Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[findingblanks]

"So it makes no sense to conflate them back together as "cognitive perception" in the context of Barfield's argument."

I think it is in History, Guilt, and Habit where Barfield explains why he certainly recognizes the earliest perception as cognitive. We don't have to nit-pick words if we understand each other. He simply explains very clearly why the earliest perceptions are of/as meaning.

[AshvinP]

"There technically could be ontological "blooming buzzing confusion" because that still carries a conceptual meaning, but we all agree there is no ontological state without any conceptual meaning."

And just to add/ask: and you would agree that it is not that the first form of reality we meet is this low-level conceptualized perception that is in need to more concepts to be a very rich an cognitively active figurated experience, yeah>

If you are talking about when I was conceived or born in current lifetime, then I can't remember the first form I met and how it was experienced. If you mean any form that I am seeing for the first time in current day, then it will depend on what sort of form. Perception of "stranger walking down the street" is not quite as rich in conceptual meaning as perception of "triangle" thought-form in my mind. In general, most forms I come across in my daily routine already have a fair deal of conceptual meaning but are still lacking any deeper spiritual meaning without much further contemplation. I expect that to change over time if I am disciplined and blessed to bring forth higher modes of cognition.

[AshvinP]

"So it makes no sense to conflate them back together as "cognitive perception" in the context of Barfield's argument."

I think it is in History, Guilt, and Habit where Barfield explains why he certainly recognizes the earliest perception as cognitive. We don't have to nit-pick words if we understand each other. He simply explains very clearly why the earliest perceptions are of/as meaning.

Yes, the perception of Moon 2500 years ago for ex. carried much more and deeper meaning than perception of it today for most people.

[findingblanks]

"Cleric responded to the last question. It is the observation of one's own thinking - this is obviously "exceptional" if we consider how someone can go an entire lifetime in the modern world without engaging in such observation."

So this is a major and very understandable error and I have no doubt it will be challenging to unfold this and that we should agree ahead of time that the difficulty is almost certainly all do to my horrible communication and writing. Okay, but with that all agreed upon.

A very interesting paradox is found if you look carefully at how Steiner characterizes 'exceptional state/condition.'

First I'll say this very flatly:

It is wrong think that he is characterizing something that only rarely happens, and especially wrong to claim that a typically developed adult western human doesn't enter this 'condition.'

Much of the problem is in what the words connote.

"exceptional" can be taken to mean

1) rare (as in saying, "Well, winning the lottery is a very exceptional situation to find yourself in...."
2) rare relative to the norm in a given context (as in, "You'll probably need to call me a few times a day for info on the material needed for construction, but it'll be the exception rather than the rule; most of it will be self explanatory."

And "state" can be taken in many different ways:

1) a conscious inner experience ("That tea put me into a very wonky state")
2) a situation ("We found ourselves surrounded by police officers and medics, a state we didn't think we'd find ourselves in."
3) a condition ("The rock heap is in the state it was in before I got there."
'
"I must first take up a standpoint outside my own activity if, in addition to observing the table, I want also to observe my thinking about the table. Whereas observation of things and events, and thinking about them, are everyday occurrences filling up the continuous current of my life, observation of the thinking itself is a kind of exceptional state. This fact must be properly taken into account when we come to determine the relationship of thinking to all other contents of observation."

Since I spent about 10 years thinking and treating 'exceptional state' exactly as you characterized it above, I'd ask that you consider for a day or two that Steiner is not talking about the transformation that is taking place when thinking beholds itself in the act .But, rather, he is pointing out that we spend the vast majority of our time either observing or thinking but not observing the thoughts themselves that we are currently producing. This is not at all the same thing as the transformation, and I know we all agree on that. But it is much less often the case that we pause to notice the finished thought we have produced.

