Response to Michael re Love &
Freedom
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 6:23 am
Subject: Response to Michael re Love & Freedom
Good Morning Michael,
A couple of points I would like to speak with
you about. : )
Michael
wrote:
And then we have "A Philosophy of
Freedom", which gives us ideas like: Intuition; Moral imagination;
thinking with the power of Love in spiritual form; and my personal
favorite:
"My neighbors want to live out their
intuitions, I mine. If we really draw from the idea, and follow
no external (physical or spiritual) impulses, then we cannot
but meet in the same striving, the same intentions. An ethical
misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically free
human beings."
I think that I understand this quote and that
you do too, but oh, how such a quote can be misunderstood if
taken out of context apart from the whole process of Philosophy
of Freedom that leads up to it! Only if the two "neighbors"
involved have totally penetrated to the core of what Steiner
means by Intuition could the second sentence be true. Among two
or more fully concious (in spirit) individual such agreement
would be a matter of course. Think of two or three chemists in
a laboratory seeking a particular formula together. If each one
is fully trained and knows exactly what chemical A and chemical
B will do when mixed together and exactly what chemical C and
chemical D will do when mixed together, they can probably agree
on what chemical B and chemical D will do when mixed together
and act accordingly. But if a college freshman taking his first
course in chemistry were put side by side with an experienced,
super PhD level chemical researcher and both individual's opinions
were given the same weight, well, BOOM goes the laboratory!!
Ethics, to me is a lot like chemistry. It is a matter of actions
vs reactions vs consequences. What I think is good, what is the
right way to live and act has to "mix" with what my
"neighbor" thinks is good and right. Only if we both
can fully understand through a spiritualized, Christ filled (meaning
"I" filled) conciousness what the "other's"
reaction will be and the long term (karmic) consequences will
be to us and anyone else in our vicinity, so to speak, can we
come to a real agreement. Otherwise, one or both of us will be
thinking and acting from cultural or intellectual teachings or
our own emotional make up. And the potential for a "blow-up"
is very high.
Dr. Bernard Lievegood, an Anthroposophical
doctor from Holland wrote a marvelous book called "Toward
the 21st Century - Doing the Good." It is a marvelous treatise
on the difference between being "right" and doing "good".
He says (I'm summarizing from memory right now) that most people
equate "good" and "right" but in fact, they
might not be the same. A person may decide to act based on what
he or she thinks is "right" whether according to a
law or even an ideal, but it might not produce "good"
in a given situation or for a given person or group. What is
really interesting is that he says that we really won't know
if what we do is good or not until we actually do it! We can
determine what is "right" beforehand, but not totally
what is "good."
Which leads me to a response to your other
quote
Obviously I am not yet "ethically
free" when it comes to my marriage. But the process of getting
there is amazing; as well as emotionally painful, which is sometimes
a consequence of truth. I forget who said that "Love is
the Pain of being truly alive".
I can understand this quote, too, but prefer
the passage from Madeline L'Engle's "A Wind at the Door."
Meg, a schoolgirl is in the middle of a life or death, spiritual
test along with a Cherubim named Progo (Proginoskes). Meg has
to identify her school principle, Mr. Jenkins (who she detests)
among two other copies created by evil entities called Echthroi.
In order for her to "Name" Mr. Jenkins, she has to
love Mr. Jenkins.
"Progo! Help me! How can I feel love
for Mr. Jenkins?"
Immediately he opened a large number of eyes
very wide. "What a strange idea. Love isn't feeling. If
it were, I wouldn't be able to love. Cherubim don't have feelings."
"But-"
"Idiot," Proginoskes said, anxiously
rather than crossly, "Love isn't how you feel It's what
you do. I've never had a feeling in my life."...
**************
"Love isn't how you feel It's what you do." That statement
has made so very much difference in my life. To do what is needed
in a situation, even if it involved someone you "hate"
emotionally, or at least have a very strong antipathy toward
or to do what is needed even if you don't FEEL like it is the
key. Waiting until mushy, gushy feelings are present, until one
is in a loving mood, to do what is needed is futile. One must
first ACT love and then if one is fortunate perhaps good feelings
will come as a result. But not guaranteed. And the act of love
is doing what is called for when seen from the "other's"
point of view.
