1263Re: [steiner] Re: to experience thinking
- Oct 17, 2002info@... writes:
Hi Dr Starman! You wrote:
"When we think in concepts -- for instance mathematical,
geometrical concepts -- and observe ourselves thinking, that IS the
human spirit we're experiencing."
This kind of observation is only possible *after* a thinking process
is completed, according to chapter 3, PoF, meaning I am observing
former experiences. What Carol and I am talking about is the
*direct* experience, meaning having live in thinking, as requiered
in chapter 9...
*******Well, in the first place, your English is not very clear, and I'm not sure what
"having live in thinking" means. Presumably you mean "to live in thinking." However, you are somehow drawing the conclusion that doing so is different then a thinking been observing his own thinking.
As I said before, it's not a good idea to take one piece of the PoF apart from the whole and talk about it-- -- -- but I can say with a great amount of certainty that you would be chasing a "chimera" to believe that you're required to observe the thinking you're doing simultaneously with doing it in order to "live in thinking". That's impossible and can't be done, as you can read in Ch. 3 (as well as common sense telling you so). What Steiner means in chapter 9 (or rather in the rewritten 1918 beginning of chapter 9, because the bulk of the chapter has to do with will and motives, not thinking) by "the self-sustaining activity of thinking" is exactly the fact that thinking can make itself the object of itself. I don't know where you got the idea that there is something else required, but you did not get it from chapter 9.
>>Exercises with "the exeptional state" as suggested in ch.3 can bring
the insight of the validity of thinking. No problem. But then one
has to awake to the different usage of the term "observation" in the
second part of the PoF. Here it is no longer a question of standing
over against but to experience (erleben) directly. Surely this kind
of experience is something else - living thinking. At least, this is
what Steiner promises in the extention of chapter 8.
*******Well once again, it seems like you're imposing an idea from somewhere else on the book itself. I see nowhere any notation by Steiner that he will be using the word "observation" to mean something different in the second half of the book then the first; in fact, chapter 8 is a short recapitulation of the first half, and once again uses "observation" to mean the acquiring of percepts.
The addendum to chapter 8 refers to experiencing thinking intuitively, which becomes an experience when one works with the first part of the book, from chapter 3 onward. Then one has an intuitive experience, through intuition, of the true nature of thinking itself. There is no new level of thinking suddenly being introduced in the addition to chapter 8 or the first few pages of chapter 9.
I've noticed before that some people working with the 'Philosophy of Freedom' like to make it sound as if what a thinking student of the book is experiencing is not what Steiner was speaking of, but always imply that it must be 'something else'. I've already run into a supposed 'expert' on the book, who liked to constantly make his students think they hadn't "got it" yet, simply because he did not want to meet them as equals-- -- -- and have to face the fact that he had indeed gotten the message of the book years before, but hadn't done very much with it, or with his life. It sounds like you may have been taking 'lessons' from someone similar!
But anyone who can think in concepts can experience what is described in the book, and in pure thinking understand his experience. That's the whole point of the book, that thinking can understand itself -- -- --and it can, regardless of all naysayers who throw stumbling stones in your way. Pure thinking IS "living in thinking."
>The spirit knows itself through and through. That was the whole
>Steiner's early philosophical works. There were not many who could
>what he was trying to point to in his time, and there aren't many
>it's not because the human being is unable to, as Kant declared,
>because we do not realize or do not believe in the validity of
>already experiencing, we mischaracterize it. All the theories that
>think with the brain are that.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>