Spiritual "science"

[Cleric K]

It occurred to me, after taking a flight and doing the crossword puzzle in a magazine, that this could be a helpful metaphor for the scientific method, as elaborated in the pervious Steiner quote, and also the difference between how it is normally pursued and how it can be pursued at the deeper level of spiritual science.

Nice! Interestingly, the crossword can be taken also as an illustration of the opposite pole. We can take a crossword that is a superposition of all possible combination of words. When a letter is chosen, the whole crossword decoheres, it loses degrees of freedom - only combinations that have a letter at that place remain possible.

[lorenzop]

Ashwin,

Just because an idea makes one unconmfortable, whether we nod our heads or not, doesn't make that idea science. Not sure why you made this 'argument'.

You used the expression 'spiritual scientific method of Steiner' . . . what does the word spiritual add to, or how does it qualify the scientific method? For example we don't use expressions such as 'biological scientific method', or 'physics scientific method', etc.

Is what Hoffman is doing right now qualify as "science", according to you?

I don't think Anthony ever intended to make this a purely semantic debate about the dictionary definitions of the word "science", but rather to see in what ways investigation of the spiritual world (our inner world of activity) can be held to the rigorous and objective standards of inquiry that we find in the natural sciences. It seems he feels that isn't possible right now, i.e. there is some irresolvable discontinuity between investigating the objective lawfulness of the outer and inner worlds, which makes the former 'public' and the latter 'private', and I am not sure what your position is anymore.

As I recall, Hoffman says he is building and testing mathematical models, so I would say no. Perhaps he is constructing an hypothesis.
Yes I am using the term 'science' as accurately as I can - I live in the US, and a tad sensitive as science\data is under attack here. In US, we seem to be unable to have any social\political discussions, much less make decisions re health care, climate change, etc, as there is confusion between basic concepts such as what is a fact and what is an alternative fact.

[Federica]

(...)
What differentiates such concepts from today's natural sciences, is that the latter is grounded in the Galilean/Cartesian axioms of the separation of observer from observed, mind from matter, and 'primary' from 'secondary' attributes. Specifically modern science was birthed with the advent of an historically novel form of consciousness, marked by the self-conscious individual aware of him/herself as subject in a world of objects and forces. Whereas in earlier forms of consciousness (and so, cultures), as the world was felt to be the expression of the divine will, then the relationship was of a different nature - a more personalistic, 'I-thou' relationship, rather than 'subject and object'.
(...)

Looking even closer at the evolution of consciousness as an arch, from collectively one with nature and divine will, to the present hyper-individualized, fragmented relativism, it could be said that Plato already marks the end of those older times - that can be analogized to the childhood of humanity - when “the world was felt to be the expression of the divine will”. From then on, and through the event of the incarnation of Christ, humanity has started school age, and thinking has felt more and more individual and willed, hence 'abstractable'. The subject-object distinction as basis for approaching knowledge was born, but modern science was not. Continuing the analogy, that later turning point could be described as the start of the adolescence of humanity, when knowledge becomes instrumental to the satisfaction of the liberated soul forces and sense-based desires, while the possibility of instinctive spiritual oneness with nature falls further and further behind.
It's the stage at which we still are, waiting to discover in ourselves the initiative to find a way back to unity, and out of the current degenerative stall, in a willed and ‘spiritual scientific’ way. In this sense, the catharsis Ashvin has mentioned parallels the purification that the adolescent has to accomplish to grow into adulthood, by disentangling thinking from the pull of senses and the storm of feelings, through the will.


Here I am referring to two sources, earlier brought by Ashvin to the forum:

> Max Leyf’s essay "The birth of the Self amidst archetypal polarities in the evolution of consciousness" that I suspect you would appreciate reading https://theoriapress.substack.com/p/the ... archetypal

> and Dennis Klocek’s “The Seer's handbook”.

[AshvinP]

Ashwin,

Just because an idea makes one unconmfortable, whether we nod our heads or not, doesn't make that idea science. Not sure why you made this 'argument'.

You used the expression 'spiritual scientific method of Steiner' . . . what does the word spiritual add to, or how does it qualify the scientific method? For example we don't use expressions such as 'biological scientific method', or 'physics scientific method', etc.

Is what Hoffman is doing right now qualify as "science", according to you?

