S
smcder
Guest
This introduction to Theosophy may be helpful in regards to Steiner's idea of the "super sensible"
Introduction: Theosophy
Introduction: Theosophy
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Consciousness and the Paranormal
- Thread starter Tyger
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
That's helpful.
Physical body = Physical processes
Soul body = Qualia
Spirit body = ?
Re: Physical world vs. Spiritual world
What I have read of Steiner so far seems to me to be the description of a world in which humans have evolved via natural processes. However powerful "spirits" have intervened purposefully throughout our history in an effort to affect our evolution. (In this case, evolution is taken to mean moving from "lower" beings to "higher" beings which is not the current, consensus scientific sense of evolution.)
I say we can understand this in two ways:
These entities are made of a completely different substance than us and exist solely to bother themselves with us and either help or hinder us to become our higher selves.
Or, we could understand these beings as having had a similar, natural origin as ourselves, only to have evolved morphologically and technologically to a position in which they — while still being natural beings — possess knowledge and abilities that far surpass our own.
We have come to the attention of these beings, and they have been subtly — and overtly at times perhaps — interacting with us. From our POV, some of these entities may have good intentions, others may have negative or neutral intentions.
We are not the center of the universe/reality. Rather, we are one bud of — albeit sentient — life, and for better and worse, other uber advanced entities have and do interact with us in various ways — for whatever reason, typically subtle ways. (Hypothesizing on the subtle nature is fun.)
Last edited:
S
smcder
Guest
Your still thinking in materialistic terms ...
More info on your questions here - I think it gets right to the heart of your questions, if I understand.
Chapter III: The Three Worlds: 1. The Soul World
More info on your questions here - I think it gets right to the heart of your questions, if I understand.
Chapter III: The Three Worlds: 1. The Soul World
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
True. But as I've said before, I have no logical nor experiential reason to think otherwise.
I'll be sure to read chapter 3 ASAP. I've enjoyed his writing content and style very much so far.
S
smcder
Guest
Logic and experience will never give you reason to think otherwise.
I would be simply curious to know if I were capable of changing my mind. Can we see the world as Steiner does? He is confident that we can:
"Now those who speak about such things as Fichte does in this instance, often find themselves in the position of a normal man among those born blind. Yet these are things that relate to a man's true being and highest goal, and to believe it necessary “to cease talking in vain” would be to despair of humanity. We ought not to doubt for one moment the possibility of opening the eyes of every earnest person to these things. On this supposition all those have written and spoken who have felt within themselves that the inner sense-instrument had developed, thereby enabling them to know the true nature and being of man, which is generally hidden from the outer senses. Hence from the most ancient times such a hidden wisdom has been spoken of again and again. Those who have grasped some understanding of it feel just as sure of their possession as people with normal eyes feel sure of their ability to visualize color."
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
Then one accepts it on faith and doesn't experience it for themselves nor understand it?
If that's the case, one could believe/accept any worldview. At least the materialistic worldview makes logical sense and can be readily experienced.
So the "spiritual" nature of man simply cannot be explained/described. But it is real — indeed it is our true (eternal/fundamental?) nature — and it serves a purpose. It is superior to the physical realm/nature.
Can we know why the spiritual nature is superior to the physical nature? If man were to exist solely in his true spiritual nature, what would he do "all day?"
S
smcder
Guest
Logic and experience as defined by a materialistic paradigm will point back to that paradigm.
Steiner doesn't seem to me to be asking anyone to take it on faith. I think a world view would need to meet the criteria of making sense of our experiences and providing meaning or it would be hard to accept. I don't think it's possible to accept just any worldview - James calls the ones that you can a "living" option.
Steiner is confident that his worldview can be embraced and that one will gain specific knowledge thereby. He denies previous ideas about the limits of human knowledge. Bold claims and intriguing.
Materialism hasn't proven to be 100% satisfactory - evidenced by your saying "at least" ... And From the little I've read Steiner doesn't deny logic, experience or the physical world.
"So the "spiritual" nature of man simply cannot be explained/described."
No ... Rather it seems to me that is exactly what Steiner is trying to do ... Describe and explain mans spiritual nature.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
smcder
Guest
The section on The Three Worlds might answer your question about what to do all day ... ! ;-)
S
smcder
Guest
I remembered this post ... It's interesting in light of your concern about what to do all day ( doing and all day seem to me embodied concepts) ... It seems you would feel freer in a spiritual realm ?
