For the Goethe Curious

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

For the Goethe Curious

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: For the Goethe Curious

Post by findingblanks »

Can't wait to watch this, thanks!
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: For the Goethe Curious

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:22 pm

Thanks Dana, I will check it out tonight and try to post some feedback. I have been looking at some more Goethe Wisdom for an essay, and it's just endlessly enjoyable to contemplate his poetry, aphorisms, science, etc.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: For the Goethe Curious

Post by AshvinP »

AshvinP wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:12 pm Thanks Dana, I will check it out tonight and try to post some feedback. I have been looking at some more Goethe Wisdom for an essay, and it's just endlessly enjoyable to contemplate his poetry, aphorisms, science, etc.

So around 13 min., we come to Sattler's claim that Steiner did not really perceive the holistic nature of Goethe's view. He says that Goethe perceived the usefulness of the "mechanistic view" while Steiner did not. This is a great topic because it is exactly what I am in the process of writing an essay on. For now, I will say Sattler must not be too familiar with Steiner's writings/lectures on "polarity", which he applies not only as abstract metaphysical concept, but a living reality in absolutely every human experience. He applies it across the board, including when discussing human history (from ancient Indian epoch onwards to present), culture, and the philosophical-metaphysical-spiritual development of the modern age. In fact, one thing I found very difficult to get over when first reading Steiner was how much spiritual importance he placed on the development of materialist and mechanistic views. It will easily throw one off if it is assumed Steiner only promotes "organic spiritual idealism" and talks ill of all other perspectives. Materialist mechanistic reductionism really becomes the greatest problem when spiritual impulses are evolving beyond those worldviews in the late 19th century but they are still clinged to by the conscious intellect (which has arbitrarily made it impossible for itself to ever perceive the underlying spiritual impulse). That relates to what was commented on Deep MAL essay recently re: "all evil is truth which is out of season".

I quoted this below from Steiner in my solipsism essay and also to you earlier, but I think it's really important for those who are reading Steiner or will be reading him to understand about his overall approach.

Steiner wrote:This makes it explainable to us how people can have such different concepts, such different views of reality, in spite of the fact that reality can, after all, only be one. The difference lies in the difference between our intellectual worlds. This sheds light for us upon the development of the different scientific standpoints. We understand where the many philosophical standpoints originate, and do not need to bestow the palm of truth exclusively upon one of them. We also know which standpoint we ourselves have to take with respect to the multiplicity of human views. We will not ask exclusively: What is true, what is false? We will always investigate how the intellectual world of a thinker goes forth from the world harmony; we will seek to understand and not to judge negatively and regard at once as error that which does not correspond with our own view. Another source of differentiation between our scientific standpoints is added to this one through the fact that every individual person has a different field of experience. Each person is indeed confronted, as it were, by one section of the whole of reality. His intellect works upon this and is his mediator on the way to the idea. But even though we all do therefore perceive the same idea, still we always do this from different places. Therefore, only the end result to which we come can be the same; our paths, however, can be different. It absolutely does not matter at all whether the individual judgments and concepts of which our knowing consists correspond to each other or not; the only thing that matters is that they ultimately lead us to the point that we are swimming in the main channel of the idea.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
Post Reply