Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[AshvinP]

Just for anyone's reference, I found these quotes in Steiner's PoF and I think it makes Schopenhauer's position very clear, just as BK did in his Q&A response:

In actuality, the sought-for meaning of the world which confront me solely as my mental picture, or the transition from this world, as mere mental picture of the subject knowing it, over to what it might still be besides mental picture, could nevermore be found, if the researcher himself were nothing more than purely knowing subject (winged angel's head without body). But now he himself has roots in that world, finds himself in it, namely, as an individual, which means that this activity of knowing, which is the determining bearer of the whole world as a mental picture, is after all given entirely through the medium of a body, whose sensations, as shown, are the starting point for the intellect in viewing the world. For the purely knowing subject as such, this body is a mental picture like any other, an object among objects: the motions, the actions of it are known to him in that respect no differently than the changes in all other observable objects, and would be just as foreign and incomprehensible to him, if the significance of his own motions and actions were not disclosed to him somehow in a completely different way.

... To the knowing subject, which arises as an individual through its identification with the body, this body is given in two completely different ways: one is as a mental picture when the body is viewed intellectually, as object among objects, and subject to the laws of these objects but then at the same time in a completely different way also as that something, known directly by everyone, which the word “will” characterizes. Every true act of his will is immediately and unfailingly also a movement of his body; he cannot really will an act, without at the same time perceiving that it manifests as a movement of his body. The act of will and the action of the body are not two objectively known different states, connected by the bond of causality; they do not stand in the relationship of cause and effect; but they are rather one and the same, only given in two completely different ways: one completely direct and one for the intellect in contemplation.

I have tried to use emphasis here so people can follow along easier, although I think it's pretty clear anyway. The bolded assertions = what Schop believed about thinking activity, and the underlined assertions = what he believed about willing activity. It should very clear that the former, in Schop's view, is completely personal (individual) and provides "mere mental pictures". And the latter, as BK also argues, is what truly bears the world's Unity in a "completely direct" way. Thinking (illusory) discloses things for Schopenhauer in a completely different way than Willing (non-illusory), and the latter is what provides any true knowledge of the noumenal world, while the former is mere intellect which is an "object among objects". This next part is small portion of Steiner's response to Schop (which is really spread throughout the entire book), but it should reveal clearly that Steiner understands Schop's argument.

By this train of thought Schopenhauer believe himself justified in finding the objectivity of will within the human body. He is of the opinion that, in the actions of the body, he feels directly a reality, the thing-in-itself in concrete. Against these arguments it must be objected that the actions of our body come to consciousness only through self-perceptions and as such have nothing over other perceptions. If we want to know their nature, we can do this only through thinking contemplation, that means through incorporating them into the ideal system of our concepts and ideas.

[SanteriSatama]

I can't say anything about Chop&Stein.

Thinking how to respond to the question and discussing that with Bergson and Bohm, with Huginn and Muninn, I'm now inclined to answer that habitual memory of the body - a wing of both Hugin and Munin - is unfolding the spiritual memory of Muninn into the world-bubble aka "perspective". Also Huginn has many aspects, not just habit-repeating, but also habit breaking and habit recreating.

***

After I wrote that, I went for another smoke in the doorway. There's a home of little ants just outside the door, and we have a negotiated habit that they can have their home out-there, if they don't come in-here in the house of our human home, and I observed with gratitude and admiration how they are keeping their end of the deal in habitual body memory.

There was also a spider dancing in the air just outside of the doorway, on the level or eyes. He talked to me by dancing, moving mostly sideways in the air, big strethces, couple times dropping quickly down in gravity only to suddenly re-emerge back on eye level continuing it's horizontal movement. The radically habit breaking dance of the spider told that a human habit of thinking and remembering does not control how a spider thinks and remembers and moves in and unfolds Spirit, when we are having a philosophical discussion in the Spirit, you, me FB, spider, ants and the ravens Muninn and Huginn.

[AshvinP]

I can't say anything about Chop&Stein.

Thinking how to respond to the question and discussing that with Bergson and Bohm, with Huginn and Muninn, I'm now inclined to answer that habitual memory of the body - a wing of both Hugin and Munin - is unfolding the spiritual memory of Muninn into the world-bubble aka "perspective". Also Huginn has many aspects, not just habit-repeating, but also habit breaking and habit recreating.

***

After I wrote that, I went for another smoke in the doorway. There's a home of little ants just outside the door, and we have a negotiated habit that they can have their home out-there, if they don't come in-here in the house of our human home, and I observed with gratitude and admiration how they are keeping their end of the deal in habitual body memory.

There was also a spider dancing in the air just outside of the doorway, on the level or eyes. He talked to me by dancing, moving mostly sideways in the air, big strethces, couple times dropping quickly down in gravity only to suddenly re-emerge back on eye level continuing it's horizontal movement. The radically habit breaking dance of the spider told that a human habit of thinking and remembering does not control how a spider thinks and remembers and moves in and unfolds Spirit, when we are having a philosophical discussion in the Spirit, you, me FB, spider, ants and the ravens Muninn and Huginn.

