Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[Starbuck]

Here is a mathematical perspective on the claims of spiritual science. Just like Steiner, and at about the same time, D. Hilbert pronounced the principle and telos of mathematics: "we must know, we will know", implying that the mathematical reason can and will know everything in the world of mathematics. Watch what happened next:

Fascinating.

On an intuitive level, can we imply that mathematics is self referential as it ultimately all comes from the same source. i.e differentials are illusory?

Steiner, however, is not arguing for symbols as the bearer of the world's Unity, rather he is arguing that Thinking is only means of going beyond mere fragmented symbols into the noumenal Unities (Schopenhauer's will is one such symbol for Steiner).

Is Steiner arguing for meta-cognition?
The will obviously strives for metacognition, The will is whole and complete and yet its blind striving appears to prize metacognition in the phenomenal realm. Im fine with 'thinking' as long as we are clear this is not just thinking for thinking's sake?

[Starbuck]

"Being a limitation or fragmentation of reality or truth, the process of thinking is always tending to return to its source or origin, and it is because of this that the disciplines of philosophy and science exist in our culture. Every thought process or the line of reasoning that a philosopher or scientist embarks upon is a process whereby the finite mind is tending to return to its source. That is why all philosophers and scientists desire one thing alone which is understanding. Their thoughts tend towards understanding. The experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking, into its source of consciousness. It is for this reason, contrary to popular belief, that for some people ‘thinking’ is a spiritual path. It is as legitimate spiritual path as any other path."

Rupert Spira

[JustinG]

I must confess that I may be defecting to the red team, given that Steiner didn't make it into the All-star World Cup match

I reckon Germany could have had this in the bag if they had made their substitution earlier in the game (and it looks like Socrates was in fact offside)

[AshvinP]

Fascinating.

On an intuitive level, can we imply that mathematics is self referential as it ultimately all comes from the same source. i.e differentials are illusory?

Steiner, however, is not arguing for symbols as the bearer of the world's Unity, rather he is arguing that Thinking is only means of going beyond mere fragmented symbols into the noumenal Unities (Schopenhauer's will is one such symbol for Steiner).

Is Steiner arguing for meta-cognition?
The will obviously strives for metacognition, The will is whole and complete and yet its blind striving appears to prize metacognition in the phenomenal realm. Im fine with 'thinking' as long as we are clear this is not just thinking for thinking's sake?

No, if we are taking "metacognition" as abstract reasoning, because Steiner argues Thinking (rationality, reason, imagination, inspiration, and intuition) can allow direct perception (which is inseperable from thinking) of noumenal relations so that abstract reasoning via symbols is no longer necessary. Jung's archetypes are a good example - Steiner says we can directly perceive the ideal Being who gives rise to the "Hero" archetype. None of this integration is for "its own sake" but it also does not presume to know what the specific noumenal relations are before direct perception of them.

[AshvinP]

"Being a limitation or fragmentation of reality or truth, the process of thinking is always tending to return to its source or origin, and it is because of this that the disciplines of philosophy and science exist in our culture. Every thought process or the line of reasoning that a philosopher or scientist embarks upon is a process whereby the finite mind is tending to return to its source. That is why all philosophers and scientists desire one thing alone which is understanding. Their thoughts tend towards understanding. The experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking, into its source of consciousness. It is for this reason, contrary to popular belief, that for some people ‘thinking’ is a spiritual path. It is as legitimate spiritual path as any other path."

Rupert Spira

Spira's position as expressed in above quote is in relative harmony with Steiner until it says, "experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking". If "thinking" means mere rational intellect, then yes definitely, and that's usually how most people mean it (I am not sure about Spira). Steiner has a much higher and more noble sense of "Thinking", which is fundamental to all experience and therefore never dissolves. One's Thinking can perceive ideas (more accurately ideal relations) just as one's eyes can perceive color relations in the world. The proper domain of Thinking is bringing the most varied phenomenal relations back into ideal harmony with each other.

PS - I am out of town for next two days so likely will not be commenting.

