"The task of PoF is through nothing but clear and perceptive thinking, to lead the human being to its spiritual core."
Do you believe it is clear and perceptive to say something like the following: "One can notice that if thinking does not find the concept that corresponds to the pure percept and then via thinking attach them, the percept remains free of its concept."
Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:48 pm "The task of PoF is through nothing but clear and perceptive thinking, to lead the human being to its spiritual core."
Do you believe it is clear and perceptive to say something like the following: "One can notice that if thinking does not find the concept that corresponds to the pure percept and then via thinking attach them, the percept remains free of its concept."
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
"Again, I'm not expert on Schopenhauer but from what I've seen so far I don't see how anyone can imagine that Sch. wrote everything that he had, while secretly implying that the Ruling Will is actually the fully conscious World Spirit."
Again, I'm not claiming these various thinkers translate their core insights into the same schemas. So there is no reason to expect that Steiner should translate his experience of the essence of thinking (and how this essence is the essence of fundamental reality) into anybody's else's narratives and mental representations of other cosmological events. As you said, in PoF, Steiner isn't concerned one bit about what research a person might do. He is pointing to what he claims anybody can notice who is paying careful attention. He is not requiring deep spiritual metamorphosis. One of the many ways we know this is that young Steiner actually expected materialistic philosophers to be able to read PoF and agree with him. He certainly wasn't expecting them to read it and then claim they believe in spiritual realities or anything of the sort.
"Everything around Schopenhauer is permeated with this soul mood of the mysterious and blind World Will, which ultimately reflects in his pessimistic outlook."
Again projecting onto him. By the way, 'projecting' here doesn't mean anything about your emotional development. It isn't psychoanalysis. I simply am noticing that you are placing expectations and linguistic frames and representations onto Schopenhauer and you don't see to be aware of it. This is one of the most natural intellectual and cognitive things that happens when trying to understand another person. But speaking matter of factly about the 'soul mood' that permeates Schopenhauer without any reference at all to the role your life, expectations, understanding of Steiner -- and other relevant social, cultural, and personal influences -- is very telling. I've noticed that within Anthroposophy it is very common to talk about such things as if a person is -- due to their objectivity and inner work -- accurately portraying the inner reality of the other thinker's supposed philosophy. It is 100% impossible to argue with this sort of thing and I don't intend to. I've read enough Steiner to see the ways he initiated this kind of capturing of the 'mood that lives in the work' and I understand there can be benefits in trying to catch a whiff of something objective like this. But it certainly isn't all that helpful in the context of people claiming they are trying to get down into the details and not make assumptions.
More specifically, the 'blind Will' and what it is like to be intuiting it seems to go along wonderfully with ways Steiner has described the utter 'unknowing' that accompanies intuitive union with the source of all existence. As you say, to really find the wider and deeper meanings that the skeleton's of their philosophies suggest, we have to leave the abstractions a bit. This means we are making all kinds of interpretations based on the hits and guesses we can derive from other comments. But that is yet another reason why we need to see what a mistake it is to simply say they aren't talking about the same essence because of word, concept, and tonal differences. That almost suggests that you'd expect a modern version of PoF to seem to agree with the book from 1893. Of course not, on the surface it should clash and seem to work against in dozens of ways. The idea that Anthroposophist of today are likely to embrace the various incarnations of PoF today borders on ridiculous. Most modern Anthroposophists still speak comfortably of percepts being attached to concepts by thinking. Think about that.
I will say that one of the many signs that I think indicate an Anthroposophist hasn't moved from the second stage of a PoF practice is that they don't have an experience of utter mystery that sparks into being as they more fully participate 'intuitive thinking.' Of course, now that I've said that, I imagine you'll want to quickly help me understand the objective difference between 'mysterious mood' that surrounds all that Schopenhauer says about 'blind will' and the kind of mysterious experience that naturally is born in grasping the true nature of cognition.
"We need inner mobility to recognize whole inner stances and not simply try to comprehend intellectual fragments."
Oh dear. Yes, of course. And I'm assuming that your grasping of Schopenhauer's soul mood is an example of this kind of inner mobility? I know you are not being arrogant and claiming you have captured everything in the deepest way. That isn't my point. My sense is that to some degree you are contrasting this capacity for intuitive mobility with a more superficial and intellectual focus on words and meaning on that level.
"In Schopenhauer we have something quite similar in terms of spiritual stance, except that what the ego has been rising from is considered to be of spiritual nature - the blind World Will."
