Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[findingblanks]

"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."

You and I have very different experiences of cognition. I say we leave it at that.

There is no way I can use words to convince you that you can indeed experience present thinking. Your description above is clear as can be. You say that you have never observed present thinking.

At some point, you may realize differently. In the meantime, at least you will even have solid objections from orthodox Anthroposophists and I imagine that could lead to useful experience as well.

[findingblanks]

"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."

Yes, and then he gives examples of the exceptional state, like, "I am thinking about a table."

I can't have your experiences for you. You clearly have a practice. And you clearly believe that you can't experience present thinking. Let's just keep doing our work and see how it changes.

[AshvinP]

"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."

You and I have very different experiences of cognition. I say we leave it at that.

There is no way I can use words to convince you that you can indeed experience present thinking. Your description above is clear as can be. You say that you have never observed present thinking.

At some point, you may realize differently. In the meantime, at least you will even have solid objections from orthodox Anthroposophists and I imagine that could lead to useful experience as well.

Here, I will give you another recent comment from Cleric about "present thinking". You seem to give his explanations more weight than mine, even if we are saying the exact same thing, and I can't fault you for that because he is much more familiar with these things.

The simple fact is that the closer we approach to the Core of thinking, the more it becomes necessary to experience it and not only to think about that core abstractly. From this we can already see that there's simply no perfect formulation of these ideas. You can be pretty sure that even if you take on to rewrite PoF in the language that you find more precise, there still won't be a shortage of people who will misunderstand it. Why? Because what you're describing can never be put into words as simply as "I'm here, thinking and perceiving are there in front of me, it's all about finding the the most precise words". This is not how it works. The more thinking approaches itself, the more it begins to twist, chasing its own tail. It is at this point that it's crucial to understand the role of the exceptional state and the fact that all our perceptible thoughts are already in the past compared to our current thinking. Yet this can no longer be described in the comfortable way where the things pictured sit calmly before us, as if independently from our activity. In certain sense, when we speak about thinking, we speak parables, even though parables with very precise forms. We only understand the thoughts contained in PoF when we are able to produce them out of ourselves.

[findingblanks]

Many anthroposophists claim they prefer blunt language.

Well, it is a mistake to think that at the end of Chapter Two of The Philosophy of Freedom Steiner believes that he has pointed to the realization of spiritual reality.

He makes it absolutely clear that at this point in the text we may still discover that thinking can make no other discoveries.

It is an error to conflate the intuitive thinking characterized later with the condition in which we turn towards the cognitive results of our thinking.

I fully understand that many people believe being conscious of those results is the same thing as 'intuitive thinking'.

[AshvinP]

"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."

Yes, and then he gives examples of the exceptional state, like, "I am thinking about a table."

I can't have your experiences for you. You clearly have a practice. And you clearly believe that you can't experience present thinking. Let's just keep doing our work and see how it changes.

Someone who says "I am thinking about a table" is observing their "thinking [about a table]". A person who is not observing their own thinking about the table says, "there is a table". I am not sure how it can be stated any more simply than that... (and no one is claiming that is "intuitive thinking").

I'm sure Cleric will be posting another attempt soon so I'll back off this topic. In the meantime, or parallel to that, it would be great if you could attempt an answer at my question to you:

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?

[findingblanks]

Yes, and so Cleric says:

"The simple fact is that the closer we approach to the Core of thinking, the more it becomes necessary to experience it and not only to think about that core abstractly."

Yes, we are in an exceptional state when we abstract away from our present experiencing and notice, "Oh, I'm thinking of a table."

That is not the same thing as thinking the function that can be labeled "a table." I have no doubt whatsoever that Cleric understands me here and has verified this difference in his own experience.

"The more thinking approaches itself, the more it begins to twist, chasing its own tail."

If he means that the more thinking approaches itself while trying to characterize itself through language, I agree. But if he is speaking about the event of thinking awakening to it's own nature, I don't believe that 'twisting' captures the clarity of the intuition. Certainly trying to characterize it in words is an ever-twisting affair.

