What Barfield Thought (Max Leyf and Landon Loftin)

[Federica]

P.S. I know I've not posted for a while. I've just been busy for a while. I appreciate the replies given last time I posted, however I don't have much to reply with at the moment.

Thanks for the kind note, Luke
If I may, no worries about these things!

Oo, very cool to know that Bernardo read Barfield's book! Maybe he will read Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom at some point? He has read Barfield so he probably heard of Steiner's work. Or maybe he will read Jean Gebser's book? But who knows.

For my part I think it's unlikely. He probably knows Steiner, but Steiner would bring him to unstable terrain, in contradiction with his philosophy and with the purposes of Essentia foundation. He's now locked into a role...

[Federica]

And I will add lastly, I have been reading Michael Wilson's translation of Steiner's PoF. I shared a link to it in another thread recently, it was the one speaking about differences between German and English philosophical terminologies (in the introduction). I am finding Wilson's translation much easier to read than the version titled The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (with the blue cover). It just seems to flow better than the other translation I have. I think it is because Wilson has deeper familiarity with both German and English than whoever translated the other version maybe. He uses simpler terminologies as well, e.g. mental picture instead of representation, so it could be that also. And he still remains true to Steiner's original German edition as far as I know.

Does anyone else have an opinion on the different translations to maybe share?

I read Michael Wilson's translation because Cleric indicated that one. I don't know about the other translations. I have occasionally checked the other ones when in doubt, and it has helped.

I have zero knowledge of Rudolf Steiner. Until coming to this forum, Steiner was for me some sort of eclectic thinker somehow connected to alternative medicine and alternative education. That’s how far it goes in my books… So I want to read The Philosophy of Freedom and I can’t do it in German.
Google tells me there are various editions and translations, even a missing chapter as it seems!
Would anyone have any suggestions on which one to go for?

I haven't gone through all translations but this seems OK.

You can see the available translations here. The one you can skip is the 1916 one, which is before the final 1918 edition by Steiner which adds some clarifications.

[AshvinP]

P.S. I know I've not posted for a while. I've just been busy for a while. I appreciate the replies given last time I posted, however I don't have much to reply with at the moment.

Thanks for the kind note, Luke
If I may, no worries about these things!

Oo, very cool to know that Bernardo read Barfield's book! Maybe he will read Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom at some point? He has read Barfield so he probably heard of Steiner's work. Or maybe he will read Jean Gebser's book? But who knows.

For my part I think it's unlikely. He probably knows Steiner, but Steiner would bring him to unstable terrain, in contradiction with his philosophy and with the purposes of Essentia foundation. He's now locked into a role...

I once asked BK a question relating to higher cognition and mentioned Steiner, and got the impression that he had only briefly heard of Steiner, probably only in connection with occult 'woo-woo' science, rather than idealist philosophy. In his one and only appearance on this forum, he also gave the following answer to my question:

1) Are you familiar with Owen Barfield's and/or Jean Gebser's ideas on the "evolution of consciousness" (as described in Saving the Appearances and The Ever-Present Origin respectively) and, if so, do you find their arguments convincing and what implications would such a process have for your idealist position, specifically regarding any telos it may imply for collective human development?

I am familiar with both. My position on telos, motivated not only by my own pondering, but also those of Jung, Barfield, Gebser and others, is that nature seems to be driving, at tremendous cost in suffering and time, towards the development of meta-consciousness (a.k.a. self reflection, conscious metacognition, re-representation, self awareness, etc.) in both breadth and depth. This seems to be our role, and that of our suffering: to take explicit notice of nature and its unfolding, in the mirror of our reflections.

