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

RE: think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... anthropsophy. It s conspiracy theory rubbish with someone using one or two concepts from out of anthroposphy to analyze the garbage, which is kind of like
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 10, 2008
      To *******, who wrote:

      >>This has nothing whatever to do with
      anthropsophy. It's conspiracy theory rubbish
      with someone using one or two concepts from out
      of anthroposphy to analyze the garbage, which
      is kind of like using gold utensils to eat
      poison off a plate. No more anti-Israel,
      "revisionist historians" or hysterical
      political ranting here, please.<<

      Robert writes:

      You seem to have missed the point. The topic
      of my post was, as the subject-line indicated,
      the effect of the Internet on consciousness.
      There were some words that might, at a stretch,
      from a certain viewpoint, be construed to be
      "conspiracy theory" or "political ranting", but
      those were not the main point; they were more
      like background musings to set up the central
      questions. Nobody said anything about Israel.

      I'm hoping that you will re-read post with a
      view to the main question. Or you could go
      straight to the *Atlantic* article that Hoffman
      mentions:
      <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google>
      It really is a thought-provoking meditation on
      the effect of technology, especially the
      Internet, on consciousness. This would seem to
      be a very Anthroposophical area of inquiry.

      ******* wrote:

      >>It's only a distraction from the spiritual
      path. True spiritual science empowers Man to
      accomplish; belief in conspiracy theories makes
      you believe yourself impotent and helpless,
      unable to influence your world. It's a thought-
      pattern that Steiner addresses many times, such
      as in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds.<<

      Robert writes:

      Actually, RS was quite a "conspiracy theorist"
      himself; only for him it wasn't "theory"; it
      was perception. Some of his revelations about
      "conspiracies" are online; for instance:
      <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/KarmUntru2/KarUn2_index.html>

      ******* wrote:

      >>Moreover, the whole tone is assuming multiple
      prejudices to be "facts", while seeking
      spiritual knowledge requires ridding oneself of
      prejudice and retaining common sense. Simply
      put, to grasp spirit-science requires us to
      raise ourselves towards higher consciousness,
      not lower ourselves into a cesspool of
      irrational fear and hatred. Spend time
      listening to Beethoven and you might get
      somewhere, spend it listening to Noam Chomsky
      or Michael Moore and you're only going in one
      direction---down. There's an interesting
      article in the latest edition of the
      Steinerbooks catalog about how many leftists
      wind up mouthing anthropsophy, while not
      noticing that it is the exact opposite of
      leftist beliefs, and therefore causes cognitive
      dissonance, as much as trying to remain a
      Darwinist and become an anthroposophist would.
      Chuck out the prejudices and think freely and
      things may begin to seem quite different. Never
      mind whatever you think are "facts" in this
      kind of diatribe: feel the tone of it and ask,
      is this coming from the same plane as spiritual
      science? If it's overwhelmingly negative and
      pulls you down, reject it and go take a walk in
      the fresh air. As Goethe put it, "Only that
      which is fruitful is true." -starman<<

      Robert writes:

      I thought that the "tone" was basically
      questioning and inviting a co-operative, mutual
      inquiry. It surely wasn't "leftist"; it was
      asking questions about the effect of the
      Internet on consciousness. If you think that
      you see a "diatribe" that needs "rejecting",
      then you are free to offer better thoughts than
      mine. That might be more "fruitful" than
      merely walking away. This is an e-list for
      *discussion*, isn't it?

      Robert Mason
    • Durward Starman
      ******* Yes, this is a list for discussion, and the effect of the internet on us could be a very good topic. I think that post with its content had nothing to
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 10, 2008
        ******* Yes, this is a list for discussion, and the effect of the internet on us could be a very good topic. I think that post with its content had nothing to do with it, though.
         
        So, let's have a discussion. First, discussing things with each other could start with acknowledging names. I do have one. You call yourself Mason and I call myself Starman. So you could start by writing to me as an individual.
         
        Next, how do you experience the consciousness soul, before we want to discuss the effects of something or other on it? What is it to you? How do you sense it or know it?

        Starman
        www.DrStarman.com




        To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
        From: robertsmason_99@...
        Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:03:09 -0700
        Subject: [steiner] RE: think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?


        To *******, who wrote:

        >>This has nothing whatever to do with
        anthropsophy. It's conspiracy theory rubbish
        with someone using one or two concepts from out
        of anthroposphy to analyze the garbage, which
        is kind of like using gold utensils to eat
        poison off a plate. No more anti-Israel,
        "revisionist historians" or hysterical
        political ranting here, please.<<

        Robert writes:

        You seem to have missed the point. The topic
        of my post was, as the subject-line indicated,
        the effect of the Internet on consciousness.
        There were some words that might, at a stretch,
        from a certain viewpoint, be construed to be
        "conspiracy theory" or "political ranting", but
        those were not the main point; they were more
        like background musings to set up the central
        questions. Nobody said anything about Israel.

        I'm hoping that you will re-read post with a
        view to the main question. Or you could go
        straight to the *Atlantic* article that Hoffman
        mentions:
        <http://www.theatlan tic.com/doc/ 200807/google>
        It really is a thought-provoking meditation on
        the effect of technology, especially the
        Internet, on consciousness. This would seem to
        be a very Anthroposophical area of inquiry.

        ******* wrote:

        >>It's only a distraction from the spiritual
        path. True spiritual science empowers Man to
        accomplish; belief in conspiracy theories makes
        you believe yourself impotent and helpless,
        unable to influence your world. It's a thought-
        pattern that Steiner addresses many times, such
        as in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds.<<

        Robert writes:

        Actually, RS was quite a "conspiracy theorist"
        himself; only for him it wasn't "theory"; it
        was perception. Some of his revelations about
        "conspiracies" are online; for instance:
        <http://wn.rsarchive .org/Lectures/ KarmUntru2/ KarUn2_index. html>

        ******* wrote:

        >>Moreover, the whole tone is assuming multiple
        prejudices to be "facts", while seeking
        spiritual knowledge requires ridding oneself of
        prejudice and retaining common sense. Simply
        put, to grasp spirit-science requires us to
        raise ourselves towards higher consciousness,
        not lower ourselves into a cesspool of
        irrational fear and hatred. Spend time
        listening to Beethoven and you might get
        somewhere, spend it listening to Noam Chomsky
        or Michael Moore and you're only going in one
        direction--- down. There's an interesting
        article in the latest edition of the
        Steinerbooks catalog about how many leftists
        wind up mouthing anthropsophy, while not
        noticing that it is the exact opposite of
        leftist beliefs, and therefore causes cognitive
        dissonance, as much as trying to remain a
        Darwinist and become an anthroposophist would.
        Chuck out the prejudices and think freely and
        things may begin to seem quite different. Never
        mind whatever you think are "facts" in this
        kind of diatribe: feel the tone of it and ask,
        is this coming from the same plane as spiritual
        science? If it's overwhelmingly negative and
        pulls you down, reject it and go take a walk in
        the fresh air. As Goethe put it, "Only that
        which is fruitful is true." -starman<<

        Robert writes:

        I thought that the "tone" was basically
        questioning and inviting a co-operative, mutual
        inquiry. It surely wasn't "leftist"; it was
        asking questions about the effect of the
        Internet on consciousness. If you think that
        you see a "diatribe" that needs "rejecting",
        then you are free to offer better thoughts than
        mine. That might be more "fruitful" than
        merely walking away. This is an e-list for
        *discussion* , isn't it?

        Robert Mason




        Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before. See how Windows® fits your life
      • Robert Mason
        (note: This the the first I ve gotten online since Sunday, so I wrote this without taking into account the recent discussion.) ... things with each other
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 12, 2008
          (note: This the the first I've gotten online
          since Sunday, so I wrote this without taking
          into account the recent discussion.)

          To Starman, who wrote:

          >>So, let's have a discussion. First, discussing
          things with each other could start with
          acknowledging names. I do have one. You call
          yourself Mason and I call myself Starman. So you
          could start by writing to me as an individual.<<

          Robert writes:

          I was being a little playful with the asterisks.
          After all, *Starman* isn't your real name, and I
          thought that you would recall that I had chided
          you about it before; it seems a little silly to
          me, and the asterisks even sillier. And you do
          use the asterisks as a signature of sorts, so I
          was using them to engage in some light tweaking.
          But if you don't have a sense of humor about it
          all, I'll use *Starman*.

          Starman wrote:

          >>Next, how do you experience the consciousness
          soul, before we want to discuss the effects of
          something or other on it? What is it to you? How
          do you sense it or know it?<<

          Robert writes:

          The thrust of my question wasn't about my own
          experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this
          is a related question. I was mostly, vaguely,
          groping toward a question about the Consciousness
          Soul in contemporary world evolution. As I
          understand the situation: -- We live in the age of
          the emerging manifestation of the Consciousness
          Soul throughout mankind; our culture and now our
          whole environment are shaped by this emergence.
          It began in Europe, and is now sweeping over the
          world.

          Steiner tells us that the Consciousness Soul
          emerges instinctively in the English-speaking
          peoples. (See GA 186; partly published as *The
          Challenge of the Times; also this online:
          <Social and Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being>)
          This idea is paradoxical, almost self-
          contradictory: Instincts are by definition
          unconscious; how can consciousness come about
          through unconsciousness?

          Instincts are expressions of that which is generic
          in man; when acting from them one is being "self-
          seeking", as Steiner puts it. It seems that the
          human individual asserts himself in a semi-
          conscious, egotistical way -- paradoxically by
          force of what is *not* individual in him: his
          instincts. Obviously, this "instinctive
          Consciousness Soul" is not what Steiner was
          teaching in *PoF*. "Egotism" doesn't come from
          the true Ego.

          I understand Steiner as saying that it is
          primarily the *outer aspect* of the Consciousness
          Soul that is instinctive in the English-speaking
          peoples. I understand this "outer aspect" to be
          tendency of the human individual to break out of
          his primeval submergence in this socio-political
          culture and to stand on his own two feet. I think
          that we can see this tendency manifesting in
          British (and derivatively American) history as the
          demand for individual rights (free speech, freedom
          of religion, freedom from arbitrary searches and
          seizures, and so on) and the institution of
          representative government. And we can see these
          tendencies spreading over the world, sometimes in
          governments recognizable as "democratic", sometime
          merely as lip-service to those principles. But
          even the fact non-democratic rulers seem to see
          the need for this lip-service shows the power of
          the "democratic" idea in our times. -- From the
          lecture linked above:

          "We find a special disposition, a special mission
          for all who speak English by nature (single cases
          may be different) — a disposition for the
          cultivation of the Consciousness Soul. This
          disposition expresses itself in not detaching from
          the soul its characteristic quality of
          intelligence, but connecting this intelligence
          naturally, instinctively, with events in the
          world. To naturally, even instinctively, place
          oneself in the life of the world as a
          consciousness soul individual is the task of the
          English-speaking people. The expanse and greatness
          of the British Empire rests on this quality.
          Indeed herein lies the original phenomenon behind
          the expansion of the British Empire — that which
          is hidden in the impulses of its people exactly
          coincided with the inner impulses of the age."

          I also understand Steiner as saying that the
          Germans have a special talent for developing the
          inner aspect of the Consciousness Soul, though not
          quite as instinctively as the English develop the
          outer. In the Germans the "Ego", *das Ich*, comes
          to the fore; the Consciousness Soul must be
          developed through the activity of the Ego.
          Steiner says that the Germans must be educated
          toward the Consciousness Soul; only the
          "intellectuals" develop the Consciousness Soul in
          the realm of thinking. The "masses" who do not
          become intellectuals have no instinct for
          individuality as do the British, and thus they
          have no inherent talent for "democratic" politics
          as do the English-speaking peoples. (See the
          lecture of Dec. 8, 1918 in *Challenge*.)

          Also, to my understanding, the emerging
          Consciousness Soul has brought about our modern,
          scientific-technological culture. This started in
          Europe, but is now dominating the world even more
          pervasively than British forms of politics. And
          again, the British (and secondarily the Americans)
          led the way. It is acknowledged that the
          Industrial Revolution started in Britain before
          spreading over the world. And it is the
          specifically British kind of scientific
          consciousness that dominates the world of science.
          This is the "onlooker consciousness" (Ernst Lehrs'
          term, I think) that leads naturally thought-
          methods that conceptually dissolve the world into
          materialistic phantasms such as "quarks" and so
          on. (And, as we are aware, the characteristically
          Germanic scientific consciousness manifested in
          Goetheanism is almost unknown even in Germany.) I
          would think that this dominant scientific
          consciousness is *in some way* an inner aspect of
          the instinctive Consciousness Soul; it "connect[s]
          . . . intelligence naturally, instinctively, with
          events in the world", and it arose most strongly
          at first in the British/American culture. But
          still (it would seem), it is not "inner" in quite
          the same way as the characteristically German
          Consciousness Soul.

          -- More, there is the question of the "Ahrimanized
          Consciousness Soul". I think that I first came
          across this concept in Stegmann's *The Other
          America*, but maybe also Prokofieff used it in
          relation to the dark initiatory aspects of
          Bolshevism. Anyway, I'm guessing that the concept
          came originally from Steiner. And it is a
          difficult concept, even more so than *instinctive
          Consciousness Soul*. As I understand it,
          *Ahrimanized Consciousness Soul* refers to the
          soul-state in which instinctive thinking and will
          rule the man without the mediation of the Ego-
          activity and the heart-feelings. This kind of
          thinking is highly intelligent but not infused
          with the will and consciousness of the Ego; it is
          "cold". And without the involvement of the Ego,
          the "lower instincts" hold sway over the conduct
          of life. -- And since America is especially
          Ahrimanic, does the British "instinctive
          Consciousness Soul" tend to become "Ahrimanized"
          especially in (North) America? And does the
          highly Ahrimanic computer (developed and woven
          into the Internet mainly in America) inherently
          work to Ahrimanize the Consciousness Soul?

          -- Now, as to my experience of the Consciousness
          Soul: I'll begin with this snip from Steiner's
          explication of the concept in *Theosophy*:

          "By causing the self-existent true and good to
          come to life in his inner being, man raises
          himself above the mere sentient soul. . . . In so
          far as the soul lives in this light, it is a
          participant in the eternal and unites its
          existence with it. What the soul carries within
          itself of the true and the good is immortal in it.
          Let us call what shines forth in the soul as
          eternal, the consciousness soul. . . . The kernel
          of human consciousness, that is, the soul within
          the soul, is what is here meant by consciousness
          soul. The consciousness soul is thus distinguished
          as a member of the soul distinct from the
          intellectual soul, which is still entangled in the
          sensations, impulses and passions. Everyone knows
          how a man at first counts as true what he prefers
          in his feelings and desires. Only that truth is
          permanent, however, that has freed itself from all
          flavor of such sympathy and antipathy of feeling.
          The truth is true even if all personal feelings
          revolt against it. That part of the soul in which
          this truth lives will be called consciousness
          soul."

          And Steiner states the matter succinctly here:

          "(...) the sentient soul, the most dull, living
          almost entirely in the subconscious; the
          intellectual soul which still develops without
          full consciousness, still having an instinctive
          nature; and finally the consciousness soul, which
          experiences the Ego [das Ich] in full
          consciousness, which emancipates the Ego from the
          life of the body, where intelligence no longer
          appears instinctively but, emancipated, confronts
          things critically."
          [GA 73 - November 7, 1917; quoted in Yahoo
          Anthroposophy <Re: A Moral reckoning>]

          Here Steiner is not talking about the instinctive,
          "outer" Consciousness Soul; he is talking about
          the inner aspect which comes to manifestation only
          by the activity of the Ego. For me, the key idea
          is: "The truth is true even if all personal
          feelings revolt against it."

          The Consciousness Soul brings about scientific
          culture because it (ideally) seeks objective truth
          regardless of desires and prejudices. In
          experiments the facts are the facts whether or not
          we like them. In logical-mathematical thinking
          the mind must follow the dictates of the objective
          unfolding of understanding of meanings, whether or
          not we like the way those thoughts lead us.

          In my experience, when I think in accordance with
          the demands of the thoughts themselves, regardless
          of my wishes, I am in the "Consciousness Soul", as
          I understand Steiner's definition. Thus my
          consciousness rises out of the Intellectual Soul,
          in which my thoughts are led, and thus falsified,
          by wishes, fears, desires, etc. I believe that I
          have pretty well permeated myself with the
          realization of the objectivity of Truth; I can
          (only usually?) approach a question with a
          willingness to follow the facts and the thoughts
          where they lead, regardless of my prejudices.
          Some other people might smile at this statement,
          but I do believe that it is mostly true. Of
          course I realize that the maintenance of this
          attitude in practice must be an ongoing battle
          that depends upon self-awareness. And of course
          it helps to see myself as others see me, to get
          "feedback" from other people, and although this
          process can be uncomfortable, even shocking, it
          can greatly increase self-*consciousness*.

          The increase in self-awareness, the emergence of
          subconscious forces into consciousness, seems to
          be another aspect of the manifestation of the
          Consciousness Soul in mass-culture. We know how
          psychology has entered into the general culture;
          we even have the term *psycho-babble*. The "depth
          psychology" apparently was developed first in
          Central Europe, mainly by Freud and his cohorts,
          but has spread far beyond professional circles
          into the "educated" public throughout the West, at
          least -- and even into the not-so-educated.
          Surely psychology, in many and various
          permutations and combinations, has become an
          integral part of modern culture; people are
          "working on themselves". Steiner may have snorted
          at psychoanalysis as "dilettantism"; nevertheless
          it would seem to me that the spread of
          psychological concepts and practices is very much
          increasing people's self-awareness and is thus
          serving the manifestation of the Consciousness
          Soul. As the subconscious comes into
          consciousness people can become aware of what they
          are doing and why they are doing it, and then, and
          only then, can they act freely, in the sense of
          *inward freedom*.

          I'll say that I have done some "work on myself" in
          this sense, both alone and in "group work", but
          most of the self-work has been, and continues to
          be, meditation and "exercises" as Steiner taught.
          Well, maybe not quite as he taught, but rather as
          I make use of his teaching, perhaps ineptly. The
          most persistent of my exercises is the practice of
          concentrated, meditative thinking. When I am able
          to do this fairly successfully, however rarely
          that may be, I move into the realm of "living
          thinking" -- as I understand it to be taught in
          *PoF*. The process of thinking moves into present
          consciousness, and thus I live, however briefly,
          in the "Spirit Self", as I understand that term.

          But, as I hinted with my reference to my ADD, I
          have a hard time concentrating; always have had.
          My mind wants to run away from me, or with me.
          I'm a bit of a "scatterbrain"; I'm impractical; I
          have a hard time bearing down and getting work
          done, especially if that work involves maintaining
          a consistent effort over time. I try to think,
          but perhaps more often than not, I will slip into
          mere fantasy. After many years of work with
          (attempted) meditation, I'm not quite as hopeless
          about all this as I used to be, but still I'm far
          from consistently attaining the kind of
          concentration and self-control that Steiner
          teaches. But I do have experience, conscious
          awareness, of the process of transition from
          runaway, wishful pseudo-thinking (Intellectual
          Soul) to objective, logical thinking
          (Consciousness Soul) to willed thinking in present
          consciousness (Spirit Self). There's no clear
          demarcation among these states of consciousness;
          they overlap and slip into one another.