I feel fairly certain that when you come across other contexts in which Steiner describes the essence of reality as various forms of 'generative darkness' and such, you'll make sure to at least tacitly keep this kind of experience and intuiting apart from the bright light of grasping thinking in its own activity. I also would bet that in the right context, you could fairly easily and comfortably agree with Steiner that the kind of unknowing participation that the human can participate in cognitively with the ground of reality -- that 'darkness' that is not planning from any kind of reflected self-consciousness -- is simply another way of describing the bright clarity of intuitive thinking. And, all this said, in reading Schopenhaer's metaphors and descriptions, a term like 'blind will' is a fairly obvious signal that he isn't at all talking about intuitive thinking.
"Compare this with the perspective that the Spiritual element of the ego is not at all a freak accident of the World Will 'somehow' becoming self-reflective..."
Young Steiner in writing PoF wasn't a jot concerned with claims about evolution. He was ecstatic at the idea that regardless of one's views about other topics, he had written a text which could bring any thinker into a truer relationship with the starting-point. We make a huge mistake if we even tacitly think he expected -- back in 1894 -- that starting-point to kick off a movement of spiritual scientists who would independently research such things as "Old Saturn" and all the other kinds of representations that Steiner later picked up and used as templates for his spiritual research. Again, from his letters at the time, it was clear that Steiner had a very clear sense of what it meant for somebody to truly grasp his points. He was very sad and disappointed that many of the people he most expected to grasp his meaning did not. And his enthusiasm that Rosa Mayreder had grasped his core point in PoF is just one kind of evidence that many anthroposophists are retro-projecting what the purpose of the book was when written. Again, this i understandable when you read the way Steiner's own description of the book's goal evolved over time, especially when speaking to certain audiences.
But I'll continue the rhythm of matching your abstractness (not in the negative sense of the term) and moving to details: have you read anything from Schopenhauer that suggests human self-awareness was 'random?' Or are you infusing the word 'blind' with a meaning that necessitates the kind of 'randomness' that modern scientific-mechanical consciousness is mired in? You often ask me for specific quotes from Schopenhauer. I don't ask you for a quote, but I am curious if you've read anything from his works that suggested that the mergence of human experience was a 'freak accident?'
My sense is that you have a cosmology that is rich and saturated with meaning, that your cosmology allows you to contemplate vast images of reality and to dive into very precise details of texts like PoF, that it helps you frame and gain insights regarding many of the horrors of our modern age, and that even though you would never dogmatically think that humanity must begin to experience truth more like you, you would have a moment of difficulty if you needed to describe powerful paths forward in which humanity could make no sense of a text like PoF. But who knows. I don't know what your deepest doubts are about Steiner. You may be one who holds him in the kind of high regard that is very suspcious of anybody who claims to rever him while seeing his clairvoyance and perceptual capacities as being very imperfect and confused. Not because I or anybody else is 'more' clairvoyant or smarter or anything like that at all. Simply because Steiner made certain kinds of errors and observations that these can be grasped in relation to assumptions he took for granted. None of this diminishes the incredible brilliance of what he did clearly see and show, and yet you might also be the newer kind of budding Anthroposophist who sees there is no tension at all in seeing Steiner in this complex light. Regardless of all of the vast space that might live inside you, I at least feel you care deeply about the world and have grand and detailed ways of touching that meaning.
I still think that much of this can be most clearly examined in you showing me where in the text of PoF we can most clearly see that Steiner is showing the way in which thinking is within the percept rather than an activity that brings a concept to a percept. But that can feel dry compared to the more grand examinations of the 'moods' that lurk within lines-of-thought or noticing that in Schopenhauer's work we don't see a clear way to grasp the beauty of the evolution of consciousness and on and on and on. My hunch is that you won't find anything clear to point to that indicates Schopenhauer would find the most beautiful develops of the 'blind will' to be freak accidents. But I hope I'm wrong because then I'll need to dig more deeply on both sides of the fence.
Again, I'm not claiming these various thinkers translate their core insights into the same schemas. So there is no reason to expect that Steiner should translate his experience of the essence of thinking (and how this essence is the essence of fundamental reality) into anybody's else's narratives and mental representations of other cosmological events. As you said, in PoF, Steiner isn't concerned one bit about what research a person might do. He is pointing to what he claims anybody can notice who is paying careful attention. He is not requiring deep spiritual metamorphosis. One of the many ways we know this is that young Steiner actually expected materialistic philosophers to be able to read PoF and agree with him. He certainly wasn't expecting them to read it and then claim they believe in spiritual realities or anything of the sort.
