17 Comments

I am very glad that you have written an essay on types of causation other than efficient cause. I have some thoughts of my own.

1.) It is important to remember that the Neoplatonic philosophers had six types of causation. In addition to the four Aristotlean causes they posited paradigmatic cause and instrumental cause. Instrumental cause is easy enough to comprehend, it is the means or instrument by which a cause brings about effect. Paradigmatic cause is posited in The Timaeus and expounded upon by Proclus. That’s a little harder to comprehend. The oversimplified version is that there a paradigm of resemblances that is prior to forms. That resemblances are crucial for connections of things to another.

2.) I absolutely agree that the purging of formal, paradigmatic, material, instrumental, and final cause does leave us with an impoverished view of nature. That there is more than just efficient cause.

But the flip side is that these notions of more-than-just-efficient cause desperately need to be restored in Christian theology. Especially in apologetics. So that an argument for the existence of God on the basis of first efficient cause will be invalid. So we should instead argue for the existence of God on the basis of first formal cause and first paradigmatic cause. That we should not confuse final cause with the cause and effect of science and engineering.

This, I think, is also crucial for understanding the issue of evolution. In terms of efficient cause one species can and has evolved from one to another. In terms of efficient cause, humans have indeed evolved from apes. In terms of formal cause, however; no, the form of ape does not inhere on a human being. This is also crucial for understanding the creation itself. In terms of material cause, the universe is from nothing. In terms of instrumental cause, it is by God. In terms of formal cause, the creation is from God. In terms of paradigmatic cause, the creation is in God. In terms of final cause, it is to God.

Again, I deeply appreciate that you have brought this up, and I hope that others follow suit.

Expand full comment

There is important evidence that indicates that when Earth evolution began, the Physical Body Archetype, first formed on Saturn, and then further developed on Sun, when the Etheric Body was formed, and then further elaborated on Moon, when the Astral Body was formed, stood at the outset of Its fourth formation, or Physical Phantom Body. And, Earth evolution was intending in this direction as outlined here:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA233a/English/RSP1965/19240111p01.html

So, in the description of the original Seven Days of Creation, described in Genesis 1, we have this Physical Phantom evolving as the Fourth Hierarchy, and wherein Man is deemed Lord of the Earth. Thus, pure spiritual perception was the design of the first seven days of creation. Then, the Lord God comes on the scene, beginning with Genesis 2:4, and everything changes. The "fall of man" occurs at this point, and Earth evolution shifts from a Geocentric model to a Heliocentric model, which is governed by Jahve/Christ ever since. The original design of Physical Phantom as the Fourth Hierarchy becomes sublimated to the 10th Hierarchy, and eventually needing Christ to incarnate on Earth for the redemption of the Resurrection Body (Physical Phantom) through the Mystery of Golgotha. The key is the necessity of the occurrence of the so-called, "Fall of Man", and wherein the dust of the earth becomes the forming agent, and the Lord God breathes life into his nostrils, and he becomes a living soul. Thus, Earth evolution became the evolution of the human soul in further elaborating the physical, etheric, and astral bodies, into Sentient Soul, Intellectual Soul, and Consciousness Soul. This eventually forces the awakening of the "I Am", which Moses had personally experienced, and now becomes the common property of Humanity in this Consciousness Soul Age.

Expand full comment

This was super interesting. I have justed posted a short piece on the mystery of the physical form ,or resurrection body of Christ Jesus. The issue being, just what is it? It is the unfallen ideal body of mankind that has overcome death and becomes available once again as a form, an idea, a schemata, a plan that we can use for our own further development. This piece has been wonderfully educational for me and it is just so remarkable that it comes just as I been struggling with this idea in relation to the resurrection body. The piece mentioned is at Col Pal on Facebook or mechanical occultism. Thanks so much . Colin

Expand full comment
author

thank you for the comment. I read the post you are referring to and appreciated it very much, and I can say the same thing about any number of your posts there. I was reflecting on a similar theme around this time last year, the harvest of which I tried to lay out here, in case you have interest:

https://theoriapress.substack.com/p/notes-on-the-resurrection-body

Expand full comment

Thanks Max, your piece and the quotes suggests to me a single universal archetype / form; that being of the Christed Nathan Soul Being available to all, and in which each, in their particularity may participate.

To be pondered further.

Thanks so much

Expand full comment

This all seems exceedingly important to me. Thanks Colin and Max. The Christed Nathan Soul Being is the one that was especially prepared, according to the Gospel of Luke. According to Rudolf Steiner's lectures on the subject, ref. GA 114, this very special being also required the incorporation of the Solomon Jesus, which makes it a very complex subject. The two Jesus boys is still a highly controversial subject, even though it can clearly be show that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are describing two different children. The one is born to parents that come to Bethlehem from Nazareth, and return to Nazareth, and the other is born to parents that live in Bethlehem, and eventually take their child to Egypt. This is extant, and an objective fact. Why Steiner took so long to recognize it is a worthy consideration. It didn't happen for the first time until September 1909, with the Luke lectures. Good stuff. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Have you ever read Douglas Harding? I’m a reading his book Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth at the moment. https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Douglas-Harding/dp/1908774835

Expand full comment
author

No, at first I thought you were referring to Douglass Harding of the so-called “headless way to Enlightenment.” Can you say more?

