Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[AshvinP]

"it sounds like you are saying that when we go from the matters which can be explored by the average abstract intelligence to matters involving direct perception of spiritual beings, you think Steiner was mostly involved in some sort of flawed visionary experience that he mistook for "objective reality"."

Nope. Maybe I'll have time to say it again in words that might land better for you.

"am also curious as to whether you have attained clairvoyant perception and that is why you can engage in the sort of "course-correction" you are speaking of above?c

I'm not upset if you didn't read what I said in a few other posts about Steiner himself making clear that correcting him does not rely on clairvoyance? I don't think you would have asked me if you'd read that.

I think Steiner was very wise to make this clear. Maybe you are too new to Anthropsophy to see what happens when various researches try to make arguements based in their clairvoyance. All that happens is people form new camps around whom they think has the "better" clairvoyance.

Steiner's point is that all of us should be capable of noting errors and reasoning about them via healthy everyday understanding. I can't repeat myself again but I just think we do well to stay within a phenomenolgy we all share.

Can I read the essay where you quote Steiner on Bulls? When I have a keyboard I'll say more about that example.

I read them and would have still asked. Because in this example you were speaking of Steiner's characterization of the bull's inner process and that is not something anyone can just access to test Steiner's conclusions.

I agree that we can test Steiner's observations with only reasoned and imaginative thinking, but obviously that does not apply to all domains of spiritual reality. In general, just take my questions as genuine requests for clarifications - I am not trying to ask about or insinuate anything other than what is stated in the question. In particular I am curious about further exploring this section of your post along with the bull example:

Are you familiar with the notion of neoteny in biology? Well, Steiner used it to point to the way in which the human being was evolving from the beginning of evolution and animals are 'overly specified' versions of humans, they needed to be shucked off so that the human could continue evolving flexible. A defining characteristic of the human is that we evolved increasingly generalized to a great extent. We gave up great specificity and capacity in most of the bodily ways, so that we could become precise generalists cognitively. This is overly simplified but I want to give you this as a metaphor for one of my main concerns.

One of my main concerns (which I think can be empirically fleshed out) is that Steiner himself was 'overly specified'. Oh, I'm not criticizing him at all. I'm not suggesting he should have been different. The opposite. We should be grateful for everything he did to understand himself and his capacities and to envision what he was supposed to offer the world. It was incredible. But I think that he naturally mistook some of the contours of his experience that were unique to him and his 'overly developed" nature and saw them as purely objective and, therefore, what we should expect to develop in the future if people integrate the Anthroposophical impulse.

I get how that relates specifically to the faculty of clairvoyance and how quickly it may develop in others (which seems a somewhat trivial thing to get wrong - the timing I mean - if clairvoyance is indeed a real faculty). But I am asking if you also broaden that out to cover the specific claims of his spiritual science in terms of what is occurring in spiritual realms that are responsible for our observations here? Thanks!

The essay where the bull example was used is quoted below with relevant excerpts for context:

Thinking, Memory and Time (Part III)

"With finer resolution, we can see how the shapes, lines, and forms of many natural perceptions appear as a result of the living interpenetration of color. That is why the colors we perceive have a very powerful effect on us - they reflect very specific soul-content to our organ of Thinking. In remembering this reality, we allow art to take its true place as a pedagogical tool; a tool for expanding spiritual cognition. As we see through dawn and sunset, the colored soul-content of the world is appreciated most in the experience of transitioning from one set to another. When we perceive the light through the blackness of space, as we do at those times the Sun is appearing from or disappearing into the horizon, we sense redness. Our imaginative Thinking is now stimulated to begin perceiving the ideal relations of color forces.

And when we sense the blueness of the sky, we are perceiving the deep blackness of space through the illumination of Earth's atmosphere by the light. This topic of color and essence could be explored indefinitely, but for our purposes here we will simply ask of the Spirit, "what are we truly perceiving in these colors manifested by the interpenetration of Light and Darkness as we behold it?". We are perceiving the World's soul-content. In any other age of humanity's existence, we would not require Heidegger or Steiner to philosophize the path for us to begin recovering that meaning. Yet that is where we have now arrived and there is no use in complaining. Rather, we should be thankful by thinking that the Spirit has, in fact, worked through these exceptional minds for the benefit of our remembrance.

Now we must consider further the whole matter in relation to our eye and to the whole of human life altogether. You see, you all know that there is a being which is especially excited through red — that is, where light works through darkness — and that is the bull. The bull is well known to be frightfully enraged by red. That you know.

