Hi Sara,
So this can be where we start this discussion. I'm planning on making a response in the next hour but in case you read this before I respond, I'd be really interested to hear more of your general thoughts on the subject. You mention seeing more of the connection between prayer and epistemology. Yes, I find that very interesting. In one of the quotes I posted I think it stands out:
Prayer as no beginning and no end. It is a part of life. And prayer is as continual as life. Everyone prays without ceasing. Ask and you have received, for you have established what it is you want.
I do believe that PoF shows how we actually have prayed for the world we percieve, we have established the world we want. But for this to make much sense there needs to be some kind of basic recognition of the ego's function in our thinking/perceiving. I have shared your moment of realzing how I had kept apart my inner schooling from investigating the nature of "sin". It was as if I let them exist on two tracks. I increased my capacity to make thinking the object of my attention AND I allowed my earliest perceptions/notions of "sin" to be unaffected. This split in my mind reflects THE split that PoF is all about overcoming. So, if you happen to read this before my "first" response, please say more about your thoughts in general.
Jeff
I read what you wrote in
I read what you wrote in response to Kristina’s Part II. You referred to Steiner’s words from chapter 5 where he says that isolated things are not real. I kept looking at that. I’ve certainly always had an intellectual appreciation for it and took it seriously, but I saw it in a new light. I read what he says after that and my interest grew because he states directly that “cause” and “effect” only appear as separated events due to our subjective organization. That got me thinking about something I read in one of the epistemological section’s of the course. Doesn’t it say something like (I’m not sure how to bold things so if this doesn’t work sorry) “Ideas leave not their source”.
But then I started taking Steiner more seriously (all this in less than 2 days!) and wondered what it would mean if I applied what he says there in chapter 5 to what he says earlier about cause and effect; that “cause” and “effect” only appear different because of subjective factors of my organization. It did not quite fit for me and I was stuck with this odd feeling, like there was something I wasn’t really getting but also something I was getting in a whole new way. I find myself more drawn to what Steiner was saying in chapter 5 because it fits with my basic understanding of what a clean monism must entail.
Anyway, years ago I dismissed out-of-hand the Course because I hated what it said about sin. Now I’m starting to think that perhaps my hatred was in response to MY projection of what it says. There is some way that Steiner’s comments fit with this stuckness I’m stewing within but I’m not sure at all how. It all also fits with my antipathy for what I thought the Course was saying but now I don’t know. How’s that for more comments.
sara
post script: and I want to know more about what you are saying in terms of how we have established what we want via prayer. If I knew what I was thinking, we might be thinking the same thing.
Oh wow, Sara, I love what
Oh wow,
Sara, I love what you're up to here. I don't want to say too much here but do you realize how much of a sucker I am for applying the latter parts of PoF to the earlier. I used to have a journal on this site that I used sole for that purpose!!!! And I think you chose an incredible way to do it because, yes, things get extremely interesting when you apply 5-10{26,27} to what Steiner says earlier about cause and effect, especially his early example with the bird moving the bush. But I don't want to say too much due to the proposal I'm going to make at the end of this email.
In terms of the epistemological comment from acim. In part 7 of Chapter 26 we read:
"Ideas leave not their source, and their effects but seem to be apart from them.
Ideas are of the mind. What is projected out, and seems to be external to the mind,
is not outside at all, but an effect of what is in, and has not left its source."
I hesitate to share what Christ says next because it might poisen the well for what I want to ask you next...but it's just too perfect. Look at this:
"God's answer lies where the belief in sin must be, for only there can its effects be utterly
undone and without cause. Perception's laws must be reversed, because they are reversals
of the laws of truth. The laws of truth forever will be true, and cannot be reversed; yet can
be seen as upside down. And this must be corrected where the illusion of reversal lies."
All I want to say now is that if you apply the above quotes to the way 5-10{26,27} in PoF affects Steiner's earlier comments on Cause and Effect, you get something that i find utterly awe inspiring....But let's not go there yet! Unless, of course, you want to...
Ok, listen: rather than starting by spouting off my ideas (which people around here will tell you I have no problem doing), I'd rather share my ideas with you by the way I ask you about yours. Does that make sense? No, fine, but here's the deal: Of all modern philosophical adventures into the dynamic of thinking, I find Gendlin's trilogy to be the most compelling ("Experience and the Creation of Meaning", "The Presence of Feeling in Thought", and "A Process Model"). I've never come across any philosophical work that expresses and extends PoF as his. But what's more important is this: from Gendlin's discoveries about thinking, he has presented a very interesting model that he calls "Thinking at the Edge" (TAE). I've adapted that to my work with PoF and find it to be a very exciting, fun and revealing process. It starts with what Gendlin calls a felt-sense. You've just beautifully referred to a felt-sense when you talked about this "stuckness" you have that somehow knows something new.