That said I'm not sure Steiner says the spiritual is superior to the physical ... I'm not that far along with him
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I wouldn't say there is a 'versus' in there. We are like the Russian nested dolls - with many layers. One way of considering the human organization is as a 4-fold being consisting of physical, etheric, astral and Egoic bodies.
The first aspect of the human being is the physical body which draws its substance from the mineral realm - this is obvious and what most material science concerns itself with. The next layer is the Life Body (which draws it's substance from the etheric realm) - which has many names depending on the stream but Steiner calls it the Etheric Body, or Body of Formative Forces. It is anabolic. This 'life' forms the mineral body - it is why the body looks the way it does. The etheric forces bear the 'architectural instructions' for the physical body (making a human body distinct from a horse or a rose). Modern medical science made it's first (partial) identification of this body in the early 1980's when the Immune System was described as a result of AIDS research. The physical and etheric bodies are tightly intertwined throughout life. During sleep the etheric stays with the physical - this is when the body is repaired by the life forces. At death, the etheric leaves the physical - and with the loss of the informing and organizing etheric forces, the physical body returns to the mineral realm (decays).
In the stream of time, the physical and etheric are streaming to us from out of the past.
The physical and etheric are then nested in the 3rd aspect, the astral body, which is catabolic, and which generates the personality (and is the origin of feeling - where psychology comes into play - what is called 'the soul' with the glimmerings of lower mind activity). It is most active when the human being is awake and needs variety and change - this aspect needs other people. It is in this realm that most illness originates - or illness emerges between the interplay/imbalance of the etheric and astral bodies. The 4th aspect is the Ego - not here meant as the 'ego' of Freud. The Ego is the 'I' - and is the most mysterious aspect of the human being. At most 5% of the Ego succeeds in incarnating - even an initiate may succeed in incarnating only 8% to 10% of their Ego. Our human bodies as they currently exist cannot sustain the fire of the Ego for much more - the lower bodies 'burn out'. Individuals who incarnate with a high degree of the Ego die young - they flame-out. (Ego is an experience of Love).
In the stream of time, the astral and the Ego are streaming to us from out of the future - part of the explanation regarding pre-cognition, etc.
The current scientific thinking regarding evolution is limited root and stem to the physical body - which draws it's substance from the mineral world. It is within the mineral alone that the scientific 'consensus' is maintaining it's scope.
Steiner is positing an 'evolution' that is the result of the activity of the spiritual world upon the mineral. The spiritual realms have been laboring in the world of minerality for billions of years. What we see in our world is the result of hierarchies of beings 'laboring' in the physical/mineral universe.
Not so - we are of similar stuff generally - the only substance that is alien to these greater beings is the mineral universe. The human hierarchy is the sole hierarchy (endowed with Egohood) in this universe that can penetrate as far as the mineral realm. This makes the human an event of exceptional interest for the spiritual hierarchies.
Yes, in that all hierarchies beyond the human - such as the angels, archangels, archai, etc. - have all gone through a human phase. The human phase is that phase wherein the members recieve their 'Ego' - their 'I' - their self awareness. However, the higher hierarchies, in their human phase, never descended as far as the mineral - and none after us will do so, in this universe. The humanity to which we are part, is the humanity that is receiving it's Egohood at the most material manifestation of the universe. This is significant.
Hmmmm........
We are - the human hierarchy is always the hierarchy that is the focal point of all creation in any given universe. Once we have successfully 'graduated' - we will be the next hierarchy in the next universe. (When the universe emerges again from pralaya). The animal hierarchy that 'graduates' in this universe will then be the human hierarchy in the next universe - and we will be their 'angels', guiding them into their Egohood. Our love for our animals now is a foreshadowing of that divine love we will dower the humanity of that distant time when we are their guides. Nothing is without meaning - and great consequence - even our love and care of the animals.
It's a story. No more, no less. Maybe true, maybe not. If true, it will resonate - and changes will stir. If untrue - nothing. No harm done. If relevant - consequential and helpful.
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Yes it will.
No, one experiences it. One must do the inner work.
We have discussed hallucinogens. In a way, such experiences let the seeker know that there are other dimensions of being. The stories Steiner - and many other initiates - tell are true from his/their experience, but are not to be accepted on faith. They are merely guideposts as are hallucinogens. Steiner - and others - are travelers in a far land reporting back. Even Steiner said that there would be others who would come after him who would 'correct' his work - elaborate his work - take it further.
One cannot - that is why there is seeking. We sense the incompleteness and press on.
