RUDOLF STEINER’S SCINTILLATING METAPHOR, METHOD OF ATTAINING “SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE,” AND OTHER STORIES WANTING TO BE TOLD

RUDOLF STEINER’S SCINTILLATING METAPHOR, METHOD OF ATTAINING “SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE,” AND OTHER STORIES WANTING TO BE TOLD

                                                                                                      

It is my normal practice to read various “spiritual” teachers/sources, be they Western, Eastern, Northern, or Southern. I do so to weigh all and sundry weirdnesses and possible truths that are put forth,  being aware to that which may “resonate” with me in some way, revealing a pattern, a parallel, a correspondence, a connection with that which I seem to “know” (though I am most often unable to determine just where it comes from). This resonance occurs strongly but rarely. With Steiner, I found it to be worth mentioning and conveying to the common understanding, interest, and pool of awareness.

             First, a little about Steiner: Rudolf Steiner (and his newly created Anthroposophical Society) was expelled from the Theosophical Society (though the decision was mutual) in 1913; his presentation of “esoteric Christianity” was at odds with the anti-Christian sentiment and “occult” practices of Theosophy, and, just as importantly, because he was very critical and unaccepting of the Theosophical Society’s Order of the Star in the East for its presentment of Krishnamurti (who ultimately refused the title and position) as “World Avatar.” Steiner believed that, rather than an individual World Teacher, the universal “Christ impulse” present within each and every person (regardless of religion or personal belief) would affect him or her and present itself consciously or unconsciously in their lives, thus presenting the possibility of changing human consciousness and thereby the world through a universal, collective process. Steiner also taught that the Christ, through his incarnation in human physical form two thousand years ago, had entered into and permeated the physical world and was present to and within all people as well as the Earth itself on even the dense, physical level.

             In reading Steiner, I realize that much of what he says pertaining to actual “spiritual experience” (which is necessary if one is to attain “spiritual understanding”) corresponds closely with other religious and/or spiritual methods or techniques to “experience spirituality.”  Certain aspects of Steiner’s writings are clear parallels to other methods, though expressed in his rather unique, fairly straightforward, and down-to-earth manner along with what I see as his wonderfully resonant and original metaphor. It is these aspects that I feel are important enough to share with others.

             For those who may be interested, I will simply note that Jung and Steiner were contemporaries, that Jung does mention Steiner a few times in his CW and does seem to approve of Anthroposophy while disapproving of Theosophy, that Steiner makes no mention of Jung, that they probably were not personally acquainted, that they were similar in their emphasis of the “unconscious and/or subconscious,” that both expressed an appreciation of “esoteric/gnostic Christianity,” but that Steiner did not accept the Jung’s notion of the “collective unconscious,” seeing this principle more in terms of what he called the “Christ impulse” as universally present within humanity.

             My main source for this essay is Approaching the Mystery of Golgotha, a compilation of ten lectures from 1913-14 by Rudolf Steiner, published by SteinerBooks in 2006. Steiner’s metaphor regarding the proper perspective on and use of thought is, to my mind, powerful, instructive, and original. He begins by focusing on “thinking”:

                          Human beings are evolving in the world; they crown their evolution by filling

                          the world with thinking. Thinking completes the world. Human beings recognize

                          their surroundings through it. (101)

Then he further develops and categorizes this “thinking,” and presents the metaphor of “thought as seed”:

                          However, thinking can achieve two things. It can be developed properly,

                          which can be compared with the development of the seed to the blossom. But

                          the seed can also serve for human nutrition, it which case it will be torn out

                          of its regular, continuing flow. If it stays in its continuous flow, it develops into

                          a new plant; predictably, life for the future comes from it. It is the same with

                          human thinking. We can say that through it we make pictures for ourselves of

                          our surroundings. However, the employment of such knowledge is like using

                          seeds for nutriment. We drive thinking from its flow. If, however, it remains

                          in its flow, then we let it live its own seed-life. We let it unfold in meditation

                          and inspiration and let it develop itself into a new, fertile existence. That is

                          the right flow of thinking. (101-102)

This is the essence of Steiner’s metaphor. However, it has further implications and direction:

                          In the future, we will recognize that what we have regarded as knowledge of

                          the world behaves like the grain that does not progress to the new grain, but

                          rather is driven out to a totally different flow. But the knowledge we learn

                          through knowledge of the higher worlds is the thinking, that is philosophically

                          comprehended in freedom and that leads directly into spiritual life through

                          meditation and concentration.