I want to suggest that rather than me just immediatly tell you my thoughts on this subject, we take a day or two (I don't know how quickly we can go back and forth) to see what happens as you flesh out your felt sense via Thinking At the Edge. I'll introduce you to the first 5 steps. We don't have to do all 14 because it gets very intricate and so much often comes from the first 5. If you are not intrested, that's great: I'll respond to your questions immediately and directly. However, if you are interested, you'll probably quickly see how TAE relates to PoF, the Course, "sin" and prayer.....
waitingly yours,
Jeff
Ok, Jeff- I'm more than
Ok,
Jeff- I'm more than happy to Think at My Edge but ONLY IF
you promise to get back to me about this stuff directly. I'm not sure I'll be around the computer much this weekend, but I'm not in a huge rush, as long as I know you'll not drop the topic are remain evasive! So go, let me in on step number one. by the way, i forced myself to stop re-reading the quotes from chapter 26. I think that second one is probably right on target with this itch I can't scratch, but I like the idea of seeing what the heck you mean by my felt-sense. It really isn't all that special! It's just this frustrating sense that I don't really get it!!!!!!!!!!
sara
Great, Sara... Ok, so I'm
Great, Sara...
Ok, so I'm going to open a new thread to begin our play with TAE. I will reserve this thread for later when you are finished with the first 5 TAE steps. That way I can come back here and be bombastic, arrogant, short-sighted, obtuse and all the rest. But let me leave one prediction here at the beginning.
I bet that after you go through the first 5 stages you'll have addressed your original question in a manner that will be 1000 times more fulfilling than getting an answer from anybody else alive or dead. I say this because of my complete and utterly reversed experience of PoF. That said, I also can't wait to come back here and tell you the real answer....
just kidding, of course
Jeff
no such thing as sin
Dear Jeff and Sara,
I am a bit confused to see a discussion of A Course in Miracles (or TAE) here on the PoF website, but it is clear that some people think that such material is valid, so in a way I can't really complain - everyone is free to think what they want. It is a fact, however, that the word sin does not exist in the Gospels. Oh, I know it is there in all the many modern translations, but the term never existed in the original Greek, which is the language in which the Gospels were originally written down.
The Greek word most often translated as sin is "hamartia", which is a term from archery meaning: "missing the mark". The conception behind such a term is quite different from the concept behind the word sin. In fact the differences between the concepts is considerable. It appears to my thinking that the idea of "sin" is introduced as part of the paternalistic power social structures common to the early years of Christianity, when all the Feminine Mysteries (so-called "paganism") were being eliminiated. Think how easy it is to dominate someone when you can accuse them of a "sin", rather than seeing them as someone very human, and very normal, whose intentions were human, but whose aim was not quite true.
So when someone writes (as in A Course in Miracles) in such a way as to put in Christ's mouth the word sin, they have demonstrated that they don't really know what they are talking about. If you want to get a better version of the Gospels, read "The Unvarnished Gospels" by Andy Gaus, where the original Greek is translated into idiomatic English without adding any of the later doctrinal interpretations encrusted upon the Good News (the Gospels) over the years by those who like to have power over other people and tell them what to think and what was good and what was evil.
joel
Joel,
Joel,
So glad you are back and I hope your journey back east has been as smooth as possible. How are you doing?
Hey, just as there are PoF experts towards who the Anthropop society turns for answers, there are experts towards whom Course folks turn as well. I can assure you that the experts know that I am wrong; my understanding of PoF is frowned upon, just as my understanding of ACIM is frowned upon. But there is no need for unhappy faces because I am so happy with what I have discovered in each.
Thanks for your words on "sin". Here are some more that I clipped from a study group:
In the strange world that you have made the Son of God has sinned.
..................
It is essential that error be not confused with sin, and it is this distinction that makes salvation possible... Sin calls for punishment as error for correction, and the belief that punishment is correction is clearly insane.
...........................
The Son of God can be mistaken; he can deceive himself; he can even turn the power of his mind against himself. But he cannot sin...Yet for all the wild insanity inherent in the whole idea of sin, it is impossible.
..................
A major tenet in the ego's insane religion is that sin is not error but truth,
................
The idea of sin is wholly sacrosanct to {the ego's} thought system, and quite unapproachable except with reverence and awe. It is the most "holy" concept in the ego's system; lovely and powerful, wholly true, and necessarily protected with every defense at its disposal. For here lies its "best" defense, which all the others serve. Here is its armor, its protection...
..................
