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

Re: Steiner's mistake about colored shadows???

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... entirety, and the so-called phases need a new explanation.
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 5, 2008
      Steve wrote:

      >>. . . . the moon is self-shining in its
      entirety, and the so-called "phases" need a new

      Robert writes:

      It seems to me that Carol was onto something
      with the first sentence she wrote:

      >>Notice, the nuances: 'spiritual sense',
      'physically it appears' and 'in reality'.<<

      Robert writes:

      Here are the crucial sentences from the
      Steiner-said that Steve brought:

      ". . . . in the spiritual sense, light streams
      out from Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury, Venus and
      the Moon.

      "Physically it appears as though the sun gives
      the planets light . . . ."

      Robert continues:

      It seems to me that Steve is, at the least,
      confusing these "physical appearances" with
      light in the "spiritual sense". I started this
      thread with Steiner's discussion of an aspect
      of the *physical appearances* of light and
      color, namely the observable facts of "colored
      shadows". Colored shadows are physical
      appearances, and the question I raised was
      about the physical appearances, nothing more.
      And when Steve brought the phenomenon of the
      lunar eclipse into this thread, I thought that
      he was talking about the physical appearances
      of lunar eclipses and trying to relate them to
      the principle at work in the physical
      appearances of colored shadows. And in my
      discussion of the scientific theories of
      eclipses and sunsets I was dealing with the
      physical phenomena of light and color, not with
      light in the "spiritual sense".

      Steve quotes that passage from Steiner as
      supporting the view that "the moon is self-
      shining in its entirety", but it is obvious
      that Steiner was not talking about the moon in
      its *physical appearance* being "self-shining";
      RS was talking about light in the *spiritual
      sense* coming from the moon. He explicitly
      confirmed the common-sense "physical
      appearance" that the sun gives light to the
      planets including the moon. Plainly, Steiner's
      discussion here does not support the view that
      ”the moon is self-shining in its entirety" if
      this "entirety" includes the physical
      appearances. And apparently to Steve it does
      include them, an incomprehensible confusion of
      light in its physical and spiritual aspects.

      Steve wrote:

      >>In reading what you offered above, Robert, I
      am thinking about natural effects vs.
      artificial effects created in a lab environment
      using such devices as a "turbid" in this case .
      . . Common sense tells me that there is a
      difference between the results of natural
      viewing and the views of the lab experiments.<<

      Robert writes:

      But no laboratory can violate the "laws of
      Nature"; nothing "unnatural" in the literal
      sense can be produced in laboratory
      experiments, especially such simple ones
      involved here. What the experiments do, in the
      Goethean sense, if done properly, is to make
      the "archetypal phenomena" clear to the mind.

      Steve wrote:

      >>For example, when sunlight and the moisture
      contained in clouds affect the atmosphere, then
      we naturally see all seven rays of light of the
      spectrum in the form of the rainbow. Thus, rain
      is important in achieving this prismatic effect
      . . . .<<

      Carol wrote:

      >>Perhaps the question to be asked is, what is
      the living nature of the Sun as a mass, as it
      stands in the sky nowadays?<<

      Robert writes:

      In Chapter XVIII of *Man or Matter* Lehrs
      discusses the rainbow and relates it to
      "prismatic effects" and to the "nature of the
      Sun". I can't go through his whole explanation
      here; one needs to read the whole chapter, but
      really the whole book. To make a long story
      short: the Sun, even in its physical nature,
      is not a "mass" at all; it is a region of
      "negative density" or "counter-space".
      (Steiner discusses this principle often, as do,
      following him, George Adams [Kaufmann] and
      Olive Whicher; you could do some Googling.)
      The rainbow appears when atmospheric conditions
      display an image of the sun; the colors appear
      as "boundary effect" at the interface of space
      and the "negative space" of the sun. (Usually
      the sun-image is incomplete; thus the rainbow
      is usually only a more-or-less short arc. But
      sometimes the whole image of the sun-disc is
      displayeded, and then the rainbow appears as a
      complete circle, as I have seen.)