And so man too has a little of the bull-nature. He is not of course directly excited through red, but if man lived continually in a red light, you would at once perceive that he gets a little stimulation from it. He gets a little bull-like. I have even known poets who could not write poetry if they were in their ordinary frame of mind, so then they always went to a room where they put a red lampshade over the light. They were then stimulated and were able to write poetry. The bull becomes savage: man by exposing himself to the red becomes poetic! The stimulation to poetry is only a matter of whether it comes from inside or from outside. This is one side of the case.

On the other hand you will also be aware that when people who understand such things want to be thoroughly meek and humble, they use blue, or black — deep black. That is so beautiful to see in Catholicism: when Advent comes and people are supposed to become humble, the Church is made blue; above all the vestments are blue. People get quietened, humble; they feel themselves inwardly connected with the subdued mood — especially if a man has previously exhausted his fury, like a bull, as for instance at Shrove Tuesday's carnival. Then one has the proper time of fasting afterwards, not only dark raiment, black raiment. Then men become tamed down after their violence is over. Only, where one has two carnivals, two carnival Sundays, one should let the time of fasting be twice as long! I do not know if that is done.

But you see from this that it has quite a different effect on man whether he sees light through dark that is red, or darkness through light, that is blue.
- Rudolf Steiner, The Nature of Color (Lecture)

Goethe's color theory, in opposition to Newton's, in this manner arrived at the following foundational principle - light through darkness is red; darkness through light is blue. The person who deals only in mere intellectual abstractions has little use for Goethe's principle and will naturally align with Newton. The painter, in stark contrast, must recognize Goethe's principle at some level to mix the living essence of colors in the manner which brings forth the intended color-effects. So for the painter it is the exact opposite than it is for the mere intellectual academic - Newton's color theory is of zero use and Goethe's of infinite value. Such things are only understood by the imaginative Thinking which does not reduce itself to mere intellect."

[Cleric K]

Blanks, now you are catching at the words (like the avalanche), just like you do with the 'attaching'.

My whole goal was to bring attention to something which is clearly what Steiner points us at. As Ashvin already noted, although you accept that Steiner is building his way towards intuitive thinking in chapter 3, it seems you try to keep things strictly separate. You make it seem that in this chapter he speaks of nothing else than the possibility to step outside the ordinary flow and notice our thoughts, and this serves only to 'clear the way' and nothing essential has been said about the nature of spiritual activity/intuitive thinking.

I can only ask that you show me the most specific part of the text that you think either demonstrates I am wrong to think Steiner is wanting to reader to note the difference between the dominant flow of experience compared to noticing a thought...or at least to show me what Steiner says in this section that implies the reader will need to engage in a schooling of consciousness to verify that there is an exception to the dominate flow of experience that is your 'avalanche' experience.

You are not wrong to think that Steiner wants us to note the difference between the two modes. He obviously does exactly that. But so far it seems to me, you don't address the fact that he does that for a reason. He doesn't simply say "Hey, you can notice your thoughts" and skip to chapter 4 but he leads us to recognize something of tremendous importance, which we can do only if we notice our thoughts. This is necessary but not sufficient condition because the fact that we notice our thoughts doesn't in itself mean that we recognize this important thing. This has been quoted several times already:

For everyone, however, who has the ability to observe thinking — and with good will every normally developed human being has it — this observation is the most important one he can possibly make. For he observes something that he himself brings forth; he does not see himself confronting an object at first foreign to him, but rather sees himself confronting his own activity. He knows how what he is observing comes about. He sees into its relationship and interconnections. A firm point has been won from which one can seek, with well-founded hope, the explanation of the rest of world phenomena.

The above paragraph is practically the climax of chapter three. I don't know what stronger words than "this observation is the most important one he can possibly make" Steiner had to use in order to heighten our alertness that he's speaking of something of tremendous importance. A firm point, the foothold from which the rest of the world phenomena can be explained.

You say:

So I understand why you would say "we're perceiving what we thus create". That is our naive assumption at this point and it MUST be. But Steiner does go out of his way to say that he is not yet assuming there is an "I" and he certainly isn't yet assuming we have grasped the fundamental nature of spirit via intuitive thinking.

What you call 'naive assumption' is precisely the most important observation that we can possibly make. We assume nothing. We simply put into words what immediate experience presents us with, on the condition that we have the good will to make that observation. He is not asking us to assume naively something on good will. He's practically saying "There's no need to believe me or assume things on blind faith. All I ask for is for a tiny amount of good will to open your eyes and observe." So we don't need to "engage in a schooling of consciousness" but only to exercise a tiny amount of good will.

