Submitted by Tmasthenes on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:23pm.
Pardon my native New Yawk Anglo-Saxon, but I had to encapsulate the sentiments of Saul Bellow toward Owen Barfield as he expressed them in the letters they exchanged in the 1970’s --- letters which now appear in the new book of Bellow’s Collected Letters.
Here’s the review in the NY Times Review of Books:
Saul Bellow’s Quest for the Vernacular Sublime
I’ll give you “vernacular sublime” all right! I quote below the section about Bellow corresponding with Barfield and how Bellow finally tells Barfield --- in a much more polite and civilized way than I do --- to take Steiner, as it were, and shove him up Barfield’s bombastic British bio-dynamic butt!!!
But then the reviewer notes Bellow’s “turn to PoF” (metaphorical not literal) by praising Bellow’s “Declaration of Independence” from the doctrine of anthroposophy as well as Barfield’s prissy condescension to and haughty rejection of Bellow’s own artistic expression of his own ethical individualism.
What is Initiation? What is “living thinking”? Is it possible to explore and to describe the invisible – the spiritual dimensions of the world – maintaining exactitude, clarity and transparency of thought? What kind of science is needed for this purpose and what does it require from the researcher? Which is the role of art? Is it possible to develop practical applications for every day life from the results found? Where does this lead?
Throughout his life Rudolf Steiner mentioned the importance of his philosophical, epistemological, fundamental work. The subtitle of “The Philosophy of Freedom” is “results of soul observation through nature scientific methods”. This indicates why, even though it is written in a purely philosophic language, “The Philosophy of Freedom” contains the whole of anthroposophy – Steiner’s lifework – as a seed. Over and over again Steiner mentioned that the thorough study of this particular piece of writing would lead naturally into clairvoyance through the development of a new kind of thinking which he called “living thinking”.
According to these premises I chose to approach this work in a very particular scientific, artistic, experimental way:
1)I summarized and rephrased every single paragraph in my own words, according to my understanding.
2)I wrote all summaries on one page and tried to figure out the “composition” of thoughts. I divided every chapter into seven separate steps and looked at their interrelatedness.
3)After this I tried to find the “gestures” in the thoughts through drawing and movement.
In chapter 3, the Philosophy of Freedom mentions three different states; everyday thinking, contemplation of an object and contemplation of thinking.
3-1Everyday Thinking (passive) To observe my thoughts about the table while I am observing the table I have to put myself in a place outside any activity of my own.
3-3Contemplation of Object (active) While I am reflecting on the object, I am absorbed in it; my attention is turned to it. To become absorbed in the object is to contemplate by thought.
3-4Contemplation of Thinking (active) I can never observe the present thinking in which I am actually engaged; only afterward can I make the past experience of my thought process into the object of my present thinking.
How Often Are We on Mental Autopilot? You Might Be Surprised by David Rock
A new study by Daniel Gilbert and Matthew Killingsworth, confirms something we've all suspected: most of us are mentally checked out a good portion of the time. This shows that just under half the time, 46.9 percent to be exact, people are doing what's called "mind wandering". They are not focused on the outside world or the task at hand, they are looking into their own thoughts.
Unfortunately, the study of 2,250 people proposes, most of this activity doesn't make us feel happy. The study was designed to find out what kind of activities people did throughout a day, and which made them happiest. Mind wandering was just one of 22 possible activities people could list.
People reported that they mind wandered no less than 30 percent of the time. And here's the kicker: people report being unhappy during mind wandering. Something that we do nearly half the time makes us unhappy! No wonder there are so many spiritual and religious traditions trying to implore people to live in the present.
Whether someone is mind wandering or not turns out to be a better predictor of happiness than the actual activities people are engaged in. Think about just one implications of this finding: it explains why one person's hell on earth (say, filling in forms) can be another person's heaven, if they find themselves focused on the task.
Submitted by Tom Last on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 3:28pm.
Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Monday that she doesn't think Sarah Palin has the leadership qualities to be president, nor the "intellectual curiosity" needed to make good policy.
"I just do not think that she has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies," explained Murkowski.
Sarah doesn’t have an Ivy League pedigree. Instead, she calls for a return to "common sense".