Example, I have a running feud with my actual
neighbor in my apartment building due to my cats, which she hates.
I can't stand her and she can't stand me. What would I do if
she had an accident and needed help? Ignore her? or get her to
the hospital (at least call 911?) You might say, well of course,
anyone would do the right thing. But I know from experience that
people, including myself do NOT always do the right thing. They
do NOT always conquer their antipathy and act for the good of
another, especially if they think no one is paying any attention,
that no one will realize how self-centered they are being. Doing
it for show or to prevent other people from criticizing is not
the same as doing it out of a clear conciousness of the "other."
There are much smaller daily examples and much larger, world-event
examples to be had.
Perhaps you could take this into consideration
while you are examining your marriage. We are taught in this
culture to build all sorts of expectations on how we "feel"
love. We get married because of the powerful feelings we have
of "being in love." Then often, turn around and treat
each other like mortal enemies! And when after a time those feelings
begin to fade or turn to antipathy, we want "out" of
our vows made in the heat of passion. Tremendous pain and discomfort
sets in and most people that I have known, including myself (married
twice, single now) go to a counselor really looking for a "magic
love potion." Some idea or concept that will bring back
the lovey-dovey feelings they once had. But nothing really changes
because the two people are usually more committed to self-love
than love of the other. Perhaps that is why arranged marriages
were not always a bad thing. Since the two people involved did
not expect to have those lovey-dovey feelings, they were more
committed to acting rightly toward the other person. And strangely,
those actions often led to wonderful, deep feelings over time.
Do you remember the musical "Fiddler
on the Roof?" There is a wonderful song in which the father
asks the mother, "Do you love me?" He asks it over
and over and she replies, "After 25 years of raising his
children (washing his clothes, cooking his meals, etc.) he asks
me this now???" They had an arranged marriage and they never
before had asked that question of themselves.
I am not offering this idea as a "fixer".
The whole question of marriage is truly complex and involves
karma, both the couple's and their children's and many other
issues. I have a wonderful Christian Community booklet on Marriage
that I could fax to you if you want to give me a fax number off
list. It is a struggle, but one that can be very worthwhile.
I recently interviewed for a job at a Waldorf
school that is looking for a 7'th grade teacher. When they asked
me to give a biography, I couldn't help crack a shit-eatin-grin
on my face; I knew that I was going to tell the truth. As you
may know I've been on this new kick about my own vanity, so I
gave them a good blood and guts war story. Oh the look of awe
in some of those nice ladies eyes. I'm telling this story because
it is a fresh experience that I have had wrestling with truth,
self knowledge, and courage.
Into self-sabotage, too, eh? Been there, done
that, probably will again. : )
Christine
.............................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Response to Michael re
Love & Freedom
On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 07:23, golden3000997
wrote:
I think that I understand this quote and
that you do too, but oh, how such a quote can be misunderstood
if taken out of context apart from the whole process of Philosophy
of Freedom that leads up to it! Only if the two "neighbors"
involved have totally penetrated to the core of what Steiner
means by Intuition could the second sentence be true.
Dear Christine,
I don't believe this is an accurate interpretation
of Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom (PoF).
When the word intuition appears in PoF, he
does not mean Intuition and initiation, but rather our ordinary
thinking, which has latent in it a certain capacity.
Human soul life has been developed over the
eons in such a way that when the time came for humanity to leave
its spiritual childhood (now), the I-am would possess the capacity,
as a matter of Grace, to know the Good directly (and thus be
free of the prior Ages' outer given moral rules - the Ten Commandments
etc).
Steiner is very clear in PoF, that while concepts
when experienced in their essential nature are universal, moral
intuitions, that arise from the practical application of the
teaching about moral imagination, are individualized. A true
moral imagination is always particular, and is precisely related
to the real situation that the intuiting human being faces as
a moral dilemma.