                              We stand at a point where it will be recognized that ordinary knowledge is to

                          supersensible knowledge as a grain used for food is to a grain that progresses

                          to a new grain. Inner knowledge of thinking is what the future must bring. …

                          And we will know that living thinking, which transforms itself through meditation

                          and concentration, leads to spiritual knowledge of human nature and to

                          knowledge of the spiritual worlds. (102)

Now, Steiner considers what his metaphor of “thought as seed” means and further explains how it is to be applied in one’s own life and to the current time, over a hundred years ago:

                          Today a person who is regarded as a great philosophical mind basically limits

                          his wisdom to talking over and over again about the same subject. He says:

                          “Human beings should not stop with mere external knowledge. They must

                          grasp the spirit. … They must grasp the spiritual within themselves. It may not

                          be grasped merely in concepts; it must come alive.” Such people are not saying

                          what spirit is; they know nothing about it. … [However], when we form thinking out

                          of itself [my emphasis], it does not become a vague experience of spirit, but

                          becomes whole in itself. … In other words, if we transform thinking in meditation,

                          our meditative thought will form itself. And then … our spiritual being will become

                          present. Humanity is on its way in its evolution from philosophy to a living

                          spiritual knowledge. (102)

Steiner goes on further assess the current situation and the ability of the current “state of the soul” to prepare and progress:

                          Those who see this understand their time, but it is not possible to gain a real

                          insight into these things without developing reverence for the knowledge, which

                          holds one back with the power of judgment that one has from applying the

                          criterion universally. One must be willing to prepare oneself ever and again for

                          new knowledge, for in its present state, the soul is suited only for a tributary of

                          knowledge. Only when the soul develops to a higher level is it really suited to

                          enter into the spiritual world. … We will make no progress by acquiring only more

                          and more concepts for what the spiritual world is. We must acquire them, but we

                          only start to make real progress when we join with each new thought something

                          that comes from the deepest foundation of our soul, so that this process of

                          “understanding more and more” can prove itself before the leading powers of

                          our time. We can feel them, how they speak in the most intimate foundation

                          of our soul. … This consciousness should pour itself out over what we are doing

                          as a true current of the soul. (103)

Steiner further implores that his readers join in his Anthroposophical Movement as the main force of this new consciousness, however, in my own estimation, I think that many of us are already upon our own paths and directions, be they individual or group-oriented, and are already following the “true current of the soul.”

             Again, I am struck by the simplicity and power of Steiner’s metaphor in which thoughts are as “seeds,” and if we eat the seeds as our nourishment, which is to say, focus on the appearance of  thoughts in our minds as “our thoughts” and consciously attempt to thereby control them by leading and directing them with our conscious direction, we limit the inherent creative potential of the thought,  which does not then develop and cannot come to fruition. I find a very close correspondence to Steiner’s “method” in the Buddhist view of thinking as presented in two of its techniques of meditation, zazen and vipassana. In these techniques or methods, thoughts, though initially recognized, are not dwelled upon nor “followed” by the conscious mind; rather, they are simply “let go of.” Through this practice, one returns to a state of “natural mind,” of “emptiness.” In such a mind, which is no longer reflective of self, the “I” ceases. If thought no longer “occupies” our mind, “I” cease to exist. A pertinent exercise: Let go of all thoughts in your mind, and, keeping that mind, try thinking of yourself or anything about yourself. Yes, it is a bit of a trick question. Humor is always a valid ingredient of being.

             These are my own vague words meant to describe a state of being that is more expansive and real than our “normal” state of mind and perception. I imagine most Buddhists (to say the least) would find it ridiculously simplistic if not inaccurate). However, I see a correlation between Steiner’s metaphor and description of the process or method, and that of Buddhist meditation, in which I have had forty years’ experience. I never heard any Buddhists present such an explanation for the process and method of Buddhist meditation in any way similar to as Steiner’s metaphor and method, but then, Buddhists don’t tend to explain such things, much less in a logical, “scientific” Western mode. A quite similar technique to Steiner’s is presented in Theosophy (Alice Bailey), which I also practiced for many years. In this practice, one focuses upon a “seed thought” (repeatedly for a period of time like a week or month) by “raising awareness up” to the fifth chakra (or energy center in the body, according to the Hindu yogic system), holding it there, then raising it up to the seventh before “letting go” of it so that it “ascends” (which reminds me of the “cloud of unknowing” practices of Meister Eckhart and other Christian mystics). Then, after a few minutes have passed, one then allows the “seed thought” to “descend” back into the fecund and receptive mind (fifth chakra) once again, where “divine knowledge” is then disseminated into one’s consciousness, where it is “digested,” and then shared with others in a more “edible” and palpable form.