It's clear that we can never say anything about our thinking unless we make it the object of our contemplation. So we need this exceptional state, where thinking becomes its own object. But I beg you to notice that chapter 3 is not only about this. We need to observe thinking not simply to have experience of yet another type of perception (alongside with colors, sounds, feelings, etc.). We need to observe our thinking in order to recognize its unique place within the World Content, as the only observable thing that man himself brings forth. I'm sorry that I'm repeating this so many times but I want to really make it as explicit as possible because it seems it goes by unnoticed. The most important observation is not that we can contemplate our thinking but that in the contemplation of thinking we behold something that is brought forth by our activity. We can only observe this in the most living way not simply if we casually notice that we're thinking but when we observe how the thought-perceptions that we behold are growing out, precipitating from our activity, which we known in a completely direct way. We step outside the ordinary flow not in order to dissociate from thinking but to be able to experience how it is brought forth. We can't experience the bringing forth if we only step outside and behold thought-memories as dissociated from us. We can only experience this if we actively think and try to observe how thought-perceptions grow from our activity, just like hair and nails grow from our body. We need a tiny amount of good will in order to experience our thinking in such an intimate manner. If we don't make this observation, the 'bringing forth' will remain for us only a naive assumption.

Yes, this has been clear to me from the beginning. You equate the exceptional state with the fundamental experience of thinking/spirit.

I did my best in the previous post to show that this is not the case but it somehow remained clear to you that it is
I really wonder if what I wrote above will make it 'less clear'. I repeat once again. We can observe our thinking (exceptional state) and still not make the most important observation we can possibly make. It is precisely in this important observation that we have the foothold, the fundamental experience of thinking/spirit.
Now you'll object that Steiner has not yet said anything essential about thinking. I agree that he hasn't yet elaborated on thinking, self, etc. He hasn't even introduced the word 'intuition' at that point. But it's completely clear that he has brought us to the experience of the essence of thinking within the most important observation. "A firm point, the foothold from which the rest of the world phenomena can be explained." - if this is not the seed point from which intuitive thinking grows and goes on to explain the rest of the world phenomena, then you'll have to show what is the real initial point of intuitive thinking.

To skip some back and forths I'll just quote it again:

When we observe our thinking, we live during this observation directly within a self-supporting, spiritual web of being. Indeed, we can even say that if we would grasp the essential nature of spirit in the form in which it presents itself most immediately to man, we need only look at the self-sustaining activity of thinking.

In chapter 9, he already speaks in much greater details about the spiritual activity and its role. But if we compare the above quote and the most important observation that we can possibly make, in chapter 3, we see that we're dealing with the same thing. What was earlier simply presented as observation, is here elaborated further. And how could it be otherwise? Why would he take the trouble to lead us to the firm point, the most important observation, from which we can continue to know the rest of the world, if the 'real' intuitive thinking has its point of departure from some completely different 'firm' point (which he doesn't even describe)? By self-sustaining it's meant precisely the fact that we don't need to go anywhere outside this experience to intuit its explanation. It is the same observation that we make in chapter 3: "he does not see himself confronting an object at first foreign to him, but rather sees himself confronting his own activity. He knows how what he is observing comes about [because he brings it forth]. He sees into its relationship and interconnections."

I'm saying all the above exactly to support your claim that Steiner builds the gradual path from the exceptional state to intuitive thinking/spiritual activity. I just wanted to note that in the way you present it there was a disconnect in this path - it seems to me you say that the exceptional state simply clears the ground, while the essence is taken care later. I only try to point out that the link is present already in chapter three, although named 'the most important observation' (similarly intuition is called 'completely direct way of knowing'). The firm point is the same experience of the essential nature of the spirit, as it becomes clear in chapter 9.

[findingblanks]

"Seems you try to keep things strictly separate."

And you don't see all the ways that Steiner keeps the transformation of thinking separate from noticing thoughts. I have shown you that I understand your claim that in Chapter 3 Steiner is introducing the necessity of the transformation of thinking. We will just have to disagree about this difference. I do see your point of view clearly. I just don't think it connects to anything Steiner said nor to my experience of the differences he points to.

"But so far it seems to me, you don't address the fact that he does that for a reason."