We can't therefore KNOW what another person
should do as a moral act, we can only KNOW what is moral in our
own lives.
The capacity to know as regards our personal
moral questions is in the I-am already as a matter of Grace.
And, it is the functional purpose of the trials of this part
of the Age of the Consciousness Soul, to evoke in the human being
those crises within their biographies that move the soul to those
inner gestures that slowly bring this capacity into active conscious
thought.
This moral knowledge appears in consciousness
when a question rises from the heart of the soul. It is the response
of the higher ego (which is in the long term process of integrating
itself with the lower ego) to the question. The yearning of the
heart to meet the moral dilemma rises upward from a movement
in the soul of the will. This will gesture rises through the
heart region due to its yearning to know the truth and the moral
(the Good), bringing ethereal warmth to the thinking, so that
when the question is asked, the ethereally enriched thinking
becomes a vessel or chalice in which the answer is received.
"Ask and ye shall know, seek and ye shall find, knock and
it shall be opened unto you".
In PoF, as regards moral imagination (which
is kind of a foundational stone in the whole edifice which is
the initiation path that PoF clearly represents) it is just one
way in which the truth about this Grace given capacity has entered
modern life. In both the 12 Steps of AA, and the What Would Jesus
Do movement, the same inner gesture potential is given a form
appropriate to those particular classes of individuals - addicts
and drunks in the one case, and in the other, people of faith.
PoF represents this truth in its Johnine form (esoteric gnosis
form), while WWJD has it in its Pauline form (faith based form)(to
know more about WWJD you have to read the original intuition
as described in Charles M. Sheldon's 1897 book, In His Steps).
These three actually represent a threefold
presentation to modern humanity of this potential for the I-am.
In WWJD we have the simplest version. In the 12 Steps,there is
a more complicated version, which includes indirect practices
with regards to the Double, for it is the Double which so troubles
addicts and drunks. In PoF, we have an even deeper practice,
where one who travels that path will clearly meet the Double
in its role as the Lower Guardian of the Threshold.
Humanity being a complicated collection of
individuals, with a variety of spiritual needs, is not kept from
this truth, but in each instance it is presented in a way appropriate
to that particular level of already attained spiritual development.
Sheldon's book, which is a work of imagination,
takes the question and considers its nuances from many different
directions in the form of dialogs among individual characters.
As the simplest version of this truth it could be said to be
a bit superficial, but when you penetrate to the essential aspects
of its Idea, it is clear what has been offered via this individuality
(Sheldon).
The essential question asked is what does
it mean to be a Christian and follow Christ, to follow in His
Steps. This then transforms itself very specifically into an
inner question, which is first fully elaborated in the book as
follows, by a pastor (who has just had a very transforming experience
himself), as follows:
"I want volunteers from the First Church
who will pledge themselves, earnestly and honestly for an entire
year, not to do anything without first asking the question, "What
would Jesus do?". And after asking that question, each one
will follow Jesus as exactly as he knows how, no matter what
the result may be."
then later:
"After we have asked the Spirit to tell
us what Jesus would do and have received an answer to it, we
are to act regardless of the results to ourselves."
With the 12 Steps of AA, the whole process
begins with a very intense moral crisis, which is accompanied
by the inability of the I-am to cognize (raise into conscious
perception) or meet the Double. This meeting with the Double
cannot be dealt with in such an unconscious fashion without the
help of the higher ego, so the first Steps involve admitting
our helplessness (before the "disease" of addiction)
followed by a surrender to our higher power. This semi-threshold
experience is then elaborated in the remaining Steps in a very
exact way, so that through a trial by fire the consciousness
(soul) is purified by a series of moral/spiritual acts (challenges).
Here are some details: http://www.12steps.org/Brochure/12step/STEPS/STEP2.htm
With PoF, we have the same inner gesture (moral
imagination) as a part of one of the most modern paths of Initiation.