[Starbuck]

"Being a limitation or fragmentation of reality or truth, the process of thinking is always tending to return to its source or origin, and it is because of this that the disciplines of philosophy and science exist in our culture. Every thought process or the line of reasoning that a philosopher or scientist embarks upon is a process whereby the finite mind is tending to return to its source. That is why all philosophers and scientists desire one thing alone which is understanding. Their thoughts tend towards understanding. The experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking, into its source of consciousness. It is for this reason, contrary to popular belief, that for some people ‘thinking’ is a spiritual path. It is as legitimate spiritual path as any other path."

Rupert Spira

Spira's position as expressed in above quote is in relative harmony with Steiner until it says, "experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking". If "thinking" means mere rational intellect, then yes definitely, and that's usually how most people mean it (I am not sure about Spira). Steiner has a much higher and more noble sense of "Thinking", which is fundamental to all experience and therefore never dissolves. One's Thinking can perceive ideas (more accurately ideal relations) just as one's eyes can perceive color relations in the world. The proper domain of Thinking is bringing the most varied phenomenal relations back into ideal harmony with each other.

PS - I am out of town for next two days so likely will not be commenting.

It seems then about how we define thought. For Dante something 'failed' and yet he could still comprehend something bigger than the mind. Like David Bowman at the end of 2001, the glass (vessel) smashes and he is reborn as the starchild. The shift is always from comprehending/grasping towards pure being.

"Here power failed my high imagining;
but, like a smoothly moving wheel, that Love
was now revolving my desire and will,
which moves the sun and all the other stars."

[AshvinP]

"Being a limitation or fragmentation of reality or truth, the process of thinking is always tending to return to its source or origin, and it is because of this that the disciplines of philosophy and science exist in our culture. Every thought process or the line of reasoning that a philosopher or scientist embarks upon is a process whereby the finite mind is tending to return to its source. That is why all philosophers and scientists desire one thing alone which is understanding. Their thoughts tend towards understanding. The experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking, into its source of consciousness. It is for this reason, contrary to popular belief, that for some people ‘thinking’ is a spiritual path. It is as legitimate spiritual path as any other path."

Rupert Spira

Spira's position as expressed in above quote is in relative harmony with Steiner until it says, "experience of understanding is the dissolution of the process of thinking". If "thinking" means mere rational intellect, then yes definitely, and that's usually how most people mean it (I am not sure about Spira). Steiner has a much higher and more noble sense of "Thinking", which is fundamental to all experience and therefore never dissolves. One's Thinking can perceive ideas (more accurately ideal relations) just as one's eyes can perceive color relations in the world. The proper domain of Thinking is bringing the most varied phenomenal relations back into ideal harmony with each other.

PS - I am out of town for next two days so likely will not be commenting.

It seems then about how we define thought. For Dante something 'failed' and yet he could still comprehend something bigger than the mind. Like David Bowman at the end of 2001, the glass (vessel) smashes and he is reborn as the starchild. The shift is always from comprehending/grasping towards pure being.

"Here power failed my high imagining;
but, like a smoothly moving wheel, that Love
was now revolving my desire and will,
which moves the sun and all the other stars."

Yes that imaginative Thinking is exactly what Steiner is speaking of, along with intuitive and inspired. It is quite clearly displayed in visionary thinkers like Dante in the late medieval period. Although I think its fair to say Love is more in the realm of Willing-Feeling, while Memory in the realm of Thinking (not physical realms but realms of fundamental experience). Or, better yet, that Love best connects the two realms (Soul-Spirit). Christ being is Love.

[findingblanks]

First things first, I've posted many many posts in which I praise Bernardo. I'm sorry you haven't seen those and that has caused you take my more cirtical remarks as a fixation of some kind.

But even if you have only seen my critical remarks, I am surprised you interpret it as 'hatred'. If you are being serious, I'm not sure there is much point in trying to have a productive conversation as I imagine you'll take disagreement as hatred. I don't share that stance. I thought you put together a very fun thought experiment.

Anyways....