Nope. I've said and shown why we must recognize thought that is free from presuppositions as to it's nature. It is essential. This is why it is a major error to merge the exception with the experience of understanding the intuitive nature of thinking. Steiner says that the exception is not yet a grasping of reality. And he explains why. He goes into more detail as to why in Truth and Knowledge.

"This observation is the most important one he can possibly make. For he observes something that he himself brings forth..."

Yes, because it is an overstatement on Steiner's part when he claims that he is making no presuppositions at his starting point. I have hinted towards this but was hoping you or somebody else would bring it up explicitly. I understand that if I bring it up it is automatically more argumentative. There are assumptions being made both at the start and when we confront our thought. One assumption is that this is our own activity. That presupposes there is indeed an "I" and that these conceptual interconnections 'real' to some extent. Of course, Steiner says he has not made any such assumptions. What experience shows me is that we can confront our thought and the presumption that it is our own activity before the transformation of consciousness. But you are pointing exactly to the spots that people use to justify that Steiner expects the reader in Chapter three to grasp the transformation. As Steiner said repeatedly over the years, he wrote PoF in such a way that it unfolded each step for the reader rather than asking the reader to accept any claim based on authority or higher experience in any way.

"What you call 'naive assumption' is precisely the most important observation that we can possibly make."

No, I didn't mean 'naive' in the pejorative sense. I meant it in the way that Steiner means when he says in PoF and Truth and Knowledge that he will often speak as if he is assuming knowledge that simply isn't justified at this point in the text. You dismiss that and claim that the exceptional state is more than "I am thinking about a table." You describe an 'avalanche experience' that indicates one is in the 'exceptional state.'

"So we don't need to "engage in a schooling of consciousness" but only to exercise a tiny amount of good will."

I find the constant refrain about 'good will' to be offensive but I don't take it personally. Steiner very very often would say things like, "If somebody objects to this point, it is only due to a lack of good will on their part," so I fully understand why this is a common refrain. And it is yet another barrier to conversation because you obviously are slapping that one on me I clearly don't agree with each of Steiner's claims that only ill-will can explain why somebody has a different understanding than him. But I think his beautiful autobiography helps us see how this habit developed.

"We need to observe our thinking in order to recognize its unique place within the World Content, as the only observable thing that man himself brings forth."

Again, you take the provisional assumptions as spiritually grasped facts. I don't. Those are only known once we have have radically transformed our thinking as Steiner indicates in later chapters. You clearly think that these are discoveries made by standing outside the usual flow of experience.

"He hasn't even introduced the word 'intuition' at that point. But it's completely clear that he has brought us to the experience of the essence of thinking within the most important observation. "A firm point, the foothold from which the rest of the world phenomena can be explained."

But at this point the foothold is 'firm' exactly because nothing has been explained. Nothing. As Steiner says, at this point he is not even assuming that there is an "I". Yet he has established a foothold. The foothold is firm because we have noticed the exact spot from which we will be able to make the transformation. That transformation brings with it the essential explanation from which we can continue with certainty in our knowledge processes. You believe the transformation has happened in noting the importance of the foothold. I believe the importance of the foothold rests on it's exceptional nature.

"But if we compare the above quote and the most important observation that we can possibly make, in chapter 3, we see that we're dealing with the same thing."

So before somebody undergoes the transformation of thinking that PoF points to, they will say they are free. Even most modern scientists feel they are free and argue for some form of compatibism. Even those who argue there is no free-will, will quickly point out that they feel they are free. That is what their direct experience seems to imply. So the vast majority of the people Steiner was writing for believed they had free will. They would say and describe what it was like to make a choice. However, Steiner would say that it isn't until the transformation of thinking via intuitively grasping it's activity that we know we are free. You can point to a person's strong claims that they are free and their descriptions of that freedom. It might sound a lot like the description of grasping intuition itself. But to simply point to the similarities and say that means that they are the same isn't valid.

Yes, when we pay attention to our thoughts they seem to be the one object of our attention that we bring about through our own activity. This seems very obvious. That does not mean we have proven this to be the case. That is why Steiner himself says that even once we've noted this quality of our thought life, we do not yet know it. We haven't yet made the transformation. We now have a foothold.

" I only try to point out that the link is present already in chapter three, although named 'the most important observation' (similarly intuition is called 'completely direct way of knowing'). The firm point is the same experience of the essential nature of the spirit, as it becomes clear in chapter 9."

Yes, I shared your view. I realize that it is THE view. Well, there are exceptions like Khulewind and some others. And while I can easily step back into my mindset when it seemed clear to me, I find it very difficult to demonstrate what is happening to make that seem so clear.