In moral imagination the soul seeks knowledge
of the Good and the True as that applies to life dilemmas, which
is the essential gesture and potential of the Age of the Consciousness
Soul (see Theosophy). The capacity for this knowledge is present
in modern humanity as a matter of Grace. What Steiner describes
as the Good and the True (the Eternal) in Theosophy is simply
another way of writing of the reality of Christ as an active
Presence. So when a practitioner of WWJD seeks to know what Christ
would do, he basically seeks knowledge of the same thing, and
expects the Holy Spirit (in this case the higher ego - which
is in contact with the Holy Spirit) to provide an answer in the
inner forum of his private consciousness. Which in practice will
mean the creation of an individualized moral concept.
Steiner, of course, couldn't explain everything,
but at least knew that people would ask the question of how it
was that we had individualized moral concepts - wasn't morality
something universal in nature (the modern form of that question
is to imply that the individual sense of moral right is some
form of moral relativism)? He also couldn't take the very large
side trip to explain to people that the comparing of our moral
crises, with other people's moral crises, simply doesn't work,
because while there will always be superficial similarities (abortions
are obviously abortions) the moral dilemma of each individual
has many more particular characteristics than it does similar
ones.
So two women having an abortion can't form
the exact same moral question, although the more and more congruent
any moral question is to any other moral question, the more the
answer offered from Above will be the same. Where any confusion
usually arises is out of ourselves, when we think we can judge
another's moral activity. If we can overcome that temptation
and learn to get rid of the beam in our own eye, instead of focusing
on mote in the Thou's eye, then these apparent moral contradictions
disappear, because we begin to find out how to live inside the
Thou, seeing their life from their eyes, instead of evaluating
(judging) it from externals and on the basis of our own values
and beliefs.
Livegood's statement, while sounding true
(being a truism) in a certain sense, does not in my mind represent
accurately either PoF, or the Grace given potential in the I-am
at this time. It seems almost (I read this myself many many years
ago) as if he is actually addressing the question on the basis
of incomplete experience. What we might call the pragmatic experience
and practice of PoF, while not exactly difficult, does not seem
well known in the Anthroposophical Movement. I read a lot of
intellectual discussions of what it means, but few representations
of its reality that are clearly based upon many years of introspection.
As a map, PoF is excellent, but the actual territory is considerably
different. I've seen many wonderful discussions of the map, but
few presentations from which it was obvious that the speaker
or writer had studied his inner life as carefully and exactly
as PoF (and Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception)
propose.
People seem to forget that the "motto"
of PoF is: "Some results of introspective observation following
the methods of natural science".
While the above is nonetheless true, most
individuals in the Consciousness Soul Age do not encounter either
PoF, WWJD, or the 12 Steps, so it is a valid question: How do
they gain this insight?
I believe this varies somewhat according to
folk characteristics in the soul, so that we could say that Livegood's
statement is an accurate representation of his personal learning
about how to approach the Eternal (the Good and the True), even
though it is not an accurate representation of the results of
practicing PoF. He has an individualized understanding of moral
imagination in practice, but not an understanding of PoF and
its relationship to that same moral imagination.
In the United States, the model for anthroposophical
development is not any European, but rather Emerson, who practiced
his own deep introspection before Steiner was born. I have written
about the relationship between Steiner's and Emerson's thought
in "developing individual insight" at http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/stgfr9.html
and in a little speech I gave on the occasion of Emerson's 200th
birthday, which is at: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/emerson.html
Basically Emerson recognized that we have
what he called an "instinct" for the spirit, and that:
"In self trust all virtues are comprehended.". One
doesn't have to read Emerson by the way, for if we understand
his work, we can see that he is basically making a report on
his investigations of his soul life. This report is also very
much representative of what might be called the deeper American
Character or Soul. People of this Folk then find their way to
the essential moral truths of the Age of the Consciousness soul
in an instinctive, and somewhat natural (organic) way, which
is exactly as Steiner described.
