findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 2:53 am
In Stages of Consciousness (and elsewhere) Khulewind argues that when Steiner first says that we can't observe present thinking he doesn't actually mean it. Khulewind says that Steiner is simply stressing that our typical habits of attention avoid being present to thinking. Khulewind says that in the first half of PoF, Steiner is pointing out the necessary starting point, which, Khulewind says, is noticing that typically all we have is the finished thought. For instance, "I am thinking about a table." Or just: "That's a table." Khulewind believes that Steiner was simply trying to point clearly to the dividing line between grasping a thought directly and grasping thinking as a process directly.
So, whereas some of Steiner students say that in chapter 3 Steiner is pointing to the later experience of thinking itself, Khulewind states that in Chapter 3 Steiner is pointing to a very important observation we can make about our daily mode. I agree with Khulewind on this point.
I was actually wondering if you could provide the quotes or even the reference so I can search for the context? It seems that more context will be pretty important in assessing what Khulewind is saying.
As you express it above, I think that interpretation is incorrect. But, it almost doesn't matter what the interpretation is, because if Steiner really "didn't mean it", then I would say Steiner was wrong too and unintentionally wrote something which is acutally correct when taken literally. The reason why is because this can be verified by anyone in their immediate experience - when thinking activity becomes an object of observation, the present thinking is never observed. This is also the metaphysical conclusion necessitated by any view which holds to polar essence of formlessness-form (present thinking and observed thinking, respectively), which are quite a few thinkers independent of Steiner. Again, I am not claiming it must be this way eternally (how could I possibly know that?), but it most definitely is true for any normal cognitive activity.
FB wrote:Regarding the part that you put in bold, I was referring to some of the letters young Steiner wrote shortly after The Philosophy of Freedom was published. In those letters he expressed utter joy when he felt somebody fully grasped his book and he poignantly speaks of his disappointment and surprise when his mentors did not follow his reasoning. He wasn't expecting his mentors to have a transformation of consciousness and then write reviews from that point of view. He simply thought he has explicated his points clearly enough to be understood by the people he wanted to impresses and who he had such respect for. But not just those letters. In lectures he often spoke about his surprise and sadness that people did not understand the points he was making in PoF.
Alright, I agree with that.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
I told you the title of the book. I can't copy out the chapter or quotes at this time. I might be able to in the near future but it depends on other aspects of my day/life that I simply don't know about yet.
By "didn't mean it" I meant that in the vernacular sense. Not that he was lying. Writer's often state things in ways that they don't intend to be taken literally. Steiner himself said that PoF contained clumsy expressions that reflect his youth and relative inexperience. I nor anybody I know who respects Steiner take his clumsiness to come from dishonesty. I know you don't
He was simply being emphatic. And I think he then explains very clearly why his earlier claims are modified by what he unfolds in the second half of the book. But, again, there are some Anthroposophists who believe that in chapter three he his referring to a transformation of consciousness that is the core initiation experience of Anthroposophy from the cognitive perspective.
I'm senstive to us hijacking somebody's thread, so I'd love it if we continued this in our conversational thread. Thanks so much.
I told you the title of the book. I can't copy out the chapter or quotes at this time. I might be able to in the near future but it depends on other aspects of my day/life that I simply don't know about yet.
By "didn't mean it" I meant that in the vernacular sense. Not that he was lying. Writer's often state things in ways that they don't intend to be taken literally. Steiner himself said that PoF contained clumsy expressions that reflect his youth and relative inexperience. I nor anybody I know who respects Steiner take his clumsiness to come from dishonesty. I know you don't
He was simply being emphatic. And I think he then explains very clearly why his earlier claims are modified by what he unfolds in the second half of the book. But, again, there are some Anthroposophists who believe that in chapter three he his referring to a transformation of consciousness that is the core initiation experience of Anthroposophy from the cognitive perspective.
I'm senstive to us hijacking somebody's thread, so I'd love it if we continued this in our conversational thread. Thanks so much.
This is my thread asking BK to consider Steiner, so don't worry about hijacking : )
I didn't think you were accusing of Steiner of being dishonest... I was saying I disagree with your interpretation of Steiner and also that the assertion is literally true, independent of anything Steiner intended to mean by it.
Do you have a response to my claim that we can verify in our immediate experience that present thinking cannot be observed?
Last edited by AshvinP on Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
"The reason why {the statement about non-simultaneatity having a thought and noticing the thinking that produced it can be taken literally} is because this can be verified by anyone in their immediate experience - when thinking activity becomes an object of observation, the present thinking is never observed."
My response will sound evasive to you because, so far, you don't agree with me that different words and concepts are being grasped and used differently without comment, which causes at least two levels of confusion because you may have a disagreement regarding the content/point and yet this is somewhat distorted and obscured by not having come to shared understandings of terms. Fortunately, Steiner himself often directly commented on how tricky this is so I at least have good company and don't feel crazy for bringing it up here. Oh, I know you weren't suggesting I was crazy! It just can start to feel that way when somebody else only views my need to tease apart meaning as obfuscation. That's why I like to see how easily I confuse some but make sense to others!
In short. I can fully agree with your statement if the core terms are taken one way and I'd disagree if taken another. So let me ask you, when you write:
"when thinking activity becomes an object of observation, the present thinking is never observed."