It can indeed be said the ego made its world on sin. Only in such a world could everything be upside down. This is the strange illusion that makes the clouds of guilt seem heavy and impenetrable.
......................
You never hate your brother for his sins, but only for your own. Whatever form his sins appear to take, it but obscures the fact that you believe them to be yours, and therefore meriting a "just" attack.
.....................
"Darkness is lack of light as sin is lack of love."
....................
No one is punished for sins, and the Sons of God are not sinners.
..........................
Son of God, you have not sinned, but you have been much mistaken.
Adam's "sin" could have touched no one, had he not believed it was the Father Who drove him out of paradise. For in that belief the knowledge of the Father was lost, since only those who do not understand Him could believe it.
..................
The idea that the guiltless Son of God can attack himself and make himself guilty is insane. In any form, in anyone, believe this not. For sin and condemnation are the same, and the belief in one is faith in the other, calling for punishment instead of love. Nothing can justify insanity, and to call for punishment upon yourself must be insane.
..................
The betrayal of the Son of God lies only in illusions, and all his "sins" are but his own imagining. His reality is forever sinless. He need not be forgiven but awakened.
...............
Call it not sin but madness, for such it was and so it still remains.
...................
The ego does not perceive sin as a lack of love, but as a positive act of assault.
.................
I've found so many interesting cross-fertilizations between ACIM and Steiner; again, not according to the orthodoxy in either camp. But one thing you can see explicity in both Steiner and the Course is that each repeatedly asks the student to think for him or herself. Steiner and the Course each have various places they stop talking and make sure that the student realize that the text (words) are only pointers that point into the student's own activity.
People who might not be inclined to read Steiner often do appreciate it when they read his warnings that the student must think for him or herself; often when reading Steiner people do not come across these types of statements. The same seems to happen when people read the Course. Even though it says it is to be studied and not believed, people don't always find those quotes. It even goes so far as to say that a student can substitute words that carry the wrong implications.
Anyway, what a waste to say too much about the "truth" of a text. I do appreciate the fact that the Course points to "sin" as a concept utterly incompatible to our spiritual activity, but it wouldn't matter to me if a Course student said that notion is wrong. And I highly doubt that you and I have much to say about the nature of sin. It seems we are on much of the same page.
Welcome back, Joel!
Jeff
who's confusion
Joel, I've not spent much time on this website but are you seriously suggesting that this is a place one shouldn't expect to find a wide variety of references here? I've read about AA, 12 world views, threefolding, ALL KINDS of spiritual beings and so much more here. I kind of like that.
I think Jeff's quotes say enough, but I'll tell you this: I first read parts of the The Course when I had just began studying PoF and the wider context of Steiner's cosmology. You don't have to read much of the Course to see that it suggests that the common notion of "sin" is not only wrong but literally nonsensical. My husband, at the time, watched me slam the book down in disgust and say, "This book is trying to tell me that the devil isn't bad." My husband (I love him much more now) said, "actually, I think it's trying to tell you there really is no devil"
Gross....So I was so happy to pick back up my Steiner lectures and read about all the evil intentions of Ahriman and how he might destroy our future. It felt much safer to believe in that kind of danger, to know that I needed to get stronger in my thinking, feeling and willing to really "take on" all the evil and sin out there.
You say that somebody put the word "sin" in the mouth of Christ in the Course. It wasn't the same person who put all those words in young Jesus's mouth in the 5th gospel, was it? Steiner did tell us not to believe in what he said in the 5th gospel, right? For me, personally, I never care all that much about who said what. If somebody tells me that Joel said something, I could care less when I can read the words for myself and make up my own mind.
I read the Gospel of John quite a bit. If you told me tomorrow that many of those quotes were made up as jokes 1500 years ago, it would not take away what I have made them to mean. Now that I am slowly looking back into the Course, I'm interested only in what meaning I can see in those words for myself and how it relates to my cognitive experiences. If somebody tells me the following prayer was translated by Steiner: I will read it and take it for a spin. If somebody says it comes from the Course: same thing:
Forgive us our illusions, Father, and help us to accept our true relationship with You, in which there are no illusions, and where none can ever enter. Our holiness is Yours. What can there be in us that needs forgiveness when Yours is perfect? The sleep of forgetfulness is only the unwillingness to remember Your forgiveness and Your Love. Let us not wander into temptation, for the temptation of the Son of God is not Your Will. And let us receive only what You have given, and accept but this into the minds which You created and which You love. Amen.