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is rallying conservatives, telling several hundred people at a Tea Party Express rally that common sense is an "endangered species" in Washington, D.C.
Can we do without intellectual curiosity and rely on our own common sense in life? Common sense is defined by Wikipedia as:
Common sense: consists of what people in common would agree on : that which they "sense" as their common natural understanding. Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common". Thus "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have.
Rudolf Steiner on common sense or practical thought from Practical Training In Thought:
"Many people who call themselves practical imagine that their actions are guided by the most practical principles. But if we inquire more closely, it is found that their so-called “practical thought” is often not thought at all but only the continuing pursuit of traditional opinions and habits. An entirely objective observation of the “practical” man's thought and an examination of what is usually termed “practical thinking” will reveal the fact that it generally contains little that can be called practical. What to them is known as practical thought or thinking consists in following the example of some authority whose ideas are accepted as a standard. Anyone who thinks differently is considered impractical because this thought does not coincide with traditional ideas.
"But the real facts of life often sweep aside the “practical,” that is to say, those who believe in their own ability to be practical. We must clearly distinguish between genuine thinking and so-called “practical thinking” that is merely reasoning in traditional ruts of thought."
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc. (PLANS), has been battling for 12 years against public funding of Waldorf schools. A federal judge has ruled that Anthroposophy is not a religion, so public schools can continue to utilize its methodology. Pacific Justice Institute is providing PLANS legal assistance in their fight against Waldorf schools.
The Pacific Justice Institute was involved in the initiation of this lawsuit in 1998, has been providing research assistance to PLANS lead attorney D. Michael Bush, and plans to participate in an anticipated appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
What is the Pacific Justice Institute? While PJI is less well-known than many of the other right-wing legal groups, it has some rather high-profile supporters, like Karl Rove and James Dobson:
Addressing a group of roughly 600 people, a senior advisor to former president George W. Bush recently spoke on the importance of faith, family and freedom -- the "timeless values of America."
At the Pacific Justice Institute's 2010 Celebration of Justice Banquet in Anaheim, California, Karl Rove exhorted listeners to defend these values and to make an "argument" for them in all communities. He praised the family as the source that defines America and molds its individuals, saying, "It's in the family where hearts and minds of children are shaped. If society loves and cherishes life, it is because families love and cherish life."
He exhorted the audience to continue taking a stand for the values in which they believe, concluding that "if we stay in the fight, we will win the fight. If we love our country, we need to defend our country."
Other gala speakers included PJI attorney Brad Dacus, Dr. James Dobson, and Father Frank Pastore of Priests for Life.
(POF 14-0) The view that the human being is destined to become a complete, self-contained, free individuality seems to be contested by the fact that he makes his appearance as a member of a naturally given totality (race, people, nation, family, male or female sex) and also works within a totality (state, church, and so on). He bears the general characteristics of the group to which he belongs, and he gives to his actions a content that is determined by the position he occupies among many others. This being so, is individuality possible at all?
Hopefully I have understood enough of this site correctly so that I'm not infringing on any existing rules for journal entries. I think this area may be a good place for verbalizing thoughts and ideas as I read and contemplate this book.
I have read Frihetens philosophie before but as I'm sure everyone who has read it is aware, one reading doesn't necessarily mean very much. In these days when our thought processes are so overwhelmed (or underwhelmed) by every flitting electronic impulse, it just seems that a nice counteractive might be moments of separation from the common rabble and perhaps facilitate some new neuronal connections (or the spiritual equivalent).
On the other hand, I wonder if this time spent will be productive--one could be out doing socially productive deeds, n'est-ce pas?
(POF preface) It is no longer enough merely to believe, we want to know. Belief demands the acceptance of truths that are not quite clear to us. But the individuality that seeks to experience everything in the depths of its own being, is repelled by what it cannot understand.
The U.S. electorate has brought the Republicans back into power again and they are returning with their bible in hand to solve the nations epic problems.
House energy chair hopeful Shimkus cites God's promise to Noah to debunk global warming.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who will seek the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship maintains that we do not have to worry about climate change because God promised in the Bible not to destroy the world again after Noah’s flood.
