Discussion of Mysticism and Interesting thought by Rudolf Stiener

by frankiespeakin 77 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  I'm in the process of reading Stieners "The Philosophy of Freedom" written toward the end of the 19th century. It was written in German and the translation into english makes it a little hard for me to understand, but somethings that I do seem(?) to grasp to me are interesting.
  

  Heres a link to and part of a clip from chapter 8,,this is the author's 1918 addition made at the end of the chapter which seem a little easier to understand. This is probably to deep of a subject for any one to be dogmatic on but feel free to discuss it, I would be interested in any comments..

  http://www.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/TPOF/pofc8.html?PHPSESSID=8c26b17902d54e0bc16fa0bc7ce5aaf4

  Author's addition, 1918

  The difficulty of grasping the essential nature of thinking by observation lies in this, that it has all too easily eluded the introspecting soul by the time the soul tries to bring it into the focus of attention. Nothing then remains to be inspected but the lifeless abstraction, the corpse of the living thinking. If we look only at this abstraction, we may easily find ourselves compelled to enter into the mysticism of feeling or perhaps the metaphysics of will, which by contrast appear so "full of life". We should then find it strange that anyone should expect to grasp the essence of reality in "mere thoughts". But if we once succeed in really finding life in thinking, we shall know that swimming in mere feelings, or being intuitively aware of the will element, cannot even be compared with the inner wealth and the self-sustaining yet ever moving experience of this life of thinking, let alone be ranked above it.

  It is owing precisely to this wealth, to this inward abundance of experience, that the counter-image of thinking which presents itself to our ordinary attitude of soul should appear lifeless and abstract.

  No other activity of the human soul is so easily misunderstood as thinking.

  Will and feeling still fill the soul with warmth even when we live through the original event again in retrospect. Thinking all too readily leaves us cold in recollection; it is as if the life of the soul had dried out. Yet this is really nothing but the strongly marked shadow of its real nature -- warm, luminous, and penetrating deeply into the phenomena of the world. This penetration is brought about by a power flowing through the activity of thinking itself -- the power of love in its spiritual form. There are no grounds here for the objection that to discern love in the activity of thinking is to project into thinking a feeling, namely, love. For in truth this objection is but a confirmation of what we have been saying.

  If we turn towards thinking in its essence, we find in it both feeling and will, and these in the depths of their reality; if we turn away from thinking towards "mere" feeling and will, we lose from these their true reality.

  If we are ready to experience thinking intuitively, we can also do justice to the experience of feeling and of will; but the mysticism of feeling and the metaphysics of will are not able to do justice to the penetration of reality by intuitive thinking -- they conclude all too readily that they themselves are rooted in reality, but that the intuitive thinker, devoid of feeling and a stranger to reality, forms out of "abstract thoughts" a shadowy, chilly picture of the world.
• 

  Satanus

  It's a bit hard to read without paragraphs. I'll start the discussion w this. If i understand him correctly, he is saying that the way to interact directly w something is internal, intuitively as he puts it. Without doing that, we merely have approximations because we do not have direct contact. Everything is at a distance.

  Let's take the sun as an example. It is 94 million miles away. We feel it's heat and it's light, yet we don't really know it. All we are doing is making enterpretations based on what it transmits accros that distance. Now, if a person did a direct meditation, internally, on it, would a person then know it directly, or perhaps in a different way? Getting out of my deapth here. It does sound interesting. Perhaps i'll read more.

  S
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Satan,

  I have put in some paragraph breaks where I though they might possibly go. And thanks for your observations.
• 

  Sunnygal41

  Mr. Steiner doesn't sound as far out to me, as some others may find, because, for the most part, for the past 7 years, I've been trying to live my life intuitively, from my gut, as it is commonly referred to. I find that a truer barometer than intellectualization, for the most part.

  Ter
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Sunny,

  I try to be more intuitive too or at least more aware of it.

  I'm trying to see if I got this much right:

  The difficulty of grasping the essential nature of thinking by observation lies in this, that it has all too easily eluded the introspecting soul by the time the soul tries to bring it into the focus of attention. Nothing then remains to be inspected but the lifeless abstraction, the corpse of the living thinking.

  Basically I think this means that if we intensley watch our thoughts our thoughs stop so there is nothing to see except our observation of thought which means to me that if we give full attention to observation all there is only observation with no thought, or emptiness.