Anyway, reading Barfield and Steiner will hardly make a difference if he is only selectively using parts to reinforce his own analytic idealist position, without investigating the first-person experience of willed thinking activity. He couldn't make the connection between what Barfield was discussing in StA and spiritual reality precisely for that reason. That is also why he doesn't make the connection that self-conscious ideation is not only the end or telos of evolution, but also its Origin. Once we investigate the inner life of our thinking activity, we realize that outer nature is simply the 'other side' of self-conscious spirit, i.e. what the latter looks like when it has been decohered and frozen in time through our convoluted intellectual cognition.

[Federica]

P.S. I know I've not posted for a while. I've just been busy for a while. I appreciate the replies given last time I posted, however I don't have much to reply with at the moment.

Thanks for the kind note, Luke
If I may, no worries about these things!

Oo, very cool to know that Bernardo read Barfield's book! Maybe he will read Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom at some point? He has read Barfield so he probably heard of Steiner's work. Or maybe he will read Jean Gebser's book? But who knows.

For my part I think it's unlikely. He probably knows Steiner, but Steiner would bring him to unstable terrain, in contradiction with his philosophy and with the purposes of Essentia foundation. He's now locked into a role...

I once asked BK a question relating to higher cognition and mentioned Steiner, and got the impression that he had only briefly heard of Steiner, probably only in connection with occult 'woo-woo' science, rather than idealist philosophy. In his one and only appearance on this forum, he also gave the following answer to my question:

1) Are you familiar with Owen Barfield's and/or Jean Gebser's ideas on the "evolution of consciousness" (as described in Saving the Appearances and The Ever-Present Origin respectively) and, if so, do you find their arguments convincing and what implications would such a process have for your idealist position, specifically regarding any telos it may imply for collective human development?

I am familiar with both. My position on telos, motivated not only by my own pondering, but also those of Jung, Barfield, Gebser and others, is that nature seems to be driving, at tremendous cost in suffering and time, towards the development of meta-consciousness (a.k.a. self reflection, conscious metacognition, re-representation, self awareness, etc.) in both breadth and depth. This seems to be our role, and that of our suffering: to take explicit notice of nature and its unfolding, in the mirror of our reflections.

Anyway, reading Barfield and Steiner will hardly make a difference if he is only selectively using parts to reinforce his own analytic idealist position, without investigating the first-person experience of willed thinking activitt. He couldn't make the connection between what Barfield was discussing in StA and spiritual reality precisely for that reason. That is also why he doesn't make the connection that self-conscious ideation is not only the end or telos of evolution, but also its Origin. Once we investigate the inner life of our thinking activity, we realize that outer nature is simply the 'other side' of self-conscious spirit, i.e. what the latter looks like when it has been decohered and frozen in time through our convoluted intellectual cognition.

Maybe, if he received "What Barfield Thought" as mysterious present, he would be intrigued and he would read it. And if he read it, he would probably have to realize the first person perspective emerging from the whole of Barfield's work, and he would ponder that that wise thinker was an Anthroposophist....

What do you say, would that have an above zero chance of success?

[LukeJTM]

And I will add lastly, I have been reading Michael Wilson's translation of Steiner's PoF. I shared a link to it in another thread recently, it was the one speaking about differences between German and English philosophical terminologies (in the introduction). I am finding Wilson's translation much easier to read than the version titled The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (with the blue cover). It just seems to flow better than the other translation I have. I think it is because Wilson has deeper familiarity with both German and English than whoever translated the other version maybe. He uses simpler terminologies as well, e.g. mental picture instead of representation, so it could be that also. And he still remains true to Steiner's original German edition as far as I know.

Does anyone else have an opinion on the different translations to maybe share?

I read Michael Wilson's translation because Cleric indicated that one. I don't know about the other translations. I have occasionally checked the other ones when in doubt, and it has helped.

I have zero knowledge of Rudolf Steiner. Until coming to this forum, Steiner was for me some sort of eclectic thinker somehow connected to alternative medicine and alternative education. That’s how far it goes in my books… So I want to read The Philosophy of Freedom and I can’t do it in German.
Google tells me there are various editions and translations, even a missing chapter as it seems!
Would anyone have any suggestions on which one to go for?