If Steiner said the following, I simply check out my own experience and see how it works. The validity of The Course? Of Steiner? Of thought itself? I have not read a word about TAE, but if it really does have an interesting connection to what Steiner says about thinking, I'm don't share your confusion that Jeff mentioned it. Then again, who knows, perhaps you and Jeff have been going back and forth about the validity of that other guy's work on cognition. At this point, I just think it's cool that Jeff is mentioning connections between a few subjects that I'm beginning to see move closer to each other myself. Over the last 12 years I've mixed in some of the "major" anthroposophical circles and have yet to come across this. I KNOW EXACTLY what the big anthroposophists have to say about the Course, but mostly they at least know it says there is no sin and THAT is what they rail against. Although, I must say, it seems that most decent anthropsophical thinkers do at least acknowledge the points you made about "missing the mark".
Love's messengers are gently sent, and return with messages of love and gentleness. The messengers of fear are harshly ordered to seek out guilt, and cherish every scrap of evil and of sin that they can find, losing none of them on pain of death, and laying them respectfully before their lord and master. Perception cannot obey two masters, each asking for messages of different things in different languages. What fear would feed upon, love overlooks. What fear demands, love cannot even see. The fierce attraction that guilt holds for fear is wholly absent from love's gentle perception. What love would look upon is meaningless to fear, and quite invisible.
anyway, I agree with your points about "sin", obviously. It took me a moment to see that you thought you were correcting the Course's view. I like the notion of "lack of love" as a pointer towards the original meaning. If you combine that with "missing the mark", you kind of get a big clue as to what the "mark" refers to! Or better yet, we can just look inside and see the mark.
sara
text, reading and meaning
Sara and Jeff,
Apparently I misjudged the Course as to sin. I was reading what the two of you had written and it sounded like the Course was using sin in the habitual way. Now I realizse that the wrong note I hear in the Course is about the ego., not about sin. And, of course, the Course has a tone of absolutism that I find unfortunate (that is assuming that what the two of you have set out in bold in your messages is from the Course).
Where Steiner differs in a most significant fashion is in disciplining the thinking (the act of cognition), such that the highest principles of science live in that action (cognition), such as: precision, exactness, and an ability to distinguish between facts which are able to be rediscovered by anyone, and matters which are mere beliefs.
One of the results of practicing Steiner's works on cognition is that thinking learns to live into the world of thought (an actual spiritual "place"), which we sometimes refer to in the idea of the ethereal world. That world has laws, which are mostly of a kind that are analogous to music and mathematics (particularly geometry) - that is rules of harmony and beautiful movement (emphasis on the idea of "rules"). The "rules" come from the Nature of the Logos, that is the ethereal world is within Christ (as John says of the Word: "all things happened through it, and not one thing that has happened, happended without it").
Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life is literally true, so that when we read sentences (such as those above in bold) out of the new cognition, the absence of harmony and beautiful movement of thought is discernable. Sometimes the disharmony is something rather simple, such as a concept that has a meaning in the text which is not a true meaning in reality. This is what I find when I read the term ego in the above texts. If I take this thought stream into the world of pure thinking it is unable to be in harmony or beautiful movement there. I can't hold the thought there without an experience of dissonance and some degree of pain of soul.
Sometimes a sentence (a thought) is not even sensical within itself, such as: The ego does not perceive sin as a lack of love, but as a positive act of assault.
The only way I can make that sentence work (be in harmony) is if I take the concept of ego and twist it away from its Western Esoteric meaning, and turn it into an ungrounded luciferic Eastern Esoteric meaning, where the conception of the ego is as if it is flawed merely by existing (because it is separated from the Source). This meaning of the concept of the ego in the East comes mostly from how much the ideas of the East are still under the influence of the past of the evolution of consciousness. That is it is "tradition", which by its nature is sclerotic (that is "hardened").
Reality is living and constantly evolving. The ego is not fixed in its nature (having become separated from the Source), but only by having separated can it evolve and become something more - something new.
I can, of course, make the above sentence internally sensical by twisting the meaning of the other concepts (sin, love, perceive, positive, assault). The need to twist the meaning of the essential concepts (the nouns and verbs) in order to make the sentence internally sensical is one of the signs of a lack of precision and exactness in the thinking of the author of the sentence. This absence of precision also makes it possible for the reader to interpret the sentence in any way they want, because the meaning is too plastic - too maleable (a living thought is an "organism" and has form as an aspect of its meaning.) Too much form and the thought becomes dead (ahrimanic), too little and the thought is illusory (luciferic).
Further, if the thought in the sentence is too absolute (too much certainty), this can also make it ahrimanic, even though the content itself is luciferic (too formless in meaning). A thought can also be too uncertain (the I doubts its own intuitions, something common in this Age).
