Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[findingblanks]

For future readers:

There can be multiple valid understandings of a given text. A valid understanding will be grounded in many different experiences, one of which is internal coherence.

If you noticed the times I told Cleric that I saw internal coherence in his view (or at least the suggestion of it), you probably understood this didn't mean I had to agree.

For instance, I know many Anthroposophists who will explain that the exceptional state is an encounter with the Holy Spirit. They're articulation of this mostly internally consistent. And they will assure you it is a living experience and NOT an interpretation. Okay, fine.

Yet, that doesn't mean they are necessarily understanding what Steiner meant when he said we must start by recognizing the difference when we notice own own thought, like, I am thinking of a table.

Sure, that could definitely be an encounter with the Holy Spirit. And they clearly had experiences that they think point to what Steiner really meant.

And yet they can't see that my claim has any internal coherence

They suggest I meditate more.

[Cleric]

Quick stupid lesson:

If someone scolds you for acknowledging the unavoidable interpretive elements of a conversation, be wary. Be very wary. If they support this move by pointing out that they, rather than doing any form of interpretation, merely have living experience..... slowly back away.

They mean what they are saying. Trust me.

The only weary thing above is the climbing on a tree and severing the branch on which we sit. Interpretative thinking (seen from a meta-perspective) is itself a kind of living experience, I assume you'll agree. Then this thinking says "these living experiences can never be trusted! It's all an interpretation!". Well, since the interpretative thinking itself is a form of living experience, and if that experience can't be trusted, then how come we trust the conclusion of that illusory thinking? It's yet another form of the Kantian divide. The intellect barricading itself in the interpretative theory, believing it stands on firm ground when it doubts everything... Everything except its decision to barricade itself in this way.

And then someone says: "Look, what you hold on to is really only a stubborn idea that shapes your thinking, it acts like a mould. You can step outside that ideal-scaffold and find out that you still exist as a living Spirit, weaving the thoughts." Then when you say "They mean what they are saying. Trust me." you only confirm that you don't admit even as a possibility that such a spiritual intuition is possible. Just because you see everything only as representation-thoughts, shadow copies of reality, you insist that everyone else should barricade themselves in this way, and if they speak about spiritual reality within thinking, they simply had become pathologically deluded to have believed that interpretations are the real stuff (basically becoming blind for the 'real' thing-in-itself that the interpretations are representations of).

As said, this is a no-go situation. I'm not trying to pull you out of the divide.

I just really can't understand how can you even consider PoF as something of value, when every page practically dismantles everything to which you hold on? How can you ever be at peace when Steiner says "He will not see, in what arises as thinking in his consciousness, a shadowy copy of a reality, but rather self-sustaining, spiritual, essential being." This must sound insulting to the bones for your position. How can Steiner be so arrogant to claim that in livingly experienced thinking we don't have only shadow copies (interpretations) of reality but the actual essential being of reality?

I must say your case is very intriguing So far all people I know, who are mystically inclined (that is, keep hard separation between thinking and the supposed mystical insight into reality) are practically allergic to Steiner. And we can clearly see why, with something like the above quote. This sounds for them as the pinnacle of delusion - to consider that reality can be found precisely in the thing that they so laboriously try to eradicate and consider as nothing more than floating representations of reality, standing in the way of true insight. I can see at what lengths you go to edit out the whole PoF in order to make it fit with your view but I'm really puzzled why you would go through all the trouble? Wouldn't it be much simpler and easier to look directly at the facts and admit that the whole PoF describes a spiritual stance diametrically opposite to yours?

[findingblanks]

For future enjoyers:

My view that there is something very significant about those not-as-common moments when we grasp a thought consciously is consistent with what we read Steiner say. That doesn't make me necessarily correct.

But conversations have no hope if they insist that they can't have interpretive elements, that there is a clear correct answer, or that disagreement must mean ill-will. And all the rest.

Steiner thought he was speaking as clearly as possible. If we have a view of his words that doesn't require adding too much else, this is merely one sign we might be on the right track.

There is a major problem if a person can't hold multiple possibilities of understanding. It suggests a dogmatic undercurrent.

That's why I won't scream and shout that it is silly or wrong to claim that the exceptional state is an encounter with the Holy Ghost.

And, believe me, I think I understand why those folks do tend to get frustrated with my claim that 'exception' can mean "not the rule" and 'state' can mean 'situation,' therefore, Steiner might be talkimg about the non-typical situation in which we grasp a thought like, "I am thinking of a table." He might really mean that.

[findingblanks]

"you only confirm that you don't admit even as a possibility that such a spiritual intuition is possible..."

I've said the opposite. I'm the only person her who takes responsibility for the misunderstandings. I'm beginning to think your egos must love that

You clearly haven't taken any responsibility because you see none to take. Again, feel free notice that I'm complimenting your integrity.

I've said directly multiple times that the ntuitive transformation of thinking Steiner's speaks of is real. I've even said that lesser 'intuitions' can be very significant, like the child 'knowing' they make all their own choices or that they think their own thoughts.

