Boy, this is something I've been wanting to say for a long time. Thanks for making it possible.

Carl

Hello Carl,

Interesting comments as always... when I have more time I would like to share my experiences working as a small part of "real life" projects in Information Technology. 

But I think I wanted the "IT" in the title of my post to also stand for "IT" in the sense of in some small way contributing to (or perhaps practicing for) the materialisation of the Ideal World, the City of God, the New Jerusalem, whatever you want to call it.

What comes to mind initially is that things like the cinema, the Internet, large computer systems are actually (despite the alienatingly anti-human aspect of the technologies involved) community efforts at creating something which then has a life of its own, for better or for worse.  Just look at the long list of credits on any average movie nowadays, it is people that create these things!

People still focus on the initial "rollout" (to use a favourite IT term) of creations too much and then forget about them, unfortunately - the stock value of a new website has doubled in a few months, this movie took so many million in its first two days at the box office, the system processed so many transactions per hour in its first month and so on. 

But these measures are ephemeral.  I believe these creations do have a more profound Karma of their own - for example "Shrek 2" is at number 3 on the all-time box office figures, the movie was OK but maybe not that good.  Does anyone really believe people will really be remembering it in years to come as the third most significant movie since cinema was created?  I think not... 

There are other factors than these which will determine the true "longevity" of our Community creations.  There is certainly a high degree of technical knowledge required to perform these things successfully, so why shouldn't there be a similar kind of knowledge required to create this City?

There's a tendency to believe (a la Idealists, the New Age movement etc.) that it will all be easy, that one day we will all wake up or reincarnate or who knows what and have these amazing abilities to materialise etheric imprints of imaginations or whatever.  Or maybe the Angels will do it all for us...  If that happens magically then great!  But in the meantime I personally am more in tune with the spirit of what I think you are saying, that we need to work at what we are and where we are to get to this more exalted place one day.

To strive to take hold of this through group conversation is, I believe, a worthy goal!

Yo Tim,

That's great. We're on the same wavelength. It seems to me that Hollywood (and Aussie/New Zealand) movies (Peter Jackson) have value because of what they do in people's imaginations, and how they do it. It is easy and pleasurable to have your imagination stimulated by a movie, and induced to fall into lockstep with it. Literary novels and theater are similar things.

Much different is getting the imagination stimulated by a cultural form where people are inducing specific contents in others out of the Art of Being Themselves. The paradigm here is more complicated than with movies or novels. Here people need to have internalized a certain set of rules, they need to be prepared to perform, they need to have a certain amount of self-understanding, etc. But the payoff of this kind of Art should be much higher than that of mere movies or virtual realities. The payoff here should be a kind of living dream, an etheric world in which Nature herself responds to the ontological condition of the human being. We see models for that in Steiner's biodynamic agriculture, for example, where claims are made for how the cosmos itself interacts with plant life. These claims cannot be ignored, because biodynamic agriculture works. The food has a quality that suggests that the biodynamic claims are true. The food works on the Imagination.

I think we can discover "biodynamic" principles in human life as well, and these will be in the etheric forms we create technically out of speech and intention in artistic conversation.

To IT!

Carl

Heya Carl

This is a great new group - I like the title Conscious Conversations.  I look forward to joining in the discussions - I Kan't say nutin!

Caryn

OK Carl so continuing in that vein what comes to mind is that I have found from personal experience that the study of Spiritual Scientific writings, usually Steiner's books and lectures, is a - for me indispensable - kind of BD500 preparation for the soul and spirit.

Even with the Gospel Studies at the Christian Community I don't believe we'd get as far as we do if most participants didn't have a fair degree of familiarity with and/or sympathy for Anthroposophy.  

Another important aspect here for me is the advice Steiner gave about reading to the dead - that we can actually provide spiritual sustenance and warmth, as it were, to those in spiritual worlds through our reading and speaking here on earth.  This again brings in the cosmic aspect and raises the question for me - somewhat by analogy with Biodynamics as you say - to what extent does the study of and discussion of Spiritual Scientific ideas bring into operation the operation of cosmic forces?

Of course you can talk about anything, in a group, but perhaps conversation in the spirit of Anthroposophy has at least the potential to be enlivening and work for the kind of goal you are indicating.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the insightful and useful comments. And thanks, Caryn Louise for weighing in as well.