The core problem here in this Forum, however, has nothing to do with the sentence or the Course or PoF. We are engaged in a dialog using a medium that does not support living conversation. Our thoughts die on the page, once written. In a face to face conversation, thoughts expressed can remain living because of the group dynamic and the presence of Christ. In the electronic aethers Ahriman and Lucifer have too much sway.
joel
Joel- authority
Joel, you and I do the same thing (or something very similar, I think) when we come across passages in which Steiner is telling people what they MUST think or how the world MUST be seen. We remember (we bring back to mind, we implicitly "know") all the ways he has shown the flexibility and fluidity of his core message. That's why when we come across passages that might justifiably upset reasonable people- people who haven't been exposed to a comprehensive picture of Steiner- you and I don't flinch. And you and I are also members of the rather smaller group of anthroposophists who often will point out Steiner's one-sided tendencies when they crop up.
Just as Steiner does, the Course can sound very authoritative. And yet, in my experience, it softens this tone in numerous creative ways (it makes jokes, pokes fun at the “seriousness”, constantly reminds that all is well…). Just as you and I don't spend too much time trying to convince somebody that they MUST see the gentle fluidity that moves through Steiner's work, there would be no strong reason to hope you find the same thing in the Course. In fact, imagine how many creative steps are being taken on earth just because the individuals haven't gotten caught up in understanding Steiner!!!!!! Or the Course!!!!
Jeff
that said, Jeff
I get your point about holding my horses, but I was hoping Joel would return to these responses you have made to his comments. Who knows, he might be just busy with his move. It seems like you addressed his comments in a way that makes room for a useful conversation on the topic.
On another topic: Now I simply can not find Steiner's comment about how he will only talk about evil as that which proceeds forth from the human ego. I am certain I saw in on the Steiner books site, but I can't find it. Could you let me know if you do find the actual quote and where he makes the statement?
Sara
Hi Sara, I thought I typed
Hi Sara,
I thought I typed it up the other day, but who knows. Ok, on the 28th of Jan 1907 in a set of lectures on the Lord's Prayer, Steiner said:
"Spiritual Science never uses the word evil for any transgression unless it stems from the human ego. Evil, then, is a failing of the ego,"
Now imagine reading Steiner's statement from Joel's point of view: think of Joel's characterization of the Luciferic notion of the ego as something that is "flawed by merely existing".
This is a classic example of a certain way of speaking that Steiner has. Joel mentioned that the Course sounds authoritative to him and I'm sure he'd continue having this perception if he read a sentence in the Course which read:
The Course only uses the word evil to account for the ego's transgressions. The truth is that Evil is a failing of the ego.
The beauty of it all is that Joel would have no problem with this statement by Steiner as long as he has a wider context in which to interpret it. Now, if Joel had no reason to defend Steiner (if he had no history with Steiner, or if he had not developed a respect for Steiner's work or whatever) he would probably experience Steiner's comments to be authoritative and Luciferic.
By the way, don't hold your breath to read a response (or the kind you want) from Joel. He, like all of us, has fairly specific patterns and tends to teach or correct on the internet. I imagine that once this context is no longer relevant to that set of criteria, he wouldn't find it all that significant to converse. This is a fine approach. But, you're right, there's also a good chance the guy is still unloading boxes.
Remember projection makes perception AND perception is a result and not a cause. These two ideas go together, obviously, and we can see Steiner spend his life trying to say this in so many creative ways.
In PoF Steiner goes to great lengths to elaborate this point that projection makes perception but he is using a very different type of vocabulary and I think this is very significant. Steiner is trying to speak PoF in a vocabulary and set of concepts that are constantly working hard against it. He works hard to give old terms his new meaning, but he can only get so far in that framework. Some people think I'm nuts to believe that in PoF Steiner is also showing that perception is a result and not an cause. I can understand this because there are certain portions of PoF in which Steiner does talk about perception as if it played a causal role. Again, I think it can be shown that this is another instance of the limitation within which he was working and not an example of PoF being inconsistent with anything Steiner taught later. I have pointed out in my journal that Steiner utterly abandoned his notion of "The Separation Imagination" (SI). He did not call it that because he did not call it anything, but I use SI to point to Steiner's early insistence that we MUSTimagine a world of independent perception in order to recognize the role and nature of thinking.
If you read his book "Anthroposophy- a fragment", you can see quite clearly that Steiner was fully aware that perception never exists apart from our projection of it AND that our projection of it is already the effect our defense against our "true" I, or the Christ Impulse. I can see how people, at first, can scratch there head to hear that PoF and the Course on covering the same ground, but when you track Steiner further elaboration on theory of perception and knowledge, it becomes quite wonderful.
In the context of our talk with Joel, the notion that we are seeing what we are putting there is very relevant. Not just in terms of Joel immediately "seeing" how wrong the course was on "sin" and then quickly correcting that and "seeing" how off the Course in on "ego". That's his thing, but we should look at what we projected, and therefore "saw", in Joel as we read his comments.
