Philosophical Speculations

I think I agree with most of that. When I referred to "some objectively existing, observer-independent reality" I meant it in the sense of "an objectively existing, observer-independent reality, as if we know there is such a thing", whereas in fact we don't know this. However, I'...

- I don't think the possibility of such higher cognition that is not theory-dependent (ie not mediated by other organizing ideas, perceptions and cognitions) can be denied. However, using language to describe such cognitions would be theory-dependent. - As the ways language can be used is limitless...

AshvinP wrote: Higher cognition is, in a real sense, developing future capacities within the present, and those higher perceptual capacities could make our non-spatial vision capable of functioning in a way that is not "theory-dependent". Thanks for the comments and food for thought. A fe...

Henrit Bortoft’s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bortoft ) book The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe's Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature ( https://www.amazon.com.au/Wholeness-Nature-Goethes-Conscious-Participation/dp/0940262797 ) both describes Goethe’s way of doing science ...

I wasn't intending to be snide Shu (and hardly think that such a comment warrants pre-moderation). I genuinely think that Ashvin could learn a lot from FB. And vice versa. And in so doing we are all here quite capable of thinking this through together, above and beyond what has come to pass for thi...

Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers Yeah, just to make some snide remark, yet again intended to provoke antagonism and antipathy. Pre-moderation may again be considered. I wasn't intending to be snide Shu (and hardly think that...

Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers

Oh dear, what a dilemma. Ashvin is being forced to think for himself.

AshvinP wrote: So if we must look to immanent experience for this "prior to", the only conceivable place to look, quite literally, is our own Thinking. Berdyaev wrote: The problem is in this, that the way of Steiner and the way of the Steinerians have little in common between them. The wa...

You've answered your own question. Steinerians do not look to their own Thinking, but to the pre-conceived map provided by Steiner. Justin, this is simply not serious. In the same way I can say that you don't think for yourself but simply reiterate the map provided by Marx. No. I, like Marx, Hegel ...