But at least we can rest assured that I absolutely get how and why you are making your points. You are not being unclear in how you are linking your ideas together.

[findingblanks]

Ashvin, thanks for the quote and links.

“You all know that there is a creature that gets especially excited by red...This is the bull. It is known that the bull gets terrible excited if it sees red. So that is one thing you know {Steiner goes on to say that Humans don’t get nearly as wild upon seeing red} Well now; a bull goes wild....You see, when the eye looks at something red, red light passes through these very tiny blood vessels in the eye. And this red light has the particular property that it always destroys the blood a little bit. It destroys the nerve as well...The bull simply feels, as it sees the color red: “Heavens! All the blood in my head is being destroyed. I have to do something to defend myself against this! So it goes wild. For it does not want to have it’s blood destroyed.”

When Steiner says,

"You all know that there is a creature that gets especially excited by red..."

He is not challenging the very common assumption that it is the red on the flag that CAUSES the bull to become enraged. He is saying that this is an obvious fact of nature.

"It is known that the bull gets terrible excited if it sees red."

Again, this is a very common assumption. Steiner is not challenging it. He is not saying "It is known by spiritual scientists". He is saying that we all know this obvious fact about bulls.

I'm not sure if you've seen or read about what happens when they test bulls with other colors? I've talked to several farmers who raise bull and cattle. Those are the only people who will laugh when you say that red causes a bull to go wild. The general public, like Steiner, simply assumes that the rage in the bull is caused by the red on the flag. Steiner starts with an assumption and then investigates the phenomena to explain the spiritual-science behind it. Just one small example.

[SanteriSatama]

Goethe's color theory, in opposition to Newton's, in this manner arrived at the following foundational principle - light through darkness is red; darkness through light is blue. The person who deals only in mere intellectual abstractions has little use for Goethe's principle and will naturally align with Newton. The painter, in stark contrast, must recognize Goethe's principle at some level to mix the living essence of colors in the manner which brings forth the intended color-effects. So for the painter it is the exact opposite than it is for the mere intellectual academic - Newton's color theory is of zero use and Goethe's of infinite value. Such things are only understood by the imaginative Thinking which does not reduce itself to mere intellect."

Thanks. Now I get it, Goethe's color theory is the chakra rainbow.

And what is the treasure, where rainbow lands? Brown.

[findingblanks]

An example:

"We all know that if you sing to a slug while pouring salt on it, the slug will quickly die. Spiritual science can explain why the singing causes the slug to die. You see, when the slug hears the sound, the sound causes a deep sense of..."

We can observe if it is really the singing that causes the slug to die. One way would be to sing to many slugs and see if any die quickly. We could also pour salt on a slug without singing, If they die quickly, we can begin to suspect that the salt is actually the cause for some reason.

You can stand in front of bulls with red flags. You can notice that the bulls to not 'go wild' as Steiner says. You can then shake the red flags and notice that the bull immediately gets upset. So it isn't the color but the movement that has a causal function. You can then do the same thing with blue and white and green flags. When they don't move, the bull is calm. When you shake them, the bull goes wild.

This is why people who raise bulls would not have agreed with Steiner's assumption about what 'we all know...'

But Steiner was capable of having assumptions that affected his perceptions and reasoning. He was human. And he said so.

[Cleric K]

Yes, because it is an overstatement on Steiner's part when he claims that he is making no presuppositions at his starting point. I have hinted towards this but was hoping you or somebody else would bring it up explicitly. I understand that if I bring it up it is automatically more argumentative. There are assumptions being made both at the start and when we confront our thought. One assumption is that this is our own activity. That presupposes there is indeed an "I" and that these conceptual interconnections 'real' to some extent. Of course, Steiner says he has not made any such assumptions. What experience shows me is that we can confront our thought and the presumption that it is our own activity before the transformation of consciousness. But you are pointing exactly to the spots that people use to justify that Steiner expects the reader in Chapter three to grasp the transformation. As Steiner said repeatedly over the years, he wrote PoF in such a way that it unfolded each step for the reader rather than asking the reader to accept any claim based on authority or higher experience in any way.

OK. Thanks, at least I'm finally getting better grasp of your position. There's no need to continue in the above way because nothing will ever be achieved. It would be more fruitful if we focus on the 'bringing forth'. Let's disregard PoF for a while and not argue about at what point Steiner wanted us to experience what. Let's focus on our own experiences for a moment.

