"Idealism and Consciousness": My Comment/Challenge to BK

[dkpstarkey]

Forgive me for intruding, but I can't resist adding a quote from Kuhlewind. He doesn't speak in terms of a "structured spiritual reality" but rather of the "superconscious" that gives rise to the totality of our experience. This term is decidedly less Christian in orientation than the other. I am fine with that. I keep trying to isolate the Christian elements because I don't entirely trust them, due to, I suppose, the history of Christianity. I find myself wondering what Steiner believed, despite the prevalence of Christian references in his writing, but Kuhlewind doesn't tend to provoke such questions, at least for me. He does reference Steiner constantly, even so. In this selection, Kuhlewind references Steiner's Truth and Knowledge in particular.

Examination of the Given from the Standpoint of Cognitive Psychology

"How does the given appear in consciousness? “The first form in which the whole comes to meet us stands finished before us. We have no part in its coming into being. As if springing forth from an unknown Beyond, reality first offers itself to the grasp of our senses and our minds.”

This “unknown Beyond” may be identified as the superconscious, spiritual part of the human soul. From this part of the soul, the specifically human faculties—thinking, perceiving, and speaking—are given to us. The course or processes of these faculties are superconscious; but the results are conscious. The given consists of these results. The processes by which the given is given is superconscious. In earlier epochs of the evolution of consciousness human beings actually experienced this giving, and today children still experience it when learning to speak.

Since the “first form” of reality enters consciousness already finished as we become aware of it, we can almost experience—we may call it a “boundary experience”—that the processes that “give” this reality occur superconsciously. After all, for there to be “finished” results, processes must have occurred first. We do not know how we speak, nor how sounds are formed, nor how the grammar and syntax of our mother tongue—never fully described or describable—are acquired in early childhood; nor do we know how a perception comes about.

Even thinking is to be found within the given, even though it is the activity in which we participate most consciously because we ourselves produce it. Thinking does not appear without our active participation. Yet it is in no way arbitrary or subjective: it has its own inherent lawfulness, its own nature, which is manifest in its how, its logic. Thus thinking is not only formally given, but how it proceeds, its lawfulness, is produced superconsciously. Its rules are not consciously formulated and they can never be exhaustively described. In this sense, thinking is superconsciously given."

Kühlewind, Georg. The Logos-Structure of the World . Lindisfarne Books. Kindle Edition.

[findingblanks]

"Is there a structured spiritual reality mostly veiled by abstract intellectual cognition and, if so, can we reveal its structure in any significant way during our lifetimes?"

Yes, but it might be more like the specificity of a poem not yet explicated. The poet may 'say it' beautifully but need to continue modifying 'it' over time and perhaps never finish. That's an analogy but it points to why I'm not willing to say that even the objective 'structures' that certain perceptions make 'of' the deeper reality are really 'of' that reality. They explicate and carry it forward. But even that seems to imply that the carrying-forward isn't ultimately the so-called deeper worlds themselves. And language will never nail it perfectly, so you can hopefully see a bit better why I enthusiastically applaud deeper perceptions of all kinds but if their proponents then speak as if these are the structures of the deeper worlds, I don't really agree there.

" You seem to indicate above that Kuhlewind was ambivalent about all that...

I have to go back and find the sentences I wrote that suggest Khulewind was ambivalent. I was attempting to show where he was very certain.

" but I am also curious about what you think?"

I'll have to go back and reread all my various comments and see why my thoughts weren't more clear to you. I thought i had specified that I agreed with then narrow point Kuhlewind made and also why I was meeting your request for me to quote him. But it might take time. In short, I think Steiner is clear that there is a form of cognition and perception in which it is literally impossible to grasp thinking's essence, and that there is also a 'turning' towards thinking's self-sustaining essence in the present. I think that Steiner distinguished these modalities and the book progressed from the former to the latter.

