Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[AshvinP]

But assuming the cat isn't intuiting the nature of all that surrounds it as it skillfully plays with another cat, I guess we can agree that it is thinking that divides the mere appearances from the ideas.

Is the argument now that you can disprove human experience of thinking separating and uniting world content, as we verify by observing our own thinking, by assuming the perspective of a cat? Even Kant didn't try to pull that move! Or is it that you have actually stepped into a cat's cognition to verify these things for yourself?

[AshvinP]

But assuming the cat isn't intuiting the nature of all that surrounds it as it skillfully plays with another cat, I guess we can agree that it is thinking that divides the mere appearances from the ideas.

Is the argument now that you can disprove human experience of thinking separating and uniting world content, as we verify by observing our own thinking, by assuming the perspective of a cat? Even Kant didn't try to pull that move! Or is it that you have actually stepped into a cat's cognition to verify these things for yourself?

And let's also consider how supremely ironic this discussion has been. In every comment, like the one above, you are taking percepts of mental images and "attaching" concepts so that you can make a meaningful argument which is denying the very fact of what you are doing - you are trying to sit on the same branch Kant-Schopenhauer were sitting on and sawed off centuries ago. You may respond, "that's not fair! you can't use such obvious activity as a philosophical argument"... but who says we can't? Sometimes the essence of these things are, in fact, just that simple, and that has been the greatest contribution of phenomenology to philosophy - making these things supremely simple and obvious. There is no cat argument against thinking-Thinking as separating-Unifying activity without FB and others who are so curious about the essence of the Cosmos that they join a metaphysical forum to ask and answer questions about such things by way of that very same Thinking.

[SanteriSatama]

And let's also consider how supremely ironic this discussion has been. In every comment, like the one above, you are taking percepts of mental images and "attaching" concepts so that you can make a meaningful argument which is denying the very fact of what you are doing - you are trying to sit on the same branch Kant-Schopenhauer were sitting on and sawed off centuries ago. You may respond, "that's not fair! you can't use such obvious activity as a philosophical argument"... but who says we can't? Sometimes the essence of these things are, in fact, just that simple, and that has been the greatest contribution of phenomenology to philosophy - making these things supremely simple and obvious. There is no cat argument against thinking-Thinking as separating-Unifying activity without FB and others who are so curious about the essence of the Cosmos that they join a metaphysical forum to ask and answer questions about such things by way of that very same Thinking.

Maybe fb is talking in NAND? The truth table where TT -> F.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NAND.html

[findingblanks]

No, I'm saying that if you agree with Steiner that thinking splits the world into a percept and its corresponding concepts, then you probably would say the percepts seen by the cat were split apart by thinking, too...

Or not.

[findingblanks]

"If you still don't understand that, then I suggest you re-read all of his works with fresh eyes and rediscover that essence of Steiner's philosophy."

I've moved this over into this thread because the other one is for more formal comments on the philosophies themselves.

You clearly feel certain, both about your own understanding of Steiner and about my lack of understanding. I am certain of neither. My meditative practice leads to a change in experiencing, but that experiencing is still influenced by my own partial understandings and deeply ingrained figuration process.

Then, on the other side, we have sentences by various philosophers. For some people, like you and Cleric, there isn't ambiguity in there works. Or, rather, you have solved all the ambiguity, see a purely coherent argument, and your spiritual experiences confirm it. I get the certainty.

I try to lay out the various ways Steiner's work can be taken regardless of one's spiritual experiences. Like I said, some people would say that cat's see percepts. Some wouldn't. Both groups are probably good readers of PoF.

[findingblanks]

And, yes, there is a relationship between the kinds of causes that led to Steiner believing he understood why red is what causes a bull to go wild and the kinds of causes that lead people to know that thinking splits the world into percepts and concepts.

[findingblanks]

Thinking is said to be why we experience the world split into percepts and concepts. I stared at my cat staring at her food bowl.

[AshvinP]

"If you still don't understand that, then I suggest you re-read all of his works with fresh eyes and rediscover that essence of Steiner's philosophy."

I've moved this over into this thread because the other one is for more formal comments on the philosophies themselves.

You clearly feel certain, both about your own understanding of Steiner and about my lack of understanding. I am certain of neither. My meditative practice leads to a change in experiencing, but that experiencing is still influenced by my own partial understandings and deeply ingrained figuration process.

Then, on the other side, we have sentences by various philosophers. For some people, like you and Cleric, there isn't ambiguity in there works. Or, rather, you have solved all the ambiguity, see a purely coherent argument, and your spiritual experiences confirm it. I get the certainty.

I try to lay out the various ways Steiner's work can be taken regardless of one's spiritual experiences. Like I said, some people would say that cat's see percepts. Some wouldn't. Both groups are probably good readers of PoF.