Yes, you can talk about anything you want to in a group. That is the Principle of Freedom, and we need to add it to the list of conversational principles we have so far (Expressibility, Reproducibility, Tolerance, Truth, Discharge). In conversation, anyone can say anything one wants to.

Now, there are conditions on what someone can want to say in a conversation. These are the important conditions to understand if we are going to begin to get real-time conversations that take on the character of Collective Intelligence, Collective Reverence or Real Presence. When these conditions are added to it, the Principle of Freedom starts to look quite different. What you get under those conditions are people trying to choose contents and modes of expression that express and augment not only their own Freedom and spontaneity, but that conduce to the Freedom and spontaneity of everyone present. Under these conditions, people limit themselves to universal contents and universally acceptable modes of expression. Under these conditions, a kind of circumspection and care enters the conversational picture, as people try to perform as well as they can, both for themselves and for others, in a universal mode.

Speaking on behalf of and for the sake of the dead is an example of people adapting to a universal mode. So is speaking out of anthroposophical content, trying to understand some aspect of Steiner in as exact and true a way as possible. So what people want to do in a circumstance like that starts to look a little less arbitrary, a little less free than it does in the general case. But the remarkable thing is that these people, under conditions of self-willled universality, actually become more free than people who just say what they want to say, without regard for how what they say affects the conversation as a whole.

We need to understand the BD preparations for anthroposophical conversation. It is a tremendous need and a tremendous good if we can do so.

Carl

Hi Karl,

This is a very interesting comment of yours:

But the remarkable thing is that these people, under conditions of self-willled universality, actually become more free than people who just say what they want to say, without regard for how what they say affects the conversation as a whole.

This is either trivially obvious (for example, if you think about how we conduct a conversation in reality) or completely radical (if we take the free individual as our starting point who can consider conversation as just a vehicle for self-expression).

I think the gist of your comments is in total agreement with the depiction of freedom in PoF as I understand it.

Thanks,
                 Tim Bourke

Hi Tim,

Think of a Goethean conversation as a group of Boy Scouts kindling a campfire on a wet mountaintop. All the fuel is wet, and they have to start with the tiniest elements - pine needles, bits of bark, dead twigs. They need to blow alternately on the flames to fan them to get the fire going. They need to cooperate to do this. Their Utmost Interest is to get the fire started, and to maintain the bond of cooperation. Unless they do this, the fire will fail. When they succeed, the fire becomes autonomous, grows and takes on a life of its own, sheltering them from the elements.

Now with a conversation, the situation is analogous, but it is considerably more complicated. Here the flame is something in the Imagination. It is like the Jewish Candle lit in Remembrance of the Lord. Perhaps it is the same thing. It is a Flame borne in the Imagination of the Individual, and it keeps the Community together. It can be a very powerful social force if it is rightly understood and practiced. The survival and excellence of the Jews is evidence of this fact.

The complications arise around individualities. The Jews are never able to agree on much, except that God made a Covenant with them and that a certain History followed. But it is these problems surrounding Individuality that we must solve if we are going to get actual Goethean conversations. I think I've got the basic formal solution outlined. I hope people start to wonder about it.

All best,

Carl

Your writings are wonderful Carl.  The Hebrew nation is full of history recorded in the old testament and particulary Isaiah who talks about 'I have seen a great light'

Isaiah 9:2 "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light.  They lived in a land of shadows, but now light is shining on them."  9:6 "A child is born to us!  A son is given to us!  and he will be our ruler.  He will be called, 'Wonderful Counsellor," "Mighty God," "Eternal Father," "Prince of Peace".  He will rule as King David's successor basing his power on right and justice, from now until the end of time.  The Lord Almighty is determined to do all this."

Isaiah 11 "The royal line of David is like a tree that has been cut down, but just as a new branches sprout out from among David's descendants.  The spirit of the Lord will give him wisdom, and the knowledge and skill to rule his people.  He will know the Lord's will and honour him and find pleasure in obeying him.  He will not judge by appearance or hearsay; he will judge the poor fairly and defend the rights of the helpless ... He will rule his people with justice and integrity."

And in the new testament we read St Paul talking to the Hebrew people in the book Hebrews.

aye, the eternal flame.

Thank you Caryn Louise,

Here is another way to illustrate how an anthroposophical conversation, on my theory, has to work.

