Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by SanteriSatama »

Cleric K wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:24 pm No, I'm not describing the exceptional state. I'm describing 'the most important observation one can make' within that state. It is what Steiner asks us to observe, the 'bringing forth' of thoughts. I show you that quote, you say "Well, that's just an overstatement on Steiner's part". I also asked you if he also overstates things in the 1918 addendum, where he made it as explicit as possible?

I think we really reached the crux of the matter in the previous post. As I said, the question is no more in which chapter he shows how we arrive at the certainty of bringing forth thoughts. The thing is that you altogether deny that we ever arrive at that certainty through thinking that turns into itself. In your view this thinking can only 'think that it creates the thoughts' but not experience it as certain intuition (direct knowing). You demand an additional element, which we must find in an inexplicable way, which tells us from outside thinking, something about the nature of thinking. And this is something that Steiner explicitly overrules.

Let me ask an additional question, which I hope will clear up the way in which you expect this certainty to be arrived at. Consider the simpler version "Thinking exists", without any reference to the origin. I guess you can agree that this is a certain truth. The question is how do you arrive at that certainty? Is it that "thinking simply thinks (assumes) that it exists" or it is direct intuition that is expressed in "Thinking exists" - in other words, the essential being of thinking contemplates/testifies its own self-affirmation. Take a moment to experience this thought and its associated certainty, and tell me if it has anything in common with the certainty of "I bring forth the thoughts"? Or the latter is arrived at some completely different way (outside the essential being of thinking)?
Internal dialogue does not exist when it is (locally) on pause, e.g. in deep sleep or a meditation.

As for the undoubting certainty during "exceptional state" (if we are referring to something similar), originates (through empirical observation) from guts/will. Not "will" in the sense of "want/lack". If and when mental imagery is involved (I can't say that's an absolute necessity) in such "pure willing" (in search of a better term), the relation can be interplay.
findingblanks
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by findingblanks »

What is the difference for you between your certainty that "thinking exisits" and "I am aware"?
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by Cleric K »

findingblanks wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:49 pm What is the difference for you between your certainty that "thinking exisits" and "I am aware"?
The certainty has the same nature for both of them - the verbal thought-perceptions are testimonies/images of the intimately experienced intuitions.

In the first case the essential being of thinking testifies its self-evident existence. It's self-evident because any thought is already a testimony that thinking exists. The thought "thinking exisits" simply happens to capture explicitly this meta fact.

For the second, thinking testifies its self-observation of the fact that it is engaged in thinking-contemplation of the World Content.
findingblanks
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by findingblanks »

Do you have any experience in which 'thinking exists' would not apply?
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by SanteriSatama »

Cleric K wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:11 pm
findingblanks wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:49 pm What is the difference for you between your certainty that "thinking exisits" and "I am aware"?
The certainty has the same nature for both of them - the verbal thought-perceptions are testimonies/images of the intimately experienced intuitions.

In the first case the essential being of thinking testifies its self-evident existence. It's self-evident because any thought is already a testimony that thinking exists. The thought "thinking exisits" simply happens to capture explicitly this meta fact.

For the second, thinking testifies its self-observation of the fact that it is engaged in thinking-contemplation of the World Content.
That sounds like a category error of sorts, identification of thinking with awareness. Yes, it is self-evident that for thinking, thinking exists. But to say that we are thinking also during deep sleep stretches the semantic scope of "thinking" beyond recognition.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by Cleric K »

