Steiner and concepts

[Güney27]

I'm reading steiner right now and i'm stuck on a question: what is the difference between a term and a designation?
Let's take the example of the triangle.
Triangle is just a term for something in our perception that shows a certain regularity (if you are nominalist).
But then what is a term more than a word.
Or rather what is the difference between the two.
If we are to perceive concepts, a reason should first be provided why one should advocate realism.
In everyday consciousness, nominalism comes across as the most sensible thing to me.
But I'm happy to be corrected if I didn't pay attention to something.
Regards

[AshvinP]

I'm reading steiner right now and i'm stuck on a question: what is the difference between a term and a designation?
Let's take the example of the triangle.
Triangle is just a term for something in our perception that shows a certain regularity (if you are nominalist).
But then what is a term more than a word.
Or rather what is the difference between the two.
If we are to perceive concepts, a reason should first be provided why one should advocate realism.
In everyday consciousness, nominalism comes across as the most sensible thing to me.
But I'm happy to be corrected if I didn't pay attention to something.
Regards

Guney,

I may add more later, but I'm not sure if I could be more clear than Steiner himself in the following lecture. The key takeaway is that a new living, adaptive, flexible thinking is needed today. These modern philosophical conceptual systems are all tools for us to employ as needed within various domains of experience. They are not truths-in-themselves about the nature of Reality.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA151/En ... 21p01.html

Yesterday I said that once there were Nominalists, persons who maintained that general concepts had no reality, but were merely names. These Nominalists had opponents who were called Realists (the word had a different meaning then). The Realists maintained that general concepts are not mere words, but refer to quite definite realities. In the Middle Ages the question of Realism versus Nominalism was always a burning one, especially for theology, a sphere of thought with which present-day thinkers trouble themselves very little. For in the time when the question of Nominalism versus Realism arose (from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries) there was something that belonged to the most important confessions of faith, the question about the three “Divine Persons” — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — who form One Divine Being, but are still Three real Persons. The Nominalists maintained that these three Divine Persons existed only individually, the “Father” for Himself, the “Son” for Himself, and the “Holy Ghost” for Himself; and if one spoke of a “Collective God” Who comprised these Three, that was only a name for the Three. Thus Nominalism did away with the unity of the Trinity. In opposition to the Realists, the Nominalists not only explained away the unity, but even regarded it as heretical to declare, as the Realists did, that the Three Persons formed not merely an imaginary unity, but an actual one.

Thus Nominalism and Realism were opposites. And anyone who goes deeply into the literature of Realism and Nominalism during these centuries gets a deep insight into what human acumen can produce. For the most ingenious grounds were brought forward for Nominalism, just as much as for Realism. In those days it was more difficult to be reckoned as a thinker because there was no printing press, and it was not an easy thing to take part in such controversies as that between Nominalism and Realism. Anyone who ventured into this field had to be better prepared, according to the ideas of those times, than is required of people who engage in controversies nowadays. An immense amount of penetration was necessary in order to plead the cause of Realism, and it was equally so with Nominalism. How does this come about? It is grievous that things are so, and if one reflects more deeply on it, one is led to say: What use is it that you are so clever? You can be clever and plead the cause of Nominalism, and you can be just as clever and contradict Nominalism. One can get quite confused about the whole question of intelligence! It is distressing even to listen to what such characterisations are supposed to mean.

Now, as a contrast to what we have been saying, we will bring forward something that is perhaps not nearly so discerning as much that has been advanced with regard to Nominalism or to Realism, but it has perhaps one merit — it goes straight to the point and indicates the direction in which one needs to think.

Let us imagine the way in which one forms general concepts; the way in which one synthesizes a mass of details. We can do this in two ways: first as a man does in the course of his life through the world. He sees numerous examples of a certain kind of animal: they are silky or woolly, are of various colours, have whiskers, at certain times they go through movements that recall human “washing”, they eat mice, etc. One can call such creatures “cats”. Then one has formed a general concept. All these creatures have something to do with what we call “cats”. But now let us suppose that someone has had a long life, in the course of which he has encountered many cat-owners, men and women, and he has noticed that a great many of these people call their pets “Pussy”. Hence he classes all these creatures under the name of “Pussy”. Hence we now have the general concept “Cats” and the general concept “Pussy”, and a large number of individual creatures belonging in both cases to the general concept. And yet no one will maintain that the general concept “Pussy” has the same significance as the general concept “Cats”. Here the real difference comes out. In forming the general concept “Pussy” which is only a summary of names that must rank as individual names, we have taken the line, and rightly so, of Nominalism; and in forming the general concept “Cats” we have taken the line of Realism, and rightly so. In one case Nominalism is correct; in the other. Realism. Both are right. One must only apply these methods within their proper limits. And when both are right, it is not surprising that good reasons for both can be adduced. In taking the name “Pussy”, I have employed a somewhat grotesque example. But I can show you a much more significant example and I will do so at once.

Within the scope of our objective experience there is a whole realm where Nominalism — the idea that the collective term is only a name — is fully justified. We have “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”, “five”, and so on, but it is impossible to find in the expression “number” anything that has a real existence. “Number” has no existence. “One”, “two”, “three”, “five”, “six”, — they exist. But what I said in the last lecture, that in order to find the general concept one must let that which corresponds to it pass over into movement — this cannot be done with the concept “Number”. One “one” does not pass over into “two”. It must always be taken as “one”. Not even in thought can we pass over into two, or from two into three. Only the individual numbers exist, not “number” in general. As applied to the nature of numbers, Nominalism is entirely correct; but when we come to the single animal in relation to its genus, Realism is entirely correct. For it is impossible for a deer to exist, and another deer, and yet another, without there being the genus “deer”. The figure “two” can exist for itself, “one”, “seven”, etc., can exist for themselves. But in so far as anything real appears in number, the number is a quality, and the concept “number” has no specific existence. External things are related to general concepts in two different ways: Nominalism is appropriate in one case, and Realism in the other.