"It is at this point that it's crucial to understand the role of the exceptional state and the fact that all our perceptible thoughts are already in the past compared to our current thinking."

If Cleric really literally means what comes with 'compared' than he means that there has been both the experience of the finished thought AND the experience of the current thinking. You can't compare things unless you at least think you have them both in hand in some fashion.

So, if Cleric is claiming that at this point in the text Steiner has established that we can indeed experience our current thinking, I think Cleric is clearly wrong. However, Cleric may not be suggesting that in what he says above. He may be suggesting that we can compare the fact that we have finished thoughts with the inference that we must therefore have a current thinking that produced them. That is a powerful first step on the path. Because then you sidestep many of the subtle errors that bring in metaphysics like materialism. You directly notice thoughts. And you realize that these result from thinking. Steiner says later that at this point we are not assuming the reality of an "I" or the reality of a cosmos. So he clearly isn't pointing to a profound experience of final participation in which we intuit essential reality. He says this clearly.

And what Cleric says in that quotation can be read to point to the important distinction between directly encountering our own thoughts and inferring a current thinking. In chapter two, Steiner is only trying to show us where we must place our feet squarely if we want to take the first steps into intuitive thinking. He keeps trying to explain that he isn't yet pointing to the later core discoveries about the nature of spirit.

[findingblanks]

Ashvin says,

"Someone who says "I am thinking about a table" is observing their "thinking [about a table]".

1) Yesterday, an eight year old boy was in the backseat of my car. staring at my headrest in front of him. I could tell he was very concentrated. I said, "What are you doing?" He said, "I just realized I that I've always thought this was a latch and it's not!" Was he observing his thinking about the latch?

2) My six your old girl suddenly started laughing one day when we walked into the house. I looked at her curiously and she said, "I thought THAT was a doggy!" and she pointed at a paper bag on the floor. Was she observing her thinking about the paper bag?

3) Your coworker is staring blankly into the air. When you walk by she says, "I can't stop thinking about our new desks." Is this the exceptional state where she is, as you say, observing her thinking about the desk?

Your first comment about the exceptional state was how rare it is, so rare that many people never experience it. I assume that you will disqualify "I'm thinking about a desk," as not being the same as, "I'm thinking about a table".

The good news is that Steiner clearly differentiates "I'm thinking about a table" from the intuitive thinking that comes later in the book.

[findingblanks]

Yeah, if I walk into a room and point and say, "There's a table," that is not at all the same thing as realizing that I am thinking about a table.

Those are two very different things and Steiner wants the reader to notice this without conflating the latter state with intuitive thinking.

[findingblanks]

Realizing a finished thought like, "I'm thinking about my dad's hands" is not the same thing as thinking about your dad's hands. The former is one level of abstraction removed. It is what allows us to take the next step.

But realizing that you are thinking about your dad's hands is not the same thing as intuitively grasping the nature of thinking itself.

[AshvinP]

"It is at this point that it's crucial to understand the role of the exceptional state and the fact that all our perceptible thoughts are already in the past compared to our current thinking."

If Cleric really literally means what comes with 'compared' than he means that there has been both the experience of the finished thought AND the experience of the current thinking. You can't compare things unless you at least think you have them both in hand in some fashion.

You said:

"I can never observe my present thinking; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my thinking process as the object of fresh thinking." (Steiner)

Now, of course, we three all agree that he is wrong here. We certainly can observe present thinking.

I am saying, no... only you think Steiner is wrong and we think he is correct. He is saying the same thing in that quote as Cleric when said, "all our perceptible thoughts are already in the past compared to our current thinking." When we perceive-think our own thinking-thoughts, there is always another thinking process which has been 'pushed back' and is not being observed. This fact can be verified pretty easily if we start doing it. To be clear, I am not making any claims about what is possible in much higher modes of cognition and in higher spiritual worlds, only explaining what Steiner is speaking of in that specific quote.