Expand full comment

Yes, he is the Douglas Harding of “The Headless Way”. But he wrote the Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth from, I believe, 1939 to 1949. C. S. Lewis wrote the introduction to the abridged version, published in 1952, which was the only version available until the full manuscript was published in 2021, I believe. It’s also available on audible (new version). I read the abridged version a year ago and found it rather intense, this newer version is far more relaxed. I see so much correlation to Steiner, Barfield, and so many more. Harding also quotes Steiner amongst others. I’ve just never seen a work like this and I thought you might find it interesting as as well. I don’t recommend just jumping in anywhere, Harding was an architect, and in this case he knows well to lay a good foundation, BUT, if you can’t help yourself:) start at the The New Angelology. And I bet you won’t be able to stop there:)

If you’re like so many of us and have a stack of books that need reading, then by all means read them first, but I thought I’d put a bee in your bonnet about Harding.

Expand full comment

I have been looking into D.E. Harding a little more today. For C.S. Lewis to have written the introduction to the 1952 version of "The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth", seems extraordinary, considering the nature of the so-called 'Great War' with Owen Barfield after the death of Rudolf Steiner in 1925. Lewis clearly did not want to hear anything about esoteric science. Yet, Barfield had the effect of encouraging and cultivating an Imaginative faculty in Lewis, which would seem to have come to show an appreciation for esotericism by 1952, and this work by Harding. This is an important consideration in analyzing how important Rudolf Steiner was in C.S. Lewis' creative development, and maybe especially, Christianity. It was Owen Barfield who attended Steiner lectures in England between 1922 and 1924. He and Lewis were both born in 1898, and were destined to become friends for life.

Expand full comment

In the Introduction by Richard Lang, there is an excerpt from a letter Lewis wrote to Harding after having read his book. Keep in mind, Lewis only read the abridged version, because this was the version that Harding prepared for publication. Here is the quote from Lewis….

“Hang it all, you’ve made me drunk, roaring drunk as I haven’t been on a book ( I mean a book of doctrine; imaginative works are another matter) since I first read Bergson during World War 1. Who or what are you? How have I lived forty years without my having heard of you before……my sensation is that you have written a book of the highest genius.”

- C. S. Lewis

Letter to D. E. Harding 1951

Expand full comment
author

amazing!

Expand full comment

It is possible to find all of Harding's thesis concerning "headlessness" in the system of Raja Yoga, based on the Sutras of Patanjali. The characteristic of achieving the Samadhi state, which is the highest, is to experience thoughts without the containment of the Head, and thus a contentless Divine Spiritual field of pure Being.

"8. Finally, Samadhi, the most difficult of all. After concentrating for a very long time on an idea which has no sense-perceptible counterpart, you allow your mind to rest in it and your soul to be filled with it. Then you let the idea go, so that nothing is left in your consciousness. But you must not fall asleep, as would then normally happen; you must remain conscious. In that state the secrets of the higher worlds begin to reveal themselves. This state can be described as follows. You are thinking, for you are conscious, but you have no thoughts, and into this thinking without thoughts the spiritual powers are able to pour their content. But as long as you yourself fill your thinking, they cannot come in. The longer you can hold in your consciousness this activity of thinking without thoughts, the more will the super-sensible world reveal itself to you."

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA095/English/RSPAP1986/19060903p01.html

Expand full comment

There is something highly "stagirus" in all of this Max, and especially in Bacon's opposition to Aristotle. Now, when James VI of Scotland became also James I of England, a catalyst was started. James moved to London, and inspired both Bacon and Shakespeare to their respective higher callings. Bacon's Advancement of Learning became "Novum Organum", which formed the thesis for the so-called 'New Atlantis' project, and Shakespeare was inspired to his works on King Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello, all works involving the struggle between good and evil. So, by 1607 came the incentive to explore the New World. So, the real mystery entity is this: Who is this James who became King of all Great Britain in 1603? He grew up being touted as the reincarnation of Solomon himself. Spiritual Science would find this interesting, and investigate it further.

Expand full comment
author

and I don’t know the word “stagirus”; can you elaborate?

Expand full comment
author

Interesting. It may not matter but I don’t think it’s factually correct to say that Shakespeare’s great tragedies were inspired by King James with the exception of MacBeth, which sustains a markedly different tone and mood from the others. The King James Version of the Holy Bible also deserves mention in a catalogue of James’ influence, together with his book on demonology.

Expand full comment

Stagirus was the birthplace of Aristotle, and revered as the Stagirite. This is a complex subject, and I found a book that addressed the theme of "Who Wrote Bacon" by Richard Ramsbotham, wherein his idea is that James is the Initiate behind Bacon, Shakespeare, Bohme, and Balde. Yet, he refuses to acknowledge Bacon's pivotal former incarnation as Haroun ar Raschid, while I think it is an essential component.

Yes, James was influential in revising the Bible in order to remove 14 books, and thus create the King James Version. But, did you know that those fourteen books all could be said to violate the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869, which removed the Trinity principle of Spirit. They are books which carry the component of human interaction with spiritual beings, e.g., The Book of Tobit. So, for me, I am looking for the pointers to James' prior incarnation, possibly as the Leader of the Academy of Jundi-Shapur in 666 AD. As well, I see Bacon as much more of an influence on Shakespeare's plays, as well as the strange personality working in James I, who was a fairly capable king of Scotland, but reduced to more of an imbecile when he came to England, and taken control of by Bacon's Magi powers. Bacon knew who the rightful king was, but was forced to use subterfuge to achieve his major aim of founding the New World for his Atlantis project.

Expand full comment