But I wasn't surprised you shoved yet more words into my mouth and I'm certain it is never your intention. At least we agree on that!

[findingblanks]

"Wouldn't it be much simpler and easier to look directly at the facts and admit that the whole PoF describes a spiritual stance diametrically opposite to yours?"

I can tell how intricately you are experiencing the nature of thinking just by how you phrase things

Yes, now that mention it, it would be so much easier if I simply admited you were right about the "avalnche experience" that Steiner is writing about when he says, "I am thinking of a table." For some reason (my fault certainly), I just can't.

By the way, future readers, Steiner equated the fundamental experience of thinking as living actively within divine love. Why not just admit that we think he was wrong about that?

[findingblanks]

Oh, I just realized that future readers might not realize that Rudolf Steiner never said the phrase "exceptional state." I can imagine some people may think that was his phrase. Nope, he talked about those occasions in which we -- as Cleric just said -- suddenly notice a thought. And Steiner pointed out that this experience-- as long as we don't kill it via intellectual explanation-- can be our foothold towards grasping the reality of our freedom.

But, no, Steiner never said "exceptional state." Just to be clear.

That phrase was how a student of Steiners interpreted their experience in order to translate their reading of Steiner's German words. Or, some will say, "exceptional state" is the result of livingly experiencing the truth and should be fairly obvious.

Some might describe the cognitive situation of noticing a thought like "I'm thinking of X" as like the Holy Ghost avalanching onto your soul. It's in the text!

[findingblanks]

You absolutely must find the place before thinking begins, that flitting, buzzing, meangless place that thinking stands apart from. You have to begin with that place and then notice where thinking lives within that place. There is no other way to begin than grasping what that place before cognition has shaped it is like. This is the only way to begin.

[SanteriSatama]

Oh, I just realized that future readers might not realize that Rudolf Steiner never said the phrase "exceptional state." I can imagine some people may think that was his phrase. Nope, he talked about those occasions in which we -- as Cleric just said -- suddenly notice a thought. And Steiner pointed out that this experience-- as long as we don't kill it via intellectual explanation-- can be our foothold towards grasping the reality of our freedom.

But, no, Steiner never said "exceptional state." Just to be clear.

Ah, thanks for the explanation, I was wondering what "exeptional state" was referring to, and associating that with experience of genuinely exceptional state.

But to "suddenly notice a thought" - is that just basic vipassana aka insight meditation?

[SanteriSatama]

You absolutely must find the place before thinking begins, that flitting, buzzing, meangless place that thinking stands apart from. You have to begin with that place and then notice where thinking lives within that place. There is no other way to begin than grasping what that place before cognition has shaped it is like. This is the only way to begin.

When you call it "place", cognition and language are shaping an interpretation. I very much prefer the interpretation that before and after was and will be time.

Also, to put some weight on my interpretation, I remember waking up a morning and feeling Hermes inside me and suddenly noticing also the name-thought of the God of Interpretation. And then I danced. Shifted my weight from feet to feet, and other balancing and weight shifting moves as dancing goes.

[findingblanks]

Hi Santeri.

Yeah, I realized that many readers might actually think Steiner said 'exceptional state' and not realize that for English speakers 'exception' and 'state' have have many connotations.

For instance 'exceptional' can mean that something is very very very special and rare.
And 'state' can refer to an inner experience.

So you can see why it almost seems obvious that Steiner was talking about a very very rare and special experience. That's why his example of "I am thinking of a table" can seem kind of silly.

Maybe Khulwind and other non-English speakers find it easier to find other meanings about this non-typical situation ("I am thinking X") because they don't share all of our connotations about exceptionally rare experiences...

As you can tell, some people will tell you that to suddenly notice a thought is to be merged with The Christ. Others might describe it as an exceptional experience in which you bring two very different experiences closer and closer together until you feel an avalanche-like experience.

I have already said that those might be internally coherent ways of making sense of what Steiner means by "I am thinking of X."

My 'living experience' of the atypical cognitive situation of consciously noticing a thought is much much less sexy, unfortunately

I think that the suddenly noticing a thought can provide the necessary foothold towards eventually grasping thinking in the present moment. I know, not very exciting, huh?

But the hard part is that we almost always either blast right past this experience (go right back to hammering the damn table) or we kill it by explaining it in some other system of thought. Materialism was the main system of thought that Steiner was battling in the context of that time, so he made clear that you simply couldn't find the value in this foothold if you denied the possibility of non-material reality.

So, I can understand why you might prefer an understanding of this atypical cognitive situation that says it is an encounter with The Christ or an Avalanche Experience that happens when you continuously bring two different experiences into closer proximity.

Like I said, those can be valid ways of parsing it up.

But I will just say that there is something very special in noticing the moment you have a thought and before you grasp the activity itself. It can almost feel like your foot has slid into the perfect spot to make the next chapters, I mean to make the next move.