Philosophical Speculations

Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 10:57 pm

Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 9:35 pm OK. Let's use me as example I accept the Oneness of Consciousness. Yet you say that I must "ALSO take into consideration the One Consciousness, so that our consideration will be more complete and encompassing." In other words, I'm puzzled because I take it in full consideration, but since you say that I must take it into consideration, clearly you have something more in mind. If you would have to give me practical and concrete advice, what would you suggest that I work on? What exactly you see missing which needs to be balanced out, in what way the Oneness of Consciousness is neglected?

Cleric, I'm glad you are open to see the missing pieces. As I explained in my previous posts, the Oneness of Consciousness in its fullness can be realized only by embracing the formless aspects of Consciousness in addition to and together with the knowledge of the ideal content (forms). If we only know the forms (ideas, ideal content, ideal relations) with thinking, surely there is Oneness of Consciousness within the ideal content (exactly as you said), but if the formless is left neglected, such realization of Oneness is incomplete, because the full Oneness of Consciousness necessarily includes all aspects of Reality, including formless. It's like a coin with two sides: of course each side is no other than the coin, but that does not mean that if we only know on side then we know the whole coin. To know the whole coin, we need to look at both sides. Likewise, Consciousness has two aspects - forms/ideas and formless, they are both no other than Consciousness and are simply two aspects of it, yet each has unique qualities, and so, knowing only one aspect and neglecting the other would make such knowledge of the Oneness incomplete.

But the problem with the formless side is that, because the formless is not an idea, thinking can only make an approximate idea about the formless, but this knowledge of the formless by thinking is never the same as experiencing the formless. Any ideas of formless are usually quite inadequate when they are not based on the direct experiencing of formless. So, the only way to know the formless as it "actually is" is by direct experiencing it. Such experience also brings realization of the fundamental Oneness of Consciousness in its formless aspect. Because formless is the same in every form and every idea, it is like a "glue" that unites everything into oneness (in addition to the oneness of the ideal content through its inter-relations). Once it is experienced, thinking can "process" this experience and develop more appropriate ideal reflection of it to complement and complete its knowledge of Reality with all knowable aspects embraced. So, to know the formless, thinking alone is not enough, but pure "thoughtless" experience of formless without thinking is also not enough, so for the realization of formless both are necessarily needed.

As I said before, no miracles happen and we do not become omniscient and do not start flying when we experientially realize the formless. It's just that we start experiencing the oneness of everything, not only knowing it by thinking, and such experiencing brings harmony, peace and love and naturally dissolves our selfish/egoic unconscious patterns that are dissonant with the experience of oneness. Psychologically everyone can test it for themselves: if we only have an idea of oneness in our thinking, this knowledge is quite fragile because every time we are caught by egoic emotions, we immediately forget those beautiful ideas and start acting like selfish apes. But when we actually see the oneness as a fact of Reality, we do not get so easily disrupted (even though it still happens, but just less easily). So, such experience facilitates our development and growth from egoic half-monkeys into mature and stable spiritual personalities. But that does not cancel the importance of the development of thinking. Like the Reality has two sides (formless-form), likewise our development has two sides - progression in the knowledge of forms by thinking, and progression in the deepening of the experiential-intellectual knowledge of formless, with both sides complementing and facilitating each other.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 5:10 am "Secondly, we should remember (or now take notice) that Steiner discusses Schopenhauer's philosophy in many different books and lectures, not just that short passage from PoF."

I may have a file of all of Steiner's specific comments on Schopenhauer. I'll check.

Steiner wrote:Two other personality also represented polar opposites but with them it is impossible to say some kind of equilibrium was established: Hegel on the one side and Schopenhauer on the other. You only have to consider what I put forward in my “Riddles of Philosophy” to see the deep opposition between Schopenhauer and Hegel. It appears relevant that Schopenhauer really spared no swearwords in what he held as the truth in his characterization of his opponent Hegel. In many of Schopenhauer's work there is the wildest scolding of Hegel, Hegelianism and everything related to it. Hegel had less reason to scold Schopenhauer, because, before Hegel died, Schopenhauer would actually have remained without influence, not being established amongst remarkable philosophers. The contrast between these two personalities can be characterised by indicating how Hegel regarded the foundation of the world and the world development and everything pertaining to it, as consisting of real thought elements. Hegel firmly believed that thoughts were the foundation of everything. Hegel's philosophy fell into three parts: Firstly in logic, not subjective human logic but the system of thought that must form the foundation of the world. Secondly Hegel had his philosophy of nature, but nature for him was nothing other than an idea, not even an idea with a difference, but the idea which implies it exists out-of-itself. So also nature is an idea, but the idea in a different form, in a form which is sense-perceptible to people, ideas by contrast. The idea which reverts back to itself, this was to him the human being's spirit which had developed out of the simplest human-spiritual activities into the world's history and up to the beginning of the human subjective spirit in religion, art and science. When one wants to study Hegel's philosophy thus, you need to allow yourself entry into the development of world thoughts, just like Hegel let these world thoughts explain themselves.