The Republicans are looking to their belief in the Judeo-Christian old testament bible to solve today's problems. Some biblical solutions include: unemployment (slavery), adultery (death), and unwanted pregnancy (baby in bulrush). -DKOS
Dan Dugan, PLANS Inc.
Is this old man a threat to children?
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit that has kept the Sacramento City Unified School District in court for nearly 13 years fending off a challenge to the Waldorf teaching method used in two district schools.
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, or PLANS Inc., sued the district in 1998, claiming the method is inextricably linked to anthroposophy – the philosophy of Waldorf method founder Rudolf Steiner. The suit contended anthroposophy is a religion and that its use in public schools violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which precludes mixing religion with government institutions.
The Anthroposophical Society is not representative of Anthroposophy
Thank goodness for the incompetence of PLANS Inc. otherwise Anthroposophy would have likely been declared a religion because of the Anthroposophical Society's rejection of the principles within Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. If the Anthroposophical Society stood on these principles accusations of being a cult or religion would be followed by fall down laughter. The court needs to make the distinction between the Anthroposophical Society, which no longer represents Steiner's philosophy, and Anthroposophy itself. -Tom
At a non-jury trial Aug. 31 before U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr., PLANS attorney Donald Michael Bush put on a single witness – Betty Staley, founder of the Rudolf Steiner College in Fair Oaks – and presented the few exhibits Damrell allowed into evidence.
In a 20-page order issued Friday, Damrell agreed that Bush had failed to show that anthroposophy is a religion, and he dismissed the lawsuit.
"Plaintiff's apparent theory of the case was that anthroposophy, in its current manifestation, is synonymous with the beliefs of Steiner," the judge wrote. "In that regard, in large part, plaintiff attempted to elicit testimony from Staley regarding Steiner's beliefs. The court precluded such testimony as rank hearsay – Staley was not qualified as an expert and thus, could not opine as to the nature and meaning of Steiner's beliefs.
"For similar reasons," Damrell continued, "the court also precluded the admission of the majority of plaintiff's proffered exhibits, which were various writings of Steiner; these writings again were hearsay, and plaintiff had no witness to authenticate nor lay a foundation or testify to the contents of the writings."
Staley is director of the Waldorf teacher education program at Rudolf Steiner College, and has been a member of the Anthroposophical Society in America since 1963. She testified the group has certain membership requirements, holds meetings and has an identified purpose to support Steiner's work and thought.
"Significantly, the ASA admits anyone, without regard to religious affiliation, and … expressly rejects any sectarian activity and provides that no dogmatic stand whatsoever may be taken by the organization," Damrell pointed out.
Luckily the court didn't understand Steinerism
After a century of work, the Anthroposophical Society possesses not Spiritual Science, but Steinerism. Without the epistemologies there is no science, because there is no striving with the problem of knowledge. Without a scientific discipline at the heart of the social element of anthroposophical work, the unconscious tendencies in the social group will dumb down the work (homogenize it), and we end up with a blind faith in Rudolf Steiner as an authority, at the expense of trust in the spiritual reality of our own thinking. -Joel
Steinerism is created and maintained by the self-appointed leaders of the Anthroposophical Society
The faux-philosophy of the Anthoposophical society is called Steinerism. Anybody who refuses to accept belief in this doctrine is denied a leadership role. The leaders are imposed on the membership like you find in a religious hierarchy without the free nomination of the membership --even at the local level (see Sacramento Faust Branch selection of officers). This is in violation of their own statutes; Statutes of the General Anthroposophical Society "Members may join together in groups on any basis of locality or subject, and these groups shall designate their own officers." This violation of Steiner's intention of a free society has led to the cult and religion accusations. The solution is not defeating PLANS Inc. in court, but in allowing the membership of the Anthroposophical Society to freely nominate and elect their own local, regional, and national officers.
The judge said, "Contrary to plaintiff's argument, neither Staley's testimony nor the four admitted exhibits (internal ASA documents) establish that anthroposophy is:
1. a system of belief and worship of a 'superhuman controlling power'
2. involves a code of ethics and philosophy requiring obedience thereto."