Steiner says:

"As far as the will is concerned, it can be regarded only as the expression of the activity of our finite personality”

Steiner is making an assumption that he does not explain and that carries presuppositions. Sure, we can just flately say he's right or wrong, but I notice he doesn't motivate the claim. Or, worse (and I am NOT claiming he is doing this) it could be begging the question. If his first use of 'will' in that sentence complies to his conclusion than he begging the question. But it is hard to know because he doesn't explain the claim.

Schopenhauer, in my opinion (and, as you say, in many other people's opinion) doesn't just 'say' that the same will is looking through your eyes as mine, he motivates and explains it. Doesn't mean we have to agree with him, but I take his arguments (to the extent I grasp them) and Bernardo's (and others who argue for this kind of spiritual monism) to strong and at the very least plausible. And I think Steiner's later work actually is more in line which the idea that in actually there is only one true will and it is that will which we grasp cognitively if we truly are grasping our actual nature.

And, then, Steiner says:


"As far as the will is concerned, it can be regarded only as the expression of the activity of our finite personality. Schopenhauer wants to avoid making “abstract” thinking the bearer of unity in the world, and seeks instead something which presents itself to him immediately as real."

As Steiner says later, what he means by thinking is one and the same with a new understanding of 'will,' that thinking/feeling/will are united in the insight he is pointing towards.

I do not believe that Schopenhauer is referring to his desire to eat pizza as what he has cognized as the will that works through all of reality. Thanks, and to the extent that I haven't adequately praised Bernardo in each of my posts, I'm more than happy to repeat here that I consider his work to be some of the most significant stuff taking place in the world of thought these days. And where I disagree with him, I do not make it personal and I know he appreciates the debates.

I love BK!

I just think Steiner clearly misrepresented Schopenhauer.

Oh I am sure you do, but I have also never seen you start a thread which was not "hating" on him

I do not think Steiner misrepresents Schopenhauer at all and I know at least Cleric and Scott agree, so there is good debate to be explored there. I am curious, though, do you have a stance on what you believe Schopenhauer actually claimed, i.e. agree or disagree with him on this topic?

[findingblanks]

I would only flip part of what you say around slight. I don't think Schopenhauer's notion of the fundamental will includes all of those later developments, however I do think he would say they include the fundamental will in their various modalities. Schopenhauer's fundamental Will that peeks out behind all our our eyes is more like the "Not I but Christ in me" that Steiner ultimately concedes is the experience of pure will/thinking/feeling he refers to in the 1918 edition of PoF.

In the following two comments by Steiner -- "As far as the will is concerned, it can be regarded only as the expression of the activity of our finite personality” and “Against these arguments it must be said that the activities of our body come to our consciousness only through percepts of the self, and that, as such, they are in no way superior to other percepts” we see that Steiner is applying false presuppositions to Schopenhauer's terms, thereby unintentionally creating a strawman of Schopenhauer that certainly can be easily burned to the ground.

I realized I cannot form a great response to this because I have little idea what you are claiming is the "false presupposition" in those statements made by Steiner and your reasoning for that. But I will give it a shot anyway...

From what I can tell, Schopenhauer definitely claimed the experience of "pure" Will within himself (think sensory deprivation chamber or deep meditation) was what allows him to say he has found a connection to the noumenal Unity which all beings share. Although he adopts a fundamentally flawed concept of "will" which somehow includes all endogenous feelings and thought-forms (not stimulated by any noticeable 'external' events), even that expansive concept of "will" does not actually make sense of the Unities 'beneath' the differentiated phenomenal appearances of the world. It provides him no epistemic warrant to claim any such Unities exist apart from our personal localized consciousness. So maybe that addresses the criticism of Steiner's representation you were making.

[AshvinP]

First things first, I've posted many many posts in which I praise Bernardo. I'm sorry you haven't seen those and that has caused you take my more cirtical remarks as a fixation of some kind.

But even if you have only seen my critical remarks, I am surprised you interpret it as 'hatred'. If you are being serious, I'm not sure there is much point in trying to have a productive conversation as I imagine you'll take disagreement as hatred. I don't share that stance. I thought you put together a very fun thought experiment.

No I wasn't being serious, and thought the tone of the post would make that clear. I prob agree with at least half of the "hateration", which just means calling him out on various inconsistencies.

Will respond to rest of your post later.