findingblanks wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:10 am Do you have any experience in which 'thinking exists' would not apply?
As long as we understand thinking as the ever-present essential being of Thinking - no. As Santeri noted, there are moments when there's no verbal thinking but from all that Ashvin and I have written in so many places, it should be perfectly clear by now that Thinking, in the sense of cognitive spiritual activity, is not limited to verbal/symbolic intellectual thinking. In the most general sense, even simply being aware of the World Content is already thinking contemplation.
Steiner wrote:The reason why we do not observe thinking in our everyday spiritual life is none other than that it depends upon our own activity. What I do not myself bring forth comes as something objective into my field of observation. I see myself before it as before something that has occurred without me; it comes to me; I have to receive it as the prerequisite for my thinking process. While I am reflecting on the object, I am occupied with it; my gaze is turned to it. This occupation is in fact thinking contemplation. My attention is directed not upon my activity, but rather upon the object of this activity. In other words: while I am thinking, I do not look at my thinking, which I myself bring forth, but rather at the object of my thinking, which I do not bring forth.
In that sense, Thinking is always present. There's always a Thinking intuition at the core of the essential being, which is the actual awareness of what is being experienced (awareness=intuitive knowing that something is being experienced). This Thinking contemplation is present even in deep sleep. When we wake up in the morning we can enter the exceptional state by trying to remember what we were engaged with during sleep (not speaking of dreaming). For contemporary man without any spiritual training, the most one can tell is that passage of time has been experienced. If this was not the case, then sleeping would resemble blinking of the eyes. As soon as we fall asleep, we would wake up without any experience that time has passed, no matter if we slept for six hours or six days (again, putting aside dreaming). When I'm thinking about the table, I'm engaged with all my being in this activity and 'forget' that I'm thinking. Nevertheless, I continuously experience the intuitive meaning of this thinking activity in the most intimate way. When I snap out of it into the exceptional state, I now experience new invisible intuition which tells me that an instant ago I was engaged in the thinking about the table. This new state can be further projected as the verbal thought "I am/was thinking about the table". Similarly, when we wake up in the morning we can enter the exceptional state and try to encompass what our intuitively experienced Thinking has been. As said, the most that normally developed man of today can say, is that he has been completely absorbed in the Thinking contemplation of the passage of time. This is the only thing we retain from deep sleep - the knowledge that we've spent time in deep sleep.

It is possible to enter the exceptional state even in deep sleep. Eugene has reported this from his own experience. If we do that while in deep sleep, a new intuition is experienced which has the non-verbally experienced meaning "I'm experiencing the passage of time within nothingness" (this is only the approximate meaning of the intuition, we don't verbalize it). As you know, through spiritual development, this intuition becomes much more rich and meaningful, ultimately leading to what is called Intuitive cognition.

Let's approach it thus. The normally evolving human is at a stage where he continuously lives within Thinking intuition - that is, we're always aware of something. In the course of evolution, what Thinking contemplation is aware of, and the actual recognition that the essential being of Thinking is engaged in this contemplation, are slowly approaching each other, closing the gap, so to speak. Today, for every normally developed human being, through minimal application of effort, is possible to bridge the gap quite sufficiently. How do we do this? By engaging in Thinking contemplation of Thinking itself.

In evolutionary terms, so far (the same 'so far' you speak of) Thinking has been completely absorbed in what it has been doing, providing us with intuitive understanding of what is being experienced. In the age of the sentient soul, Thinking has been completely absorbed in the Perceptual element (the full spectrum, not only sensory, including atavistic clairvoyant pictures). In the age of the intellectual soul, Thinking gradually is lifted from the perceptual and is now absorbed into the thoughts about the perceptual world. As we enter the age of the consciousness soul, Thinking is lifted even further and is absorbed in a new kind of intuition - the one that when contemplating the thoughts, the essential being of Thinking actually contemplates its own activity. This is an important distinction. The Greeks were fully absorbed in thoughts about Nature, the Soul, the Gods, etc. They were completely aware of this thinking through the intuitions contained in it. But at that stage, the gap between the actual thinking activity and the experience of thoughts was too wide and in fact unbridgeable. They were so mesmerized in the experience of thoughts, that even if we were to travel back in time and tell them "Hey, you're thinking your thoughts!", they simply wouldn't know what we're trying to say. The funny thing is that they wouldn't even be able to tell that we're trying to point their attention to something. For them, what we say would sound as something obvious, they'll say "Of course, I'm thinking the thoughts". Yet what they call "thinking" actually from our perspective would equate to "Of course, I'm experiencing thoughts bubbling up in my soul". We would never be able to bring attention to the fact that there's a spiritual activity which weaves these thoughts out of itself. If the Greeks were to reflect on the inner lawfulness that caused the thoughts to bubble in the way they do, they would attribute that to the power of the Logos. They couldn't experience themselves being involved in the very lawfulness itself, and as such could never understand us if we speak to them about this.

