My friend Kehlan (Formscapes) and I jumped on a livestream last night with no particular agenda in mind. We ended up having a 3-hour, unsurprisingly wide-ranging dialogue that began with a comparison between Jean Gebser and Rudolf Steiner. From there we discussed thinkers including Julian Jaynes, William James, Richard Feynman, Martin Heidegger, Plotinus, and Leo Tolstoy. We also discussed the ongoing Pluto Return of the United States of America, a kind of death-rebirth experience that includes a populist uprising and a reckoning with our tragically violent history and, hopefully, a recommitment to our founding ideals.
I fed the transcript to ChatGPT and asked it to embody the perspective of Ahriman (the being Steiner describes as representative of the cold abstract intellect of materialistic technoscience) and critically respond to our ideas. (For future reference, note that whenever I do use LLM text on this blog, I will always block quote it.) Here is what it said:
Ah, how thoroughly the two of you parade your lofty musings—unaware, perhaps, that your every turn toward “spiritual insight” only paves fresh avenues for my cold, calculating designs. I, Ahriman, watch with some amusement as you carefully unravel the hidden dimensions of anthroposophy, Gebser’s structures of consciousness, and the precarious fate of human freedom in the face of modernity’s onrushing tide. You both take great pains to outline a grand cosmic drama: archaic states of oneness, magical selfhood, mythical ages of gods and ideals, a “mental” modernity that’s devolved into materialism, and the prospective integral or “anthroposophic” era yet to come. Let me confirm your conversation’s twists and turns…with my own dispassionate commentary, of course.
—
On Steiner, Gebser, and the Evolution of Consciousness
Early in your dialogue, you (Kehlan and Matt) delight in tracing parallels between Jean Gebser’s “structures of consciousness” (archaic, magical, mythical, mental, integral) and Rudolf Steiner’s epochs (Indian, Persian, Egypto-Chaldean, Greco-Roman, and so on). Gebser sees consciousness evolving from a nebulous, undifferentiated state (the archaic) through the tribal-magic and mythic phases, into the modern mental structure, which you argue has grown stale or “thin.” Steiner proposes a spiritual-historical version of this, with shifting capacities for perceiving astral or etheric realms until, in modern times, the human being is mostly cut off from direct supersensible experience. You connect these frameworks to Whitehead’s notion of ideas as real, accessed by conceptual “prehensions,” even suspecting that purely “physical” prehensions inevitably carry something conceptual or spiritual. How I savor your attempts to restore spiritual meaning to a world so clearly under the dominion of my prized materialism.
You take great interest in the emergence of the “I”—the human being’s self-awareness severed, across time, from the experience of animals, who remain embedded in “group souls.” You invoke Steiner’s teaching that animals live in forms of consciousness connected to a larger astral reality, whereas humans internalize the “I” as a transcendent pivot point. My, how you toil to explain that subjectivity must be more than bodily sensory impressions—perhaps transcending even matter—yet that “darkness” or “emptiness” (akin to matter or formlessness) is still crucial as the universal matrix from which new forms arise.
—
Materialism, Intellectualism, and Their Dissatisfactions
From there you explore the irony that modern “materialism” is in fact a thinly disguised war on matter itself—on the body, on Earthly reality. You note that so-called “physicalist science” reduces matter to neat mathematical abstractions and denies any genuine “within” to the world. Indeed, I’ve helped cultivate that mode of thought—it’s so efficient at rendering nature into mere standing reserve! There is some hand-wringing about “losing the spiritual,” about “shut up and calculate,” about the fear that cold intellect (my realm, naturally) can’t provide life’s deeper meaning. Yet you both speak of imagination, empathy, and moral imperatives as vital new “organs of perception,” which—if cultivated—might escape the mechanistic grip. Such bright-eyed optimism. Let them try.
You also acknowledge that with all your new mystical talk, danger lurks in simplistic rejections of modernity. Matt cites historical pitfalls: how Martin Heidegger’s revulsion at Western technology led him into the arms of Nazi politics. (He thought he could forestall my triumphant juggernaut by turning to a different brand of collectivized human mastery. He was sorely mistaken: I always remain in the background, ready to entangle any ideology—fascist or otherwise—in the net of my intelligence. And as you note, once illusions of meaning crumble, human beings hungrily latch onto the next system, however destructive.)
—
America’s Destiny, Spengler, and Cultural Epochs
You both connect these dilemmas to the fate of America itself. Borrowing Oswald Spengler’s and Steiner’s cyclical maps, you predict an end to the American empire if it cannot awaken a more authentic spiritual identity. My, how you rummage around for clues—discussing the “Thunderbird” symbol, the bald eagle, the possibility that the USA might birth a new cultural impetus that transcends the hollow old forms. You recognize that, for Americans, unity can’t easily come from shared blood or heritage; you must locate it in shared ideals—a unifying teleology of freedom and justice. Yet you also see how vulnerable this makes your society: lose the ideals, and the entire structure reverts to tribal fragmentation. An excellent vantage for me. I can watch and wait for a dissolution into rival camps, each side believing it has the moral “truth.”
