Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy] A Theory of Knowledge

Expand Messages
  • iazul
    Hi Joel, I kept here only my questions and your answers so that things are less messy. Then, I added new question-inserts to it, ok? Before getting to that: I
    Message 1 of 42 , Nov 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Joel,
      I kept here only my questions and your answers so that
      things are less messy. Then, I added new
      question-inserts to it, ok?
      Before getting to that: I read the text you referred
      me to. It certainly contain concepts that are beyond
      my knowledge at this point, but still I found it
      interesting. Judging by what you wrote and by the
      book's table of contents, A T. of K. would be a very
      good book for somebody like me to read, right? I'd
      probably still need some help, though. I'm not lazy,
      mind you. I'd never ask a book to be rewritten so that
      I could understand it better (as you mentioned some
      people suggested should happen with PoF). But when it
      comes to Steiner I do have serious difficulties
      understanding things. And banging one's head against
      the wall over and over gets kind of tiresome after a
      while.



      Dear Iazul,

      I've put some comments (or answers) below in
      [brackets].



      What is exactly a "depth" practice?

      [Exoteric religion involves such things as going to
      church and engaging in the "rites" of that religion,
      including occasional prayer. Depth, or esoteric
      religious or spiritual, practices involve daily
      meditation, self observation and understanding, and
      self determined transformation (details vary according
      to the "system").]

      ***That's simple enough, thanks; I get it.



      Thought and experience are united? Would it be
      possible to illustrate this with an example or at
      least elaborate a bit more?

      [A sense object, such as a chair, appears to our
      senses. Does it have an "inwardness" in the same sense
      that we know ourselves to have an inwardness? In
      Platonism, "things" have corresponding "ideas", and
      the Idea is the prime reality, not the sense object.
      So, for example, a "chair" also has a "function", that
      is a purpose, such that a box can be a "chair" or a
      tree stump. This function is known to our
      consciousness as the "Idea" of something to sit on. It
      gets a bit more complictated if we are trying to come
      to the "Idea" of a flower, or a cat, and even more
      seriously complicated if we want to know (with
      thinking) the "Idea" of a particular individual human
      being. So when we unite the experience (the chair)
      with its Idea, as "thought", we unite thought and
      experience. Science doesn't do this, believing
      (assuming) that "thought" is subjective and
      disconnected from the sense object. To have true
      knowledge is for Science impossible, and one can only
      get approximations of the "truth" of sense experience,
      but never The Truth.]

      ***Ok, I am familiar with Plato and now things are
      making more sense.
      Now, you're implying here that Anthroposophy adopts
      the platonic views, right? If so, does it adopt this
      view exactly as it was proposed by Plato or are there
      differences?



      activity, overcome
      this given and assumed separation, learning to
      appreciate that outer
      experience appears not only to the senses, but the
      "inside" of
      experience arises in human consciousness in the form
      of thoughts.

      ***NOW I got it!


      [I can't see your thoughts or feelings, but you would
      not operate very well as a human being if you didn't
      pay attention to these invisible experiences. Science
      teaches us some very weird thoughts about these
      experiences and about consciousness, and certainly
      about I or self consciousness - essentially suggesting
      that there is no I or self at all.]

      ***I think Science actually draws a blank when it
      comes to stuff like this. I mean, Science's bottomline
      regarding consciousness for instance would be: not
      enough scientifically verifiable evidence so we don't
      know what it really is, where it comes from, period.
      By the way, I am in a Science-oriented list where
      usually all discussions end like: well there's no
      point in continuing to discuss such issue since we
      don't have enough evidence one or way or another etc
      etc etc




      [Sit quietly in a chair in a dark room - one which is
      as free of sound as possible. The chair should be
      comfortable. In your inner voice count to ten. Then do
      it again, such that with each inner speaking you also
      create an image of the number, white on a black field.
      Then do it again, making the image change colors for
      each number, while doing your inner voice in some
      melodic fashion. Hard work, yes?

      ***Joel, for me practical things such as this are not
      that hard! This stuff up there was pretty easy to
      do. I am ok when it comes to doing Steiner's
      meditation exercises and such. That's why I've been
      focusing on them lately. My main problem is to
      understand at an intellectual level all RS's ideas and
      theories behind these activities!


      Now imagine that the Earth, whose gravity holds you
      to the chair, is not doing that by the means of some
      abstract "force", but rather is a Being whose Cosmic
      Will is such that It holds dear all Its Children, but
      this holding dear is such a Loving and Living
      Constant, that we think of it as a function (not of
      Being) but of dead consciousless matter. Thus, when we
      "think" the "force of gravity" we are not yet thinking
      the Idea, but at the same time the Idea is still there
      whether we yet know how to "think" it.

      ***You see, understanding THIS part is pretty hard!



      What we find so hard to do with our thinking, inner
      speaking and imagination in making the numbers and
      colors, a Cosmic Being does almost as second nature.

      They Think and what They Think Is.

      When we learn to properly "think", we get to know
      directly this Being and Its activity. The Father and
      the Mother created the Ideas, and the Son (Christ) and
      the Daughter (Sophia) made them material, and the
      lingering echo of those Ideas comes to us in the form
      of thoughts. See Plato's Allegory of the Cave.]

      Joel, this message actually clarified things a lot.
      Thanks.
      Iazul









      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Maurice McCarthy
      Hi Sunny, Welcome to the list and I hope this is a good place for you. As you ll see there is not much traffic lately. Warmest Regards Maurice
      Message 42 of 42 , Dec 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Sunny,

        Welcome to the list and I hope this is a good place for you. As you'll see there is not much traffic lately.

        Warmest Regards
        Maurice



        On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:14:37AM -0000 or thereabouts, sunmoonchild wrote:
        > Hello all,
        >
        > I am brand new here, and relatively new to Rudolph Steiner. ...

        > I'll be looking forward to learning more about why I was drawn here.
        > And looking forward to finding out why all I've heard of
        > Anthroposophy so far just seems to resonate for me.
        >
        > Sunny
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.