I love that you are tackling this gentlemen. My experience in questioning nature is that the door opens more widely for me if I prefix the question with "I wonder" why, not just "why". The word "wonder" is what is missing in science today.
Oh my. I am so grateful you have said such a thing. Let's all keep rolling together. It's glorious to be back in the saddle. Currently we are planning a three week rhythm.
Thanks! I agree with the relevance of GA02! It's so beautiful how one of the main themes in anthroposophy, the play between spirit and matter, is laid out here already as a raw juwel, in terms of thinking (spirit) and experiencing (matter). I can also recommend reading the notes Steiner made on this book in 1924, in the last year of his life, commenting on this first book he wrote 38 years earlier (when he was 25). From the first comment on chapter 1: "And if a plant root is unthinkable without the fulfillment of its potential in the fruit, so by no means only man but the world itself would not be complete unless knowing activity took place. In his activity of knowing man does not do something for himself alone; rather he works along with the world in the revelation of real existence. What is in man is ideal semblance; what is in the world of perception is sense semblance; the inter-working of the two in knowing activity first constitutes reality." About the difference between Goethean Science and Spiritual Science, that you discussed, he says in the third note: "Therefore, what is said in this book about the nature of knowledge is valid also for the activity of knowing the spiritual worlds, to which my later books refer. The sense world, in its manifestation to human contemplation, is not reality. It attains its reality when connected with what reveals itself about the sense world in man when he thinks. Thoughts belong to the reality of what the senses behold; but the thought-element within sense existence does not bring itself to manifestation outside in sense existence but rather inside of man. Yet thought and sense perception are one existence. Inasmuch as the human being enters the world and views it with his senses, he excludes thought from reality; but thought then just appears in another place: inside the soul. The separation of perception and thought is of absolutely no significance for the objective world; this separation occurs only because man places himself into the midst of existence. Through this there arises for him the illusion that thought and sense perception are a duality. It is no different for spiritual contemplation. When this arises-through soul processes that I have described in my later book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment-it again constitutes only one side of spiritual existence; the corresponding thoughts of the spirit constitute the other side. A difference arises only insofar as sense perception completes itself, attains reality, through thoughts upward, in a certain way, to where the spiritual begins, whereas spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward. " In my own words, there is no difference, only in Goethean science the studied objects are from the physical world, and in spiritual science from the world of spirits. In GA06, 'Goethe's Conception of the World', Steiner describes how Goethe never really managed to have his own thoughts as objects of observation. Before we can apply Goethean science to these spiritual objects, we first need to learn to see them..
When rethinking this, there is a difference :). "A difference arises only insofar as sense perception completes itself, attains reality, through thoughts upward, in a certain way, to where the spiritual begins, whereas spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward." These words are quite mysterious. My best guess is that the spiritual observation needs the material observation to complete itself. The thoughts of the spirit is the material counterpart. This makes me think of how Steiner says we can only 'prove' sense free observations/experiences to be true, if their effect in the material world is beneficial. Back to Goethe with his quote 'Only if its fruitful, its true'. Would you agree with this explanation?
@@ikriksik Thank you for this great contributive enjoinder. You have deepened and elevated the conversation. You have done just what you suggest! and yes I think that is spot on. What we refer to what as true good and beautiful are the felt gestures emanating as and into our sensory world. And WE instantiate this process as immanence. The difference in them seems to be one of directionality. One transcending into the living being of the archetypal (spirits of form and of personality?) and the other incarnating into the flesh. Evolution and involution in mutual determination. The shadow side of this Goethe quote you share is embodied in my opinion, by the rationalist's enlightenment apologist of the 19th and 20th century, the Pragmatists. They were lofty thinkers and same saw themselves as mediating between the idealists and the rationalists but the results are inevitably: "If it's useful it must be true enough". The dictum that there may not be a God or a spiritual world but we can act "as if" it were true is a self blinding posture.
Many thanks for sharing this insight Rick. Could you give me more details on the notes from 1924? Do you know which GA these are contained in? The new preface to GA2 also from late 1923 reflects these thoughts in a poetically concise manner. Concerning Goethean vs Spiritual Science I find paragraph 4 from chapter 4 particularly enlightening, but have to give the German as it seems to have been overlooked in both English versions on RSArchive In Wahrheit ist in meinen späteren Veröffentlichungen kein Verlassen der Idee des Erkennens vorhanden, die ich in dieser Schrift ausgebildet habe, sondern nur die Anwendung dieser Idee auf die geistige Erfahrung. = In truth, in my later publications there is no abandonment of the idea of cognition that I have developed in this writing, but only the application of this idea to spiritual experience. ---- My reading of this in the context of the previous chapters is that Steiner is outlining specifically how spiritual science is a natural evolution for the Goethean method which Goethe did not apply to spiritual experience (geistige Erfahrung). rsarchive.org/Books/GA002/German/GA002_c04.html This is a curious discovery for me to find that this important sentence is missing, at least from both the 1940 and 1988 translation. Even more fortuitious that I happened to have been stunned by this clarity earlier today before reading your comment.