Let's imagine that even without knowing about the existence of PoF, I were to tell you: "Today I made one of the simplest and most obvious discoveries, yet I find it profoundly significant. It's the simple fact that when I observe my thinking I behold something that mirrors my activity. Other things I don't know why I perceive but my thoughts I know why I perceive, with absolute certainty - because I bring them forth."
Now based on your own experiences (not build upon PoF) you answer: "That's just an assumption of yours. You don't really know that you create your thoughts. It's just a conjecture."

So now my question is, what more do I need in order to turn this assumption into certainty? Please be as phenomenologically exact as possible. What kind of experience you would advise me to go through which will transform my direct intuition (as I see it), which you claim is nothing but an assumption, into certain reality? How do you arrive at the certainty that when you experience your thinking you're beholding something which is the image of that most intimate spiritual activity which you experience as the free creative contribution to the World Content?

[Ben Iscatus]

This is why people who raise bulls would not have agreed with Steiner's assumption about what 'we all know...'

Quite true! And one might even assume that pouring salt on a slug derives from a base desire to kill them, a disgust for them. But it actually may be informed by a much deeper desire to liberate them from their dissociated appearance as slimy lumps of flesh.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, thanks for the quote and links.

“You all know that there is a creature that gets especially excited by red...This is the bull. It is known that the bull gets terrible excited if it sees red. So that is one thing you know {Steiner goes on to say that Humans don’t get nearly as wild upon seeing red} Well now; a bull goes wild....You see, when the eye looks at something red, red light passes through these very tiny blood vessels in the eye. And this red light has the particular property that it always destroys the blood a little bit. It destroys the nerve as well...The bull simply feels, as it sees the color red: “Heavens! All the blood in my head is being destroyed. I have to do something to defend myself against this! So it goes wild. For it does not want to have it’s blood destroyed.”

When Steiner says,

"You all know that there is a creature that gets especially excited by red..."

He is not challenging the very common assumption that it is the red on the flag that CAUSES the bull to become enraged. He is saying that this is an obvious fact of nature.

"It is known that the bull gets terrible excited if it sees red."

Again, this is a very common assumption. Steiner is not challenging it. He is not saying "It is known by spiritual scientists". He is saying that we all know this obvious fact about bulls.

I'm not sure if you've seen or read about what happens when they test bulls with other colors? I've talked to several farmers who raise bull and cattle. Those are the only people who will laugh when you say that red causes a bull to go wild. The general public, like Steiner, simply assumes that the rage in the bull is caused by the red on the flag. Steiner starts with an assumption and then investigates the phenomena to explain the spiritual-science behind it. Just one small example.

So I suspect you will be telling me soon that my response below is the typical response you get from followers of Steiner and it's because we cannot accept he ever made mistakes, even though he tells us to expect that... I hope that's not the case, though, because I am relaying the actual way I have been thinking these matters through recently.

One of the fundamental points of looking at the value of Goethe's color theory as opposed to Newton's is because the former anticipates a sort of science that is immersed in the spiritual qualities of experience via imaginative and intuitive faculty. In all sincerity, I think your criticism above is very similar to the one a Newtonian (or any materialist) would probably make to someone advancing Goethe's color theory - experiments have been done and we have objectively observed how light refracts into various colors, etc. and all of that simply contradicts Goethe's simplistic phenomenological approach to colors. My response would be, which one proves more useful to the painter mixing colors on a canvas and which one actually brings forth a sense of satisfactory meaning when you contemplate it?

Keeping that in mind, let's remember Steiner gives the illustration of red exciting the bull so as to show how colors have precise interactions with human souls and bring about various 'moods', as he discusses re: poets sitting in a room with red light to stimulate their poetizing. The entire context of those lectures on color are how they relate to human souls, as of course that is what Anthroposophy is naturally most concerned with. I have not yet looked up anything related to whether bulls actually react to redness or not. I would be interested in hearing the various experiments that have been done. But I must also stick with my intuition here and say this seems like a prime example of 'exoteric' science assuming it can "disprove" something that is clearly dealing with inner qualities of experience.

I am kind of going out on a limb with the above, because it is not something I looked up on some website defending Steiner or asked anyone about before, it's just what naturally came to my mind when considering how to respond. So I could be completely wrong and I suspect Cleric could weigh in if there's a better explanation for what's going on in this bull-redness example, but that's how I view the matter right now. You are saying exoteric science has shown that movement of the flags is the causal mechanism behind the bulls getting "wild", and people who raise bulls would know that and laugh at Steiner's claim that the color red anything to do with it. Perhaps that is true, but I can think of any number of claims an idealist may make, like space-time is not an actual 'entity' which we are all moving through, that would make the average person or even scientist laugh.