"Everything around Schopenhauer is permeated with this soul mood of the mysterious and blind World Will, which ultimately reflects in his pessimistic outlook."
Again projecting onto him. By the way, 'projecting' here doesn't mean anything about your emotional development. It isn't psychoanalysis. I simply am noticing that you are placing expectations and linguistic frames and representations onto Schopenhauer and you don't see to be aware of it. This is one of the most natural intellectual and cognitive things that happens when trying to understand another person. But speaking matter of factly about the 'soul mood' that permeates Schopenhauer without any reference at all to the role your life, expectations, understanding of Steiner -- and other relevant social, cultural, and personal influences -- is very telling. I've noticed that within Anthroposophy it is very common to talk about such things as if a person is -- due to their objectivity and inner work -- accurately portraying the inner reality of the other thinker's supposed philosophy. It is 100% impossible to argue with this sort of thing and I don't intend to. I've read enough Steiner to see the ways he initiated this kind of capturing of the 'mood that lives in the work' and I understand there can be benefits in trying to catch a whiff of something objective like this. But it certainly isn't all that helpful in the context of people claiming they are trying to get down into the details and not make assumptions.
More specifically, the 'blind Will' and what it is like to be intuiting it seems to go along wonderfully with ways Steiner has described the utter 'unknowing' that accompanies intuitive union with the source of all existence. As you say, to really find the wider and deeper meanings that the skeleton's of their philosophies suggest, we have to leave the abstractions a bit. This means we are making all kinds of interpretations based on the hits and guesses we can derive from other comments. But that is yet another reason why we need to see what a mistake it is to simply say they aren't talking about the same essence because of word, concept, and tonal differences. That almost suggests that you'd expect a modern version of PoF to seem to agree with the book from 1893. Of course not, on the surface it should clash and seem to work against in dozens of ways. The idea that Anthroposophist of today are likely to embrace the various incarnations of PoF today borders on ridiculous. Most modern Anthroposophists still speak comfortably of percepts being attached to concepts by thinking. Think about that.
I will say that one of the many signs that I think indicate an Anthroposophist hasn't moved from the second stage of a PoF practice is that they don't have an experience of utter mystery that sparks into being as they more fully participate 'intuitive thinking.' Of course, now that I've said that, I imagine you'll want to quickly help me understand the objective difference between 'mysterious mood' that surrounds all that Schopenhauer says about 'blind will' and the kind of mysterious experience that naturally is born in grasping the true nature of cognition.
"We need inner mobility to recognize whole inner stances and not simply try to comprehend intellectual fragments."
Oh dear. Yes, of course. And I'm assuming that your grasping of Schopenhauer's soul mood is an example of this kind of inner mobility? I know you are not being arrogant and claiming you have captured everything in the deepest way. That isn't my point. My sense is that to some degree you are contrasting this capacity for intuitive mobility with a more superficial and intellectual focus on words and meaning on that level.
"In Schopenhauer we have something quite similar in terms of spiritual stance, except that what the ego has been rising from is considered to be of spiritual nature - the blind World Will."
I feel fairly certain that when you come across other contexts in which Steiner describes the essence of reality as various forms of 'generative darkness' and such, you'll make sure to at least tacitly keep this kind of experience and intuiting apart from the bright light of grasping thinking in its own activity. I also would bet that in the right context, you could fairly easily and comfortably agree with Steiner that the kind of unknowing participation that the human can participate in cognitively with the ground of reality -- that 'darkness' that is not planning from any kind of reflected self-consciousness -- is simply another way of describing the bright clarity of intuitive thinking. And, all this said, in reading Schopenhaer's metaphors and descriptions, a term like 'blind will' is a fairly obvious signal that he isn't at all talking about intuitive thinking.
"Compare this with the perspective that the Spiritual element of the ego is not at all a freak accident of the World Will 'somehow' becoming self-reflective..."