For example, he said, in a lecture that can
be found in Challenge of the Times, that English speaking peoples
are instinctively in the Consciousness Soul as an aspect of their
participation in the Life of Rights (translation - questions
of equity in America and England are experienced as moral questions,
and because we are so strongly individualized, we trust our own
instincts - see Emerson above - as to what we think is right,
over any other kind of judgment).
He is also quoted in several places (but I
don't know where he said it, that Americans are natural anthroposophists.
This instinct for the Good native to this particular people (the
People of Peoples - or those whose culture is developing in a
direction free from strict Old World influences of culture, race,
language and religion), is also prefigured in the very intuitive
America the Beautiful - "...And crown thy Good, with Brotherhood...".
All this seems quite paradoxical, when we
think of modern politics in the U.S., except we recognize George
Bush as someone who failed at a true recovery from his addictions,
and thus is lost in his battle with the Double (through which
he then becomes an unconscious minion of Ahriman). His partner
in crime Karl Rove however, is one of those who seems to have
consciously chosen the Dark Side. Neither is representative of
the best natural character of the People here (something certainly
true elsewhere, such as among Islamic Peoples), which is why
Bush and Rove were able, through quite cold and calculated and
almost supernaturally intelligent deceit, to rise to power (again
a situation common throughout the world, wherever Ahriman freely
offers his gifts via the Double).
warm regards,
joel
.............................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Response to Michael re Love & Freedom
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Joel Wendt wrote:
Dear Joel;
Mighty fine work on your unfolding on the
intuition process going back to Grace, the Fall and Knock and
it shall be opened. Those were profound roots, clear roots and
well grounded things you unfolded regarding the PoF. It was rich
and wonderfully well thought out as usual.
Joel wrote with wonderful Emersonian clarity;
"When the word intuition appears in
PoF, he does not mean Intuition and initiation, but rather our
ordinary thinking, which has latent in it a certain capacity.
Human soul life has been developed over
the eons in such a way that when the time came for humanity to
leave its spiritual childhood (now), the I-am would possess the
capacity, as a matter of Grace, to know the Good directly (and
thus be free of the prior Ages' outer given moral rules - the
Ten Commandments etc).
Steiner is very clear in PoF, that while
concepts when experienced in their essential nature are universal,
moral intuitions, that arise from the practical application of
the teaching about moral imagination, are individualized. A true
moral imagination is always particular, and is precisely related
to the real situation that the intuiting human being faces as
a moral dilemma.
We can't therefore KNOW what another person
should do as a moral act, we can only KNOW what is moral in our
own lives.
The capacity to know as regards our personal
moral questions is in the I-am already as a matter of Grace.
And, it is the functional purpose of the trials of this part
of the Age of the Consciousness Soul, to evoke in the human being
those crises within their biographies that move the soul to those
inner gestures that slowly bring this capacity into active conscious
thought.
This moral knowledge appears in consciousness
when a question rises from the heart of the soul. It is the response
of the higher ego (which is in the long term process of integrating
itself with the lower ego) to the question. The yearning of the
heart to meet the moral dilemma rises upward from a movement
in the soul of the will. This will gesture rises through the
heart region due to its yearning to know the truth and the moral
(the Good), bringing ethereal warmth to the thinking, so that
when the question is asked, the ethereally enriched thinking
becomes a vessel or chalice in which the answer is received.
"Ask and ye shall know, seek and ye shall find, knock and
it shall be opened unto you".
In PoF, as regards moral imagination (which
is kind of a foundational stone in the whole edifice which is
the initiation path that PoF clearly represents) it is just one
way in which the truth about this Grace given capacity has entered
modern life. In both the 12 Steps of AA, and the What Would Jesus
Do movement, the same inner gesture potential is given a form
appropriate to those particular classes of individuals - addicts
and drunks in the one case, and in the other, people of faith.
PoF represents this truth in its Johnine form (esoteric gnosis
form), while WWJD has it in its Pauline form (faith based form)(to
know more about WWJD you have to read the original intuition
as described in Charles M. Sheldon's 1897 book, In His Steps)."