Kant's categorical imperative is supposed to be about how a good will works. A good will is the only thing in this world or in any possible world, human or divine, that can be called good without qualification. It is the only possible thing or property which is good in itself.  Any other good you can name - intelligence, wit, courage, perseverence, wealth, freedom - could result in an evil if the underlying character, the underlying will, is not in itself good.

The good will is supposed to work by universalizing a maxim of action. Suppose I am in bad financial shape, and needing money am tempted to promise sincerely to repay a sum, even though I know I will not be able to do so. On Kant's theory, what I do is imagine a world in which everyone promises to repay borrowed money without being able to do so. Is that world possible? Immediately one sees that such a world would implode. No one in that world could take financial promises seriously, and consequently the institution of promising (the institution of money) in that world would destroy itself. From that thought experiment, I know that I cannot ethically make the promise I want to.

Now in a Goethean conversation, we do something analogous. We ask ourselves, each time we make a conversational gesture, whether or not the world we currently inhabit (the conversation we currently participate in) will be improved or degraded by what we are about to say or to do. Furthermore, we set up the conversational circumstance in a way that we can know in the next moment whether in fact it was improved or degraded. We make it possible actually to test the outcome. We proceed with the conversation on the basis of such tests. We thus set up a practical circumstance in which the intrinsic goodness of character becomes the law of the conversation. The conversation, the social human circumstance, thus becomes a law of nature. In this way, the conversation is placed on a unique footing in the world, the footing of intrinsic human goodness. Moreover, a unique footing of this kind, if it is a natural law, will affect the outer world causally, bringing that world into resonance with itself.

It's a fairly simple matter to set up conversations on this basis. We need to discuss how close this picture is to Steiner's conception of freedom.

All best,

Carl

Hi Carl, Thanks for the example. In PoF Steiner contrasts his view of freedom with Kant's Imperative, basically pointing out that freedom does not emerge from a discursive rationalistic process (as it must in Kant's metaphysic) but from intuiting the action as a whole (intuiting as an act that includes, integrates and transcends rational structures). PoF does not separate the act from the the cognizing process in which it is unfolding. Kant wants us to know, conceptually, in advance that we are about to do the "right" thing. Kant gives us clear conceptual tests with which to meausre our actions. Steiner gives us nothing of the kind. Steiner's imperative offers no garuntee of conformity of any sort, only that a free act is aligned with the living morality in which all of life is grounded. Steiner's freedom is a freedom that is always actively emerging or, rather, expressing. It is clear but not because we know what its consequences will be.

Think of the Christmas Conference; People often hold up the Christmas Conference as an instance of a free deed performed by Steiner. He spoke of it this way as well. I am very happy this is considered an example of free action because Steiner also was clear that he simply did not know what the outcome would be when he performed it. I believe there are several examples of him stating outright that he did not know what effect his actions would have. I'm interested in how, unlike Kant, PoF asks us to reconsile how an action can be absolutely free in the midst of having no associations with certainty of outcome or with certainties related to social ease or community building.

PoF, to me,  requires that one move from within freedom Itself; this means that everything else becomes secondary; a free action's motivation is not a hoped for or expected outcome. A free action is motivated by itself, by the conscious love (self-sustaining inuiting) from which and into which it is unfolding. I'm relieved that people in the anthroposophical community are still willing to think of the Christmas Conference as an instance of a free deed because it is one area in which we have documents demonstrating that it was an act for Steiner that was simply not done with any type of conventional certainties.

Carl, in reading the analogy you draw between aspects of Kant's categorical imperative and a goethean conversation I found myself wondering if such a conversation was really grounded in such a high degree of control and certainty. I might be reading way too much into the simple example you gave. In fact, I'm sure you will fill out my picture more clearly.

You said: We ask ourselves, each time we make a conversational gesture, whether or not the world we currently inhabit (the conversation we currently participate in) will be improved or degraded by what we are about to say or to do.