Young Steiner in writing PoF wasn't a jot concerned with claims about evolution. He was ecstatic at the idea that regardless of one's views about other topics, he had written a text which could bring any thinker into a truer relationship with the starting-point. We make a huge mistake if we even tacitly think he expected -- back in 1894 -- that starting-point to kick off a movement of spiritual scientists who would independently research such things as "Old Saturn" and all the other kinds of representations that Steiner later picked up and used as templates for his spiritual research. Again, from his letters at the time, it was clear that Steiner had a very clear sense of what it meant for somebody to truly grasp his points. He was very sad and disappointed that many of the people he most expected to grasp his meaning did not. And his enthusiasm that Rosa Mayreder had grasped his core point in PoF is just one kind of evidence that many anthroposophists are retro-projecting what the purpose of the book was when written. Again, this i understandable when you read the way Steiner's own description of the book's goal evolved over time, especially when speaking to certain audiences.
But I'll continue the rhythm of matching your abstractness (not in the negative sense of the term) and moving to details: have you read anything from Schopenhauer that suggests human self-awareness was 'random?' Or are you infusing the word 'blind' with a meaning that necessitates the kind of 'randomness' that modern scientific-mechanical consciousness is mired in? You often ask me for specific quotes from Schopenhauer. I don't ask you for a quote, but I am curious if you've read anything from his works that suggested that the mergence of human experience was a 'freak accident?'
My sense is that you have a cosmology that is rich and saturated with meaning, that your cosmology allows you to contemplate vast images of reality and to dive into very precise details of texts like PoF, that it helps you frame and gain insights regarding many of the horrors of our modern age, and that even though you would never dogmatically think that humanity must begin to experience truth more like you, you would have a moment of difficulty if you needed to describe powerful paths forward in which humanity could make no sense of a text like PoF. But who knows. I don't know what your deepest doubts are about Steiner. You may be one who holds him in the kind of high regard that is very suspcious of anybody who claims to rever him while seeing his clairvoyance and perceptual capacities as being very imperfect and confused. Not because I or anybody else is 'more' clairvoyant or smarter or anything like that at all. Simply because Steiner made certain kinds of errors and observations that these can be grasped in relation to assumptions he took for granted. None of this diminishes the incredible brilliance of what he did clearly see and show, and yet you might also be the newer kind of budding Anthroposophist who sees there is no tension at all in seeing Steiner in this complex light. Regardless of all of the vast space that might live inside you, I at least feel you care deeply about the world and have grand and detailed ways of touching that meaning.
I still think that much of this can be most clearly examined in you showing me where in the text of PoF we can most clearly see that Steiner is showing the way in which thinking is within the percept rather than an activity that brings a concept to a percept. But that can feel dry compared to the more grand examinations of the 'moods' that lurk within lines-of-thought or noticing that in Schopenhauer's work we don't see a clear way to grasp the beauty of the evolution of consciousness and on and on and on. My hunch is that you won't find anything clear to point to that indicates Schopenhauer would find the most beautiful develops of the 'blind will' to be freak accidents. But I hope I'm wrong because then I'll need to dig more deeply on both sides of the fence.
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
I dont get why you keep asking for us to show where Steiner said thinking is within the percept... he does not claim that and neither do we. What exactly is the purpose of asking that? Maybe that would clear up the confusion.findingblanks wrote:
I still think that much of this can be most clearly examined in you showing me where in the text of PoF we can most clearly see that Steiner is showing the way in which thinking is within the percept rather than an activity that brings a concept to a percept. But that can feel dry compared to the more grand examinations of the 'moods' that lurk within lines-of-thought or noticing that in Schopenhauer's work we don't see a clear way to grasp the beauty of the evolution of consciousness and on and on and on. My hunch is that you won't find anything clear to point to that indicates Schopenhauer would find the most beautiful develops of the 'blind will' to be freak accidents. But I hope I'm wrong because then I'll need to dig more deeply on both sides of the fence.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
"I dont get why you keep asking for us to show where Steiner said thinking is within the percept... he does not claim that and neither do we. What exactly is the purpose of asking that? Maybe that would clear up the confusion."
"One only escapes the confusion that arises in one’s critical reflection concerning this standpoint when one notices that inside everything we can experience by means of perceiving, be it within ourselves or outside in the world, there is something which cannot succumb to the fate that a representation inserts itself between event and contemplating human being. And this something is thinking." - Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom
1) I asked you show me where he claims that thinking can be found to inside every perception. I didn't ask you show me him using those words. In fact, I asked you NOT to refer to his update in 1918.