Schopenhauer is the opposite. For Hegel thoughts, world thoughts were creative, actual reality in things; for Schopenhauer every thought was merely subjective, and as a subjective image only something unreal. For him the only real thing was will. Just as Hegel followed with human thought into everything mineral, animal or vegetative, for Schopenhauer it was all about “the will of nature”. So one can say Hegel is the thought philosopher and Schopenhauer the will philosopher.
...
Now let's consider Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer is, I might say, the admirer of the will. That he has cosmic will in mind appears everywhere in Schopenhauer's work, in particular in the delightful treatise “Regarding the Will in Nature” where everything which exists and lives in nature is taken from a basis of will, expressed in the elemental power of nature.

... Just as we saw how Hegel pointed more to the West, so we see how Schopenhauer pointed towards the East. In the East however we don't find anything which is an element of will and what Schopenhauer really felt as the actual element of the East, was materialised and pressed into thinking and thus intellectualized. The entire form of the representation of cosmic will, which lies at the basis of eastern soul-life, does not appear as originating from the intellect, it is partly a poetic, partly a section derived directly from the observation of the relevant representation. Schopenhauer took what the oriental image form wanted to convey and intellectualized it in the Central European way; however that which he refers to, the cosmic will, this was after all the element at which he was pointing; from this he had formulated his soul orientation. This element is what lived in the world view of the Orient. When the oriental world view is permeated with love in particular, this element of love becomes nothing other than some aspect of cosmic will, and is not just raised from the intellect. So we may say: here the will is spiritualized. Like thoughts are materialised in the West, so in the East will becomes spiritualized.
...
It is quite extraordinary when you allow Schopenhauer's philosophy to work on you, the thought-element appears somewhat flat; Schopenhauer's philosophy is really not deep, but it has at the same time something intoxicating, something wilful which throbs within. Schopenhauer becomes most attractive and charming when shallow thoughts are penetrated with his will element - then traces of the warmth of will are found to some extent in his sentences. As a result he basically has become a shallow salon philosopher of his age. As the thought provoking age, which the first half of the nineteenth century was, passed and people suffered from thought deprivation, the time came for Schopenhauer to become the salon philosopher. Not much effort was needed to think, while the thrill of thought throbbing with will was allowed its influence particularly when something like “Parerga and Paralipomena” (“Appendices and Omissions” — philosophical reflections published 1851) came through, where these thrilling thoughts could work their craftiness.
...
Should you want to schematically draw this Hegelian historical philosophy, here thoughts would rise up (a drawing is made), rise up, distort each other mutually and thus go through the historic development and in this web of thoughts people are spun in and are swept away by the thoughts. Thus actually for Hegel the historical development of these coalescing, corrupt thoughts harness people as automatons, out of these webs of world historic thought this thought system had to develop. For Schopenhauer of course thoughts were nothing more than froth. He directed his gaze to cosmic will, or in other words, to this sea of cosmic will. The human being is actually only a reservoir where merely a little of this cosmic will is collected. The Schopenhauer philosophy contains nothing of this developmental reasoning or progressive thinking, but is the unclear, irrational, the unreasonable element of will which flows from it. Within the human beings rises up, reflects in him as if it was reason but which he or she actually continually develops as foolishness
...
Hegel looked into the cosmos and saw this web of concepts within history, Schopenhauer looked into the cosmos and didn't see this web of concepts — that was only a mirror image for him — but he saw it as a sea of ruling will, to some extent tapped into these vessels in which human beings swam in this irrational, unreasonable sea of will (drawing is made). Human beings were only being fooled by what reflected in their unreasonable will as actual reason, imagination and thought. Yet these two elements are present in the cosmos. What Hegel saw was already in the cosmos. Cosmic thoughts exist. Hegel and the West viewed the cosmos and perceived world thoughts. Schopenhauer and the East looked at the cosmos and saw world will. Both are within. A useful cosmic world view could c0me into existence if the paradox could have been entered, resulting in Schopenhauer's scolding bringing him so far as to him leaving his skin behind, and despite Hegel's soul remaining in Hegel, that Schopenhauer entered Hegel so that Schopenhauer was actually inside Hegel. Then he would have seen the world-thoughts and world-will fusing! This is the deed which is within the world: world thoughts and world will. They exist in very different forms.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:08 am "I hope you do, because you have made the claim Steiner has a "shallow" understanding of Schopenhauer several times now...I wonder if you think such a shallow understanding is also revealed in this lecture re: Hegel and Schopenhauer? I tried to shorten the lecture as much as I could to only leave those parts directly relevant to the idealist philosophical arguments between Cosmic Thought and Cosmic Will."