It's not a surprise you are using Kant's Categorical Imperative as an analogy. In fact, your comment is so congruent with Kant's notion that it is difficult for me to avoid thinking of PoF's response to Kant. (Let me stress: all of my comments are based in my reaction to your partial description and I do not assume or imply that my comments relate to your thoughts as a whole. I am writing this response as part of a dialog which allow each of us to become more transparent in our fundamental needs related to our theoretical constructs. To whatever degree it seems I am playing  "gotcha" or "proved you wrong!" it is merely a function of my inability to communicate fully in cyber environment; i'm working on it) I would be slow in warming to the idea of participating in a conversation that required that I know the effects of my speech acts before they are performed. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be sensitive in my speech or receptive to feedback, but it is important for me to be able to speak what is emerging no matter what it is, knowing that I can respond responsibly to other's reactions and comments. I also value other people feeling free to let their actions emerge from a place of uncertainty and exploration. In your quote it sounds like you are setting up a criteria that would frown upon somebody who is eager to share something with others even while she knows that it will be challenging and could have unsettling effects upon the group.

You say: Furthermore, we set up the conversational circumstance in a way that we can know in the next moment whether in fact it was improved or degraded.

This strikes me as similiar to ego's desire to set up its life circumstance in such a way that it can be certain that each action will ensure its continuation. In reading your quote I wonder where the room is for a conversation that can include, integrate and even relish social and communicative ambiguity and tenstion.

You say: We proceed with the conversation on the basis of such tests. We thus set up a practical circumstance in which the intrinsic goodness of character becomes the law of the conversation.

Oh how I wish we were talking on a porch so you could see all my nonverbal communcations. You could see my genuine interest and see that these questions are not picky and condescending (as if I've found flaws in your idea), but they come from my needs, misunderstanding and interest in what you are saying. To me the idea of having conversations that proceed on the basis of tests in which I (we) must ensure that my comments are going to improve the world before I say them is just like Kant's notion that before we act we must understand the consequences of our actions. This is based on the notion that our actions must be pre-selected from a highly active intellectual process, a safe categorical method for ensuring free deeds are performed. This is much different from the kinds of actions that emerge as acts of love, not because their consequences are understood but because to repress them would be an act of fear; they aren't understood in finshed concepts but they are understood as expressions of the spiritualized thinking that is love.

To boil it down: I guess I just need some kind reassurance that your method not only can include the unknown and the risky but that it depends upon them to some degree. I'm willing to acknowledge that this need of mine may reflect a deeper misunderstanding on my part. I'm also aware that there are contexts in which a highly structured conversational environment is not only desirable but necessary (I've led groups with sexual offenders and we tend to need a strong rule-based environment to get through...at first) My one-sided fear based exaggeration of your method is that it is an attempt to seek and destroy all utterances that can not be quantified and perfectly communicated in a stress free manner to the rest of the group. I wonder if your method does not take advantage of cognition's inherent participation with not-knowing. In fact, I guess I'm afraid that your method is born out of a fear of living, cognitively, in the place of not-knowing and, instead, fantasizing of an escape, a way of ensuring that a group can move from one golden stone of agreement to the next if they just follow the correct protocol. I know that is not what you are saying, but I guess I'd like to hear you say how, specifically, your method avoids such a pitfall.

I'm asking if you could say a little bit about the role that uncertainty can play in your methodology? Does your method imply that a conversation moving from The Good is less prone to confusions, tensions and annoyances? Hearing you speak on this would help me read your post above without throwing in so many of my personal hallucinations and guesses. I hope I have at least framed my question within the context of my needs as opposed to some abstract rational standards. I don't mean to imply anything other than that I am taking an interest in what you are sharing and wish to understand it better.

Cisco, Lori and Jeffrey,

Thanks for the great postings. I’ll try to give a response to everyone in a short space here. I can't say everything, but over time I think the idea will become clear. Quotations below are from Steiner POF, chapter 9. No pages given because everyone has a different version. I use the Lindeman translation.

We are trying to describe what happens in a conversational moment, with “the idea which occurs to me when confronted by a concrete case." That spontaneous intuition is my freedom, and it is a moral expression in me of love. What form does it have to take under these conditions? What law governs how it appears?

Steiner’s answer is that it “follows my love for the object.” It is governed by my ideal intuition of what the conversation is about at the moment. It is determined by “a unified world of ideas which lights up within my organism.” That world of ideas, that world of thinking, moreover, exists prior to and independently of me and my organism (of my brain and body). When we participate with each other in Goethean conversation, we have already developed a capacity for spiritual, sense-free, body-free thinking. We are already able “to live within a spiritual, self-sustaining weaving of being.” We enter conversation together in order to enjoy that spiritual state, to deepen it and to use it for ethical purposes.