I believe that Steiner participated in a highly significant explication of the spiritual worlds and, per explication, it shares all of the gifts and dangers that come with a solid explication; it will carry forward objective aspects that can be applied fruitfully and it will not carry forward other aspects. But just as I don't think it was Aristotle's job to do it all at once, I don't think it was Steiner's either. Even more so, I believe that in the consciousness soul epoch the 'job' has much less to with 'brining down' explicit structures of reality in a logical fashion than to begin demonstrating what individual efforts to particpate the spiritual worlds will 'look' like. This might explain why I am less likely to be surprised if the 'next' Steiner recapitulates Anthroposophia in a manner that is perhaps hardly recognizable to those of us more or less involved in the first stream of the last century. But it also shows why, for me, there will be an inherent continuity even if that isn't reflected in the 'structure' of the coming findings. I don't expect anybody to agree with me who considers the spiritual world to have an objective structure in the sense we typically mean. But at least this helps explain why I don't deny spiritual vision and the deepening need for more of it. It will necessarily, in my view, be a pluralistic and ever-diversifying manifestation. Anthroposophy, in my view, will ultimately be found in the growing human capacity to translate between visions rather than arbitrate them from out outside perspective.

Thanks!

[findingblanks]

Hi dkp,

"Thus thinking is not only formally given, but how it proceeds, its lawfulness, is produced superconsciously. Its rules are not consciously formulated and they can never be exhaustively described. In this sense, thinking is superconsciously given."

Yes, I very much like how Kuhlewind frames much of his work, too. When we begin to talk about the actual experience of thinking self-sustaining nature (its presentness, so to speak), the typically meaning of 'structure' begins to change quite dramatically. All who attempt to verbalize the nature of thinking will necessarily run into the 'problem' of describing this finding. But it's not really a problem as much as an inherent aspect of the relationship that is the Logos. Thanks for sharing!

[AshvinP]

Forgive me for intruding, but I can't resist adding a quote from Kuhlewind. He doesn't speak in terms of a "structured spiritual reality" but rather of the "superconscious" that gives rise to the totality of our experience. This term is decidedly less Christian in orientation than the other. I am fine with that. I keep trying to isolate the Christian elements because I don't entirely trust them, due to, I suppose, the history of Christianity. I find myself wondering what Steiner believed, despite the prevalence of Christian references in his writing, but Kuhlewind doesn't tend to provoke such questions, at least for me. He does reference Steiner constantly, even so. In this selection, Kuhlewind references Steiner's Truth and Knowledge in particular.

Examination of the Given from the Standpoint of Cognitive Psychology

"How does the given appear in consciousness? “The first form in which the whole comes to meet us stands finished before us. We have no part in its coming into being. As if springing forth from an unknown Beyond, reality first offers itself to the grasp of our senses and our minds.”

This “unknown Beyond” may be identified as the superconscious, spiritual part of the human soul. From this part of the soul, the specifically human faculties—thinking, perceiving, and speaking—are given to us. The course or processes of these faculties are superconscious; but the results are conscious. The given consists of these results. The processes by which the given is given is superconscious. In earlier epochs of the evolution of consciousness human beings actually experienced this giving, and today children still experience it when learning to speak.

Since the “first form” of reality enters consciousness already finished as we become aware of it, we can almost experience—we may call it a “boundary experience”—that the processes that “give” this reality occur superconsciously. After all, for there to be “finished” results, processes must have occurred first. We do not know how we speak, nor how sounds are formed, nor how the grammar and syntax of our mother tongue—never fully described or describable—are acquired in early childhood; nor do we know how a perception comes about.

Even thinking is to be found within the given, even though it is the activity in which we participate most consciously because we ourselves produce it. Thinking does not appear without our active participation. Yet it is in no way arbitrary or subjective: it has its own inherent lawfulness, its own nature, which is manifest in its how, its logic. Thus thinking is not only formally given, but how it proceeds, its lawfulness, is produced superconsciously. Its rules are not consciously formulated and they can never be exhaustively described. In this sense, thinking is superconsciously given."

Kühlewind, Georg. The Logos-Structure of the World . Lindisfarne Books. Kindle Edition.

DKP,

Thanks for sharing. I believe Steiner also refers to the super (or supra-) conscious, which is the spiritual realms. It sounds to me like Kuhlewind is saying here that there are invisible (to normal cognition) realms which give rise to all of our highly structured, lawful, and logically sound experience within the phenomenal world. So, unless he then goes on to say "but we can't directly perceive this superconscious realm during our current incarnation" or "we can't relay any of that direct perception with illustrations and analogies which appeal to our Reason", then I am really failing to see how anything he is saying is in tension with Steiner's spiritual science. I may also take a look at that book soon.