.............................................................................................................................
From: Michael Helsher
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Response to Michael re
Love & Freedom
Hi christen:
It seems to me that you responded to my post yet for some reason
I did not recieve it. Could you send it to me off list?
thanks
Mike
On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 07:23, golden3000997 wrote:
I think that I understand this quote and
that you do too, but oh, how such a quote can be misunderstood
if taken out of context apart from the whole process of Philosophy
of Freedom that leads up to it! Only if the two "neighbors"
involved have totally penetrated to the core of what Steiner
means by Intuition could the second sentence be true.
.............................................................................................................................
From: Michael Helsher
Date: Thu Dec 4, 2003 5:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Response to Michael re
Love & Freedom
Hi Joel, you wrote:
<snip>
With the 12 Steps of AA, the whole process begins with a very
intense moral crisis, which is accompanied by the inability of
the I-am to cognize (raise into conscious perception) or meet
the Double. This meeting with the Double cannot be dealt with
in such an unconscious fashion without the help of the higher
ego, so the first Steps involve admitting our helplessness (before
the "disease" of addiction) followed by a surrender
to our higher power. This semi-threshold experience is then elaborated
in the remaining Steps in a very exact way, so that through a
trial by fire the consciousness (soul) is purified by a series
of moral/spiritual acts (challenges). Here are some details:
http://www.12steps.org/Brochure/12step/STEPS/STEP2.htm
With PoF, we have the same inner gesture
(moral imagination) as a part of one of the most modern paths
of Initiation.
In moral imagination the soul seeks knowledge
of the Good and the True as that applies to life dilemmas, which
is the essential gesture and potential of the Age of the Consciousness
Soul (see Theosophy). The capacity for this knowledge is present
in modern humanity as a matter of Grace. What Steiner describes
as the Good and the True (the Eternal) in Theosophy is simply
another way of writing of the reality of Christ as an active
Presence. So when a practitioner of WWJD seeks to know what Christ
would do, he basically seeks knowledge of the same thing, and
expects the Holy Spirit (in this case the higher ego - which
is in contact with the Holy Spirit) to provide an answer in the
inner forum of his private consciousness.
<snip>
Mike:
Thank you for a very concise post, this part of which really
speaks to the essence of why I fell in love with the POF. I have
experienced some of the "trial by fire" you mentioned,
which started with the writing of my first "searching and
fearless moral inventory". I went on to ponder what it might
mean to have my so called "defects of charactor" removed,
only to find that they get removed by a transformation prosess
that involved (for me)an excrutating amount of what I can only
call raw self awareness, where for a time, every little action
was accompanied by the thought of - "what in God's name
am I doing?" It was like watching myself playing a part
in a stupid movie. So here I would guess is what you would call
"meeting the double".
This painful process went on until I started to ponder what it
might mean to really "make ammends" for all the stupid
stuff that I had done. When this ammends process actually started
to happen for me, I experienced the first glimps of a working
inner reality present within myself. Next came the process of
taking a daily inventory (which Steiner reccomends). Then came
the pondering of what it might mean to have "conscious contact"
with "Knowledge of Gods will, and the power to carry it
out". This idea brought me from being a God fearing athiest,
to having reverence for the idea of truth, as I have experienced
it. I then relapsed back into painful awarness for a while until
I realized that "carrying the message" didn't mean
that I had the one-and-only right idea about what the truth might
be.
So all this happened and I really did not have a practical way
of understanding it until I found the POF.
I used to think that I had a shitty life, and that if only I
had a time machine... Now a days I wouldn't change a thing (well,
maybe just one of those really pretty girls that got away)
Truth and Love
Mike
.............................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 8:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Response to Michael re
Love & Freedom
Dear Mike,
Amen!
joel
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:02, Michael Helsher
wrote:
Thank you for a very concise post, this part of which really
speaks to the essence of why I fell in love with the POF. I have
experienced some of the "trial by fire" you mentioned,
which started with the writing of my first "searching and
fearless moral inventory". I went on to ponder what it might
mean to have my so called "defects of charactor" removed,
only to find that they get removed by a transformation prosess
that involved (for me)an excrutating amount of what I can only
call raw self awareness, where for a time, every little action
was accompanied by the thought of - "what in God's name
am I doing?" It was like watching myself playing a part
in a stupid movie. So here I would guess is what you would call
"meeting the double".