[Cleric K]

Let's be clear that no one here is doing Steiner-overlord cult. There are mistakes that Stiner did. He was human.

The first thing to realize is that higher cognition is nothing like the fantasized mystical enlightenment. These concepts have become so twisted in popular culture that we'll suffer from these prejudices for a long time. The common prejudice is that once someone becomes 'enlightened' suddenly all secrets of the Universe lie open before him. This idea is one of the greatest hinderances for true higher development. It makes one think that it's all about some special spiritual 'hack', to tap into the Universal database. Nothing can be further from the truth. If an illiterate man enters the Library of Alexandria, what would he behold? Paper and ink in wonderful shapes. That's all. It's the greatest prejudice that this man could sit all day with eyes closed and legs crossed in the middle of the library and one day, the system will be hacked, and suddenly he'll understand every book. This is nothing but spiritual naivety, which unfortunately has very serious paralyzing effect on proper spiritual development. To understand the books in the library, not only we must first learn to read, but then we have to wrestle our way through the books and develop the concepts communicated there. This is the last thing that modern 'spiritualists' want to hear - that there's a long and difficult path, where we have to literally struggle for the forging of every concept and idea.

The other thing is that the physical phenomena is not that easy to trace directly from spiritual perception. This has to do with the fact that we penetrate the spiritual world from within outwards. We first begin to see our own soul structure - how ideas, desires, opinions, etc. shape our individual life. Gradually we begin to see the higher order spiritual processes, such as those that weave in the collective being of a nation and its language. As we go in that direction (towards the universal), things become perceptible also in the opposite direction - towards the fragmentary. We are mislead by our sensory perceptions that we know the physical world. In fact we're very far from the actual reality of the physical world. We're midway between the universal and the fragmentary and these two poles actually form a unity. This explains why it's much more difficult to say anything about the structure of the cell, molecules, atoms and so on, than it is about the soul, the astral body, the soul organs. These latter are much more immediate to us. The former we know only through abstract intellect. We practically use our scientific imagination to add details to the sensory perceptions. I don't say this to suggest that there's nothing in the Spiritual world behind cells and atoms - indeed there is. But the experiential reality of them is much different and accessible only through the highest forms of consciousness. Clairvoyance doesn't learn about atom by some spiritual vision that resembles a hi-tech microscope. We only learn about physical reality when we experience the world from the perspective of the highest spiritual beings, which so to speak, have sacrificed their spiritual substance, such that it becomes the arena of a metamorphic process.

All this I mention in order to bring some context. Steiner's goal was to spread as much seeds as possible in the span of a short human life, such that things can be taken on and developed further. As I mentioned some time ago, if Steiner was to save only one book of his colossal work, he would choose PoF. This was the central mission of his incarnation. The whole body of Anthroposophy and the methods of modern Initiation are also extremely important of course but can be seen as 'what follows for the human being once firm orientation within reality is attained'. This firm orientation is the key for everything else. Mistakes are inevitable. They can be found in his scientific courses, for example. This only confirms what I said above - that the more we try to approach the physical world with spiritual cognition, the more all-embracing it must become. Yes, Steiner in certain cases underestimated how convoluted the elemental world really is. He used his higher intuitions and tried to connect them to the physical theories of matter and biology of the time. This led to some mistakes. There are simply way much more convolution layers between the astral, through the etheric to the physical. This becomes indirectly evident, for example, through the knowledge of the astonishing complexity of the molecular cellular machinery. None of this was known at Steiner's time, so in a way he naively projected some of the higher facts directly to the physical. So why he didn't simply see these convoluted layers? This has to do exactly with the prejudice mentioned in the beginning. We, as human beings on Earth, can only see cognitively when we find the right concepts for what we behold spiritually. Without the concepts we simply see an amalgamation of phenomena, as any psychedelic user can confirm. The difference is that the latter is satisfied with what he experiences and doesn't occur to him that what he beholds must be penetrated with meaning. Every form, movement, color is language, the gesticulation of spiritual beings and processes. These we can only comprehend when we develop the concepts that allow us to understand what we experience. To flow joyfully with the amalgamation has nothing to do with spiritual cognition. In this sense, the parts of the elemental world belonging to the cells, for example, was such an amalgamation for Steiner at his time. He tried to elucidate that spiritual content with more general concepts. If he was to spend much more time on these topics he might begin to find the finer delineation of the elemental world, by forging the concepts of the cell, but that would take ages. He had much more and more important work to do. Furthermore, it was bad enough that he had to introduce so many concepts in spiritual science, which already repelled many. Imagine what it would be if he had to create a whole new vocabulary of spiritual terms that would correspond to DNA, ribosomes, replication, transcription, etc., etc. This would sound as a completely alien language and would be tremendously more prone to errors. Conventional and spiritual science don't work against each other. Everything that has been discovered in the last century, as long as it's not completely abstract fabrication of the mind, is a set of valuable concepts which in one way or another correspond to World processes. Spiritual cognition can use these concepts to relate them with other facts which can be known only through spiritual perception. Things are truly interconnected.