So when the carpenter is focused on making the table, he is focusing his vision on various aspects of the wood or tools he needs to grab, he is measuring up the space he needs to exactly cover, listening to the sound of the wood being sawed through. Those are just a few of the perceptions he focuses on. And then there will be thoughts as he works, thoughts about moving his tool more slowly or needing better quality wood or noticing that the color might be too bright. Steiner is saying that this is the norm, having thoughts and perceptions. And Steiner is saying that we less often stop and reflect on the finished thought we just produced. We do this. In fact, it happens a lot but just not nearly as much as the other two. It is the situation that is less regular. It is the exceptional state. Steiner goes on with a good example. We can read it and see if -- here in the early chapters of PoF he has really started to describe a transformation of cognition:

"When I see an object and recognize it as a table, I do not as a rule say, “I am thinking of a table,” but, “this is a table.” On the other hand, I do say, “I am pleased with the table.” In the former case, I am not at all interested in stating that I have entered into a relation with the table; whereas in the latter case, it is just this relation that matters. In saying, “I am thinking of a table,” I already enter the exceptional state characterized above, in which something that is always contained — though not as an observed object — within our spiritual activity, is itself made into an object of observation."

Going back to my example, let's say the carpenter has been working hard in the way I described, moving from a multitude of perceptions and thoughts, but hasn't yet reflected on his thoughts. And, then, at one point, he stops and says to himself or a nearby friend, "Oh, wait. I just realized that I've been assuming this table was part of the 'Spanish collection'." He notices that everything he's been doing the last hour presupposed he was working on a certain kind of table. This affected the places he looked, the sounds he listened for and the thinking he did about the building of the table. He says, "Oh, I thought this was a 'Spanish Table."

This is entering into the 'exceptional state' that Steiner first introduced when saying:

"I must first take up a standpoint outside my own activity if, in addition to observing the table, I want also to observe my thinking about the table. Whereas observation of things and events, and thinking about them, are everyday occurrences filling up the continuous current of my life, observation of the thinking itself is a kind of exceptional state."

As Steiner specifies, we are 'taking a standpoint outside' our usual activity when we reflect upon it.

But we make a consequential error if we think that when he says "If, in addition to observing the table, I want also to observe my thinking about the table," he is talking about the second half of the spiritual concentration exercise in which we we would move from didactic thoughts about a table into directly experiencing the function 'table', thereby grasping our thinking in the act of generating the real idea.

How do we know that Steiner here in chapter two isn't talking about the kind of experience that, as you say, somebody might go an entire lifetime without experiencing?

1) Later in the book he clearly differentiates this 'exceptional state' {"I was just thinking about the table's legs") and the transformation that takes place when thinking (as the activity) takes up itself.

2) He goes out of his way to give us a few examples that specify the kind of reflection he means.

Khulewind does a pretty good job of explaining this in his own way when he shows how PoF denies the intuitive capacity that it then implores in later chapters.

Steiner again:

"In saying, “I am thinking of a table,” I already enter the exceptional state characterized above, in which something that is always contained — though not as an observed object — within our spiritual activity, is itself made into an object of observation."

Notice that he is specific in two important ways.

1) He gives the example of a typical finished way of thinking, "I am thinking about X."
2) He is very clear that the focus here is on the 'object' that we make our thinking into, per the finished thought-observation.

The 'object of observation' in Chapter two of The Philosophy of Freedom is not the intuitive and conscious awakening into the activity of thinking itself. It is the more mundane (yet still less typical) situation in which we are reflecting on a thought we produced.

There are very understandable reasons why most of Steiner's students will agree with you that the 'exceptional state' is something that a person might never experience in their lifetime. Like I said, the translated terms prime us in that direction, and then when you add that most of us know that his core point in PoF is to get us to begin apprehending thinking directly, it makes sense this mistake can happen. But we do well to notice his examples, and especially the context in which he is characterizing this less common occurrence of observing a thought we produced.

Steiner goes on:

"I am, moreover, in the same position when I enter into the exceptional state and reflect on my own thinking. I can never observe my present thinking; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my thinking process as the object of fresh thinking."

Some of Steiner students say it is very important to notice when he is emphatic and uses terms like 'never' and 'only'. I somewhat agree. Definitely, in this part of the book, he has gone out of his way to show us that we mostly are observing and thinking, and we less commonly reflect on our thought, like, "Oh, I thought that was a ZL20 not a ZL26." And he is very clear in saying that the 'exceptional state', while less common that the others, is logically much more common than something we can never do. What does Steiner say we can never do:

"I can never observe my present thinking[/b]; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my thinking process as the object of fresh thinking."