FB, I don't know what to say anymore... its truly hard to figure out how your mind is working bc I have never come across anything like it. I have had discussions where people are belligerent or just writing about things they have never actually considered, but you have been studying these things for decades and still confusing "ambiguity" with diametrically opposed interpretation from what everone else finds relatively clear. Do you see the difference? You are not just saying one passage could be interepreted various ways, but that ALL of his writings on this topic could be changed to exact opposite of their essential meaning. Same for Schopenhauer.

As for the cat, why focus on cat instead of human. I am saying its very obvious from observing our own human thinking that many percepts are split from many concepts and our reasoning activity reunites those things. It is just as obvious as the fact we have outer and inner experience, and those are very much related. Anyone can verify this for themselves, without trying to figure what it is like to be a cat. And, as you should already know, Steiner discusses human vs non human cognition in PoF. I can post the relevant quote for you later.

[SanteriSatama]

I am saying its very obvious from observing our own human thinking that many percepts are split from many concepts and our reasoning activity reunites those things. It is just as obvious as the fact we have outer and inner experience, and those are very much related. Anyone can verify this for themselves, without trying to figure what it is like to be a cat. And, as you should already know, Steiner discusses human vs non human cognition in PoF. I can post the relevant quote for you later.

Obviously, that's a way of thinking, but is it the only way? I think you'll agree that it is not the only possible way?

If we allow experience of standing in the doorway - and why would we not allow? - it could be quite fun there, both in and out, neither in nor out...

And in such doorway, it might be possible to think to think that way you think is the way of thinking, and also some other way, and both and neither.

Now I'll go smoke a cigarette in the doorway of this hows, perhaps while smoking in the doorway I will think of the memory of how earlier today, when i was smoking, there were two ravens nearby, and how I just made a search, thkinking of a memory where a pair of ravens had Nordic names...

[AshvinP]

I am saying its very obvious from observing our own human thinking that many percepts are split from many concepts and our reasoning activity reunites those things. It is just as obvious as the fact we have outer and inner experience, and those are very much related. Anyone can verify this for themselves, without trying to figure what it is like to be a cat. And, as you should already know, Steiner discusses human vs non human cognition in PoF. I can post the relevant quote for you later.

Obviously, that's a way of thinking, but is it the only way? I think you'll agree that it is not the only possible way?

If we allow experience of standing in the doorway - and why would we not allow? - it could be quite fun there, both in and out, neither in nor out...

And in such doorway, it might be possible to think to think that way you think is the way of thinking, and also some other way, and both and neither.

Now I'll go smoke a cigarette in the doorway of this hows, perhaps while smoking in the doorway I will think of the memory of how earlier today, when i was smoking, there were two ravens nearby, and how I just made a search, thkinking of a memory where a pair of ravens had Nordic names...

FB and I are speaking of phenomenology of thinking activity. How does it unfold in a person's normal waking consciousness? He says it basically doesn't unfold... we may naively and/or abstractly think that we are uniting "percepts" (mere visual data) with "concepts" (meaning of that data), but actually they are already united or, at the very least, our normal cognition has united enough so that we do not need to start speaking of "higher cognition" as a goal for attaining to much more enriched perception of Reality. The shoemaker who stops working on the shoes and reflects of what he was thinking while working on the shoes is not very far off from the spiritual adept/initiate who has what Steiner called "spiritual sight" and "higher cognition". And, if I got any of his position wrong there, then he will be the first to admit that it is due to his own terrible explanatory method. I believe he said stated that latter part no less than 5-10x in this thread

I (along with Steiner and Cleric) say that we can all readily experience that our thoughts, feelings, and will-impulses seem to well up from 'within' us and our sense-perceptions seem to come from 'without'. Everyone reading these words right now can say that this is trivially true statement of how they are experiencing the world at this moment. That by itself should clue us in to the fact that percepts (perceiving-perceptions) and concepts (thinking-thoughts) are operating distinctly from each other in our experience. There is only one exception to that - the observation of our own thinking activity. That is when the percept (thought-form) and the concept (meaning of thought-form) are truly united as they are formed. We can start to intuit that by simple reflecting on our thinking activity and thoughts, but eventually, with much sustained acceptance, effort, training, discipline, etc. we can attain to full-blown intuitive thinking which is not only limited to our personal perspective of the world.

In a nutshell, Steiner's entire corpus of books and lectures on this issue, which lies at the foundation of everything else in his spiritual science and "ethical individualism", is asking us to discover for ourselves that it is our own spiritual (thinking) activity which brings Unity to the fragmented percepts-concepts of the world through higher and higher levels of ideal relations. So, with all that said, I think you (SS) are the only person here who has not yet stated their position on this thread - do you hold with Steiner on what I described or with Schopenhauer that the real Unity of noumenon-phenomenon is to found in the blind universal Will (FB claims Schop did not make universal Will "blind", but BK's paperback and audiobook on Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics both beg to differ)? Or with FB that none of us understand Steiner or Schopenhauer and they held completely different (nearly opposite of what I stated above) positions?

I suspect you will respond with a 4th option involving math, more/less, < >, etc., which is fine, but I ask you to please also include a more layman's explanation of what it all means in this context as well. TYIA!