On these lines, if we simply give our thoughts the right direction, we begin to understand why there are so many disputes about conceptions of the world. People generally are not inclined, when they have grasped one standpoint, to grasp another as well. When in some realm of thought somebody has got hold of the idea “general concepts have no existence”, he proceeds to extend to it the whole make-up of the world. This sentence, “general concepts have no existence” is not false, for when applied to the particular realm which the person in question has considered, it is correct. It is only the universalising of it that is wrong. Thus it is essential, if one wants to form a correct idea of what thinking is, to understand clearly that the truth of a thought in the realm to which it belongs is no evidence for its general validity. Someone can offer me a perfectly correct proof of this or that and yet it will not hold good in a sphere to which it does not belong. Anyone, therefore, who intends to occupy himself seriously with the paths that lead to a conception of the world must recognise that the first essential is to avoid one-sidedness.

[Güney27]

I'm reading steiner right now and i'm stuck on a question: what is the difference between a term and a designation?
Let's take the example of the triangle.
Triangle is just a term for something in our perception that shows a certain regularity (if you are nominalist).
But then what is a term more than a word.
Or rather what is the difference between the two.
If we are to perceive concepts, a reason should first be provided why one should advocate realism.
In everyday consciousness, nominalism comes across as the most sensible thing to me.
But I'm happy to be corrected if I didn't pay attention to something.
Regards

Guney,

I may add more later, but I'm not sure if I could be more clear than Steiner himself in the following lecture. The key takeaway is that a new living, adaptive, flexible thinking is needed today. These modern philosophical conceptual systems are all tools for us to employ as needed within various domains of experience. They are not truths-in-themselves about the nature of Reality.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA151/En ... 21p01.html

Yesterday I said that once there were Nominalists, persons who maintained that general concepts had no reality, but were merely names. These Nominalists had opponents who were called Realists (the word had a different meaning then). The Realists maintained that general concepts are not mere words, but refer to quite definite realities. In the Middle Ages the question of Realism versus Nominalism was always a burning one, especially for theology, a sphere of thought with which present-day thinkers trouble themselves very little. For in the time when the question of Nominalism versus Realism arose (from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries) there was something that belonged to the most important confessions of faith, the question about the three “Divine Persons” — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — who form One Divine Being, but are still Three real Persons. The Nominalists maintained that these three Divine Persons existed only individually, the “Father” for Himself, the “Son” for Himself, and the “Holy Ghost” for Himself; and if one spoke of a “Collective God” Who comprised these Three, that was only a name for the Three. Thus Nominalism did away with the unity of the Trinity. In opposition to the Realists, the Nominalists not only explained away the unity, but even regarded it as heretical to declare, as the Realists did, that the Three Persons formed not merely an imaginary unity, but an actual one.

Thus Nominalism and Realism were opposites. And anyone who goes deeply into the literature of Realism and Nominalism during these centuries gets a deep insight into what human acumen can produce. For the most ingenious grounds were brought forward for Nominalism, just as much as for Realism. In those days it was more difficult to be reckoned as a thinker because there was no printing press, and it was not an easy thing to take part in such controversies as that between Nominalism and Realism. Anyone who ventured into this field had to be better prepared, according to the ideas of those times, than is required of people who engage in controversies nowadays. An immense amount of penetration was necessary in order to plead the cause of Realism, and it was equally so with Nominalism. How does this come about? It is grievous that things are so, and if one reflects more deeply on it, one is led to say: What use is it that you are so clever? You can be clever and plead the cause of Nominalism, and you can be just as clever and contradict Nominalism. One can get quite confused about the whole question of intelligence! It is distressing even to listen to what such characterisations are supposed to mean.

Now, as a contrast to what we have been saying, we will bring forward something that is perhaps not nearly so discerning as much that has been advanced with regard to Nominalism or to Realism, but it has perhaps one merit — it goes straight to the point and indicates the direction in which one needs to think.

Let us imagine the way in which one forms general concepts; the way in which one synthesizes a mass of details. We can do this in two ways: first as a man does in the course of his life through the world. He sees numerous examples of a certain kind of animal: they are silky or woolly, are of various colours, have whiskers, at certain times they go through movements that recall human “washing”, they eat mice, etc. One can call such creatures “cats”. Then one has formed a general concept. All these creatures have something to do with what we call “cats”. But now let us suppose that someone has had a long life, in the course of which he has encountered many cat-owners, men and women, and he has noticed that a great many of these people call their pets “Pussy”. Hence he classes all these creatures under the name of “Pussy”. Hence we now have the general concept “Cats” and the general concept “Pussy”, and a large number of individual creatures belonging in both cases to the general concept. And yet no one will maintain that the general concept “Pussy” has the same significance as the general concept “Cats”. Here the real difference comes out. In forming the general concept “Pussy” which is only a summary of names that must rank as individual names, we have taken the line, and rightly so, of Nominalism; and in forming the general concept “Cats” we have taken the line of Realism, and rightly so. In one case Nominalism is correct; in the other. Realism. Both are right. One must only apply these methods within their proper limits. And when both are right, it is not surprising that good reasons for both can be adduced. In taking the name “Pussy”, I have employed a somewhat grotesque example. But I can show you a much more significant example and I will do so at once.