Indeed, these are all beings instrumental in humanity's evolution. Yet it precisely our own evolution which we forget so often to consider. That is the egoism of the modern age - an elevation of "ego-self" at the expense of "Ego-Self". Just as the higher beings are redeeming us, in that redemption we become redeemers as well. We pay back and pay forward to the animal group souls in their own evolutionary development. Not only them, but the plants and minerals as well. It is through these nested metamorphic processes that the whole creation is Redeemed.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body"
- Romans 19:23

[SanteriSatama]

Indeed, these are all beings instrumental in humanity's evolution. Yet it precisely our own evolution which we forget so often to consider. That is the egoism of the modern age - an elevation of "ego-self" at the expense of "Ego-Self". Just as the higher beings are redeeming us, in that redemption we become redeemers as well. We pay back and pay forward to the animal group souls in their own evolutionary development. Not only them, but the plants and minerals as well. It is through these nested metamorphic processes that the whole creation is Redeemed.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body"
- Romans 19:23

What is the capitalized Ego-Self? Who is "Him who subjected it in hope"? These associate with Freud's 'Super-Ego', the God that Nietzsche declared dead, the metanarrative of Modernism - and plenty of older stuff like Gnostic Yaldabaoth.

In somekind of vague memory and playful storytelling I call him/it Sauron. Not as the externalized enemy, but something that I was/have been and became a dead god, or the Sauron who won the war and became utterly bored of his adminitrative tyranny as the Supreme Subjugator and Master Mechanizer.

The power of clock-work metaphor of Modernism, which created the mechanized body and computerized mind of the Subject-Individual, the administrated object of the scribe class ruling both State and Fordism in top down manner, and the scribe class being ruled by the Modernist metanarrative of the clock-work metaphor and practice.

In that sense Nietzsche was the first postmodernist / critic of the postmodern condition, making note that the God of the clockwork metanarrative was dead and Modernism had become hollow and meaningless. But as Vervaeke also notes, the postmodern dialectic from Nietzsche onwards remains antagonistic, depending on the existence of the opponent, who transformed into the mere shadow of the beatern Saruman, shadow of Hilbert who betrayed Modernism by transforming the mathematical foundation and ontology of physicalism into semantically empty language game which does not compute.

Meanwhile, we have also moved on to metamodern sincerity and search for dia-logos; while all the various layers also coexist and mingle. Left with the heritage of this trembling machine of bubble-gum and wire, what shall we do with it? Let it fall apart, or do some Pygmalion magic? Maybe bit of both, and also something different we have not thought yet?

[AshvinP]

Indeed, these are all beings instrumental in humanity's evolution. Yet it precisely our own evolution which we forget so often to consider. That is the egoism of the modern age - an elevation of "ego-self" at the expense of "Ego-Self". Just as the higher beings are redeeming us, in that redemption we become redeemers as well. We pay back and pay forward to the animal group souls in their own evolutionary development. Not only them, but the plants and minerals as well. It is through these nested metamorphic processes that the whole creation is Redeemed.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body"
- Romans 19:23

What is the capitalized Ego-Self? Who is "Him who subjected it in hope"? These associate with Freud's 'Super-Ego', the God that Nietzsche declared dead, the metanarrative of Modernism - and plenty of older stuff like Gnostic Yaldabaoth.

In somekind of vague memory and playful storytelling I call him/it Sauron. Not as the externalized enemy, but something that I was/have been and became a dead god, or the Sauron who won the war and became utterly bored of his adminitrative tyranny as the Supreme Subjugator and Master Mechanizer.

The power of clock-work metaphor of Modernism, which created the mechanized body and computerized mind of the Subject-Individual, the administrated object of the scribe class ruling both State and Fordism in top down manner, and the scribe class being ruled by the Modernist metanarrative of the clock-work metaphor and practice.

In that sense Nietzsche was the first postmodernist / critic of the postmodern condition, making note that the God of the clockwork metanarrative was dead and Modernism had become hollow and meaningless. But as Vervaeke also notes, the postmodern dialectic from Nietzsche onwards remains antagonistic, depending on the existence of the opponent, who transformed into the mere shadow of the beatern Saruman, shadow of Hilbert who betrayed Modernism by transforming the mathematical foundation and ontology of physicalism into semantically empty language game which does not compute.

Meanwhile, we have also moved on to metamodern sincerity and search for dia-logos; while all the various layers also coexist and mingle. Left with the heritage of this trembling machine of bubble-gum and wire, what shall we do with it? Let it fall apart, or do some Pygmalion magic? Maybe bit of both, and also something different we have not thought yet?

I responded to this on Soul Aesthetics essay thread, as this one is very very long and clearly we are also straying from direct philosophy of Steiner-Schopenhauer. I tried to relate to musical essence as well.