Now conversation is what we love to do. We love to act in shared freedom out of a thinking that is prior to the body. But that thinking has to be a unity. It must take into account the fact, for example, that we are acting in the context of a conversation, and that we want this conversation, which depends for its actual existence on other free beings like ourselves, to sustain itself and us in that state of disembodied consciousness. The object of our thinking is thus, in part, the conversation itself. The unity and continuity of the conversation thus governs our love and our spontaneity.

Kant describes this situation as a domain of ends. It’s a convocation of free, rational spirits, prior to bodies, in a particular space and time, under objective conditions of intuition, for the purpose of enjoying love. It’s a domain of pure moral action. No one is demanding agreement, but everyone, in Steiner’s words, “is expecting agreement.” But the expectation is as to form only. No one is trying to predict the content of what will happen next.

The Kantian imperatives presumably for Steiner represent moral needs at the level of “the good of humanity” or “cultural progress toward perfection.” These are legitimate moral needs in Steiner’s philosophy, and are not repudiated by his philosophy of freedom. Steiner simply wants to add to them another, antithetical moral need, derived from spiritual development and spiritual initiation: “individual morality grasped purely intuitively.” This third is indeed an opposing moral need, but it does not represent a repudiation of Kant. Rather, in the manner of Hegel, to whom Steiner explicitly subscribes, Kant’s imperatives are embraced and subsumed by a higher, living intuition we can at times exercise, for example, in high conversation.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the astute and well-considered posting. From this, I think there are grounds for belief that you and I share a basic understanding about the relationship between Kant and Steiner. There may be points where we diverge, but these are minor and manageable. They do not make conversation between us impossible.

I think Kant had very strong arguments about science, metaphysics and morality, but I think Steiner had privileged experience vis a vis the problems Kant was trying to solve. It's really a terribly interesting set of claims we get with Kant and Steiner. Both are very important figures in the history of consciousness studies, and their dialog needs to be understood by all anthroposophists.

Now there is a point about anthroposophical conversation that I think is important to broach now. In the ideal case, anthroposophical conversations are attended by Spirit-Selves and are conducted exclusively under conditions of sense-free thought. Under these conditions, they are events that take place quite literally out of this world. But there is a feature of anthroposophical conversation that makes it possible and useful for people whose astral bodies are not fully transformed into the sense-free condition to participate in these conversations. This feature is the spiritual power possessed by anthroposophical contents.

Anthroposophical and certain other spiritual contents have a force that works on the understanding (on the astral body) and loosens the members of the person (the physical, etheric and astral bodies) from one another. This loosening is a pre-condition for spiritual initiation. One need not be an initiate to make use of the spiritual force in these contents. One only need to aspire to initiation, to be willing and able to make use of this force.

So in Goethean conversation we don’t have a situation in which nothing can begin until everyone is initiated. Rather, we have a situation in which a good deal can be accomplished if everyone present is willing and able to become initiated. This situation is made possible by (1) the existence of anthroposophical contents and (2) a systematic way of making use of them, i.e. a basic framework for anthroposophical conversation.

It is important, I think, that we keep track of the conversational principles we have been discussing, to that we can be in a position during a real conversation to turn to one of them, if necessary, and apply it. A kind of off-the-shelf access model. These principles so far, by my reckoning, are Truth, Freedom, Expressibility, Reproducibility, Discharge and now Content. My aim is soon to begin a series of Journals wherein each of these can be discussed and satisfactorily settled by this online community.

All best,

Carl

Hi Jeff,

Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge aiming to guide the spiritual element in the human being to the spiritual in the universe. An anthroposophical content is a proposition contained in a bit of anthroposophical literature., or a proposition coming out of the imaginative cognition of an anthroposophist. Here is an example, from Knowledge of the Higher Worlds:

“All this arises from the fact that in the finer soul-vehicles of man the central points of the three forces — thinking, feeling and willing — are connected with each other according to laws. This connection in the finer soul organism has its counterpart in the coarser physical body. In the latter, too, the organs of will are connected according to laws with those of thinking and feeling. A particular thought, therefore, inevitably evokes a feeling or an activity of will. In the course of higher development, the threads interconnecting the three fundamental forces are severed” (Chapter IX, paragraph V).