Within the scope of our objective experience there is a whole realm where Nominalism — the idea that the collective term is only a name — is fully justified. We have “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”, “five”, and so on, but it is impossible to find in the expression “number” anything that has a real existence. “Number” has no existence. “One”, “two”, “three”, “five”, “six”, — they exist. But what I said in the last lecture, that in order to find the general concept one must let that which corresponds to it pass over into movement — this cannot be done with the concept “Number”. One “one” does not pass over into “two”. It must always be taken as “one”. Not even in thought can we pass over into two, or from two into three. Only the individual numbers exist, not “number” in general. As applied to the nature of numbers, Nominalism is entirely correct; but when we come to the single animal in relation to its genus, Realism is entirely correct. For it is impossible for a deer to exist, and another deer, and yet another, without there being the genus “deer”. The figure “two” can exist for itself, “one”, “seven”, etc., can exist for themselves. But in so far as anything real appears in number, the number is a quality, and the concept “number” has no specific existence. External things are related to general concepts in two different ways: Nominalism is appropriate in one case, and Realism in the other.

On these lines, if we simply give our thoughts the right direction, we begin to understand why there are so many disputes about conceptions of the world. People generally are not inclined, when they have grasped one standpoint, to grasp another as well. When in some realm of thought somebody has got hold of the idea “general concepts have no existence”, he proceeds to extend to it the whole make-up of the world. This sentence, “general concepts have no existence” is not false, for when applied to the particular realm which the person in question has considered, it is correct. It is only the universalising of it that is wrong. Thus it is essential, if one wants to form a correct idea of what thinking is, to understand clearly that the truth of a thought in the realm to which it belongs is no evidence for its general validity. Someone can offer me a perfectly correct proof of this or that and yet it will not hold good in a sphere to which it does not belong. Anyone, therefore, who intends to occupy himself seriously with the paths that lead to a conception of the world must recognise that the first essential is to avoid one-sidedness.

I'm reading steiner right now and i'm stuck on a question: what is the difference between a term and a designation?
Let's take the example of the triangle.
Triangle is just a term for something in our perception that shows a certain regularity (if you are nominalist).
But then what is a term more than a word.
Or rather what is the difference between the two.
If we are to perceive concepts, a reason should first be provided why one should advocate realism.
In everyday consciousness, nominalism comes across as the most sensible thing to me.
But I'm happy to be corrected if I didn't pay attention to something.
Regards

Guney,

I may add more later, but I'm not sure if I could be more clear than Steiner himself in the following lecture. The key takeaway is that a new living, adaptive, flexible thinking is needed today. These modern philosophical conceptual systems are all tools for us to employ as needed within various domains of experience. They are not truths-in-themselves about the nature of Reality.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA151/En ... 21p01.html

Yesterday I said that once there were Nominalists, persons who maintained that general concepts had no reality, but were merely names. These Nominalists had opponents who were called Realists (the word had a different meaning then). The Realists maintained that general concepts are not mere words, but refer to quite definite realities. In the Middle Ages the question of Realism versus Nominalism was always a burning one, especially for theology, a sphere of thought with which present-day thinkers trouble themselves very little. For in the time when the question of Nominalism versus Realism arose (from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries) there was something that belonged to the most important confessions of faith, the question about the three “Divine Persons” — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — who form One Divine Being, but are still Three real Persons. The Nominalists maintained that these three Divine Persons existed only individually, the “Father” for Himself, the “Son” for Himself, and the “Holy Ghost” for Himself; and if one spoke of a “Collective God” Who comprised these Three, that was only a name for the Three. Thus Nominalism did away with the unity of the Trinity. In opposition to the Realists, the Nominalists not only explained away the unity, but even regarded it as heretical to declare, as the Realists did, that the Three Persons formed not merely an imaginary unity, but an actual one.

Thus Nominalism and Realism were opposites. And anyone who goes deeply into the literature of Realism and Nominalism during these centuries gets a deep insight into what human acumen can produce. For the most ingenious grounds were brought forward for Nominalism, just as much as for Realism. In those days it was more difficult to be reckoned as a thinker because there was no printing press, and it was not an easy thing to take part in such controversies as that between Nominalism and Realism. Anyone who ventured into this field had to be better prepared, according to the ideas of those times, than is required of people who engage in controversies nowadays. An immense amount of penetration was necessary in order to plead the cause of Realism, and it was equally so with Nominalism. How does this come about? It is grievous that things are so, and if one reflects more deeply on it, one is led to say: What use is it that you are so clever? You can be clever and plead the cause of Nominalism, and you can be just as clever and contradict Nominalism. One can get quite confused about the whole question of intelligence! It is distressing even to listen to what such characterisations are supposed to mean.

Now, as a contrast to what we have been saying, we will bring forward something that is perhaps not nearly so discerning as much that has been advanced with regard to Nominalism or to Realism, but it has perhaps one merit — it goes straight to the point and indicates the direction in which one needs to think.