[AshvinP]

"Is there a structured spiritual reality mostly veiled by abstract intellectual cognition and, if so, can we reveal its structure in any significant way during our lifetimes?"

Yes, but it might be more like the specificity of a poem not yet explicated. The poet may 'say it' beautifully but need to continue modifying 'it' over time and perhaps never finish. That's an analogy but it points to why I'm not willing to say that even the objective 'structures' that certain perceptions make 'of' the deeper reality are really 'of' that reality. They explicate and carry it forward. But even that seems to imply that the carrying-forward isn't ultimately the so-called deeper worlds themselves. And language will never nail it perfectly, so you can hopefully see a bit better why I enthusiastically applaud deeper perceptions of all kinds but if their proponents then speak as if these are the structures of the deeper worlds, I don't really agree there.

" You seem to indicate above that Kuhlewind was ambivalent about all that...

I have to go back and find the sentences I wrote that suggest Khulewind was ambivalent. I was attempting to show where he was very certain.

" but I am also curious about what you think?"

I'll have to go back and reread all my various comments and see why my thoughts weren't more clear to you. I thought i had specified that I agreed with then narrow point Kuhlewind made and also why I was meeting your request for me to quote him. But it might take time. In short, I think Steiner is clear that there is a form of cognition and perception in which it is literally impossible to grasp thinking's essence, and that there is also a 'turning' towards thinking's self-sustaining essence in the present. I think that Steiner distinguished these modalities and the book progressed from the former to the latter.

I believe that Steiner participated in a highly significant explication of the spiritual worlds and, per explication, it shares all of the gifts and dangers that come with a solid explication; it will carry forward objective aspects that can be applied fruitfully and it will not carry forward other aspects. But just as I don't think it was Aristotle's job to do it all at once, I don't think it was Steiner's either. Even more so, I believe that in the consciousness soul epoch the 'job' has much less to with 'brining down' explicit structures of reality in a logical fashion than to begin demonstrating what individual efforts to particpate the spiritual worlds will 'look' like. This might explain why I am less likely to be surprised if the 'next' Steiner recapitulates Anthroposophia in a manner that is perhaps hardly recognizable to those of us more or less involved in the first stream of the last century. But it also shows why, for me, there will be an inherent continuity even if that isn't reflected in the 'structure' of the coming findings. I don't expect anybody to agree with me who considers the spiritual world to have an objective structure in the sense we typically mean. But at least this helps explain why I don't deny spiritual vision and the deepening need for more of it. It will necessarily, in my view, be a pluralistic and ever-diversifying manifestation. Anthroposophy, in my view, will ultimately be found in the growing human capacity to translate between visions rather than arbitrate them from out outside perspective.

Thanks!

FB,

All of those things I said in last comment were about what you think on this specific issue of spiritual reality, not on PoF, which I agree you have made pretty clear on this thread, and I thank you for that.

I really feel the above is an all or nothing approach. It says, if space-time representational language cannot capture the actual essence of spiritual realms, which we all agree that it cannot, then we must abandon any hopes of "objectively" assessing the truths of those realms in this lifetime. We must wait until the consciousness soul evolves more and who knows when that will be or what it will look like. Moreover, it practically denies the higher cognitive capacity which would allow direct non-representational perception of those higher realms in this lifetime. It says, even if those capacities are possible, the person who employs them cannot possibly relay what was directly perceived in an objective, rigorous, and precise manner to everyone else. So it then cuts off the one avenue by which the space-time representational limits can be transcended and the results. There are bits of truth in all of these assertions you make, but again they take the "all or nothing" approach - they are cobbled together in order to justify a complete cessation of trying to objectively understand the spiritual realms from which our phenomenal experience precipitates. And, I would add, we have a living example of that spiritual perception and relaying process in Cleric, and I think any reasoning mind can see how that manifests in his posts. Some are tempted to equate such posts with one of many 'poetic' ways of looking at the world, but I don't think that sufficiently explains what is being manifested.

Some people don't like to use the word "objectively", but it's really the best word we have to describe a systematic approach which can be tested against our shared Reason. If there is a better word to use for that, then I am fine adopting it.

[findingblanks]

"I really feel the above is an all or nothing approach."

Well, the fact that I agree with Steiner that seers will be correct to various degrees is why I personally don't see it as all or nothing.