             Steiner’s metaphor and description also somewhat correspondent with The Little Rule of Saint Romuald (www.contemplation.com), a Christian contemplative method, as introduced more than a thousand years ago and practiced in Camaldolese Benedictine monasteries today. Monks are instructed to:

                          Sit in your cell as in paradise. Put the whole world behind you and forget it.

                          Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish. … Realize above

                          all that you are in God’s presence, and stand there with the attitude of one who

                          stands before the emperor. Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content

                          with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes nothing and eats nothing but

                          what his mother brings him.

This practice takes place within the context of the Psalms and in dedication to Christ, which, in my view,  thereby separates it more from Steiner’s or the Buddhist approach.

In addition to the comparison between Steiner’s method and those of Buddhism and contemplative Christianity, there is a notion presented by Steiner in the same aforementioned text that is reflected in Native American beliefs as well as in some Asian religions (which I will not specifically speak of due to ignorance). Steiner view is that since Christ incarnated in a human body on Earth, after his death the “Christ energy,” or, more specifically, the “Christ impulse” entered into and suffused or enlivened the physical realm of the Earth itself, in addition to existing in other more sublime dimensions. (This is similar to the Theosophist view [Alice Bailey] of divine life occurring within the atoms that compose the material world and universe, including, of course, our own bodies.) Thus, the earthly world is permeated and suffused with divine energy, specifically Christ energy. Steiner (and some Theosophists) see this as the direct result of Christ’s incarnation into the physical body, and universally, the physical level of the world.

             Christianity makes reference to this perspective in its teaching of an ultimate life after death on Earth in physical bodies, however, it seems confused in its mixing of the spiritual with the material.  Native American “religion” specifically venerates the ancestors, i.e., those who have died and whose spirits have passed back into the Earth, the Mother. I know the medicine man of the Esselen People, Little Bear, a physically big man who, among other things, leads ceremonial sweat lodges. When I teased him years ago about losing some weight so that he wouldn’t have a heart attack in the intense heat of the sweat lodge, he matter-of-factly informed me that “seven grandfathers” lived in his body, that they were “always hungry” and that he had to feed them. He was quite serious. Whether this was his own choice, the price of ancestral wisdom, or both, I did not ask him. The point is that this “spiritual energy” present within the physical world is visceral in the living experience of some people.

I present this compilation of information in an attempt to coalesce seemingly different or perhaps even  oppositional religious and spiritual perspectives and understandings regarding such notions as “spiritual experience” and “spiritual world.” This essay may possess some kind of relevant truth; that I do not know. I am only presenting possible correspondences for the sakes of new or greater understanding. For me it is a story that wants to be told. I am not compelled by a need to “prove” or otherwise demonstrate validity. What I can honestly say comes closest to this: That Which dwells within these earthly bodies of ours may present us, if we are able and willing to listen and to hear, with stories that want to be told, and, if we are able to comprehend our place and role in the matter, we convey these stories as best we can in the hope that they might, in turn, be listened to and heard for the edification and fulfillment of all of us. Children of Mythos, we are each the primary character of the story of our own lives, contained within the Book of All Life. It may not matter a bit but we believe it does. We hope it does. Those with the least faith must demonstrate the most, and heed the call to tell those stories wanting to be told.

 