Steiner's view on a 'superhuman controlling power':
(POF 10-3 The spiritualistic dualist (that is, one who sees the Absolute, the Being-in-itself, as something spiritual in which man has no share in his conscious experience) makes man a slave to the will of the Absolute. ...freedom is out of the question.
(POF 10-8) The moral laws which the metaphysician who works by mere inference must regard as issuing from a higher power, are, for the adherent of monism, thoughts of men.
Steiner's view on an obedience to a code of ethics:
(POF 9-4) There is a still a higher way that sees a certain value in ALL moral principles and always asks whether in the given case this or that principle is the more important.
(POF 12-0) The unfree spirit recalls, before coming to a decision, what someone else has done or recommended as suitable in a comparable case, or what God has commanded to be done in such a case, and so on, and he acts accordingly. The free spirit makes a completely first-hand decision. What others have done in such a case worries him as little as what they have decreed.
Staley testified that anthroposophical writings are meditative tools meant to encourage personal thought and self-reflection. She also said there are no formal or external signs of anthroposophy akin to religious symbols or manifestations.
Bush relied heavily on Staley's testimony defining anthroposophy as a "path from the human being to the realm of the spirit." She described that realm as "the unseen. … We have things we can weigh and measure and see and we have things we can't see and measure. … All that is not physical."
Betty Staley won in court by abandoning the speculative metaphysics and feeling mysticism of Steinerism and returning to the principles of Anthroposophy found in The Philosophy of Freedom. It leads you to an experience of the non-physical through pure thinking, the kind of thinking used in mathematics. It replaces faith in the clairvoyance of gurus with the removal of limitations and the absolute certainty of your own intuitive experience.
But Judge Damrell said her "reference to the 'spiritual' or non-physical world does not establish that anthroposophy, itself, is a system of belief."
"My strong sense is we are going to go ahead and appeal," Bush said Saturday in a telephone interview from his home in Orange County. Damrell "kind of brushed aside this philosophy linking the physical world with the spiritual world," and that will be the main thrust of the appeal, he said.
I hope the Anthroposophical Society has learned a lesson and will abandon the faith based Steinerism and take up the life of real Anthroposophy found in The Philosophy of Freedom. I don't believe Dan Dugan is out to harm children by closing great schools. I think he is serving Rudolf Steiner's ideals by fighting for the end of Steinerism.
(POF 9-0) We shall see in this element that appears in our consciousness as thinking, not a shadowy copy of some reality, but a self-sustaining spiritual essence. And of this we shall be able to say that it is revealed to us in consciousness through intuition. Intuition is the conscious experience -- in pure spirit -- of a purely spiritual content. Only through an intuition can the essence of thinking be grasped.
Blog: Philosophy is not a Luxury, Post: Catherine
Recently , after having read the “Philosophy of freedom” of Steiner, I am undergoing a profound re-evaluation of my beliefs concerning knowledge. My vision of knowledge is completely shifting, with this notion that “thinking itself” is a door to the absolute.
This is extremely close to the visions of Coleridge and Kant, but in my view Steiner is bolder and wilder in a subtle way.
My view at the moment is that there is only two ways to access knowledge.
2. pure thinking
Habits is what Kant describes as the human “experiences” on which we draw conclusions. As a scientist I would describe it as the field of methodology, or scientific method.
Pure thinking is the door of the Absolute, it is what the transcendentalists have called “Intuition” and Kant, “pure reason”
Although the visions of Steiner and Kant and the transcendentalists are very close, there are a few points of divergence. The main point is that Kant’s description of knowledge is static, it is like a very dual vision of the world, where knowledge is a “thing” that we can basically never reach.. I could probably do the same critique to the transcendentalists, but in lesser extend. With their “intuition” they are already more part of the process of knowledge, an actor of it.
With Steiner the whole structure shifts, and only the act of knowledge matters. The act of understanding, the “eureka”, is like the act of “intuition” it is pure “thinking”, it is absolute.
Thoughts on the other hand are relative, mental pictures are relative. Habit are also of the domain of action, of behavior, but I would put them as well in the domain of the relative.
In the learning process the act of pure knowing is found when one “understands” suddenly something that one didn’t understand before. The “eureka”. It can be a small one or a big one, doesn’t matter sine it is an absolute. As soon as our perspective opens, “ ah! I see now what he or she means…” then we have passed a threshold, a quantum leap, through an absolute.