"...we must abandon any hopes of "objectively" assessing the truths of those realms in this lifetime. We must wait until the consciousness soul evolves more and who knows when that will be or what it will look like..."

No need to rehash it, but I already said why I personally agree with Steiner that non-clairvoyant people have the responsibility of noticing errors made by even great Initiates. Sure, we can't affirm or deny if somebody says Buddha now lives on Mars (per Steiner), but we can and must notice when observational and logical errors or distortions intersect. He and others made that point very clear and he even emphasized that great initiations will make such errors.

Nobody needs to worry about claims they have no way of verifying or understanding. But somebody like Steiner gave us so many pearls of wisdom and research that absolutely require our engagement via clear thinking and observation that we can engage with. . I am not claiming we can say anybody is wrong who makes claims we have no way of testing. We simply can say, "Ah, that's very interesting."

"And, I would add, we have a living example of that spiritual perception and relaying process in Cleric, and I think any reasoning mind can see how that manifests in his posts. Some are tempted to equate such posts with one of many 'poetic' ways of looking at the world, but I don't think that sufficiently explains what is being manifested."

Yes, people have very different experiences of the degree and accuracy of others clairvoyance. I was lucky to be married to a woman who was wildly clairvoyant, letting me see both the accuracy and errors and the causes of one not learning to become more objective. But I've also been fortunate to know a few people with more 'exact' clairvoyance. But even the most responsible and serious Anthroposophists have very contentious disagreements about the clairvoyance of people like Kuhlewind, Klocek, Ben-Aharon, and von Halle, just to mention a few. And while each of those teachers has many many students who would echo you comments about Cleric with regard to their teacher, just as many are warning that the particular teacher is in the hands of Lucifer or Ahriman. All of that makes perfect sense when you think of the larger context, but it can be a bit blurry for some.

[AshvinP]

"I really feel the above is an all or nothing approach."

Well, the fact that I agree with Steiner that seers will be correct to various degrees is why I personally don't see it as all or nothing.

"...we must abandon any hopes of "objectively" assessing the truths of those realms in this lifetime. We must wait until the consciousness soul evolves more and who knows when that will be or what it will look like..."

No need to rehash it, but I already said why I personally agree with Steiner that non-clairvoyant people have the responsibility of noticing errors made by even great Initiates. Sure, we can't affirm or deny if somebody says Buddha now lives on Mars (per Steiner), but we can and must notice when observational and logical errors or distortions intersect. He and others made that point very clear and he even emphasized that great initiations will make such errors.

Nobody needs to worry about claims they have no way of verifying or understanding. But somebody like Steiner gave us so many pearls of wisdom and research that absolutely require our engagement via clear thinking and observation that we can engage with. . I am not claiming we can say anybody is wrong who makes claims we have no way of testing. We simply can say, "Ah, that's very interesting."

FB,

This is what we are constantly doing here. We post our arguments, which are admittedly influenced by PoF and SS, but hopefully our own reasoned experience as well, and wait for people to engage with them. It can be comments, criticism, questions, praise, condemnation, whatever... as long as it makes a genuine attempt to understand the position (see Anthony for example of that). We also have you here, who has actually read a lot of Steiner over many years. You posted some critiques of specific claims by Steiner on the PU thread, and both Cleric and myself responded. You said, "I don't find those arguments convincing" with no elaboration and that was that. So, if ever there is a cessation of logical reasoning through the claims made, it is not due to any mindset we have.

Also notice how quickly "responsibility of noticing errors made by even great Initiates" turns into "simply saying 'ah that's very interesting". The former seems a very active and precise process, with motivation to get to the bottom of the matter, which we agree is necessary, and the latter as a passive acquiescence which avoids the matter altogether. The former presupposes we are reading so as to notice and discuss, while the latter feels as if there is absolutely no practical difference between reading and noticing and discussion, and not reading at all. I feel the rest of your comment below adopts the same stance.

"And, I would add, we have a living example of that spiritual perception and relaying process in Cleric, and I think any reasoning mind can see how that manifests in his posts. Some are tempted to equate such posts with one of many 'poetic' ways of looking at the world, but I don't think that sufficiently explains what is being manifested."

