the battle, and preparation for the battle
- Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress,
but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the
enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed,
would almost surely not grow this twig again. - Stephen Jay Gould
Above then is the core problem - materialism and its implications. This
is what anthroposophy came into the world to battle.
The battle, in spite of seeming difficulties, basically goes well. Yes,
the A. Society has been a flop. Those who argue otherwise simply refuse
to look at facts. At the same time, work appears that lives powerfully
in deeds countering materialism.
In spite of PLANS efforts, a federal court finds that anthroposophy is
not a religion.
Don Cruse, with Robert Zimmer, publish their book: Evolution and the New
Waldorf Schools, Camphill Communities, Biodynamic Farms, Goethean
Science, Anthroposophical Medicine -- all these slowly vivify cultural
life from within.
The list of the best spiritual books of the 20th Century (based upon an
analysis of reviews and comments by publishers in the field) includes
Barfield's Saving the Appearences: a study in idolatry; and Tomberg's
Meditations on the Tarot. But no Steiner.
This is the true consequence of the failures within the A. Society -
Steiner remains unknown.
Ordinary Christians, of reasonable faith, fight against materialism, and
while not with alacrity, they still resist the insistence of the priests
of science that evolution grasps reality.
Bioneers exist, Civil Society exists, the Twelve Steps exist, even the
New Age exists - all this resists materialism.
The biggest opponent to scientific materialism, however, will have to be
the natural scientist himself. They have to break down the dam from the
inside. The greatest aid to such a cause is the epistemologies, which
is why it is crucial that the A. Society renew its relationships with
this work on the transformation of thinking.
As to religious materialism (fundamentalism) that can only again be
opposed in a healthy way from within. In the service of this comes:
"the Way of the Fool: Christian Enlightenment (initiation) and the
future of Christianity", a work not written for anthroposophists, and
not meant to satisfy their various cravings, which yet points right at
Rudolf Steiner in as direct a way as possible, and which begins the
process of inwardly (as in practices of the soul) uniting faith and
gnosis, or exoteric and esoteric Christianity.
Most probably, everyone on this list is engaged in the battle. What is
not good is how easy it is for us to stand in opposition to each other,
as if fighting over who is the better at the battle has any meaning
As to preparing to participate in the battle, I think everyone here
knows my views on that...
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Joel Wendt
> Dear Steve,
> Well, addution isn't in the dictionary in relationship to
> so is it your word, or does come from somewhere else?To adduce means to move or pull to the median axis, i.e., the
middle. Also, to give as reason or proof, or cite as an example.
And Steiner used this word 'adduce' any number of times to express
the power of reasoning itself as proof. Now, a work like "Outline
of Occult Science" exists to give this power to adduce as a
culmination of its intended course of study. And this is why this
work stands midway between PoF and KnoW as a viable method for
gaining new knowledge and cultivating the faculty of thinking at the
same time, in preparation for the sealing activity which is at the
heart of KnoW. Oultine of Occult Science places one on the Path of
Veneration from the outset.
> In 18313 you write:
> Systematic adduction represents the fourth form of reasoning, and
> what differentiates it from the three earlier forms of reasoning,
> and eventually demonstrates its superiority over them, is its
> dedicated emphasis on the gaining of knowledge with understanding.
> It accomplishes this by seeking to draw together all the necessary
> facts and data on any particular subject in a synthetical manner.
> This form of reasoning knows, and is naturally attentive toward,
> need for, and availability of, those divergent aspects of a subjectmoral
> that serve to coalesce and synthesize knowledge in that higher form
> that gives this understanding. Thus, adductive reasoning seeks to
> move thinking in the direction toward bringing effect and its
> underlying cause together. It sees the inherent limitations of
> man's current level of knowledge and being in relation to these
> effective results and seeks to find methods that will serve to
> expand his existing knowledge into the realm of causation.
> Where is morality here? You speak of synthesis, but not of the
> act which preceeds the thinking. Where do (from PoF) moralimagination,
> moral intuition and moral technique fit into what you describe asthe
> superior process of adductive thinking?This could not have been written in the first place unless it was
founded as a moral impulse. It is a completely moral description,
just without using the words moral, or morality, which do not have
to be proven in each case of expressing oneself. It is of the
nature of the subject and its content that morality can be seen and
> What does the phrase "gaining of knowledge with understanding"
> experience is that knowledge and understanding are two differentYou can have knowledge of linear facts, which accords to mankind
> qualities of mind.
today, in which the outer external world appears as an effective
representation of causes that we are blind to; removed from. And,
as well, knowledge with understanding of those underlying causes,
which a work of the nature of OOS seeks to cultivate in advance of
the slumbering organs that are actually needed for verification.
