There is a very simple argument to the effect that Tom is correct in his formulation of The Philosophy of Freedom according to Human and Cosmic Thought.
The argument is simply this.
Rudolf Steiner states unequivocally (and gives examples) that every world view is encompassed in the 12 main views he describes in the lecture.
He also states that every view can be (and is) colored with a different 'soul mood' - and there are 7 such soul moods.
Steiner's book, The Philosophy of Freedom unquestionably encompasses many different views of the world.
Therefore, every view which Steiner expresses in the Philosophy of Freedom necessarily represents one of the 12 world views, and also comes out of a certain soul mood.
Either Steiner was ignorant of the fact that he was expressing views in the Philosophy of Freedom that can be taken as representative of the 12 views he describes in the HACT lectures, or he was mistaken in those lectures (or the lectures are incorrect).
There is no way getting around this argument.
So if indeed, Steiner knew that each view he gives in POF is coming out of a particular view (according to the HACT model) and this view has a particular 'coloring' (mood of soul), then it seems plausible that he would have arranged the moods and the views in a logical and sysematic manner.
Thus we see Tom's formulation of the Philosophy of Freedom according to the lectures found in Human and Cosmic Thought.
Link to Tom's Correlation Between The Philosophy of Freedom and Human and Cosmic Thought
http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/index.php?q=node/462
Good argument. Even if he
Good argument. Even if he hadn't yet formulated the entire HACT system in all its details when he first wrote POF, the system is based on his percepts, right? And in writing POF as he did, trying to incorporate all the different points of view, he found the form to express this. This form also would express the same percepts that he then developed and explained in HACT. The point being that both works originated from the same percepts, expressed in POF as form and in HACT in a more overt manner.
Nice but be careful
Aha! I thought, Steiner's wonderful zodiac of philosophies which I'd lost! Twelves have followed me for years and I love them to bits. Almost every time I've experienced "pressure of ideas" and written them down to get them "off my chest", I've found, afterwards, that I've produced twelve points and in the right zodiac order ie Aries, Gemini, etc. This for me is working verification of the hypothesis (to use the proper scientific language) that there is an objective qualitative reality to twelve.
All very beautiful, powerful, in discovering one's inner sanctuary of coherent Spirit.
But one can get stuck in this too, and it is imperative to be sensitive to the currents of Life, and not leave oneself open to accusations of dogmatism. I learned a wonderful story about this at Emerson College, the story of Isis, Osiris and Set. Osiris finds a box into which he fits exactly - the coffin which Set hastens to nail him into. I'm emphasising this point because I (and many others) see "getting dogmatic" as a generic issue with Steiner's followers, and much as I respect him profoundly and indeed owe him my life, I have not always ended up agreeing with him.
I am working, bit by bit, to build up a basis of "Spiritual Science Beyond Steiner", hopefully a whole website, with essays and a wiki-type format, to build bridges. Steiner's Spiritual Scientific methodology deserves to be recognized, accepted, integrated and developed further as a legitimate part of Science, and Steiner deserves to be integrated better into History. Since rewriting the essence of PoF for "me" and "now" is part of healing this situation, I treasure revisiting PoF here. Thank you. More anon.
Good point! To tell the
Good point! To tell the truth, I don't care if Tom's breakdown into the various sections is true or not. It just made it so much more fun and interesting, and the text has to be broken down into smaller parts for me to assimilate it anyway.
At first Tom's sections just didn't make any sense at all to me, and I really had to struggle to find the sense in which any section would connect to monadism, phenomenalism, etc. But I was willing to go through this struggle to grasp the connections, because just going through it gave me exactly the help I needed to see the text in a different, more down-to-earth way. So in a way I was shamelessly using Tom's ideas just for my own needs! And if, in doing so, I began to see a lot of correspondences, maybe it's just because of the spectacles I was wearing!
But you're right -- it's easy to get sidetracked here from the text. I'm especially guilty of dwelling too much on what the archetypal Scientist or Lawyer or Psychic might say in the various sections. But then again, that's just part of the fun of it for me, and I never stray too far or for too long from the text. So I really hope people don't get turned off by the idea of the sections, or think it's just too dogmatic. Maybe if they don't like the idea of the HACT connections they can just look at the section breakdown as arbitrary, and that will still be all right!
Automatic Link Maker
The section system found in the left column of the Home page under Study Tools called "Section Chart" takes you to a table of links that sections off the book into topics of discussion. The topic switches are obvious when looking at them.
It is part of a reference system so when a person speaks of "ethical individualism" they can type in 9-7 which means this is the 9th topic in Chapter 9. Just by typing in 9-7 the web site automatically creates a link to that section of POF where ethical individualism is described.
That it also is the world-outlook of Psychism in the mood of Logicism according to Steiner's world-view system won't matter to most.
Agreed
I sympathize with your thoughts on this issue.
You might enjoy reading some of Joel Wendt's material (do a search on Outlaw Anthroposophy) as he seems to have very similar intuitions to yours.
I stand by my argument above - I really don't see (at this time) anyway around it.
However, there is a way of looking at POF which doesn't involve dogma at all, but yet at the same time embraces the 'dogma' of the HACT concepts.
Sounds contradictory, yes?
Good - that's the whole point.
I will be journaling on this in the near future...