Now, of course, we three all agree that he is wrong here. We certainly can observe present thinking. But we might agree that he is making an important rhetorical move by starting his book right where the typical person is. The typical person is almost always in some state of thinking and perceiving and less often notices his finished thoughts. The typical person almost never transforms their thinking as the later parts of the books will specify.

So when you say

"It is the observation of one's own thinking - this is obviously "exceptional" if we consider how someone can go an entire lifetime in the modern world without engaging in such observation."

It seems you are equating the 'exceptional state' with the experience that Steiner says is impossible at this point in the text. I used to think that and I find that nearly all students still do.

The problem is this:

You are going to have no problem at all recognizing that I am pointing pretty clearly to the distinctions that he is actually very clearly making in this chapter. But then you are going to read the statement he makes that really almost ensures that his students make the typical interpretation of 'exceptional state.'

I'd rather you dwell in his clarity first because we might actually see that we agree on this. Then, later, we can speculate about the misguiding comments that come later.

No, that will annoy you. Okay, so there are the paragraphs in which he describes the "exceptional state" as the only way of overcoming materialism. In those passages it slips into a a very different characterization than the ones above. Remember, in this very chapter he has told us that we can 'never observe our present thinking.'

So I stand by the fact that in chapter two the exceptional state is referring to the less common occurrence of when we reflect on a thought itself as our own. But for all the reasons I've given, I'm never surprised when a very careful student of Steiner's will say that the exceptional state is the experience of intuitive thinking. I do think this apparently small error has pretty big ramifications on the whole.

Towards the end he goes back to characterizing the exceptional condition as being when we consciously take note of our own thoughts.

"We must resolutely plunge right into the activity of thinking, so that afterwards, by observing what we have done, we may gain knowledge of it. For the observation of thinking, we ourselves first create an object; the presence of all other objects is taken care of without any activity on our part."

I hope it is clear that Steiner in saying that "we ourselves first create the object" he is speaking of the (currently) unconscious process of thinking. The observation of it as an 'object' is conscious and less common that merely thinking and perceiving.

"My contention that we must think before we can examine thinking.."

It is a mistake to think that in Chapter Two Steiner uses 'examine thinking' to refer to the conscious transformation of thinking that he develops later. This is the chapter in which he demands the reader notice the exceptional condition of reflecting on their own thought as compared to simply thinking and perceiving. He expects the reader to be able to notice their own moments and capacity to be conscious of a thought like, "I'm thinking about X" and he clearly wants them to provisionally think that they cannot observe their thinking while it is taking place.

Towards the end of the chapter we see yet again that he does not expect the reader to (yet) disagree with his claim that we cannot experience the activity of thinking:

"So far, there is not the slightest reason why I should regard my own thinking from any point of view other than my own."

Again and again, he makes clear that this first step is something any healthy, average person should be able to acknowledge.

In Chapter 2 Steiner is very clear that his reader can be with his points without having yet undergone the transformation of consciousness that comes when thinking first actively grasps itself in the act. In fact, in Chapter 2 he goes so far as to acknowledge that perhaps thinking can't even get beyond itself. He wants to reader to be open to any and all possibilities.

Whereas, the later transformation of thinking which is the core point of PoF is absolutely also a direct understanding of the essential nature of the spiritual 'world'. You cannot grasp the activity of thinking without also recognizing this fact.

But at the end of Chapter 2, Steiner makes it clear that the insight he has painted at this point regarding thinking could end up leading to the conclusion that thinking simply can't obtain any essential facts about the nature of reality. .


........................


And, finally, food for thought. I've found this to generate very lively discussion in study groups:

Looking at some of his closing statements:

"This absolutely last thing at which world evolution has arrived is in fact thinking."

and

Do we think that statement presupposes that world evolution is a fact?

[findingblanks]

"In general, most forms I come across in my daily routine already have a fair deal of conceptual meaning but are still lacking any deeper spiritual meaning without much further contemplation. I expect that to change over time if I am disciplined and blessed to bring forth higher modes of cognition."

