Re: Falsification of Scientific Theories of Consciousness
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:03 pm
Eugene - you are misunderstanding Steiner. He is not endorsing the purely mystical way of knowing at the expense of higher cognition. Rather he is showing how the human individual can develop a new organ of perception, i.e. spiritual sight, which allows him to perceive and think about the interiority of the phenomenal world, including himself, in a rigorous scientific way which brings Unity to it without smearing out the contents. I have not experienced such a raising of myself into higher cognition, but Cleric has, and do you really think he is misunderstanding Steiner and higher cognition? Perhaps this passage will help clarify for you:Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:15 pmWOW, I'm becoming a Steiner's fan, he is spot on, and that is exactly what I was saying all along: what you called "higher cognition" is exactly " universal essence looking upon itself", looking meaning directly and consciously experiencing-knowing itself prior to any rational cognition. It is Consciousness being experientially aware of itself, of its own existence and "essence" in every form and thing that unfolds in it. There is a reason this knowing is called "knowing" (gnosis) and "unknowing" (agnosia) at the same time, because it is a different kind of knowing, not rational or cognitive, but direct/existential/experiential."With regard to the sensory facts he is a thing among things, and, insofar as this is the case, he acquires a knowledge of these things; but at any moment he can have the higher experience that he is the form in which the universal essence looks upon itself. Then he himself is transformed from a thing among things into a form of the universal essence — and with him the knowledge of things is changed into an utterance of the nature of things.
Thus it is not due to things themselves that at a certain stage they appear only as external objects; rather it is due to the fact that man must first transform himself to the point where he can reach the stage at which things cease to be external.
Steiner, Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age"
I think, Ashvin, you misinterpret such "higher cognition" as a kind of cognitive gnosis, but only of some kind of a higher order. But what all those mystics, Western and Eastern alike, were pointing to is a different kind of knowing - gnosis and agnosis at the same time, immediate, existential/experiential and prior to any cognition.
"With an empty mind and open heart, let yourself be naked before grace... Let yourself sleep in this dark awareness of God as he is."
Anonymous, The Cloud of Unknowing
"no finite knowledge can fully know the Infinite One, and that therefore He is only truly to be approached by agnosia, or by that which is beyond and above knowledge.”
― Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
Steiner (emphasis mine) wrote:The road which is indicated by the way of thinking of Nicolas of Cusa was walked by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim (1487–1535) and Theophrastus Paracelsus (1493–1541). They immerse themselves in nature and, as comprehensively as possible, seek to explore its laws with all the means their period makes available to them. In this knowledge of nature they see at the same time the true foundation for all higher cognition. They themselves seek to develop the latter out of natural science by letting science be reborn in the spirit.
...
Thus Paracelsus' eyes are directed in the strictest sense upon nature, in order to discover from nature itself what it has to say about its products. He wants to investigate the laws of chemistry in order to work as an alchemist in his sense. He considers all bodies to be composed of three basic substances, namely, of salt, sulphur, and mercury. What he so designates of course does not correspond to what later chemistry designates by this name, any more than what Paracelsus considers to be a basic substance is one in the sense of later chemistry. Different things are designated by the same names at different times. What the ancients called the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, we still have. We call these four “elements” no longer “elements” but states of aggregation, for which we have the designations: solid, liquid, aeriform, etheriform. Earth, for instance, for the ancients was not earth but the “solid.” The three basic substances of Paracelsus we can also recognize in contemporary concepts, but not under the homonymous contemporary names. For Paracelsus, solution in a liquid and combustion are the two important chemical processes of which he makes use. If a body is dissolved or burned it is decomposed into its parts. Something remains as residue; something is dissolved or burns. For him the residue is salt-like, the soluble (liquid), mercury-like; the combustible he calls sulphurous.
One who does not look beyond such natural processes may be left cold by them as by things of a material and prosaic nature; one who at all costs wants to grasp the spirit with the senses will people these processes with all kinds of spiritual beings. But like Paracelsus, one who knows how to look at such processes in connection with the universe, which reveals its secret within man, accepts these processes as they present themselves to the senses; he does not first reinterpret them; for as the natural processes stand before us in their sensory reality, in their own way they reveal the mystery of existence. What through this sensory reality these processes reveal out of the soul of man, occupies a higher position for one who strives for the light of higher cognition than do all the supernatural miracles concerning their so-called “spirit” which man can devise or have revealed to him. There is no “spirit of nature” which can utter more exalted truths than the great works of nature themselves, when our soul unites itself with this nature in friendship, and, in familiar intercourse, hearkens to the revelations of its secrets. Such a friendship with nature, Paracelsus sought.