So yes intuition, understood not at a “thing’ or a “mental image” but as the “ACT of pure thinking” is at the basis of all knowledge. The only distinction to be made is that the act of pure thinking leads to very clear and precise visions of the soul, while intuition is sometimes understood as just vague associations of mental images. Intuition understood as such, is again just a habit, like walking or drinking coffee. It doesn’t touch the absolute.
(POF 14-9) If we are to understand a free individuality we must take over into our own mind those concepts by which he determines himself, in their pure form (without mixing our own conceptual content with them). Those who immediately mix their own concepts into every judgment about another person, can never arrive at the understanding of an individuality.
The least honest are those who read The Philosophy of Freedom as they would any other book and then flatter themselves that they have really taken in the thoughts it contains. They’ve kept on reading strings of words without anything coming out of it that might be likened to the striking of steel on flint. -Rudolf Steiner
Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:46pm.
(POF 12-12) The Church makes me unfree if, for her, all those motives she has not herself enunciated seem impure. A Church or other community produces unfreedom when its priests or teachers make themselves into keepers of consciences, that is, when the faithful are obliged to go to them (to the confessional) for the motives of their actions.
Beware any person or institution that accuses you of having impure thoughts. They are attempting to enslave your spirit. Conservatives have a new ideological purity test. Rights groups --ethnic, women, gay, etc. demand purity of any thoughts they find to be insensitive. Motivational speakers and Eastern gurus expect devotes to be free from negative thoughts; they are such a downer. Anthoposophists maintain the purity of Steinerism doctrine (Steiner in accordance with their opinion).
The suppression can take the form of an independent power within, the inner voice of conscience. They all attempt to drive your own thoughts from your head and replace them with their own.
The ultimate offender is the church confession where you must kneel and confess, not only your wrong actions, but also your impure thoughts.
POF 3-1While the observation of things and events, and thinking about them are everyday occurrences filling my ongoing life, observation of the thought itself is a kind of exceptional state.
POF 3-7For everyone who has the ability to observe thinking --and with good will every normally constituted person has this ability -- the observation of thinking is the most important observation that can be made.
You can't have a gestalt therapist or someone following you around all day and all night. You have to learn to be your own observer, to understand yourself.
Sometimes people will do limited self observation. They know something's wrong. Their life isn't going right, or there are obvious problems, or it's empty. So they observe themselves for awhile, and they see a part of what's wrong, but they want to change so badly that as soon as they get one or two ideas of how they're not living right, they become converted to some religion that claims to save you from that particular thing, or to some particular growth thing, and they concentrate exclusively on changing that, without having gotten a good idea of what the rest of their mind is like.
You should start self observation not with the idea that there are certain truths that somebody else has already figured out that you've got to observe for yourself and then you've arrived, but with a much more open-ended idea that I want to know for myself, I want to see things the way they are.
Submitted by Tom Last on Mon, 11/01/2010 - 9:23am.
An energetic effort is being made to shake off every kind of authority. Nothing is accepted as valid, unless it springs from the roots of individuality. Everything which hinders the individual in the full development of his or her powers is thrust aside. The saying “Each one of us must choose his hero in whose footsteps he toils up to Olympus” no longer holds for us. We allow no ideals to be forced upon us. We are convinced that in each of us, if only we probe deep enough into the very heart of our being, there dwells something noble, something worthy of development. -Rudolf Steiner, Preface to the Philosophy of Freedom
Artist Markus Lupertz is resting after completing this astonishing epic task - creating a 30 ton statue of the ancient Greek hero Hercules. The 60ft high sculpture - crafted entirely from aluminum - is being placed on top of the Oberbilk Gallery in Dusseldorf, Germany.
To be more precise, it will be Mr. Lüpertz’s abstract interpretation of Hercules. In this case, the strongman will have just one arm, with a large head, bulbous nose, exaggerated torso and stunted legs that appear incapable of holding up such a body.
“Chaos is the basis for the individual,” he says.
"It’s not about their genius, it’s about my genius.”