@@TheExceptionalState My comments here do not pass the algoritme (are being removed) when adding a link to a web page. But the 1924 notes are online at the Rudolf Steiner Archive, Books/GA002/English/MP1988/GA002_notes. If you know of any other place in Steiner's work referring to the 'spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward' process mentioned above, please let me know. Because in Philosophy of freedom , and other places, it's the thinking about the thinking process that is seen as the starting point of spiritual science. And that is an exceptional state because it has the potential to become self contained, subject-object dissolving, independent, man created. And that does not sound like a change in directionality, but like a continuation of the Goethean method, just applied to non physical objects. The independence of the external experience is exactly its force. But maybe that's the starting point. Once the new spiritual content has been created, only then the descendant, the change of directionality takes place, so it can also serve our physical life, and be fine tuned to the kosmos. Some spiritual content does not resonate with the physical world- it will not survive evolution. Just like physical creations that do not resonate with the spiritual order of the kosmos, will not survive.
@@TheExceptionalState My comments here do not pass the algorithm (they are automatically removed) when adding a link to a web page. But the 1924 notes are online at the Rudolf Steiner Archive, GA2, English, 1988 , last chapter (Notes to the New Edition, 1924). If you know of any other place in Steiner's work referring to the 'spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward' process mentioned above, please let me know. Because in Philosophy of freedom , and other places, it's the thinking about the thinking process that is seen as the starting point of spiritual science. And that is an exceptional state because it has the potential to become self contained, subject-object dissolving, independent, man created. And that does not sound like a change in directionality, but like a continuation of the Goethean method, just applied to non physical objects. The independence of this process of the external experience is exactly its force. But maybe that's the starting point. Once the new spiritual content has been created, only then the descendant, the change of directionality takes place, so it can also serve our physical life, and be fine tuned to the kosmos. Some spiritual content does not resonate with the physical world- it will not survive evolution. Just like physical creations that do not resonate with the spiritual order of the kosmos, will not survive.
@18:10 Excellent question Jeff! Why did he explicate .... make explicit.? at the same time it is a question that doesn't surprise me becaue you are great at posing questions that encourage us to dig deeper.
I love that you are tackling this gentlemen. My experience in questioning nature is that the door opens more widely for me if I prefix the question with "I wonder" why, not just "why". The word "wonder" is what is missing in science today.
I have been waiting for the return of Jeff. What a great day!
Oh my. I am so grateful you have said such a thing. Let's all keep rolling together. It's glorious to be back in the saddle. Currently we are planning a three week rhythm.
Thanks! I agree with the relevance of GA02! It's so beautiful how one of the main themes in anthroposophy, the play between spirit and matter, is laid out here already as a raw juwel, in terms of thinking (spirit) and experiencing (matter). I can also recommend reading the notes Steiner made on this book in 1924, in the last year of his life, commenting on this first book he wrote 38 years earlier (when he was 25). From the first comment on chapter 1:
"And if a plant root is unthinkable without the fulfillment of its potential in the fruit, so by no means only man but the world itself would not be complete unless knowing activity took place. In his activity of knowing man does not do something for himself alone; rather he works along with the world in the revelation of real existence. What is in man is ideal semblance; what is in the world of perception is sense semblance; the inter-working of the two in knowing activity first constitutes reality."
About the difference between Goethean Science and Spiritual Science, that you discussed, he says in the third note:
"Therefore, what is said in this book about the nature of knowledge is valid also for the activity of knowing the spiritual worlds, to which my later books refer. The sense world, in its manifestation to human contemplation, is not reality. It attains its reality when connected with what reveals itself about the sense world in man when he thinks. Thoughts belong to the reality of what the senses behold; but the thought-element within sense existence does not bring itself to manifestation outside in sense existence but rather inside of man. Yet thought and sense perception are one existence. Inasmuch as the human being enters the world and views it with his senses, he excludes thought from reality; but thought then just appears in another place: inside the soul. The separation of perception and thought is of absolutely no significance for the objective world; this separation occurs only because man places himself into the midst of existence. Through this there arises for him the illusion that thought and sense perception are a duality. It is no different for spiritual contemplation. When this arises-through soul processes that I have described in my later book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment-it again constitutes only one side of spiritual existence; the corresponding thoughts of the spirit constitute the other side. A difference arises only insofar as sense perception completes itself, attains reality, through thoughts upward, in a certain way, to where the spiritual begins, whereas spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward. "
In my own words, there is no difference, only in Goethean science the studied objects are from the physical world, and in spiritual science from the world of spirits. In GA06, 'Goethe's Conception of the World', Steiner describes how Goethe never really managed to have his own thoughts as objects of observation. Before we can apply Goethean science to these spiritual objects, we first need to learn to see them..
