As much as I don't want to divert back to Steiner after we made such progress in figuring out what your view is, I feel compelled to rebut the above. There is just way too much misrepresentation of his arguments and/or Cleric's in your comments. Cleric clearly said Steiner felt the abstract intellect is sufficient to start moving in the direction of the living and dynamic Thinking which is the true bearer of the world's Unity and which he is trying to bring to life in his readers. Here is relevant quote from Chapter 1 (of original edition):FB wrote:So you think I'm wrong and Steiner is wrong to say that he intentionally wrote PoF so that any careful reader could grasp his starting point without having yet transformed their consciousness. Okay, we disagree with you.
Steiner: "This is not to assert by any means that all our action flows only out of the sober deliberations of our intellect. To set forth only those actions as in the highest sense human which issue from abstract judgment, is very far from my intention. But the moment our action lifts itself up out of the area of the satisfaction of purely animal desires, what moves us to act is always intermixed with thoughts. Love, compassion, patriotism are mainsprings of action which do not let themselves be reduced into cold concepts of the intellect. One says: The heart, the Gemüt* come here into their own. Without a doubt. But the heart and the Gemüt do not create what it is that moves us to act. They presuppose it and take it into their domain. Within my heart compassion appears when, in my consciousness, the mental picture arises of a person who arouses compassion. The way to the heart is through the head."
Yes, we don't disagree on the above. And, your latest comments have been so clear and straightforward that I really wish we didn't waste so much time getting there. Perhaps you felt that was all necessary... but anyway, I am glad we finally made it solid debatable ground.findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:37 pm In our normal and abnormal experiences there is always a "suchness" that defines the experiencing, even if that suchness involves mystery, confusion, or deep questioning.
The experience of perception is different than that of thought, feeling, movement, emotion, but they are all always an intricate suchness. That can always change and certainly does. When we begin a meditative practice the suchness of looking at a stone or leaf changes in major ways. The suchness of thinking the idea "hammock" changes.
What you say above goes against all experience (and solid cognitive science and psychology, but we can leave those aside). First, you have already said there is a movement of perceptual experience from one or two basic concepts to more and more concepts which 'fill out' the meaning of the experience. So are you now denying that happens and saying even the illusion of that occurring does not occur? In other words, we are always consciously aware of all possible meaningful concepts which could be properly associated with any given percept, so it does not even seem like we are adding concepts?No. I'm saying there is not even an illusion of attaching concepts onto an experiencing like "rumble".
...
No the experience of "that is an odd sound" could be as intricate as any idea that participates it through my intentionality. In fact, even realizing it a drill could flatten the cognitive intricacy. Not necessarily.
Second, if we partake in an activity which makes us learn and become more proficient, then we should know directly that the "cognitive intricacy" is never "flattened" by supplementing original concepts with higher-order concepts. The only question is whether a person is abandoning original proper concepts or is mistaking improper concepts for those higher-order concepts when evaluating the percepts and how they relate. Aesthetic activity is also a good example - one does not lose the beauty of a sunset if qualitative concepts which illuminate its relation to us are added to its expression when viewing it, describing it, painting it, etc. If you disagree, then I would like to know an example of where that happens.
Finally, we should take stock of how this relates to the original point of contention - it seems your position is that "Thinking vs. Willing" as spiritual activity which unites us with essential relations is irrelevant, because they are both practically the same activity. And perhaps, as we recently discussed in another thread, you say there is knowing by thought and knowing by will (and perhaps by other activities) and they both get us to a true ever-expanding knowledge of the underlying relations. Is that a fair summary?