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

R: [anthroposophy] How to see the world

Expand Messages
  • VALENTINA BRUNETTI
    Dear Elaine and all, I believe that some useful inight about those topics(what is percept? and what is concept ?)are in the recently translated book The
    Message 1 of 1 , May 29 1:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Elaine and all,
      I believe that some useful inight about those topics(what is percept? and what is concept ?)are in the recently translated book "The Light" by Massimo Scaligero, especially  when he writes about the "pure perception" technique that's tightly linked with Philosophy of Freedom 's contents.
      Andrea
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: jla
      Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:01 PM
      Subject: [anthroposophy] How to see the world

      Elaine,
       
      It looks like we are on the same wavelength recently.
       
      I was pondering similar comments (below) and am still troubled by Goethean approach to science and life, in general. Though strongly advocated by Steiner and others, there are basic assumptions that still cannot be rectified in light of modern experience and science- namely how to establish some sort of objectivity and consensus in interpretation of our observations of nature. Steiner obviously thought higher of us than we ourselves do.
       
      In pure thinking/observation work, the problem continues to be - our inability to transforms subjective impressionism, intuition, and imagination into objective clarity. The inner cognitive mix of thoughts and images will never hold up scientifically or as a path of knowledge, at least for now.  We can observe nature quietly and openly but we seem to come up with a diversity of inner impressions and "intuitions". For this reason alone (and there are others), this method cannot and will not be adopted by either science or the general spiritual community as "objective and true". It's a valid method but perhaps more advanced than we can now engage and use.
       
       
       
      Jeff
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:58 PM
      Subject: [anthroposophy] More pers and cons-Re: percepts-concepts-Re

      Hello L., carol, any and all of this thread,

      Here's a thing that happened to me on the way to more pers and cons
      (percepts and concepts). I was sitting at the table having a
      discussion with my partner while we ate lunch. On the table were a
      beautiful bunch of white day lilies, with red-pink centers. For days
      I had been looking at these lilies and also remembering (vaguely)
      what the great Georgia O'Keeffe said about flowers (something like:
      it takes time to know a flower, to befriend a  flower). The lilies
      brought me joy everyday and I especially enjoyed lunch time when they
      were so near us on the table, amid the good food and the candlelight
      and the pleasant hum of our lunch conversation.

      Then, it occured to me that I wanted to draw the lilies! But I am not
      (so far) very good at drawing perspective, and the lilies had so much
      depth, so much depth of color in the pink-red centers, and also the
      petals bent and turned so gracefully. I wondered how I could ever
      draw that kind of perspective.

      My partner said she would also have difficulty, but suggested I just
      look closely at what was in front of me and forget that it was a
      flower or a lily and just draw what I saw, without trying to make it
      be something like a "flower." In other words, she said, forget the
      concept "flower" or "lily" and just draw what you see before you, as
      it appears, just see, or just perceive.

      I argued, I cannot do that! I know it is a flower (or what we humans
      agree to call a flower) and so I cannot just draw what I see and
      ignore that it is a flower.

      Yes, well, you can, was the reply. That is what is meant in the
      famous book of lessons called "Drawing on the Right Side of the
      Brain." Get rid of the concept. Be in the "right brain", the artist's
      brain, so to say.

      Well, I tried that and lo and behold, with some difficulty, but with
      a measure of success also, I drew what i saw and it was quite
      graceful, curving and had depth (to a degree--I mean there was
      promise in what I drew, not so much promise that it was a fixed
      flower exactly as that before me, but a thing of grace and depth, of
      curves and such). Now, I realize that even terms like "grace"
      and "depth" are also concepts, so I do not entirely get rid of
      concepts, but at least there is a progression here, more toward
      perceiving.

      I know that some "anthroposophic" art teachers and painters (or those
      who are anthroposophically inspired) talk about painting as working
      with the colors, with the textures, the grain of the paper and such.
      What comes out may be a thing we conceptualize as "birth" or
      the "Madonna and child" or such, for example, but that was not how it
      started. It started with working with the colors and seeing certain
      things that colors will do under certain conditions. Now even to
      think of these conditions and grain of paper and brush stroke and
      such still involves conceptualization, but again, less so than if one
      decides one is painting, for example, the Madonna and Child.

      So, what I am saying is that there is something here about what the
      Buddhists, perhaps, call "original mind", or "beginner's mind." This
      is almost a child's mind, where concepts are not so fixed and
      something new can happen, a kind of openness. In the Christian
      tradition this might be found in Christ's words, "Except ye be as
      little children, ye cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven." Or, "suffer
      the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for such is
      the kingdom of Heaven." The artist's vision is a bit of the kingdom
      of heaven.

      Now, how did Goethe work? What is Goethean observation? I think it is
      related here to what I am getting at. One pays close, very close
      attention, beyond one's own notions of things and what they are and
      should be. This is a matter of degrees, of course, degrees of
      progress in achieving this close observation, this listening
      stillness, where the thing speaks on its own terms, "the thing in its
      thinginess," "Das Dinge an sich" (in itself). This deep listening,
      deep observing, deep interest, can be applied to anything and anyone,
      and constitutes, Steiner tells us, an act of Love (see Morality
      Lectures on St. Francis of Assisi). This can be applied to
      therapeutic work with others, to negotiations for peace among
      peoples, to gardening and farming, to raising a child, etc. etc.

      So, I say to myself, let me not too quickly rush to concepts! (Yet,
      the ability to conceptualize, eventually, is also important, I feel.).
      Each--per and con--has its place.

      Blessings,
      elaine


      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
      Unsubscribe:
      anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
      List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
      Unsubscribe:
      anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
      List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.