          -- I'm talking about myself because you asked me
          about my own experience. But to bring the
          discussion back to the question of the effect of
          the Internet on consciousness:

          Here's a very different perspective from that of
          the *Atlantic* article; again non-Anthro but still
          thought-provoking: A few years ago the book
          *Everything Bad is Good for You* came out. (Here
          are a few online reviews:

          <http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/16/050516crbo_books?printable=true>

          <http://kottke.org/05/05/everything-bad-is-good-for-you>

          <http://internetducttape.com/2008/01/04/book-review-everything-bad-is-good-for-you-by-steven-johnson>

          <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_For_You>)

          This book presents evidence that modern
          electro-virtual culture is actually making us
          smarter. And in a way, I suppose that's true;
          there's a flip side of every coin. But smarter
          is not necessarily better. After all, Ahriman
          is supremely intelligent, but nevertheless is
          in futile detachment from and opposition to
          Reality. Is computer technology making us more
          intelligent, but only with an "Ahrimanic"
          intelligence -- that is, automatic and
          disconnected from the activity of the true Ego?

          And here is an Anthro perspective, a passage from
          the Emberson book that I already mentioned:

          <ReclaimYourSoul.org - The Future of Black Technologies>

          Just one sentence excerpted: "The great danger is
          that the Ahrimanic world will take hold of the
          human will and human beings will completely lose
          their bearing among the demonic powers that are
          present in the products of technology."

          We and future generations are, inevitably, to be
          immersed into an increasingly Ahrimanic world;
          computer technology is a big part of this trend.
          Ahriman will incarnate, but also the Christ
          approaches in the new *parousia*. How can we
          receive what we need of what Ahriman brings us
          without our being overwhelmed by too much of
          it?

          It's a huge subject; someone could write a book on
          it. And you could take the discussion in many
          different directions from here. There's the
          question of the relation of the inner and outer
          aspects of the Consciousness Soul. There's the
          question of differences and interrelations of the
          instinctive Consciousness Soul, the Ahrimanized
          Consciousness Soul, and the free, Ego-willed
          Consciousness Soul. There are the questions of
          the Consciousness Soul in individual development,
          in socio-cultural evolution, and in world-karma.
          There's the question of how the Consciousness Soul
          develops in different peoples, different cultures,
          different parts of the world. -- And over and in
          all these, there is the question of the effects of
          technology, especially of the computer and the
          Internet.

          Robert Mason
        • happypick
          It seems to me most, if not all of us on the Steiner list are learning a very great deal from discussing shared ideas and thoughts. Robert, I don t think I
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 13, 2008
            It seems to me most, if not all of us on the Steiner list are learning a very great deal from discussing shared ideas and thoughts. Robert, I don't think I recall "The Other America" as having the selected subject noted below, but perhaps I've simply overlooked it.

            I should say I do have a name: Sheila, but probably most of you already know that. My worldly background is in medicine, which in some ways has shown me hints of the best as well as possibly the worst in mankind but above all, it has given me experiences which I may have otherwise missed.

            It seems to me "What is the Consciousness Soul?" is one of those concepts taking some 2 or 3 dozens of books to hopefully gain some insight into, but I'd like to hazard a simplified - perhaps an over-simplified - short explanation of the What: It seems to me when/if one is able to reach that point in evolution from which one is able to feel in ALL aspects exactly and completely what another soul feels, one is experiencing the Consciousness Soul.

            I hope others may feel free to add/correct my very brief insight offered above.

            As Always,

            Sheila

            Robert Mason wrote:

            (note: This the the first I've gotten online
            since Sunday, so I wrote this without taking
            into account the recent discussion.)

            To Starman, who wrote:

            >>So, let's have a discussion. First, discussing
            things with each other could start with
            acknowledging names. I do have one. You call
            yourself Mason and I call myself Starman. So you
            could start by writing to me as an individual.< <

            Robert writes:

            I was being a little playful with the asterisks.
            After all, *Starman* isn't your real name, and I
            thought that you would recall that I had chided
            you about it before; it seems a little silly to
            me, and the asterisks even sillier. And you do
            use the asterisks as a signature of sorts, so I
            was using them to engage in some light tweaking.
            But if you don't have a sense of humor about it
            all, I'll use *Starman*.

            Starman wrote:

            >>Next, how do you experience the consciousness
            soul, before we want to discuss the effects of
            something or other on it? What is it to you? How
            do you sense it or know it?<<

            Robert writes:

            The thrust of my question wasn't about my own
            experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this
            is a related question. I was mostly, vaguely,
            groping toward a question about the Consciousness
            Soul in contemporary world evolution. As I
            understand the situation: -- We live in the age of
            the emerging manifestation of the Consciousness
            Soul throughout mankind; our culture and now our
            whole environment are shaped by this emergence.
            It began in Europe, and is now sweeping over the
            world.

            Steiner tells us that the Consciousness Soul
            emerges instinctively in the English-speaking
            peoples. (See GA 186; partly published as *The
            Challenge of the Times; also this online:
            <Social and Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being>)
            This idea is paradoxical, almost self-
            contradictory: Instincts are by definition
            unconscious; how can consciousness come about
            through unconsciousness?

            Instincts are expressions of that which is generic
            in man; when acting from them one is being "self-
            seeking", as Steiner puts it. It seems that the
            human individual asserts himself in a semi-
            conscious, egotistical way -- paradoxically by
            force of what is *not* individual in him: his
            instincts. Obviously, this "instinctive
            Consciousness Soul" is not what Steiner was
            teaching in *PoF*. "Egotism" doesn't come from
            the true Ego.

            I understand Steiner as saying that it is
            primarily the *outer aspect* of the Consciousness
            Soul that is instinctive in the English-speaking
            peoples. I understand this "outer aspect" to be
            tendency of the human individual to break out of
            his primeval submergence in this socio-political
            culture and to stand on his own two feet. I think
            that we can see this tendency manifesting in
            British (and derivatively American) history as the
            demand for individual rights (free speech, freedom
            of religion, freedom from arbitrary searches and
            seizures, and so on) and the institution of
            representative government. And we can see these
            tendencies spreading over the world, sometimes in
            governments recognizable as "democratic" , sometime
            merely as lip-service to those principles. But
            even the fact non-democratic rulers seem to see
            the need for this lip-service shows the power of
            the "democratic" idea in our times. -- From the
            lecture linked above:

            "We find a special disposition, a special mission
            for all who speak English by nature (single cases
            may be different) — a disposition for the
            cultivation of the Consciousness Soul. This
            disposition expresses itself in not detaching from
            the soul its characteristic quality of
            intelligence, but connecting this intelligence
            naturally, instinctively, with events in the
            world. To naturally, even instinctively, place
            oneself in the life of the world as a
            consciousness soul individual is the task of the
            English-speaking people. The expanse and greatness
            of the British Empire rests on this quality.
            Indeed herein lies the original phenomenon behind
            the expansion of the British Empire — that which
            is hidden in the impulses of its people exactly
            coincided with the inner impulses of the age."

            I also understand Steiner as saying that the
            Germans have a special talent for developing the
            inner aspect of the Consciousness Soul, though not
            quite as instinctively as the English develop the
            outer. In the Germans the "Ego", *das Ich*, comes
            to the fore; the Consciousness Soul must be
            developed through the activity of the Ego.
            Steiner says that the Germans must be educated
            toward the Consciousness Soul; only the
            "intellectuals" develop the Consciousness Soul in
            the realm of thinking. The "masses" who do not
            become intellectuals have no instinct for
            individuality as do the British, and thus they
            have no inherent talent for "democratic" politics
            as do the English-speaking peoples. (See the
            lecture of Dec. 8, 1918 in *Challenge*. )

            Also, to my understanding, the emerging
            Consciousness Soul has brought about our modern,
            scientific-technolo gical culture. This started in
            Europe, but is now dominating the world even more
            pervasively than British forms of politics. And
            again, the British (and secondarily the Americans)
            led the way. It is acknowledged that the
            Industrial Revolution started in Britain before
            spreading over the world. And it is the
            specifically British kind of scientific
            consciousness that dominates the world of science.
            This is the "onlooker consciousness" (Ernst Lehrs'
            term, I think) that leads naturally thought-
            methods that conceptually dissolve the world into
            materialistic phantasms such as "quarks" and so
            on. (And, as we are aware, the characteristically
            Germanic scientific consciousness manifested in
            Goetheanism is almost unknown even in Germany.) I
            would think that this dominant scientific
            consciousness is *in some way* an inner aspect of
            the instinctive Consciousness Soul; it "connect[s]
            . . . intelligence naturally, instinctively, with
            events in the world", and it arose most strongly
            at first in the British/American culture. But
            still (it would seem), it is not "inner" in quite
            the same way as the characteristically German
            Consciousness Soul.

            -- More, there is the question of the "Ahrimanized
            Consciousness Soul". I think that I first came
            across this concept in Stegmann's *The Other
            America*, but maybe also Prokofieff used it in
            relation to the dark initiatory aspects of
            Bolshevism. Anyway, I'm guessing that the concept
            came originally from Steiner. And it is a
            difficult concept, even more so than *instinctive
            Consciousness Soul*. As I understand it,
            *Ahrimanized Consciousness Soul* refers to the
            soul-state in which instinctive thinking and will
            rule the man without the mediation of the Ego-
            activity and the heart-feelings. This kind of
            thinking is highly intelligent but not infused
            with the will and consciousness of the Ego; it is
            "cold". And without the involvement of the Ego,
            the "lower instincts" hold sway over the conduct
            of life. -- And since America is especially
            Ahrimanic, does the British "instinctive
            Consciousness Soul" tend to become "Ahrimanized"
            especially in (North) America? And does the
            highly Ahrimanic computer (developed and woven
            into the Internet mainly in America) inherently
            work to Ahrimanize the Consciousness Soul?

            -- Now, as to my experience of the Consciousness
            Soul: I'll begin with this snip from Steiner's
            explication of the concept in *Theosophy*:

            "By causing the self-existent true and good to
            come to life in his inner being, man raises
            himself above the mere sentient soul. . . . In so
            far as the soul lives in this light, it is a
            participant in the eternal and unites its
            existence with it. What the soul carries within
            itself of the true and the good is immortal in it.
            Let us call what shines forth in the soul as
            eternal, the consciousness soul. . . . The kernel
            of human consciousness, that is, the soul within
            the soul, is what is here meant by consciousness
            soul. The consciousness soul is thus distinguished
            as a member of the soul distinct from the
            intellectual soul, which is still entangled in the
            sensations, impulses and passions. Everyone knows
            how a man at first counts as true what he prefers
            in his feelings and desires. Only that truth is
            permanent, however, that has freed itself from all
            flavor of such sympathy and antipathy of feeling.
            The truth is true even if all personal feelings
            revolt against it. That part of the soul in which
            this truth lives will be called consciousness
            soul."

            And Steiner states the matter succinctly here:

            "(...) the sentient soul, the most dull, living
            almost entirely in the subconscious; the
            intellectual soul which still develops without
            full consciousness, still having an instinctive
            nature; and finally the consciousness soul, which
            experiences the Ego [das Ich] in full
            consciousness, which emancipates the Ego from the
            life of the body, where intelligence no longer
            appears instinctively but, emancipated, confronts
            things critically."
            [GA 73 - November 7, 1917; quoted in Yahoo
            Anthroposophy <Re: A Moral reckoning>]

            Here Steiner is not talking about the instinctive,
            "outer" Consciousness Soul; he is talking about
            the inner aspect which comes to manifestation only
            by the activity of the Ego. For me, the key idea
            is: "The truth is true even if all personal
            feelings revolt against it."

            The Consciousness Soul brings about scientific
            culture because it (ideally) seeks objective truth
            regardless of desires and prejudices. In
            experiments the facts are the facts whether or not
            we like them. In logical-mathematica l thinking
            the mind must follow the dictates of the objective
            unfolding of understanding of meanings, whether or
            not we like the way those thoughts lead us.

            In my experience, when I think in accordance with
            the demands of the thoughts themselves, regardless
            of my wishes, I am in the "Consciousness Soul", as
            I understand Steiner's definition. Thus my
            consciousness rises out of the Intellectual Soul,
            in which my thoughts are led, and thus falsified,
            by wishes, fears, desires, etc. I believe that I
            have pretty well permeated myself with the
            realization of the objectivity of Truth; I can
            (only usually?) approach a question with a
            willingness to follow the facts and the thoughts
            where they lead, regardless of my prejudices.
            Some other people might smile at this statement,
            but I do believe that it is mostly true. Of
            course I realize that the maintenance of this
            attitude in practice must be an ongoing battle
            that depends upon self-awareness. And of course
            it helps to see myself as others see me, to get
            "feedback" from other people, and although this
            process can be uncomfortable, even shocking, it
            can greatly increase self-*consciousness *.

            The increase in self-awareness, the emergence of
            subconscious forces into consciousness, seems to
            be another aspect of the manifestation of the
            Consciousness Soul in mass-culture. We know how
            psychology has entered into the general culture;
            we even have the term *psycho-babble* . The "depth
            psychology" apparently was developed first in
            Central Europe, mainly by Freud and his cohorts,
            but has spread far beyond professional circles
            into the "educated" public throughout the West, at
            least -- and even into the not-so-educated.
            Surely psychology, in many and various
            permutations and combinations, has become an
            integral part of modern culture; people are
            "working on themselves". Steiner may have snorted
            at psychoanalysis as "dilettantism" ; nevertheless
            it would seem to me that the spread of
            psychological concepts and practices is very much
            increasing people's self-awareness and is thus
            serving the manifestation of the Consciousness
            Soul. As the subconscious comes into
            consciousness people can become aware of what they
            are doing and why they are doing it, and then, and
            only then, can they act freely, in the sense of
            *inward freedom*.

            I'll say that I have done some "work on myself" in
            this sense, both alone and in "group work", but
            most of the self-work has been, and continues to
            be, meditation and "exercises" as Steiner taught.
            Well, maybe not quite as he taught, but rather as
            I make use of his teaching, perhaps ineptly. The
            most persistent of my exercises is the practice of
            concentrated, meditative thinking. When I am able
            to do this fairly successfully, however rarely
            that may be, I move into the realm of "living
            thinking" -- as I understand it to be taught in
            *PoF*. The process of thinking moves into present
            consciousness, and thus I live, however briefly,
            in the "Spirit Self", as I understand that term.

            But, as I hinted with my reference to my ADD, I
            have a hard time concentrating; always have had.
            My mind wants to run away from me, or with me.
            I'm a bit of a "scatterbrain" ; I'm impractical; I
            have a hard time bearing down and getting work
            done, especially if that work involves maintaining
            a consistent effort over time. I try to think,
            but perhaps more often than not, I will slip into
            mere fantasy. After many years of work with
            (attempted) meditation, I'm not quite as hopeless
            about all this as I used to be, but still I'm far
            from consistently attaining the kind of
            concentration and self-control that Steiner
            teaches. But I do have experience, conscious
            awareness, of the process of transition from
            runaway, wishful pseudo-thinking (Intellectual
            Soul) to objective, logical thinking
            (Consciousness Soul) to willed thinking in present
            consciousness (Spirit Self). There's no clear
            demarcation among these states of consciousness;
            they overlap and slip into one another.

            -- I'm talking about myself because you asked me
            about my own experience. But to bring the
            discussion back to the question of the effect of
            the Internet on consciousness:

            Here's a very different perspective from that of
            the *Atlantic* article; again non-Anthro but still
            thought-provoking: A few years ago the book
            *Everything Bad is Good for You* came out. (Here
            are a few online reviews:

            <http://www.newyorke r.com/archive/ 2005/05/16/ 050516crbo_ books?printable= true>

            <http://kottke. org/05/05/ everything- bad-is-good- for-you>

            <http://internetduct tape.com/ 2008/01/04/ book-review- everything- bad-is-good- for-you-by- steven-johnson>

            <http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Everything_ Bad_Is_Good_ For_You>)

            This book presents evidence that modern
            electro-virtual culture is actually making us
            smarter. And in a way, I suppose that's true;
            there's a flip side of every coin. But smarter
            is not necessarily better. After all, Ahriman
            is supremely intelligent, but nevertheless is
            in futile detachment from and opposition to
            Reality. Is computer technology making us more
            intelligent, but only with an "Ahrimanic"
            intelligence -- that is, automatic and
            disconnected from the activity of the true Ego?

            And here is an Anthro perspective, a passage from
            the Emberson book that I already mentioned:

            <ReclaimYourSoul. org - The Future of Black Technologies>

            Just one sentence excerpted: "The great danger is
            that the Ahrimanic world will take hold of the
            human will and human beings will completely lose
            their bearing among the demonic powers that are
            present in the products of technology."

            We and future generations are, inevitably, to be
            immersed into an increasingly Ahrimanic world;
            computer technology is a big part of this trend.
            Ahriman will incarnate, but also the Christ
            approaches in the new *parousia*. How can we
            receive what we need of what Ahriman brings us
            without our being overwhelmed by too much of
            it?

            It's a huge subject; someone could write a book on
            it. And you could take the discussion in many
            different directions from here. There's the
            question of the relation of the inner and outer
            aspects of the Consciousness Soul. There's the
            question of differences and interrelations of the
            instinctive Consciousness Soul, the Ahrimanized
            Consciousness Soul, and the free, Ego-willed
            Consciousness Soul. There are the questions of
            the Consciousness Soul in individual development,
            in socio-cultural evolution, and in world-karma.
            There's the question of how the Consciousness Soul
            develops in different peoples, different cultures,
            different parts of the world. -- And over and in
            all these, there is the question of the effects of
            technology, especially of the computer and the
            Internet.

            Robert Mason

          • carol
            Robert: And does the highly Ahrimanic computer (developed and woven into the Internet mainly in America) inherently work to Ahrimanize the Consciousness Soul
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 14, 2008

              Robert: "And does the highly Ahrimanic computer (developed and woven into the Internet mainly in America) inherently work to Ahrimanize the Consciousness Soul "

              Robert, when looking to see if this statement applies- whether it can be seen to be true, I  can find plenty of evidence to the effect that it is a direct source for the cultivation of a highly Ahrimanized human experience.

              Were one to see if the 'highly Ahrimanic computer' can still be ustilized to form 'centers' for the cultivation of the consciousness soul, to date this can still be found to be true. to varying degrees. However, on this 'side of the coin' an individual would be found needing to call forth more 'self willed forces of discernment and thought.', more personal focus, than would be found to be the case on the other 'side'.

              This other would be seen to require of an individual ' more self indulgence, arrogance and attachment to superficiality'.

              ( selfish egoism in opposition to striving individualism?)

              The fact that 'organized' sabotage is known to be used to interfere in the healthy human sharing/expressing of information; in the sharing of  developed ideas and ideals, over the internet, is a sign that human beings are of using the internet towards a collective spiritual advancement, on varying levels,  up and against  the interests of materialism..  This is a bit of how I see it.

              Robert: " Steiner may have snorted at psychoanalysis as "dilettantism"; nevertheless it would seem to me that the spread of psychological concepts and practices is very much
              increasing people's self-awareness and is thus serving the manifestation of the Consciousness Soul.

              As the subconscious comes into consciousness people can become aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it, and then, and only then, can they act freely, in the sense of *inward freedom*."

