Hi Tom,

This is an interesting point you raise - I think this is a weak point in our everyday world-view that Steiner highlights clearly throughout the Philosophy of Freedom.

Our thinking is so thoroughly trained to think in terms of externally perceived objects that we easily persist in trying to reduce all human experience into these terms.  It's like a train (train of thought) that we get on board that will take us to certain places (places of certainty) but cannot ever travel off its designated track.  But we all know in the case of trains that there are many many other destinations we can travel to or must travel to without their help.

In many cases we could travel to a town on the train, then walk, drive, ride, fly or sail on to our destination.  In this broader picture we still rely on thinking and observation but observation now includes inner observation.  This allows us more freedom in reaching certainty.

In this example travel is any path of thinking and observation - train travel is the path of thinking that believes that only the path of thinking and external observation (i.e. travel to destinations connected by train tracks) can lead us to truth, to a belief we can be certain of.

The interesting fact is that no real person actually travels on this "train" all the time in their life - even the most materialistic scientist needs to be able to observe and review their own thoughts and those of others objectively in the light of observed evidence to reach conclusions.  This activity itself is one that cannot be carried out on the "train" - it involves inner observation, a capacity for judgement, memory etc.  The view of life adopted by someone who believes stricly in the sole validity of truth arrived at by these means is similar to that adopted by someone travelling to work on the train every day who believes that train travel is the only "real" method of travel while ignoring the plain fact that they also along with many others walk, run and utilise other means of travel every day.

For example - if we travel on the "train" we may believe that thinking is nothing but a firing of neurons in the brain (the firing of neurons being something that can be measured via scientific instruments and the results perceived externally).  This seems a reasonable belief only so long as we do not follow the path of thinking and observation outlined in Chapter 3.  Then we start to perceive and experience thinking directly as something that is completely known and surveyable as our own activity that is

I'm reading a recent book called "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo, who carried out a well-known experiment called the "Stanford Prison Experiment" in the early 1970s.  See  http://www.zimbardo.com/current.html for more details.  To quote from that site:

The Lucifer Effect raises a fundamental question about the nature of human nature: How is it possible for ordinary, average, even good people to become perpetrators of evil? In trying to understand unusual, weird or aberrant behavior, we often err in focusing exclusively on the inner determinants of genes, personality and character, as we also tend to ignore what may be the critical catalyst for behavior change in the external Situation or in the System that creates and maintains such situations.

After narrating his experiences during the running of the Stanford Prison Experiment, he spends a lot of time discussing its connection to other situations including the recent well-publicised Abu Ghraib prison abuses.

I find it interesting that this book reflects the perspective of an academic of long experience in experimental psychology with no interest in or familarity with Anthroposophy - he seems familiar with mainstream Christian and English literature, twentieth century existentialism etc. but if you look at the index you will find no reference to Jung or Freud, let alone Steiner or Goethe.  Literary quotes are usually taken from John Milton (of all people), Dante or twentieth century authors.  Yet I think he comes to a very similar standpoint to Steiner in the Philosophy of Freedom - that both external and internal determinants make us unfree, make us "evil" or potentially "evil".  And it may be that someone who appears "good" could just as well become "evil" if the right external conditions were brought to bear.

Again, Friedrich Nietzsche, who had so much to say on the topic of so-called Good and Evil, and whose spiritual striving Steiner felt so close to in one sense (see for example "Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom" http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA005/English/GC1985/GA005_index.html for more details), is not even mentioned.  But I believe I can almost hear things in line with something of the spirit of Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil", for example, in some of what is said in the Zimbardo book.

I haven't finished the book properly yet (it's quite long) but Zimbardo does finish on a positive note that again seems to be to be in fundamental agreement with the tone of all of Steiner's work and especially the Philosophy of Freedom - the last chapter is entitled "Resisting Situational Influences and Celebrating Heroism".  And I think Nietzsche's Zarathustra might breath a sigh of relief also that others are striving towards his mountaintop.

Again, all this leads me to think along with others here on this website that it is the Philosophy of Freedom that is still the most contemporary of Steiner's works.  While personally I find all of Steiner's works wonderful, I can understand that someone like Prof. Zimbardo, with all of his own gathered wisdom and life experience and with his prominent position in the mainstream psychological community, would be unlikely to find much of interest in "Occult Science", for example, let alone be able to make reference to it in a work like "The Lucifer Effect" (despite the remarkable synchronicity of the title!).  --end

It appears that death was much more a part of life in medieval times than it is for us at the moment in many parts of the world, and this for many obvious reasons such as medical advances and other desirable cultural improvements in such fields as law, culture and civilisation generally. Nevertheless, there may have been some advantages to being more familiar with death - for example, a common theme in medieval religious art was that of the "three corpses" - here is a modern description of part of a page from a medieval...more

 I found this Buddhist quote today which got me thinking:

While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment. -Buddha ...

Personally I think this is completely in line with the spirit and intent of the Philosophy of Freedom - what do others think?  Are any qualifications required to such an absolute statement?

Bryn recently posted a comment that has started me thinking about the Philosophy of Freedom, freedom, spirituality and the Christian path:

I often wondered how Steiner made his leap from philosopher/clairvoyant/Nietschzean to full-on Christian, using only willed thinking as main instrument (ie no conversion experience) . Now I see that this, philosophical "knowledge over ego" insight as clarifying. I recall RS mentioning a "festival of Knowledge" (correct me if I'm mistaken in my memory) around this issue in his autobiography. I can see that  If one were to be gifted with a very personified experience of the concept of knowledge it becomes highly plausable to shift philosophical thinking (willed) toward matters "Christ-ish".