The materialistic world view does not make logical sense - it is riddled with inconsistencies and gaping holes. Nor can it be 'readily experienced' - can you experience a quark?
It can be explained and described - an initiate on the order of a Steiner has done so.
The spiritual world is not 'superior' to the physical. As a member of the human hierarchy, the physical is the core of our mystery to the higher hierarchies and will be the essence of our power in times to come. As human beings we are 'constructing' something 'new under the sun'.
The physical nature is essential to being human. Humanity by definition is physical - and spiritual. Humanity is both - the only hierarchy in the universe that is so. To be incarnated in this world is a supreme privilege - a fact often sensed powerfully by those preparing to transition.
S
smcder
Guest
"But as I've said before, I have no logical nor experiential reason to think otherwise."
Does finding such a reason account for any of your interest in psychedelics?
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
Yes, "all day" is clearly an embodied concept ergo the quotes, haha.
Yes, I don't seem to be quite as attached to the physical senses as others. That's why I'm trying to get a sense of what the "spiritual" realm/nature entails. I thought perhaps it was equivalent to pure mind/cogito, the autobiographical, reflexive, free willed self... But that seems to be the Egotic self. Are they equivalent?
Re: Psychedelics: Yes, exactly — the only purpose of use would be for learning and experience of the other.
S
smcder
Guest
as I understood it:
"True. But as I've said before, I have no logical nor experiential reason to think otherwise."
... Referred to my comment that you were still thinking in materialistic terms ... So my question was whether your interest in psychedelics included finding a reason to think in other than materialistic terms. Is that what you mean here by
"Learning and experience of the other"? Or do you mean something else?
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
@Tyger
Thanks for these long, detailed responses.
One idea I've had (or was given) is that all interactions with the "spiritual" realm will be by necessity indirect. That is, these "forces" cannot directly interact with us.
This might explain why the paranormal is so confounding to us. The paranormal by various threads of evidence seems to be real, and yet it eludes unequivocal confirmation.
I think of this like the Walls of Jericho story; God wanted to bring down the walls, but instead of appearing himself and knocking them down like Godzilla, he used people and musical instruments (and perhaps and earthquake) to do so. That is, he influenced the physical world, but he had to use physical (ie natural) means to do so.
Perhaps that's why when studying paranormal events, there will always be a natural explanation, regardless of the paranormal/spiritual origin of the event.
In other words, it's not that these entities/forces are purposefully obscured from us, but rather it's a result of our and their natures — which both "sides" attempt to overcome. (That's not to say that at times they aren't purposefully obscure.)
Thanks for these long, detailed responses.
As noted, for me, one of the biggest riddles with paranormal events is why they are so subtle and/or fleeting. At least in our age.
One idea I've had (or was given) is that all interactions with the "spiritual" realm will be by necessity indirect. That is, these "forces" cannot directly interact with us.
This might explain why the paranormal is so confounding to us. The paranormal by various threads of evidence seems to be real, and yet it eludes unequivocal confirmation.
I think of this like the Walls of Jericho story; God wanted to bring down the walls, but instead of appearing himself and knocking them down like Godzilla, he used people and musical instruments (and perhaps and earthquake) to do so. That is, he influenced the physical world, but he had to use physical (ie natural) means to do so.
Perhaps that's why when studying paranormal events, there will always be a natural explanation, regardless of the paranormal/spiritual origin of the event.
In other words, it's not that these entities/forces are purposefully obscured from us, but rather it's a result of our and their natures — which both "sides" attempt to overcome. (That's not to say that at times they aren't purposefully obscure.)
Last edited:
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
Not so much seeking confirmation of the non-physical as much as seeking confirmation of non-human intelligence.
If there are and they are non-physical, perhaps they can impart that and explain why and how.
(For the record, I'm open to the possibility of there being a non-physical aspect of reality. As for there being a non-material aspect — that is, that complex things are constituted of simple units — I'm not clear on how that could be the case in any plane of existence.)
S
smcder
Guest
My statement:
Logic and experience will never give you reason to think otherwise.
... is a bit rhetorical ... my thought was that logic grounded in a given set of assumptions, in a given paradigm ... and experience that comes out of a particular framework - may not give you any reason to think "otherwise" - it will point back to itself, I think this is particularly true in what we have referred to in this thread as the "dominant paradigm".