[findingblanks]

Beautiful stuff, Santeri. I am so happy you chime in with those potent antidotes. Also, just because you write great prose.

Yeah, so when Steiner says that it is thinking that tears apart the prior unity of percepts and concepts, we can think of how a ceiling might appear to a spider who is needing to make a split second 'decision' with regard to how much thread it unfolds, how swiftly, and in which direction.

There are readers of PoF who never say much about how they know it is that thinking is responsible for not beholding the prior unity.

Spiders, happily, thank God, don't care.

[findingblanks]

Ashvin says:

"I am saying its very obvious from observing our own human thinking that many percepts are split from many concepts..."

Name three good examples, please. That will help. Try to make them concrete without too much esoteric backdrop if possible. However, if you need to frame with other systems of thought, I fully understand. But three examples of an obvious observation of a percept split from its concept. And after the three, can you say if you also are observing that it was your thinking that split them apart in the first place?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin says:

"I am saying its very obvious from observing our own human thinking that many percepts are split from many concepts..."

Name three good examples, please. That will help. Try to make them concrete without too much esoteric backdrop if possible. However, if you need to frame with other systems of thought, I fully understand. But three examples of an obvious observation of a percept split from its concept. And after the three, can you say if you also are observing that it was your thinking that split them apart in the first place?

FB, we have said over and over that this mechanistic modern way of thinking is not appropriate if we ever want true understanding of the phenomenology of Thinking. It is a really simple concept that all idealists should strive for - abandon modernity's mechanistic reductionism. Stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Don't reduce quality to quantity. Don't confuse imaginative or intuitive thought for mere mechanistic logical chains of abstract thought. "Give me 3 examples of concept split from percept and mechanism by which they are split and reunited" contains all of those reductions in a single request. These are living, breathing, dynamic processes at work. Cleric did that pencil exercise with you and I still have no idea why you consider that insufficient for what you are asking. For our purposes here, it is only necessary to recognize this one simple fact - you do not immediately have all the meaning of the perceptions in the field of your senses as they arrive to you. Do you recognize this fact or not? After that is clarified, we can see how Thinking is the process by which the 'leftover' meaning is attained or rather it is some other known or unknown process. All of this assumes you actually hold to an idealism which considers meaning as objectively shared rather than merely personal (the latter is Schopenhauer position) - if not then we need to explore why you are denying that.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Could it be that you guys are just trying to push this thread to 50 pages, then try for the century mark?

[SanteriSatama]

FB, we have said over and over that this mechanistic modern way of thinking is not appropriate if we ever want true understanding of the phenomenology of Thinking. It is a really simple concept that all idealists should strive for - abandon modernity's mechanistic reductionism. Stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Don't reduce quality to quantity. Don't confuse imaginative or intuitive thought for mere mechanistic logical chains of abstract thought.

Stephen Wolfram, Combinators and the story of computation:

And, yes, in the end all those symbolic expressions could be constructed like combinators from objects—like S and K—with no direct human meaning. But that would be like having a world without nouns—a world where there’s no name for anything—and the representation of everything has to be built from scratch. But the crucial idea that’s central to human language—and now to computational language—is to be able to have layers of abstraction, where one can name things and then refer to them just by name without having to think about how they’re built up “inside”.

This connects with what Vervaeke was talking about Nominalism and Romanticism, as well as meditative observing thinking in high resolution. Nouns - ie. linguistic concepts - emerge as very slow and stiff compilers and sculptures on top of layers and layers of faster and faster verbs and movements - the actual meaning of 'computation'.

Moses Schönfinkel found combinators about 100 years ago, roughly a contemporary of Steiner. The part mechanistic and part non-deterministic aspect of computation is a product of thinking - and as such an aspect of gnothi seauton. The most astonishing finding has been that computation can be reduced to a couple seemingly very simple algorithms - whose actual character and behaviour defies attempts to conceptualize them. To be able to talk to computation processes and control them instrumentally, nominal conceptualizations based on layers of abstraction are needed for our lazy and superficial top foam layer of conceptual and nominal thinking.

Weather in meditation and/or in the reflecting mirror of computation, we dive deeper and deeper in the increasingly finer and finer resolution of the thinkin process, and the ability to find minbogginly simple yet incomprehensible algorithms - which we call Births in Finnish- at the bottom level fills us with sense of wonder and mystery. I don't think such "reductions" are Law-like reductionism in the physicalist sense, but products of Creative Intelligence in ontology of process idealism, in Holomovement. Also, we don't all necessarily follow exactly same algorithms or mixtures of, and universality should not be presupposed, but the fenomena of analogy and association can bridge over large varieties, and we are also able to change and adjust our deep programming on various levels.

On many occations and in various situations conceptual thinking is just impediment of clear and fast thinking that can react and adjust coherently and creativily. "Silent knowing", "whole-body thinking", "post-poning interpretation" etc. vague namings for deep resolution processes can rely on larger and much more inclusive self than just head-strong conceptual rigidity.