This painful process went on until I started to ponder what it
might mean to really "make ammends" for all the stupid
stuff that I had done. When this ammends process actually started
to happen for me, I experienced the first glimps of a working
inner reality present within myself. Next came the process of
taking a daily inventory (which Steiner reccomends). Then came
the pondering of what it might mean to have "conscious contact"
with "Knowledge of Gods will, and the power to carry it
out". This idea brought me from being a God fearing athiest,
to having reverence for the idea of truth, as I have experienced
it. I then relapsed back into painful awarness for a while until
I realized that "carrying the message" didn't mean
that I had the one-and-only right idea about what the truth might
be.
So all this happened and I really did not have a practical way
of understanding it until I found the POF.
I used to think that I had a shitty life, and that if only I
had a time machine... Now a days I wouldn't change a thing (well,
maybe just one of those really pretty girls that got away)
Truth and Love
Mike
.............................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 11:26 am
Subject: Love & Freedom (belated)
Hi Christine: I have been meaning to respond
to your in-depth reply, and I do appreciate your taking the time
to write it; you wrote:
Good Morning Michael,
A couple of points I would like to speak with you about. : )
Michael wrote:
And then we have "A Philosophy of
Freedom", which gives us ideas like: Intuition; Moral imagination;
thinking with the power of Love in spiritual form; and my personal
favorite:
"My neighbors want to live out their
>intuitions<, I mine. >If we really draw from the idea<,
and follow no external (physical or spiritual) impulses, then
we cannot but meet in the same striving, the same intentions.
An ethical misunderstanding, a clash, is impossible among ethically
free human beings."
I think that I understand this quote and
that you do too, but oh, how such a quote can be misunderstood
if taken out of context apart from the whole process of Philosophy
of Freedom that leads up to it! Only if the two "neighbors"
involved have totally penetrated to the core of what Steiner
means by Intuition could the second sentence be true. Among two
or more fully concious (in spirit) individual such agreement
would be a matter of course. Think of two or three chemists in
a laboratory seeking a particular formula together. If each one
is fully trained and knows exactly what chemical A and chemical
B will do when mixed together and exactly what chemical C and
chemical D will do when mixed together, they can probably agree
on what chemical B and chemical D will do when mixed together
and act accordingly. But if a college freshman taking his first
course in chemistry were put side by side with an experienced,
super PhD level chemical researcher and both individual's opinions
were given the same weight, well, BOOM goes the laboratory!!
Ethics, to me is a lot like chemistry. It is a matter of actions
vs reactions vs consequences. What I think is good, what is the
right way to live and act has to "mix" with what my
"neighbor" thinks is good and right. Only if we both
can fully understand through a spiritualized, Christ filled (meaning
"I" filled) conciousness what the "other's"
reaction will be and the long term (karmic) consequences will
be to us and anyone else in our vicinity, so to speak, can we
come to a real agreement. Otherwise, one or both of us will be
thinking and acting from cultural or intellectual teachings or
our own emotional make up. And the potential for a "blow-up"
is very high.
I agree, this is why I think Steiner makes
a good case for working with and penetrating our "charactoroligical
dispositions".
Dr. Bernard Lievegood, an Anthroposophical
doctor from Holland wrote a marvelous book called "Toward
the 21st Century - Doing the Good." It is a marvelous treatise
on the difference between being "right" and doing "good".
He says (I'm summarizing from memory right now) that most people
equate "good" and "right" but in fact, they
might not be the same. A person may decide to act based on what
he or she thinks is "right" whether according to a
law or even an ideal, but it might not produce "good"
in a given situation or for a given person or group. What is
really interesting is that he says that we really won't know
if what we do is good or not until we actually do it! We can
determine what is "right" beforehand, but not totally
what is "good."
