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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.