Let us imagine the way in which one forms general concepts; the way in which one synthesizes a mass of details. We can do this in two ways: first as a man does in the course of his life through the world. He sees numerous examples of a certain kind of animal: they are silky or woolly, are of various colours, have whiskers, at certain times they go through movements that recall human “washing”, they eat mice, etc. One can call such creatures “cats”. Then one has formed a general concept. All these creatures have something to do with what we call “cats”. But now let us suppose that someone has had a long life, in the course of which he has encountered many cat-owners, men and women, and he has noticed that a great many of these people call their pets “Pussy”. Hence he classes all these creatures under the name of “Pussy”. Hence we now have the general concept “Cats” and the general concept “Pussy”, and a large number of individual creatures belonging in both cases to the general concept. And yet no one will maintain that the general concept “Pussy” has the same significance as the general concept “Cats”. Here the real difference comes out. In forming the general concept “Pussy” which is only a summary of names that must rank as individual names, we have taken the line, and rightly so, of Nominalism; and in forming the general concept “Cats” we have taken the line of Realism, and rightly so. In one case Nominalism is correct; in the other. Realism. Both are right. One must only apply these methods within their proper limits. And when both are right, it is not surprising that good reasons for both can be adduced. In taking the name “Pussy”, I have employed a somewhat grotesque example. But I can show you a much more significant example and I will do so at once.

Within the scope of our objective experience there is a whole realm where Nominalism — the idea that the collective term is only a name — is fully justified. We have “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”, “five”, and so on, but it is impossible to find in the expression “number” anything that has a real existence. “Number” has no existence. “One”, “two”, “three”, “five”, “six”, — they exist. But what I said in the last lecture, that in order to find the general concept one must let that which corresponds to it pass over into movement — this cannot be done with the concept “Number”. One “one” does not pass over into “two”. It must always be taken as “one”. Not even in thought can we pass over into two, or from two into three. Only the individual numbers exist, not “number” in general. As applied to the nature of numbers, Nominalism is entirely correct; but when we come to the single animal in relation to its genus, Realism is entirely correct. For it is impossible for a deer to exist, and another deer, and yet another, without there being the genus “deer”. The figure “two” can exist for itself, “one”, “seven”, etc., can exist for themselves. But in so far as anything real appears in number, the number is a quality, and the concept “number” has no specific existence. External things are related to general concepts in two different ways: Nominalism is appropriate in one case, and Realism in the other.

On these lines, if we simply give our thoughts the right direction, we begin to understand why there are so many disputes about conceptions of the world. People generally are not inclined, when they have grasped one standpoint, to grasp another as well. When in some realm of thought somebody has got hold of the idea “general concepts have no existence”, he proceeds to extend to it the whole make-up of the world. This sentence, “general concepts have no existence” is not false, for when applied to the particular realm which the person in question has considered, it is correct. It is only the universalising of it that is wrong. Thus it is essential, if one wants to form a correct idea of what thinking is, to understand clearly that the truth of a thought in the realm to which it belongs is no evidence for its general validity. Someone can offer me a perfectly correct proof of this or that and yet it will not hold good in a sphere to which it does not belong. Anyone, therefore, who intends to occupy himself seriously with the paths that lead to a conception of the world must recognise that the first essential is to avoid one-sidedness.

Ashvin,

Thanks for your response.

The name deer is not just a man-made name for something that has a great similarity in perception.
As I understand it, a concept (according to anthroposophical concepts) is a regularity of objects (the circle has only one line and a center that is always the same distance from the line).
The concept is the spiritual in the object, which is revealed to us in our thoughts by looking cautiously.
Wouldn't a concept be an abstraction if you took essential characteristics from the object and then added a name?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Thanks for your response.

The name deer is not just a man-made name for something that has a great similarity in perception.
As I understand it, a concept (according to anthroposophical concepts) is a regularity of objects (the circle has only one line and a center that is always the same distance from the line).
The concept is the spiritual in the object, which is revealed to us in our thoughts by looking cautiously.
Wouldn't a concept be an abstraction if you took essential characteristics from the object and then added a name?

Yes that's fair to say. The human concept of this sort is an abstraction to begin with. It is in the realm of pure thought without corresponding sense-experience. Abstraction in this sense became necessary in the course of spiritual evolution, as humanity descended deeply into the particulars of matter and needed to chart its own course back to the universals of meaning through heartfelt thinking. In pure thought, we partially liberate ourselves from the seemingly spirit-less perceptual world and begin to ascend to the world of archetypal meaning. This is insufficient for humanity today, however.

Now we must also endeavor to spiritualize our pure thought through inner soul work and Imaginative cognition, to truly restore the Spirit of our thoughts and, therefore, the perceptual world of particulars. We can think of every concept as a fractal seed which embeds the image of the entire spiritual Cosmos. A concept imbued with new life through Imagination can allow us, as Blake put it, "to see the world in a grain of sand, or heaven in a wildflower; hold infinity in the palm of our hand and eternity in an hour". Conceptual reasoning and focused thinking meditation is how we begin to accomplish this Divine task, gradually but surely. In meditation, we are turning from the past in perception to face towards the future in supersensible meaning, and we eventually unveil the correponding perceptions for the pure thoughts.

The great words, the nouns and verbs embrace indeed far more than the undisclosed particulars of the senses. They explore wide-ranging realms and know how to relate of their world trips. Yet without the help of the senses (the senses of entire nations are at their disposal) they are powerless. The little words “with” and “without” on the other hand fly with light wings over the greatest distances and bring the most remote areas together. And even the most inconspicuous and hackneyed of all words, the tiny word “and”, the smallest copper coin of our treasury of words, makes from “with” and “without”, from “yes” and “no”, irrespective of their inequality, a couple.