I certainly disagree here. But it is a larger issue and it is the downstream consequence of the more fundamental questions we are looking into it. I only mark it here because you stated it so clearly I want to bookmark it for later.

I can easily agree with it on a basic and generic level. But we are talking specifically about the claim that we must first encounter a field of perception that is without nearly all rich and meaningful concepts. We are talking about the very structure of moment to moment experience and IF OR IF NOT it has a first form we encounter which necessarily lacks rich and meaningful experience.

I have said and hopefully shown (to some) that it is a mistake to believe that our starting point is the Volkeltian "first form' of experience that Steiner praises as an excellent characterization. And I gave plenty of reasons that we can feel certain Steiner wasn't trying to characterize a rare or obscure kind of experience that adults may or may not have. He is in the nuts and bolts of characterizing the very nature of how we encounter and deal with the world via perception and thinking.

[findingblanks]

Hey Cleric,

I posted my thoughts on 'exceptional state' and then noticed your request to hear what I think about that. There you go!

However please know that I do not assume that you shared Ashvin'sP's opinion that Steiner's phrase "obviously" refers to a state of consciousness that many people never experience. I imagine you may object to that characterization as well. However, on the whole, nearly all PoF student's would agree (at first) with AshvinP's belief. I certainly did.

[Cleric]

My counter argument is not "unconsciouss" nor "prejudice" - that's just rhetorics. Even if conceptualizations and ideas are the size of an universe, they remain localized intellect. My empirically founded argument is that Thinking at it's best (ie. Creative Intelligence) is not bound as conceptual looping. The Source of creative intelligence, and how the Source manifests in conceptualizing processes, is in preconceptual sentience.

Of course, intellectual concepts are only the most rigid form of ideal content. The question is what is the relation, in your view, between the concepts of the intellect (where mathematical concepts also fall) and higher sentience? Do you think the higher forms are reserved for higher, non-human beings or man is capable to attain to them through proper development? And if he can, what significance should that higher knowledge have for his Earthly life?

Whether intended or not, the literal meaning of "one in same idea, same thing" reads as idea of Borg, fully mechanized and determined existence in the purely top-down causal idea of Borg-like deity. From the perspective uniquely experiencing and exploring Love in all forms of Love, in dynamic participation with Creative Intelligence, this is the genuine defence of genuine Thinking.

There's nothing in what I said that comes even closely to the Borg you're describing. I didn't even tackle the question of 'what' ideas are being thought. The point was only to bring to attention that in the experience of ideas we truly live in the same ideal element, irrelevant of the idea itself. To put it into a picture, parts of our consciousnesses overlap when we experience the same idea. This is true oneness. When I experience my will, even if I have the idea that this will is part of unbroken wholeness, it's still the case that the will-part that I experience within my skin is no the same will-part that you experience within yours. The reverse is true for thinking (and the higher forms of cognition) - when we cognize a certain idea, both yours and mine consciousness meet at the idea, they overlap. This is not yet the case for most part in this discussion But it's possible that we meet (overlap) at the domain of the spiritual-world that I'm speaking of.

[AshvinP]

"Cleric responded to the last question. It is the observation of one's own thinking - this is obviously "exceptional" if we consider how someone can go an entire lifetime in the modern world without engaging in such observation."

So this is a major and very understandable error and I have no doubt it will be challenging to unfold this and that we should agree ahead of time that the difficulty is almost certainly all do to my horrible communication and writing. Okay, but with that all agreed upon.

A very interesting paradox is found if you look carefully at how Steiner characterizes 'exceptional state/condition.'

First I'll say this very flatly:

It is wrong think that he is characterizing something that only rarely happens, and especially wrong to claim that a typically developed adult western human doesn't enter this 'condition.'

FB,

How about you slow down to consider what is happening right now in this thread, before going back to what was happening in PoF when Steiner referred to "exceptional state". I asked you to get past "what is the meaning of Steiner saying this or that in PoF?" and answer the following question so we can move in the direction of what is relevant about this whole issue for people today:

I am very interested in what you think about the notion that, currently, the abstract (fragmented) conceptual element is dominant in the perception-cognition polarity of our experience (if you disagree with this phrasing, let us know an alternative one), and what that means for the best way to restore the meaning of our perceptual experience?