It would be very easy for you and I to get off on how we see Joel doing this or that in the context of this discussion, but we are much less likely to follow our own advice and explore why we might need to be seeing that in that way. PoF and the Course (the former implicitly and the latter explicitly) have much to say about why would would project a "joel" that was too quick to judge and need to teach. PoF and the Course each mention a "split" and while they don't use that term the exact same way (Steiner hardly explicates it in the text, but the TEXT is only about the split) they each show that the ego's relationship to the split is a knowledge-drama. We wish to avoid the drama and replace it with a dry, cold set of facts. Sorry. Do you remember what the Course says happens to perception the more it is transformed by the Christ? Well, Steiner says it as well. He even talks a bit about it in the back of PoF. Gotta run right now!
Jeff
Joel, You said (I will bold
Joel,
You said (I will bold you into AUTHORITY, sorry)
Where Steiner differs in a most significant fashion is in disciplining the thinking (the act of cognition), such that the highest principles of science live in that action (cognition), such as: precision, exactness, and an ability to distinguish between facts which are able to be rediscovered by anyone, and matters which are mere beliefs.
and that some people will ask, "How many anthropsophists are reproducing with percision and exactness the details of Steiner's work" does not mean that Steiner's work is invalid in any way. Those who cherish Steiner's work can point to others who reproduce it in their own ways. This isn't all just delusional neurosis. There really are folks sharing exact experiences. Fans of Steiner come in all shapes and sizes. You, of all people, know of the challenges that such fans bring to his work.
and it can be nice to see how many fans of the Course there are. My hunch is that it's fans bring the same types of neurosis as the fans of Steiner you criticize.
I find a precision in my growing understanding of the Course that is a dear friend to the kind of precision that Steiner advocated. I have read very kind and intelligent scientists who consider Steiner's basic indications in thinking to be very cultic (in terms of narrowing an individuals creativity and individuation in thinking). I can see why certain of Steiner's indications can seem that way if you don't take in a fuller picture. I used to really hope these critics of Steiner could see him how I saw him.
I'm blown away by what I'm seeing in the Courses description of final participation and the direct experience of one's thinking. And and and
I have no doubt that it must also look silly, authoritative and delusional from other perspectives. Steiner and the Course shouldn't expect less when they try to communicate such bizzare messages in our time.
Jeff
joel- on ego
Joel, after reading the words:
The ego does not perceive sin as a lack of love, but as a positive act of assault.
you said:
"The only way I can make that sentence work (be in harmony) is if I take the concept of ego and twist it away from its Western Esoteric meaning, and turn it into an ungrounded luciferic Eastern Esoteric meaning, where the conception of the ego is as if it is flawed merely by existing (because it is separated from the Source)."
First I want to say this: I do believe you when you say that you can only understand that quote the way you describe.
I think even if you read Steiner making a diametrically opposed interpretation of that quote you might change your mind. Not because you simply bow down to Steiner, but because it would be the kind of "outside" knock that would interest you.
In terms of that quote from the Course, I can see it in harmony in many different ways. Joel, you know how after you said the Course was wrong about sin and I showed you all those quotes that widened the picture it presented of "sin"? Well, the Course also goes out of its way to state, over and over and over, that the ego is nothing to be upset about. In fact it points to ego as the ONLY place to begin one's path and that the Christ is never actually dissociated from ego. Unlike some eastern and western esoteric paths that present a picture of dissoociation from Source being possible, the Course says that the denial of Christ is only apparent.
But rather than try to make you see that both "sin" and "ego" are different than your original impressions, I'd like to just acknowledge that, YES, I can see how you would interpret the quote the way you do from within the schemas that you apply to it. In fact, from that perspective, it's very "accurate".
If I had shown you the quote:
"The word "ego" is only to be used to describe that in Man from which evil proceeds."
You could easily have said the same type of criticism that you made above. I mean look at that sentence! How Eastern! How authoritative! How simplistic!
Steiner said it. But who cares. Yes, you can say he was wrong, that Steiner missed the point of evolution. Yes, you could show that he said it within a particular context in which it had true meaning. But does it matter, Joel. If somebody reads that quote and trashes it as illogical or wrong, does it really matter if we show them that it has beauty and balance within a particular context of knowledge? Again, I'm not judging the logical consistency of your criticism of the quote from the Course. And if you applied the same "correction" to Steiner's quote, so be it. You are right AS LONG AS you hold to the frame in which you are reading it. Do we have a responsibility to always widen each other's frames? Not really, I think. But if somebody shows interest then it's fun.