Relieved from the senses, the supersensible words float in the etheric heights of thinking, but with falcon eyes espying their prey, namely every gap in the world of the senses on which they swoop down – yet not to snatch, rob and carry off the captured prey, but to introduce to the sentence – the just and mild ruler of the world of context – its members joining company in friendly communion.
...
The concept “tree” is such a means of separation within the realm that it classifies inwardly as well as outwardly set against the area in which it inserts the tree. The concept “tree” embraces the parts of the tree, the root, stem, branches, twigs, leaves, buds, blossoms and fruits. The concept “tree” therefore binds many other concepts in its realm. For the precepts of the parts of the tree are on their part groups that are classified by concepts, unified into totalities, constructed into shapes. Many other concepts belong to the ones mentioned, such as bark or sap and also those that do not specifically belong to the morphological construction of the tree, but indirectly or nonspecifically condition it such as light or air, up and down.

This cannot be otherwise, since the thinking from which the concepts originate is the constituent power,
and since its tools unite the concepts on the basis of their powers of discrimination with one another and
with all things. Since cognition is in principle a border crossing, since its assistants are such border crossings, it follows that this union is nowhere interrupted, that it has no end except in its complete coherence. Since concepts are connections, there are no isolated concepts and is thinking a unity. The isolation within thinking solely arises from our viewpoint that gives priority to the particularity of the concepts and not to the universality of thinking. Every concept, every idea therefore represents thinking as a whole, the whole ideational world from a certain aspect. The saying by Goethe is valid and wise, “The Idea is eternal and unique. To speak of ideas is not well done."
-Witzenmann, What is Meditation?

[Güney27]

Ashvin,

Thanks for your response.

The name deer is not just a man-made name for something that has a great similarity in perception.
As I understand it, a concept (according to anthroposophical concepts) is a regularity of objects (the circle has only one line and a center that is always the same distance from the line).
The concept is the spiritual in the object, which is revealed to us in our thoughts by looking cautiously.
Wouldn't a concept be an abstraction if you took essential characteristics from the object and then added a name?

Yes that's fair to say. The human concept of this sort is an abstraction to begin with. It is in the realm of pure thought without corresponding sense-experience. Abstraction in this sense became necessary in the course of spiritual evolution, as humanity descended deeply into the particulars of matter and needed to chart its own course back to the universals of meaning through heartfelt thinking. In pure thought, we partially liberate ourselves from the seemingly spirit-less perceptual world and begin to ascend to the world of archetypal meaning. This is insufficient for humanity today, however.

Now we must also endeavor to spiritualize our pure thought through inner soul work and Imaginative cognition, to truly restore the Spirit of our thoughts and, therefore, the perceptual world of particulars. We can think of every concept as a fractal seed which embeds the image of the entire spiritual Cosmos. A concept imbued with new life through Imagination can allow us, as Blake put it, "to see the world in a grain of sand, or heaven in a wildflower; hold infinity in the palm of our hand and eternity in an hour". Conceptual reasoning and focused thinking meditation is how we begin to accomplish this Divine task, gradually but surely. In meditation, we are turning from the past in perception to face towards the future in supersensible meaning, and we eventually unveil the correponding perceptions for the pure thoughts.

The great words, the nouns and verbs embrace indeed far more than the undisclosed particulars of the senses. They explore wide-ranging realms and know how to relate of their world trips. Yet without the help of the senses (the senses of entire nations are at their disposal) they are powerless. The little words “with” and “without” on the other hand fly with light wings over the greatest distances and bring the most remote areas together. And even the most inconspicuous and hackneyed of all words, the tiny word “and”, the smallest copper coin of our treasury of words, makes from “with” and “without”, from “yes” and “no”, irrespective of their inequality, a couple.

Relieved from the senses, the supersensible words float in the etheric heights of thinking, but with falcon eyes espying their prey, namely every gap in the world of the senses on which they swoop down – yet not to snatch, rob and carry off the captured prey, but to introduce to the sentence – the just and mild ruler of the world of context – its members joining company in friendly communion.
...
The concept “tree” is such a means of separation within the realm that it classifies inwardly as well as outwardly set against the area in which it inserts the tree. The concept “tree” embraces the parts of the tree, the root, stem, branches, twigs, leaves, buds, blossoms and fruits. The concept “tree” therefore binds many other concepts in its realm. For the precepts of the parts of the tree are on their part groups that are classified by concepts, unified into totalities, constructed into shapes. Many other concepts belong to the ones mentioned, such as bark or sap and also those that do not specifically belong to the morphological construction of the tree, but indirectly or nonspecifically condition it such as light or air, up and down.

This cannot be otherwise, since the thinking from which the concepts originate is the constituent power,
and since its tools unite the concepts on the basis of their powers of discrimination with one another and
with all things. Since cognition is in principle a border crossing, since its assistants are such border crossings, it follows that this union is nowhere interrupted, that it has no end except in its complete coherence. Since concepts are connections, there are no isolated concepts and is thinking a unity. The isolation within thinking solely arises from our viewpoint that gives priority to the particularity of the concepts and not to the universality of thinking. Every concept, every idea therefore represents thinking as a whole, the whole ideational world from a certain aspect. The saying by Goethe is valid and wise, “The Idea is eternal and unique. To speak of ideas is not well done."
-Witzenmann, What is Meditation?

