Dear Friends (playmates?),

In what I write next in my journal no one should think that I am not intimately familiar with these imbalances in the spiritual development of the ego.  I know them well - too well in point of fact - having succumbed to them more than once.   From another point of view, these often appear as various degrees of hubris.

If such excesses result in experiences that wake us up, they are a benefit ... if not, obviously then we are a danger to ourselves and others.

The problem comes in large part because of the existence of "talent".   All of us have various kinds of "gifts", which we have not so much earned, but possess as an aspect of the Creation and the normal differentiation (individuality) that goes along with this process.   We are not all alike in any number of ways, and we can observe this in many phenomena.   One person is more easily able to make friends.  Another has hands that with less effort can sculpt clay.   A third has an ear for music, and can remember heard tunes and verses with accurate ease.

Rudolf Steiner was hugely talented.  Our comparative mind tends to make us think that this makes him better than us, which is true in a little way (obviously we are all better at some things, and not so good at others).  In the larger scheme of things, such gifts are also a burden, because in Steiner's case, he had to live a life of "separation", mostly due to the fact that others could not find a right relationship to his "talent" and elevated him to the level of a minor deity out of their own confusion.

In some cases of advanced hubris, those surrounding such a personality (or personalities) are "swept away" by this ego "force", and whole political movements have been born in such a passionate embracing of what is asserted so strongly as "the truth" (Russian communism, for example).  In PoF terms, this is one of the consequences of an individual being "possessed by an idea", that is they become in bondage to it.   Some such ideas are then taken up by others, and they too fall into bondage to this "Idea".   Religious zealotry is another example of this kind of phenomena, and in America today, due to the cleverness of Ahriman's Incarnation, the whole country is near to being blown apart by the sweeping nature of such divisive "Ideas" in the realm of politics (aspects of the Tea Party movement give evidence of this, although not all involved are so swept away). 

We swim in a sea of "Ideas" of this type, which can bring an inflation of the ego (we believe we are more right than others), and causes us to begin to use language which makes grandiose our concepts in almost any field of work.   Years ago I knew a woman who rountinely lied at work (she was a supervisor) in order to make a point (which she called "exaggeration for effect"), but which was very destructive of the social order of the community in which she participated.

In many cases the ego inflation and grandiosity has swept away the individual ego's idea of it own importance, and seeks to draw others into its sphere of confusion.   The ego seeks reinforcement for its views, and often will believe it is entertaining its listeners or readers.  Grand language structures are a sign (such as "this is the greatest idea you will even hear on this theme"), and in psychiatry this phenomena is considered part of the manic phase of bi-polar disorder.

This is why (in part) "washing the feet" is one of the first tasks of someone who undertakes spiritual self-development.  A cultivated humility is a necessary practice, which of course can be (and often is) faked.

We are, once aware of this problem, invited to do two things.  One is watch ourselves for evidence of this imbalance.   The other is to take with a grain of salt anyone's assertion that they have just presented you with "the truth" or the most perfect or best representation of a certain idea or question.

This is not always easy, for enthusiasm is a positive force, and the liveliness of a speaker or writer as they "warm" to their theme is something that elevates our own thinking in response.   Because it is mostly the influence of the three-fold double complex that creates this imbalance, let us next take a brief look at that for an aid in understanding how to make the necessary distinctions.

We have different kinds of feelings, with the simplest being "reactive" in nature (likes and dislkes, or sympathies and antipathies).   Now these are not causally reactive, although we often interpret them this way - we think "you just made me angry", for example.  Careful self observation will reveal that we "let" ourselves be angry, which is part of why conventional psychology asks us to "own OUR feelings".  The strength of the anger is a fucntion of many different characteristics, one of which can be a kind of obsession about the event which aroused our ire (I keep telling you to stop leaving your dirty underwear on the bathroom floor for me to pick up!!!).  Another strong feeling may be related to a "wound" in the soul.  When we were an infant, for example, our mother was cold toward  us if we misbehaved in certain ways - that is she would withdrawn emotionally.  Later in life when our spouse acts in a similar fashion (withdraws), this touches the "wound", which is tender, and as a consequence our reaction is stronger because of the wound.  We can notice this if we, on reflection, recognize that our reaction was not an equal response to the offense - we "overreacted".  Overreaction is a clue to the existence of a wound.

Higher feelings are "cultivated".    That is we engender them.  We purposely look at a situation with awe and wonder.   We let ourselve be surprised.  Enthusiasm can be "cultivated", by our entering into the love we have for the subject we are speaking or writing about.   We share our love - our passion - for the object of our thought.  Hopefully those who have bothered to read this will see that this enthusiasm is close in nature to zealotry or grandiosity.   They can present similar faces, but are fundamentally distinguishable by one major factor - a sense of self-deprecating humor.  If the joy of the writer or speaker is authentic, then they will laugh at themselves, instead of make fun of others.

This self knowledge (being able to laugh at ones own enthusiaisms) is what defeats the tendency of the double to exaggerate our feelings in a grandiose or ego inflation direction.  If we are swept away, we make the joke on the "other", on the "thou".   A good stand-up comic, for example, often makes himself the butt of his jokes.

It would be a rare individual indeed who did not oscillate between moods of exhilaration, and woe.   If the oscillations are extreme, that is cause for concern.   Most of us, however, have a good instinct here, and know that humor (which drives the double away) is crucial, especially of the kind that makes ourselves the butt of the joke.