When rethinking this, there is a difference :). "A difference arises only insofar as sense perception completes itself, attains reality, through thoughts upward, in a certain way, to where the spiritual begins, whereas spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward." These words are quite mysterious. My best guess is that the spiritual observation needs the material observation to complete itself. The thoughts of the spirit is the material counterpart. This makes me think of how Steiner says we can only 'prove' sense free observations/experiences to be true, if their effect in the material world is beneficial. Back to Goethe with his quote 'Only if its fruitful, its true'. Would you agree with this explanation?
@@ikriksik Thank you for this great contributive enjoinder. You have deepened and elevated the conversation. You have done just what you suggest! and yes I think that is spot on. What we refer to what as true good and beautiful are the felt gestures emanating as and into our sensory world. And WE instantiate this process as immanence. The difference in them seems to be one of directionality. One transcending into the living being of the archetypal (spirits of form and of personality?) and the other incarnating into the flesh. Evolution and involution in mutual determination.
The shadow side of this Goethe quote you share is embodied in my opinion, by the rationalist's enlightenment apologist of the 19th and 20th century, the Pragmatists. They were lofty thinkers and same saw themselves as mediating between the idealists and the rationalists but the results are inevitably: "If it's useful it must be true enough". The dictum that there may not be a God or a spiritual world but we can act "as if" it were true is a self blinding posture.
Many thanks for sharing this insight Rick. Could you give me more details on the notes from 1924? Do you know which GA these are contained in? The new preface to GA2 also from late 1923 reflects these thoughts in a poetically concise manner.
Concerning Goethean vs Spiritual Science I find paragraph 4 from chapter 4 particularly enlightening, but have to give the German as it seems to have been overlooked in both English versions on RSArchive
In Wahrheit ist in meinen späteren Veröffentlichungen kein Verlassen der Idee des Erkennens vorhanden, die ich in dieser Schrift ausgebildet habe, sondern nur die Anwendung dieser Idee auf die geistige Erfahrung. = In truth, in my later publications there is no abandonment of the idea of cognition that I have developed in this writing, but only the application of this idea to spiritual experience. ---- My reading of this in the context of the previous chapters is that Steiner is outlining specifically how spiritual science is a natural evolution for the Goethean method which Goethe did not apply to spiritual experience (geistige Erfahrung).
rsarchive.org/Books/GA002/German/GA002_c04.html
This is a curious discovery for me to find that this important sentence is missing, at least from both the 1940 and 1988 translation. Even more fortuitious that I happened to have been stunned by this clarity earlier today before reading your comment.
@@TheExceptionalState My comments here do not pass the algoritme (are being removed) when adding a link to a web page. But the 1924 notes are online at the Rudolf Steiner Archive, Books/GA002/English/MP1988/GA002_notes. If you know of any other place in Steiner's work referring to the 'spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward' process mentioned above, please let me know. Because in Philosophy of freedom , and other places, it's the thinking about the thinking process that is seen as the starting point of spiritual science. And that is an exceptional state because it has the potential to become self contained, subject-object dissolving, independent, man created. And that does not sound like a change in directionality, but like a continuation of the Goethean method, just applied to non physical objects. The independence of the external experience is exactly its force. But maybe that's the starting point. Once the new spiritual content has been created, only then the descendant, the change of directionality takes place, so it can also serve our physical life, and be fine tuned to the kosmos. Some spiritual content does not resonate with the physical world- it will not survive evolution. Just like physical creations that do not resonate with the spiritual order of the kosmos, will not survive.
@@TheExceptionalState My comments here do not pass the algorithm (they are automatically removed) when adding a link to a web page. But the 1924 notes are online at the Rudolf Steiner Archive, GA2, English, 1988 , last chapter (Notes to the New Edition, 1924). If you know of any other place in Steiner's work referring to the 'spiritual contemplation is experienced in its true being from this beginning point downward' process mentioned above, please let me know. Because in Philosophy of freedom , and other places, it's the thinking about the thinking process that is seen as the starting point of spiritual science. And that is an exceptional state because it has the potential to become self contained, subject-object dissolving, independent, man created. And that does not sound like a change in directionality, but like a continuation of the Goethean method, just applied to non physical objects. The independence of this process of the external experience is exactly its force. But maybe that's the starting point. Once the new spiritual content has been created, only then the descendant, the change of directionality takes place, so it can also serve our physical life, and be fine tuned to the kosmos. Some spiritual content does not resonate with the physical world- it will not survive evolution. Just like physical creations that do not resonate with the spiritual order of the kosmos, will not survive.
@18:10 Excellent question Jeff! Why did he explicate .... make explicit.? at the same time it is a question that doesn't surprise me becaue you are great at posing questions that encourage us to dig deeper.
@white_red_bkack Thank you. It's emboldening to know we are all on a journey together.
We Kantian children need to grow up a little more and start looking into that thing in itself and say Emanuel have you thought of Goethe's process.
ruclips.net/video/l9SqQNgDrgg/видео.html