              I think this would have to depend on which 'side of the coin' an individual finds him/herself for the statement to be true.

              Many popular magazines and media sources do quite easily play on the ability of  modern day man to engage psychological concepts for personal analysis ex: what foods does YOUR 'selfish individuality' NEED? What car does your 'selfish individuality' DESERVE? What injustice does this news fact reveal, in juxoposition to YOUR underlying right to comfort and superficiality and outright selfishness, in your immediate circumstances, with your country of residence in mind?

              On the other hand, for the individual who wishes to break free of the bonds of superficiality, 'psychology' can act as a buffer against expressed opposition to a life path expressing 'true individual freedom'. ex. What do you mean, I can't be completely truthful and honest with myself, with my children? Would you like me to list the benefits of 'non evasive' observation for individual health, for hamonious relationships, for scientific observation, in developing study habits etc...

              ...Just a couple of points I thought to develop on. Carol.


              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
              >
              > (note: This the the first I've gotten online
              > since Sunday, so I wrote this without taking
              > into account the recent discussion.)
              >
              > To Starman, who wrote:
              >
              > >>So, let's have a discussion. First, discussing
              > things with each other could start with
              > acknowledging names. I do have one. You call
              > yourself Mason and I call myself Starman. So you
              > could start by writing to me as an individual.<<
              >
              > Robert writes:
              >
              > I was being a little playful with the asterisks.
              > After all, *Starman* isn't your real name, and I
              > thought that you would recall that I had chided
              > you about it before; it seems a little silly to
              > me, and the asterisks even sillier. And you do
              > use the asterisks as a signature of sorts, so I
              > was using them to engage in some light tweaking.
              > But if you don't have a sense of humor about it
              > all, I'll use *Starman*.
              >
              > Starman wrote:
              >
              > >>Next, how do you experience the consciousness
              > soul, before we want to discuss the effects of
              > something or other on it? What is it to you? How
              > do you sense it or know it?<<
              >
              > Robert writes:
              >
              > The thrust of my question wasn't about my own
              > experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this
              > is a related question. I was mostly, vaguely,
              > groping toward a question about the Consciousness
              > Soul in contemporary world evolution. As I
              > understand the situation: -- We live in the age of
              > the emerging manifestation of the Consciousness
              > Soul throughout mankind; our culture and now our
              > whole environment are shaped by this emergence.
              > It began in Europe, and is now sweeping over the
              > world.
              >
              > Steiner tells us that the Consciousness Soul
              > emerges instinctively in the English-speaking
              > peoples. (See GA 186; partly published as *The
              > Challenge of the Times; also this online:
              > <Social and Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being>)
              > This idea is paradoxical, almost self-
              > contradictory: Instincts are by definition
              > unconscious; how can consciousness come about
              > through unconsciousness?
              >
              > Instincts are expressions of that which is generic
              > in man; when acting from them one is being "self-
              > seeking", as Steiner puts it. It seems that the
              > human individual asserts himself in a semi-
              > conscious, egotistical way -- paradoxically by
              > force of what is *not* individual in him: his
              > instincts. Obviously, this "instinctive
              > Consciousness Soul" is not what Steiner was
              > teaching in *PoF*. "Egotism" doesn't come from
              > the true Ego.
              >
              > I understand Steiner as saying that it is
              > primarily the *outer aspect* of the Consciousness
              > Soul that is instinctive in the English-speaking
              > peoples. I understand this "outer aspect" to be
              > tendency of the human individual to break out of
              > his primeval submergence in this socio-political
              > culture and to stand on his own two feet. I think
              > that we can see this tendency manifesting in
              > British (and derivatively American) history as the
              > demand for individual rights (free speech, freedom
              > of religion, freedom from arbitrary searches and
              > seizures, and so on) and the institution of
              > representative government. And we can see these
              > tendencies spreading over the world, sometimes in
              > governments recognizable as "democratic", sometime
              > merely as lip-service to those principles. But
              > even the fact non-democratic rulers seem to see
              > the need for this lip-service shows the power of
              > the "democratic" idea in our times. -- From the
              > lecture linked above:
              >
              > "We find a special disposition, a special mission
              > for all who speak English by nature (single cases
              > may be different) â€" a disposition for the
              > cultivation of the Consciousness Soul. This
              > disposition expresses itself in not detaching from
              > the soul its characteristic quality of
              > intelligence, but connecting this intelligence
              > naturally, instinctively, with events in the
              > world. To naturally, even instinctively, place
              > oneself in the life of the world as a
              > consciousness soul individual is the task of the
              > English-speaking people. The expanse and greatness
              > of the British Empire rests on this quality.
              > Indeed herein lies the original phenomenon behind
              > the expansion of the British Empire â€" that which
              > is hidden in the impulses of its people exactly
              > coincided with the inner impulses of the age."
              >
              > I also understand Steiner as saying that the
              > Germans have a special talent for developing the
              > inner aspect of the Consciousness Soul, though not
              > quite as instinctively as the English develop the
              > outer. In the Germans the "Ego", *das Ich*, comes
              > to the fore; the Consciousness Soul must be
              > developed through the activity of the Ego.
              > Steiner says that the Germans must be educated
              > toward the Consciousness Soul; only the
              > "intellectuals" develop the Consciousness Soul in
              > the realm of thinking. The "masses" who do not
              > become intellectuals have no instinct for
              > individuality as do the British, and thus they
              > have no inherent talent for "democratic" politics
              > as do the English-speaking peoples. (See the
              > lecture of Dec. 8, 1918 in *Challenge*.)
              >
              > Also, to my understanding, the emerging
              > Consciousness Soul has brought about our modern,
              > scientific-technological culture. This started in
              > Europe, but is now dominating the world even more
              > pervasively than British forms of politics. And
              > again, the British (and secondarily the Americans)
              > led the way. It is acknowledged that the
              > Industrial Revolution started in Britain before
              > spreading over the world. And it is the
              > specifically British kind of scientific
              > consciousness that dominates the world of science.
              > This is the "onlooker consciousness" (Ernst Lehrs'
              > term, I think) that leads naturally thought-
              > methods that conceptually dissolve the world into
              > materialistic phantasms such as "quarks" and so
              > on. (And, as we are aware, the characteristically
              > Germanic scientific consciousness manifested in
              > Goetheanism is almost unknown even in Germany.) I
              > would think that this dominant scientific
              > consciousness is *in some way* an inner aspect of
              > the instinctive Consciousness Soul; it "connect[s]
              > . . . intelligence naturally, instinctively, with
              > events in the world", and it arose most strongly
              > at first in the British/American culture. But
              > still (it would seem), it is not "inner" in quite
              > the same way as the characteristically German
              > Consciousness Soul.
              >
              > -- More, there is the question of the "Ahrimanized
              > Consciousness Soul". I think that I first came
              > across this concept in Stegmann's *The Other
              > America*, but maybe also Prokofieff used it in
              > relation to the dark initiatory aspects of
              > Bolshevism. Anyway, I'm guessing that the concept
              > came originally from Steiner. And it is a
              > difficult concept, even more so than *instinctive
              > Consciousness Soul*. As I understand it,
              > *Ahrimanized Consciousness Soul* refers to the
              > soul-state in which instinctive thinking and will
              > rule the man without the mediation of the Ego-
              > activity and the heart-feelings. This kind of
              > thinking is highly intelligent but not infused
              > with the will and consciousness of the Ego; it is
              > "cold". And without the involvement of the Ego,
              > the "lower instincts" hold sway over the conduct
              > of life. -- And since America is especially
              > Ahrimanic, does the British "instinctive
              > Consciousness Soul" tend to become "Ahrimanized"
              > especially in (North) America? And does the
              > highly Ahrimanic computer (developed and woven
              > into the Internet mainly in America) inherently
              > work to Ahrimanize the Consciousness Soul?
              >
              > -- Now, as to my experience of the Consciousness
              > Soul: I'll begin with this snip from Steiner's
              > explication of the concept in *Theosophy*:
              >
              > "By causing the self-existent true and good to
              > come to life in his inner being, man raises
              > himself above the mere sentient soul. . . . In so
              > far as the soul lives in this light, it is a
              > participant in the eternal and unites its
              > existence with it. What the soul carries within
              > itself of the true and the good is immortal in it.
              > Let us call what shines forth in the soul as
              > eternal, the consciousness soul. . . . The kernel
              > of human consciousness, that is, the soul within
              > the soul, is what is here meant by consciousness
              > soul. The consciousness soul is thus distinguished
              > as a member of the soul distinct from the
              > intellectual soul, which is still entangled in the
              > sensations, impulses and passions. Everyone knows
              > how a man at first counts as true what he prefers
              > in his feelings and desires. Only that truth is
              > permanent, however, that has freed itself from all
              > flavor of such sympathy and antipathy of feeling.
              > The truth is true even if all personal feelings
              > revolt against it. That part of the soul in which
              > this truth lives will be called consciousness
              > soul."
              >
              > And Steiner states the matter succinctly here:
              >
              > "(...) the sentient soul, the most dull, living
              > almost entirely in the subconscious; the
              > intellectual soul which still develops without
              > full consciousness, still having an instinctive
              > nature; and finally the consciousness soul, which
              > experiences the Ego [das Ich] in full
              > consciousness, which emancipates the Ego from the
              > life of the body, where intelligence no longer
              > appears instinctively but, emancipated, confronts
              > things critically."
              > [GA 73 - November 7, 1917; quoted in Yahoo
              > Anthroposophy <Re: A Moral reckoning>]
              >
              > Here Steiner is not talking about the instinctive,
              > "outer" Consciousness Soul; he is talking about
              > the inner aspect which comes to manifestation only
              > by the activity of the Ego. For me, the key idea
              > is: "The truth is true even if all personal
              > feelings revolt against it."
              >
              > The Consciousness Soul brings about scientific
              > culture because it (ideally) seeks objective truth
              > regardless of desires and prejudices. In
              > experiments the facts are the facts whether or not
              > we like them. In logical-mathematical thinking
              > the mind must follow the dictates of the objective
              > unfolding of understanding of meanings, whether or
              > not we like the way those thoughts lead us.
              >
              > In my experience, when I think in accordance with
              > the demands of the thoughts themselves, regardless
              > of my wishes, I am in the "Consciousness Soul", as
              > I understand Steiner's definition. Thus my
              > consciousness rises out of the Intellectual Soul,
              > in which my thoughts are led, and thus falsified,
              > by wishes, fears, desires, etc. I believe that I
              > have pretty well permeated myself with the
              > realization of the objectivity of Truth; I can
              > (only usually?) approach a question with a
              > willingness to follow the facts and the thoughts
              > where they lead, regardless of my prejudices.
              > Some other people might smile at this statement,
              > but I do believe that it is mostly true. Of
              > course I realize that the maintenance of this
              > attitude in practice must be an ongoing battle
              > that depends upon self-awareness. And of course
              > it helps to see myself as others see me, to get
              > "feedback" from other people, and although this
              > process can be uncomfortable, even shocking, it
              > can greatly increase self-*consciousness*.
              >
              > The increase in self-awareness, the emergence of
              > subconscious forces into consciousness, seems to
              > be another aspect of the manifestation of the
              > Consciousness Soul in mass-culture. We know how
              > psychology has entered into the general culture;
              > we even have the term *psycho-babble*. The "depth
              > psychology" apparently was developed first in
              > Central Europe, mainly by Freud and his cohorts,
              > but has spread far beyond professional circles
              > into the "educated" public throughout the West, at
              > least -- and even into the not-so-educated.
              > Surely psychology, in many and various
              > permutations and combinations, has become an
              > integral part of modern culture; people are
              > "working on themselves". Steiner may have snorted
              > at psychoanalysis as "dilettantism"; nevertheless
              > it would seem to me that the spread of
              > psychological concepts and practices is very much
              > increasing people's self-awareness and is thus
              > serving the manifestation of the Consciousness
              > Soul. As the subconscious comes into
              > consciousness people can become aware of what they
              > are doing and why they are doing it, and then, and
              > only then, can they act freely, in the sense of
              > *inward freedom*.
              >
              > I'll say that I have done some "work on myself" in
              > this sense, both alone and in "group work", but
              > most of the self-work has been, and continues to
              > be, meditation and "exercises" as Steiner taught.
              > Well, maybe not quite as he taught, but rather as
              > I make use of his teaching, perhaps ineptly. The
              > most persistent of my exercises is the practice of
              > concentrated, meditative thinking. When I am able
              > to do this fairly successfully, however rarely
              > that may be, I move into the realm of "living
              > thinking" -- as I understand it to be taught in
              > *PoF*. The process of thinking moves into present
              > consciousness, and thus I live, however briefly,
              > in the "Spirit Self", as I understand that term.
              >
              > But, as I hinted with my reference to my ADD, I
              > have a hard time concentrating; always have had.
              > My mind wants to run away from me, or with me.
              > I'm a bit of a "scatterbrain"; I'm impractical; I
              > have a hard time bearing down and getting work
              > done, especially if that work involves maintaining
              > a consistent effort over time. I try to think,
              > but perhaps more often than not, I will slip into
              > mere fantasy. After many years of work with
              > (attempted) meditation, I'm not quite as hopeless
              > about all this as I used to be, but still I'm far
              > from consistently attaining the kind of
              > concentration and self-control that Steiner
              > teaches. But I do have experience, conscious
              > awareness, of the process of transition from
              > runaway, wishful pseudo-thinking (Intellectual
              > Soul) to objective, logical thinking
              > (Consciousness Soul) to willed thinking in present
              > consciousness (Spirit Self). There's no clear
              > demarcation among these states of consciousness;
              > they overlap and slip into one another.
              >
              > -- I'm talking about myself because you asked me
              > about my own experience. But to bring the
              > discussion back to the question of the effect of
              > the Internet on consciousness:
              >
              > Here's a very different perspective from that of
              > the *Atlantic* article; again non-Anthro but still
              > thought-provoking: A few years ago the book
              > *Everything Bad is Good for You* came out. (Here
              > are a few online reviews:
              >
              > <http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/16/050516crbo_books?printable=true>
              >
              > <http://kottke.org/05/05/everything-bad-is-good-for-you>
              >
              > <http://internetducttape.com/2008/01/04/book-review-everything-bad-is-good-for-you-by-steven-johnson>
              >
              > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_For_You>)
              >
              > This book presents evidence that modern
              > electro-virtual culture is actually making us
              > smarter. And in a way, I suppose that's true;
              > there's a flip side of every coin. But smarter
              > is not necessarily better. After all, Ahriman
              > is supremely intelligent, but nevertheless is
              > in futile detachment from and opposition to
              > Reality. Is computer technology making us more
              > intelligent, but only with an "Ahrimanic"
              > intelligence -- that is, automatic and
              > disconnected from the activity of the true Ego?
              >
              > And here is an Anthro perspective, a passage from
              > the Emberson book that I already mentioned:
              >
              > <ReclaimYourSoul.org - The Future of Black Technologies>
              >
              > Just one sentence excerpted: "The great danger is
              > that the Ahrimanic world will take hold of the
              > human will and human beings will completely lose
              > their bearing among the demonic powers that are
              > present in the products of technology."
              >
              > We and future generations are, inevitably, to be
              > immersed into an increasingly Ahrimanic world;
              > computer technology is a big part of this trend.
              > Ahriman will incarnate, but also the Christ
              > approaches in the new *parousia*. How can we
              > receive what we need of what Ahriman brings us
              > without our being overwhelmed by too much of
              > it?
              >
              > It's a huge subject; someone could write a book on
              > it. And you could take the discussion in many
              > different directions from here. There's the
              > question of the relation of the inner and outer
              > aspects of the Consciousness Soul. There's the
              > question of differences and interrelations of the
              > instinctive Consciousness Soul, the Ahrimanized
              > Consciousness Soul, and the free, Ego-willed
              > Consciousness Soul. There are the questions of
              > the Consciousness Soul in individual development,
              > in socio-cultural evolution, and in world-karma.
              > There's the question of how the Consciousness Soul
              > develops in different peoples, different cultures,
              > different parts of the world. -- And over and in
              > all these, there is the question of the effects of
              > technology, especially of the computer and the
              > Internet.
              >
              > Robert Mason
              >

            • Durward Starman
              To Starman, who wrote: You call yourself Mason and I call myself Starman. So you could start by writing to me as an individual.
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 14, 2008
                To Starman, who wrote:
                 You call yourself Mason and I call myself Starman. So you
                could start by writing to me as an individual.< <

                Robert writes:
                I was being a little playful with the asterisks.
                After all, *Starman* isn't your real name, and I
                thought that you would recall that I had chided
                you about it before; it seems a little silly to
                me, and the asterisks even sillier. And you do
                use the asterisks as a signature of sorts, so I
                was using them to engage in some light tweaking.
                But if you don't have a sense of humor about it
                all, I'll use *Starman*.

                *******Sorry, Robert, I didn't get that it was a joke. Well, on the internet we have no way of knowing what someone's name really is, so I address people by whatever name they're using.
                 
                    As to the asterisks, they were adopted by me for use when replying to someone, to mark off what I'm saying as opposed to my quoting them.
                 

                Starman wrote:
                >> how do you experience the consciousness soul, before we want to discuss the effects of
                something or other on it? What is it to you? How do you sense it or know it?<<

                Robert writes:
                The thrust of my question wasn't about my own experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this
                is a related question. I was mostly, vaguely, groping toward a question about the Consciousness Soul in contemporary world evolution...
                 
                 
                 
                *******Well, see, I'm afraid I must decline to discuss spirit-science things on that basis, because, as I see it, that's not having a spiritual-scientific discussion at all. The German anthroposophists are sick of "Herr Dr. Steiner hatt gesage" ("Dr. Steiner said...") and I think justifiably so, but that's all you have if you aren't working towards direct knowledge yourself.
                 
                   But we all HAVE direct experience of the soul, so why should we start speculating without coming to understand what we're talking about first?  What good would discussing the 'effects of something on colors' be if you couldn't see colors?
                 
                   To work with spirit-science, we have to take steps towards having direct experience ourselves. Not everyone can directly experience it all, but the first chapter of Theosophy is all you need to work with to experience the three parts of your soul directly. Then, the early lecture-cycles "Paths of Experience" and "Metamorphoses of the Soul", which were called "Cycle A" by the early anthroposophists because they're so fundamental after the written works, are excellent at leading you to recognize the three souls in your breathing experience and life experiences. We could read them together online here.
                 
                   If the discussion is, "Is the internet good or bad for people?", or "good or bad for the mind?", fine. But if you want to use the "consciousness soul", well, I think everyone would agree that people would first have to know what it IS to have any intelligent discussion of it, surely.
                 
                 

                >>Steiner tells us that the Consciousness Soul
                emerges instinctively in the English-speaking
                peoples. (See GA 186; partly published as *The
                Challenge of the Times; also this online:
                <Social and Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being>)
                This idea is paradoxical, almost self-
                contradictory: Instincts are by definition
                unconscious; how can consciousness come about
                through unconsciousness?
                Instincts are expressions of that which is generic
                in man...