WE BELIEVE THE WAY WE THINK IS HOW WE ARE

I have never actually questioned the way I think, and have always believed it to simply be "me" and that which is real to me and simply "true." While I have been aware that the way people think is actually interpretive and based on their perception, experience, world view, chemistry, etc., I have always tended to believe what I think, seeing it as more or less valid and credible. I suppose my thinking could be considered in many respects to be "depressive" by an external observer, though I have seen it as "sensitive, intuitive, deep, and profound." A few years ago, I felt that I was perhaps "suffering unduly" and questioned whether or not this was simply due to the way in which I thought rather than to any particular "truth of my being." I questioned the reality of my being, of my world, and decided to take an antidepressant. My doctor described it as just "changing my brain chemistry a bit," and it sounded doable to me. After a few weeks, I found that I was not only "happy," but rather extremely so. I was smiling at everyone, including adults, and petting dogs, god forbid. It was as though some happy alien was now living in my body, making me happy and think happy thoughts. It was horrendous. Much too much happiness; for me, a little goes a long way. So I stopped taking it, and, with a relief, was able to return to my normal, dark, somber, negative self, which made me very happy indeed.
     Now, a few years have passed, and I again am seriously questioning the truth and validity of the particular way in which I think and view the world. I am very aware of the highly subjective and interpretive way in which we think and consequently view the world, and behave (or not) in it. I am giving it another try to see if perhaps, by adding a bit of serotonin to my brain chemistry, my thinking might actually change, even improve. "Improve" is a "loaded" word, I know, but perhaps my stress level might lessen. I am a caregiver to people I love who are disabled, and this responsibility weighs heavily upon me; I perhaps "feel their pain" a bit too much. So a pill could perhaps actually help reduce this stress. Is this something I want to be sharing with "the world"? Since I'm not the only one faced with such a situation, I feel that to share it might actually somehow help someone, even if it's just one person. But no one even reads this blog, I'm old and don't care what people may think anyway, so I feel that it's OK to philosophize about the inner questioning that goes on. I'm surely not the first or only person to do it. I have talked with people, including my neighbor just yesterday, about taking serotonin as an antidepressant, and have heard different perspectives and outcomes. It may still be that I am happiest and most "at home" in my "depression," but I want to see what happens, so I am willing to be the subject of my own study. If I become a "happy alien", I'll stop taking it. Even though no one reads this, I'll still check in down the line.

THE FATE OF THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATES

Devil's Advocates are those who go against the grain and speak the unpopular or oppositional point of view in order to bring balance and reality (which may be compassion and understanding) to the conversation. The key word is balance rather than truth, for truth itself is elusive and usually simply an agreed-upon convention, often seen as "tradition." Devil's Advocates are often seen as contrarians (and just as often are), however, in truth (and it is the truth in my case anyway), the imbalance (or bias or prejudice or ignorance or narrow-mindedness) of the moment is simply so obvious and so ridiculous or unjust or stupid that they have to "make it right" for the sake of all involved. The true Devil's Advocate is not arguing for the sake of argument but is serving the need for understanding in this moment of harmful and damaging unbalanced ignorance. The Devil's Advocate may seem negative, destructive, arrogant and insulting, however, he or she will do what is necessary to bring healthy chaos in the form of self-questioning to the those who are so certain and righteous and, worst of all, unquestioning of their points of view. The Devil's Advocate will even be willing to play the fool, sometimes shamelessly so, in order to bring about enough confusion, if necessary, to cause people to question themselves. In a roomful of righteous believers in God, the Devil's Advocate plays the atheist, while in a roomful of righteous atheists (which is actually rather rare), the Devil's Advocate plays the believer in God, presenting a strong argument in either case. So, the Devil's Advocate must know what he or she is talking about and be able to present it articulately, even eloquently. The purpose is always to make people think, to cause them to question their unquestioned certainties. Jesus himself was accused of being a literal Devil's Advocate, was he not? A blasphemer who performed miracles by the power of the devil?
     Devil's Advocates are harder on themselves, seeking to bring reality and balance and understanding in their own being. They have restless souls and suffer from what Schopenhauer called "the pain (or sorrow) of the world." They feel unawareness and ignorance as a knife in their gut. They feel the harm caused by such ignorance and a crushing weight upon their backs, breaking their hearts. This causes them to seek greater contexts in which to exist. The truest and best Devil's Advocates are those who have "gone through it" themselves, those who have suffered and been humbled to the point that they do not act out of ego or a need to dominate, but rather out of selflessness and a desire to serve the good of humanity. It is a righteous, thankless path. We should listen to those who ruffle our feathers, who disagree with us, who cause us to question that which we hold so near and dear; they often speak the truth.

A LETTER TO MY CHILD

I'm sure you are aware how I ask you now and then what your "philosophy of life" is, or what your "purpose in living" is, or what's most important to you. I ask because these are very important things; how we understand ourselves and life to be determines our ability to both understand what is going on with ourselves and to withstand that which life seems to throw at us or at least drop us into. It boils down to "knowing oneself."