In our everyday life, the degrees of absorption are rhythmically mixed. We continuously oscillate between being absorbed into Thinking contemplation of the perceptual spectrum, and normal intellectual thinking, where're we completely absorbed in the meaning of what we think. In all cases the essential being of Thinking is absorbed with something outside of itself. It experiences itself through intuition all the time, but this experience is guided by the perceptual elements, as if Thinking is mesmerized by them. In the exceptional state we have the chance for Thinking to lift from the mesmerized state and become engaged with perceptual element which is entirely of its own nature/making.

Here we should clear one common misconception - that there's self-consciousness only as long as Thinking thinks intellectually about itself. As it should be clear from the above, there's always a living intuition at the core of the essential being. There's always something that Thinking is aware of. In our time we're at a very peculiar stage, where the intuition at the core of Thinking can make us aware that in the contemplation of thoughts we (the thinking essential being) are contemplating our own activity. This can easily be misunderstood that we can know that we're active, only if we try to grasp as perceptions our thoughts (which are already in the past). But this is not so. We do begin with the observation of our past thoughts but the more we close the gap, as if trying to contemplate our thinking in real time as it precipitates from our intuitively experienced activity, the more our intuition is developed. This already belongs to spiritual development. We begin to be more and more aware, not only of the object of thinking but of the actual activity we perform. This is not achieved through constant commentary on our thinking's past states but by the always experienced intuition at the core of the essential being that becomes more and more encompassing and self-aware. Self-consciousness gradually becomes a constant quality within the core intuition. If that was not the case, Intuition, the highest form of cognition, wouldn't be possible. As you know, in that state of consciousness we remove all kinds of activity towards perceptions - including thought perceptions. We then live in the pure element of intuition, the inner reality of the essential being. What we experience there depends on how developed this intuition is. When developed, we're fully self-aware in that stage, even though we don't need to reflect thoughts and recognize them as our own. Our intuition contains inseparably united within itself the above mentioned quality of self-awareness. So to speak, the gap has become so tight that we don't need to reflect on our thoughts in order to experience the intuition of self-awareness. The very intuition at the core of the essential being, already contains its self-comprehension. When I say "our", "own", "self-", etc. there's no presupposition of artificially constructed entity. It's only the intuitive comprehension within the essential being, that its (the essential being's) activity is an intrinsic contributing factor the World Flow.

These are already more advanced topics, that require experience with meditation (of the spiritual-scientific kind) but I mention them just to make the bridge and bring to attention that we always live in intuition. In the course of evolution this intuition at the core of the essential being, becomes less and less absorbed into the World Flow, it lifts itself from the mesmerized state and begins to intuit its own contribution to that Flow. This is initially achieved only gradually, by recognizing that past thoughts are related with the currently (invisibly and intuitively) experienced thinking, but in the course of evolution (or with spiritual development, for those who undertake it), this fully conscious contribution to the World Flow becomes inseparable knowing within the always experienced intuition at the core of the essential being.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by SanteriSatama »