All these difficulties in front of spiritual cognition must not in any way discourage us. Here we come to what Ashvin says above - at our stage the important thing is the soul process. Yes, Steiner was wrong about the bull. We today know that cattle are color blind to red. They react to the motion of the muleta, not to its color. But this doesn't really change the essence of what he's speaking of. The reason is that his entirely human spiritual experience of red was not based on the observations of the bull. He didn't observe the bull, noticed its supposed reaction to red and from there on started to build psychological model on how red affects humans. This is simply not how spiritual investigation proceeds and is perfectly clear even if we have the most rudimentary understanding for these matters. The color experiences are connected with very deep processes in the soul. The color spectrum is not only for the sensory light but there's spectrum also for spiritual processes. Even ordinary psychology can recognize some elements of this. The red, warm shades are much more related with the expressions of individual life. It's not coincidental that such colors are preferred by companies like MacDonald's. The blue and violet send us more towards the spiritual, the universal. Of course even here there are so many more things to be said if this is not to become one-sided dogma. So Steiner's goal was to speak of the human experience of red. He used the bull as an example, which turned out to be incorrect, but this doesn't change the essence of what he wanted to communicate about the human soul itself.

The whole point is that we can learn in the most positive way even from mistakes like these. And this shouldn't come as a surprise. All human development proceeds in this way.

To this it can be objected: "But in that case Steiner is completely unreliable as a spiritual master. Look at all the sages and wise men. They didn't make such mistakes. So this only shows that Steiner's powers were inferior." In addition to what was already said, the explanation for this is completely trivial. First, there are those masters who simply renounce any knowing and focus everything on the 'enlightenment', the spiritual hack. It's clear that one can't make 'mistakes' here because one doesn't really say anything. It's all about breaking away from all thinking. There are other masters who are more practical but focus precisely on the domain of human soul and spirit. As explained, these are much more readily surveyable by spiritual cognition and it's only logical that much less mistakes can happen here. This kind of knowledge is abundant in Steiner's work too and is true spiritual treasure for those who want to transform their soul and spiritual life. But Steiner's task was to also give the beginnings of an entirely new approach to the most varied fields of human activity. It was to penetrate with the Spirit into the very fabric of the physical world. That's how things like medicine, education, economics, agriculture, arts, architecture and so on - areas in all of which Steiner was prolific - can gradually become imbued with the Living Spirit. This neither the mystic, nor the spiritual guru giving life advices, do. And as explained, this is a deeply convoluted area where mistakes are inevitable. It should be noted also that this spiritual penetration into the physical has nothing to do with magic as it is traditionally known. We have completely different principles there. The magician works with the elemental spirits, that is, he affects physical affairs indirectly through them. But evolution goes in such a way that it's man's destiny not simply to relate and give commands to the elemental beings but to cognitively experience their perspectives. In the grand scheme of evolution, the human "I" will grow into such a being which will be able to do out of itself, what now elemental beings do for us. Today we find ourselves in a ready-made body endowed with life. We have absolutely no merit for this. Yet in the far future we'll be responsible more and more to give the proper form and life of our body, through the moral forces that we have acquired in the course of evolution. Some may wonder, why exactly the 'moral forces'? Why not simply acquire the skill to create a body in any way we want? This is a vast topic but just to hint at it - the body is harmonious colony of beings. They are not only local but relate us to the whole environment. If we are to take on the work for supporting this harmony we can only do that through moral forces that bring harmony and integrity. If we haven't transformed the forces of egoism, whatever we create will receive the imprint of tumorous growth.

I hope we can see how serious and responsible work we have in front of us. Yet this is the only kind of work that can overflow us with Love for the Whole.