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

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

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... 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 1 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
      To Carol, who wrote:

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

      Robert writes:

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

      Robert M
    • Robert Mason
      ... America as having the selected subject noted below, but perhaps I ve simply overlooked it.
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
        To Sheila, who wrote:

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

        Robert writes:

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

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

        Sheila wrote:

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

        Robert writes:

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

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

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

        Robert M
      • Robert Mason
        [Robert had written: The thrust of my question wasn t about my own experience of the Consciousness Soul, though this is a related question. I was mostly,
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
          [Robert had written:
          "The thrust of my question wasn't about my own
          experience of the Consciousness Soul, though
          this is a related question. I was mostly,
          vaguely, groping toward a question about the
          Consciousness Soul in contemporary world
          evolution..."]

          To Starman, who wrote:

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

          Robert writes:

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

          Starman wrote:

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

          Robert writes:

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

          Starman wrote:

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

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

          Robert writes:

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

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

          Starman wrote:

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

          Robert writes:

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

          "a natural aptitude, impulse, or capacity"

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

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

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

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

          Starman wrote:

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

          Robert writes:

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

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

          Starman wrote:

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

          Robert writes:

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

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

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

          Starman wrote:

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

          Robert writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Robert Mason
        • Durward Starman
          __*******, Well, this is a pretty good example of what s wrong with so-called anthroposophical discussion on the other lists, and why I don t waste any time
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008
            __*******,Well, this is a pretty good example of what's wrong with so-called 'anthroposophical' discussion on the other lists, and why I don't waste any time there. When I have the time to correct all the errors here and explain the many things that require it, I may do so, but I don't think others on the list would be helped by it to understand our subject better, or be very interested in it.  
               Abstract thinking and regarding spirit-science as words in books is of very limited use in grasping even the most elementary things in it. It has to be grasped out of your life. Such direct experience is always possible if we don't bar our path to it.
             
               For instance, saying "consciousness soul" is "Steiner's concept" is like saying the Pythagorean theorem belonged only to Pythagoras and you'd have to quote him to understand it. This is false.
             
              We all experience the soul directly and need only correctly interpret our experience of it, as I've tried to indicate repeatedly.
             
              More some other time.
             
            -starman

            www.DrStarman.com


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

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

            To Starman, who wrote:

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

            Robert writes:

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

            Starman wrote:

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

            Robert writes:

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

            Starman wrote:

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

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

            Robert writes:

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

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

            Starman wrote:

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

            Robert writes:

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

            "a natural aptitude, impulse, or capacity"

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

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

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

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

            Starman wrote:

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

            Robert writes:

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

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

            Starman wrote:

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

            Robert writes:

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

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

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

            Starman wrote:

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

            Robert writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Robert Mason


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

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

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

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



            Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to share. Get Ideas Here!
          • Mathew Morrell
            One of the elements that drew me to Anthroposophy is that it is 100% extroverted. That is to say, the purpose of Anthroposophy isn t to create more
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 17, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

              The two branches are deeply related.


               

               

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

            • happypick
              To Robert re: I can t find my copies of Stegmann s work, Robert, so they re probably loaned out and this point ,ight have to wait a bit. The thoughts you
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 18, 2008
                To Robert re:

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

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

                Sheila

                Robert Mason wrote:

                To Sheila, who wrote:

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

                Robert writes:

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

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

                Sheila wrote:

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

                Robert writes:

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

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

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

                Robert M

              • Robert Mason
                To Starman: I read your series about the Consciousness Soul. Where you were following RS closely, it did help to clarify. I m glad that we re agreed at least
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 23, 2008
                  To Starman:

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

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman quotes RS:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  (. . . and earlier, elsewhere:)

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

                  Robert writes:

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

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

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

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  And:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert write:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Starman wrote:

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

                  Robert writes:

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

                  Robert Mason
                • carol
                  Robert: I believe that mere clairvoyance and psychism do not make a spiritual scientist -- as STEINER SAID. It s funny to read all this, knowing that both
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 23, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

                    I find this interesting.

                    Carol.

                     


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

                  • Robert Mason
                    ... occurs ... and ... Of course there is no personal ambition among Anthros; we have all risen above that. Are you in the market for a slightly used
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:

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

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

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

                      Robert
                    • Durward Starman
                      *******Robert, I doubt any of this rather convoluted discussion is going to be of much interest to the list, or of any use to anyone trying to practice
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008
                        *******Robert, I doubt any of this rather convoluted discussion is going to be of much interest to the list, or of any use to anyone trying to practice anthroposophy in a school, farm, etc. Nor, I think, is this latest post advancing at all the alleged discussion of what's good or bad for developing the consiousness soul one bit, as that seems to have dropped out of consideration completely and been repalced by an endless debate on what should be clear first to HAVE such a discussion, which I thought I'd supplied directly from Steiner's writings as requested.
                         
                            I don't have much time to be drawn into unproductive by-ways. If we want to continue the discussion about the effect of things like the internet on our consciousness soul, which as I said could be a fruitful subject, please feel free to do so, but let's move forward, not backwards.



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

                        Robert writes:

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

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


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


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

                        Robert writes:

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

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


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

                        Robert writes:

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


                        Starman wrote:

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

                        Robert writes:

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



                        Robert wrote:

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



                        Starman wrote:

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

                        Robert writes:

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

                        Starman wrote:

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

                        Robert writes:

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

                        Robert Mason

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


                        Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to share. Get Ideas Here!
                      • Durward Starman
                        ******* No insulting other members, either. You may regard it as humorous but I m not sure Carol does. -starman www.DrStarman.com To:
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 24, 2008

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

                          www.DrStarman.com




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


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

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

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

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

                          Robert




                          Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®. Make your smash hit
                        • carol
                          Robert, when I wrote: where self centered ambition is recognized to be fully absent , I really meant it, in a thorough sense. Let me elaborate a
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 25, 2008

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

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

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

                            OK,  can you see that?

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

                            Do you recognize this?

                            carol.


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

                          • Robert Mason
                            ... Yes, when you put it as an if-then proposition, I can see it. ... post ... Uh, no; I don t see what you mean by raising to a more superficial plane .
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 28, 2008
                              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:

                              > OK, can you see that?

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

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

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

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

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