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

Re: Re: Emotions & Truth

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Mar 1, 2000
    • 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 2 of 4 , Mar 2, 2000
      • 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 3 of 4 , Mar 2, 2000
        • 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.