The content (the proposition) here is:

(the soul is under laws) and (the laws of the soul are reflected in the physical body) and (the will in the physical body is connected by law to thinking and feeling in the physical body) and (a particular thought is inevitably connected to a feeling or an activity of will) and (in higher development, these connections are materially severed)

This content (this proposition) has a truth value, which in this case we take to be True.

A content (a proposition) of this sort, expressed in the right way and at the right time (during a conversation for example), is something that will guide the spiritual element in the individual to the spiritual in the universe. That is the function of anthroposophical conversation – to link anthroposophical contents together into a social art form, thereby guiding certain spirits (ourselves) into the presence of other, cosmic spirits (other human selves or other, higher selves). 

Do you and others find this explanation clear?

Thanks for the question!

Carl

Thanks Carl,

That helps. It is clearer to me how you are using certain terms, but
there is still some big time fuzz (not due to you, but due to the gap[
between how you and I use certain terms somewhat differently)

In regards to what you mean by the inherent spiritual function of
"anthroposophical" propositions: I'm not very comfortable with the notion
that a proposition has any value independant of the one presently being
assigned to it by the individual who is "taking it in" or "thinking about
it".

I understand that within any relatively healthy spiritual tradition
there are practices which produce various kinds of propositions
(meditations, mantras, logics or descriptions) that when studied or
meditated upon will produce quite specific effects; one of which is
certainly the "loosening" you spoke of in your previous post. (*)

So I stand with you in recognizing that given the right context (in this
case we are talking about people associating themselves via
anthroposophical texts/practices) there will be propositions that one can
use to achieve specific effects and experiences.

On these lines I also stand with you in recognizing that a given group of
people who have forged enough of a shared understanding via propositions
made my respected anthroposophists (namely, the good Dr) will be able to
make use of propositions that will produce an immediate experience of
shared agreement. This, I imagine, would be an extremely pleasant
experience for almost any group of spiritual seekers. They could gather
together and continuously share, collect and expand their repertoire of
agreed upon propositions, thereby increasing their ability to produce
conversational experiences of shared "knowing" with all of its perks.

I get the impression, Carl, that you are cleaning up and sharpening a
process that is taking place within groups of people who share a group
identity (anthroposophists, methodists, Dalles Cowboy Fans, Catholics,
birth families, circles of friends, etc,..).

When I took Goethean studies one of the great joys was in how over the
course of the year Dennis was able to not only help us intellectualize the
vocabulary of alchemy but to experience it as highly relevant to our
individual lives. As each of us built our experiential understanding of
terms that, at first, sounded just bizarre we enjoyed the incredible
communal experience of then sharing this as a small community. I remember
when some of my friends came to visit the class during one of Dennis's
freestyle lectures they later told me they were concerned that I was
involved with a cult. At the time I reacted with a dash of humor but a
dollop of defensiveness. Now, of course, I see that they were hearing us
throw around phases and terms with experiential "authority" that they (my
friends) simply had not conditioned themselves to experience in such a
way.

I imagine that the method you are introducing helps "speed up" this
process of building a shared experiential vocabulary. I can see that you
might be offering a way to "throw out" the tendencies that block or impede
this process and you could be introducing ways to facilitate and
streamline this capacity we have to construct such communal/knowledge
systems.

I don't think I have much of an objection to that. However, my personal
red flags go up at the notion of anthroposophical propositions being
inherently spiritual. I used to believe that wholeheartedly. In fact, I
can still distinctly remember what it felt like to study Steiner with this
belief implicitly shaping my experience.

to a large degree, I think this belief can sort of create a
self-fulfilling prophesy in that once you accept that you have found a
content (of any creed) that has inherent spiritual value, how can you
not begin to experience something special happen as you learn and
integrate it into your life?

