunderstand either of you, i stand to be corrected,
          and will apologize.) As i said above, and i repeat myself, that--a domain of
          no feeling--is not my understanding of OBJECTIVITY. Rather, OBJECTIVITY is
          the holistic entrance into the *object*, involving transformed thinking (IT
          THINKS), transformed willing (HE WILLS,"Thy Will Be Done"), transformed
          feeling(SHE FEELS), that which has gone beyond sympathy and antipathy. What
          is left? Empathy, which, for me, is another word for compassion.

          And please, John, don't quote me the dictionary. I'm an English professor
          and quite aware of what goes into the making of dictionaries, believe me! A
          dictionary is like a road map, helpful in certain ways, for sure, yet it
          can't show you the real place.--
          If--if and when-- I use it as a road map in this case of compassion, i would
          look at something your post didn't mention--the etymology: *com* and
          passion. *Com* as with, along with, a relational word, a word of bonding. So
          passion *along with* the rest--the whole/holistically (thinking, willing).
          *Passion*? That's a very interesting word. We (most people i know) use it to
          mean several different but related things. One is passion, as in strong
          feeling, even anger and lust is one meaning. But there is also the meaning
          of Passion as in Christ's Passion. Passion Week. All the wonderful music and
          celebrations of Christ's Passion come to mind here.--Now, to meditate on
          these meanings opens up immense riches, and leads me right round to
          SPIRITUAL science, so that com-passion is not a contradiction of, nor in
          opposition to, spiritual science.

          Moreover, in Steiner SPIRITUAL science (the what aspect you refer to Joel)
          there is the whole matter of the twelve senses that we are discussing in
          another thread on this list. This is related to our "compassion" thread.

          If we think of Steiner's teachings on the Twelve Senses, we might see that
          we move from the 9th sense--hearing, to the 10th sense--language, to the
          11th sense--thought. This is relevant to our discussion of *words* here, or
          how we use words. In this e-mail medium, we do not hear, so that is already
          an issue, a problem, I would say. Even so, let's say we are at the 10th
          level of Language sense--that is, we have gone beyond, or transformed, sound
          (that lay in the sense of hearing) to a sense of the words (language). But
          for the 11th sense--Thought--to occur, we must go beyond language (the
          words) to let the light of concepts shine through. As one anthrop(Tom)
          writes on another list, "We must eliminate, erase, or transcend the actual
          words" in order to come to the sense of Thought.

          Maybe we all could use a dose of this, at least a dose, for starters (and
          surely i include myself here). The next sense is the 12th, that of EGO (not
          egotism, not experience of my own little narcisstic world, but sense of the
          other Person, sense of relation). Words on their own are sounds, but then
          sounds take on meanings and we move into the realm of thought, and we can
          move even further to a real sense of EGO, of relationship, of the other
          person (say, i to a sense of "John" and he to a sense of "me", bur even on
          beyond that to a sense of the SELF, or what the native people call *All My
          Relations* or somewhat like what Martin Buber calls Self-in-Relation).
          Ah, then we will have arrived!

          Meantime, we (many people, myself often included) are caught in our own
          separate egotistical levels of sense, lower narcissitic senses, awaiting
          transformation (awaiting our movement beyond sympathies and antipathies, but
          not beyond feeling, i would say, but then, if these words do not reach
          "you", nor your words "me", then we are not experiencing the Goethean
          "con-verse-ation"--)

          Peace (another word we could debate?--whew!--smile),
          elaine

          ______________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
        • John Massengale
          To go back to the beginning of this conversation: I wondered aloud if SOME of the attitudes towards the unborn and abortions weren t being caused more by
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 2 4:09 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            To go back to the beginning of this conversation: I wondered aloud if SOME
            of the attitudes towards the unborn and abortions weren't being caused more
            by emotion than the observations of spiritual science. Now that we've been
            around the barn and back, I continue to wonder that.

            I understand what you say, Elaine, but I think you can also understand that
            emotions, and feelings, can obscure the truth. I don't have Steiner's
            capabilities, and I know there are times when I convince myself that what I
            would like is what is best for the world.

            I was the first one to use the word "compassion," which was one of the
            reasons for defining it when what I had meant was clearly not being conveyed
            by my words.

            John Massengale
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.