2) You ask me to show you where Schopenhauer claims that The Will is a cognitive reality. Just like you say about Steiner, you simply can't find Schopenhauer explicitly stating that. But, as with Steiner's first edition being able to interpreted to mean that thinking is already within any perception, Schopenhauer is open to the interpretation that he clearly grasped that The Will presupposes a kind of cognitive intricacy.
Yet you find it perplexing that I could say Schopenhauer and Steiner are speaking of much the same experience. And you, for now, feel strongly that PoF doesn't show us how thinking is "a something" found in every perception.
Trust me, I am aware of the two or three responses you're going to have that will suggest there really is a pure percept that is untouched by thinking. But I hope you hold off and to soak in my point again.
Or at least keep repeating to yourself that Steiner never means that within any perception is thinking.
"One only escapes the confusion that arises in one’s critical reflection concerning this standpoint when one notices that inside everything we can experience by means of perceiving, be it within ourselves or outside in the world, there is something which cannot succumb to the fate that a representation inserts itself between event and contemplating human being. And this something is thinking." - Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom
1) I asked you show me where he claims that thinking can be found to inside every perception. I didn't ask you show me him using those words. In fact, I asked you NOT to refer to his update in 1918.
2) You ask me to show you where Schopenhauer claims that The Will is a cognitive reality. Just like you say about Steiner, you simply can't find Schopenhauer explicitly stating that. But, as with Steiner's first edition being able to interpreted to mean that thinking is already within any perception, Schopenhauer is open to the interpretation that he clearly grasped that The Will presupposes a kind of cognitive intricacy.
Yet you find it perplexing that I could say Schopenhauer and Steiner are speaking of much the same experience. And you, for now, feel strongly that PoF doesn't show us how thinking is "a something" found in every perception.
Trust me, I am aware of the two or three responses you're going to have that will suggest there really is a pure percept that is untouched by thinking. But I hope you hold off and to soak in my point again.
Or at least keep repeating to yourself that Steiner never means that within any perception is thinking.
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:48 pm Do you believe it is clear and perceptive to say something like the following: "One can notice that if thinking does not find the concept that corresponds to the pure percept and then via thinking attach them, the percept remains free of its concept."
(I started to write this before I saw that Ashvin asked the same thing)findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:44 pm Most modern Anthroposophists still speak comfortably of percepts being attached to concepts by thinking. Think about that.
You seem to bring this a lot but I'm not sure I understand what exactly are you objecting to. Think of a written word. If we're illiterate, we have a perception for which the act of observation (which is still a form of spiritual activity) experiences certain meaning, for example "weird ink markings". If we learn to read, then in addition to the visual perception we have the ideal experience of meaning (the concept). We attach the concept through the act of reading, which is spiritual activity (thinking). This is pretty straightforward. Maybe you should elaborate more on the nature of the problem.
I'm simply drawing upon the common information that can be found. I'm not speaking of random self-awareness but of the "mindless, aimless, non-rational impulse at the foundation of our instinctual drives, and at the foundational being of everything." I'm not inventing the hot water here. There can be many arguments about the nuances of Sch's philosophy but his general mood is pretty well communicated IMO. When I speak of an accident I mean something specific. Sch. didn't maintain that things are random. Actually he believed that things can be thoroughly comprehended, based on the principle of sufficient reason. This is no different in materialism. The fact that things can be traced into chains of cause and effects doesn't mean that there's conscious ideating activity behind them. In other words, Sch. speaks of the Will being objectified in comprehensible Platonic ideas but he argues that the Will doesn't do that consciously. The Will can only reflect about its nature post-factum, when it has reached the level of complexity such as we find in ourselves. And it is here that man (the Will) discovers his utterly tragic nature, where the only thing worth pursuing is complete renunciation of the life of appearances and attaining to mystical unity with the Will. In other words, the Will in man, as soon as it attains to self-reflection, becomes conscious only of its aimless and suffering-prone nature. Sch's solution is a kind of a borderline existence where the Will experiences itself consciously (and aesthetically) but suppresses to sufficient degree it's aimless urges, such that man is saved from consciously experiencing their painful repercussions.findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:44 pm But I'll continue the rhythm of matching your abstractness (not in the negative sense of the term) and moving to details: have you read anything from Schopenhauer that suggests human self-awareness was 'random?' Or are you infusing the word 'blind' with a meaning that necessitates the kind of 'randomness' that modern scientific-mechanical consciousness is mired in? You often ask me for specific quotes from Schopenhauer. I don't ask you for a quote, but I am curious if you've read anything from his works that suggested that the mergence of human experience was a 'freak accident?'