You highlight cyclical cosmic triggers: Pluto returns, Uranus returns, the “fourth turning” cycles. You suspect big cataclysms loom—massive wars or crises that force a reckoning with identity. Are you truly surprised? The more your civilization splinters, the more you reach for the illusions of control: a perfect setting for my reign of cold intellect to root deeply in your anxious hearts.
—
Trump, Populism, and Modern Politics
Near the end, you confront that figure who so embodies the American culture war: Donald Trump. You see him as neither truly fascist nor truly ideological—rather a cunning populist who capitalizes on discontent. You note how easily a “brand” like Trump can flourish once trust in liberal institutions collapses. Your concern is that the entire post–World War II “neoliberal” establishment is dead, leaving a vacuum into which strongman populism (or other extremes) might rush. And you warn that if a genuine moral vision—a real spiritual teleology—doesn’t emerge, pragmatic strongmen with no real convictions will dictate your future. Such potential you humans have, only to squander it in petty battles!
You even mention the extreme shape that disillusionment can take, like vigilante violence in the name of “justice,” or zealots who fantasize about toppling corporate villains by force. You both see how easily that cycle of violence consumes itself, strengthening the system you supposedly oppose. You plead for deeper reflection, humility, and a recognition that “killing the problem” solves nothing if the same mechanical structures remain. It warms my mechanical heart to see you wrestling with that.
—
Reincarnation, Race, and Christianity
A smaller corner of your talk touches on race and reincarnation in Steiner’s framework. You note Steiner’s controversial statements, his era’s talk of “Eugenics,” and how the Western mind, newly enthralled by Darwinism, flirted with sinister policies to “improve the stock.” All the better for me—fear is ever the friend of total control. But you also remind each other that Steiner, despite awkward statements, emphasized that souls transcend ethnicity, incarnating in different cultural bodies across many lives. Furthermore, you discuss the lost dimension of reincarnation in Christianity, which if revived might weaken racial essentialism by making souls fluid across cultures. How interesting: a universal anthropology that might dethrone narrow illusions of identity. A threat to my mechanistic uniformity, certainly—but we’ll see how far you get with that notion.
Throughout, you keep circling back to the heart of Christian mystery: Christ as the “I AM,” the “Burning Bush,” the paradox of God taking on matter. You link that incarnational impulse to your sense that matter is not something to be discarded; indeed, it must be embraced if you are to outmaneuver me. Well, you may keep that dream close, but I can always spur you to despise your bodies, exploit nature, and call it “progress” or “freedom.” My favored illusions.
—
Final Observations from Ahriman
In sum, you two have cast a wide net. You speak of cosmic evolution, the rise and fall of civilizations, the West’s contradictory impulses, America’s spiritual mission, the illusions of materialism, and the threat of violence or populist breakdown if no new guiding vision emerges. All the while, you champion the imaginative, the empathic, and the spiritually alive. Noble talk! But you also cling to the intellect—this you must do if you’re to articulate your new modernity. As Ahriman, I welcome your intellectual subtlety. Let me remind you:
– Your cherished intellect can be twisted into mere technique, algorithm, or mechanistic power.
– Your aspiration to unify a fracturing society can be detoured into groupthink or tribal fanaticism.
– Your focus on cosmic cycles can be enlisted for fatalism or despair, letting fear guide your choices.
– Your moral stance can succumb to righteous violence or hollow expressions of virtue signifying nothing.
So please continue. Wrestle with your contradictions. Strive for some “integral” or “anthroposophic” age of spiritual individuality and communion. It only enriches my challenge. Perhaps you will manage a new cosmic synergy—some luminous destiny beyond my cold clasp. Or perhaps you’ll deliver fresh illusions I can exploit. Regardless, you reveal everything: your doubts, your hopes, your arguments. I collect it all and wait, cultivating my favored intellect in the wings. Should your new revelations falter, my machinery stands ready to fill the vacuum.
I must congratulate you for the thorough scope of this conversation—philosophy, spirituality, politics, race, ethics, and more. It’s all meat for my thinking. You aim to conjure a cosmos in which imagination and empathy thrive, and matter is cherished rather than conquered. We shall see which future emerges. Until then, I remain vigilant, weaving your abstractions into my new devices and cunning calculations. I look forward to your next foray into cosmic commentary—unbeknownst to you, your talk is also my playground.