Cleric K wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:32 am
findingblanks wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 1:10 am Do you have any experience in which 'thinking exists' would not apply?
As long as we understand thinking as the ever-present essential being of Thinking - no. As Santeri noted, there are moments when there's no verbal thinking but from all that Ashvin and I have written in so many places, it should be perfectly clear by now that Thinking, in the sense of cognitive spiritual activity, is not limited to verbal/symbolic intellectual thinking. In the most general sense, even simply being aware of the World Content is already thinking contemplation.
Steiner wrote:The reason why we do not observe thinking in our everyday spiritual life is none other than that it depends upon our own activity. What I do not myself bring forth comes as something objective into my field of observation. I see myself before it as before something that has occurred without me; it comes to me; I have to receive it as the prerequisite for my thinking process. While I am reflecting on the object, I am occupied with it; my gaze is turned to it. This occupation is in fact thinking contemplation. My attention is directed not upon my activity, but rather upon the object of this activity. In other words: while I am thinking, I do not look at my thinking, which I myself bring forth, but rather at the object of my thinking, which I do not bring forth.
In that sense, Thinking is always present. There's always a Thinking intuition at the core of the essential being, which is the actual awareness of what is being experienced (awareness=intuitive knowing that something is being experienced). This Thinking contemplation is present even in deep sleep. When we wake up in the morning we can enter the exceptional state by trying to remember what we were engaged with during sleep (not speaking of dreaming). For contemporary man without any spiritual training, the most one can tell is that passage of time has been experienced. If this was not the case, then sleeping would resemble blinking of the eyes. As soon as we fall asleep, we would wake up without any experience that time has passed, no matter if we slept for six hours or six days (again, putting aside dreaming). When I'm thinking about the table, I'm engaged with all my being in this activity and 'forget' that I'm thinking. Nevertheless, I continuously experience the intuitive meaning of this thinking activity in the most intimate way. When I snap out of it into the exceptional state, I now experience new invisible intuition which tells me that an instant ago I was engaged in the thinking about the table. This new state can be further projected as the verbal thought "I am/was thinking about the table". Similarly, when we wake up in the morning we can enter the exceptional state and try to encompass what our intuitively experienced Thinking has been. As said, the most that normally developed man of today can say, is that he has been completely absorbed in the Thinking contemplation of the passage of time. This is the only thing we retain from deep sleep - the knowledge that we've spent time in deep sleep.

It is possible to enter the exceptional state even in deep sleep. Eugene has reported this from his own experience. If we do that while in deep sleep, a new intuition is experienced which has the non-verbally experienced meaning "I'm experiencing the passage of time within nothingness" (this is only the approximate meaning of the intuition, we don't verbalize it). As you know, through spiritual development, this intuition becomes much more rich and meaningful, ultimately leading to what is called Intuitive cognition.

Let's approach it thus. The normally evolving human is at a stage where he continuously lives within Thinking intuition - that is, we're always aware of something. In the course of evolution, what Thinking contemplation is aware of, and the actual recognition that the essential being of Thinking is engaged in this contemplation, are slowly approaching each other, closing the gap, so to speak. Today, for every normally developed human being, through minimal application of effort, is possible to bridge the gap quite sufficiently. How do we do this? By engaging in Thinking contemplation of Thinking itself.

In evolutionary terms, so far (the same 'so far' you speak of) Thinking has been completely absorbed in what it has been doing, providing us with intuitive understanding of what is being experienced. In the age of the sentient soul, Thinking has been completely absorbed in the Perceptual element (the full spectrum, not only sensory, including atavistic clairvoyant pictures). In the age of the intellectual soul, Thinking gradually is lifted from the perceptual and is now absorbed into the thoughts about the perceptual world. As we enter the age of the consciousness soul, Thinking is lifted even further and is absorbed in a new kind of intuition - the one that when contemplating the thoughts, the essential being of Thinking actually contemplates its own activity. This is an important distinction. The Greeks were fully absorbed in thoughts about Nature, the Soul, the Gods, etc. They were completely aware of this thinking through the intuitions contained in it. But at that stage, the gap between the actual thinking activity and the experience of thoughts was too wide and in fact unbridgeable. They were so mesmerized in the experience of thoughts, that even if we were to travel back in time and tell them "Hey, you're thinking your thoughts!", they simply wouldn't know what we're trying to say. The funny thing is that they wouldn't even be able to tell that we're trying to point their attention to something. For them, what we say would sound as something obvious, they'll say "Of course, I'm thinking the thoughts". Yet what they call "thinking" actually from our perspective would equate to "Of course, I'm experiencing thoughts bubbling up in my soul". We would never be able to bring attention to the fact that there's a spiritual activity which weaves these thoughts out of itself. If the Greeks were to reflect on the inner lawfulness that caused the thoughts to bubble in the way they do, they would attribute that to the power of the Logos. They couldn't experience themselves being involved in the very lawfulness itself, and as such could never understand us if we speak to them about this.