Kind of like the difference between sympathy
and Justice?
Which leads me to a response to your other
quote
Obviously I am not yet "ethically
free" when it comes to my marriage. But the process of getting
there is amazing; as well as emotionally painful, which is sometimes
a consequence of truth. I forget who said that "Love is
the Pain of being truly alive".
I can understand this quote, too, but prefer
the passage from Madeline L'Engle's "A Wind at the Door."
Meg, a schoolgirl is in the middle of a life or death, spiritual
test along with a Cherubim named Progo (Proginoskes). Meg has
to identify her school principle, Mr. Jenkins (who she detests)
among two other copies created by evil entities called Echthroi.
In order for her to "Name" Mr. Jenkins, she has to
love Mr. Jenkins.
"Progo! Help me! How can I feel love for Mr. Jenkins?"
Immediately he opened a large number of eyes very wide. "What
a strange idea. Love isn't feeling. If it were, I wouldn't be
able to love. Cherubim don't have feelings."
"But-"
"Idiot," Proginoskes said, anxiously rather than crossly,
"Love isn't how you feel It's what you do. I've never had
a feeling in my life."...
**************
"Love isn't how you feel It's what you do."
Yes, I agree, but what about How you experience
what you do, i.e.the pain that enlivens our 'Life sense".
Perhaps you could take this into consideration
while you are examining your marriage. We are taught in this
culture to build all sorts of expectations on how we "feel"
love. We get married because of the powerful feelings we have
of "being in love." Then often, turn around and treat
each other like mortal enemies! And when after a time those feelings
begin to fade or turn to antipathy, we want "out" of
our vows made in the heat of passion. Tremendous pain and discomfort
sets in and most people that I have known, including myself (married
twice, single now) go to a counselor really looking for a "magic
love potion." Some idea or concept that will bring back
the lovey-dovey feelings they once had. But nothing really changes
because the two people are usually more committed to self-love
than love of the other. Perhaps that is why arranged marriages
were not always a bad thing. Since the two people involved did
not expect to have those lovey-dovey feelings, they were more
committed to acting rightly toward the other person. And strangely,
those actions often led to wonderful, deep feelings over time.
Do you remember the musical "Fiddler
on the Roof?" There is a wonderful song in which the father
asks the mother, "Do you love me?" He asks it over
and over and she replies, "After 25 years of raising his
children (washing his clothes, cooking his meals, etc.) he asks
me this now???" They had an arranged marriage and they never
before had asked that question of themselves.
I am not offering this idea as a "fixer". The whole
question of marriage is truly complex and involves karma, both
the couple's and their children's and many other issues. I have
a wonderful Christian Community booklet on Marriage that I could
fax to you if you want to give me a fax number off list. It is
a struggle, but one that can be very worthwhile.
I like your Ideas. My wife and I have had
a great experience with these people http://www.heartworkcenter.com/index.htm
and the practice of a technique called "open hearted listening".
Kind of like "living Thinking" in action.
I recently interviewed for a job at a Waldorf
school that is looking for a 7'th grade teacher. When they asked
me to give a biography, I couldn't help crack a shit-eatin-grin
on my face; I knew that I was going to tell the truth. As you
may know I've been on this new kick about my own vanity, so I
gave them a good blood and guts war story. Oh the look of awe
in some of those nice ladies eyes. I'm telling this story because
it is a fresh experience that I have had wrestling with truth,
self knowledge, and courage.
Into self-sabotage, too, eh? Been there,
done that, probably will again.
)
Christine
Actually, It was taken quite well. I should
have mentioned that I have done allot of speaking over the last
15 years in jails and other institutions on recovering from an
addictive lifestyle. So I have become pretty good at telling
my story.
But I can understand what I think you mean:
there's a fine line between truth and justice sometimes?
sorry for the belated reply
Truth and Love
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
