Re: [anthroposophy] A Theory of Knowledge
- 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
I've put some comments (or answers) below in
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
this given and assumed separation, learning to
appreciate that outer
experience appears not only to the senses, but the
experience arises in human consciousness in the form
***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
[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.
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
- 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.
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.