Jeff
joel- lastly
What I love about PoF, the Course and Gendlin is how they each share the insight that lets us see even how this discussion has taken place...how you read some quotes about "sin", had the urge to tell us about "sin", then I had to respond in such a way.....
Each of the above texts can go into what was causing this particular conversation to happen the way it has. Yes, they will say it differently. And, yes, if the focus is only on the way their words work from the perspective of another context, they will each have much to "correct" in the other.
Gosh, imagine if you were talking to a group of people about your teachings in regards to The New Thinking and while you were describing an aspect of social life that you really are concerned about somebody in the group interrupted you and said,
"Joel, you are missing the point by so much. Our age has much to learn—especially this age. Your focus is way off the mark. We must find our way back to veneration for the infant Jesus!"
Maybe it's better to imagine this happening on a web discussion because that seems to be were you are more prone to get annoyed and harsh when people say things that need correction.
Anyway, the above quote comes from Steiner. He said it this way:
Our age has much to learn—especially this age. It must find its way back to veneration for the infant Jesus!
And of course he said it in a particular context. But I know you can see why nice and smart and reasonable people could come across an expression like that and see it as authoritative and one-sided and kind of stupid. I must say, one thing I like about what I've read of your world-view, Joel, is that you don't seem to think that a healthy social future is dependent upon a world in which all Men have found their way back to a veneration of baby Jesus. I'm not suggesting that isn't special or significant for those who have that path.
When you see dogma in the Course, I suggest it is projection. Yes, it can be found. But when people find it Steiner, I say the same thing. I'm not suggesting that each doesn't have it's own one-sided tendencies.
But most importantly, Joel, how was your trip back east to Home? How are you doing?
Jeff
yea but...
Dear Joel,
I am responding to the following that you wrote:
"I can, of course, make the above sentence internally sensical by twisting the meaning of the other concepts (sin, love, perceive, positive, assault). The need to twist the meaning of the essential concepts (the nouns and verbs) in order to make the sentence internally sensical is one of the signs of a lack of precision and exactness in the thinking of the author of the sentence."
I don't know if you have ever written about something like the Foundation Stone meditation, but I wonder if you apply the same standards to that? Do you treat any sentence by Steiner that you randomly stumle across this way? It seems like very very sloppy thinking to me. In fact, looking at your first email I find it funny that you said how clear it was that the person who put the word "sin" in the mouth of Christ did not know what he was talking about. You had only read a snip. You did not read it clearly because even the snips Jeff had posted already spoke against the notion. But I understand that you had simply misread our comments, yet you were the only one who did not know what he was talking about. Then you open up the next post saying that your real problem is that the Course clearly doesn't know anything about the true meaning of the "ego". It doesn't sound like Jeff is interested in showing the ways the Course defines ego, but I wish he would. I don't have an easy way of copying sections of the Course or I might, only because I've already thumbed through about 5 quotes that go completely against the way you characterize the Course's descriptions. It just seems like classic antipathy to me. You are probably a smart guy, so it isn't hard to construct whatever arguement you want. I'm not even a course fan but your sloppy approach is making me defend it!!!!! I take that back; my own projections are "making" me defend it.
I am curious if you apply your words above (the ones I quoted) to any random Steiner quotations you come across. If so, you must have determined that a large proportion of what he says is clear evidence of a...."lack of percision amd exactness" in the good Dr.
I'm sorry for the tone, but I'm fairly responsive when I come across teacher types who, out of the freakin gate, shovel out so much crap. It might be that the Course and Steiner are very unclear and all that, but I'm just not impressed by your method of showing it. If I gave you some random Steiner quotes would you be willing to show how they prove he isn't a clear thinker?
sara (who promised to avoid pointless web conversations this year!!!!)
but, who knows, it can be such fun!
hold your horses
Ok,
I think you are both right. There is no way Joel can be proven wrong. He will be able to take any quote you throw at him from the Course and show how it doesn't hold up to what he's looking for. This is not for the reason he thinks, but that is beside the point. But you should go to Joel's website. He has written a lot of wonderful stuff, Sara. I think you'll find it interesting that he sometimes write in a poetic/logical fashion that is very much of the same tone as the Course. When Joel writes like this it is a beautiful style that is not attempting to lay out conventional precision and, yet, is still building up a logic that can be followed by a careful reader. He can write formal definitions (as can the Course) and he can even be pure poetry (as can the Course), but he can often blend the two in this manner. If I took some samples of Joel's writing and gave him amnesia and asked him to apply the same standards he used on that clip from the Course, he would undoubtedly be able to show the shortcomings of his own work.
