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

Re: [anthroposophy] universe incarnations??

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Dear Daniel, Interesting words by a scifi writer... Coleridge made a distinction between certain observable inner processes, and the results that come in
    Message 1 of 42 , Nov 11, 2005
      Dear Daniel,

      Interesting words by a scifi writer...

      Coleridge made a distinction between certain observable inner
      processes, and the results that come in thought depending upon upon
      which inner processes are active and in what arrangement. Since we
      sleep through these activities, the resulting ideation tends to wander
      around without us being able to really nail down why the different
      results. We act as if the differences are matters of argument or
      experience, but don't often recognize that we have proceeded in the soul
      via quite different pathways.

      For example, Coleridge wrote of these qualities of soul process:
      Sense, Fancy, Understanding, Understanding, Imagination and Reason.
      I'll leave aside why there are two forms of Understanding for the
      moment, and just focus on the differences between Fancy and Imagination.

      Fancy is linked more dominately to sense processes and sense
      experiences, even though it involves inner picture making. The
      Imagination recognizes that the logos order of experience (both outer
      and inner) is expressed in Reason, but also admits to a degree of
      discipline needing to inform the picture making.

      A lot of scientific "theory" then is rooted in sense experience and
      Fancy (undisciplined picture making) which then produces a more earthly
      and somewhat incomplete Understanding. The more the logos (logic) is
      involved and the more disciplined the Imagination, the more Reason lives
      in the production of the higher form of Understanding.

      Since the scientist is sleeping through which soul processes he is
      using in spinning his "theories", the real root of the differences among
      theories is generally not perceived.

      One could, for example, use bits of Reason and Imagination and
      Sense, but in a somewhat fanciful way - the usual form we see this is in
      "what if" senarios. Sometimes concepts are created this way, and then
      various already fanciful concepts are woven together in an even more
      fanciful way, and we get the multiverse and string theory and such. As
      long as there is no self observation of the mind, and no discipline
      applied (especially of a moral nature), then thinking will create
      endless illusions that will occasionally be popular, but will seldom (if
      ever) be true.

      warm regards,

      Daniel Hindes wrote:

      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com]
      >On Behalf Of Maurice McCarthy
      >Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 6:06 AM
      >To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] universe incarnations??
      ><snip> Modern theory is the extrapolation of measurements way beyond their
      >validity. <snip>
      >A few physicists are starting to think along these lines. Consider:
      >Physicist, UC Irvine; Author, Deep Time
      >Why is there scientific law at all?
      >We physicists explain the origin and structure of matter and energy, but not
      >the laws that do this. Does the idea of causation apply to where the laws
      >themselves came from? Even Alan Guth's "free lunch" gives us the universe
      >after the laws start acting. We have narrowed down the range of field
      >theories that can yield the big bang universe we live in, but why do the
      >laws that govern it seem to be constant in time, and always at work?
      >One can imagine a universe in which laws are not truly lawful. Talk of
      >miracles does just this, when God is supposed to make things work. Physics
      >aims to find The Laws and hopes that these will be uniquely constrained, as
      >when Einstein wondered if God had any choice when He made the universe. One
      >fashionable escape hatch from this asserts that there are infinitely many
      >universes, each sealed off from the others, which can obey any sort of law
      >one can imagine, with parameters or assumptions changed. This "multiverse"
      >view represents the failure of our grand agenda, of course, and seems to me
      >contrary to Occam's Razor-solving our lack of understanding by multiplying
      >unseen entities into infinity.
      >Perhaps it is a similar philosophical failure of imagination to think, as I
      >do, that when we see order, there is usually an ordering principle. But what
      >can constrain the nature of physical law? Evolution gave us our ornately
      >structured biosphere, and perhaps a similar principle operates in selecting
      >universes. Perhaps our universe arises, then, from selection for
      >intelligences that can make fresh universes, perhaps in high energy physics
      >experiments. Or near black holes (as Lee Smiolin supposed), where space-time
      >gets contorted into plastic forms that can make new space-times. Then an
      >Ur-universe that had intelligence could make others, and this reproduction
      >with perhaps slight variation ion "genetics" drives the evolution of
      >physical law.
      >Selection arises because only firm laws can yield constant, benign
      >conditions to form new life. Ed Harrison had similar ideas. Once life forms
      >realize this, they could intentionally make more smart universes with the
      >right, fixed laws, to produce ever more grand structures. There might be
      >observable consequences of this prior evolution, If so, then we are an
      >inevitable consequence of the universe, mirroring intelligences that have
      >come before, in some earlier universe that deliberately chose to create more
      >sustainable order. The fitness of our cosmic environment is then no
      >accident. If we find evidence of fine-tuning in the Dyson and Rees sense,
      >then, is this evidence for such views?
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
    • 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
        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

        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.