On the other hand, the logic of science, the logic of open minded inquiry and experience that is grounded in an openness to the world, experience that comes from saying "what can be seen here?" - (by "seeing" I mean imaginal and visual) ... that can and should lead one to think "otherwise".
S
smcder
Guest
OK, it helps to know how you are defining physical and material ... I've not seen it done that way. I know we looked at the articles on physicalism and materialism in the SOP earlier in the thread ... but I don't want to get bogged down in that.
So I found this helpful:
What is the difference between physicalism and materialism?
Not a lot, I don't think. They describe a similar approach to different problems. Physicalism is the view that the world can be/is totally described and explained by a causally closed physics. Materialists hold that nothing exists or requires for its explanation anything which is empirically unverifiable. It's more a difference of context; the word 'physicalism' is used when it's a question of natural laws, whereas 'materialism' is used in cases where it's objects themselves, or properties that are important. I would be surprised if there are any physicalists who aren't materialists, and astounded if there are any materialists who aren't physicalists."
Does that fit with how you think of these terms?
The defintion of "complex" is to be made up of simple units, so, by defintion, it would have to be that way, or we need to use different word (or defintions). So ... I'm not sure what you are saying here or where you think someone has said that complex things wouldn't be made up of simple units?
The closest thing I can find is the Catholic doctrine of the simplicity of God:
God is Simple
God is not composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means. Simplicity of God refers to the fact that he has no parts. The simplicity teaching extends to the entire nature of God. His substance, nature, and very being is that of utter simplicity. The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective. One consequence of this teaching is the fact that since God is simple, he must be a pure spirit.
Do you mean something like that? @Tyger .... does Steiner say anything about entities being "simple" in this sense or "pure spirit"? If so, I think @Soupie's question would then be "what is pure spirit made of!?" ;-)
Finally, maybe a better way for me to have said that you are still thinking in materialist terms, would be to say that you are still thinking in Newtonian terms. But I think more than that, as Tyger has said - you have to pop out of your own paradigm and do the things, the exercises Steiner says to do, in order to understand what he's saying, it won't come unless you change the way you see things and @Tyger is that actually more basic to Steiner's philosophy than the "truth" of what he's saying?
There's a story about a man who loses his faith - he goes to the local holy man who tells him to do one hundred prostrations a day for a month and then come back to see him. The man returns of course having found his faith ... the moral for this story is that faith enters through the body. So too, maybe understanding?
Last edited by a moderator:
S
smcder
Guest
http://www.ciis.edu/Documents/Academic Departments/PCC/McDermott_Encyclopedia of Religion article on Monism.pdf
Robert McDermott (CIIS Steiner scholar @Tyger has linked to) - article on Monism for the Encyclopedia of Religion. Good history in Eastern/Western religion and philosophy and concludes with why he thinks monism will continue to be "a strongly opposed minority sytem".
Robert McDermott (CIIS Steiner scholar @Tyger has linked to) - article on Monism for the Encyclopedia of Religion. Good history in Eastern/Western religion and philosophy and concludes with why he thinks monism will continue to be "a strongly opposed minority sytem".
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
@smcder
Many, many posts ago, someone shared a link that clarified how I define physicalism and materialism. I'll try to find it soon. But for now:
Physicalism is the concept that reality is constituted of only what we currently call matter and energy, that is electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. or those things which can be known via our sense organs.
Materialism is the concept that everything that exists is made out of material - some of it physical material, some of it perhaps not. A monistic materialist might say that there is only one fundental material of which everything in reality is composed.
Re: God being simple and indivisible. That is one definition of God, but to me it's illogical if one also conceives of this "God" as having a personality. If one views this God as merely a force, the. Perhaps is could be simple and monistic. But again, any "thing" that has any complexity and/or differentiation will be constituted of simpler materials albeit perhaps non-physical materials.
Many, many posts ago, someone shared a link that clarified how I define physicalism and materialism. I'll try to find it soon. But for now:
Physicalism is the concept that reality is constituted of only what we currently call matter and energy, that is electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. or those things which can be known via our sense organs.
Materialism is the concept that everything that exists is made out of material - some of it physical material, some of it perhaps not. A monistic materialist might say that there is only one fundental material of which everything in reality is composed.
Re: God being simple and indivisible. That is one definition of God, but to me it's illogical if one also conceives of this "God" as having a personality. If one views this God as merely a force, the. Perhaps is could be simple and monistic. But again, any "thing" that has any complexity and/or differentiation will be constituted of simpler materials albeit perhaps non-physical materials.
- Status