                *******See, that's an example of "Dr. Steiner said". It's misleading because the German word he used was translated as "instincts". He knew that human beings have no instincts. An instinct by scientific definition is a COMPLEX behavior opattern that is UNLEARNED, and naturally occurs in ALL normal members of a species--- like the web-pattern of a spider or the salmon swimming back upstream to spawn. By that definition, we human beings have no instincts. We have URGES, but our behavior to satisfy them is all LEARNED. I'm sure he meant "urge", subconscious urges.


                -- Now, as to my experience of the Consciousness
                Soul: I'll begin with this snip from Steiner's
                explication of the concept in *Theosophy*:

                "By causing the self-existent true and good to
                come to life in his inner being, man raises
                himself above the mere sentient soul. . . . In so
                far as the soul lives in this light, it is a
                participant in the eternal and unites its
                existence with it. What the soul carries within
                itself of the true and the good is immortal in it.
                Let us call what shines forth in the soul as
                eternal, the consciousness soul. . . . The kernel
                of human consciousness, that is, the soul within
                the soul, is what is here meant by consciousness
                soul. The consciousness soul is thus distinguished
                as a member of the soul distinct from the
                intellectual soul, which is still entangled in the
                sensations, impulses and passions. Everyone knows
                how a man at first counts as true what he prefers
                in his feelings and desires. Only that truth is
                permanent, however, that has freed itself from all
                flavor of such sympathy and antipathy of feeling.
                The truth is true even if all personal feelings
                revolt against it. That part of the soul in which
                this truth lives will be called consciousness
                soul."
                ...For me, the key idea
                is: "The truth is true even if all personal
                feelings revolt against it."

                The Consciousness Soul brings about scientific
                culture because it (ideally) seeks objective truth
                regardless of desires and prejudices. In
                experiments the facts are the facts whether or not
                we like them. In logical-mathematica l thinking
                the mind must follow the dictates of the objective
                unfolding of understanding of meanings, whether or
                not we like the way those thoughts lead us.

                In my experience, when I think in accordance with
                the demands of the thoughts themselves, regardless
                of my wishes, I am in the "Consciousness Soul", as
                I understand Steiner's definition. Thus my
                consciousness rises out of the Intellectual Soul,
                in which my thoughts are led, and thus falsified,
                by wishes, fears, desires, etc. I believe that I
                have pretty well permeated myself with the
                realization of the objectivity of Truth; I can
                (only usually?) approach a question with a
                willingness to follow the facts and the thoughts
                where they lead, regardless of my prejudices.
                Some other people might smile at this statement,
                but I do believe that it is mostly true. Of
                course I realize that the maintenance of this
                attitude in practice must be an ongoing battle
                that depends upon self-awareness. And of course
                it helps to see myself as others see me, to get
                "feedback" from other people, and although this
                process can be uncomfortable, even shocking, it
                can greatly increase self-*consciousness *.

                ******This is good for a start but I'm sure anyone reading this discussion who's a beginner at anthroposophy would probably have a lot more questions to ask before feeling like they know what's meant by "consciousness soul" now. It would probably be better to start a few pages back in Theosophy, with what's the soul compared to the body and then the 3 parts of the soul. And this is so fundamental to anthroposophy.
                 


                >I'll say that I have done some "work on myself" in
                this sense, both alone and in "group work", but
                most of the self-work has been, and continues to
                be, meditation and "exercises" as Steiner taught.
                Well, maybe not quite as he taught, but rather as
                I make use of his teaching, perhaps ineptly. The
                most persistent of my exercises is the practice of
                concentrated, meditative thinking. When I am able
                to do this fairly successfully, however rarely
                that may be, I move into the realm of "living
                thinking" -- as I understand it to be taught in
                *PoF*. The process of thinking moves into present
                consciousness, and thus I live, however briefly,
                in the "Spirit Self", as I understand that term.

                But, as I hinted with my reference to my ADD, I
                have a hard time concentrating; always have had.
                My mind wants to run away from me, or with me.
                I'm a bit of a "scatterbrain" ; I'm impractical; I
                have a hard time bearing down and getting work
                done, especially if that work involves maintaining
                a consistent effort over time. I try to think,
                but perhaps more often than not, I will slip into
                mere fantasy. After many years of work with
                (attempted) meditation, I'm not quite as hopeless
                about all this as I used to be, but still I'm far
                from consistently attaining the kind of
                concentration and self-control that Steiner
                teaches. But I do have experience, conscious
                awareness, of the process of transition from
                runaway, wishful pseudo-thinking (Intellectual
                Soul) to objective, logical thinking
                (Consciousness Soul) to willed thinking in present
                consciousness (Spirit Self). There's no clear
                demarcation among these states of consciousness;
                they overlap and slip into one another.

                -- I'm talking about myself because you asked me
                about my own experience. But to bring the
                discussion back to the question of the effect of
                the Internet on consciousness...

                *******Sure, and I think that grounds the conversation a bit. But they say you have ADD? How on earth could you write such a long e-mail? I've known people with ADD, they can't write something like this---sometimes, can't even read a book at all. Doesn't seem that bad in your case.
                 
                   Well, most of us have found that meditation doesn't come easily. I'm sure lots of others here could chime in.
                 
                   But the subject wasn't supposed to be the effect of the internet on consciousness, but specifically on the "consciousness soul." Big difference.
                 
                -starman

                www.DrStarman.com






                 








                .



                Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest Find out how.
              • Robert Mason
                ... is known to be used to interfere in the healthy human sharing/expressing of information; in the sharing of developed ideas and ideals, over the internet,
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
                  To Carol, who wrote:

                  >> . . . . The fact that 'organized' sabotage
                  is known to be used to interfere in the healthy
                  human sharing/expressing of information; in the
                  sharing of developed ideas and ideals, over
                  the internet, is a sign that human beings are
                  of using the internet towards a collective
                  spiritual advancement, on varying levels, up
                  and against the interests of materialism.. .
                  .<<

                  Robert writes:

                  So it would seem. The "powers that be" now
                  mainly use disinformation and sabotage against
                  the free flow of information of the Internet
                  when this information is bringing about a
                  raising of consciousness that is harmful from
                  "their" point of view. And they are preparing
                  moves toward outright censorship and denial of
                  service. Thus, THEY do implicitly recognize
                  some beneficial effects of the Internet.

                  Robert M
                • Robert Mason
                  ... America as having the selected subject noted below, but perhaps I ve simply overlooked it.
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
                    To Sheila, who wrote:

                    >>Robert, I don't think I recall "The Other
                    America" as having the selected subject noted
                    below, but perhaps I've simply overlooked it.<<

                    Robert writes:

                    I'm not sure that Stegmann used the term
                    *Ahrimanized Consciousness Soul*; I don't have
                    the text to check it. I looked in my notes,
                    and he does discuss (in Part One, chapter 5)
                    how, when cold thinking meets hot will without
                    the mediation of the heart-Ego, the clash
                    brings about a kind of war-of-all-against-all.
                    I also seem to recall that he relates this idea
                    to how, on the North American continent, the
                    clash of cold, Arctic air (coming down directly
                    without interruption from mountains) against
                    hot, humid air from the Gulf causes violent
                    storms and tornadoes.

                    I'm pretty sure that I have read that term
                    somewhere. Maybe it's Prokofieff's coinage and
                    not Steiner's?

                    Sheila wrote:

                    >> . . . . It seems to me when/if one is able
                    to reach that point in evolution from which one
                    is able to feel in ALL aspects exactly and
                    completely what another soul feels, one is
                    experiencing the Consciousness Soul.<<

                    Robert writes:

                    To my understanding, the tendency of the
                    Consciousness Soul is just in the opposite
                    direction: As one realizes one's own,
                    independent individuality, one is (at first)
                    more isolated within oneself, more cut off from
                    "other souls". For instance, in "Social and
                    Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being (12th
                    December, 1918; Bern; GA 186) Steiner says:

                    "Well, we live in the age of the Spiritual or
                    Consciousness Soul in which man must become
                    independent. But on what does this depend? It
                    depends on people's ability during our Fifth
                    Post-Atlantean Period to become self-assertive,
                    to not allow themselves to be put to sleep. It
                    is the anti-social forces which require
                    development in this time, for consciousness to
                    be present. It would not be possible for
                    mankind in the present to accomplish its task
                    if just these anti-social forces did not become
                    ever more powerful; they are indeed the pillars
                    on which personal independence rests. At
                    present, humanity has no idea how much more
                    powerful anti-social impulses must become,
                    right on until the 30th century. For men to
                    progress properly, anti-social forces must
                    develop."

                    As I understand the matter, the ability to feel
                    in empathy with other souls is more
                    characteristic of the Spirit Self, which can be
                    developed in a healthy way only *after* the
                    independent individuality is realized in the
                    Consciousness Soul. Thus, the instinctive
                    social sense of the East Slavs is a
                    foreshadowing of the future role they will play
                    in the coming cultural epoch of the Spirit
                    Self.

                    Robert M
                  • Robert Mason
                    [Robert had written: The thrust of my question wasn t about my own experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this is a related question. I was mostly,
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
                      [Robert had written:
                      "The thrust of my question wasn't about my own
                      experience of the Consciousness Soul, though
                      this is a related question. I was mostly,
                      vaguely, groping toward a question about the
                      Consciousness Soul in contemporary world
                      evolution..."]

                      To Starman, who wrote:

                      >>Well, see, I'm afraid I must decline to
                      discuss spirit-science things on that basis,
                      because, as I see it, that's not having a
                      spiritual-scientific discussion at all. The
                      German anthroposophists are sick of "Herr Dr.
                      Steiner hatt gesage" ("Dr. Steiner said...")
                      and I think justifiably so, but that's all you
                      have if you aren't working towards direct
                      knowledge yourself.

                      Robert writes:

                      But I am working toward direct knowledge. You
                      asked me about my experience, and so I told you
                      about it, briefly. And I briefly outlined my
                      understanding of the Consciousness Soul in
                      society, relating Steiner's concepts to the
                      generally known facts. The Steiner-saids are
                      not all that I have, but surely Steiner's words
                      must be taken into account: *Consciousness
                      Soul* is his concept, after all.

                      Starman wrote:

                      >>But we all HAVE direct experience of the
                      soul, so why should we start speculating
                      without coming to understand what we're talking
                      about first? What good would discussing the
                      'effects of something on colors' be if you
                      couldn't see colors?

                      Robert writes:

                      But I wasn't just "speculating"; I did *start*
                      to show the "colors", both in my experience and
                      in a wider context.

                      Starman wrote:

                      >>To work with spirit-science, we have to take
                      steps towards having direct experience
                      ourselves. Not everyone can directly experience
                      it all, but the first chapter of Theosophy is
                      all you need to work with to experience the
                      three parts of your soul directly. Then, the
                      early lecture-cycles "Paths of Experience" and
                      "Metamorphoses of the Soul", which were called
                      "Cycle A" by the early anthroposophists because
                      they're so fundamental after the written works,
                      are excellent at leading you to recognize the
                      three souls in your breathing experience and
                      life experiences. We could read them together
                      online here.

                      >>If the discussion is, "Is the internet good
                      or bad for people?", or "good or bad for the
                      mind?", fine. But if you want to use the
                      "consciousness soul", well, I think everyone
                      would agree that people would first have to
                      know what it IS to have any intelligent
                      discussion of it, surely.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      I have to say that this response is puzzling
                      and frustrating for me. First, you rejected my
                      original post because it allegedly had "nothing
                      whatever to do with anthropsophy". Then, you
                      "decline to discuss" because, you imply, I
                      brought too much Steiner-said, but then you
                      want for us to study more Steiner-said. But I
                      already brought in the core definition from one
                      of the texts you recommend, but still you scold
                      me. This is confusing, to put it mildly.

                      But, if you want to study more texts, then you
                      could show us what Steiner-saids you mean and
                      how they relate to the original question. I've
                      outlined my approach, but you haven't really
                      shown us yours. I feel that the next move is
                      still up to you. You could go into those texts
                      and show us what you think they tell us about
                      the Consciousness Soul, and then maybe your
                      ideas about how the Internet affects it.

                      Starman wrote:

                      >>See, that's an example of "Dr. Steiner said".
                      It's misleading because the German word he used
                      was translated as "instincts". He knew that
                      human beings have no instincts. An instinct by
                      scientific definition is a COMPLEX behavior
                      opattern that is UNLEARNED, and naturally
                      occurs in ALL normal members of a species---
                      like the web-pattern of a spider or the salmon
                      swimming back upstream to spawn. By that
                      definition, we human beings have no instincts.
                      We have URGES, but our behavior to satisfy them
                      is all LEARNED. I'm sure he meant "urge",
                      subconscious urges.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      In my dictionary (Webster's 7th collegiate) the
                      first definition of *instinct* is:

                      "a natural aptitude, impulse, or capacity"

                      . . . then the second one (a) is more like the
                      scientific usage you indicated, but (b) is:

                      "behavior that is mediated by reactions below
                      the conscious level".

                      No, I don't agree that's too much Steiner-said,
                      and I think that the translator's choice of
                      *instinct* was well within the standard usage.
                      You might well explicate by pointing out that
                      RS was not speaking strictly in the scientific
                      sense that you described, but I see no good in
                      getting "anal-retentive" about it, and
                      especially not when the dictionary backs up
                      the translator. And BTW, *learned behavior*
                      is a tricky, dangerous concept in the
                      scientific context; if you're not careful
                      about it, that concept could pull you into
                      the deterministic suppositions of materialism.

                      And still the question remains: how does the
                      Internet (and technology in general) affect
                      this instinctive, "outer" Consciousness Soul?

                      Starman wrote:

                      >>This is good for a start but I'm sure anyone
                      reading this discussion who's a beginner at
                      anthroposophy would probably have a lot more
                      questions to ask before feeling like they know
                      what's meant by "consciousness soul" now. It
                      would probably be better to start a few pages
                      back in Theosophy, with what's the soul
                      compared to the body and then the 3 parts of
                      the soul. And this is so fundamental to
                      anthroposophy.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      OK, let 'em ask. And if you want to answer
                      with more Steiner-saids, that's OK too. But it
                      seems a little inconsistent, at the least, for
                      you to scold me when I bring in Steiner-saids
                      (and considering that the banner for this
                      e-list reads: "For discussion of the works of
                      Rudolf Steiner").

                      And it is especially baffling since I already
                      brought in Steiner's core definition of
                      *Consciousness Soul* and briefly discussed my
                      experience in relation to it. You seem to
                      think that my discussion was somehow
                      inadequate, but you don't say exactly how and
                      why. -- My reaction is: if you think it would
                      be better to start a few pages back, then show
                      us your "better"; don't just criticize and
                      leave us guessing.

                      Starman wrote:

                      >>Sure, and I think that grounds the
                      conversation a bit. But they say you have ADD?
                      How on earth could you write such a long e-
                      mail? I've known people with ADD, they can't
                      write something like this---sometimes, can't
                      even read a book at all. Doesn't seem that bad
                      in your case.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      You don't know how long and how much effort it
                      takes me to write a post like that (or this
                      one). And I surely have had trouble reading
                      books. Didn't finish many reading assignments
                      in high school, but I could still slide by.
                      But I couldn't slide by that way when I got to
                      the university. I might find myself having
                      scanned and turned 50 or 100 pages without my
                      conscious mind being involved at all; it was
                      somewhere else; didn't remember anything that I
                      had just "read". As you might imagine, I
                      didn't last long at the U.

                      And there is no "they". I use the term *ADD*
                      because it seems to pretty much fit my life-
                      story, according to the book *Scattered Minds*
                      by Gabor Mate. Also I fit many or most of the
                      criteria for ADD listed in that book. -- But
                      I’m 60 years old now, with all that learning-
                      experience, and much meditation behind me --
                      attempted, at least.

                      And you don't know how many projects I'm
                      leaving on the back burner because I got
                      interested in Hoffman's ideas. A trail of
                      unfinished projects behind in one's life-path
                      -- that's another symptom of ADD.

                      Starman wrote:

                      >>But the subject wasn't supposed to be the
                      effect of the internet on consciousness, but
                      specifically on the "consciousness soul." Big
                      difference.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      Again, this is perplexing to me; seems like a
                      nit-picky evasion. The Consciousness Soul is
                      surely a "subset" of consciousness, and it
                      would seem that something that affects
                      consciousness in general, in the age of the
                      Consciousness Soul, must therefore affect the
                      Consciousness Soul, at least in a general way
                      in the wider culture. And maybe even in an
                      individual way for those who are working on the
                      inner aspects of their own Consciousness Souls.

                      -- Overall: *Consciousness Soul* is Steiner's
                      concept; he coined it. I don't see how we
                      could understand the term without going into
                      some Steiner-saids, at least for starters. And
                      Steiner did use that concept to shed light on
                      facts of history that are generally known. One
                      need not rely on the Steiner-saids in a
                      dogmatic way; one can take the generally known
                      facts of history and see how they are explained
                      in an enlightening way by Steiner's concepts.
                      And likewise, one need not be dogmatic about
                      the Steiner-saids concerning the inner aspects
                      of the soul.

                      Strangely, it seems that you do something that
                      your *bête noire* Joel Wendt does: trying to
                      put down other people when they bring in a
                      Steiner quote, when all the while you are
                      bringing in plenty of Steiner-saids of your own
                      when they suit your purpose. Could some Wendt
                      have rubbed off on you, or do you react against
                      him so strongly because he personifies
                      something negative within you?

                      And I did read over your post to Mathew about
                      the Consciousness Soul. Obviously, you did
                      rely heavily on Steiner-saids, as well you
                      should when discussing Steiner's concepts (and
                      given Steiner's enlightening use of those
                      concepts to explain human-cultural facts), but
                      only implicitly, not explicitly. There was not
                      one proper quotation in your whole post. Now,
                      I don't mean to get "all anal" and nit-picky,
                      but this does raise questions of substance:
                      where does Steiner end and Starman begin, and
                      where Starman end and Steiner begin? You did
                      say some things that seem to me to be very un-
                      Steinerian; for instance:

                      >>When you start becoming aware of the spirit,
                      you no longer experience yourself just as a
                      separate ego in a world of objects. Instead,
                      the separateness vanishes . . . .<<

                      >>Another way you could say it is that with
                      only the intellectual soul you can be a
                      scientist, but when you start developing the
                      consciousness soul you have to start becoming a
                      spiritual scientist.<<

                      I don't know how those statements could be
                      consistent with Steiner's concept, but if you
                      think that they are, you could quote the
                      relevant Steiner-saids and try to show the
                      relation to your formulations. As it is, I
                      can't tell whether you conceive such statements
                      to be in agreement with Steiner, or whether you
                      are deliberately opposing Steiner. If you are
                      deliberately opposing Steiner's ideas, it might
                      help if you would say so explicitly and tell us
                      why.

                      Robert Mason
                    • Durward Starman
                      __*******, Well, this is a pretty good example of what s wrong with so-called anthroposophical discussion on the other lists, and why I don t waste any time
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
                        __*******,Well, this is a pretty good example of what's wrong with so-called 'anthroposophical' discussion on the other lists, and why I don't waste any time there. When I have the time to correct all the errors here and explain the many things that require it, I may do so, but I don't think others on the list would be helped by it to understand our subject better, or be very interested in it.  
                           Abstract thinking and regarding spirit-science as words in books is of very limited use in grasping even the most elementary things in it. It has to be grasped out of your life. Such direct experience is always possible if we don't bar our path to it.
                         