All this latest stuff that may be occurring in your life is simply part of the play that requires a response from you. It's all just a play, a game of life in which we are involved and, in some way, have chosen for ourselves. But if we are unable to step back and see it from a greater perspective, as a kind of test we have chosen for ourselves, we may find ourselves so affected by it that we allow ourselves to be at the effect of its drama. In truth there are simply things to be done, actions to be taken, new parts of ourselves to be discovered. All the fear and confusion is just there, just part and parcel of life, and as we step into it, we find that it is just what comes with that which is new and unknown. Sometimes we may even believe that we're taking a step backwards, and apparently retreating, but finding oneself in and through "the swamp of name and form," to use the Buddhist metaphor, is a necessary action.

I wake up in extremely severe pain in my back. That's what wakes me up so early every day. It really hurts, and sometimes it makes me sad and anxious, worried that I'll become a vegetable, won't be able to take care of Amy, etc., etc., etc. But I realize it's all ok, that it really is as it is, and that it's fine; I even smile; I even laugh! Some might say that's crazy, but somehow I am able to see it all, including my life and me, in a greater perspective, and this gives me an understanding; it gives me compassion, which is a sense of humor, a sense of knowing on a larger scale. In truth we are much greater that we see ourselves; our minds, ways of thinking, thoughts can be changed by us if we are willing and able to leave our measly little selves behind--at least for a moment, at least a bit. What is so important to us, what we think, how we feel, is nothing when we realize the actual action to be taken or not taken, for that matter. It's not that life or ourselves are relative; rather, it's that life and ourselves are much bigger, much more inclusive, that what we see or think or feel. We hem ourselves in, as it were, and see no way through or out or beyond, even though all of this is right in front of us and available to us. We have to open ourselves and our minds. Once we recognize this, we are amazed at how small-minded and fearful we were. At that point we are able to leave Socrates' cave of illusion and shadow that we once believed to be real.

I hope this make absolute sense to you. It's all a game, even a heart-breaking one. Not easy by any means. Very challenging but also amazing. We're all in it. It's best to learn to play well, with great compassion and understanding.

RELATING WITH PAIN IN ALL ITS POWER

Physical pain is the one reality with which one cannot negotiate. It is the ultimate bully, in your face, in your body. It awakens one in the morning and puts one to sleep at night. It is not philosophical, cannot be reasoned with, does not go away unless it decides to go away. In that respect perhaps it has an educational purpose. We who have been so in charge of our lives, doing whatever it is that we have wanted to do, are now so not in charge at all. Pain has taken over, dictating to us what we can do and what we can't, even regulating our day, telling us when we can act and when we can't. Hating the pain, resisting it, fighting it makes it worse. The pain is in the body. To act like it is not there and try to push through it in spite of it only causes the body to break down more, causing still more pain. Of course, one might take various drugs to lessen or mask the pain, however, they create their own kind of physical pain.

My wife's pain is far, far more severe and disabling that mine. I don't suffer all the time; she does. And it is in her body. At a Zen Buddhist discussion group, this became the topic of the conversation: whether pain is real and what causes pain. Apparently, the Buddha said that physical pain in the body is real and that there are no ways to make it go away; it must simply be borne and experienced as it is. He said that it passes, however, I say that one's own life may pass first. Except for the one Zen "priest" who acknowledged the reality of physical pain and our powerlessness over it, every other person in that room denied its reality, saying that it comes from the mind, from one's thinking. When in severe physical pain, one cannot think, much less meditate. Rather, one is occupied by the pain, which is different than being occupied by thoughts, by thinking. When I am in pain, I am with the pain; I feel it. At this point I respect it, though pain, unlike thoughts, is not like a cloud in the sky obscuring the sun; rather, it is as a red-hot anvil placed in one's body. Pain of this kind has its own mind, which is not ours. One learns to respect this single-mindedness of the body itself, realizing that it is the indomitable source of pleasure and of the survival instinct itself. 

Pain also has the effect of causing one to move away from the physical life urge, and identification with the physical body. For myself, I live to dream. For those in very severe pain, the pain is so extreme that they must sleep. Paradoxically, it puts them to sleep, during which the pain, for a time, is gone. I dream dreams of significance; uplifting "spiritual" dreams of insight, understanding, humor, love and, finally, context, in which I am shown the purpose and place of pain. Those in severe pain disidentify from life in the body and are readily prepared to leave it when the time comes. It is much better to have such an awareness before one dies; it is much less of a shock, yes, but it also leads one to search in the appropriate places for the necessary information pertaining to the purported circumstances following dearth, before one dies. A word to the wise.