So when I speak of accident of human existence, I refer to precisely to the fact that even though we can reason about the chain of cause and effects leading to the human condition, there's no conscious ideating force behind this chain. This leads to the notorious question of "why something rather than nothing". Such a question can arise only when unconscious forces are supposed to be lying at the grounds of existence. Such a question is meaningless in a world where the Will is ideating Spiritual activity. Then we can not only externally assess a chain of cause and effects but internally experience the ideas that spiritual beings have implemented in the metamorphic process.
And here again we reach the main difference between Sch's philosophy and esoteric science. As far as we simply trace back the history of humanity from our Earthly perspective, we always reach a kind of dimming down of consciousness. In a similar way we reach such dimming when we trace our consciousness back towards the infant age. This leads to the natural conclusion that conscious man emerged from the unconscious sea of Will. And from our Earthly perspective it certainly seems so. Yet what we have attained as Thinking is not simply the rock that the Sisyphus-Will has pushed to the ego-top, only to realize the aimlessness of it. Thinking is the process through which we unite not only with the blind Will that has led us here but also with the Ideas that the Willing beings realize. Clearly I'm not speaking of abstract theology but of the higher forms of cognition that we're destined to develop and which lead us to the World-Willing Spirit which we experience today most clearly in our Thinking.
(sorry, I don't have time right now to go through each one of the remaining remarks. Please tell me if you want some of them specifically addressed.)
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
FB, I'm still confused. Can you explain plainly what you mean by quoting the 1918 addendum above. Is it meant to show that 'thinking is in perceptions'? Or something else?findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:55 pm "I dont get why you keep asking for us to show where Steiner said thinking is within the percept... he does not claim that and neither do we. What exactly is the purpose of asking that? Maybe that would clear up the confusion."
"One only escapes the confusion that arises in one’s critical reflection concerning this standpoint when one notices that inside everything we can experience by means of perceiving, be it within ourselves or outside in the world, there is something which cannot succumb to the fate that a representation inserts itself between event and contemplating human being. And this something is thinking." - Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
"We attach the concept through the act of reading, which is spiritual activity (thinking). This is pretty straightforward."
It may seem pretty straight-forward to you because you are not giving a phenomenology of this supposed "attaching" process. Go ahead. Keep the same example of reading and just give a straight forward characterization of how you "attatch" concepts to (squiggle or other concepts) while reading. Don't get theoretical and start saying there are unconscious processes that do the attachment. Stay straight-forward and paint me a picture of the attaching. Thanks!
It may seem pretty straight-forward to you because you are not giving a phenomenology of this supposed "attaching" process. Go ahead. Keep the same example of reading and just give a straight forward characterization of how you "attatch" concepts to (squiggle or other concepts) while reading. Don't get theoretical and start saying there are unconscious processes that do the attachment. Stay straight-forward and paint me a picture of the attaching. Thanks!
-
findingblanks
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
Here this one says it more directly and less ambiguously.
"This then brings us to the further insight that it is thinking which leads into that part of reality which the perception conceals within itself." - Steiner
Tell me straightforwardly *what* perception conceals *within* itself.
As you know, Steiner could not have been clearer that by perception he meant any inner or outer perception.
"This then brings us to the further insight that it is thinking which leads into that part of reality which the perception conceals within itself." - Steiner
Tell me straightforwardly *what* perception conceals *within* itself.
As you know, Steiner could not have been clearer that by perception he meant any inner or outer perception.
Cleric K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:32 pmFB, I'm still confused. Can you explain plainly what you mean by quoting the 1918 addendum above. Is it meant to show that 'thinking is in perceptions'? Or something else?findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:55 pm "I dont get why you keep asking for us to show where Steiner said thinking is within the percept... he does not claim that and neither do we. What exactly is the purpose of asking that? Maybe that would clear up the confusion."
"One only escapes the confusion that arises in one’s critical reflection concerning this standpoint when one notices that inside everything we can experience by means of perceiving, be it within ourselves or outside in the world, there is something which cannot succumb to the fate that a representation inserts itself between event and contemplating human being. And this something is thinking." - Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom
Re: Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)
Straightforwardly: the Idea. This is the missing part of the perception and the part that is recovered by thinking.findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:57 pm Tell me straightforwardly *what* perception conceals *within* itself.