                           For instance, saying "consciousness soul" is "Steiner's concept" is like saying the Pythagorean theorem belonged only to Pythagoras and you'd have to quote him to understand it. This is false.
                         
                          We all experience the soul directly and need only correctly interpret our experience of it, as I've tried to indicate repeatedly.
                         
                          More some other time.
                         
                        -starman

                        www.DrStarman.com


                        To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                        From: robertsmason_99@...
                        Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:15:27 -0700
                        Subject: [steiner] Re: think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?

                        [Robert had written:
                        "The thrust of my question wasn't about my own
                        experience of the Consciousness Soul, though
                        this is a related question. I was mostly,
                        vaguely, groping toward a question about the
                        Consciousness Soul in contemporary world
                        evolution... "]

                        To Starman, who wrote:

                        >>Well, see, I'm afraid I must decline to
                        discuss spirit-science things on that basis,
                        because, as I see it, that's not having a
                        spiritual-scientifi c discussion at all. The
                        German anthroposophists are sick of "Herr Dr.
                        Steiner hatt gesage" ("Dr. Steiner said...")
                        and I think justifiably so, but that's all you
                        have if you aren't working towards direct
                        knowledge yourself.

                        Robert writes:

                        But I am working toward direct knowledge. You
                        asked me about my experience, and so I told you
                        about it, briefly. And I briefly outlined my
                        understanding of the Consciousness Soul in
                        society, relating Steiner's concepts to the
                        generally known facts. The Steiner-saids are
                        not all that I have, but surely Steiner's words
                        must be taken into account: *Consciousness
                        Soul* is his concept, after all.

                        Starman wrote:

                        >>But we all HAVE direct experience of the
                        soul, so why should we start speculating
                        without coming to understand what we're talking
                        about first? What good would discussing the
                        'effects of something on colors' be if you
                        couldn't see colors?

                        Robert writes:

                        But I wasn't just "speculating" ; I did *start*
                        to show the "colors", both in my experience and
                        in a wider context.

                        Starman wrote:

                        >>To work with spirit-science, we have to take
                        steps towards having direct experience
                        ourselves. Not everyone can directly experience
                        it all, but the first chapter of Theosophy is
                        all you need to work with to experience the
                        three parts of your soul directly. Then, the
                        early lecture-cycles "Paths of Experience" and
                        "Metamorphoses of the Soul", which were called
                        "Cycle A" by the early anthroposophists because
                        they're so fundamental after the written works,
                        are excellent at leading you to recognize the
                        three souls in your breathing experience and
                        life experiences. We could read them together
                        online here.

                        >>If the discussion is, "Is the internet good
                        or bad for people?", or "good or bad for the
                        mind?", fine. But if you want to use the
                        "consciousness soul", well, I think everyone
                        would agree that people would first have to
                        know what it IS to have any intelligent
                        discussion of it, surely.<<

                        Robert writes:

                        I have to say that this response is puzzling
                        and frustrating for me. First, you rejected my
                        original post because it allegedly had "nothing
                        whatever to do with anthropsophy" . Then, you
                        "decline to discuss" because, you imply, I
                        brought too much Steiner-said, but then you
                        want for us to study more Steiner-said. But I
                        already brought in the core definition from one
                        of the texts you recommend, but still you scold
                        me. This is confusing, to put it mildly.

                        But, if you want to study more texts, then you
                        could show us what Steiner-saids you mean and
                        how they relate to the original question. I've
                        outlined my approach, but you haven't really
                        shown us yours. I feel that the next move is
                        still up to you. You could go into those texts
                        and show us what you think they tell us about
                        the Consciousness Soul, and then maybe your
                        ideas about how the Internet affects it.

                        Starman wrote:

                        >>See, that's an example of "Dr. Steiner said".
                        It's misleading because the German word he used
                        was translated as "instincts". He knew that
                        human beings have no instincts. An instinct by
                        scientific definition is a COMPLEX behavior
                        opattern that is UNLEARNED, and naturally
                        occurs in ALL normal members of a species---
                        like the web-pattern of a spider or the salmon
                        swimming back upstream to spawn. By that
                        definition, we human beings have no instincts.
                        We have URGES, but our behavior to satisfy them
                        is all LEARNED. I'm sure he meant "urge",
                        subconscious urges.<<

                        Robert writes:

                        In my dictionary (Webster's 7th collegiate) the
                        first definition of *instinct* is:

                        "a natural aptitude, impulse, or capacity"

                        . . . then the second one (a) is more like the
                        scientific usage you indicated, but (b) is:

                        "behavior that is mediated by reactions below
                        the conscious level".

                        No, I don't agree that's too much Steiner-said,
                        and I think that the translator's choice of
                        *instinct* was well within the standard usage.
                        You might well explicate by pointing out that
                        RS was not speaking strictly in the scientific
                        sense that you described, but I see no good in
                        getting "anal-retentive" about it, and
                        especially not when the dictionary backs up
                        the translator. And BTW, *learned behavior*
                        is a tricky, dangerous concept in the
                        scientific context; if you're not careful
                        about it, that concept could pull you into
                        the deterministic suppositions of materialism.

                        And still the question remains: how does the
                        Internet (and technology in general) affect
                        this instinctive, "outer" Consciousness Soul?

                        Starman wrote:

                        >>This is good for a start but I'm sure anyone
                        reading this discussion who's a beginner at
                        anthroposophy would probably have a lot more
                        questions to ask before feeling like they know
                        what's meant by "consciousness soul" now. It
                        would probably be better to start a few pages
                        back in Theosophy, with what's the soul
                        compared to the body and then the 3 parts of
                        the soul. And this is so fundamental to
                        anthroposophy. <<

                        Robert writes:

                        OK, let 'em ask. And if you want to answer
                        with more Steiner-saids, that's OK too. But it
                        seems a little inconsistent, at the least, for
                        you to scold me when I bring in Steiner-saids
                        (and considering that the banner for this
                        e-list reads: "For discussion of the works of
                        Rudolf Steiner").

                        And it is especially baffling since I already
                        brought in Steiner's core definition of
                        *Consciousness Soul* and briefly discussed my
                        experience in relation to it. You seem to
                        think that my discussion was somehow
                        inadequate, but you don't say exactly how and
                        why. -- My reaction is: if you think it would
                        be better to start a few pages back, then show
                        us your "better"; don't just criticize and
                        leave us guessing.

                        Starman wrote:

                        >>Sure, and I think that grounds the
                        conversation a bit. But they say you have ADD?
                        How on earth could you write such a long e-
                        mail? I've known people with ADD, they can't
                        write something like this---sometimes, can't
                        even read a book at all. Doesn't seem that bad
                        in your case.<<

                        Robert writes:

                        You don't know how long and how much effort it
                        takes me to write a post like that (or this
                        one). And I surely have had trouble reading
                        books. Didn't finish many reading assignments
                        in high school, but I could still slide by.
                        But I couldn't slide by that way when I got to
                        the university. I might find myself having
                        scanned and turned 50 or 100 pages without my
                        conscious mind being involved at all; it was
                        somewhere else; didn't remember anything that I
                        had just "read". As you might imagine, I
                        didn't last long at the U.

                        And there is no "they". I use the term *ADD*
                        because it seems to pretty much fit my life-
                        story, according to the book *Scattered Minds*
                        by Gabor Mate. Also I fit many or most of the
                        criteria for ADD listed in that book. -- But
                        I’m 60 years old now, with all that learning-
                        experience, and much meditation behind me --
                        attempted, at least.

                        And you don't know how many projects I'm
                        leaving on the back burner because I got
                        interested in Hoffman's ideas. A trail of
                        unfinished projects behind in one's life-path
                        -- that's another symptom of ADD.

                        Starman wrote:

                        >>But the subject wasn't supposed to be the
                        effect of the internet on consciousness, but
                        specifically on the "consciousness soul." Big
                        difference.< <

                        Robert writes:

                        Again, this is perplexing to me; seems like a
                        nit-picky evasion. The Consciousness Soul is
                        surely a "subset" of consciousness, and it
                        would seem that something that affects
                        consciousness in general, in the age of the
                        Consciousness Soul, must therefore affect the
                        Consciousness Soul, at least in a general way
                        in the wider culture. And maybe even in an
                        individual way for those who are working on the
                        inner aspects of their own Consciousness Souls.

                        -- Overall: *Consciousness Soul* is Steiner's
                        concept; he coined it. I don't see how we
                        could understand the term without going into
                        some Steiner-saids, at least for starters. And
                        Steiner did use that concept to shed light on
                        facts of history that are generally known. One
                        need not rely on the Steiner-saids in a
                        dogmatic way; one can take the generally known
                        facts of history and see how they are explained
                        in an enlightening way by Steiner's concepts.
                        And likewise, one need not be dogmatic about
                        the Steiner-saids concerning the inner aspects
                        of the soul.

                        Strangely, it seems that you do something that
                        your *bête noire* Joel Wendt does: trying to
                        put down other people when they bring in a
                        Steiner quote, when all the while you are
                        bringing in plenty of Steiner-saids of your own
                        when they suit your purpose. Could some Wendt
                        have rubbed off on you, or do you react against
                        him so strongly because he personifies
                        something negative within you?

                        And I did read over your post to Mathew about
                        the Consciousness Soul. Obviously, you did
                        rely heavily on Steiner-saids, as well you
                        should when discussing Steiner's concepts (and
                        given Steiner's enlightening use of those
                        concepts to explain human-cultural facts), but
                        only implicitly, not explicitly. There was not
                        one proper quotation in your whole post. Now,
                        I don't mean to get "all anal" and nit-picky,
                        but this does raise questions of substance:
                        where does Steiner end and Starman begin, and
                        where Starman end and Steiner begin? You did
                        say some things that seem to me to be very un-
                        Steinerian; for instance:

                        >>When you start becoming aware of the spirit,
                        you no longer experience yourself just as a
                        separate ego in a world of objects. Instead,
                        the separateness vanishes . . . .<<

                        >>Another way you could say it is that with
                        only the intellectual soul you can be a
                        scientist, but when you start developing the
                        consciousness soul you have to start becoming a
                        spiritual scientist.<<

                        I don't know how those statements could be
                        consistent with Steiner's concept, but if you
                        think that they are, you could quote the
                        relevant Steiner-saids and try to show the
                        relation to your formulations. As it is, I
                        can't tell whether you conceive such statements
                        to be in agreement with Steiner, or whether you
                        are deliberately opposing Steiner. If you are
                        deliberately opposing Steiner's ideas, it might
                        help if you would say so explicitly and tell us
                        why.

                        Robert Mason


                        Post to steiner@egroups.comSearch the archives of the group at:
                        http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

                        Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                        http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html

                        ommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                        http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html

                        New business?
                        Get new customers.
                        List your web site
                        in Yahoo! Search.
                        All-Bran
                        Day 10 Club
                        on Yahoo! Groups
                        Feel better with fiber.
                        Check out the
                        Y! Groups blog
                        Stay up to speed
                        on all things Groups!
                        .
                         



                        Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to share. Get Ideas Here!
                      • Mathew Morrell
                        One of the elements that drew me to Anthroposophy is that it is 100% extroverted. That is to say, the purpose of Anthroposophy isn t to create more
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008

                          One of the elements that drew me to Anthroposophy is that it is 100% extroverted.  That is to say, the purpose of Anthroposophy isn't to create more abstraction in the world—i.e. to philosophize—but to apply spiritual principles externally to the physical world. 

                          Anthroposophy heals the earth of its afflictions, not through philosophy and abstraction, but through real applications of spiritual science. 

                          True expressions of Anthroposophy would be biodynamic agriculture, Anthroposophical medicine, Eurythmy, Woldorf education, Creative Speech (Chekhov Method), Social Finance, Goethean Science, etc. 

                          The abstract ground of Anthroposophy lies within the sphere of Theosophy, I believe—although I'm no expert in these matters. 

                          I would consider Theosophy, from what I've read, to be 100% introverted; it contains no practical, worldly aim.  Rather, its purpose is to provide a pure stream of Western esoteric knowledge, from which Anthroposophy draws upon in its manifold applications. 

                          The two branches are deeply related.


                           

                           

                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > __*******,
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Well, this is a pretty good example of what's wrong with so-called 'anthroposophical' discussion on the other lists, and why I don't waste any time there. When I have the time to correct all the errors here and explain the many things that require it, I may do so, but I don't think others on the list would be helped by it to understand our subject better, or be very interested in it.
                          >
                          > Abstract thinking and regarding spirit-science as words in books is of very limited use in grasping even the most elementary things in it. It has to be grasped out of your life. Such direct experience is always possible if we don't bar our path to it.
                          >
                          > For instance, saying "consciousness soul" is "Steiner's concept" is like saying the Pythagorean theorem belonged only to Pythagoras and you'd have to quote him to understand it. This is false.
                          >
                          > We all experience the soul directly and need only correctly interpret our experience of it, as I've tried to indicate repeatedly.
                          >
                          > More some other time.
                          >
                          > -starmanwww.DrStarman.com
                          >
                          > To: steiner@...: robertsmason_99@...: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:15:27 -0700Subject: [steiner] Re: think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Robert had written:"The thrust of my question wasn't about my own experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this is a related question. I was mostly, vaguely, groping toward a question about the Consciousness Soul in contemporary world evolution..."]To Starman, who wrote: >>Well, see, I'm afraid I must decline to discuss spirit-science things on that basis, because, as I see it, that's not having a spiritual-scientific discussion at all. The German anthroposophists are sick of "Herr Dr. Steiner hatt gesage" ("Dr. Steiner said...") and I think justifiably so, but that's all you have if you aren't working towards direct knowledge yourself. Robert writes:But I am working toward direct knowledge. You asked me about my experience, and so I told you about it, briefly. And I briefly outlined my understanding of the Consciousness Soul in society, relating Steiner's concepts to the generally known facts. The Steiner-saids are not all that I have, but surely Steiner's words must be taken into account: *Consciousness Soul* is his concept, after all.Starman wrote:>>But we all HAVE direct experience of the soul, so why should we start speculating without coming to understand what we're talking about first? What good would discussing the 'effects of something on colors' be if you couldn't see colors? Robert writes:But I wasn't just "speculating"; I did *start* to show the "colors", both in my experience and in a wider context.Starman wrote:>>To work with spirit-science, we have to take steps towards having direct experience ourselves. Not everyone can directly experience it all, but the first chapter of Theosophy is all you need to work with to experience the three parts of your soul directly. Then, the early lecture-cycles "Paths of Experience" and "Metamorphoses of the Soul", which were called "Cycle A" by the early anthroposophists because they're so fundamental after the written works, are excellent at leading you to recognize the three souls in your breathing experience and life experiences. We could read them together online here. >>If the discussion is, "Is the internet good or bad for people?", or "good or bad for the mind?", fine. But if you want to use the "consciousness soul", well, I think everyone would agree that people would first have to know what it IS to have any intelligent discussion of it, surely.<<Robert writes:I have to say that this response is puzzling and frustrating for me. First, you rejected my original post because it allegedly had "nothing whatever to do with anthropsophy". Then, you "decline to discuss" because, you imply, I brought too much Steiner-said, but then you want for us to study more Steiner-said. But I already brought in the core definition from one of the texts you recommend, but still you scold me. This is confusing, to put it mildly.But, if you want to study more texts, then you could show us what Steiner-saids you mean and how they relate to the original question. I've outlined my approach, but you haven't really shown us yours. I feel that the next move is still up to you. You could go into those texts and show us what you think they tell us about the Consciousness Soul, and then maybe your ideas about how the Internet affects it.Starman wrote:>>See, that's an example of "Dr. Steiner said". It's misleading because the German word he used was translated as "instincts". He knew that human beings have no instincts. An instinct by scientific definition is a COMPLEX behavior opattern that is UNLEARNED, and naturally occurs in ALL normal members of a species--- like the web-pattern of a spider or the salmon swimming back upstream to spawn. By that definition, we human beings have no instincts. We have URGES, but our behavior to satisfy them is all LEARNED. I'm sure he meant "urge", subconscious urges.<<Robert writes:In my dictionary (Webster's 7th collegiate) the first definition of *instinct* is:"a natural aptitude, impulse, or capacity". . . then the second one (a) is more like the scientific usage you indicated, but (b) is:"behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level".No, I don't agree that's too much Steiner-said, and I think that the translator's choice of *instinct* was well within the standard usage. You might well explicate by pointing out that RS was not speaking strictly in the scientific sense that you described, but I see no good in getting "anal-retentive" about it, and especially not when the dictionary backs up the translator. And BTW, *learned behavior* is a tricky, dangerous concept in the scientific context; if you're not careful about it, that concept could pull you into the deterministic suppositions of materialism.And still the question remains: how does the Internet (and technology in general) affect this instinctive, "outer" Consciousness Soul?Starman wrote:>>This is good for a start but I'm sure anyone reading this discussion who's a beginner at anthroposophy would probably have a lot more questions to ask before feeling like they know what's meant by "consciousness soul" now. It would probably be better to start a few pages back in Theosophy, with what's the soul compared to the body and then the 3 parts of the soul. And this is so fundamental to anthroposophy.<<Robert writes:OK, let 'em ask. And if you want to answer with more Steiner-saids, that's OK too. But it seems a little inconsistent, at the least, for you to scold me when I bring in Steiner-saids(and considering that the banner for this e-list reads: "For discussion of the works of Rudolf Steiner").And it is especially baffling since I already brought in Steiner's core definition of *Consciousness Soul* and briefly discussed my experience in relation to it. You seem to think that my discussion was somehow inadequate, but you don't say exactly how and why. -- My reaction is: if you think it would be better to start a few pages back, then show us your "better"; don't just criticize and leave us guessing.Starman wrote:>>Sure, and I think that grounds the conversation a bit. But they say you have ADD? How on earth could you write such a long e-mail? I've known people with ADD, they can't write something like this---sometimes, can't even read a book at all. Doesn't seem that bad in your case.<<Robert writes:You don't know how long and how much effort it takes me to write a post like that (or this one). And I surely have had trouble reading books. Didn't finish many reading assignments in high school, but I could still slide by. But I couldn't slide by that way when I got to the university. I might find myself having scanned and turned 50 or 100 pages without my conscious mind being involved at all; it was somewhere else; didn't remember anything that I had just "read". As you might imagine, I didn't last long at the U.And there is no "they". I use the term *ADD* because it seems to pretty much fit my life-story, according to the book *Scattered Minds* by Gabor Mate. Also I fit many or most of the criteria for ADD listed in that book. -- But I'm 60 years old now, with all that learning-experience, and much meditation behind me -- attempted, at least.And you don't know how many projects I'm leaving on the back burner because I got interested in Hoffman's ideas. A trail of unfinished projects behind in one's life-path -- that's another symptom of ADD.Starman wrote:>>But the subject wasn't supposed to be the effect of the internet on consciousness, but specifically on the "consciousness soul." Big difference.<<Robert writes:Again, this is perplexing to me; seems like a nit-picky evasion. The Consciousness Soul is surely a "subset" of consciousness, and it would seem that something that affects consciousness in general, in the age of the Consciousness Soul, must therefore affect the Consciousness Soul, at least in a general way in the wider culture. And maybe even in an individual way for those who are working on the inner aspects of their own Consciousness Souls.-- Overall: *Consciousness Soul* is Steiner's concept; he coined it. I don't see how we could understand the term without going into some Steiner-saids, at least for starters. And Steiner did use that concept to shed light on facts of history that are generally known. One need not rely on the Steiner-saids in a dogmatic way; one can take the generally known facts of history and see how they are explained in an enlightening way by Steiner's concepts. And likewise, one need not be dogmatic about the Steiner-saids concerning the inner aspects of the soul.Strangely, it seems that you do something that your *bête noire* Joel Wendt does: trying to put down other people when they bring in a Steiner quote, when all the while you are bringing in plenty of Steiner-saids of your own when they suit your purpose. Could some Wendt have rubbed off on you, or do you react against him so strongly because he personifies something negative within you?And I did read over your post to Mathew about the Consciousness Soul. Obviously, you did rely heavily on Steiner-saids, as well you should when discussing Steiner's concepts (and given Steiner's enlightening use of those concepts to explain human-cultural facts), but only implicitly, not explicitly. There was not one proper quotation in your whole post. Now, I don't mean to get "all anal" and nit-picky, but this does raise questions of substance: where does Steiner end and Starman begin, and where Starman end and Steiner begin? You did say some things that seem to me to be very un-Steinerian; for instance:>>When you start becoming aware of the spirit, you no longer experience yourself just as a separate ego in a world of objects. Instead, the separateness vanishes . . . .<<>>Another way you could say it is that with only the intellectual soul you can be a scientist, but when you start developing the consciousness soul you have to start becoming a spiritual scientist.<<I don't know how those statements could be consistent with Steiner's concept, but if you think that they are, you could quote the relevant Steiner-saids and try to show the relation to your formulations. As it is, I can't tell whether you conceive such statements to be in agreement with Steiner, or whether you are deliberately opposing Steiner. If you are deliberately opposing Steiner's ideas, it might help if you would say so explicitly and tell us why.Robert Mason
                          > Messages in this topic (10) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
                          > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
                          > Post to steiner@... the archives of the group at:http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.htmlRecommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.htmlommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html
                          > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
                          >
                          > Recent Activity
                          >
                          >
                          > 1
                          > New MembersVisit Your Group
                          >
                          >
                          > New business?
                          > Get new customers.
                          > List your web site
                          > in Yahoo! Search.
                          >
                          > All-Bran
                          > Day 10 Club
                          > on Yahoo! Groups
                          > Feel better with fiber.
                          >
                          > Check out the
                          > Y! Groups blog
                          > Stay up to speed
                          > on all things Groups!
                          > .
                          >
                          > _________________________________________________________________
                          > Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to share.
                          > http://www.windowslive.com/explore/photogallery/posts?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Photo_Gallery_082008
                          >

