Tom,
 
Where is Joel’s original writing on this and the comments others had made?  Did you delete it because you did not want others to read what he said? Perhaps I am looking for it in the wrong place.
 
Tai

Mr. Last did not mention the fact that Steiner's text includes many words whose meanings are not explained by Steiner.  Mr. Joel's viewpoint is often expressed by a certain type of person who appear where Steiner's philosophy is theme. One wonders why they don't open up their own business, instead of using a place supposed to be for understanding Steiner?

Rudolf Steiner, in his book of lectures published under the title "The Descent of the Spirits of Darkness" pointed out that modern human beings only develop psychologically, in a natural sense, until about age 25.  He also said this was decreasing, meaning to suggest that we had experienced psychological growth naturally into later years (post 25), earlier in the evolution of consciousness, and now this was becoming less and less.

Let me say this again, in different words.  Human beings experience natural spiritual/psychological development up to a certain age.   This age has been decreasing over time, and this maturation process is stopping at younger and younger years as we go forward in time.

From this idea we can understand how certain political figures, sports figures etc. seem so immature in a way.

Steiner went on to say that cultural influences can cause us to continue to grow spiritually and psychologically, after this natural development has ceased its activity.  We can be inspired in many different ways to continue to grow, and such events as occured in the 1960's represent a culture wide infusion of those kinds of inspiring influences.  But, it is the I itself that must generate the further developmental changes, inspired by this activity.  In a sense we could say that the I experiences natural development in the soul up up to a certain age in the biography, and then afterwards must produce development out of its own forces.

Yet, it is possible for people to be present to such influences and not take them in, but rather only pretend in a kind of social way to be interested in the subject.  Their spiritual/psychological growth had stopped (run its natural course) and they join in a group activity seemingly interested in further development, but if you observe their actual behavior in the group they remain present only in an intellectual way - that is, they mouth the vocabulary of the spiritual group, but the way they treat others, the way they behave, remains limited to the nature of their personality when its natural growth arrested at some stage nearer post-adolescence.

A typical presentation of this behavior is a tendency to indulge in word games, not unlike what we knew previously when we were school children.  The intelligence presented in these games roots itself in "cleverness", rather than a grounded rationality or wisdom.  It is essentially dishonest (runs away from truth, even in the form of a little willingness to expose itself to others through the simple device of offering its true name to the group). 

It is also destructive, not creative.  This is mostly because of the self-admiration that is experienced via the cleverness.   The cleverness comes from the ahrimanic double, and the double rewards this cleverness with a feeling of pleasure at its exercise.  A more mature personalit y would feel regret or shame at these games, a kind of "prick of conscience", because the higher ego knows the behavior is not really justified. 

At the same time, this process of immaturity is quite common today, given that natural psycho-spiritual growth stops around age 25 or younger.  Also, the indulgence in the "cleverness" is not unlike an addiction.  We are all addicted in these little ways - our egotism in its self-love presents us with many opportunities to indulge our different kinds of cleverness.

As an addict in recovery myself, I find it most useful (evening loving) to confront addictive behavior in others, when it decides to repeatedly get in my face.  When it doesn't get in my face, which is most of the time, I remain free to ignore it.   Who wants to pester people all the time for all their little flaws?  Not me.  But when someone comes at me more than once, after being warned off, then as far as I'm concerned they asked for it.  Some may find the above uncomfortable, but it is simply truthful and itself based upon many years of direct introspective experience, as well as 18 years in the field of mental health.

Beginner wants to act as if I am trying to distract persons from undertanding Steiner's text, which is obviously false to anyone who actually wants to think about it.  My whole effort here has been to root the text in introspective experience, for the text actually doesn't mean anything separated from our actual observation of our own minds (soul and spirit).  Without direct observation (the soul-observation referred to by Steiner when he writes: "some results of introspection - soul-observation - following the methods of natural science") the terms of the text refer only to abstractions, that is to nothing concrete and real to experience.   We can read the words endlessly, but without looking within at the phenomena of our own mind, we'll never decode the meaning of the text.

"...even Steiner lamented in Awakening to Community (lecture three, Feb. 6th, 1923), on the consequences of failing (which has happened) to properly take up The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (or Freedom):  "The way it should be read is with attention to the fact that it brings one to a wholly different way of thinking and willing and looking at things....The trouble is that The Philosophy of Freedom has not been read in the different way I have been describing.  That is the point, and a point that must be sharply stressed if the development of the Anthroposophical Society is not to fall far behind that of anthroposophy itself.  If it does fall behind, anthroposophy's conveyance through the Society will result in its being completely misunderstood, and its only fruit will be endless conflict!""

joel

In science it is important that an offered truth can be found by a describle method that can be repeated by others.  PoF meets this standard.   People who have "repeated" this work include: Barfield, Kuhlewind, Ben-Aaron etc.  Steiner describes, in Lecture 12 of the John Gospel Series, certain observable facts that flow from success in achieving the goal of PoF.  One becomes able to do something, not just intellectualize about something.   When Beginner can understand and appreciate the work that I have produced in my work Living Thinking in Action*, he will demonstrate to all that he is serious about this work, otherwise he just sits on the sidelines and making juvenile comments.  Yes, I do understand Steiner.  I also know** the realms of the thought -world described by Steiner in Occult Science when he refers to PoF and A Theory of Knowledge ...

* http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/liveT.html

** http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/Saving.html

When Beginner can offer a comparable work product from out of his own activity, then he can justly make comments, for he has then earned the right to put forward his views.

joel