I'm not saying that people who value Steiner's work (like me!) aren't
affected by simply engaging with the propositions themselves. I believe
they are. I simply see this phenomena from a different point of view, one
which makes me a bit cautious about stating that a fundamental factor in
initiating conversations is the inherent spiritual value of specific sets
of propositions. I don't feel like I am disagreeing with what you are
saying as much as looking at it from my own perspective. My personal
perspective on this topic is largely influenced by my deepest wish that
individuals could increasingly have the joyful experience that they are
meaning makers without implicitly reinforcing any notions that suggest
there is a "given" meaning outside the individual that they must first get
in touch with. This need/wish of mine due to many factors in my personal
life, of course. I have seen how much suffering is due to our presumption
that what we are seeking is not already with us. This has caused me to
take great interest in processes that help individuals locate their own
unique meanings that are already living inside of them and then
find ways to extend these meanings to a larger community in a way that
makes no demands of agreement but, instead, allows the community to be
enriched by the sharing itself. Often when we receive somebody else's
extension of unique meanings, we immediately find it supporting, changing
and extending our how and we wish to share this with the community as
well.

I don't see your process as working against what I work towards. I
absolutely see value in sharpening conversational skills related to
inexpressibility, reproducibility, discharge and content. In fact I think
it is essential that groups learn how to identify how their words are
being used as they discuss important matters.

It might be that I see such skills as necessary but insufficient for the
type of communal conversation I work for. While I have no doubt of the
power that could be harnessed in a method that helps groups collect
propositions that the members find to be highly charged spiritually, I
worry that such vocabularies tend towards the obscure (yet VERY specific
and meaningful for the members themselves; just think of any group or
tradition that has robust vocabularies oriented towards spiritual
experience!) and, therefore, sort of inherently become disconnected from
those who are not participating in such a process. This can lead to the
phenomena we all know so well when we meet a person who enthusiastically
wants us to share his powerful new spiritual understandings but is
frustrated because we first need to really understand what he means when
he talks about "pelmorphic souls" and "third epoch of the closiphormous
phase of human development"....We can see how meaningful these terms are
to our friend (we might not even doubt that they are to a large degree
true) but we also feel a certain hopelessness in ever giving him the type
of agreement he wants...because it soon becomes clear that in order for
him to feel we are sharing his experience we need to also share his ways
of talking and his spiritual maps and diagrams.

Carl, believe me, I don't think your intention to is help groups become
exclusive to themselves in that way. In fact, I think that if enough
people took up a practice such as your within the anthropsophical
community, we might see a strengthening of how people experience the
community as a whole. But I do wonder how this type of communal strength
translates to the wider culture. I would hope that there are somehow
safeguards built into the method itself that help participants remember
that even though they are increasingly finding the word "astral body" to
be meaningful and even somewhat essential, other people need never hear
the word "astral" or come across the concept in order to share the meaning
of the experience.

I believe that the meaning of any term is independent not only of the
specific term itself but even the specific conceptual frame (and
associated mental pictures) that go along with it. Thefore, I think that
if a reasearcher increases her understanding of "astral bodies" but
doesn't simultaneously increase her ability to translate this
understanding into radically different terms and phrases, she has lost the
value of her research. Yes, she might write great books on astral bodies
that a specific community finds highly valuable, but, in my opinion, the
epistemological error being enacted obviates the inherent value of her
research.

I take this from PoF, but have found that most students/teacher of PoF
take issue with this notion. In line with the notion itself, I don't need
agreement but I do need to fight for forms of discourse that don't fall
prey to any of the subtle and insidious ways that a narrowizing
consciousness can creep into our efforts. Even if that last sentence made
no sense whatsoever to you, Carl, I am certain that you and I share that
basic intention.

Obviously, I used this response to think outloud (as one does in
conversation) but, in this context, that can be unruly and, ultimately,
it can be disservice to the conversation. Therefore, let me say here that
you can use everything said above as the context in which to answer the
following question. BUT, the question stands by itself so by no means must
you attempt to relate it to what I've just said. In fact, if you find that
the above created too many threads of discourse, please click back into
this post and go directly to the following question;

Carl, I'm not sure I agree with your premise around the inherent spiritual
nature of "anthroposophical content". It would help me to know in what
ways your method of conversation safeguards itself from developing a
highly powerful shared vocabulary at the expense of isolating itself from
those not interested in the specific propositions it is generating? Or
in other words, are there ways in which your method will help communities
achieve and share spiritual experiences while recognizing that the
spiritual experience is not inherent to the method itself and,
therefore, can be seen to manifest in other groups that use very different
approaches and perhaps even contradictory terms?

thanks,

jeff

(*) an unnessary but relavent addition to this paragraph will be attached in a reply to this post...