                        • happypick
                          To Robert re: I can t find my copies of Stegmann s work, Robert, so they re probably loaned out and this point ,ight have to wait a bit. The thoughts you
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 18, 2008
                            To Robert re:

                            I can't find my copies of Stegmann's work, Robert, so they're probably loaned out and this point ,ight have to wait a bit. The thoughts you expressed so well seem to me, perhaps erroneously, to be more in tune with Prokofieff, but I'll hold this in abeyance until I can receive some clarification.

                            Regarding my very brief statement of the Consciousness Soul, it is exactly that: brief. My sense of the Consciousness Soul is that it goes very far past any sense of empathy et al and on into a higher realm of unconsciousness of one's entire self  while "in spirit," so to say, with another soul or other souls - it is as though one was out of one's bodies and totally "at one" with another's all encompassing inner world all the while with total unconsciousness of any sense of "self."

                            Sheila

                            Robert Mason wrote:

                            To Sheila, who wrote:

                            >>Robert, I don't think I recall "The Other
                            America" as having the selected subject noted
                            below, but perhaps I've simply overlooked it.<<

                            Robert writes:

                            I'm not sure that Stegmann used the term
                            *Ahrimanized Consciousness Soul*; I don't have
                            the text to check it. I looked in my notes,
                            and he does discuss (in Part One, chapter 5)
                            how, when cold thinking meets hot will without
                            the mediation of the heart-Ego, the clash
                            brings about a kind of war-of-all-against- all.
                            I also seem to recall that he relates this idea
                            to how, on the North American continent, the
                            clash of cold, Arctic air (coming down directly
                            without interruption from mountains) against
                            hot, humid air from the Gulf causes violent
                            storms and tornadoes.

                            I'm pretty sure that I have read that term
                            somewhere. Maybe it's Prokofieff's coinage and
                            not Steiner's?

                            Sheila wrote:

                            >> . . . . It seems to me when/if one is able
                            to reach that point in evolution from which one
                            is able to feel in ALL aspects exactly and
                            completely what another soul feels, one is
                            experiencing the Consciousness Soul.<<

                            Robert writes:

                            To my understanding, the tendency of the
                            Consciousness Soul is just in the opposite
                            direction: As one realizes one's own,
                            independent individuality, one is (at first)
                            more isolated within oneself, more cut off from
                            "other souls". For instance, in "Social and
                            Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being (12th
                            December, 1918; Bern; GA 186) Steiner says:

                            "Well, we live in the age of the Spiritual or
                            Consciousness Soul in which man must become
                            independent. But on what does this depend? It
                            depends on people's ability during our Fifth
                            Post-Atlantean Period to become self-assertive,
                            to not allow themselves to be put to sleep. It
                            is the anti-social forces which require
                            development in this time, for consciousness to
                            be present. It would not be possible for
                            mankind in the present to accomplish its task
                            if just these anti-social forces did not become
                            ever more powerful; they are indeed the pillars
                            on which personal independence rests. At
                            present, humanity has no idea how much more
                            powerful anti-social impulses must become,
                            right on until the 30th century. For men to
                            progress properly, anti-social forces must
                            develop."

                            As I understand the matter, the ability to feel
                            in empathy with other souls is more
                            characteristic of the Spirit Self, which can be
                            developed in a healthy way only *after* the
                            independent individuality is realized in the
                            Consciousness Soul. Thus, the instinctive
                            social sense of the East Slavs is a
                            foreshadowing of the future role they will play
                            in the coming cultural epoch of the Spirit
                            Self.

                            Robert M

                          • Robert Mason
                            To Starman: I read your series about the Consciousness Soul. Where you were following RS closely, it did help to clarify. I m glad that we re agreed at least
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 23, 2008
                              To Starman:

                              I read your series about the Consciousness
                              Soul. Where you were following RS closely, it
                              did help to clarify. I'm glad that we're
                              agreed at least that "quoting Steiner is of
                              some value".

                              You're using a different translation of *OS*
                              from the one I have. I have the 1972 Monges
                              edition; it seems to follow the German more
                              closely. For instance, I doubt that RS uses
                              (in the German) *Spiritual Soul* in *OS*. --
                              But overall, in that discussion I don't see
                              much that I would argue with. I would add just
                              a few notes for more clarity, hopefully.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>And only what we perceived around us now
                              would exist, we wouldn't be able to know
                              anything else. This is how animals are.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              Animals differ in their stages of consciousness,
                              as would be suggested by their vast variations
                              in appearance and behavior. The soul-life of a
                              vertebrate is different from that of an oyster,
                              likewise that of the warm-blooded animals is
                              different from that of the cold-blooded. The
                              apes almost have an ego-consciousness; RS said
                              that when apes die their incipient ego is born
                              as a salamander. -- The souls of different
                              animals are not the all the same. See Wolfgang
                              Schad's *Man and Mammals* for many details.

                              Starman quotes RS:

                              >>. . . . we designate as “soul” what give the
                              knowledge performance, duration.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              This looks like a typo; *performance* should be
                              *permanence*?

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>There are some so-called 'retarded' people
                              who have almost only the sentient soul, but for
                              most of us it is always intertwined with the
                              higher levels.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              I'd say that such "intertwining" should be
                              emphasized more, otherwise it might appear as
                              though the "parts" of body, soul, and spirit
                              were, as it were, just layered on top of one
                              another. But as RS said, they do
                              interpenetrate, and they are in constant flux.
                              For instance, as ordinary experience shows,
                              sensation (Sentient Soul), subjective thinking
                              (Intellectual Soul), and objective thinking
                              (Consciousness Soul) are usually jumbled
                              together in different ways from moment to
                              moment, and it takes some effort to distinguish
                              them. And as RS says in *Theosophy*, all
                              thinking must have at least a spark of
                              intuition (Spirit Self) in it. More, depending
                              on how you look at him, man could be seen to
                              consist of three "parts", or four, or seven, or
                              seven again in a different way, or nine, or
                              even ten. And, again, as RS said, we need
                              mobile concepts to grasp Anthroposophy.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>. . . . when you are looking only outwards,
                              you're using the sentient soul; when you
                              reflect on your experience and make an inner
                              world out of the outer, that's the intellectual
                              or mind soul. That's why I said a person can
                              be a scientist using only those two.<<

                              (. . . and earlier, elsewhere:)

                              >>Another way you could say it is that with
                              only the intellectual soul you can be a
                              scientist, but when you start developing the
                              consciousness soul you have to start becoming a
                              spiritual scientist.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              But, going back to *Theosophy*, we can see that
                              what RS calls the *Intellectual Soul* is that
                              aspect of our thinking that "counts as true
                              what [we] prefer… in [our] feelings and
                              desires". The Consciousness Soul is that which
                              grasps that "the truth is true even if all
                              personal feelings revolt against it".
                              Elsewhere (GA 73; November 7, 1917) he makes
                              clear that thinking in the Intellectual Soul is
                              still dim and instinctive, while only in the
                              Consciousness Soul does it become critical and
                              objective:

                              ". . . . the sentient soul, the most dull,
                              living almost entirely in the subconscious; the
                              intellectual soul which still develops without
                              full consciousness, still having an instinctive
                              nature; and finally the consciousness soul,
                              which experiences the Ego in full
                              consciousness, which emancipates the Ego from
                              the life of the body, where intelligence no
                              longer appears instinctively but, emancipated,
                              confronts things critically."

                              But any "science" worthy of the name must at
                              least attempt to follow objective thinking and
                              the objective facts, regardless of personal
                              preferences. (Scientists might not always live
                              up to that ideal, but it is the ideal which
                              must be at least partially realized for us to
                              have any "science" as we have it today.) And
                              so it was only with the arrival of the epoch of
                              the Consciousness Soul that modern science
                              emerged in mass culture. The epoch of the
                              Intellectual Soul surely had very little
                              "science" as we have it today.

                              At a stretch, I suppose, one might say that the
                              start of Consciousness Soul development is the
                              start of spiritual science; the Consciousness
                              Soul is indeed a necessary precursor. But one
                              could just as well "stretch" more and say the
                              same of the Intellectual or the Sentient Soul.
                              But just living in the Consciousness Soul does
                              not make one a "spiritual scientist" in
                              Steiner's sense. For that, one must be a true
                              Initiate. Sometimes RS used the term
                              *initiation science* as a synonym for
                              *spiritual science* or *Anthroposophy*.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>You could say that a person using the first
                              two levels of the soul does not really know
                              himself OR his world. He is only preparing to
                              get to truly know them. This is where most
                              clever adults are today.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              Most? -- I don't know; this kinda brings us
                              back to my original question. We are living in
                              the epoch of the Consciousness Soul, and that
                              is manifesting most obviously (here in the USA)
                              in modern science and technology, and in
                              "democratic" political life. Again, these seem
                              to be manifestations of the "onlooker
                              consciousness" and the "instinctive
                              Consciousness Soul". But, as I broached the
                              question in my first post, we might even be
                              falling backward insome ways, especially in
                              the past century or so.

                              It's really hard to make a quantitative
                              estimate; a lot would depend on what you mean
                              by *clever*. I'd guess that many, perhaps
                              most, cultured adults in modern, Western
                              society (and where Western, techno-scientific
                              culture is spreading) have *some* appreciation
                              of the objectivity of facts and reason -- and
                              are thus at least on the cusp of the "inner
                              aspects" of the Consciousness Soul, as RS was
                              outlining in your quotations. But perhaps only
                              on the cusp; people easily fall back into the
                              habit of subordinating their thinking to their
                              desires. And, given all the mass attacks
                              against the free human individuality, it seems
                              that many or most people are as though
                              hypnotized (most of the time) by mass
                              manipulation. -- And so, back to my original
                              question.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>It is clearly not easy to describe the
                              consciousness soul in a few words! . . . . It's
                              been called Cosmic Consciousness, or
                              Enlightenment, or many other names.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              I'd caution about invoking these other terms;
                              they're too exalted and, worse, nebulous. If
                              you're trying to bring clarity, better not to
                              suggest images of the Buddha sitting under the
                              Bodhi tree, and the like. Such images refer to
                              something far more advanced than the
                              Consciousness Soul.

                              -- So much for the substantive discussion of
                              the Consciousness Soul; now, for more of the
                              hairsplitting aspects of the discussion:

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>For instance, saying "consciousness soul" is
                              "Steiner's concept" is like saying the
                              Pythagorean theorem belonged only to Pythagoras
                              and you'd have to quote him to understand it.
                              This is false.<<

                              And:

                              >>People "coin" words for a concept, not the
                              concept itself. The parts of the soul are found
                              in old Greek, Hebrew, in Plato and Arstotle,
                              etc. Steiner coined a term for what he
                              experienced, as the Greeks named a reality
                              "pi".<<

                              Robert writes:

                              Here again is what I said:
                              " - Overall: *Consciousness Soul* is Steiner's
                              concept; he coined it. I don't see how we
                              could understand the term without going into
                              some Steiner-saids, at least for starters. And
                              Steiner did use that concept to shed light on
                              facts of history that are generally known. One
                              need not rely on the Steiner-saids in a
                              dogmatic way; one can take the generally known
                              facts of history and see how they are explained
                              in an enlightening way by Steiner's concepts.
                              And likewise, one need not be dogmatic about
                              the Steiner-saids concerning the inner aspects
                              of the soul."

                              We seem to agree that RS coined the term, but
                              not the concept. Just considering the use of
                              the term: It still is not a commonly
                              understood term; as you said elsewhere, it is a
                              technical term, at least for the general
                              public, even though in our Anthro environment
                              it is much more generally understood (let us
                              hope). But even here it is not perfectly
                              understood; I'm not sure that I understand it
                              completely. So I'm willing to enter into this
                              discussion.

                              But if we were to try to explain the concept of
                              *consciousness soul* while using Steiner's
                              terminology, without explaining Steiner's usage
                              and sticking closely to it *at least for
                              starters*, we would thus cause confusion. If
                              you want an analogy, this would be like using
                              the word *cow* to mean *horse* without warning
                              your listeners. But worse, since
                              *consciousness soul* is a relatively technical
                              term, it would be more like speaking to non-
                              mathematicians while using the term *tensor* to
                              mean *group* without warning and without
                              explaining either term or concept.

                              But in order to understand Steiner's usage, we
                              must understand his concept; they are
                              practically the same thing. (Wittgenstein
                              equated use and meaning, but he wasn't an
                              ontological Platonist. Granting the real
                              existence of the concept, I would say that the
                              concept governs the usage.) And only then, IF
                              it seems that Steiner's concept is inadequate
                              to the reality, we might try to refine his
                              concept, as long as our revision is kept
                              transparent for everyone. But then, as a
                              practical matter, it would probably be better
                              to change also the terminology, to eliminate a
                              likely source of confusion.

                              About the Pythagorean analogy: Even assuming
                              that Pythagoras discovered the theorem, which
                              is a dubious assumption, there are differences.
                              *Pythagorean theorem* is a generally and
                              precisely understood term; *Consciousness Soul*
                              is neither. All the constituent geometric
                              concepts and proofs are widely understood; in
                              mathematical culture they were long ago
                              detached from the person of Pythagoras. There
                              is no similar general understanding of either
                              the literal terminology or concept of
                              *Consciousness Soul*. -- More, any fairly
                              intelligent person, with minimal guidance, can
                              come to understand the Pythagorean theorem and
                              thus come to grasp directly the mathematical
                              (spiritual) reality of it. But the referent
                              (the object pointed to) of the term and concept
                              *Consciousness Soul* is not likewise a truth of
                              the mere relations of concepts. The actual
                              Consciousness Soul has a "perceptual" side (in
                              the sense of *PoF*) in a way that a merely
                              mathematical-geometrical reality does not. One
                              can understand the concept *Consciousness Soul*
                              without perceiving Consciousness Souls in the
                              way that Steiner did. One comes into full
                              contact with the reality of the Pythagorean
                              theorem through concepts only; the analogous
                              contact with the Consciousness Soul requires
                              both the concept and the percepts.

                              -- And, as a point of fact, people can coin
                              concepts. For instance, I could gather a
                              knife, a comb, a candle, and a pillow into a
                              pile in a cat-box and call them *blitfx-
                              thingies*; I define *blitfx-thingie* as an
                              object that I just put into the cat-box. I
                              just created a concept and coined a term for
                              it; see? It might not be a very useful concept
                              in life; nevertheless it is an understandable
                              concept.

                              That illustrates the principle. More to the
                              point in the present context: Other, older
                              teachings may well have had their concepts for
                              the "parts" of the soul, but are Steiner's
                              related concepts exactly the same as those
                              others? -- I don't know that; I'm not enough of
                              a scholar to say for sure, but I doubt it. We
                              know that RS in his early lecturing for the
                              German Theosophical Society often used the
                              Sanskrit terminology with which his listeners
                              were familiar, but he eventually substituted
                              his own terminology for the Sanskrit. I rather
                              doubt that he did so just to be coining words;
                              I suspect that he found the old Eastern
                              concepts to be somewhat inadequate to the
                              facts; thus he may have been introducing new
                              terminology for his refined concepts. -- In any
                              case, since most of us don't really know the
                              old concepts of the soul, it seems to me that
                              we should at least start the discussion with
                              the concepts and the terminology (Steiner's)
                              that are more immediately available to us, if
                              we want clarity and not confusion.

                              Starman wrote:

                              (. . . in reply to my: "The Consciousness Soul
                              is surely a 'subset' of consciousness, and it
                              would seem that something that affects
                              consciousness in general, in the age of the
                              Consciousness Soul, must therefore affect the
                              Consciousness Soul...")

                              >>Now, this is no more being nit-picking nor
                              evasive than if you walked into a lecture on
                              the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and began
                              giving your opinion on it because of knowing
                              the word "uncertainty" and were told you didn't
                              know what we were talking about. The
                              "consciousness soul" or "spiritual soul" is a
                              technical term in spirit-science that refers to
                              a definite reality which can be experienced by
                              every individual human being. It has nothing to
                              do with "consciousness" which is present in
                              even the simplest forms of organic life which
                              don't even have "soul"--- and encouraging
                              anyone to launch into a discussion of the
                              "consciouness soul" with whatever their
                              opinions are about "consciousness" would be
                              pretty counter-productive.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              Of course the concepts *consciousness* and
                              *Consciousness Soul* are not exact equivalents;
                              that's a given. But they are closely related.
                              In this context just to point out this fine
                              distinction and *stop there* seems like an
                              evasion of my original question. But now, you
                              even overstate this distinction: to use your
                              analogy, saying that the Consciousness Soul
                              "has nothing to do with" consciousness is like
                              saying that the Uncertainty Principle has
                              nothing to do with uncertainty. The
                              Consciousness Soul is surely the form that
                              human consciousness assumes at a certain stage
                              of development; it is a component of the
                              overall human consciousness (using
                              *consciousness* in the broad sense in which a
                              rock can be said to have a dull kind of
                              "consciousness"). -- It's fair enough to try to
                              clarify the term *Consciousness Soul*, but
                              overstating distinctions doesn't bring clarity;
                              it causes confusion.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>So, "Goethean conversation" or discussion by
                              anthroposophists rules out taking an attitude
                              like 'Well, none of us can know this stuff but
                              we can only quote and speculate'. . . .<<

                              Robert writes:

                              I didn't take that attitude; I neither said it
                              nor implied it. You seem to be setting up a
                              straw man to knock down.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>Rudolf Steiner was not some sort of higher
                              being who could know things we can't; every one
                              of us has the same ability to know.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              In the abstract, we have the same ability as a
                              potential, but we haven't all realized it as an
                              actuality. This is rather obvious, isn't it?