You declined to answer and started asking me a few questions. I said fine, since they are relevant to our living experience and not about PoF, I will respond. Now you come back and hit me with a short essay on what is only relevant to Steiner and PoF. The "exceptional state" itself, as Cleric and I are interpreting it, is very relevant to moving forward today, but the interpretation of what Steiner meant in PoF is not relevant at all. My comment in bold above is what we hold it to be and what Steiner has said it is in many different writings. Suffice to say, in the phrase "I am thinking of a table", the exceptional state is implied because the object of my observation is "thinking of table" (not the "table" alone). When we turn thinking into the object of our observation, we see the object perceived and the activity directed at the object perceived are exactly the same - they are both our own "thinking"! You are also incorrect about "present thinking". Steiner is correct to say we can never observe our present thinking - when you turn your present thinking into an object of your thinking, the thinking you are directing at that formerly "present thinking" becomes the "present thinking" which you are never observing.

The essence of why this exceptional state matters for Steiner is summed up below:

We are now in a period when a significant change must come about: People must become thinking people instead of thinking machines. It is terrible, is it not, when you say something like that, because people of our time take it for granted that they are thinking people, and if you ask them to become thinking people, they actually find it an insult. But that is how it is.

Since the middle of the 15th century, people have become more and more like thinking machines. People surrender themselves to thoughts, as it were; they do not control them. Imagine what it would be like if you did the same with your limbs as most people do with their thinking organs today. Ask yourself if the modern human being can be inclined – I say can be – to randomly take in a thought and randomly shut down a thought. Thoughts are bubbling up in people’s heads today. People cannot resist them; they automatically surrender to them. A thought arises, the previous one disappears, it flies and flashes through the mind, and people think in such a way that one could best say: it thinks in the human being.

Imagine that your arms and legs would behave similarly, that you would be able to control them as little as you can control your thinking. Imagine a person walking down the street, his arms moving in the same uncontrolled way as his thinking organ moves! You know how much goes through a person’s head when he walks down the street, and now imagine how he would continually gesture with his arms and hands in the same way that he does with the thoughts in his head!

And yet, we are facing the age when people have to learn to control their thoughts in the same way they control their arms and legs. We are entering that era. A particular inner discipline of our thinking is what has to occur now and from which people today are still exceedingly far away."

- Rudolf Steiner, The Mental Background of the Social Question (1919)

[findingblanks]

"How about you slow down to consider what is happening right now in this thread, before going back to what was happening in PoF when Steiner referred to "exceptional state"

You are one of a kind!

[AshvinP]

I've been collecting the kinds of responses people have if they are introduced to how Steiner sets up 'exceptional state/condition.'

You just said:

"How about you slow down to consider what is happening right now in this thread, before going back to what was happening in PoF when Steiner referred to "exceptional state".

Yours is one of the best, by far.

But I'll stand happy in knowing that Cleric and others (maybe yourself) asked me to talk about my understanding of 'exceptional state' and there is nothing too odd about looking closely at Steiner's text and then sharing how I understand it.

That said, I love the moves you make when you....are happy.

Thanks, now read the rest of my comment and see if you can stop confusing yourself about Steiner... what he is saying there is very simple and straightforward, like he always is. And my understanding of the "exceptional state" is same as Cleric... in fact I think I actually copied and pasted what he wrote in my original response. Or at least read it directly from the comment where he asked you about "unveiling the mystery" of what you think it means. Go back and check it out...

And let me know if you ever plan on answering any of my questions posed to you. Thanks!

Here, I found it for you:

Just to be clear; you are not suggesting that the 'exceptional state' that Steiner defines early in PoF is the intuitive experience of thinking as activity, right?

I think it's time to lift the veil on this mystery too Already several times you mention about the exceptional state in a way suggesting that most people get it wrong. I'm interested in your way of viewing it.

I remind how Steiner outlines this state:

Whereas the observing of objects and occurrences, and the thinking about them, are the entirely commonplace state of affairs with which my going life is filled, the observation of thinking is a kind of exceptional state.