“HERCULES is a troubleshooter,” he said of his subject. “He has impossible things to settle, but he has a solution for the problems.” He said that Hercules was a good symbol for a region with high unemployment, trying to reinvent itself as a cultural center.
The statue is, like his other works, a personal expression. He leaves interpretation to others and he knows, for sure, that his one-armed Hercules is going to inspire some, probably many, to complain. But this time, that is exactly what his patrons say they want, to promote discussion, even controversy.
Submitted by Tom Last on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 8:55am.
Harmony of Intentions (POF 9-10): The world of ideas exists as a unity. We all draw our ideas from the same world of ideas. If we both really conceive out of the idea, and do not obey any external impulses (physical or spiritual), then we cannot but meet one another in like striving, in common intent.
Civility has collapsed in American politics meaning government is no longer able to seriously face the problems of the country and world. The country is polarized by the morally unfree who follow their natural instincts to dislike anyone different than themselves, hoard personal wealth, cling to guns and religious fundamentalism, or find security in a kind of white tribal nationalism by obeying their political party.
Can we work together only if we are united by a fixed set of ideas? The Tea Party movement has united under just three principles it says are based on freedom of the individual:
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
Anyone not pledging allegiance to this handful of principles is the enemy and must be removed from government office.
What is not understood is the unity of the world of ideas within each of us. We are different in that we may be excited about different ideas, but those ideas are drawn from a common world of ideas. Because of this we can be confident that our intentions will harmonize, but on one condition; we really conceive out of the idea, and do not obey any external impulses (physical or spiritual). Opposition can be overcome without compromising your principles and a common intention achieved only between truly free individuals. Which raises the question of how you work with people (including perhaps even yourself) who are not free, or unable to rise to the conceptual level to achieve thinking intuitions in a resolution process?
President Obama continues to hold to this idealistic principle of achieving harmony with his opponents through open discussion, even as his enemies publicly declare they will not compromise their narrow-mindedness. Is he a naive fool who should abandon his idealism and accept the real world of fixed beliefs and instinctive behavior? We all likely face this ethical dilemma in our own marriages and working relationships.
IKIM VIEWS By Dr MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
Senior Fellow/Director, IKIM
Self-reflect we must, if we are ever serious about remaining truly human, and to question whether the way our nation is being built truly reflects what we have acknowledged.
TO MANY followers of the world’s major religions, the idea of self-examination is by no means novel. Among those who are philosophically and historically more alert, Socrates is best known for having said: “Life unexamined is not worth living.”
Muslims, by and large, have so often heard the dictum “Examine yourselves before you are examined” (Haasibuu anfusakum qabla an tuhaasabuu) that it has almost become a cliché and, to the ears of some, has unfortunately lost its initial force as a reminder.
Submitted by Tmasthenes on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:42pm.
I was all set to write Wibke Reinstein off as just another Steiner reincarnation wannabee --- with a flair for self-promotion and semi-New Age vagueness --- but then I happened to see a new entry on her Facebook discussion page
Submitted by Tmasthenes on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 12:24pm.
The Anthroposophical Prison Outreach Program has been flourishing for at least the last 8 years. Here is their homepage
Here is the PDF copy of their latest newsletter with dozens of responses from prisoners all across the USA writing in about the positive effects anthroposophy is having on and in their lives.
On page 8 of the 12 page newsletter, I came across this Illinois prisoner’s short book review of PoF.
“Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path – wow! Not what I expected. This was the most purely philosophical study I have ever encountered. It’s the book I’ve been searching for since I discovered philosophy of any kind. The ideas developed in this study (I don’t know what else to call it) about freedom of will, monism and pure thought were extremely fascinating and reached far beyond what I have ever considered. The book was one of the most difficult I have ever read and required of me rereading of some paragraphs and chapters as I progressed – but was so very worth it. It opened me to an entirely new school of thought. Don’t be surprised if I request this book again in the future for further study.” --- Joseph, Galesburg, IL
I have long maintained --- for linguistic reasons alone --- that the correct translation for PoF should be The Philosophy of Inner Freedom. Now reading that review from someone who is literally a “captive audience” for the book, someone whose external freedom is curtailed, helps to validate my translation.