I haven't gone through all translations but this seems OK.

You can see the available translations here. The one you can skip is the 1916 one, which is before the final 1918 edition by Steiner which adds some clarifications.

Did Cleric read the original German edition?

[Federica]

And I will add lastly, I have been reading Michael Wilson's translation of Steiner's PoF. I shared a link to it in another thread recently, it was the one speaking about differences between German and English philosophical terminologies (in the introduction). I am finding Wilson's translation much easier to read than the version titled The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (with the blue cover). It just seems to flow better than the other translation I have. I think it is because Wilson has deeper familiarity with both German and English than whoever translated the other version maybe. He uses simpler terminologies as well, e.g. mental picture instead of representation, so it could be that also. And he still remains true to Steiner's original German edition as far as I know.

Does anyone else have an opinion on the different translations to maybe share?

I read Michael Wilson's translation because Cleric indicated that one. I don't know about the other translations. I have occasionally checked the other ones when in doubt, and it has helped.

I haven't gone through all translations but this seems OK.

You can see the available translations here. The one you can skip is the 1916 one, which is before the final 1918 edition by Steiner which adds some clarifications.

Did Cleric read the original German edition?

I don't know

[Cleric K]

Did Cleric read the original German edition?

For my regret - no, as I don't know German.

[LukeJTM]

Did Cleric read the original German edition?

For my regret - no, as I don't know German.

Oh, ok.

I will admit I tried to read it in German because I tried to study the language earlier this year (I am interested in languages and other countries), and I became curious about PoF in German. I gave up during the first chapter because I didn't have enough vocabulary to enjoy reading it, and at the time I found the grammar a struggle. I have exposed myself to simpler texts, so I have little issues with grammar now.
I would like to try PoF in German again in the future, however I will probably end up using the dictionary again because I don't have a huge vocabulary. But making the effort is surely what matters, right?


To be honest, I find it interesting that English has become such an international language, now being the most widely spoken language (by the total number of speakers). I wonder what esoteric meaning could be behind English being a practically universal language. Any ideas?

[Güney27]

Did Cleric read the original German edition?

For my regret - no, as I don't know German.

Oh, ok.

I will admit I tried to read it in German because I tried to study the language earlier this year (I am interested in languages and other countries), and I became curious about PoF in German. I gave up during the first chapter because I didn't have enough vocabulary to enjoy reading it, and at the time I found the grammar a struggle. I have exposed myself to simpler texts, so I have little issues with grammar now.
I would like to try PoF in German again in the future, however I will probably end up using the dictionary again because I don't have a huge vocabulary. But making the effort is surely what matters, right?


To be honest, I find it interesting that English has become such an international language, now being the most widely spoken language (by the total number of speakers). I wonder what esoteric meaning could be behind English being a practically universal language. Any ideas?

I'm born in Germany and it's very hard for me to read PoF.
Steiners use of the language and writing style is very hard to read.
There are good books about PoF in German wich can help to make it more understandable.
Clerics posts on this forum are very helpful for me too.

[LukeJTM]

I'm born in Germany and it's very hard for me to read PoF.
Steiners use of the language and writing style is very hard to read.
There are good books about PoF in German wich can help to make it more understandable.
Clerics posts on this forum are very helpful for me too.

To be honest, as a native speaker of English, I find the translations of Rudolf Steiner's books difficult to read. I think it is just the writing style, and also the fact that he sometimes repeats himself too much, or 'waffles on' too much.
The other reason I have difficulties is because I am not deeply familiar with philosophy. I know some things, but not anywhere as in depth as other people on here. Rudolf Steiner wrote in PoF about philosophers I'd never even heard of before. So that sometimes makes it harder because I have to try my best to follow the context. But, I think making effort is the point of the book.

Do you read Steiner's lectures in German? There does seem to be many that still haven't been translated yet.