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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Aug 14, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      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 2 of 20 , Aug 14, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              [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 6 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                __*******,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 7 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
                • 0 Attachment

                  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 8 of 20 , Aug 18, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 20 , Aug 23, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 20 , Aug 23, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment

                        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 11 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- 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 12 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            *******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 13 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment

                              ******* 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 14 of 20 , Aug 25, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment

                                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 15 of 20 , Aug 28, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- 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.