> You also wrote in 18313:
> It [adductive reasoning] attempts to accomplish this by way of two
> methods designed to
> activate thinking in an intensified form. These are the methods of
> active study, and active contemplation. When taken together they
> serve to exercise the Law of Intensification as it applies to
> thinking, in order to promote thinking's three expressions:
> imagination, inspiration, and intuition
> Why are these experiences related to thinking? "Intensification"
> understand, but in my experience what we intensify is feeling. Itis
> with the more intensely cultivated feelings that have come myto
> experiences of "Inspiration", for example. Thinking changes here
> perceptive listening, but doesn't intensify.Joel, the major discovery I have made in life is that philosophy is
entirely concerned with the overall development of the faculty of
thinking, and that thinking is an entirely spiritual activity that
leads to thinking and knowing oneself as a spiritual being. The
process can be briefly outlined as follows:
Thinking can be defined as that faculty that arises as a consequence
of the synthesis of:
intelligence and the ego. As such, intelligence constitutes a
progressive and evolutionary function that is traceable according to
chronological time. This time-oriented trace of intelligence and
the development of thinking demonstrates the following conditions:
1) Thinking contains two aspects: Linear and Spherical. As such,
thinking is both directional and dimensional in nature.
2) To incorporate these two aspects and their directional and
dimensional characteristics, four forms of reasoning have developed
a. deductive reasoning
b. inductive reasoning
c. reductive reasoning
d. adductive reasoning
These four forms have evolved progressively over the course of 2700
years in terms of their respective dimensions expressed as follows:
Form Direction Perspective
Deductive Above-Below Spiritual - Material
Induction Left-Right Mechanistic - Materialistic
Reduction Before-Behind Scientific - Technological
Adduction Circular Evolutionary - Teleological
Adductive reasoning takes up and combines the directions of the
three other forms, A-B, L-R, B-B, in order to produce a grand
synthesis in the form of the parameters of a circle. Thus,
Adductive Reasoning is able to proceed into the spherical aspect of
thinking. As stated, these directions also give rise to their
corresponding dimensional perspectives, which can be likened to the
opening of a window of visibility into our present cycle of
evolution. This window has given the opportunity for certain
activities of initiation to commence in the movement from
perspective to reality. Thus, taken together, these aspects, forms,
directions, and dimensions comprise the evolving world view of man
according to the acquisition of thought. This evolving world view
itself is comprised of two aspects:
natural- scientific and spiritual -scientific. Taken together these
two aspects form the conscience of the world.
>not 'it', but
> As to Grace you wrote: Okay. But never forget, that it is
> Michael that thinks in you.expression,
> This is not my experience. "It thinks in me" is Steiner's
> by the way. I use the term Grace because it is not the samecommunity
> of Beings that stand behind each experience of the presence ofFullness
> and the fullness of Presence.I agree that a Community of Spiritual Beings stands behind
everything, and we can either know this concretely, or have faith
that it is so. Thus, Grace can exist sight unseen. And Michael is
the Dominion spirit Who holds the Cosmic Intelligence for mankind.
Up until the 9th century, it was still possible for a human being to
experience Michael every time he/she thought a thought.
> Which is, by the way, what I was alluding to when I asked you
> role of Grace in your work. In my experience there is no purethinking
> or clair-thinking, without the Grace of a community of higherbeings
> reaching down as our thinking/cultivated-feeling reaches up.I agree. I have no idea about what I study and write about, and try
to communicate except that it comes down from these Beings as an act
of free thinking creativity that was first cultivated through
studying intensively the body of anthroposophical spiritual science.
> I was not speaking about the Grace of events in life, but rather
> happens when thinking is selfless reflection on a theme leading toa
> question - then we are "touched" from above (or below), notbecause we
> are full of ideas and grand conceptual structures, but because weare,
> in point of fact, empty of such. Always the new appears here, notI have had to empty out my thoughts over and over in order to get to
> something pre-thought, as Kuhlewind would put it.
these insights as a higher resolution. Thus yes, the light shineth
forth, but only when we rub out the content of our consciousness as
a conscientious act, and for a time have nothing to do with it. And
then, after whatever the requisite time, intuition rises to the
surface. Then it can be talked about, or written about, or shouted
from the rooftop, or whispered in a private moment.
> Anyway, I remain unsure of what you bring, but thanks for leading
> deeper into your writings.Well, to me, there's always time for someone who really cares.
> warm regards,