I don't think Anthony ever intended to make this a purely semantic debate about the dictionary definitions of the word "science", but rather to see in what ways investigation of the spiritual world (our inner world of activity) can be held to the rigorous and objective standards of inquiry that we find in the natural sciences. It seems he feels that isn't possible right now, i.e. there is some irresolvable discontinuity between investigating the objective lawfulness of the outer and inner worlds, which makes the former 'public' and the latter 'private', and I am not sure what your position is anymore.

As I recall, Hoffman says he is building and testing mathematical models, so I would say no. Perhaps he is constructing an hypothesis.
Yes I am using the term 'science' as accurately as I can - I live in the US, and a tad sensitive as science\data is under attack here. In US, we seem to be unable to have any social\political discussions, much less make decisions re health care, climate change, etc, as there is confusion between basic concepts such as what is a fact and what is an alternative fact.

OK, so you exclude the building and testing of mathematical models - the most precise tool the average modern person has to investigate world processes - from the purview of 'science'? Do you see how many scientists, including Hoffman, would disagree with your narrow boundaries?

I would further say that an assessment of what it means to do 'science' based on sensitivities, preferences, passions, political motivations, etc., especially if one's assessment is fueled by a desire to be on the 'right' side of certain sociopolitical debates, is the furthest we can get from an assessment which is 'objective' and 'accurate'. I understand there is a certain Western contingency of social activists who feel they are the gatekeepers and defenders of 'science', but this is simply the projective inverting tendency of modern secular culture which we often speak of. An approach which chains itself to the lower conditioning of unexamined sociopolitical sensitivities is the exact antithesis of the open-minded scientific spirit.

[lorenzop]

Whether pure mathematical modeling constitutes as science or philosophy is another discussion - the question at hand is 'is spiritual science a science'. No one in this thread has presented any arguments for spiritual science being a science, or offered any of its findings, or any evidence or datapoints.
Mostly it's a barrage of special pleading and wishful thinking.
I'm totally in favor of spiritual science being a science - so bring it on - show me the good stuff!!!!

[ScottRoberts]

Whether pure mathematical modeling constitutes as science or philosophy is another discussion - the question at hand is 'is spiritual science a science'. No one in this thread has presented any arguments for spiritual science being a science, or offered any of its findings, or any evidence or datapoints.
Mostly it's a barrage of special pleading and wishful thinking.
I'm totally in favor of spiritual science being a science - so bring it on - show me the good stuff!!!!

I should have mentioned this earlier, but...

'Spiritual science' is a translation of the German 'Geisteswissenschaft'. Both terms of this compound present problems to the translator. (Hegel's Die Phenomenologie des Geistes' has been translated as both 'Phenomenology of Mind', and Phenomenology of Spirit'. But nevermind that for now.) 'Wissenschaft', for Germans, refers to any academic study, so economics, the humanities, physics, philosophy, are all Wissenschaften. So, one might define it as rational, objective study of some subject matter. So Anthony's concern really is, do we get knowledge from 'Geisteswissenschaft', and not, does 'Geisteswissenchaft' fall into the category of what English speakers have come to designate as 'science'. One might also note that this restricted use of the term 'science' is fairly recent (the last century or so). The Latin 'scientia' pretty much meant 'Wissenschaft'.

And since all other Wissenschaften involve thinking about something, and Geisteswissenschaft is thinking about thinking, I think it should be considered as being on a different plane, though whether one says higher, or prior, or lower (as in foundational) is a matter of taste.

[AshvinP]

Whether pure mathematical modeling constitutes as science or philosophy is another discussion - the question at hand is 'is spiritual science a science'. No one in this thread has presented any arguments for spiritual science being a science, or offered any of its findings, or any evidence or datapoints.
Mostly it's a barrage of special pleading and wishful thinking.
I'm totally in favor of spiritual science being a science - so bring it on - show me the good stuff!!!!

This thread has at least 5 different people who have, from all different angles, made the argument for why there can be (and is) a science of the spirit, and why this spiritual science is not discontinuous with the natural sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, etc., but their natural extension into the soul-spirit (inner) pole of existence, in keeping with the paradigmatic shift which has been manifesting across the board since the late 19th century. Wayfarer pointed out how we can even trace the seeds of this shift back to the Middle Ages. I don't see any direct responses from you to any of those points.

Instead, your responses seem to indicate you feel that the modern secular concept of 'science' is like the stone tablets given to Moses for the 10 commandments - it is a fixed law from Heaven and cannot be adapted to any new circumstances of human evolution. Your 'science' concept seems to be set in stone for all time. Cleric attempted to illustrate the issues with this rigid approach in the dream metaphor. It doesn't matter how many findings of the waking self are presented to the dream self, because the latter doesn't even suspect the former's existence. No amount of talk about 'space-time curvature' or 'quantum superposition' could have been convincing to a Newtonian mechanical thinker in the 18th century.