In our everyday life, the degrees of absorption are rhythmically mixed. We continuously oscillate between being absorbed into Thinking contemplation of the perceptual spectrum, and normal intellectual thinking, where're we completely absorbed in the meaning of what we think. In all cases the essential being of Thinking is absorbed with something outside of itself. It experiences itself through intuition all the time, but this experience is guided by the perceptual elements, as if Thinking is mesmerized by them. In the exceptional state we have the chance for Thinking to lift from the mesmerized state and become engaged with perceptual element which is entirely of its own nature/making.

Here we should clear one common misconception - that there's self-consciousness only as long as Thinking thinks intellectually about itself. As it should be clear from the above, there's always a living intuition at the core of the essential being. There's always something that Thinking is aware of. In our time we're at a very peculiar stage, where the intuition at the core of Thinking can make us aware that in the contemplation of thoughts we (the thinking essential being) are contemplating our own activity. This can easily be misunderstood that we can know that we're active, only if we try to grasp as perceptions our thoughts (which are already in the past). But this is not so. We do begin with the observation of our past thoughts but the more we close the gap, as if trying to contemplate our thinking in real time as it precipitates from our intuitively experienced activity, the more our intuition is developed. This already belongs to spiritual development. We begin to be more and more aware, not only of the object of thinking but of the actual activity we perform. This is not achieved through constant commentary on our thinking's past states but by the always experienced intuition at the core of the essential being that becomes more and more encompassing and self-aware. Self-consciousness gradually becomes a constant quality within the core intuition. If that was not the case, Intuition, the highest form of cognition, wouldn't be possible. As you know, in that state of consciousness we remove all kinds of activity towards perceptions - including thought perceptions. We then live in the pure element of intuition, the inner reality of the essential being. What we experience there depends on how developed this intuition is. When developed, we're fully self-aware in that stage, even though we don't need to reflect thoughts and recognize them as our own. Our intuition contains inseparably united within itself the above mentioned quality of self-awareness. So to speak, the gap has become so tight that we don't need to reflect on our thoughts in order to experience the intuition of self-awareness. The very intuition at the core of the essential being, already contains its self-comprehension. When I say "our", "own", "self-", etc. there's no presupposition of artificially constructed entity. It's only the intuitive comprehension within the essential being, that its (the essential being's) activity is an intrinsic contributing factor the World Flow.

These are already more advanced topics, that require experience with meditation (of the spiritual-scientific kind) but I mention them just to make the bridge and bring to attention that we always live in intuition. In the course of evolution this intuition at the core of the essential being, becomes less and less absorbed into the World Flow, it lifts itself from the mesmerized state and begins to intuit its own contribution to that Flow. This is initially achieved only gradually, by recognizing that past thoughts are related with the currently (invisibly and intuitively) experienced thinking, but in the course of evolution (or with spiritual development, for those who undertake it), this fully conscious contribution to the World Flow becomes inseparable knowing within the always experienced intuition at the core of the essential being.
I've been wondering, what is hoped to be achieved by the semantic expansion of the word "thinking". Though still doubtful and critical whether that is a good linguistic strategy (and as such, engaging in Deleuzian thinking, which is very similar to what Heraclitus meant by 'War'), I can see that there can be also some benefits to calling sense of time "thinking".

The mereological form, which is constantly implied in your approach, is called also EigenForm:

https://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism ... enform.pdf

PS: if 'aware' could be used as a verb ("awaring"), would you pick that instead of "thinking"? "Thinking" as iterative-timing (which is the concrete etymology of Finnish word for "thinking) has strong flavor of pursue - thinking as our main hunting weapon. For the sense of "to become aware" we have a different verb.
coexistence
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:56 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by coexistence »

Hey Folks,
I would like to offer to answer every question that any person has about what is existing.
We have 3 major questions that our intellect wants an answer to.



