- Jun 14, 2007Not Van Gogh, but the supra-personal Christ within him, was capable
of perceiving the one Reality of a wheat field from many different
perspectives; some painted in an aura of silence: calm, full of
light and peaceful solitude. Other wheat fields were on fire in the
Word; each stalk painted like a holy flame. Van Gogh's wheat fields
were not Platonic idea forms, but a living essence filled with
character and dimensionality unique unto themselves.
Which is the true wheat field? Was Van Gogh's collection of wheat
field paintings just imaginative fancies created by his brain, as the
subjectivist would insist? Or was Van Gogh so masterful at
describing and analyzing his states of subjectivity that he
discovered an objective ground, not only within side himself, but in
the physical world, as well---a suprapersonal objectivity that is an
outflowing of spiritual thought?
Starman is right when he says objectivism doesn't have anything to do
with spiritual science and can retard the soul on an evolutionary
level, stunting spiritual growth. But, as Starman has also said in
the past, Steiner was not a "subjectivist" and therefore truth and
knowledge play a central role in his science-based occult
philosophy. In his Theory of Knowledge, for instance, he defines
subjective thinking as a necessary "transitional stage", not the end
result, of scientific perception.
The extreme subjectivist (e.g. JZ Knight) feels that all things are
relative, that no objective truth exists in the world, and that you
cannot perceive anything beyond yourself, hence their rejection of
all laws that apply universally to everyone, politically,
spiritually, or physically. Most New Age thinkers reject the
physical world on the grounds that it is maya, illusion, which is
devoid of innate truth beyond our personal consciousness. JZ herself
smokes a pipe and preaches that the world is a pipe dream.
On the other hand, Steiner was no metaphysical objectivist. In fact,
he rejected the objective idealism of Plato and Hegel in which things
are mere representations of their mental existence. In-between
Hegelian-Platonic idealism and Kantian subjectivity there exists a
kind of locus point where thinking (the movement of consciousness)
becomes involved in the subjective act of perception, uniting two
totally different sphere of comprehension. Comprehending phenomena
through this locus point is the key to occult perception, our locus
point being conscience, the I AM principle, which is objectivity on a
universal level, a kind of God's eye view of reality transcending the
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carynlouise" <carynlouise@...> wrote:
> > Hello, Dr. Starman and All!
> > Forgive me for bringing up an old post, but I found this view of
> > Rand to be fascinating. It has been my understanding that
> > Objectivists are Atheists based on the idea that "reality
> > consciousness" -- hence there can be no God. Objectivists claim
> > one cannot be both a Christian and an Objectivist. I would be
> > interested to learn where Objectivism meets Anthroposophy and how
> > Rand "got it wrong".
> > Thank you so much!
> > Jenny
> Hi Jenny
> Objectivism meets Anthroposophy? In today's lecture -
> "I, Wisdom and Love work as Thinking, Feeling and Willing"
> Objectivist reality preceding consciousness to include nutrition?
> "A huna Pfene Li nofa Li Songo Gonya Muri"
> "Too many people die in the world because they are too poor to stay
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>