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>Steiner wrote his books to be read by anyone,
                              anywhere, while his lectures were given at a
                              specific place to a specific group of people.
                              . . . He didn't want his lectures written down
                              at all . . . .<<

                              Robert write:

                              Again, this is a misleading overstatement. RS
                              was reluctant about having his lectures written
                              down, but he, if he really wanted to be
                              insistent about it, could well have refused to
                              speak with a stenographer present. And he was
                              reluctant about having the transcripts
                              published, but he eventually did agree, around
                              the time he was reorganizing the AS. He did
                              have deep reasons for reluctance about having
                              his spoken words frozen into print and made
                              generally available, but he did eventually
                              agree that such was inevitable under the
                              circumstances of modern culture.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>That's why I use his written works here. . .
                              . The lectures are also stenographic copies
                              which can contain errors. So, anyone interested
                              in spirit-science should return again and again
                              to the books, and study them more than lecture-
                              transcripts. . . .
                              <<

                              Robert writes:

                              But you just proposed that we should study the
                              lecture cycles *Paths of Experience* and
                              *Metamorphoses of the Soul*, so you must
                              recognize the value of the lectures. Yes, the
                              basic books are basic, but we might assume that
                              most of us in an Anthro e-group already have
                              some familiarity with them. And if you want to
                              return to the basics for emphasis and clarity,
                              that's OK with me. And it's also OK to study
                              the lectures, as long as we take into account
                              the standard *caveats* that are usually
                              published as a preface to them. But it does no
                              good to so overstate the *caveats* that it
                              might seem that we would be violating Steiner's
                              will and betraying Anthroposophy merely by
                              reading the lectures.

                              Starman wrote:

                              >>You asked for quotes so I included some, but
                              I didn't need to at all. Everything I'm saying
                              in this e-mail is things I know from experience
                              as well. Can put it whichever way you prefer. I
                              don't only have "Steiner-saids" like some
                              people may. If a lot of the anthroposophists
                              you've read or met have only Steiner-saids and
                              have not made any progress in clairvoyance and
                              direct knowledge, well, that's a pity but not
                              unexpected. I've met only 3 other psychics in
                              the movement.<<

                              Robert writes:

                              I'd prefer that the Steiner-saids and whatever
                              goes beyond them be clearly identified and
                              distinguished. And if you bring in your own
                              putative insights which go beyond Steiner's,
                              I'd prefer that you'd lay the necessary
                              groundwork for yours, as RS did for his. That
                              might be a lot of work, but it would be
                              necessary if you want me to take you seriously
                              as a spiritual researcher in your own right. I
                              believe that mere clairvoyance and "psychism"
                              do not make a spiritual scientist -- as STEINER
                              SAID.

                              Robert Mason
                            • carol
                              Robert: I believe that mere clairvoyance and psychism do not make a spiritual scientist -- as STEINER SAID. It s funny to read all this, knowing that both
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 23, 2008

                                Robert: "I believe that mere clairvoyance and "psychism" do not make a spiritual scientist -- as STEINER SAID."

                                It's funny to read all this,  knowing that both parties involved represent dinstinct, highly individualized conscious souls.

                                Nothing wrong with that-  Recognizing one's own Ego consciously, as a simple, unihibited fact, appears to me as healthy as can be. Without this qualitative experience,  I find that people risk remaining   prey to personality afflictions such as overall nervousness, denial of reality (ex. of simple facts set before oneself) , childlish diversions and much worse, of course.

                                I think within the activity of 'an anthroposophical' discussion, where 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent, there occurs a little more positive stuff than a mere exchange of abstract ideas and concepts.

                                Socialization occurs, and if I recall a 'Steiner said' of my own, it would seem that once we regain our heavenly abode after this life, we will be surprised to discover to what extent the gathering up of our social interactions (that which comprises the great multitude of human encounters we lived),  plays into defining our individual 'life's substance'.

                                I find this interesting.

                                Carol.

                                 


                                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > To Starman:
                                >
                                > I read your series about the Consciousness
                                > Soul. Where you were following RS closely, it
                                > did help to clarify. I'm glad that we're
                                > agreed at least that "quoting Steiner is of
                                > some value".
                                >
                                > You're using a different translation of *OS*
                                > from the one I have. I have the 1972 Monges
                                > edition; it seems to follow the German more
                                > closely. For instance, I doubt that RS uses
                                > (in the German) *Spiritual Soul* in *OS*. --
                                > But overall, in that discussion I don't see
                                > much that I would argue with. I would add just
                                > a few notes for more clarity, hopefully.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>And only what we perceived around us now
                                > would exist, we wouldn't be able to know
                                > anything else. This is how animals are.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > Animals differ in their stages of consciousness,
                                > as would be suggested by their vast variations
                                > in appearance and behavior. The soul-life of a
                                > vertebrate is different from that of an oyster,
                                > likewise that of the warm-blooded animals is
                                > different from that of the cold-blooded. The
                                > apes almost have an ego-consciousness; RS said
                                > that when apes die their incipient ego is born
                                > as a salamander. -- The souls of different
                                > animals are not the all the same. See Wolfgang
                                > Schad's *Man and Mammals* for many details.
                                >
                                > Starman quotes RS:
                                >
                                > >>. . . . we designate as “soul” what give the
                                > knowledge performance, duration.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > This looks like a typo; *performance* should be
                                > *permanence*?
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>There are some so-called 'retarded' people
                                > who have almost only the sentient soul, but for
                                > most of us it is always intertwined with the
                                > higher levels.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > I'd say that such "intertwining" should be
                                > emphasized more, otherwise it might appear as
                                > though the "parts" of body, soul, and spirit
                                > were, as it were, just layered on top of one
                                > another. But as RS said, they do
                                > interpenetrate, and they are in constant flux.
                                > For instance, as ordinary experience shows,
                                > sensation (Sentient Soul), subjective thinking
                                > (Intellectual Soul), and objective thinking
                                > (Consciousness Soul) are usually jumbled
                                > together in different ways from moment to
                                > moment, and it takes some effort to distinguish
                                > them. And as RS says in *Theosophy*, all
                                > thinking must have at least a spark of
                                > intuition (Spirit Self) in it. More, depending
                                > on how you look at him, man could be seen to
                                > consist of three "parts", or four, or seven, or
                                > seven again in a different way, or nine, or
                                > even ten. And, again, as RS said, we need
                                > mobile concepts to grasp Anthroposophy.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>. . . . when you are looking only outwards,
                                > you're using the sentient soul; when you
                                > reflect on your experience and make an inner
                                > world out of the outer, that's the intellectual
                                > or mind soul. That's why I said a person can
                                > be a scientist using only those two.<<
                                >
                                > (. . . and earlier, elsewhere:)
                                >
                                > >>Another way you could say it is that with
                                > only the intellectual soul you can be a
                                > scientist, but when you start developing the
                                > consciousness soul you have to start becoming a
                                > spiritual scientist.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > But, going back to *Theosophy*, we can see that
                                > what RS calls the *Intellectual Soul* is that
                                > aspect of our thinking that "counts as true
                                > what [we] prefer… in [our] feelings and
                                > desires". The Consciousness Soul is that which
                                > grasps that "the truth is true even if all
                                > personal feelings revolt against it".
                                > Elsewhere (GA 73; November 7, 1917) he makes
                                > clear that thinking in the Intellectual Soul is
                                > still dim and instinctive, while only in the
                                > Consciousness Soul does it become critical and
                                > objective:
                                >
                                > ". . . . the sentient soul, the most dull,
                                > living almost entirely in the subconscious; the
                                > intellectual soul which still develops without
                                > full consciousness, still having an instinctive
                                > nature; and finally the consciousness soul,
                                > which experiences the Ego in full
                                > consciousness, which emancipates the Ego from
                                > the life of the body, where intelligence no
                                > longer appears instinctively but, emancipated,
                                > confronts things critically."
                                >
                                > But any "science" worthy of the name must at
                                > least attempt to follow objective thinking and
                                > the objective facts, regardless of personal
                                > preferences. (Scientists might not always live
                                > up to that ideal, but it is the ideal which
                                > must be at least partially realized for us to
                                > have any "science" as we have it today.) And
                                > so it was only with the arrival of the epoch of
                                > the Consciousness Soul that modern science
                                > emerged in mass culture. The epoch of the
                                > Intellectual Soul surely had very little
                                > "science" as we have it today.
                                >
                                > At a stretch, I suppose, one might say that the
                                > start of Consciousness Soul development is the
                                > start of spiritual science; the Consciousness
                                > Soul is indeed a necessary precursor. But one
                                > could just as well "stretch" more and say the
                                > same of the Intellectual or the Sentient Soul.
                                > But just living in the Consciousness Soul does
                                > not make one a "spiritual scientist" in
                                > Steiner's sense. For that, one must be a true
                                > Initiate. Sometimes RS used the term
                                > *initiation science* as a synonym for
                                > *spiritual science* or *Anthroposophy*.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>You could say that a person using the first
                                > two levels of the soul does not really know
                                > himself OR his world. He is only preparing to
                                > get to truly know them. This is where most
                                > clever adults are today.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > Most? -- I don't know; this kinda brings us
                                > back to my original question. We are living in
                                > the epoch of the Consciousness Soul, and that
                                > is manifesting most obviously (here in the USA)
                                > in modern science and technology, and in
                                > "democratic" political life. Again, these seem
                                > to be manifestations of the "onlooker
                                > consciousness" and the "instinctive
                                > Consciousness Soul". But, as I broached the
                                > question in my first post, we might even be
                                > falling backward insome ways, especially in
                                > the past century or so.
                                >
                                > It's really hard to make a quantitative
                                > estimate; a lot would depend on what you mean
                                > by *clever*. I'd guess that many, perhaps
                                > most, cultured adults in modern, Western
                                > society (and where Western, techno-scientific
                                > culture is spreading) have *some* appreciation
                                > of the objectivity of facts and reason -- and
                                > are thus at least on the cusp of the "inner
                                > aspects" of the Consciousness Soul, as RS was
                                > outlining in your quotations. But perhaps only
                                > on the cusp; people easily fall back into the
                                > habit of subordinating their thinking to their
                                > desires. And, given all the mass attacks
                                > against the free human individuality, it seems
                                > that many or most people are as though
                                > hypnotized (most of the time) by mass
                                > manipulation. -- And so, back to my original
                                > question.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>It is clearly not easy to describe the
                                > consciousness soul in a few words! . . . . It's
                                > been called Cosmic Consciousness, or
                                > Enlightenment, or many other names.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > I'd caution about invoking these other terms;
                                > they're too exalted and, worse, nebulous. If
                                > you're trying to bring clarity, better not to
                                > suggest images of the Buddha sitting under the
                                > Bodhi tree, and the like. Such images refer to
                                > something far more advanced than the
                                > Consciousness Soul.
                                >
                                > -- So much for the substantive discussion of
                                > the Consciousness Soul; now, for more of the
                                > hairsplitting aspects of the discussion:
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>For instance, saying "consciousness soul" is
                                > "Steiner's concept" is like saying the
                                > Pythagorean theorem belonged only to Pythagoras
                                > and you'd have to quote him to understand it.
                                > This is false.<<
                                >
                                > And:
                                >
                                > >>People "coin" words for a concept, not the
                                > concept itself. The parts of the soul are found
                                > in old Greek, Hebrew, in Plato and Arstotle,
                                > etc. Steiner coined a term for what he
                                > experienced, as the Greeks named a reality
                                > "pi".<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > Here again is what I said:
                                > " - Overall: *Consciousness Soul* is Steiner's
                                > concept; he coined it. I don't see how we
                                > could understand the term without going into
                                > some Steiner-saids, at least for starters. And
                                > Steiner did use that concept to shed light on
                                > facts of history that are generally known. One
                                > need not rely on the Steiner-saids in a
                                > dogmatic way; one can take the generally known
                                > facts of history and see how they are explained
                                > in an enlightening way by Steiner's concepts.
                                > And likewise, one need not be dogmatic about
                                > the Steiner-saids concerning the inner aspects
                                > of the soul."
                                >
                                > We seem to agree that RS coined the term, but
                                > not the concept. Just considering the use of
                                > the term: It still is not a commonly
                                > understood term; as you said elsewhere, it is a
                                > technical term, at least for the general
                                > public, even though in our Anthro environment
                                > it is much more generally understood (let us
                                > hope). But even here it is not perfectly
                                > understood; I'm not sure that I understand it
                                > completely. So I'm willing to enter into this
                                > discussion.
                                >
                                > But if we were to try to explain the concept of
                                > *consciousness soul* while using Steiner's
                                > terminology, without explaining Steiner's usage
                                > and sticking closely to it *at least for
                                > starters*, we would thus cause confusion. If
                                > you want an analogy, this would be like using
                                > the word *cow* to mean *horse* without warning
                                > your listeners. But worse, since
                                > *consciousness soul* is a relatively technical
                                > term, it would be more like speaking to non-
                                > mathematicians while using the term *tensor* to
                                > mean *group* without warning and without
                                > explaining either term or concept.
                                >
                                > But in order to understand Steiner's usage, we
                                > must understand his concept; they are
                                > practically the same thing. (Wittgenstein
                                > equated use and meaning, but he wasn't an
                                > ontological Platonist. Granting the real
                                > existence of the concept, I would say that the
                                > concept governs the usage.) And only then, IF
                                > it seems that Steiner's concept is inadequate
                                > to the reality, we might try to refine his
                                > concept, as long as our revision is kept
                                > transparent for everyone. But then, as a
                                > practical matter, it would probably be better
                                > to change also the terminology, to eliminate a
                                > likely source of confusion.
                                >
                                > About the Pythagorean analogy: Even assuming
                                > that Pythagoras discovered the theorem, which
                                > is a dubious assumption, there are differences.
                                > *Pythagorean theorem* is a generally and
                                > precisely understood term; *Consciousness Soul*
                                > is neither. All the constituent geometric
                                > concepts and proofs are widely understood; in
                                > mathematical culture they were long ago
                                > detached from the person of Pythagoras. There
                                > is no similar general understanding of either
                                > the literal terminology or concept of
                                > *Consciousness Soul*. -- More, any fairly
                                > intelligent person, with minimal guidance, can
                                > come to understand the Pythagorean theorem and
                                > thus come to grasp directly the mathematical
                                > (spiritual) reality of it. But the referent
                                > (the object pointed to) of the term and concept
                                > *Consciousness Soul* is not likewise a truth of
                                > the mere relations of concepts. The actual
                                > Consciousness Soul has a "perceptual" side (in
                                > the sense of *PoF*) in a way that a merely
                                > mathematical-geometrical reality does not. One
                                > can understand the concept *Consciousness Soul*
                                > without perceiving Consciousness Souls in the
                                > way that Steiner did. One comes into full
                                > contact with the reality of the Pythagorean
                                > theorem through concepts only; the analogous
                                > contact with the Consciousness Soul requires
                                > both the concept and the percepts.
                                >
                                > -- And, as a point of fact, people can coin
                                > concepts. For instance, I could gather a
                                > knife, a comb, a candle, and a pillow into a
                                > pile in a cat-box and call them *blitfx-
                                > thingies*; I define *blitfx-thingie* as an
                                > object that I just put into the cat-box. I
                                > just created a concept and coined a term for
                                > it; see? It might not be a very useful concept
                                > in life; nevertheless it is an understandable
                                > concept.
                                >
                                > That illustrates the principle. More to the
                                > point in the present context: Other, older
                                > teachings may well have had their concepts for
                                > the "parts" of the soul, but are Steiner's
                                > related concepts exactly the same as those
                                > others? -- I don't know that; I'm not enough of
                                > a scholar to say for sure, but I doubt it. We
                                > know that RS in his early lecturing for the
                                > German Theosophical Society often used the
                                > Sanskrit terminology with which his listeners
                                > were familiar, but he eventually substituted
                                > his own terminology for the Sanskrit. I rather
                                > doubt that he did so just to be coining words;
                                > I suspect that he found the old Eastern
                                > concepts to be somewhat inadequate to the
                                > facts; thus he may have been introducing new
                                > terminology for his refined concepts. -- In any
                                > case, since most of us don't really know the
                                > old concepts of the soul, it seems to me that
                                > we should at least start the discussion with
                                > the concepts and the terminology (Steiner's)
                                > that are more immediately available to us, if
                                > we want clarity and not confusion.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > (. . . in reply to my: "The Consciousness Soul
                                > is surely a 'subset' of consciousness, and it
                                > would seem that something that affects
                                > consciousness in general, in the age of the
                                > Consciousness Soul, must therefore affect the
                                > Consciousness Soul...")
                                >
                                > >>Now, this is no more being nit-picking nor
                                > evasive than if you walked into a lecture on
                                > the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and began
                                > giving your opinion on it because of knowing
                                > the word "uncertainty" and were told you didn't
                                > know what we were talking about. The
                                > "consciousness soul" or "spiritual soul" is a
                                > technical term in spirit-science that refers to
                                > a definite reality which can be experienced by
                                > every individual human being. It has nothing to
                                > do with "consciousness" which is present in
                                > even the simplest forms of organic life which
                                > don't even have "soul"--- and encouraging
                                > anyone to launch into a discussion of the
                                > "consciouness soul" with whatever their
                                > opinions are about "consciousness" would be
                                > pretty counter-productive.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > Of course the concepts *consciousness* and
                                > *Consciousness Soul* are not exact equivalents;
                                > that's a given. But they are closely related.
                                > In this context just to point out this fine
                                > distinction and *stop there* seems like an
                                > evasion of my original question. But now, you
                                > even overstate this distinction: to use your
                                > analogy, saying that the Consciousness Soul
                                > "has nothing to do with" consciousness is like
                                > saying that the Uncertainty Principle has
                                > nothing to do with uncertainty. The
                                > Consciousness Soul is surely the form that
                                > human consciousness assumes at a certain stage
                                > of development; it is a component of the
                                > overall human consciousness (using
                                > *consciousness* in the broad sense in which a
                                > rock can be said to have a dull kind of
                                > "consciousness"). -- It's fair enough to try to
                                > clarify the term *Consciousness Soul*, but
                                > overstating distinctions doesn't bring clarity;
                                > it causes confusion.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>So, "Goethean conversation" or discussion by
                                > anthroposophists rules out taking an attitude
                                > like 'Well, none of us can know this stuff but
                                > we can only quote and speculate'. . . .<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > I didn't take that attitude; I neither said it
                                > nor implied it. You seem to be setting up a
                                > straw man to knock down.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>Rudolf Steiner was not some sort of higher
                                > being who could know things we can't; every one
                                > of us has the same ability to know.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > In the abstract, we have the same ability as a
                                > potential, but we haven't all realized it as an
                                > actuality. This is rather obvious, isn't it?
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>Steiner wrote his books to be read by anyone,
                                > anywhere, while his lectures were given at a
                                > specific place to a specific group of people.
                                > . . . He didn't want his lectures written down
                                > at all . . . .<<
                                >
                                > Robert write:
                                >
                                > Again, this is a misleading overstatement. RS
                                > was reluctant about having his lectures written
                                > down, but he, if he really wanted to be
                                > insistent about it, could well have refused to
                                > speak with a stenographer present. And he was
                                > reluctant about having the transcripts
                                > published, but he eventually did agree, around
                                > the time he was reorganizing the AS. He did
                                > have deep reasons for reluctance about having
                                > his spoken words frozen into print and made
                                > generally available, but he did eventually
                                > agree that such was inevitable under the
                                > circumstances of modern culture.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>That's why I use his written works here. . .
                                > . The lectures are also stenographic copies
                                > which can contain errors. So, anyone interested
                                > in spirit-science should return again and again
                                > to the books, and study them more than lecture-
                                > transcripts. . . .
                                > <<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > But you just proposed that we should study the
                                > lecture cycles *Paths of Experience* and
                                > *Metamorphoses of the Soul*, so you must
                                > recognize the value of the lectures. Yes, the
                                > basic books are basic, but we might assume that
                                > most of us in an Anthro e-group already have
                                > some familiarity with them. And if you want to
                                > return to the basics for emphasis and clarity,
                                > that's OK with me. And it's also OK to study
                                > the lectures, as long as we take into account
                                > the standard *caveats* that are usually
                                > published as a preface to them. But it does no
                                > good to so overstate the *caveats* that it
                                > might seem that we would be violating Steiner's
                                > will and betraying Anthroposophy merely by
                                > reading the lectures.
                                >
                                > Starman wrote:
                                >
                                > >>You asked for quotes so I included some, but
                                > I didn't need to at all. Everything I'm saying
                                > in this e-mail is things I know from experience
                                > as well. Can put it whichever way you prefer. I
                                > don't only have "Steiner-saids" like some
                                > people may. If a lot of the anthroposophists
                                > you've read or met have only Steiner-saids and
                                > have not made any progress in clairvoyance and
                                > direct knowledge, well, that's a pity but not
                                > unexpected. I've met only 3 other psychics in
                                > the movement.<<
                                >
                                > Robert writes:
                                >
                                > I'd prefer that the Steiner-saids and whatever
                                > goes beyond them be clearly identified and
                                > distinguished. And if you bring in your own
                                > putative insights which go beyond Steiner's,
                                > I'd prefer that you'd lay the necessary
                                > groundwork for yours, as RS did for his. That
                                > might be a lot of work, but it would be
                                > necessary if you want me to take you seriously
                                > as a spiritual researcher in your own right. I
                                > believe that mere clairvoyance and "psychism"
                                > do not make a spiritual scientist -- as STEINER
                                > SAID.
                                >
                                > Robert Mason
                                >

