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

the battle, and preparation for the battle

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously
    Message 1 of 35 , Sep 29, 2005
      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...

      warm regards,
    • Steve Hale
      ... thinking, ... 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
      Message 35 of 35 , Oct 13, 2005
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
        <hermit@t...> wrote:
        > 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 subject
        > 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) moral
        > moral intuition and moral technique fit into what you describe as
        > 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"
        mean? My
        > experience is that knowledge and understanding are two different
        > qualities of mind.

        You can have knowledge of linear facts, which accords to mankind
        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"
        I can
        > understand, but in my experience what we intensify is feeling. It
        > with the more intensely cultivated feelings that have come my
        > 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
        over time:
        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.

        > As to Grace you wrote: Okay. But never forget, that it is
        not 'it', but
        > Michael that thinks in you.
        > 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 same
        > of Beings that stand behind each experience of the presence of
        > 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
        about the
        > role of Grace in your work. In my experience there is no pure
        > or clair-thinking, without the Grace of a community of higher
        > 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 to
        > question - then we are "touched" from above (or below), not
        because we
        > are full of ideas and grand conceptual structures, but because we
        > in point of fact, empty of such. Always the new appears here, not
        > something pre-thought, as Kuhlewind would put it.

        I have had to empty out my thoughts over and over in order to get to
        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.
        > warm regards,
        > joel

        Well, to me, there's always time for someone who really cares.

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