Ashvin,

1. Is this what you mean with imaginative cognition?


"The active Imagination is the preeminent mirror, the epiphanic place of the Images of the archetypal world; that is why the theory of the mundus imaginalis is bound up with a theory of imaginative knowledge and imaginative function–a function truly central and mediatory, because of the median and mediatory position of the mundus imaginalis. It is a function that permits all the universes to symbolize with one another (or exist in symbolic relationship with one another) and that leads us to represent to ourselves, experimentally, that the same substantial realities assume forms corresponding respectively to each universe (for example, Jabalqa and Jabarsa correspond in the subtle world to the Elements of the physical world, while Hurqalya corresponds there to the Sky). It is the cognitive function of the Imagination that permits the establishment of a rigorous analogical knowledge, escaping the dilemma of current rationalism, which leaves only a choice between the two terms of banal dualism: either “matter” or “spirit,” a dilemma that the “socialization” of consciousness resolves by substituting a choice that is no less fatal: either “history” or “myth” (Mundus Imaginalis, or the Imaginary and the imaginal,
henri corbin)

2. Steiner gave us something like a thinking meditation, which he describes as a path to the supersensible. But it's the opposite to eastern meditation (because they stop thinking).
It involves Imagination like the western tradition and Christian theology (kathapatic practice).
Beside steiner there are other western esoterics like swedonberg, theosophy etc.
How one cane know who delivers the truth, because the western and the Eastern tradition came to different conclusions.


3. Why does Steiner's name have such a negative connotation?
Most people think he's a weirdo.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

1. Is this what you mean with imaginative cognition?


"The active Imagination is the preeminent mirror, the epiphanic place of the Images of the archetypal world; that is why the theory of the mundus imaginalis is bound up with a theory of imaginative knowledge and imaginative function–a function truly central and mediatory, because of the median and mediatory position of the mundus imaginalis. It is a function that permits all the universes to symbolize with one another (or exist in symbolic relationship with one another) and that leads us to represent to ourselves, experimentally, that the same substantial realities assume forms corresponding respectively to each universe (for example, Jabalqa and Jabarsa correspond in the subtle world to the Elements of the physical world, while Hurqalya corresponds there to the Sky). It is the cognitive function of the Imagination that permits the establishment of a rigorous analogical knowledge, escaping the dilemma of current rationalism, which leaves only a choice between the two terms of banal dualism: either “matter” or “spirit,” a dilemma that the “socialization” of consciousness resolves by substituting a choice that is no less fatal: either “history” or “myth” (Mundus Imaginalis, or the Imaginary and the imaginal,
henri corbin)

That seems a relatively decent way to describe it. But we have to remember, descriptions of imagination are altogether insufficient for our understanding of what it is. That is because the concepts used for the describing precipitated from the imaginations to begin with. As we often say, they are like mineralized extracts, decohered thought-fragments of the higher cognitions. They are useful in so far as they symbolically direct our attention towards the reality of these higher cognitions and our need to consciously evolve the capacities to perceive them. That so many different 20th century thinkers tried to convey their reality to us in various ways is something which should certainly grab our attention.

2. Steiner gave us something like a thinking meditation, which he describes as a path to the supersensible. But it's the opposite to eastern meditation (because they stop thinking).
It involves Imagination like the western tradition and Christian theology (kathapatic practice).
Beside steiner there are other western esoterics like swedonberg, theosophy etc.
How one cane know who delivers the truth, because the western and the Eastern tradition came to different conclusions.

They are not opposite, but SS embeds these ancient practices within its own. It is the same principle as we discussed with Imagination embedding both philosophical nominalism and realism. SS embeds both East and West, just like our current consciousness embeds ancient clairvoyant consciousness, which we dimly experience in our current dream life. Nothing is ever lost or eliminated through the ideal evolutionary progression - all earlier forms are embedded within later ones. There is a very important function served by the quieting down of thinking in Western esoteric meditations as well, but that isn't an end-in-itself. We must continue beyond that to develop genuine Imagination and even higher cognitive faculties.

3. Why does Steiner's name have such a negative connotation?
Most people think he's a weirdo.

This to me is like asking why people think spiritual reality and spiritual beings, when spoken of in any concrete way, is also weird and "cult" behavior. It's just the nature of the hyper cynical age we live in. There are precise evolutionary reasons for this which we can discern through SS. But the short of it is that, in our age, the love of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness has been forsaken for the love of material comforts and conveniences, and intellectual pride. A living spiritual reality which is deserving of our intellectual humility and our sacrifice simply gets in the way of all those things people have come to value most in their wordly lives. The question is whether we are willing to follow our logical reasoning wherever it leads, without prejudice. It takes a certain level of unflinching courage in our times - we shouldn't expect even our families or friends to react well. People who fear this prospect or related consequences of journeying on this path of the Spirit should at least be honest with themselves about the reason. It may not be the best path for everyone right now, but self-honesty is always the best fork on the road.

[Cleric K]

3. Why does Steiner's name have such a negative connotation?
Most people think he's a weirdo.

Just as Ashvin noted, anyone who dares today to speak of depth of reality will be condemned as a weirdo. This is the reason also why BK prefers to stay on the borderline. This is the reason why most spiritual life today practically serves materialism.

This is very easy to discern. If we look without prejudice we'll see that humans today are still very prone to think of our sensory existence as
1/ the full picture of reality (physicalism)
or
2/ an aspect of reality but quite independent of the yonder world (superficial spiritualism)

People today feel they exist in a physical sandbox and either believe this is all there is or they simply seek some kind of belief for continued existence after death. We have many kinds of heavens or simply the bliss of pure awareness.