Yes, people have very different experiences of the degree and accuracy of others clairvoyance. I was lucky to be married to a woman who was wildly clairvoyant, letting me see both the accuracy and errors and the causes of one not learning to become more objective. But I've also been fortunate to know a few people with more 'exact' clairvoyance. But even the most responsible and serious Anthroposophists have very contentious disagreements about the clairvoyance of people like Kuhlewind, Klocek, Ben-Aharon, and von Halle, just to mention a few. And while each of those teachers has many many students who would echo you comments about Cleric with regard to their teacher, just as many are warning that the particular teacher is in the hands of Lucifer or Ahriman. All of that makes perfect sense when you think of the larger context, but it can be a bit blurry for some.

Again, "contentious disagreements" is being used here as a reason not to discuss Cleric's specific posts and the logic of their substance; to see not only whether they are logical, but what can explain their imaginative life. I have no doubt there are many others with the same or greater spiritual perception, and I would like to discuss them and anything they have written or spoken as well! But you seem to always want to move in the other direction... if that is because you feel this forum centers around BK and should not get too involved with Anthroposophy, then why comment on Steiner and his ideas at all? I think we all agree they are not the sort of ideas which can be given skimpy treatment here and there, but must be fleshed out in a holistic context if they are to be understood at all.

[findingblanks]

Yeah, so the way you represented my basic stance in the last post left a lot to be desired. I was frustrated to read that you still see me in some of those lights and don't recognize that I also did engage with disagreement. Yes, we all have different points at which we feel there is probably not going to be shift.

But I also am happy with the little bit of progress we made and I'm especially happy to see that there has been absolutely zero psychological insinuations and ad hoc arguments. No need to shadow dance has been very enjoyable.

"I have no doubt there are many others with the same or greater spiritual perception, and I would like to discuss them and anything they have written or spoken as well! But you seem to always want to move in the other direction... if that is because you feel this forum centers around BK and should not get too involved with Anthroposophy, then why comment on Steiner and his ideas at all?"

I just don't think you count all my other conversations and all the other avenues I open up with others. So there is a bit of a selection bias when you speak of what I tend to 'always' do. That said, I understand that in the context of conversations you want to have, yes, I am not the best fit for you and my tendencies are not fully aligned with how you use this space. Understood.

But, no, I don't think conversations need to be about BK here. As as long as we name a topic and don't jump into other people's topics with our own, we are fine.

In fact, I say just dive back into a couple of the specifics and use them to see the reasons we probably won't ever agree on some things. We can now do this without needing to shadow dance at all, methinks.

Okay, so I'll boil it down in simple language. I think that we can methodologically show that the color red is not the cause of why bulls go wild. I think that we can see that people who have worked closely with bulls never believed this myth. I think we can understand how the myth arose (in multiple ways from multiple cultural contexts). I have personally spoken with people who raise bulls and talked to them about this. One farmer took me out and showed me what happens with his bulls when you put different colored flags in front of them. And he also gave me an article from the 70s that went into the historical cultural reasons why people began to believe that the bull went wild because they saw the color red.

All this points to why I think that if somebody begins a statement with the words, "The reason why red causes bulls to go wild..." I already believe they are making a false presumptions. In the same way when somebody says, "The reason that matter causes consciousenss to emerge..." I already believe they are presupposing something that is false. That doesn't mean I am not interested in what they have to say next. They might say really amazing things next that contain important facts. Those facts can be important even if they don't support the argument that matter creates consciousness, or that red causes a bull to charge and go wild.

Finally, I believe that we can make very smart speculations about why a given individual at a given time may have assumed that red caused bulls to go wild.

My hope is that this conversation won't require somebody speaking to me about how my lack of Steiner's clairvoyance means this topic simply is off limits to criticize. I'd hope that this conversation could be done in the spirit Steiner indicated when he said that even great Initiates would make false claims that a person with healthy observation and healthy thinking could observe and correct. If this conversation is to have any hope, my guess is that it will start of in a very boring way. 'Boring' in the sense that it won't slide into the somtimes inevitable conversations about 'ill-will' nor will it slide into the sometimes inevitble direction of saying 'off-limits' or 'what he really meant was...'. But even if this conversation slides into those directions,I hope it does so in a 'boring' way that doesn't even come close to suggesting negative or condescending attributes to the people having the conversation. I think we've gotten there.

Thanks!