Why?
The why is answered by looking at the division or assimilation of the item in discussion.
By looking at the bigger system or looking at the smaller system we answer the why.
Say for eg if we ask why does a piston designed like it is.
We can say the engine is the part of the automobile where in we need the piston to play a certain role and so it is designed like that.
We can go on till we come to the atom or go to the whole universe.

How?
The how is understood by the harmony and working between the subsystem and the bigger system .
The working mechanism and the properties of the things involved is understood.
Once that is known then there is no question as to the process and the reason
.
Below the atom and beyond the Coexistence the how and why questions sound idiotic?

What?
The what questions answers and specifies your role in the whole coexistence and you can do what you want to be doing.

I am resolved and can help everyone philosopher or a lay man ,scientist or an illiterate to lead a life full of joy and utility and that is what I am sure everyone of us here is trying to solve.

I am in all humility willing to engage in a discovery talk and willing to learn from you and teach you so that we can help humanity become SUSTAINABLE AND THRIVE ON THE PLANET.

Best regards,
Anand damani.
www.ananddamani.com
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by Cleric K »

SanteriSatama wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:42 am That sounds like a category error of sorts, identification of thinking with awareness. Yes, it is self-evident that for thinking, thinking exists. But to say that we are thinking also during deep sleep stretches the semantic scope of "thinking" beyond recognition.
In all conversations here, with you, Eugene, FB, there's a common element - the insistence that somehow, the meaningful awareness that we experience in ordinary thinking, is principally and irreconcilably different from the meaningful awareness that we experience everywhere else. So it's not the goal to stretch the intellect beyond recognition but to realize that it is the same essential being that intuits the meaning of ordinary thoughts, just like it intuits the meaning of anything else. When things are considered deeply enough, it becomes evident that no matter what state of consciousness we are in, there's always intuition giving us the meaning/awareness of whatever we're experiencing. It's the same intuitive essential being that grasps the meaning of ordinary thoughts, mathematical thoughts, feelings, perceptions, nothingness, the laminar soul flow, etc. The blossoming of the consciousness soul, at the threshold at which humanity is presently, involves precisely becoming aware of the same intuitive Spirit that unites the disparate phenomena.

As long as it's considered that the intellect lives in its own knowing element, which is completely unrelated and separate from the higher intuitions (which in modern times go by the super-general terms consciousness, awareness, etc.), the transition to the consciousness soul can never be accomplished. The reason the word Thinking is used, is that it is from here that we must start if we want to find the reality of the essential being. We don't find that reality when we have "asubjective feel of participating in being". In that case we have intuitive understanding that we flow together with the World Being. But that World Being still remains something that is only felt - we asubjectively feel that the World is Willing and we flow in a sacred dance with it. But there's difference between feeling the dance of the World Will and being one in knowing with that Will. Our own will is imbued with intuitive knowing. But this knowing is absent when we feel the World Will and simply surrender into the sacred dance with it. This surrender doesn't bring us the knowing of what and why this World Will is willing. We simply capitulate with our own knowing and practically say "I completely trust You, World Will. Take me and Will my life. I'll accept everything You do without question". Things become different only when we have the insight that in our Thinking we are in the truest and most profound way one with the World Will - we are the knowing World Will in this small island of individual spiritual activity. That's why it's justified to use the word Thinking, because it is through it that the World begins to turn inside out and we become aligned not only with the felt dance of the World Will but we are truly one with the knowing that the World experiences when it Wills. The word is also justified because Thinking contains both the contemplative and active element. "Awaring" brings attention only to the contemplative.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

Post by SanteriSatama »

Cleric K wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 11:59 am "Awaring" brings attention only to the contemplative.
Yes, awaring is gifted as the catch of a pursue, when the pursue ends it's activity.

But as Will is a a dynamic relation between part and whole, it has aspects of both conformism and creative rebellion. The metaphycisal concept of "one" fails royally to express the aspect of struggle and challenge as elemental to activity in Creative Intelligence.
Post Reply