The latter is especially popular today because it is the the most economical upgrade of materialism. It requires almost no beliefs except that it converts the dark non-existence after death which the materialist imagines, to blissful non-personal state. Compared to that, belief in heaven requires more assumptions.

The common line is that the physical sandbox remains unquestioned (irrelevant if self-existing or created by some god). It is believed to be a rigid reality pre-made and we are here only to experience it in one way or another. This has the consequence that we feel ourselves to be complete beings, except that we're placed in a material environment. Religious persons simply imagine that their soul-atom will be transported to another place after death.

One becomes a weirdo as soon as they says that sensory life is only a spectral band of reality and through our thoughts, feelings and will (T,F,W) we participate in the full spectrum, except that currently our culture flattens this full spectrum on the plane of sensory perceptions. Our TFW are glued to sensory perceptions. The religiously inclined would much prefer to hold sensory-like fantasies about a spiritual world rather than realize that we are already a slice of the full spectrum. Here's a summary:



The left image depicts the general situation today. We feel we deal with a physical world (the purple curvy line) which is experienced in the soul/consciousness (green sphere). For the materialist this is all there is to reality. For the spiritual ones there's a veil which separates us from the full reality. What is above the veil is a matter of belief. For some there's the Kingdom of Heaven, for others it is simply the pure awareness, etc.

The right image depicts what we should reckon if we're truly to follow our non-dual intuitions to their conclusions. There are no separate worlds. Our soul is a slice of the Cosmos (green cone). We already live in a spiritual world, yet all our soul life is flattened on the sensory screen. From this perspective the veil is really a pseudo veil. It is only our dependence on the sensory screen to which we anchor all our thoughts, feelings and will. It's like we're moving in the sea but insist that our thinking, feeling and willing feet are firmly on the sea floor - in other words, we refuse to learn to swim, to find that we can have our firm support in our spiritual activity, detached from the screen.

The greatest trouble with this view is that our soul life is not enclosed atomic bubble but a slice of the World organism. In this view, the reason astrology has something to say about soul life is not because our soul sphere interacts with planetary spheres through some mystical exchange of spiritual photons but simply because the depth layers of our being are the very same spiritual beings of the planetary spheres. The physical perceptions of cosmic bodies in space are only the decohered symbolic shadow of our shared Cosmic subconscious.

So there you have it. If you want to be called a weirdo yourself, simply tell someone that there's no veil between worlds but that your own soul space is also an aperture of Cosmic spiritual space and for this reason, through investigation of the layers of your higher being (the one not glued to the sensory screen), you also learn about the World Being. I guarantee that you'll be receive your negative connotation in no time.

[mikekatz]

3. Why does Steiner's name have such a negative connotation?
Most people think he's a weirdo.

Just as Ashvin noted, anyone who dares today to speak of depth of reality will be condemned as a weirdo. This is the reason also why BK prefers to stay on the borderline. This is the reason why most spiritual life today practically serves materialism.

This is very easy to discern. If we look without prejudice we'll see that humans today are still very prone to think of our sensory existence as
1/ the full picture of reality (physicalism)
or
2/ an aspect of reality but quite independent of the yonder world (superficial spiritualism)

People today feel they exist in a physical sandbox and either believe this is all there is or they simply seek some kind of belief for continued existence after death. We have many kinds of heavens or simply the bliss of pure awareness.

The latter is especially popular today because it is the the most economical upgrade of materialism. It requires almost no beliefs except that it converts the dark non-existence after death which the materialist imagines, to blissful non-personal state. Compared to that, belief in heaven requires more assumptions.

The common line is that the physical sandbox remains unquestioned (irrelevant if self-existing or created by some god). It is believed to be a rigid reality pre-made and we are here only to experience it in one way or another. This has the consequence that we feel ourselves to be complete beings, except that we're placed in a material environment. Religious persons simply imagine that their soul-atom will be transported to another place after death.

One becomes a weirdo as soon as they says that sensory life is only a spectral band of reality and through our thoughts, feelings and will (T,F,W) we participate in the full spectrum, except that currently our culture flattens this full spectrum on the plane of sensory perceptions. Our TFW are glued to sensory perceptions. The religiously inclined would much prefer to hold sensory-like fantasies about a spiritual world rather than realize that we are already a slice of the full spectrum. Here's a summary:



The left image depicts the general situation today. We feel we deal with a physical world (the purple curvy line) which is experienced in the soul/consciousness (green sphere). For the materialist this is all there is to reality. For the spiritual ones there's a veil which separates us from the full reality. What is above the veil is a matter of belief. For some there's the Kingdom of Heaven, for others it is simply the pure awareness, etc.

The right image depicts what we should reckon if we're truly to follow our non-dual intuitions to their conclusions. There are no separate worlds. Our soul is a slice of the Cosmos (green cone). We already live in a spiritual world, yet all our soul life is flattened on the sensory screen. From this perspective the veil is really a pseudo veil. It is only our dependence on the sensory screen to which we anchor all our thoughts, feelings and will. It's like we're moving in the sea but insist that our thinking, feeling and willing feet are firmly on the sea floor - in other words, we refuse to learn to swim, to find that we can have our firm support in our spiritual activity, detached from the screen.

The greatest trouble with this view is that our soul life is not enclosed atomic bubble but a slice of the World organism. In this view, the reason astrology has something to say about soul life is not because our soul sphere interacts with planetary spheres through some mystical exchange of spiritual photons but simply because the depth layers of our being are the very same spiritual beings of the planetary spheres. The physical perceptions of cosmic bodies in space are only the decohered symbolic shadow of our shared Cosmic subconscious.