Steiner's lectures are practically a non-stop stream of spiritual research findings. In fact, Anthony seemed to take issue with just how many findings were being presented. I actually shared one such finding of spiritual science a few pages ago, which was later confirmed by standard natural scientific testing, and which could have been called into question by that testing (re: the elemental spectrum of comets). But it seems such findings have such little meaning from the dream perspective that it wasn't even noticed.

[lorenzop]

This thread has at least 5 different people who have, from all different angles, made the argument for why there can be (and is) a science of the spirit, and why this spiritual science is not discontinuous with the natural sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, etc., but their natural extension into the soul-spirit (inner) pole of existence, in keeping with the paradigmatic shift which has been manifesting across the board since the late 19th century. Wayfarer pointed out how we can even trace the seeds of this shift back to the Middle Ages. I don't see any direct responses from you to any of those points.

Instead, your responses seem to indicate you feel that the modern secular concept of 'science' is like the stone tablets given to Moses for the 10 commandments - it is a fixed law from Heaven and cannot be adapted to any new circumstances of human evolution. Your 'science' concept seems to be set in stone for all time. Cleric attempted to illustrate the issues with this rigid approach in the dream metaphor. It doesn't matter how many findings of the waking self are presented to the dream self, because the latter doesn't even suspect the former's existence. No amount of talk about 'space-time curvature' or 'quantum superposition' could have been convincing to a Newtonian mechanical thinker in the 18th century.

Steiner's lectures are practically a non-stop stream of spiritual research findings. In fact, Anthony seemed to take issue with just how many findings were being presented. I actually shared one such finding of spiritual science a few pages ago, which was later confirmed by standard natural scientific testing, and which could have been called into question by that testing (re: the elemental spectrum of comets). But it seems such findings have such little meaning from the dream perspective that it wasn't even noticed.

In this thread I'm not interested in analogies and metaphors, I did miss the highlighted above, it must have been in a post responding to someone other than me.
Re modern science 'set in stone', this is far from the truth as science is a moving target. Re modern science as confined to or snagged in the subject-object duality or materialism - - this is a dramatic over-reach. Though scientists may hold beliefs and favor a POV, science as a method is agnostic re metaphysics, beliefs,etc.
BTW, your phrase "modern secular concept of 'science'" should raise a flaming red flag to all readers of this thread.

[Wayfarer]

I'm totally in favor of spiritual science being a science - so bring it on - show me the good stuff!!!!

The point I tried to make was to contrast the pre-modern concept of 'scientia sacra' - meaning 'sacred science', and almost an exact synonym for 'spiritual science' - with modern science starting with Galileo. This doesn't involve a value-judgement about whether one is better than the other. It's a matter of recognising that modern science commences with a very specific attitude or orientation, which presumes the distinction of subject and object and seeks to attain the highest degree of objectivity that is possible.

Say for example you wish to pursue one of the schools of yogic or Buddhist meditation under the supervision of a teacher. There will be a methodology, a curriculum, steps to follow, milestones to pass, and so on, which will be recognised by that teacher and the school of which s/he is part. And it's also replicable, to the extent that recognition of a student's successful realisation of that discipline is awarded by the teacher and implicitly by the community of which they are a part. So it's a 'scientia sacra', or a spiritual science.

You could even conduct experiments, as has often been done now, to ascertain objective correlates of meditation - such as specific brain-wave alterations, changes to mood and affect, and so on. There have been many scientific studies of the effect of mindfulness meditation on affect. But the fundamental process of discovery which meditation is concerned with remains subjective. It consists, you could say, of an alteration of your understanding, or a change in your world-view - what has been termed in Greek philosophy 'metanoia', or a change of mind (or heart). And that may not at all be amenable to what we nowadays understand as investigation by the natural sciences, precisely because it is an interior change, even if it is of the utmost importance for the student.

Of course, the very fact that meditation and such spiritual practices are being studied scientifically at all, indicates a fairly recent shift in scientific practice, arising from overall shifts in social consciousness. But that example still serves to illustrate why, exactly, such 'first-person sciences' are difficult to reconcile with the typically 'third-person' orientation of modern science.

Though scientists may hold beliefs and favor a POV, science as a method is agnostic re metaphysics, beliefs,etc.