Could you please give me a concrete example so I can see how you are specifically using a few of those terms? Thanks so much!
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:23 pm
In short. I can fully agree with your statement if the core terms are taken one way and I'd disagree if taken another. So let me ask you, when you write:
"when thinking activity becomes an object of observation, the present thinking is never observed."
Could you please give me a concrete example so I can see how you are specifically using a few of those terms? Thanks so much!
Ok, let's say you are looking at a table and begin thinking about its qualities. Then, you start thinking about how your thinking was just relating different qualities of the table to one another. Now you are observing your thinking about the table. I say you are still not observing your present thinking, as a brand new imperceptible 'layer' of thinking manifests every time you begin observing your thinking. And if this self-reflective thinking about thinking continued ad infintum, you will never be observing your present thinking during that entire process. Do you agree?
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Great! Let me go slowly to really track how you use terms.
When you say:
"Now you are observing your thinking about the table."
Are you comfortable also making this point with a slight modification or does this lose something vital in what you are saying here:
"Now you are observing your thoughts about the table."
I can imagine you'd go either way. I ask because if you think your point stands even when substituting 'observing thinking' with 'observing thoughts', I'd really like to know that.
And, yes, I agree that if we only keep observing the end results (the thoughts) of our previous activity of thinking, we will only ever being generating more and more finished thoughts rather than noticing the activity itself in the living present.
"I say you are still not observing your present thinking..."
I think we agree there. Because if you are observing your thoughts, you aren't observing your thinking. That is why I'm curious if the modification I am making works for you without changing your point. But if it doesn't work, that'll help me see your point even more clearly.
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:41 pm
Great! Let me go slowly to really track how you use terms.
When you say:
"Now you are observing your thinking about the table."
Are you comfortable also making this point with a slight modification or does this lose something vital in what you are saying here:
"Now you are observing your thoughts about the table."
I can imagine you'd go either way. I ask because if you think your point stands even when substituting 'observing thinking' with 'observing thoughts', I'd really like to know that.
And, yes, I agree that if we only keep observing the end results (the thoughts) of our previous activity of thinking, we will only ever being generating more and more finished thoughts rather than noticing the activity itself in the living present.
Well, I am comfortable with that change if we make clear that thinking activity is not identical with thoughts, but that our activity can become a thought-form once we begin observing it. Let me formulate it another way. You are looking at the table again...
"I see a table and I observe that it is made of wood, this type of wood, shaped like this, etc."
"In addition to seeing the table, I am now also observing how my thinking related the table's qualities together."
"In addition to seeing the table and observing my thinking which related the table's qualities together, I am now also observing how my thinking was relating how my thinking was relating the table qualities..."
Every time the word "I" is used, we are indicating a fresh process of thinking which is doing the observing and is not itself being observed. This will go on infinitely. So to say one cannot simultaneously think and contemplate that present thinking is literally true in our immanent experience.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:23 pm
In short. I can fully agree with your statement if the core terms are taken one way and I'd disagree if taken another. So let me ask you, when you write:
"when thinking activity becomes an object of observation, the present thinking is never observed."
Could you please give me a concrete example so I can see how you are specifically using a few of those terms? Thanks so much!
Ok, let's say you are looking at a table and begin thinking about its qualities. Then, you start thinking about how your thinking was just relating different qualities of the table to one another. Now you are observing your thinking about the table. I say you are still not observing your present thinking, as a brand new imperceptible 'layer' of thinking manifests every time you begin observing your thinking. And if this self-reflective thinking about thinking continued ad infintum, you will never be observing your present thinking during that entire process. Do you agree?
Seems that behind this thinking - is a seperate mind, person or thinker who can appreciate or evaluate thoughts, and establish what is the current thought, etc.. However, there isn't a 'you' behind thinking, there isn't a seperate thinker. The 'thinker' is just another thought.
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:23 pm
In short. I can fully agree with your statement if the core terms are taken one way and I'd disagree if taken another. So let me ask you, when you write:
"when thinking activity becomes an object of observation, the present thinking is never observed."
Could you please give me a concrete example so I can see how you are specifically using a few of those terms? Thanks so much!
Ok, let's say you are looking at a table and begin thinking about its qualities. Then, you start thinking about how your thinking was just relating different qualities of the table to one another. Now you are observing your thinking about the table. I say you are still not observing your present thinking, as a brand new imperceptible 'layer' of thinking manifests every time you begin observing your thinking. And if this self-reflective thinking about thinking continued ad infintum, you will never be observing your present thinking during that entire process. Do you agree?
Seems that behind this thinking - is a seperate mind, person or thinker who can appreciate or evaluate thoughts, and establish what is the current thought, etc.. However, there isn't a 'you' behind thinking, there isn't a seperate thinker. The 'thinker' is just another thought.
Generally, I now reject abstract interpretations of facts which ask me to deny my immanent experience of those same facts (as they are perceived by my Reason). The thinking activity which I can never perceive, as infinite and eternal as it undoubtedly is, finds a place of immediate contact with my finite being, however miniscule that point of contact may be, in the intuition of my "I" who thinks the thoughts. To abandon that luminous intuition for the abstract darkness of "the thinker is just another thought" is practically the definition of nihilism.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