      A few words from Lehrs:

      "From what we have learnt already we can say at
      once that the rainbow must represent some sort
      of border-phenomenon, thus pointing to the
      existence of a boundary between two space-
      regions of differing illumination. Our question
      therefore must be: what is the light-image
      whose boundary comes to coloured manifestation
      in the phenomenon of the rainbow? There can be
      no doubt that the image is that of the sun-
      disk, shining in the sky. When we see a
      rainbow, what we are really looking at is the
      edge of an image of the sun-disk, caught and
      reflected, owing to favourable conditions, in
      the atmosphere. (Observe in this respect that
      the whole area inside the rainbow is always
      considerably brighter than the space outside.)

      "Once we realize this to be the true nature of
      the rainbow, the peculiar order of its colours
      begins to speak a significant language. The
      essential point to observe is that the blue-
      violet part of the spectrum lies on the inner
      side of the rainbow-arch - the side immediately
      adjoining the outer rim of the sun-image -
      while the yellow-red part lies on the outer
      side of the arch - the side turned away from
      the sun-image. What can we learn from this
      about the distribution of positive and negative
      density inside and outside the realm occupied
      by the sun-disk itself in the cosmos?

      "We remember {from Lehrs' discussion of
      'prismatic effects' -- RM} that along the
      gradient from blue to violet, negative density
      (Light) increases and positive density (Dark)
      decreases, while from yellow to red it is just
      the reverse-positive density increases and
      negative density decreases. The rainbow
      therefore indicates a steady increase of Dark
      towards the outer rim, and of Light towards the
      inner. Evidently, what the optical image of the
      sun in the atmosphere thus reveals concerning
      the gradation of the ratio between Light and
      Dark in the radial direction, is an attribute
      of the entire light-realm which stretches from
      the sun to that image. And again, the attribute
      of this realm is but an effect of the dynamic
      relation between the sun itself and the
      surrounding cosmic space.

      "The rainbow thus becomes a script to us in
      which we read the remarkable fact that the
      region occupied by the sun in the cosmos is a
      region of negative density, in relation to
      which the region surrounding the sun is one of
      positive density. Far from being an
      accumulation of ponderable matter in a state of
      extremely high temperature, as science
      supposes, the sun represents the very opposite
      of ponderability."

      Steve wrote:

      >>. . . . just as lack of moisture combined
      with extraordinary static friction of the
      atmosphere creates lightning.<<

      Robert writes:

      But obviously, lightning (usually) occurs where
      there is a pronounced *lack* of a "lack of

      Steve wrote:

      >>In the case of an observable lunar eclipse
      our vision, of course, is undisturbed by
      clouds, so the three aspects of the red band
      are displayed over the duration of the eclipse.
      The refracted (deflected) light would have to
      be enlightened by the self-shining moon as its
      passes through the umbra for the simple reason
      that the atmosphere on the darkened side of the
      earth is too weak to bear the light of the sun
      itself to the naked eye. But, what the naked
      eye is able to view standing in the shadow zone
      during a lunar eclipse, is the moon taking on
      the color of the deflected light on its face as
      it passes through, making deflected sunlight
      visible to the eye. After passing through the
      shadow, the atmosphere returns to darkness, and
      the moon's original light is restored.<<

      Robert writes:

      This paragraph is unintelligible to me. I've
      already talked about the alleged "refraction"
      and the allegedly "self-shining moon"; rather
      than repeat what I've already said, I'll leave
      it at that.

      Steve wrote:

      >>The shroud of the moon, which has been given
      a very clever and logical explanation as the
      phases of the moon, described in the second url
      above, is actually the Eighth Sphere. If you
      remember from the discourse on the ES from last
      summer . . . .<<

      Robert writes:

      Steve, I do remember enough of your "discourse"
      of last summer to recall that I couldn't make
      any sense of what you were saying and that I
      bailed out of the discussion. I'm going to
      bail out again; just a remark on the way out:
      I think that once again you are confusing the
      physical and the non-physical. Your theory
      requires a physical shroud, but the 8th Sphere
      is non-physical.

      Robert M

      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.