Joel presents his own work in a wonderful manner. I only find it fuzzy when it gets into commenting on other thinkers, especially on social or "spiritual" topics. In those domains it seems that there is often needless correcting. Joel, do you remember when you commented on that paper I sent you by Ben-Ahran on social threefolding? You sent back a line by line reading in which you stated that he knows absolutely nothing on the topic. It was brutal. I'm not saying you were wrong but I remember sending it to you thinking you'd at least be inspired to see a fellow researcher of the social sharing his work.
I think it has something to do with how things get translated from one schema to another. Things that appear to be contradictions from one perspective can often be easily resolved within another AND if you ask questions before you "correct" you often will find that there are many wonderful and new ways that people are willing to translate their own ways of talking to meet you. It is the immediate correction that I often find unhelpful, not just with Joel but with myself and definitely within "thinking" circles...
But I think you are on to something, Sara, when you point out the STeiner piece. I think there are reasons you won't see too much picking apart of Steiner's logic in various places. I don't mean just out of dogmatic loyalty, but also because there is a trust that comes from years of seeing how the pieces fit. Steiner did not shy away from pointing out that much of what he said appeared to contradict itself and required deeper study. But why do the study if you are inspired to, right? I only became interested in checking deeper into the Course after a conversation with Ben-Aharon in which a connection was made between the two. It got me thinking how Gendlin' s work was humming underneath each in a wonderfully intricate way. But before that, the Course just seemed like a block of words. Now I love reading the parts that transition from formal logic and epistemology toward prayer like Gospel and into frank discussion or poetic expression. And, in my view, the Course does a wonderful job of building the logic of how it uses words up over time, much like Joel in some of his best writing. Breaking down fragments of paragraphs is not the way it see the whole. It wouldn't be fair to do that to Joel's work either, so mind yourself, Sara! Just kidding. Actually once you see the Whole then it is quite lovely to see how the various parts reflect it and carry it forward.
Hey, Sara, before you get too bend out of shape by Mr. Wendt, I suggest you checkout his website and play around. You won't be reading any of his argumentative conversations and can sink into his own art that he dearly loves and demonstrates a fine craft.
Joel, I can't find your website anymore!! Say it ain't so......
Jeff
point taken
I think I know exactly what you are saying. I've got to get over my reactive issues when I see what I think is ego being convered up by intellect. It's my problem. My dad was one of those smart guys who could always poke a hole in any arguement that wasn't his or that he had not been exposed to. He was so amazingly defensive but never owned up to it and, instead, just kept using his brillance trying to gather supporters of his doctrines. Although he would never call them doctrines.
So when I read how Joel just jumped into saying how off the Course is with "sin" and then, after being "corrected", immediately said his problem is reallythe with how incorrectly and illogically it speaks of "ego"....I went are projectal on him....But that is what it is....I'm sure that even if you could show that the Course uses ego in a way that doesn't make it bad or dissociated, he would then know what he really has a problem with. But I'd rather deal with my projection issues than the rest of the worlds. A good brain can 'prove" any point to its own satisfaction, I think.
I'm just glad I'm finding there might be a way to take was is alive in all this and think myself further along in a new direction.
By the way, it is strange that you put up that Steiner quote in which he says that he uses "evil" to refer to what can ONLY come from the human ego. No, it was the other way around: he says that he uses ego to refer to that which all evil comes from.
I JUST READ THAT MYSELF via the Steinerbook's online thingy. Do you have the actual lecture that is in?
Steiner had many contradictory ways of talking about ego. I just scanned what you wrote for step 2 in my workshop and it makes me think it would be really interesting to see Steiner apply step 2 to one of his many uses of "ego"...
Oh, I recently began falling in passionate love with Owen Barfield, so I don't really know yet why you call Step 2 Barfieldian but I look forward to knowing this.
sara
Project: what else is there
Project: what else is there to do?
That should be my new bumper sticker. Now that I see the way PoF points to the source of projection, I can't go back!
Yea, I have the book that lecture is in, but it's in storage. In fact, I'm not sure it's a book; it might be a pamphlet of three lectures. I had typed it into my computer at one point but then changed it for a writing project; that's why i wasn't sure exactly how it went. It's good to know i can find it at Steinerbooks.
Steiner, at times, spoke of the ego just like that- often when contrasting the functioning of the I with egoic processes. At other times, he would describe a blended entity that was taking care of both sides and he'd call that ego. And at OTHER times he used ego to describe the I AM experience.
I appreciate aspects of joel's point about eastern notions of Ego, but it misses the essential point the Course is making about ego.
After we go through your 5 steps (who knows, you might want to do a few more after you get finished with these), I'd be happy to say what i think Barfield's work has to do with PoF and TAE....
Jeff
Post new comment