So there you have it. If you want to be called a weirdo yourself, simply tell someone that there's no veil between worlds but that your own soul space is also an aperture of Cosmic spiritual space and for this reason, through investigation of the layers of your higher being (the one not glued to the sensory screen), you also learn about the World Being. I guarantee that you'll be receive your negative connotation in no time.

Very well stated, thanks!

[lorenzop]

Most ancient traditions have a clear layering of reality, for example google: Purusha / Prakriti / Mahat&Buddhi / etc.
The Vedic tradition proposes an extremely 'crowded' subtle plane way beyond the subtlest Physics has yet to 'discover' or describe.
Yes, the Vedic layering and your diagram both support a Materialist, Idealist or even Dualist state of consciousness - in fact, layering includes at least a patina of material even if that material is merely an intellectual distinction.

[AshvinP]

Most ancient traditions have a clear layering of reality, for example google: Purusha / Prakriti / Mahat&Buddhi / etc.
The Vedic tradition proposes an extremely 'crowded' subtle plane way beyond the subtlest Physics has yet to 'discover' or describe.
Yes, the Vedic layering and your diagram both support a Materialist, Idealist or even Dualist state of consciousness - in fact, layering includes at least a patina of material even if that material is merely an intellectual distinction.

Great point. I may have already shared this on another thread, but it speaks to what you are also saying here.

There are people who are materialists, others are spiritists, others monists, others dualists, and so forth. The materialists insist that everything is matter; the spiritists assert that everything is spirit and attribute importance to spirit alone; the monists declare that everything proceeds from unity. In the outer world people fight and wrangle with each other on every possible occasion — the materialists against the spiritists, the monists against the dualists and so on. But everyone who wants to prepare himself for real knowledge must pay heed to the following facts. — Materialism has a certain justification; we must learn how to think, as the materialist does, in terms of the laws of matter, but this thinking must be applied to the material world only. We must comprehend these laws, for otherwise we cannot find our bearings in the material world. If someone were to attempt to explain a clock by saying: ‘I believe there are two little demons sitting inside it and making the hands go round. I do not believe in machinery,’ — such a man would be laughed to scorn, for a clock can be explained only by applying the laws of the material world. Those who try to explain the movements of the stars by material laws are simply telling us of a mechanical system. The mistake does not lie in materialistic thinking itself but in the supposition that it can explain the whole universe and that there is no other valid kind of thinking. Haeckel does not err when explaining by the laws of materialistic morphology phenomena of which he has exceptional knowledge; if he had confined himself to a certain category of phenomena he could have performed an enormous service to humanity.

It can therefore be said that materialistic thinking has its justification, but in a certain domain only. Spiritual thinking must be applied to whatever is subject to the laws of spirituality and not to those of mechanics.
When someone says: ‘You come along with a peculiar psychology alleged to have its own laws, but I know that there are certain processes in the brain which explain thinking’ — he is introducing matters of a different nature, and in another domain he is making the same mistake as the man who believes in the two demons in the clock. As little as the clock can be explained by demons, as little can thinking be explained by movements of atoms in the brain. Again, anyone who attributes fatigue in the evening to the accumulation of toxins may be giving the right explanation as far as the outer facts are concerned, but as far as the soul is concerned he is explaining nothing whatever, for a spiritual explanation is essential there.

And then take monism. By attempting to explain the world only from the aspect of harmony, one is bound to arrive at unity, but it is abstract unity and means impoverishment. Philosophers whose only aim is to arrive at unity have in the end gained nothing at all. I once knew a man whose aim was to explain the whole world in a couple of sentences and he finally came to inform me with great glee that he had actually found two simple formulae which could explain every possible phenomenon in the world! This is an example of the one-sidedness of monistic thought. Such thinking must be widened through proceeding from very different points and finally reaching unity.
...
This power of emerging from oneself in order to describe something objectively, as it were with the eyes of a different viewpoint, is a quality that it is necessary to acquire, for that alone can lead to far-reaching truth. Nobody gets anywhere near the real truth if he stands at a particular spot and gazes, let us say, at a rose-bush, but only if he photographs it now from one standpoint, now from another, and again from another. By such means we train ourselves to acquire what we need as soon as we rise into the higher worlds. Confusion is inevitable in the higher worlds if we enter them with personal opinions for then we immediately have delusive images of truth before us."




All these conceptions of the world that I have described and written down for you really exist, and they can be maintained. And it is possible to bring forward the most ingenious reasons for each of them; it is possible to adopt any one of them and with ingenious reasons to refute the others. In between these conceptions of the world one can think out yet others, but they differ only in degree from the leading types I have described, and can be traced back to them. If one wishes to learn about the web and woof of the world, then one must know that the way to it is through these twelve points of entry. There is not merely one conception of the world that can be defended, or justified, but there are twelve. And one must admit that just as many good reasons can be adduced for each and all of them as for any particular one. The world cannot be rightly considered from the one-sided standpoint of one single conception, one single mode of thought; the world discloses itself only to someone who knows that one must look at it from all sides. Just as the sun — if we go by the Copernican conception of the universe — passes through the signs of the Zodiac in order to illuminate the earth from twelve different points, so we must not adopt one standpoint, the standpoint of Idealism, or Sensationalism, or Phenomenalism, or any other conception of the world with a name of this kind; we must be in a position to go all round the world and accustom ourselves to the twelve different standpoints from which it can be contemplated.
-Steiner, Microcosm and Macrocosm