"Yes, these are high and mighty ideals. It is my conviction that without such ideals the Philosophy of Freeing Spiritual Activity loses its ultimate purpose."

I loved your post but of course I will focus on the part that edges into my misunderstandings and confusions, which of course relates to how we are meaning "ideal".  I want to know what you mean when you say “such ideals”….

As a therapist I’m always dealing with people’s ideals, whether they be conscious or unconscious.  The entire enterprise of therapy could be seen as a  process of coming to terms with one’s ideals.  You marry the wrong man, you are disappointed in your child’s behavior, you worry about terrorism, education, your health, you social life.  You have mental pictures that sometimes inspire (on the days you feel they are possible to realize)…and the same mental pictures will cause you shame and guilt (on the days you decide you can’t achieve them)….

I wonder if it is really the ideal that really propels us forward?  I wonder if it isn’t a trick of the mind that attributes the rush of love that moves one forward to the content of various so-called ideals. 

Let’s say, hypothetically, that in the next year you go through some major experiences and end up chicken farming in Brazil.  I write you letter about Michael and PoF and want to know your opinion and you write back with something like,

“Dear Jeff, I don’t have time to go into the details right now…but my life took yet another turn.  I can’t really address your questions about Michael and PoF; not because I have a bone to pick with any of that stuff, but it just is so distant to me now.  I can clearly remember the spirit of my quest with those thoughts and concerns, but the content has moved on….I now farm and build a community here.  It’s the hardest most creative and fulfilling work I’ve ever done…And new notions of freedom and individuality are emerging but not yet really well formed.  Write back in a year and let’s catch up!”

Now let’s say that John the Chicken Farmer has never been so free. He can see how important the previous years had been. He can see how the thoughts and images he occupied himself with were inevitable.  It’s not that he considers anything a mistake. But things changed….new images came, new concerns…it felt like his chest was bursting open with freedom the day he decided to move to Brazil.

He might look back someday at when he said:

Yes, these are high and mighty ideals. It is my conviction that without such ideals the Philosophy of Freeing Spiritual Activity loses its ultimate purpose.

He might disagree, but me might not. In fact, now in his new understanding of freedom, he might realize that the so-called ideals of PoF have come more alive in him, even though he doesn’t give a moments thoughts to the content of the book or the mental pictures associated with anthroposophy.

For me to associate my understanding of PoF with the concept of “ideals”, I have to do some very fancy footwork. It’s footwork I love to do, but I don’t want insist everybody dance with me.  I wonder if the ideals you mentioned in your beautifully crafted post require that they be conceptualized at all?  Or, do we see PoF at work whenever love is the motivating force of action/thought.

Chicken-Farmer John could be doing more PoF with less the thought.  I think the book can explain this reality, but not if it is read conventionally.  Read conventionally, we can only understand freedom as a narrowized process that takes place between the ears (never articulate as such). I’m not saying that’s how you see it. But I do think you are somebody who can find new ways to say how PoF justifies this kind of thing…In my opinion, if students of PoF don’t find ways to locate (in the text) how chicken-farmer john’s freedom is growing even as he regards the former ideals less and less, the book will “lose it’s ultimate purpose”, to quote a great man I kind of know!

Jeff

This is such a fundamental question, Jeff, that I will cultivate a new journal entry as soon as life's daily chickens allow. I see no disagreeable issues in your post. You are very kind. The position on ideals needs a comprehensive walk around.

Why do I want to shift such a great question into another thread?

I had the idea that people engaged in PoF study and in anthroposophy would be motivated to converse about how this study and learning can work practically in the world. Folk worked up a sweat over the Iraq invasion at the hand of a beautiful story about the stars. These stars are comparatively silent now... Yes, that is deliberate provocation. Have I violated your freedom to remain silent until proven guilty?

I have the conviction as an inexperienced chicken farmer that anthroposophy is not just for study, but also for the world. Let's see if anyone here agrees with this? I experience a measure of frustration that, while certain people I know in Scotland proclaim that anthroposophy should be visible in the world arena, they mostly look to others to do it, not themselves. I think and feel that all anthroposophical activity is world activity, whether visible in general or not.

You could call world participation for the emancipation of the world an ideal activity that I do within everything that I do - including typing about chicken farming. Ideally that is, in reality I often get stuck in my own muddy boots. Reboot...

Jeff, the sky is falling. It is falling upon us all. We are drawing down the sky instead of lifting up the earth. In my understanding, anthroposophy is calling me to leave the sky to its freedom and cultivate the ground, not into a Tower of Babel, but into a place where the sky can combine with the earth to bring forth evolving life. So my work includes cultivating mind. I am not a philosopher but I can ask some very unsettling questions. Some students here are glad to be unsettled so that they can cultivate mind. Others are destabilised into confusion and need some clear direction that they can comprehend. Such clear directions can be considered as ideals or principles or paths to walk. Whatever the need, it is world work, not private work. Ethical individualism is not private or isolated, it is world individualism and world citizenship. That is what today's chickens say. Tomorrow's chickens may squawk in a different key.

Does anyone wish to talk about PoF's relevance for the world? Do you believe it is only relevant for the individual? Is that a tenable position? Are we only concerned with world thinking, or does world action have an essential place in PoF?

Look out for more on ideals on this website soon! Now a word from the next contributor...

Free ranging discussion hatching a battery of formidable arguments...

PoF Part 1 Thinking and Knowing

PoF Part 2 Willing and Doing

One of the nicest things about anthroposophy (which I think is an eggcelent example of PoF in action) is that it's not just words and ideas, it has hatched a whole flock of practical initiatives.

Feeling a bit peckish, see you later...