Naturalism, positivism, and materialism are all fundamental influences in science, subject to much debate and clearly identifiable. Naturalism specifically excludes what it considers to be 'supernatural' (and 'metaphysical' is an exact synonym), likewise positivism, and materialism states that the only real substances are matter-energy. So there's an at least implicit and often explicit commitment in scientific practice. If you're not familiar, I recommend Kastrup's Why Materialism is Baloney.

[AshvinP]

This thread has at least 5 different people who have, from all different angles, made the argument for why there can be (and is) a science of the spirit, and why this spiritual science is not discontinuous with the natural sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, etc., but their natural extension into the soul-spirit (inner) pole of existence, in keeping with the paradigmatic shift which has been manifesting across the board since the late 19th century. Wayfarer pointed out how we can even trace the seeds of this shift back to the Middle Ages. I don't see any direct responses from you to any of those points.

Instead, your responses seem to indicate you feel that the modern secular concept of 'science' is like the stone tablets given to Moses for the 10 commandments - it is a fixed law from Heaven and cannot be adapted to any new circumstances of human evolution. Your 'science' concept seems to be set in stone for all time. Cleric attempted to illustrate the issues with this rigid approach in the dream metaphor. It doesn't matter how many findings of the waking self are presented to the dream self, because the latter doesn't even suspect the former's existence. No amount of talk about 'space-time curvature' or 'quantum superposition' could have been convincing to a Newtonian mechanical thinker in the 18th century.

Steiner's lectures are practically a non-stop stream of spiritual research findings. In fact, Anthony seemed to take issue with just how many findings were being presented. I actually shared one such finding of spiritual science a few pages ago, which was later confirmed by standard natural scientific testing, and which could have been called into question by that testing (re: the elemental spectrum of comets). But it seems such findings have such little meaning from the dream perspective that it wasn't even noticed.

In this thread I'm not interested in analogies and metaphors, I did miss the highlighted above, it must have been in a post responding to someone other than me.
Re modern science 'set in stone', this is far from the truth as science is a moving target. Re modern science as confined to or snagged in the subject-object duality or materialism - - this is a dramatic over-reach. Though scientists may hold beliefs and favor a POV, science as a method is agnostic re metaphysics, beliefs,etc.
BTW, your phrase "modern secular concept of 'science'" should raise a flaming red flag to all readers of this thread.

Here it is below. I am curious, how does this fit into your understanding of the scientific method (which we agree should be agnostic to metaphysics)? To be clear, I am not asking whether you think this claim is correct, but whether it can be properly called a 'scientific' claim which was lent some support through later testing? I know you may take objection to the way the below is worded, i.e. the distinction between 'spiritual scientific ways' or 'spiritual research' and 'physical science', but try to set those semantics aside for now.

I would like to mention here parenthetically a noteworthy point, through which our spiritual scientific ways of studying have won a little triumph. Those who were present at the eighteen lectures on cosmogony that I gave in Paris in 1906 (see Note 2) will remember that I spoke then of certain things that were not touched upon in my book, An Outline Of Occult Science (see Note 3) (one cannot always present everything; one must not write one book but endless books if one wishes to develop everything). In Paris I developed a point bearing more upon the material, chemical aspect of the subject, as it were. I said that the ancient Moon evolution — which projects itself in present cometary existence, because the comet has remained at this stage and, as far as present conditions allow, expresses those old relationships in its laws — I said that this ancient Moon evolution differs from that of the earth in that nitrogen and certain nitrogenous compounds — cyanide, prussic acid compounds — were as necessary to the beings on the ancient Moon as oxygen is necessary to the beings of our present earth. Cyanide and similar substances are compounds that are deadly to the life of higher beings, leading to their destruction. Yet compounds of carbon and nitrogen, compounds of prussic acid and the like, played an entirely similar role to that of oxygen on the earth.

These matters were developed at that time in Paris out of the whole scope of spiritual science, and those who inscribed them in their memories will have had to say to themselves that, if this is true, there must be proof of something like compounds of carbon and nitrogen in today's comets. You may recall (the information was brought to me during the lecture course on St. John and the other three Gospels in Stockholm) that the newspapers have now been saying that the existence of cyanide compounds has actually been proved in the spectrum of the comet. This is a brilliant confirmation of what spiritual research was able to say earlier, and it has at last been confirmed by physical science. As proofs of this kind are always being demanded of us, it is quoted here. When such a striking case is available, it is important for anthroposophists to point it out and — without pride — to remind ourselves of this little triumph of spiritual science.