Pain in this view may be seen as a friend, even an ally. However, such a view held too strongly, leads to an avoidance of life, if not a rejection of it. For me, like is simply too beautiful to be avoided or rejected. My wife, my children, the trees, the wind are just incredible in their beauty; they take my breath away. Pain sometimes takes my breath away as well. Pain also develops compassion for those who suffer; one feels the pain of all beings. And one knows the despair, which is not simply physical pain, that accompanies pain, aging, and the breakdown of the body. And Buddhist says that life is suffering, that desire is suffering. It is a suffering we willingly choose, for initially, for most of us, in our youth the pleasure far outweighs the pain. Even now, for me, the pleasure of life's beauty far outweighs its pain, though the pain does become palpable, particularly as one opens up to the world, to life, to the hearts, the being of others.

SEEING OURSELVES NOT IN THE SAME WAY

I think that I have something to say that comes from me, and is authentic in that regard. And then I realize that I do not know at all, and in fact doubt, that that which I express comes from "me" at all. Lately, I have been reading Jean Gebser, a mid-20th century philosopher or at least thinker, and also referred to the I Ching yesterday. I found myself thinking along these rather divergent directions, essentially taking something in, further "refining" myself, and, in doing so, redefining myself in some slight way. Thoughts and insights that come to me, including those from books I read and people I talk to, change my composition in some minuscule way. i write my thoughts and feelings in journals; someone has to listen to me, after all. Rereading what I write, which happens at times, most of it is so utterly mundane, though often heartfelt; I do know the writer, after all, and life can be difficult for him.

This blog is so difficult for me to write because, when faced with finding the "me" to write it as "me," I have nothing to say; I do not want to be put on the spot as "me." Yet when I read someone else's thoughts in a book, I can be both impressed by or critical of what they are saying and how they are saying it. Some very stupid people are incredibly eloquent and articulate, while some very creative and intelligent people express themselves incredibly badly and inarticulately. If someone has an "edge" in their thinking, that is, they move right along the brink of understanding, I will and can stay with them. Hell, I read the whole of The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled, sometimes forcing myself, but still in good faith. So far, so good with Gebser, but Jung, the blowhard, could never hold my interest. I smell phoniness a mile away though try to stay with it as long as possible. 

An important theme of existence for me is often that of "leaving something of value for others to understand and benefit from," some kind of system of understanding life, something that can be "applied" like some kind of magic ritual. Here's something from my journal: He knew too much, too much to bear, but could not put it into words; there were no words. Nor did he have any other way to convey it. It was simply an awareness, a knowing beyond all awareness, all knowledge; a singularity beyond all complexity, inclusive of all of it; an understanding that could evidence any such understanding, a speaking of no possible words, an unutterable sound. It was simply too much.

Since I speak so many words, I am probably a "windbag," as it were. I also am weighed down by a need for "context," a place in which to be able to exist, much less live my life. Here is something else from my journal: Sometimes I am clearly in the greater context, the whole, the beingness in which everything occurs. At such time, every person I see I somehow am; I am in them as them, seeing their thoughts and feeling their feelings. Even the trees, I know their drive, their being, though they are not personal as persons are. I know the wind too; I am the wind; I came from the wind. The wind gets around; it knows more than anyone else: To "get wind" of something is true.

My mother was part Indian (Choctaw and Cherokee). My father teased her, saying that her grandfather was named "Chief Breaking Wind," which he meant as a racist insult. I always loved the wind, even as a child, and found such a name to represent the powerful, breaking wind. How many insults carry great inspiration? The wind has no particular self who speaks, rather, the wind, which is all wind, speaks. Gebser would call this a representation of the "magical mind" in which all is reductively included as one, without individuality. I, on another hand, see it as absolutely true. In a recent conversation, in a philosophical discussion with a neighbor, he repeated the phrase: If we do not learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it. My response surprised even me. I said: But if we learn from history in the same way we have always learned from history, we remain condemned to repeat it. 

GETTING TO THE TRUTH OF THINGS

A primary recurring theme for me is "getting to the truth of things." A variation of this is "the way things are." But what is this? How much of anything is "the way it is" and how much is "the way I see it"? A tree does have "its way of being" which is "the way it is," while it is also "that which it is to me," i.e. my interpretation of it. And it is still something else: a part of me even as I am a part of it; I know it as a part of "myself," my being on a larger scale that is no longer so much "me," but a greater being that is inclusive of me and the tree. So "getting to the truth of things" may be a moot point, depending on just what level of myself is doing the "getting."

I hope to add to this soon.