To me you sound somewhat triggered by my claim that there is a specific context in which Steiner hasn't accurately grasped somebody's ideas. I know that for some it is simply impossible that Steiner had misimpressions of other thinkers or topics. I also know that I've never been able to communicate effectively with those students. However, my experience with philosophers is that if they don't fully grasp another thinker they will often do exactly what Steiner did and show how they can 'demolish' that thinkers entire edifice by pointing out a simple contradiction in their thinking. If it helps at all, I know extremely bright and deep thinkers who have 'shallow' understandings of Steiner and do the same thing to him. I love Steiner. He was a genius and a very complex personality. He should be taken context by context. Many of his understandings of child development are the most intricate observations I've ever encountered regarding phenomenological insights about learning. And there are other contexts (his claims about bulls, mars, white humanities mission until the year 3,500 and others) where he engages in errors to smaller and greater degrees. Again, I know there are some who immediately 'know' that such a claims can only come from somebody who hasn't taken the time to read Steiner and probably has no meditative practice. Anyway, I love Steiner as a man and thinker and still learn deeply from him.

findingblanks wrote:Side note:

I've learned that there are a few questions you can ask to serious students of PoF that help sort which pathways they go down regarding how they take in the book. If you have time or the inclination let me know what you think Steiner means by 'exceptional state' in PoF, first mentioned in chapter 3 of The Philosophy Of Freedom. It is also translated as 'exceptional condition' and sometimes as 'exceptional situation.' Here is the paragraph it first appears in:

"But thinking as an object of observation differs essentially from all other objects. The observation of a table, or a tree, occurs in me as soon as these objects appear upon the horizon of my experience. Yet I do not, at the same time, observe my thinking about these things. I observe the table, and I carry out the thinking about the table, but I do not at the same moment observe this. I must first take up a standpoint outside my own activity if, in addition to observing the table, I want also to observe my thinking about the table. Whereas observation of things and events, and thinking about them, are everyday occurrences filling up the continuous current of my life, observation of the thinking itself is a kind of exceptional state."

There is a tacit connection between how many of his students understand 'exceptional state' and some aspects of how the supposed debate between Steiner and Schopenhauer is framed and understood. Anyway, thanks for chatting.

findingblanks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:37 am
Of course, we know that Steiner considered The Philosophy of Freedom to be about a specific type of willing; yes, a willing that is also a feeling and a thinking.
...
Sure, Steiner never says they are identical at the level. Doe that mean his text doesn't 'mean' it? I don't think so. Same with Schopenhauer.

findingblanks wrote:"The entire form of the representation of cosmic will, which lies at the basis of eastern soul-life, does not appear as originating from the intellect.."

This may or may not be Steiner implying that Schopenhauer's ultimate understanding of the "Will" originates in the intellect.

There is no way on Earth anything could change the mind of somebody who thinks Steiner is merely speaking objectively when he says:

"Schopenhauer's philosophy is really not deep, but it has at the same time something intoxicating, something wilful which throbs within. Schopenhauer becomes most attractive and charming when shallow thoughts are penetrated with his will element - then traces of the warmth of will are found to some extent in his sentences. As a result he basically has become a shallow salon philosopher of his age."

As I've said, I think they both are very deep in different ways (in articulating their own philosophy) and we only really find either shallow when they sum up some other philosopher they feel they are demolished. I agree with Steiner that Schopenhauer is not who we should go to in order to grasp Hegel. I wouldn't go to Steiner to find the depths of Schopenhauer's work. But if somebody wanted to read a short paragraph that supposedly shows that Schopenhauer was speaking nonsense, Steiner (and any other critic of Schopy) is your guy.
...
Here's what I know.

1) You see nothing at all wrong with Steiner's characterization of Schopenhauer. You take his demonstration in PoF to be clear and clean.
2) You have plenty of other students of Steiner who agree with you.
3) I sound rather incoherent (or misguided or naïve or...)to you. But not completely

The good news: Being committed to either of these thinkers can take you very far if you really keep digging into where they were pointing.
The 'bad' news: some people really do believe there is a kind of competition between them.

Thanks for the chat.