                              • Robert Mason
                                ... occurs ... and ... Of course there is no personal ambition among Anthros; we have all risen above that. Are you in the market for a slightly used
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:

                                  > I think within the activity of 'an anthroposophical' discussion, where
                                  > 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent, there
                                  occurs
                                  > a little more positive stuff than a mere exchange of abstract ideas
                                  and
                                  > concepts.

                                  Of course there is no personal ambition among
                                  Anthros; we have all risen above that.

                                  Are you in the market for a slightly used
                                  suspension bridge?

                                  Robert
                                • Durward Starman
                                  *******Robert, I doubt any of this rather convoluted discussion is going to be of much interest to the list, or of any use to anyone trying to practice
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                                    *******Robert, I doubt any of this rather convoluted discussion is going to be of much interest to the list, or of any use to anyone trying to practice anthroposophy in a school, farm, etc. Nor, I think, is this latest post advancing at all the alleged discussion of what's good or bad for developing the consiousness soul one bit, as that seems to have dropped out of consideration completely and been repalced by an endless debate on what should be clear first to HAVE such a discussion, which I thought I'd supplied directly from Steiner's writings as requested.
                                     
                                        I don't have much time to be drawn into unproductive by-ways. If we want to continue the discussion about the effect of things like the internet on our consciousness soul, which as I said could be a fruitful subject, please feel free to do so, but let's move forward, not backwards.



                                    Starman wrote:
                                    (referring to having only the astral body, not any soul levels:)
                                    >>And only what we perceived around us now would exist, we wouldn't be able to know anything else. This is how animals are.<<

                                    Robert writes:

                                    Animals differ in their stages of consciousness,
                                    as would be suggested by their vast variations
                                    in appearance and behavior. The soul-life of a
                                    vertebrate is different from that of an oyster,
                                    likewise that of the warm-blooded animals is
                                    different from that of the cold-blooded. The
                                    apes almost have an ego-consciousness; RS said
                                    that when apes die their incipient ego is born
                                    as a salamander. -- The souls of different
                                    animals are not the all the same. See Wolfgang
                                    Schad's *Man and Mammals* for many details.

                                     
                                    *******I taught zoology in a Waldorf High School and know that literature all very well, thank you. Has no bearing on what I wrote, that all perceive just the present moment.
                                     


                                    Robert wrote:
                                    ... as ordinary experience shows,
                                    sensation (Sentient Soul), subjective thinking
                                    (Intellectual Soul), and objective thinking
                                    (Consciousness Soul) are usually jumbled
                                    together in different ways from moment to
                                    moment, and it takes some effort to distinguish
                                    them. And as RS says in *Theosophy*, all
                                    thinking must have at least a spark of
                                    intuition (Spirit Self) in it.
                                     
                                    ******I detailed this showing how the Ego, as a drop of the eternal Spirit, gradually unfolds in the 3 soul levels. But the consciousness soul is much more than objective thinking: it gives that but much more. They are not synonymous. It starts with objective thinking but leads much further, to experiencing 'objects' unknown to others.
                                     


                                    Starman wrote:
                                    >>. . . . when you are looking only outwards,
                                    you're using the sentient soul; when you
                                    reflect on your experience and make an inner
                                    world out of the outer, that's the intellectual
                                    or mind soul. That's why I said a person can
                                    be a scientist using only those two.<<
                                    (. . . and earlier, elsewhere:)
                                    >>Another way you could say it is that with
                                    only the intellectual soul you can be a
                                    scientist, but when you start developing the
                                    consciousness soul you have to start becoming a
                                    spiritual scientist.<<

                                    Robert writes:

                                    But, going back to *Theosophy*, we can see that
                                    what RS calls the *Intellectual Soul* is that
                                    aspect of our thinking that "counts as true
                                    what [we] prefer… in [our] feelings and
                                    desires". The Consciousness Soul is that which
                                    grasps that "the truth is true even if all
                                    personal feelings revolt against it".
                                    Elsewhere (GA 73; November 7, 1917) he makes
                                    clear that thinking in the Intellectual Soul is
                                    still dim and instinctive, while only in the
                                    Consciousness Soul does it become critical and
                                    objective:

                                    *******And I believe I can say that that is true of our 'scientifically' educated citizens today. They have not a trace of objectivity. Ask for proof of the religion of 'Darwinism' or any other of a hundred beliefs in the "Religion of Scientism" and see how objective a person is. Most are using only the sentient and intellectual souls and so cannot be. Look at how many people accept 'global warming' and how few scientists have the courage to say the data are quite inconclusive. Try saying some things from anthrosophy to 'em, for that matter, like 'the heart may not be a pump'!
                                     


                                    Starman wrote:
                                    >>You could say that a person using the first
                                    two levels of the soul does not really know
                                    himself OR his world. He is only preparing to
                                    get to truly know them. This is where most
                                    clever adults are today.<<

                                    Robert writes:

                                    Most? -- I don't know; this kinda brings us
                                    back to my original question. We are living in
                                    the epoch of the Consciousness Soul, and that
                                    is manifesting most obviously (here in the USA)
                                    in modern science and technology, and in
                                    "democratic" political life. Again, these seem
                                    to be manifestations of the "onlooker
                                    consciousness" and the "instinctive
                                    Consciousness Soul"...
                                     
                                     
                                    *******Realization of the consciousness soul might have some ramifications in inventions technologically, since it leads to a higher and truer knowledge of the external world as well as the Self. But I don't consider those synonymous at all, either. People can invent things while having only illusory ideas of reality, like the imaginary 'atoms' and 'electrons' and 'photons'. If they are elaborating on discoveries already made, they may live in a world of illusory mental constructs and still produce inventions, so technology can have little or nothing to do with the consciousness soul. It can be only from the sentient and intellectual souls, as can be many other things. I don't see it behind much of the science and technology in the US. It was with men like Edison.
                                     
                                       Also, I know of no such thing in anthroposophy as an "instinctive consciousness soul". If you read what I posted from Occult Science or my own words on the subject, clearly, to experience the consciousness soul has nothing 'instinctive' or unconscious about it. It's realizing oneself as spirit, as Steiner did when he wrote his Philosophie der Freiheit. Andre Gregory describes going through the awakening of HIS consciousness soul (and amusingly) in the film "My Dinner With Andre." It's something that summons you to full consciousness.
                                     
                                     
                                     


                                    Starman wrote:

                                    >>It is clearly not easy to describe the
                                    consciousness soul in a few words! . . . . It's
                                    been called Cosmic Consciousness, or
                                    Enlightenment, or many other names.<<

                                    Robert writes:

                                    I'd caution about invoking these other terms;
                                    they're too exalted and, worse, nebulous. If
                                    you're trying to bring clarity, better not to
                                    suggest images of the Buddha sitting under the
                                    Bodhi tree, and the like. Such images refer to
                                    something far more advanced than the
                                    Consciousness Soul.
                                     
                                    *******Sorry you involuntarily picture Buddha when I say the word "enlightenment". [I think of Steiner's description in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, myself.] And that you have other problems with certain words. I'd say that's a problem for you to solve, not a problem with the language in the e-mail, and I don't believe I need advice of caution since I speak from experience.
                                     
                                       I believe that if you'll re-read the description of the awakening of the cosnciousness soul from Occult Science, or the other things I wrote, you'll find that people who have had an experience of the Consciousness Soul do indeed go through an 'enlightenment experience' and have called it a "cosmic consciousness" experience, for instance those in Bucke's book of the same name.
                                     
                                       I'd say you may not be in the ideal position to decide what belongs to the experience of it or not. It opens up the higher levels as well, of course, so some people will experience much more than others; but that it opens up a new light and makes one experience oneself and all the outer world and your previous knowledge of it at a minimum, is undeniable.
                                     



                                    Robert wrote:

                                    -- As a point of fact, people can coin
                                    concepts. For instance, I could gather a
                                    knife, a comb, a candle, and a pillow into a
                                    pile in a cat-box and call them *blitfx-
                                    thingies*; I define *blitfx-thingie* as an
                                    object that I just put into the cat-box. I
                                    just created a concept and coined a term for
                                    it; see? It might not be a very useful concept
                                    in life; nevertheless it is an understandable
                                    concept.
                                     
                                    *******No, it is not; it would be a word. There is a great difference, and this is what Steiner wrote his philosophical works for. No one can CREATE a concept; we DRAW each concept from the world of concepts by intuition (not meaning the street-usage of the word 'intuition'). They are hierarchical and connected to each other by laws and this is why there is only one correct concept for a given reality. You can make up a group of words like "4-sided triangle" or "white blackness" but these have no real conceptual referent; they refer to nothing in the ideal world.
                                       To use a later term from anthroposophy rather than philosophy, they are unreal lies caused by Luciferic influence.
                                       It is very important in relation to philosophy and epistemology to not confuse concepts and words. In relation to our discussion of the 3 levels of the soul, they are perceived realities which men then must find the correct concepts for. I pointed out how the ancient Greeks named three parts of the soul and so did the ancient Hebrews. They found the same concepts but gave them different words.
                                     



                                    Starman wrote:

                                    >>Steiner wrote his books to be read by anyone,
                                    anywhere, while his lectures were given at a
                                    specific place to a specific group of people.
                                    . . . He didn't want his lectures written down
                                    at all . . . .<<

                                    Robert writes:

                                    But you just proposed that we should study the
                                    lecture cycles *Paths of Experience* and
                                    *Metamorphoses of the Soul*, so you must
                                    recognize the value of the lectures.
                                     
                                    *******POTENTIAL value, rather. The Agriculture lectures would have only potential value until you started gardening or farming and were actually putting them to use instead of just reading them. Similarly, there are exercises in the 2 above-named lecture-cycles that can be used to differently experience your breathing, personal realities like laughing and crying, and the course of your own individual life, so that these things you experience directly take on new significance.

                                    Starman wrote:

                                    >>You asked for quotes so I included some, but
                                    I didn't need to at all. Everything I'm saying
                                    in this e-mail is things I know from experience
                                    as well. Can put it whichever way you prefer. I
                                    don't only have "Steiner-saids" like some
                                    people may. If a lot of the anthroposophists
                                    you've read or met have only Steiner-saids and
                                    have not made any progress in clairvoyance and
                                    direct knowledge, well, that's a pity but not
                                    unexpected. I've met only 3 other psychics in
                                    the movement.<<

                                    Robert writes:

                                    I'd prefer that the Steiner-saids and whatever
                                    goes beyond them be clearly identified and
                                    distinguished. And if you bring in your own
                                    putative insights which go beyond Steiner's,
                                    I'd prefer that you'd lay the necessary
                                    groundwork for yours, as RS did for his. That
                                    might be a lot of work, but it would be
                                    necessary if you want me to take you seriously
                                    as a spiritual researcher in your own right. I
                                    believe that mere clairvoyance and "psychism"
                                    do not make a spiritual scientist -- as STEINER
                                    SAID.

                                    Robert Mason

                                    *******CONTROLLED clairvoyance does---and merely reading books and not developing your own direct perception of what Steiner saw makes a book-learned anthroposophist, who may be useful as a farmer or medical worker, but has not yet advanced to doing their own spiritual research. Anyone who really applies anthroposophy correctly begins having clairvoyant experiences, unless he or she blocks their own, as deeming it "mere" clairvoyance, for instance. The cause of that kind of loathing of and rejection of it is fear of one's own psychic ability and not wanting to allow it out. Same thing is often the cause of alcoholism. Once again, direct perception from my experience. Can debate about whether I interpret experiences correctly or not, but not that I had the experiences themselves. Sounds like most of the 'anthroposophists' you've met have had none. Not surprising, I said--- I've found the same. Just a sad reflection on our times. Not all are failures on the path of developing clairvoyance, however, never fear. Several of the ones I've known hid it from the ESP-hating crowd of so-called other 'anthroposophists'. And they just about crucified Willi Sucher for doing astrology readings but I've known many people he helped and he was right on target with them, predicting things twenty years in advance.
                                     
                                       Will post something on what I see inhibits or aids the development of the consciousness soul when I have time.
                                     
                                    -starman


                                    Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to share. Get Ideas Here!
                                  • Durward Starman
                                    ******* No insulting other members, either. You may regard it as humorous but I m not sure Carol does. -starman www.DrStarman.com To:
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008

                                      ******* No insulting other members, either. You may regard it as humorous but I'm not sure Carol does.
                                       
                                      -starman

                                      www.DrStarman.com




                                      To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                                      From: robertsmason_99@...
                                      Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:09:15 +0000
                                      Subject: [steiner] Re: think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?


                                      --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, "carol" <organicethics@ ...> wrote:

                                      > I think within the activity of 'an anthroposophical' discussion, where
                                      > 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent, there
                                      occurs
                                      > a little more positive stuff than a mere exchange of abstract ideas
                                      and
                                      > concepts.

                                      Of course there is no personal ambition among
                                      Anthros; we have all risen above that.

                                      Are you in the market for a slightly used
                                      suspension bridge?

                                      Robert




                                      Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®. Make your smash hit
                                    • carol
                                      Robert, when I wrote: where self centered ambition is recognized to be fully absent , I really meant it, in a thorough sense. Let me elaborate a
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Aug 25, 2008

                                        Robert,  when  I wrote: "where 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent",  I really meant it, in a thorough sense. 

                                        Let me elaborate a little... meaning  that,  'once one, lets say me, has ascertained,  using whatever means I freely will, be it thought,  inner vision, inner full body experience, angelic or disincarnate resource spirit beings etc etc;  that  a given anthroposophist expressing him/her self within discussion is reflecting an earnest attempt to widen their spiritual knowledge/experience through the act of  socialization,  AND thus NOT intentionaly  pursuing  a self centered, one man/woman mission, THEN there exists a possibility for  more positive stuff to thrive within the exchange,  more than that of mere ideas.

                                        However,  in retrosopect,  I understand that it's hard to draw a line here, seeing as people are known to unconsciously pursue selfish interests.  But all the same,  if such an individual where expressing themselve in a  truly genuine fashion,  even if  a condition of 'fault' were present,  good things would  still transcend from the  sharing in 'conversation'.  The 'fault element' would be shuffled a little by underlying soul forces....

                                        OK,  can you see that?

                                        Also,  in this exchange,  I've raised the topic of discussion just a little bit to a more superficial plane than it was in the original post - though certainly not to the extreme that you did.  

                                        Do you recognize this?

                                        carol.


                                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Mason" <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carol" organicethics@ wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > I think within the activity of 'an anthroposophical' discussion, where
                                        > > 'self centered ambition' is recognized to be fully absent, there
                                        > occurs
                                        > > a little more positive stuff than a mere exchange of abstract ideas
                                        > and
                                        > > concepts.
                                        >
                                        > Of course there is no personal ambition among
                                        > Anthros; we have all risen above that.
                                        >
                                        > Are you in the market for a slightly used
                                        > suspension bridge?
                                        >
                                        > Robert
                                        >

                                      • Robert Mason
                                        ... Yes, when you put it as an if-then proposition, I can see it. ... post ... Uh, no; I don t see what you mean by raising to a more superficial plane .
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Aug 28, 2008
                                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:

                                          > OK, can you see that?

                                          Yes, when you put it as an if-then proposition,
                                          I can see it.

                                          > Also, in this exchange, I've raised the topic of discussion just a
                                          > little bit to a more superficial plane than it was in the original
                                          post
                                          > - though certainly not to the extreme that you did.
                                          >
                                          > Do you recognize this?

                                          Uh, no; I don't see what you mean by "raising"
                                          to a "more superficial plane". Maybe you
                                          meant *less superficial*?

                                          -- And I can see much of what you say about
                                          TV causing people to confuse fantasy with
                                          reality. But this can also happen with books
                                          and movies. For instance, in bars Bogart used
                                          to run into people who wanted to take a poke
                                          at him to prove they were tougher than he
                                          was. And even in ancient Rome, I think,
                                          actors were "stars". But TV likely intensifies
                                          this pseudo-reality because of TV's hypnotic
                                          effect and easy availability.

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