  If we look only at this abstraction, we may easily find ourselves compelled to enter into the mysticism of feeling or perhaps the metaphysics of will, which by contrast appear so "full of life".

  So then this watching of no thought leads one to the mystical opposite, which is full of powerful feelings and strange sensations that thoughts and concept cannot discribe.

  We should then find it strange that anyone should expect to grasp the essence of reality in "mere thoughts". But if we once succeed in really finding life in thinking, we shall know that swimming in mere feelings, or being intuitively aware of the will element, cannot even be compared with the inner wealth and the self-sustaining yet ever moving experience of this life of thinking, let alone be ranked above it.

  This mystical feeling that excels all thought,,feels totally true,,and more alive than the life we normally live. The inner life is more real than the outer and qualatively superior.

  At least thats how i understand it,,I'm prolly way off base comments anyone?
• 

  Markfromcali

  This reminds me of a Far Side cartoon where there is a guy sitting in a bar speaking to a kangaroo: "Well yeah? I know a few things about marsupials myself!"
  
  
  The joke is obvious - the guy may have studied marsupials, the other IS one. There's no comparison of being to knowing. Knowing in this context comes from a process of learning, being just is.
  
  
  Obviously there is still the question of being conscious of what that all involves even if you are one. But of course one thing that bears pointing out is that direct experience in being one, so say being a human being, adds a dimension of depth.
  
  
  For example, even though it isn't really who we are, we know this through the whole experience of "being" a JW. We are not easily convinced of someone's understanding who has never been in that situation, who has not lived it - and sometimes there are even further subdivisions of being in particular situations be it raised as a JW or whatever.
  
  
  Now consider that this is in fact a result of heavy conditioning, and even THAT experience requires something more direct than intellectual learning. How would that compare to being in the sense of just being human or what we are in essense, which is before conditioning?
  
  
  This is why I think although useful, an intellectualization of any of this kind of stuff misses the point. Basically it is a matter of mistaking the tool for the user, you don't look at a hammer and go "who am I?" Again because it is useful it wouldn't mean we don't think at all, but it's a matter of seeing it is not found in thoughts. Using thought to try to convey that sense of being, which we do not define for the purpose of inviting the other person to find out for themselves, is a different intention than in trying to find it in the thoughts. So when reading words such as these from an author we do not have direct or on going contact with it would be good to not focus so much on the vehicle of language in the transmission, but where it's aimed at, which is right here where you are. The clarity and how articulate the expression is is really secondary to whether it is received.
• 

  Terry

  What is mysticism?

  Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason and then asserting that this is superior to evidence or the senses.

  Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of "knowledge", such as __instinct__, intuition,__revelation_or any form of "just knowing".

  Mysticism is the claim (and nothing more really) to the "perception" of some "other" reality (whose only definition is that it is NOT natural (i.e. supernatural).

  Mysticism requires the notion of the UNKNOWABLE, which is REVEALED to some and witheld from others.

  This serves the purpose of dividing men into those who feel guilt and those who cash in on it.

  Terry

  quote above from Ayn Rand
• 

  FMZ

  Satan,

  I have put in some paragraph breaks where I though they might possibly go. And thanks for your observations.

  I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at this... How many times in history has this sentence been uttered? Maybe once during the writing of the Necronomicon. I'll move along now. heh FMZ
• 

  Terry

  Markfromcali, your post was essentially rather brilliant.

  Thanks,

  Terry
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Mark,

  This is why I think although useful, an intellectualization of any of this kind of stuff misses the point.

  I agree it is useful but still misses the point,,I do think that R.Stiener does a pretty good job to open the way for some to experience it thru some intellectulization. Even if it is not as good as being it.

  Basically it is a matter of mistaking the tool for the user, you don't look at a hammer and go "who am I?" Again because it is useful it wouldn't mean we don't think at all, but it's a matter of seeing it is not found in thoughts. Using thought to try to convey that sense of being, which we do not define for the purpose of inviting the other person to find out for themselves, is a different intention than in trying to find it in the thoughts.

  Being is not found in thoughts sounds intuitively correct to me, and Being as only thought or thinking sounds correct also. Maybe that's the paradox of duality and oneness??

  So when reading words such as these from an author we do not have direct or on going contact with it would be good to not focus so much on the vehicle of language in the transmission, but where it's aimed at, which is right here where you are. The clarity and how articulate the expression is is really secondary to whether it is received.

  You mean reading it without intellecualizing it??

  Are you talking about the "self" recieving it and awakening?