Just to be clear, if I ever express frustration on here, like I am sure there has been in some of my recent comments, it's not because someone is disagreeing with me... it's because they don't seem to be taking the time to even understand the position I am supporting. On the other hand, I know where that consistent blind spot comes from... it is the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms operating in the background, which occasionally influence my own thinking as well. When I write essays or comment here, I just make sure to bring that out of my blind spot before evaluating the issues.Simon Adams wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:54 pmI don't have a desire to use labels, it just happens to be the closest one to one of the main areas where I don't agree with you. That doesn't matter, we don't need to agree. We each have our own journey, and all we can do is to be true to ourselves.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:50 pm
I don't get what the desire is to always categorize these things with labels, other than to write them off without considering them in more detail. Steiner's phenomenological philosophy would be closest to Hegel, but his "spiritual science" is something completely new and only became possible in the last 150 years or so. Jung considered these spiritual issues deeply to, and recounted his own visionary experiences in the Red Book, but did not systematically discuss them in any higher resolution. The only "pantheism" involved is not arbitrarily separating off the natural world from the spiritual world by a hard boundary, which is nothing other than the result of Cartesian-Kantian dualisms.
... and to me, your "noumenal reality" doesn't contain it's source. You think it's the changeless source of itself, to me it's the very opposite, it's a movement between poles. Let's shake hands and agree to disagree, as we're wearing a circle in the carpetAshvin wrote:
I am not sure exactly what you mean, but my position is that 1) perception-cognition is inseparable (there is no possible state in Reality where we only perceive without ideal content) and 2) there is no fundamental limit to how much of the noumenal Reality we can perceive-cognize. That #2 claim is evidenced by everything from the history of spiritual metamorphic progression (and corresponding developments in art, mythology, philosophy, science, etc.) to the phenomenology of our own thinking activity. The latter is what Steiner discusses in detail in The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. In fact, almost everything slightly related to these core metaphysical-ethical-spiritual questions are dealt with in that book slightly over 200 pages. No "spiritual science" is referenced there. Yet people avoid reading and contending with it with such fervor... I have my suspicions why, but it's very unfortunate because it is extremely clear and relevant to all of these discussions.
That being said, this does not compute with me - "your noumenal reality doesn't contain its source". The "noumenal reality" is, by definition, the Source of all existence. I am just using that term so it's clear that I am referring to the Source of all existence. I hold that there is no hard limit to our knowledge of that Source which cannot be overcome with effort and persistence. Of course this does not sit well for the transcendental idealist for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because he holds we cannot be "saved" by our own "works". I say that is a very superficial understanding of what is being discussed in scripture, and the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms have reinforced that superficial understanding in the most unhealthy way.